From: "Ben Seattle" <icd-AT-communism.org> Subject: M-I: Reformism or sectarianism ? (Ben replies to Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 21:51:33 -0700 Hi folks, As I read Louis Proyect's post a little red indicator light (please see my reply to Proyect yesterday for more on this) started to flash. Ben Seattle: =======>>If anyone believes that a genuine communist >>organization of any type (much less a party) >>can be created without the most relentless >>struggle against the reformist ideology--they >>are certainly dreaming. Louis Proyect: =========>I think one of the most barren aspects of the contemporary >self-declared "Marxist-Leninist" movement is its "relentless >struggle against the reformist ideology." This is mostly what >characterizes the interventions of Trotskyists, State Capitalists >and Maoists alike on the Internet. There is not a day that goes >by without somebody screeching about reformist betrayals. >They are for COMMUNISM, not any piddling, >class-collaborationist, sellout maneuvers. Ben Seattle: =======It is always easy to point to the activity of various sectarians as if *such* were the alternative to reformism. But to do so undermines the struggle against *both* sectarianism and reformism. This is because neither sectarianism nor reformism can exist *without the other*. Each points to the bankruptcy of the other as the *justification* for its existence. This tacit, *defacto alliance* between reformism and sectarianism must be exposed and subject to contempt and ridicule. It is much worse than nonsense. The *primary dysfunctional myth* which stands as an obstacle to the development of a communist movement powerful enough to overthrow bourgeois rule is as follows: ================== We must choose between reformism and sectarianism. ================== Louis's post, unfortunately, tends to support this dysfunctional myth. What Louis says above is, of course, quite true. One of the most barren aspects of the contemporary "communist" movement *is* the rampant sectarianism, religious cult-building, and other assorted forms of charlatanism which justify themselves in the name of a supposed struggle against reformism. But for Louis to bring this up in response to my post without any mention of the real need to oppose the reformist ideology--tends to reinforce the *prejudice* that a real struggle against reformism is equivalent to the unprincipled and mind-numbingly stupid sectarian manuevers which so thoroughly disgust most of us. I don't think it should be necessary for me to point this out. I believe that Louis Proyect is quite capable of understanding that it is harmful to *counterpose* sectarianism to reformism *as if* we must choose one or the other. Louis can figure this out because he is capable of thinking for himself which, as he so correctly pointed out yesterday, should be the main task for all of us. For everyone who really wants to oppose sectarianism because it undermines the unity necessary to overthrow bourgeois rule--I ask that the *roots* of sectarianism be considered: =========================== Sectarianism, like anarchism, can only be correctly understood as distorted reaction to the domination of the working class movement by the reformist ideology. It is the influence of reformism which *feeds sectarianism* as a pipeline of gasoline would feed a raging fire. =========================== I believe it was Lenin (most likely) who said that anarchism was the price the working class had to pay for the sin of reformism. Approximately anyhow. The dynamic with sectarianism is very similar. I wish we could fine everyone here 25 cents each time they talk about the need to fight sectarian idiocy *as if* such a fight can be successful if conducted in isolation from an *equally severe fight* against the domination of reformism which feeds and *makes possible* such sectarianism. We could put the quarters we collect in a fund for some useful purpose. The money collected might not be that great (only a few thousand dollars a year) but the effect it would have on the consciousness of participants here would be salutary. I call on Louis to admit that his post would incur such a fine and to pledge to donate 25 cents to some worthy cause of his choice. Rather than present matters as if the *only alternative* to the continued domination of the reformist ideology --was mind-numbingly stupid sectarian antics--we should, and can, be doing something better: We should contrast a stupid and clumsy fight against reformism to an *intelligent fight* characterized by a scientific culture of polemical decency. *This* is the road forward. Louis Proyect: =========>The problem is that everybody agrees on the final goal >of COMMUNISM, but very few people have solid ideas >about how to advance the class struggle forward from its >present somnolent state. Ben Seattle: =======I believe that Louis is failing to deal with the decisive issue here and is doing me a disservice. I have brought up the need for a struggle against the reformist ideology in the *context* of what I consider a "solid idea" on how to advance the class struggle forward: an *electronic news service* that would be open to all trends. I clearly and explicitly state that the struggle against the reformist ideology will only really get wind in its sails as such a news service begins to take off. Here is what I say: Ben Seattle (yesterday): =============== Hence the "healthy democratic norms" which Jim Monaghan asks about will be those which facilitate victory over the reformist ideology ... The "healthy democratic norms of a Revolutionary