Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 20:50:46 -0800
From: B Mayer <concrete-AT-idiom.com>
Subject: Re: Rakesh's concern


rakesh bhandari wrote:
> 
> Brad Mayer, a fellow Oakland resident, misquoted me recently, and I 
>hope that it was just a mistake.    I was not calling for the arming of 
>left intellectuals or the urban masses; anyways, the latter don't need 
>to be called to do so.
> 
> I have been at too many protests where the RCP (US)talks about the
> necessity for violence before anyone analyzes what the problems are > 
> and what all the possible avenues for action are.
> 
> Also, I have organized protests where I have agreed to let a RCP 
>member speak; I was burned by this as he began his speech speaking of 
>our alleged friendship and referring to my remarks to make it sound as 
>if I was a member of his party.  They are very opportunistic this way 
>(actually I find them frightening). So Brad I must oppose any attempt 
>by any party to insinuate me into a position I do not hold.
> 
>  When I said "let's arm ourselves", I was referring to how  some 
>people reacted to the state killing of members of the Weaver family. I 
>was trying to indicate that while opposition to this government action 
>may well be very justified (Sally has written very persuasively on this 
>topic), the meanings that some were deriving from this incident may be 
>quite objectionable. That's all I was meaning to say.
> 
> Rakesh Bhandari
> 

It's a good thing I've begun to develop the habit of saving some of my 
posts.  As you will see, Rakesh, there is no need for alarm.  Here is 
the relevant passages:

rb: (Rakesh Bhandari)
"As irresponsible as all you Militia symatheticos.  Don't you get it.  
The government kills a lot of people.  Why do Militia members go up in 
arms when the FBI takes out that white supremacist Weaver or whatever 
his name is? Why is it that this is what provokes them to start a 
movement, that this becomes their symbol?  What does this tell you about 
the future they want?  Weaver only wanted  his family to be free of the 
cities, minorities and decadence.  And the government won't let us to do 
that?  Let's arm ourselves."

B. Mayer:
"R. Bhandari is correct in his reaction to the militias and in his 
criticism of the irresponsibility of 'militia sympaticos', particularly 
in his suggestion that we arm ourselves - not "arm" a few bonehead 
leftists, of course, but arm the urban masses which is where our true 
political strength lies. The approach of Cockburn and Co. is nothing 
more than a feeble flight of fantasy over an "indigenous grass-roots 
resistence" against the imperialist regime designed as compensation for 
a lack of vision on how to win over the metropolitan working class."

I might have misunderstood the intention behind the phrase "lets arm 
ourselves", however this was misunderstood in a way that did not include 
the notion that anyone was literally calling for arming leftists, 
workers, or anybody. It was assumed to be a figurative reference which 
mocked the whole notion of "arming" anyone under current conditions in 
the U.S. In fact, it was precisely that sort of ultraleftist sentiment 
that I was polemicizing against in connection with Cockburn.  These 
ridiculous "militias" are especially in need of some mockery - does 
anyone really believe that they constitute a viable form of "armed 
resistence" to the Feds? Give me a battalion of Chechens over the whole 
lot of some beer-bellied, white bread weekend warriors. And then there 
is their generally wretched ideology - compare them to the Black 
Panthers, for example.  Not exactly a happy hunting ground for left, 
Marxist or revolutionary politics - we have many other prospects much 
closer to home.

On the other hand, there was another, more general, side to my usage 
(but not Rakesh's usage) of the phrase "let's arm ourselves".  In 
general, I am for arming the working class IF conditions permit and 
demand it.  Clearly we'd have to find ourselves in a certain kind of 
revolutionary situation in order to even consider this.  Clearly we are 
presently not in a situation that justifies anyone - be they leftists, 
workers, or rightwing militias - "arming themselves"; therein lies part 
of the irresponsibility of the "sympaticos" such as Cockburn. 

I intend to address the "left sympatico" issue in a second post on 
Buchananism. The sort of Left sympathy of the Cockburn type seems to 
have achieved a magnification of ten times with respect to Buchanan.  
But stay tuned...

