| document id: |
author: |
archive link |
publisher id: |
date written: |
| (notes for this file:) paragraph numbering for this document has been revised. The subhead "On Stridency" was added later. | ||||
Spam addicts can run but they can't hide:
|
Contents: TIP: Clicking on any of the paragraph numbers
--------- along the left margin
will take you back and forth
between the body of the article
and the table of contents.
paragraph
number chapters sections subheads
--------------------------------------------------------------
3 Ben to Pete - Thurs - Oct 26, 1995
5 Whatever happened to the idea that we embody,
represent and serve
the highest aspirations of humankind?
22 Pete to Ben - Sat - Oct 28, 1995
34 Ben to Pete - Sat - Oct 28, 1995
39 Will workers face economic insecurity
under communist competition?
64 Do we discuss how a communist economy
would work or not?
70 Is coordinating the activity of
revolutionary activists social-democracy?
86 Do you have something to contribute
to a discussion?
95 Am I responsible for the views
of those I talk to?
105 On Stridency
115 Action List
123 Ben to Pete - Sat - Nov 4, 1995
136 Pete to Ben - Sun - Nov 5, 1995
144 1) Is Ben the last of the Maoists?
148 2) What's the reference on 1984?
152 3) Isn't your distinction between
coercive censorship
and economic censorship
a bourgeois distinction?
160 4) Aren't the independent,
competing economic enterprises
in your version of communism
"single points of control"?
And aren't these just
what we call corporations?
164 Ben to Pete - Sat - Nov 11, 1995
173 How you exchange dishonesty for honesty
193 I stand for honesty -- and interactivity
203 Maoist straw men?
215 Single vs. multiple points of control
220 Is communism capitalism?
224 Dreaming of straw men
236 Are web sites just for the rich?
239 When do we "Can the spam" about censorship?
257 Action List
259 Action Item # 1:
268 Essay Question # 1
272 Pete to Ben - Fri - Nov 17, 1995
276 Ben to Pete - Sat - Nov 18, 1995
280 The reference on 1984
290 Your own evasion of issues of principle
296 The last action item
302 Ben to Readers - Sat - Nov 25, 1995
320 Kids in a Treehouse
|
| (Note: I do not normally make private correspondence public without the explicit permission of the authors involved. I am making an exception in this case because the exchange was highly interesting and my correspondent made a decision to cede his rights over the matter. Paragraph numbers continue from Sea #80) |
|
From: Ben -- To: Pete -- 26 Oct 95 ------------------------------------------------ Note: To whomever gets this message: if you are not Pete -- please pass it along to him. ------------------------------------------------ |
that we embody, represent and serve the highest aspirations of humankind? |
| Dear Pete, |
| Well I suppose that the first order of business is to ask that you confirm receipt of this message by sending me e-mail at xxxxxxxxxx. I have made a guess that xxxxxxxxxx is your e-mail address. |
| I am writing to you because you appear to be the least sectarian of Joseph's active supporters in Detroit. |
| I read your review of Goldthorpe's book in the latest CV. It was kind of interesting. His description of the middle class perspective reminded me strongly of my parent's values and of my own upbringing. |
| It is probably the case that many, if not most, of the xmlp activists came from middle-class backgrounds. We gave up various possibilities for a lifestyle of personal comfort because we believed it was possible, by making a sacrifice of our comfort, and being guided by science, to make a real difference in the world. |
| I still believe that such a thing is possible. In fact, the opportunities for our small efforts to have a big impact have never been greater. But in order to make this happen -- I believe it is necessary that we not lose sight of the "big picture". |
| I believe that Joseph is working to paint all consideration of the "big picture" as an act of treason. I believe that to some extent (large or small -- I do not know you -- and I will try to minimize my assumptions) you have fallen into the trap built out of Joseph's assumptions. |
| You asked me last December 15 for my views on Haiti, Palestine, Prop. 187, the elections, and the struggle of the Staley workers. Unfortunately I am attempting to survive on the basis of working for a living and, being human, have limitations on my time and must prioritize my efforts to those areas that are most decisive. But now that I have "made the cover" of your journal, maybe you will agree with me that the issues of organization that I raise are legitimate issues and important to discuss? |
| Of course, Haiti, Palestine, the Staley workers, etc. are all important. But what links them together? Isn't the point of all our activity to utilize the various struggles for partial demands and link them together and to the aim of a general struggle -- to create a new world -- without exploitative economic relations -- and on the basis of a new kind of economic and political system? But how can we do this if discussion of this subject is to be, de facto, forbidden? |
| If I try to discuss how the economy could be organized without relying on the market -- I am branded a capitalist and anarchist because I will not climb into the straitjacket of Joseph's single-point-of-control theory. If I try to discuss how revolutionary activists could coordinate their activity (to better carry out all their tasks, including the struggle against opportunism) -- I am denounced as a social-democrat -- because I will not submit to Joseph's single-point-of-control theory. And the practical effect of Joseph's name calling -- is that it becomes impossible for me to have a discussion with Joseph's followers -- because they tend to either tune me out and ignore me entirely -- or they seize upon any interaction and convert it into an attempt to defeat the "black hat". |
| What I would like to know is -- where do you stand on the single- point-of-control theory that Joseph has inherited from Stalin? Do you agree with Joseph's various absurdities? Have you read my polemic on the matter (Seattle # 72, 76 and 80)? If you have not read them -- would you consider reading them? And if so, would you like me to send you some nicely printed copies? |
| I hope you will reply to this note of mine even though I am (in the iconography of Joseph's planet) a "black hat". We have been in the same trend together for approximately twenty years and I believe that our communicating and exchanging views on such issues is necessary if we are to be of real service to the proletariat. |
| Sincerely, |
| Ben ----//-// |
|
ps: In the event that you are not familiar with "e-mail culture"
as it is emerging -- the emphasis is on quick replies. If you
wish to reply I suggest:
(a) an acknowledgment of receipt of this note,
|
| pps: For whatever it is worth, I usually check my e-mail once a week, on Saturday mornings. Ben ----//-// |
|
To: Ben From: Pete 10/28/95 |
| Ben: |
| (a) This is to acknowledge that I received your note at e- mail address xxxxxxxxxx. I also received there this week Seattle #80, "Why Is Joseph Afraid of the Masses?", plus a correction to that. |
| (b) I probably have read Seattle #72 and 76, although I don't have ready access to which articles these numbers signify. I assume these are articles dealing with "co-operative anarchy," "anarchy of production," and so forth. If you want to make sure I have printed copies of these articles, you can mail them to me, Pete, C/O CV, Box 13261, Harper Station, Detroit, MI 48213-0261. But I cannot promise to study them or write you about them. Joseph and Mark have both done that, and I felt they did a good job. |