party" that Jim Monaghan asks about will be established and proven in the activity of many organizations to create a common electronic news service that will be open to all trends. This common project will be (loosely) analogous to the common communications system founded by Lenin (ie: Iskra) as soon as he was released from exile in 1900. This project will involve both cooperation and competition between all trends at, ultimately, a very high level of intensity. It will be in this process, so to speak, that the wheat will be separated from the chaff. Rather than trouble himself to discuss or even acknowledge the idea I have put forward, Louis simply complains that those who oppose reformism lack "solid ideas". Well Louis, my idea is sitting in front of your face. It has been sitting in front of your face (and the face of all readers of M-I) since I first put it forward in May of last year. How much real discussion has this idea drawn ? Absolutely zero. Of course many may feel that the idea of an electronic news service without copyright and open to all trends would not be all that useful or practical for one reason or another. But, in that case, what would help would be intelligent and serious discussion which actually deals with the arguments that I put forward. To date this has not happened. Well, Rome, as they say, was not built in a day. I believe that such as news service as I have described will come about. I don't know about anyone else here--but I want to do whatever I can to help make it happen. Louis Proyect: =========>What is required is a thoughtful Marxist analysis of >American society to uncover faultlines which allow our class >to take advantage of weakness or contradictions in the >ruling class. Ben Seattle: =======Contradictions in the ruling class ? Here is what is posted in my article "1917 was the Beta Version": (from "1917 was the beta version":) ======================= ".. this has fairly formidable political implications--which the bourgeoisies of the world are tripping over themselves [1] trying to grapple with--and which the proletariat (and in particular those sections of the proletariat which consider themselves the advanced contingents) need to think about very seriously. "[1] The split in the bourgeoisie over policy for the digital infrastructure "It seems unlikely that the bourgeoisie (both internationally and within each country) will be able to achieve unity (ie: anything more than a series of temporary and fragile agreements) in their policies toward the development of the communications infrastructure. This is because the infrastructure that will be increasingly necessary for economic growth and competition on the world market--is the *same infrastructure* that the working class will use to make itself conscious and do away with bourgeois rule. "Just one of many examples of this is the current split among the bourgeoisie in the U.S. over encryption policy--with one section accusing the other of endangering national security--and the other section accusing the first section of trying to sabotage the growth of the digital economy (see "The Netizen: I Encrypt, Therefore I Am" in Wired 5.11 [Nov 1997] with the sub-title "Clinton's radical move to mandate key escrow is not just invasion of privacy, it's state-sponsored terrorism that will fatally undermine the emerging Net economy"). "Also, lest anyone think that it is only the wild-eyed techno-fetishists at Wired Magazine who see this split, here it is from the horse's mouth: ========================== Reuters -- November 6, 1997 "Clinton administration digital policy czar Ira Magaziner said today:" "In every country there is a division between, on the one hand, the people at economy who see the interest of business in allowing encryption, and on the other hand, the law-enforcement people who want to remain capable of intercepting and reading messages." "The immediate issue at stake is whether workers will be able to engage in digital communications with one another without the security forces of the bourgeoisie being able to listen in. The supposed issue at stake is the prevention of kiddie porn, narcotics trafficking and "terrorism"--but what they are really afraid of--is workers using the digital infrastructure to raise the consciousness of the masses and mobilize them for the overthrow of bourgeois rule. "And this *is* precisely what is going to happen." (You can check it out for yourself by following the link from www.communism.org) Ben Seattle: =======I believe I have uncovered just such a "faultline which allow[s] our class to take advantage of weakness or contradictions in the ruling class." I have described how our class will be able to use this contradiction within the bourgeoisie between--on the one hand, those who correctly understand that the development of the digital communications infrastructure will create unprecedented wealth and competitiveness on the world market and--on the other hand, those who are beginning to figure out that the communications revolution will allow the working class to become conscious and organize itself for the overthrow of bourgeois rule. I have made repeated efforts, here on M-I, to draw attention to this contradiction. Participants here have, to date, made no comment. But I do hope that readers are at least beginning to think about this. We do have alternatives to impotent bickering, discussion that goes nowhere, and vast quantities of hot air. Please let me know, Louis, about that 25 cents. Sincerely, Ben Seattle ----//-// 6.Apr.98 -- 10 pm --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005