Finally, I want to make my political approach, both to this list and the 
larger world, crystal clear.  It is not my primary tactical interest to 
monomaniacally recruit individuals or groups to my small organization 
(the IWP), in a manner blind to objective circumstances.  Of course, 
individuals or groups *who express an active interest* will be greatly 
encouraged to join with us, but in general, we are not terribly 
surprised or disappointed if the whole world doesn't spontaneously rush 
to join our organization today.  While it is a theoretical *possibility* 
that any single organization of would-be revolutionaries might, in 
unilinear fashion, develop into the mass revolutionary party of the 
proletariat (and this is what all existing organizations, "large" or 
small, implicitly believe), the *probabilities* are extremely small, 
given the highly splintered state of the working class-oriented 
revolutionary movement.  A shuffle of revolutionary militant 'A' between 
diminuitive revolutionary groups 'B' and 'C' is not going to change one 
whit the strategic situation of the revolutionary movement as a whole.  
Further, a fragmented, sect-divided movement (and I am not only 
referring here to Trotskyists, but to all self-described or would 
revolutionaries) will not be in a position to absorb any large new 
currents which might emerge, due to a favorable turn in the political 
situation, from outside the existing movement.  

So there has to be a practical strategy that addresses this general 
problem of the working class-oriented revolutionary movement as a whole. 
We must approach this question in a manner analogous to the way Marx 
approached the question of capital, with the strategy advanced along the 
lines of capital regarded as a whole.  Hitherto, we have operated as 
individual revolutionary entrepreneurs: just as the individual 
capitalist is blind to the long term negative consequences of its owm 
accumulation upon capital as a whole, so too have revolutionary 
organizations been blind to the pernicious effects of the pursuit of 
their own narrow self-interest upon the movement as a whole.  For me 
this is the essence of sectarianism. The difference being: the 
individual capitalist at least gets rich, while revolutionaries simply 
waste their time.

Thus, we have to act in a way that accounts for the needs and addresses 
the problems of the revolutionary movement *as a whole*, and not simply 
that of the narrow needs of a particular organization - including that 
organization of one called the individual person (and the isolated 
individual is the ultimate sect).  That is why Carlos advocates a 
revolutionary unity between Militant Labour and the SWP in Britain with 
regards to Scargill's SLP project, without this in any way redounding to 
our immediate benefit in "additional recruits".  There is no guarantee 
of success for any such united front of revolutionaries, but we do know 
that the greater this unity, the greater the probabilities of some 
success. And any objective success by revolutionaries anywhere can 
improve the overall conditions for revolutionaries everywhere, including 
ourselves. The only conditions of this unity would be 1) a common set of 
a *few* basic principles (abolition of capitalism and imperialism, 
working class independence from bourgeois parties, practice of refusal 
of self-proclamations of leadership of the class, etc., to name a few), 
and 2) an explicit understanding and demonstrated ability to function 
with democratic guidelines and decision-making process that will permit 
the sort of full discussion of differences in perspective (which will 
inevitably emerge between different organizations) that will allow us to 
act in unison. After all (and this is really a response to Ryan Daum) if 
we can't arrive at an agreement on perspective through a through-going 
discussion, logically enough, we'll have different tactical approaches, 
in which case how can we possibly act together?

What does all this have to do with the Marxism l*st and Rakesh? In my 
view, everything.  I am aware that there is a certain animosity towards 
"party discussions" on the part of some on this list, while others might 
find the subject matter of the last three paragraphs interminably 
boring.  But we needn't remind ourselves again that the main inspiration 
for this l*st, together with Frederick Engels, wrote a "party document" 
called _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ in which, at the same 
time, they expound upon a theory of history.  We all know that Karl Marx 
engaged in "party discussions" throughout his entire life.  So, party 
discussions are quite germaine to the purposes of this l*st.  The only 
condition that determines my own relative friendliness/hostility to such 
discussions is their *constructivness* in relation to the strategic goal 
outlined above: do they promote the unity of revolutionaries? 
"Constructive" may or may not include party discussions with a 
theoretical content (I can hear Doug Henwood now: "If only they would! 
If only they would!"), but this is not absolutely essential.  The 
following are not constructive: blatant inter-party flame bait disguised 
as "discussion" (this is subject to relative measure varying with the 
heatedness of discussion), "sect-baiting" from "anti-sectarians" (you 
know who you are), "l*st-baiting" (you know who you are, too), and the 
"broadside tactic" designed to suppress all discussion (the stalinist 
faction).
  