| I haven't yet read Seattle #80 and, after glancing it over, am not sure I will bother. It seems to be a repetiton of what has been said before, only at greater length. The main thing I got out of it was not to worry, the consciousness of the masses will solve everything. This seems to me like one of those banalities that's true enough, when stated "in general." But when raised to a political principle, or a principle of how to organize socialism, it turns into something empty, misleading or false. It certainly begs the question, "But what is determining the consciousness of the masses?", which brings up the question again, How do you organize a planned economy? If the masses in one economic unit feel that their livelihood, their well-being, depends on their winning cutthroat competition against workers in another economic unit -- well, then, that's where their consciousness will be at, and you won't be building socialism. |
| (c) On issues that might require more time to prepare a formulation: I see you have a new phrase, "single-point-of- control theory." But again, I can't promise to devote a lot of time to studying this, since this seems a common view of yours that goes back a couple years at least. For example, when you raised organizational ideas about how revolutionary activists could coordinate their activity, and as you say you refused to submit to single-point-of-control theory. Again, it's an issue of something that sounds good "in general" turning into something not-so-good when it's pushed as an organizational principle for working class activists. Of course it's good for revolutionary activists to coordinate to the extent they can; and various forms have existed for doing that -- united front work and so forth. But you raised that this form -- coordination of pluralist trends -- was actually superior to a unified party. It was correct to characterize such a view as social-democratic. |
| On another issue you raise: Yes, I encouraged you to look at some concrete issues last year -- Haiti, Palestine, 187, elections, Staley. This wasn't because I'm opposed to discussion of socialism, however, as you intimate. I'm happy to be associated with a journal, Communist Voice, that carries articles furthering such discussion. And when I feel I have something to contribute to such a discussion, I will. |
| But I raised this issue last year, encouraging you to look at concrete issues, for a couple of reasons: |
| 1. at the time, people you were affiliated with in the RSSG were promoting various outrageous stands on questions of imperialism, Palestine, etc. I thought it was wrongheaded of you to remain silent on these issues. |
| 2. your writings on theoretical issues were becoming increasingly harsh, strident, difficult to follow and heavily laden with annoying verbal abuse. I understand you were dealing with what was for you a difficult situation. But you also weren't dealing with it very well. In this sense, my suggestion was a bit of friendly advice. Since you can't get anyone to agree with you or offer any support, why not lay off these issues for awhile? |
| Today things are different. Apparently the RSSG has broken up. You went on a few months' vacation from polemics, and apparently got refreshed enough to resume writing articles. But I must say, some of the annoying stuff persists. Worse, your views don't seem to have changed; so I can't predict any change in the amount of support or agreement you will receive.[] |
| October 28, 1995 |
| Dear Pete, |
| Thanks for writing back to me. I think that communication of views is vital and it is the source of our abilities, whether large or small, to understand and deal with the world. |
| I am trying to confine my correspondence to Saturday mornings. This, more or less, is a demand of life. Hence my formulations here might not be as strong as if I had more time to give them some thought. |
under communist competition? |
| Re your quote: |
|
| So you note that you think you may have read my previous polemics but you are not sure that you will read my current one (because, you say, it's mainly repetitious) and you offer the quote above as evidence of why my views are not worth examination. Fine -- let's look at your quote. I believe we can learn something valuable from it. |
| What must be said first, is that the view expressed in the quote above is absolutely and indisputably correct. If workers feel that their livelihood and well-being depend on the outcome of economic competition -- then we are describing capitalism. |
| The second observation we can make from your quote is that you seem to believe that it is MY view that under conditions of future communist competition -- workers would feel that their livelihood and well-being were threatened. |
| Pete -- you are free to ascribe to me any sort of views that you so wish. But if you wish to act from the standpoint of a communist -- then you must impose certain limitations on yourself. You must derive my views either from: |
|
| But this does not appear to be the case with the quote above. NOWHERE do I say ANYTHING that could lead anyone who was following scientific methods of reasoning to conclude that I either advocated or believed that communist competition would involve conditions of such economic insecurity for workers. |
| It appears that the source of your knowledge is either: |
|
| In fact, Pete, I try to deal with various wrong assumptions that come up about my views but, being human, it is not possible for me to predict in advance and deal with every wrong assumption in those particular words that will clear up everything to everyone -- without some feedback and discussion. |
| I do specifically and at great length try to deal with the assumption you appear to be making. You appear to be assuming that "competition" under what I describe as communism will have all (or most) of the same features as "competition" under capitalism. This makes about as much sense to me as assuming that "economic activity" under feudalism will have all of the same features as "economic activity" under capitalism. For example, workers under capitalist competition find that their material interests and economic survival are pitted against the material interests and survival of others. Does this really mean that the same will exist under communist competition? |
| I have tried in my polemic to specifically deal with such incorrect assumptions. I have repeatedly referred to an economy without formal exchange (without money, commodities or wages) -- based on the principle of "to each according to his needs". |
| The individual worker's sources of food, shelter, clothing, education, transportation, means of communication, articles of consumption, etc, are in no way derived from his work as an individual but are his birthright and are guaranteed to him in the same amount no matter what his work or even whether he works at all. The worker does not work in order to have the means of life. He works "for free", so to speak. He works "for others", so that everyone can have the means of life. The worker works because work itself (not any commodities or any allocation of the universal money-commodity) is the prime want in life -- because work is interesting, exciting, fun, pleasurable and a source of immense joy and satisfaction. |
| Hence work IS NOT done IN EXCHANGE for either: |
|
| Work IS done IN EXCHANGE for: |
|
| (Generally, in a formal sense, the above situation would probably be described by economists as work without exchange at all -- because "exchange", for economists, generally refers to the exchange of either commodities or labor and not for "abstract, non-measurable" qualities like interest, pleasure and the satisfaction of contributing to the collective. But I have found that when I speak of an economy without exchange that some people are baffled by this. In the less formal sense, we can see that an exchange is taking place. I work "in exchange" for the pleasure of doing so and the pleasure of participating in the life of the collective. I contribute my product to the collective "in exchange" for its wise consumption.) |
| Because work is done "for free" (ie: without specific cost or concrete obligation to the production unit where the work is done) -- there would be no shortage of opportunities for work. Rather -- workers would select from those opportunities for work where (a) the work was most interesting, or (b) they believed their abilities would most productively be used in the interests of society. And without going into it all here, I believe that the long range trend would be for (a) and (b) above to merge with each other. |
