“As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains.” —Barack Obama, inaugural address
Substitute Romans, Englishmen, or Germans for Americans, and any Roman emperor, British colonialist or German militarist could have said the same thing. And indeed, this is the voice of the ruler of an empire whose troops patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains, where he‘s intent on keeping them. But it’s also the voice of the leader of an empire that desperately struggles to maintain its position as top global bloodsucker while impoverishing and oppressing the people at home: a colossus with feet of clay.
Continued military intervention in Iraq
In March, 2003 the U.S. government brutally invaded Iraq and toppled the reactionary Hussein regime in three weeks. Former President Bush then declared “victory” on May 1. But six years later, around one million Iraqis and 4,250 U.S. soldiers are dead, while 140,000 U.S. troops occupy the country. Behind this is the fact that this has always fundamentally been a bi-partisan project to dominate Iraqi and Middle-Eastern oil reserves.
But this imperialist outrage has been met with just hatred and resistance from the democratic Iraqi masses, as well as from Iraqi reactionaries; and it has also given rise to massive domestic opposition. In this political situation, candidate Obama called the Iraq war “dumb,” “unwise” and “ill-conceived”; but as a senator he voted for $300 billion with which to fund it (plus the Afghan war), while telling the lie that this was to ensure that “our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely.” Then he promised to withdraw all “combat” troops, a brigade a month, within 16 months, but was vague about the “residual” forces that would remain. Now, as President, this plan has become a partial withdrawal within 19 months (mainly after the Iraqi elections in late 2009) that will leave a U.S. military force of up to 50,000 in the country far into the future. And the “mission” of this force will not only be to train a client military, but to itself enforce imperialist order in the name of “counter-terrorism.”
With the U.S. war machine over-stretched and tiring out, this is nothing but a plan to continue the war to dominate Iraq and its oil resources begun under Bush, while freeing up troops to send to Afghanistan. Militarist McCain and other Republicans have hailed it for this very reason.
Escalating war in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Filled with imperialist-gangster arrogance, in 2001 Bush and Co. overthrew the Taliban rather than accept its offer to turn over Osama bin-Laden to a third country. Afghanistan was a poor and weak country, and this would allow the U.S. imperialists to establish a more subservient government in this gateway to the oil and gas rich Central Asia—a region that the Russian and Chinese imperialists also strive to dominate. Moreover, they could speculate on the fact that the Taliban theocracy was despised by progressive people everywhere in order to pretend that this was a “good war” to liberate the Afghan people, particularly women.
But the killing, imprisonment and torture of thousands of innocent Afghans showed that the U.S. rulers didn’t care about the Afghan people, nor did the government of warlords and Karzai that they installed. The imperialist occupation has therefore become hated, with the Karzai government ruling little more than the capital, Kabul. Moreover, the Taliban and other reactionary oppositional forces are mounting crippling attacks against the U.S./NATO supply lines in Pakistan, while the opposition and resistance of democratic Afghans to the occupation also increases.
Obama’s “solution” to this crisis is that on the third day of his presidency he ordered drone attacks in Pakistan that killed several women and children. He’s subsequently ordered more such attacks, while stepping up U.S. Special Forces activities in Pakistan. And, with 660 mainly sons and daughters of the U.S. working class already dead in Afghanistan, he’s now sending 17,000 more to kill and be killed.
A war budget higher than Bush’s
“Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” —Barack Obama, inaugural address
With this Bushism, Obama justifies a 2010 war budget that is 2.1% higher (adjusted for inflation) than Bush’s post-WWII record 2009 budget. (While the Israeli Zionists’ hands drip with the blood of the Palestinians they’ve just massacred in Gaza, they too will get their usual U.S. military aid.) Moreover, the Administration’s ten-year projection envisions total Pentagon spending to rise steadily, despite an assumed end to fighting in Iraq, and while the U.S. war budget is already larger than all other countries in the world combined.
The Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani and American peoples share a common enemy: U.S. imperialism
“We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense…”
George W. Bush? No, it’s Barack Obama demagogically using his inaugural address to whip up imperialist arrogance toward the rest of the world, particularly the Muslim world, and to justify endless imperialist wars to defend the profit-making empire of the U.S. ruling class.