While on this latter subject, two things: 1) I agree that the stalinist 
faction - with the exception of Scott Marshall - are for all practical 
purposes out to destroy, not only this list, but anything else that 
might promote revolutionary Marxism. Marshall gets credit for having the 
courage to raise the question of "socialism in one country", alas, that 
discussion was lost in the crossfire. 2) I AM ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO 
EXCLUDING ANYONE FROM THIS LIST.  This includes the stalinists trying to 
destroy it.  If everyone bailed from this valuable social space at the 
first whiff of noxiousness, the stalinists would have achieved their 
purpose, and those who bailed for this reason would have assisted them 
in this purpose.  You don't have to read every post - I had no problem 
skipping over "Luis Quispe" using ELM in a UNIX shell account.

Having come this far, I am determined to say all of this ONCE, for the 
record.  This l*st shares the general advantages of the internet: almost 
instantaneous contact with people, references, information, etc. over a 
wide area.  In addition, it has two interesting social effects: a sort 
of re-creation of the world of letters (email) and of the feuilleton 
(Web page).  In addition to these general features, the marxism l*st in 
particular represents a space to test out or "prototype" perspective, 
theory and revolutionary practice - I say "prototype" due to the limits 
placed upon extended exposition by email, naturally.  In this regard, I 
do not feel the same animosity exhibited towards "party discussions" 
when it comes to so-called "academic" discussions - and some of the 
latter can be tedious and boring in their own right.  On the contrary, 
these should be on the l*st as a potential source of references, ideas, 
etc. - I'm particularly interested in questions of political economy, or 
information on East Asia. But in general, I don't regard this l*st in 
any way as a "united front of revolutionaries".  I only expect the same 
respectful attitude in return.

So, finally, Rakesh, I think I've made it exhaustively clear what my 
purpose on this list is.  What it ain't is to engage in cheap "manuvers" 
in order to establish some phoney "agreement" or "unity".  I'm just not 
interested in such pettiness - I have precious little time as it is to 
post to this l*st.  My interest is to seen where real agreement can be 
found, on the basis of honest discussion, for the reasons mentioned 
above.  A few examples to illustrate what I mean: 1) In the case of the 
militias, I was (and continue to be) in agreement with your perspective; 
2) Had we been discussing Farakkhan and the MMM, we would have 
disagreed, probably - however this would only be a disagreement on a 
perspective, no big deal, really; 3) Although I tend to disagree with 
the perspectives of Sally Ryan on the militias and of Louis Proyect on 
Buchanan, I very much sympathize with the intent behind their respective 
approaches, which is to establish a scientific understanding of these 
phenomenon as an antidote to the inevitable left-liberal hysteria that 
will be whipped up over "fascism", all for the benefit of Clinton. I 
believe these phenomena are more complex and contradictory than their 
view permits; 4) Likewise, although I am in closest agreement with 
James Miller's view of Buchananism, I don't agree with the simple 
equation of Buchanan (the person) = fascist; 5) on the other hand, Louis 
Proyect and I would have deep disagreements over Nicaragua, which was a 
real revolution with actual revolutionary principles at stake, but I 
have no problem with such differences on this l*st; 6) On a completely 
different subject, I agreed with you on the "Value Pump" because I think 
I have some understanding of what you are talking about, independently 
of the theoretical correctness of my own formulation of the issue. This 
is true despite the likely fact that I might find myself in agreement 
with Hugh Rodwell on most questions than with just about anyone else on 
this l*st, except for Carlos, because we share similar political 
backgrounds.

Hopefully, this should cover it for now. I understand Rakesh's concern 
- it relates to a climate of mutual suspicion and mistrust born of 
decades of betrayal and stupidity.  Today we have the chance to start 
cleaning up the mess.  I hope this has contributed to clearing away 
some small part of it. 

I welcome any *constructive* responses.

			Sincerely,
			-Brad Mayer


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------