| A worker in an economic unit that lost out in competition with some other unit -- might in fact find that his particular "job" was liquidated. But the worker's economic security as an individual would not be threatened or affected by this at all. It is only under comparatively primitive exchange economies (in the formal sense as described above) that the worker as an individual finds his individual means of life tied to his individual job. The worker in a communist economy might "lose his job" because his economic unit was less efficient than another unit -- but he might also "lose his job" if he helped to figure out how to automate it or to do the same work with less people -- and in either event -- it is a small loss to him (because he will be able to take his experience, skills and, in many cases, the work relations he has established with particular people who might move with him, into new and other interesting projects) and is generally greatly outweighed by his knowledge that "the system is working". He will feel "the best unit won" and that this was to the benefit of everyone, himself included. |
| On a smaller and much less significant scale, something of this kind of dynamic can be seen under capitalism, where it is essentially the "job" of some workers to understand their job well enough to automate it and make it obsolete. For such people, their "job" is "to work themselves out of a job". Of course there are obvious limitations to how this works under capitalism. But the point is that these limitations could be removed (and could only be removed) in an economy without (in the formal sense) exchange. |
| Pete it is very difficult for me to communicate my views to you if you do not actually read and think about what I actually say in my polemics -- because the variety of assumptions that can come up is essentially infinite. But I do believe that as would- be communist activists, we have the possibility of getting our feet solidly on the ground -- if we are willing to take a scientific attitude and are willing to learn from our mistakes. |
| For someone in a trend that used to promote Stalin to the skies, and has learned something from this -- I would hope that you would strive to take a scientific attitude -- because I believe that you have this ability -- and I believe in you. |
would work or not? |
| Re your quote: |
|
| So briefly -- it would be foolish of me to try to claim that what I have written solves every problem and answers every question. But then again would it not be foolish of you to claim that solving every problem and answering every question about the nature of a communist economy should be expected to be the work of a single person? My position is that I believe intelligent discussion is necessary. And Joseph is trying to block this discussion as best he can within the ranks of his supporters. His accusations against me that my views amount to "capitalism" and "anarchism" can be and have been shown to be the acts of a charlatan. |
|
I suffer from the "handicap" that I must describe my ideas using
"words". And words can be either distorted or tuned out by
anyone who wishes to do so. But then this is not an issue for
ME. I will attempt to draw into a discussion of communism all
who have a genuine desire to do so. I have been dealing with
Joseph's charlatanism both because: (a) it serves as an impetus to the development of theory, and (b) to settle accounts before embarking on the strenuous work to take the discussion to a wider venue. |
| It appears to me that (a) has more or less been accomplished. |
revolutionary activists social-democracy? |
| Re your quote: |
|
| I did say that the coordination of trends was superior to attempting to build a party on the basis of religious and sectarian principles. So you are at least half right. |
| I think, Pete, that your fundamental mistake here is to counterpose "the coordination of pluralist trends" to the development of a "unified party". In essence you seem to think that we can have one or the other but not both. But why, for example, could a "unified party" not participate in "the coordination of trends"? |
| I discussed my views in 19 points in "Joseph in Wonderland". There I described the coordination of these trends as being similar to united front work. I said that the coordination of the various groups would not preclude their conducting a struggle against opportunism that they perceived in each other (but would on the contrary enhance it) and I said that they would conduct their warfare against each other according to "civilized norms" that would be to the benefit of (a) the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and (b) the raising of the consciousness of the masses on the issues central to opportunism. |
| @ I outlined how the bases of all the trends involved would form an "information community" in which every trend and every activist at the base would have easy access to the views of all. |
| @ I said that this "would lead in the direction of isolating the opportunist leadership from the revolutionary base and severing the power and influence of opportunist thinking and principles". |
| @ I said that there would be motion towards these various trends to increasingly unify their work so that they could, when necessary, strike with a single fist -- and that trends which opposed this unity would be compelled to explain their lack of cooperation to the masses. |
| Now the point, Pete, I think is this: my views may or may not have various strengths or weaknesses. But to refuse to actually examine them under the excuse that they are "social-democratic" or "oppose the development of a unified party" -- means, in practice, to oppose discussion of the question of how the proletariat can and must organize its forces. Unless you want to simply carry on with the organizational conceptions that Joseph has inherited from Stalin, you need to examine and think about this question. And Lenin, it should be noted, took his views on organization FROM LIFE -- by studying the life around him and the needs of the proletariat in the particular circumstances that it faced. As communists, can we do less? |
| Have I ever said that working class activists should not try to form a unified party? I have not. What I have done -- is pointed out the foolishness of attempts to build an organization on the basis of "information isolation" -- where the basis of stability of the organization requires that it be kept insulated from the views of the external world via religious and sectarian principles. |
| Does this preclude the development of a unified party? Not necessarily. The issue is whether such a party can be created in such a way that it has a sufficiently well developed internal life -- one example of this being whether activists who support this party can air their concerns without fear of destroying the organization. We did not have such a party. That was proven by the fate which befell Ray's letter in 1988. And, ultimately, that is why we lost our organization. The "Information Bulletin" which was circulated beginning in September 1991 was too little and too late. |
| Any unified party which deserves the support of the proletariat would contain within itself different views on a number of complex issues. How are these views to be sorted out? Is the development of different schools of thought on various issues to be permanently prohibited on all subjects? I would argue that on some subjects -- only one school of thought can be permitted. A unified party must have some principles. But on other questions, we must recognize that sorting matters out can take years and that sorting issues out correctly is more important than doing so "quickly". So how is this sorting out to take place? Does the unified party broadcast the various shades of opinion on an issue and try to draw the base (and even the masses) into the process of sorting things out? I would argue that in "normal" circumstances the answer is yes. |