At home he defends the interests of these same rich global bloodsuckers, while having the gall to say this is defending “our” way of life. Thus, he and the Democrats rushed to pass Bush’s legislation to funnel $800 billion from the masses of people into the hands of the bankers and financial sharks. His $787 billion economic stimulus enactment provides lucrative government contracts and tax breaks to businesses; while money for the unemployed, extensions of healthcare benefits, and expansion of Food Stamps are not close to what is needed—and the much-hyped tax cut for ordinary individuals and families is not even enough to pay one month’s average rent or mortgage payment. He plans to let Bush’s huge tax cuts for the super-rich continue in effect until that law’s expiration. And the administration is working out plans for another giant bailout of the finance capitalists, while Obama hypocritically talks of “shared sacrifice,” and does propaganda for cutting the budgets for social services and entitlements.
Meanwhile, Obama has a plan to deal with the inevitable resistance to this program of the rich: after voting to extend the so-called PATRIOT Act as a senator, as President he continues the ruling-class program of denial of civil liberties and police state expansion that was stepped up under Bush.
Build the anti-war movement as part of the class movement of working people everywhere!
This continuity between Republican and Democratic administrations around a program of war, impoverishing the masses, and political reaction shows that it’s the underlying system that is the problem, and not which party is in power. But there is developing denunciation and resistance to this ruling-class program, with the potential for all of the oppositional struggles to fuel each other. And this lays the basis for eventually merging them into a profound revolutionary storm that does away with the warlike and exploitative capitalist-imperialist system.
Today, in conditions of deepening economic crisis, anti-war activists justly want to fight not only against war, but also for relief and more social programs. This is sometimes expressed through the slogan “money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation.” But this slogan tends to hide the fact that war and war budgets are inseparable from modern (monopoly) capitalism, and it tends to promote the illusory idea that the government will take money from the war budget to fund programs to benefit the people if only the people demand it enough. (In the 1960s, with the masses in the streets and cities burning, the government indeed made concessions on domestic demands; but it continued high war budgets and its slaughter of the Vietnamese people, and funded new programs with deficit spending.) Further, the slogan tends to narrow the appeal against war to the fact that it hurts people economically. Despite these weaknesses, the leaders of the ANSWER coalition, International Socialist Organization, Socialist Alternative, Freedom Socialist Party and other opportunist groups take the lead in endlessly shouting this slogan.
The anti-war movement must be built with a different perspective: a broad, internationalist and liberating one that can truly inspire the other movements in society to fight harder. This requires targeting the imperialist system as the problem, and building the movement consciously against its new chieftains, Obama and the Democrats. And it requires building the movement in conscious solidarity with the Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani peoples who not only struggle against their own exploiters and oppressors in order to have a better life, but who also struggle against the mass murder and devastation orchestrated by our common enemy, the U.S. imperialist ruling class.
To hell with Obama’s wars!
U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan now!
Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee, March 18, 2009 (Second Edition)
[Click here to download a PDF version of this leaflet.]
[Click here to download a PDF version of the March 11 first edition.]
24 Comments
Why not organize a protest against the corporations that jacked us for all that bailout money? That would probably swell your membership and grow you as an organization. I know tons of people who would show up.
AIG has an office at 520 Pike St # 2700!
Seriously, people are getting angry and need to vent. I’d organize something myself but I just don’t have the network. You folks helped get thousands in the streets before…
Work with other groups and make an announcment. I know at least a dozen people myself that will go.
The following was being advertised at this weekend’s anti-war demonstrations:
Saturday April 4. Bail out People NOT the Banks, WaMu/Chase Bank, 2nd & Union 1 p.m, March to Westlake, rally at 2. In concert with National March on Wall Street.
Planning meeting Wed. March 25, Columbia Library, 4721 Rainier S.
http://www.bailoutpeople.org.
The paragraph on opportunism is somewhat weak and will be difficult for many readers to follow.
