File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1998/marxism-international.9804, message 40


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005