| And what happens when some group of well-meaning activists reach wrong or premature conclusions on any one of a number of issues and cannot be part of such a unified party? Is it possible that means could be found to work with these people and accelerate the process by which they might wake up and smell the coffee? I think so -- but when I try to discuss such matters I am branded a "social-democrat" and then good communists like yourself know that it would be a waste of time to read what I have to say. |
| So the issue is simple. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. You do not need to restrict yourself to what is objective in the world and verifiable. |
| My attitude is different: our main weapon must be our fearless intellectual honesty and our relentless struggle against self- deception in all its forms. The proletariat will seek and find methods of organizing its activity. And all who want to assist this process will find ways to do so. And those who prefer to shield themselves from disturbing outside influences -- will find that if they want to badly enough -- that they can isolate themselves from outside information fairly effectively -- but that in so doing they will inevitably isolate themselves from the masses, who do not like the smell of religious sectarianism. |
to a discussion? |
|
| Ok, let's quickly check this out. I do not claim that you oppose the discussion of communist theory in theory, but that you tend to do so in practice. Neither do I claim that this tendency is absolute, or even huge. For example, you have replied to my letter, and in much greater length than I expected. So your opposition to discussion may be at somewhat of a low level. In fact I am sure that you also have an opposite tendency, in your thinking, in favor of discussion of communist theory -- but, in my view, this tendency of yours is, unfortunately, somewhat weak and undeveloped. |
| Most likely what I've just said cannot be very clear -- so allow me to try to put it another way. You say "when I feel I have something to contribute to such a discussion, I will". First let me state where I stand. I believe that YOU DO have something to contribute to such a discussion. We all do. But one of the problems here is that under Joseph's leadership the discussion is reduced to one of "defeating the black hat" and this is not much of a discussion -- and if you are somewhat doubtful over whether you have something to contribute -- this is probably the reason. |
| It would be very difficult for you to participate in the discussion under the framework set forth by Joseph because he has engaged in so many logical absurdities that the participation by thinking people in the discussion is to his disadvantage. So it is fairly unlikely that Joseph would be encouraging you to participate in such a discussion -- because it would tend to interfere with what Joseph is trying to do: which is to SHUT DOWN THE DISCUSSION and minimize his lose of face and prestige in the process. |
| The discussion was forced on Joseph in the first place because he had to bail out Mark who had gotten in over his head when he tried to equate "cooperative anarchy" with "the anarchy of production". Ever since then Joseph has been looking for a face- saving way out of the discussion. Joseph feels trapped by the discussion. Every exchange with me is a hammerblow which further exposes his absurdities and internal contradictions. Joseph is claiming that anything other than the management of the entire life of society through a single point of control is "capitalism". Joseph is claiming that a future communist society will have no political life. Joseph is claiming that these views are the views of Engels. Joseph is creating so many absurdities and contradictions that for you or others to get involved in open discussion would likely only deepen the exposure of his bankruptcy and his loss of prestige -- and Joseph's pragmatic trend-building requires a high level of prestige. |
| And this ultimately, whether you realize it or not, is why you have not been active in this discussion. When the heat was on Joseph earlier, and he had a need to try to divert me -- you managed to find the time and energy to suggest that I should talk about other things. |
| But if you will not get encouragement from Joseph to discuss communist society and how it might work -- you will get encouragement from me. Because I believe we can all play a role in this. Earlier you said that you believe that under communism workers would not have their livelihood and well-being pitted against those of other workers. It turns out we agree. Now the issue is -- can this take place without all the activity of the entire society having to be funneled through Joseph's single point of control -- which would have the power and authority to mediate and resolve all contradictions? You say that you are interested in how a planned economy might be organized? One of the most interesting questions here is whether the organization of planning would necessarily require Joseph's von Neumann point -- or whether there could be a great many planning and control points with non-identical views, philosophies and priorities and without a need for a single supreme authority to decide who was right. |
| I believe that you could contribute to such a discussion if only to help facilitate the process of clarifying what I actually think about such matters and of whether I believe that under communism workers would find the food on their table and the roof over their head dependent on how well they beat their brother workers. |
of those I talk to? |
|
| I have so far said little about the struggle locally. Mainly I knew that Joseph would make use of any local news to attempt to divert the issue away from the issues of principle which will give him no rest. But the issues of principle have been made fairly clear and I will clarify one or two things for you. Joseph will likely attempt to play with this but he cannot escape the fact that the truth surrounds him like a ring of steel. |
| More than a year ago the local study group, the RSSG, embarked on a path of becoming a multi-ideological (ie: heterogeneous) discussion group. The section of the group that grasped the necessity for a communist orientation was a small minority. On January 7, under a "truth in advertising" motion which I introduced, we took the words "Revolutionary Socialist" out of our name and became simply the Seattle Study Group -- although we were actually more of a discussion group than a study group. |
| By that time it had became quite clear that there was a need for a seperate and smaller group organized on the basis of communism. And over a period of time a section of the Seattle study group developed a bit of motion in that direction and that motion has congealed, to date, in an informal group. We did not try to build such a group (ie: based on the principles of communism) via the path of kicking people with "wrong views" out of our larger heterogeneous study group -- but rather of building our own group from those who saw the need to do so. And all the time we saw the value of continuing to communicate with others. We did not believe we would "catch cooties" from non-communists and that therefore we would have to isolate ourselves from them. It was actually more the other way around -- the non-communist section felt a need to isolate themselves from us. And by working to build our group in this way -- we maximized the clarity of the principles involved. |
| Now what is the point of this? If we are to be scientific in examining issues of organization -- we must grasp that different kinds of organization serve different purposes. In Seattle, we have experience with both heterogeneous and homogeneous organizations and I am of the opinion that there is a need for both kinds. Homogenous organizations, in many circumstances, can get more work done. But heterogeneous organizations also serve a purpose -- because it is useful to have direct and repeated contact with other ideologies -- and to have our views challenged by others who see things differently. Without being challenged, views cannot become robust, cannot be fit to "do combat" out in the world. This is why, for example, I have found it useful to engage both Fred and Joseph. I believe my own views are more developed, more robust -- for having settled accounts with their nonsense. |