It is important, of course, to oppose the opportunism of Answer, ISO, SA, FSP and so forth. It is also useful to clarify what is wrong with the “money for jobs, not for war” slogan (as I made an effort to do more than two years ago [1]).
The problem is that exposure of opportunism is effective only when it is done on the basis of some issue that is either easy to understand or highly important to the movement. The problems with the “money for jobs” slogan are neither (ie: they are not easy to understand and are secondary in importance).
If our exposure of opportunism is not done well–it will look to many readers like we are squabbling over essentially nothing and that we are attacking other groups mainly because we are in competition with them over the warm living bodies of activists. The recent skirmish on Indymedia [2] (where a supporter of opportunist politics took advantage of the weakness of your approach to say “SAIC is ultra left and rigid in their thinking”) illustrates the tactical problems with exposure that is not done well.
To be clear, I do not regard the “honest activist” who attacked SAIC to be such; nor was he correct to call SAIC “ultra-left”. However he hit the nail on the head when he described SAIC as rigid in its thinking. This rigidity hurts SAIC and hurts the movement.
Simple put: if the worse thing that Answer, ISO, SA and FSP have done is promote a wrong slogan–their hands would be relatively clean. However their hands are not clean. They have all done things to both build the movement as well as sabotage the movement (most usually more of the later than the former). But it is not effective to go after them in a leaflet (ie: an instrument aimed at a relatively large audience) unless we can nail them on something more solid related to how they promote dependence on the Democratic Party and its flunkies.
Also–if SAIC had a wiki (as I have been advocating for a while [3]) it could have wiki pages on these opportunist groups as well as a page for the problems with the “money for jobs slogan” and these pages could be used to collect and organize info that could eventually be used in leaflets designed for a larger audience. The principle here is that the “small audience” stuff can be used as building blocks and preparation for work written for a larger (ie: mass) audience.
I believe SAIC’s refusal to consider measures such as a wiki and an open discussion list relates to its perceived need to create politics that it considers sanitized and pure and uncontaminated with messy criticism that might distract from its focus. Such an approach does not serve the movement. The cost of this fear of contamination is that SAIC (and genuine anti-imperialist politics) are easier to isolate: and activists who need anti-imperialist politis are left disarmed.
Ben Seattle
Notes:
——
(links below are non-clickable in order to avoid delay in posting)
[1] See “Appendix C” in comments here:
What’s wrong with the slogan: “Money for Jobs, not for War” ?
(http) http://www.seattleaic.org/statements/unity_statement_2006
[2] (http) seattle.indymedia.org/en/2009/03/272005.shtml
[3] Need for wiki — see comments on:
(http) http://www.seattleaic.org/leaflets/saic_on_obama_election
and “reply to Frank” here:
(http) struggle.net/ben/2008/saic-sobriety.htm
“honest activist” on Seattle Indymedia called SAIC “rigid” because they disagreed with SAIC’s exposure of ANSWER’s opportunism, and to divert people from honestly discussing the issue at hand. Ben knows this and, even though he expresses skepticism about so-called “honest activist”’s honesty, he shamelessly repeats their claim because it also serves his own agenda: Ben Seattle calls SAIC “rigid” because we don’t adopt his internet “information war” schemes and make endless wikis, email lists, etc. He then says this is evidence of SAIC’s “fear of contamination” when, in fact, SAIC can be just as easily “contaminated” (to use his term) via website comments, etc. To Ben Seattle, SAIC will always be “rigid” (or worse) so long as it does not rush to conform to Ben Seattle’s website whims.
That aside, I agree that more work needs to be done to put the revolutionary critique of opportunism in a more easy-to-understand way that doesn’t come across as pointless nitpicking, and that doesn’t make the “left” error of opposing the just demands of the masses.
Ben Seattle, by the way, actually did oppose demands for “money for jobs and education” in his article “What’s wrong with the slogan: ‘Money for Jobs, not for War’?” This was rrrrevolutionary in form, but not in content.