| But the view you seem to have -- is that if I am in a discussion group -- then I am "affiliated" with everyone in the group and must clarify my disagreements with everyone every time they speak about anything. But the reality is that this is not practical. Nor is it even necessarily all that useful. I have registered my disagreements based on realistic assessments of what issues are decisive in serving the development of revolutionary theory. In practice this has meant targeting Joseph because Joseph is claiming to be an anti-revisionist communist while I am one. And I don't want people to get Joseph's views confused with Marxism. |
| Having settled accounts with Joseph I am in a stronger position to go after more mainstream apologists for eternal capitalism. But you don't seem to be interested in this either because you indicate you may not bother to read about it. I guess Fred's views are too similar to Joseph's for your comfort. I devoted a third of "Why is Joseph Afraid of the Masses?" to refuting the views of Fred, who is so much the flip side of Joseph that they belong on the same coin. Both Joseph and Fred oppose discussion of the matter (Fred openly and Joseph via calling all who oppose his "single-point-of-control" theories "capitalists" and "anarchists"). Both Joseph and Fred more-or-less agree that the only alternative to running an economy via the dictate of the market -- is via the dictate of a central point of control. Within the world of this coin, Fred chooses one side and Joseph the other -- but they BOTH agree with the prevailing wisdom that these are the only choices. |
| So as far as being "wrongheaded" to "remain silent on these issues" -- I have a piece of friendly advice. Take a look at the material. Intelligent public comments on my views, or the discussion, and the principles involved, even if in opposition to me -- would, in my view, be more useful than remaining silent and leaving the field to just me and a deluded charlatan. Is opposition to Joseph's single-point-of-control theory equivalent to capitalism and anarchism or not? |
| You ARE in a group in which Joseph is speaking for you. And you say that you agree with Joseph. Maybe you should take another look at what you are agreeing with. For a trend that once praised Stalin to the skies and has supposedly learned something from this -- I would think we would have more humility. |
|
| Interestingly enough, our trend has, over the years, often been accused of being "harsh, strident, difficult to follow" and so forth. And oftentimes these accusations were not made because we were sectarian -- but because we spoke the truth. And this truth was indeed quite harsh on some ears. If accusations are made against me (and a few have) -- I don't get bent out of shape. I refute them. I ridicule the accusers and point out their hypocrisy and bankruptcy. And this appears to be what you find harsh. |
| Well I like what I write. If you will not read what I write -- I believe that it is because of the content. The content makes you uncomfortable. If there were no truth in the "abuse" -- then it would not bother you. |
| You, Pete, are a spam-addict. I respect you as an activist. I respect your years of dedicated hard work. I believe you have been of real service in helping to build a revolutionary movement. And I have respect for your intelligence. In fact I have so much respect for you that I am going to pay you the supreme compliment and tell you the unvarnished truth: you've got a problem. |
| Actually we have discussed locally the question of tone and you have at least one supporter. Ira is substantially in agreement with you that my tone is too harsh. If Ira wrote something it might be less harsh. But I do not know if he will write anything. And if he did -- would you read it anyway? Ira tends to side with me on the issues -- and he agrees that Joseph is wrong. |
| But I have another view. I saw a TV commercial once for "Care- Unit", an alcohol-drug-abuse clinic. It showed an elephant tearing down a house and a terrified family crouched down against a wall -- hoping they would not be trampled but not wanting to say anything about the elephant. When there is a problem like drug or alcohol addiction -- people who are close to the addict are often in denial. I am a denial buster. People often do not appreciate what I have to say. I believe it is better to confront matters openly, to call a spade a spade. I will not respect the limitations of "respectability" that offend you or Tim or anyone else. Frank says that I am using "gutter methods". Presumably Frank is referring to my bringing out into the open the fact that part of the dynamic here -- is that Joseph wants to be supported -- and is uncomfortable getting a job. |
| I have another view. If I were silent on Joseph's problem at this point -- I would be covering up for him. Joseph is behaving like a hack. He is prostituting the development of theory to his personal agenda. I am not saying that Joseph is doing this consciously. I doubt Joseph is doing this consciously. Rather Joseph is in denial. But whether Joseph is conscious of this is irrelevant. You guys have a problem on your hand. And if the bankruptcy of Joseph's actions and theoretical stands escapes you -- well that is your choice. |
|
| I deal with the issues I deal with because (a) I am right and (b) these issues are the ones that are decisive for the development of communist theory. Most of the rest of the world is proclaiming that communism is dead -- that an economy organized along communist lines could never work. As long as "Marxism" is crippled by "single-point-of-control" theories such as Joseph is championing -- then there is no theory to guide the struggle against capitalism. Until then -- we have only theories which, like Joseph's, lead to dead ends. But the development of Marxist theory to guide the struggle is inevitable. And I would like to contribute to this development. And my sights are on a larger audience than the trend with which I have been associated. Accounts are being settled and there has been a lot of discussion locally about the best ways to take theory and discussion to a larger audience. |
| Well Pete, I spent a lot more time on this letter than I ever intended. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write to me and that per my suggestion of our learning the methods of "e-mail culture" -- that you did so rapidly. |
| I wish I could have responded to you more concisely. Whether I am wasting my time going into so much detail in circumstances like this is very unclear. I gave up plans to do something else today that would have been very important and sometimes it is not clear what priorities have the most weight in the world. |
| Here is what I suggest. It is probably not worthwhile for you to write me back with a long detailed letter on the various points I have raised. Actually the matter is fairly simple. Either you would like to read my polemic or you don't. It sounds like you do not have your own copies (because you didn't know the numbers on them). If you believe it is likely that you would actually read it -- I will send you a copy. If you do not believe it is likely that you will read it -- then I will not. I do not like to engage in self-deception -- and sending you something that you will not read would be for me a form of self-deception. |
| Hence item #1: Think matters over. And then let me know if it is realistic to expect you to read the polemic. And if you don't want to read what I have to say -- then I will not bug you -- I will respect your decision and not try to brow-beat or guilt-trip or harass or manipulate you into reading something you clearly do not want to read. I think that would be best for both of us. We will both do what we believe in our hearts is productive until such time as we may (who knows -- it's a small world) bump into each other again. |