I criticized SAIC’s leaflet for its clumsy opposition to opportunism. I agreed with SAIC that it is important and necessary to oppose opportunism–but said that they need to do so in a more skilled way. Kyo does not appear to disagree with my criticism. In fact he appears to agree that a part of SAIC’s leaflet looked to many readers like pointless nitpicking. So this is a step forward.
I have long argued that SAIC should make its leaflet drafts available as they are written–so that errors like this could be recognized and corrected early in the process–before hundreds (or thousands) of copies were printed and distributed. If SAIC had made leaflet drafts publicly available–then their most recent error could probably have been avoided. More than this–the process of making drafts available for comments and suggestions would help to train activists in how to write leaflets and provide a way for SAIC to draw activists into its work. SAIC’s refusal to consider such a step is an example of SAIC’s rigidity.
I see little need to comment on the remainder of Kyo’s repy other than to note that most of his reply (such as his claim that I supposedly opposed the struggle for partial demands) amounts to tedious word-twisting and an effort to paint me as a “black hat” (as if the issue here was “me vs. SAIC” rather than finding ways to work together to serve the movement). I would like Kyo to eventually understand that–if we want to build a movement that is real and attracts the best in society–we must focus on what is real.
Ben Seattle writes:
“Kyo does not appear to disagree with my criticism. In fact he appears to agree that a part of SAIC’s leaflet looked to many readers like pointless nitpicking.”
Actually, I was making more of a general point. I do think that the paragraph in question could look to some readers, particularly those under the influence of opportunist misleaders, as pointless nitpicking. The movement is currently at a relatively low level and the importance of the struggle against opportunism is not widely understood at this time. But even in optimal conditions, the best formulations will be misunderstood by some readers. I don’t think there are any exceptions to this.
That said, I am interested in suggestions of how the paragraph in question could have been worded better.
Ben Seattle writes:
“SAIC’s refusal to consider [making leaflet drafts public] is an example of SAIC’s rigidity.”
Not true. SAIC has considered it, extensively, and has decided against in most cases. This does not stem from “rigidity” but from a desire to make leaflet draft discussions truly accessible to the maximum number of SAIC members, relatively free from surveillance by the state, harassment from opportunists, etc. Sometimes people just want to be able to speak candidly with their comrades without having every last thought-out-loud be a matter of public record. This has been brought to Ben Seattle’s attention. His refusal to seriously consider this is an example of his rigidity.
However, his suggested approach may be useful in certain situations which should be judged on a case-by-case basis and not according to supposed “principles” good for all times and places.
Ben Seattle also writes:
“I see little need to comment on the remainder of Kyo’s reply other than to note that most of his reply (such as his claim that I supposedly opposed the struggle for partial demands) amounts to tedious word-twisting and an effort to paint me as a ‘black hat’ (as if the issue here was ‘me vs. SAIC’ rather than finding ways to work together to serve the movement). I would like Kyo to eventually understand that–if we want to build a movement that is real and attracts the best in society–we must focus on what is real.”
I agree that “we must focus on what is real.” But what does Ben Seattle mean by this? He means, for starters, that a critical analysis of his own work is out of bounds, “tedious word-twisting” which hardly deserves comment. The reader may decide for themselves whether or not Ben Seattle’s approach truly serves the movement. And, by the way, here is where Ben Seattle elaborated his opposition to mass demands for “money for jobs”:
“And the way it works is that imperialism will _not_ give money for jobs if we ask for it. They will give money for jobs when hundreds of thousands of activists _stop_ asking for it and _start_ asking the _working class_ to join in struggle to _overthrow_ the system of imperialism.” (http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/258615.shtml)
So is this “real” or not, Ben Seattle?
To Ben Seattle,
“The paragraph on opportunism is somewhat weak and will be difficult for many readers to follow.”
In my personal opinion the paragraph is not particularly weak or difficult to follow, insofar as what it actually says. But the issue is that mass leaflets should deal with the opportunists on issues where they’re doing major damage to the movement, and that the “money for jobs, not for war” slogan is not such an issue. It’s just a weak slogan, a slogan with various problems.