| Item #2: With your permission, I would like to send a copy of our correspondence to Frank. This touches on some issues I have discussed with him and I am behind on my correspondence with him and I think it is a reasonably safe bet that you would not mind. So if this would be OK with you -- send me a message and I will read it when I check my mail again a week from today. |
| Sincerely, |
| Ben ----//-// |
| November 4, 1995 |
| Dear Pete, |
| I have retransmitted my letter to you of last week. My understanding is that something like more than 97% of e-mail sucessfully gets thru. The other 3% gets lost, so to speak, in cyberspace. My guess however is that my letter to you of last week was not lost. |
| Please confirm receipt and reply to me on my two specific questions: |
| 1) Is it realistic for me to expect you to read my polemic should I send you a nicely printed copy? |
| 2) Would it be ok to e-mail a copy of our correspondence to Frank? |
| The issues we touched on in our correspondence are very central to the theoretical foundations of communism and they also are very relevant to an objective understanding of how Joseph is attempting to systematically distort my views in order to try to douse the flames which surround him on all sides and are advancing towards him relentlessly. |
| Frank is in agreement with you on all major issues but he appears to me to be trying very hard to be intellectually honest in trying to understand what is going on. The sooner he has access to my views, the better, even if he continues to think that I am an anti-communist, capitalist, anarchist, social-democrat, liquidator and renegade. People's thinking often advances in stages and I would like Frank to have access to my views. |
| Since I only check my e-mail on Saturday mornings, I will not hear from you for a week. I confine my e-mail checking to once a week because I tend to respond immediately and at length to letters -- and this would become overly disruptive to my attempts to further stabilize my life -- were I not to put some limits on it. With "e-mail culture", we can make do with this. But note: one of the main problems with Joseph's view of how organization should function -- is that it is too slow. If we do not want to be slow-moving dinosours in a very fast moving mammalian world -- we need to learn how to act and react with great rapidity. |
|
And I think the days when the thunder lizards rule the earth are rapidly running out, |
| Ben ----//-// |
| cc: Frank |
|
To: Ben, Seattle From: Pete, Detroit November 5, 1995 |
| Ben: |
| This is to acknowledge I did receive your e-mail missive of October 28. I didn't quite know how to reply to it, since you made the point that you weren't interested in reading any replies I might have to any of the points raised by you in that message. So why should I bother? |
| The only points you were interested in getting a reply on were my eagerness to receive your previous polemics, and my interest in reading your correspondence with Frank. But on these questions too I didn't quite know how to reply, since I had already given you a reply on the previous polemics; and as to the correspondence with Frank, this was a new issue that you didn't explain at all. |
| In your latest message, of November 4, you explain it a little more. You say the correspondence touches on deep issues. I'm glad of that, and I know that Frank always approaches political questions with a serious and thoughtful attitude. But no doubt the main reason you would like me to read the correspondence is to examine your views, and I'm pretty sure the correspondence and polemics that I've already seen cover that ground pretty thoroughly. If not -- if you and Frank discussed some aspects of communism, etc. that have not come out in other writings -- then I'd be interested in hearing about those, if that's agreeable to Frank. Better yet -- since other people also have not seen them, perhaps you and Frank could extract your discussions of those issues and send them in to Communist Voice. |
| Aside from that, you stress your concern that Frank have ready access to your views. But I don't see how my reading your correspondence with Frank will help you in that. |
| I did finish reading your October 24 tome, "Why Is Joseph Afraid of the Masses?" I can't say I found it fascinating -- your introductory dialogue with Comrade Science was particularly annoying -- but it did raise some questions in my mind that I hadn't thought much about before: |
| The way you kept saying "the masses will take care of everything" reminded me of how the Maoists used to stress "the mass line." Often of course this was used to cover over pretty bad policies; when backward policies were under attack, their excuse would be "that's what the masses are actually doing, and the masses cannot be wrong." |
| This suspicion seemed to be confirmed when you started peppering your prose with Maoist phrases, such as in paragraph #357, "A just cause enjoys abundant support", and #361, "... is it not a good thing to be attacked by the enemy?" I know, these are just phrases, but coupled with your views on communism they seem to indicate something. |
| Your penchant for political struggle under communism seems reminiscent of the Maoists' two-line struggle, eternal struggle of opposites. You ridicule Joseph for supposedly believing in a state, or government, without politics. It seems to me this is a straw man erected as a foil, an opposite pole, to your own view, which is: politics without government. You insist that there can't be any generalized authority, and yet political struggle goes on. This is reminiscent of the Maoists' view that political struggle goes on eternally, without resolution. For without a generalized authority, how does political struggle ever get resolved? |
| I've seen this mentioned before in your writings, and wondered about it, but then let it pass by. But now you make it a very major point occupying pages of argumentation -- from about paragraph #393 to #421. So what is this, exactly? Do you have the reference to Workers' Advocate to back this up? I suspect you're just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I'd like to see exactly what this molehill is, in any case. I was a pretty regular reader of Workers' Advocate during most of its existence, and I don't recall any mention of 1984. I certainly don't recall any party campaign on this question. A naive person reading your pages of hysteria about 1984 might get the impression that the MLP (and COUSML) were cults based on censorship, suppression of the right to investigate issues. That would be wrong. |
| By the way, I should mention that it's also rather onesided of you to portray 1984 simply as a protest against censorship. Of course it is a protest against censorship; but it also deals with broader themes. Fundamentally, 1984 is an attack on the notion of social protest. In this book Orwell expresses a very deep, cynical, misanthropic opposition to any attempts to overthrow the ruling establishment. This includes any attempts to overthrow or limit lying censorship. It also includes any attempts to establish the simplest sort of human relationships. Orwell is deeply pessimistic about any such attempts. |
| Orwell's book is well thought out and artistically executed, and it deals with political arrangements that are reminiscent of those in the actual world, so it's notable as a presentation of such a demoralized view. But the point is, there's more to 1984 than simply "a protest against censorship." It presents a world view that is profoundly anti-revolutionary. |
between coercive censorship and economic censorship a bourgeois distinction? |
| In defending yourself against the charge that you advocate some forms of censorship, you devote a lot of print to making this distinction. You call it the distinction between actual censorship -- banning by a general authority -- and vying for attention and time. But we humans living under capitalism are very used to this sort of distinction, only with us it's called the difference between formal, political rights and actual, material (economic) power. |
| The bourgeois have been telling us for many years that we have full, unblemished democracy, with full rights to publish and distribute anything we want. And formal political rights do extend to publishing the works of Marx, Lenin, etc., and selling them openly in bookstores. But socialists have always insisted this isn't enough, this isn't the core of democratic rights, that these formal political rights don't mean much when coupled with economic exploitation and deprivation. So for example Lenin insisted that the workers, after seizing power, would seize printing presses, ink, stocks of paper, etc.; and this is the essence of "freedom of the press." |
| Your argumentation is directed toward insisting on and preserving this distinction. For you formal political rights are enough; and if dissidents aren't able to make themselves heard, tough. But that's the sort of argumentation we have been hearing for decades from the bourgeoisie, and it's not very reassuring. |
| Of course you throw in your faith in technology, the internet, etc. But why is that supposed to solve everything? Don't the major capitalist concerns dominate the internet just as they do the book publishing companies, the TV and radio stations, etc.? Is CompuServe controlled by the masses? Aren't most web sites just corporate fronts? You may lull yourself to sleep with the idea, "We have the formal right to organize a web site, or forum, or information service, just like anyone else." And that's true. But it's also true that it's the capitalist bankrollers who end up establishing the web sites, forums, information services, etc. that win the war (today) of vying for people's attention. And this isn't because they have truth and justice on their side. |
| This gets back to something I raised in my October 28 missive, your habit of saying something that sounds good, in general, but then trying to use that in argumentation where it becomes ridiculous, misleading or false. "The truth will out." Yes, the democratic agitators in 18th century France were eventually victorious. They began by organizing correspondence groups that spread the word, then eventually emerged from the underground, and then finally erupted victoriously in the revolution (which then suffered setbacks, but then -- etc. into the 19th century). Assuming that humanity in general is generally reasonable and more interested in building constructively than in destroying society, it's generaly correct that "the truth will out." And the democratic agitators of 18th century France shared this view. |
| But you use general phrases like this to promote faith in the internet, that it guarantees "the truth will out." Instead of analyzing how to break the power of the corporations, you promote faith in their latest metamorphoses. And of course the corporations, concerned with speeding up communications, are rushing to "push decision-making downstairs" (paragraph #499). Keep it up, Ben. How about, "Dow helps you do good things"? Or, "GM cares about the environment"? |
| One more question, and this a simple one: |
competing economic enterprises in your version of communism "single points of control"? And aren't these just what we call corporations? |
| I think you might not want to say "yes", but how do you get around it? You've gotten to the point now of saying these enterprises own their products and exchange them; they compete; they have copyrights and trade secrets -- what's left to distinguish them from today's corporations? They seem to be worker-owned, but such corporations aren't unknown in the U.S. today, and of course they dominated the economy of state- capitalist Yugoslavia. |
| The main thing new on this in your latest tome was your denial that they are completely independent; you insist they are also interdependent. And you hint that there's something profound, dialectical about this. But you don't explain the medium of interdependence. Apparently it's sort of spiritual, internettish. It's certainly not a government, since you won't allow any general authority. Well then, isn't it just what we ordinary humans, in dealing with corporations, call "civil society" or "the economy"? |
| Well, I've tried to raise a few questions that perhaps haven't been discussed much before, or raise them from a somewhat different angle.[] |
| November 11, 1995 |
| Dear Pete, |
| Thanks very much for your letter. It appears that you are attempting to deal with some of the issues I have raised. You read, you say, my recent polemic and raised some issues that I will attempt to respond to. |
| First, however, I would like to clear up what appear to be some misunderstandings. |
| First, I did not request that you read my correspondence with Frank. Rather -- I requested your approval -- for me to send to Frank a copy of the letters -- that you and I have sent to one other. IE: I wanted Frank to see my letters to you and your letters to me. I am not sure how you got this backwards but I guess these things happen. |
| Second, you seem to have gotten the idea that I am uninterested in hearing a reply from you on the issues of theoretical interest. This is the exact opposite of how things actually stand. In reviewing my letter to you of October 28, I found the phrase which appears to have misled you: "It is probably not worthwhile for you to write me back with a long detailed letter on the various points I have raised." |
| I am sorry if this misled you. I had a strong skepticism that you were likely to reply on issues of substance. I thought that if you tried to reply to issues of substance -- that your reply would be postponed indefinitely. I was trying to focus your attention on two "action items" -- because I thought that otherwise I would get no reply from you at all. And, in fact, I was not surprised when, after a week, you did not reply. Furthermore -- it did not appear likely that you would have anything intelligent to say absent your reading my polemic. It turns out however that you now have replied and so I was wrong to be so skeptical. |
| Finally, there seems to be a third issue. But this is not a simple misunderstanding over practical matters -- but part of a general pattern on "your side of the fence" of systematic distortion of my views. There is a question here of simple intellectual honesty. |
|
| In my October 28 letter I smashed up your assertion that my view was that workers would compete with one another under pain of starvation. You made this assertion -- not because it was in any way based on fact -- but because it was what you wanted to believe. In reply to you I pointed out that food and all the other necessities of life would be provided for all as their birthright. |
| In fact I had actually said this earlier, including in paragraph 225 in the "Comrade Science" section of my polemic that you found "particularly annoying". |
| Now, in your most recent reply, you back off from this assertion. You no longer claim that my position is that workers will be forced to compete with one another under pain of starvation or deprivation or insecurity. Yet nowhere do you show the slightest flash of recognition that you made a false accusation against me that was easily shown to be nothing but a slander. Instead you simply move on to another slander and claim that I have said that enterprises would own their own products and exchange them. |
| In fact I specifically refuted this in great detail in paragraphs 229 - 247 of the polemic that you have now claim to have read. Here are some brief excerpts: |
|
|
|
|
| How is it that you can claim that it is my view that enterprises would own their products and exchange them? In fact in my October 28 letter to you I carefully drew a distinction between the exchange of one product for another and the exchange of production for consumption. |
| One might conclude that there is a vast amount of sloppiness in your thinking. But this is not the cause of your "error". I have already dealt with your method. I pointed out to you earlier the distinction between characterizing my views on the basis of: |
|
| on the one hand and |
|
| on the other. You are so consistent in your reliance on methods (c) and (d) that any reasonable observer would conclude that the truth is a light that is too bright for your eyes -- and you have been forced to shut them very tight. This is not how a communist behaves. |
| Nor is this some kind of minor question. In my polemic I specifically pointed out that Joseph would be completely correct about degenerating back to capitalism IF the production units "owned" their goods and distributed them via the exchange of one product for another. I pointed out that the active role of the masses would be the decisive force in preventing such ownership and exchange. |
| Since you have no confidence that the masses can act on the basis of an understanding of the inherent danger and corrupting force of commodity production -- you are drawn to Joseph's view that the masses are too stupid for this -- but would by some miracle be smart enough to elect Joseph's non-governmental government which by some other miracle would be wise and competent enough to prevent commodity production. But even then -- it is completely dishonest of you to characterize as MY VIEW positions which are the EXACT OPPOSITE of views I have explained and elaborated in painstaking detail. Do you make these "errors" out of sloppiness or simple dishonesty? Dishonesty certainly looks like the more likely explanation. |
| The theoretical questions we deal with are difficult enough to handle if we strive to be honest with ourselves and one another. Resolving them is hopeless if we have no integrity. |
| Pete there are various other points that you raise and I would like to deal with all of them -- but to a certain extent I would be dishonest in my relationship with you if I simply gave my views on various theoretical questions while ignoring your blatant dishonesty. Either we are communists seriously intent on changing the world -- or we are intellectual masturbators -- pleasing ourselves with grandiose self-deception. As for me -- I am intent on changing the world. If you want to jerk off instead, that is fine by me. Many people do such things. But if you choose to present yourself as a communist -- and deal with real issues of theoretical importance to the proletariat -- then you better work on developing a sense of integrity -- you better work on growing yourself a backbone -- or you will simply end up looking like a fool -- and you will forfeit any real opportunity to stand up straight in a world where so many are forced to walk bent over like cripples. And with this you will forfeit any real opportunity of earning the respect of the masses. |
| So in relation to the rest of your questions, I have a few points. |
| First, I am in favor of communication. I believe it is both healthy and necessary for us to communicate our viewpoints to each other. I am glad that you have written to me and I want to encourage you to continue. |
| Second, I am not in favor of abuse as a method of communication. The reason for this is practical. Abuse distorts the communication and tends to be a fairly effective way of shutting it down. At the same time I am in favor of "high- bandwidth" communication. I say above that you are jerking off - - because I have caught you being quite dishonest on at least two separate occasions. You lied to yourself about my positions (ie: "starvation/insecurity" and "ownership/exchange") -- and this is dishonest. And I want to get your attention on this because if we do not have a commitment to intellectual integrity -- we are engaged in nothing other than masturbation. This is the simple truth. And if you do not like my tone, or think that I am being "unprofessional", I will cease calling you a masturbator. But at the same time I believe you should clarify your stand on the question of integrity in relation to how you have distorted my views. Because if you are not committed to integrity -- and I spend a lot of time writing to you -- then I am engaging in masturbation also. And I believe I can do more important things with my time, which is valuable. |
| Third, there is the question of our time. We are both fairly busy people and it is only realistic that to some extent we must ration our time. I am in favor of our exchanging views. But I think it is more realistic if we keep the communications relatively short. If they are short -- they will interfere less with our other work and there will be less pressure to cut off our communications. The disadvantage of short communications is that the full depth of each question is not gone into right away. Many interesting pathways of thought are never explored. But the plus side is that there is a better chance that the communication can be continued -- and if it is continued there will be opportunities for the more important questions to be addressed. |
| Therefore -- as much as I would like to answer your questions more fully, I have another idea about what might be practical. On all but one or two questions -- I will give brief replies to you without any intention of being all-sided. In those subjects which you believe are important -- you can reply to me to request that I elaborate. I will also conclude my letter with a list of short "action items" that you should be able to respond to quickly, without spending a lot of time working on a formulation. And I will indicate to you the one or two questions which are most important to me and that I believe you should address. |
| I tend to think this would be more practical than sending 40K letters back and forth (Frank sent me a 40K letter with approximately 100 questions -- all of which I was supposed to give a full, complete and all-sided answer). |
| So let me know if my reasoning here seems to be practical. I believe that if we adopt an intelligent approach to communications -- we can explore and understand one another's views without severe time pressure. This will allow me to continue this process without overly disrupting my life and it gives Joseph less of an excuse to pressure you to knock off writing to me when things begin to go in a direction which he finds threatening. |
|
So the two questions I believe I have addressed for this week
are: (1) ownership/exchange, and (2) intellectual honesty and integrity. |
| I will now deal briefly with various other points and, if you agree with my proposed method, you can assist me interactively and let me know what you might like to hear more about next week. |
|
| First: let's talk about straw men. My position here is very clear. I oppose straw men. I believe we can get rid of them. I have caught you building at least two straw men to distort my views. This does not count various other straw men you have made, such as saying that I am opposed to building a unified party or that I advocate that the internet will solve all of humanity's problems without the need for class struggle. |
| We may have different views on various issues, but if we are serious about the class struggle, if we really understand that the struggle over ideas is part of the class struggle and demands a scientific attitude -- then we have the ability and determination to take care to accurately characterize one another's views. |
| So have I distorted Joseph's views? I believe I have very accurately characterized his views. Joseph has made it very clear that he believes formal institutions constituting a "general" and "formal" "elected" "authority" would be needed to arbitrate all conflicts and regulate a society without "politics". Am I making this up? Are these his stated views or not? Of course Joseph has not called his elected general formal authority a "government", but then neither have I. I did refer to it once as a "non-governmental government" because Joseph's description certainly would sound like a government to many. But in general I have quite careful to refer to Joseph's concepts using his own words and not my own. And, more than this, I have not distorted his views but have described them quite accurately. |
| Of course I disagree with Joseph's views but I do not feel a need to distort them in order to deal with them. Otherwise how could I have any integrity? |
| Yes, you have (in this case) accurately characterized my views of |