So I think that it’s a mistake to try to deal with this slogan in one paragraph, as this leaflet did. Further, I think that those who read our leaflets are more interested in other things that we have to say, things that are a lot more crucial than this slogan; and I would therefore also be opposed to dealing with it in a full, all-sided manner. And, as a matter of fact, in the present local conditions, I actually don’t see a need to directly attack the named opportunist groups on other issues either.
Since it’s now part of this thread, one other thing that I would comment on is that while we seemingly agree on the issue of the leaflet addressing the slogan, we’re coming from very different political positions whose importance dwarf this issue. For example, you can’t help but point out that “more than two years ago” you made an effort to deal with the “money for jobs, not for war slogan on Indymedia, yet when Kyo quotes a key paragraph from that article you accuse him of “tedious word-twisting and an effort to paint me as a ‘black hat‘.” Still, for all this, I think that it’s worth looking at this paragraph again:
“And the way it works is that imperialism will _not_ give money for jobs if we ask for it. They will give money for jobs when hundreds of thousands of activists _stop_ asking for it and _start_ asking the _working class_ to join in struggle to _overthrow_ the system of imperialism.”
Stop asking for money for jobs, start asking the working class to join in the struggle to overthrow the system.
This posing of the struggle for a partial demand (jobs) against the struggle for revolution is the theoretical premise for sterile, sectarian, left phrase-mongering political practice. Thus, two years ago, X-9 and I both criticized this formulation of yours under your Indymedia article because, indeed, this is one of those issues that it is much more important to deal with than a weak slogan is.
But you did not respond! And, if your error was only the result of hasty writing, it would still have been important to respond precisely because of the importance of this issue, and Indy is a pretty widely-read site.
Frank’s contribution helps to shed some light on this thread.
Frank wrote:
> the issue is that mass leaflets should deal with
> the opportunists on issues where they’re doing major damage
> to the movement, and that the “money for jobs, not for war”
> slogan is not such an issue. It’s just a weak slogan,
> a slogan with various problems.
Ben replies:
Frank’s assessment is concise and accurate. It is what I was attempting to say.
Frank continues:
> in the present local conditions, I actually don’t see
> a need to directly attack the named opportunist groups
> on other issues either.
Ben replies:
This is also in agreement with what I was trying to say. If these organizations have done something concrete (ie: that activists can understand) to damage the movement in a significant way — then it is fine (and helpful to the movement) to criticize them publicly for this. If they have not–then it is fine to ignore them. The principle here is that we should only attack opportunists in a mass leaflet when they have exposed themselves (otherwise our actions will appear to be–and will be–sectarian).
Describing these opportunists on an electronic forum or wiki page, on the other hand, can take place at any time. The distinction (between a mass leaflet and an electronic forum) is in the size and nature of the readership and the purpose for which they are reading. When we put something in a leaflet–we are telling activists that what is in the leaflet is important. On the other hand it is understood that what appears on an electronic forum may be more in the nature of background information, analysis or opinion.
Frank’s comments here represent the first clear public recognition by SAIC that my criticism of this part of their leaflet is essentially correct.
I will draw some conclusions about this in a future post. But first, I will touch on the issue that both Kyo and Frank now claim is important: my comments two years ago on this weak slogan.
My comments represented an effort to shed some light on what the problem was with the slogan. As was clear from my introduction that I made two years ago, I had found that the problems with the slogan were difficult to describe verbaly and so I thought I should make an effort to do so in writing. I made no claim that my comments were perfect formulations or the last word on the topic.
Frank seems to (partially) recognize this. He writes that one of my sentences might be “hasty writing”. That is one way to put it. A better way to put it is that my comments two years ago represented a less formal style of writing–an effort to put forth some initial thoughts in the hope of developing some conversation with others and maybe developing some formulations that were stronger. Strange as it may seem to some, this is often how ideas and analysis are developed: by mean of productive exchanges between thoughtful people.
Frank now says that it would have been important for me to respond to the criticisms that were made of my formulations two years ago.
Maybe it would have been useful. But my time is limited and I tend to invest my time and comments in places where I believe there is a sober and reflective readership.
This brings me to the topic of how to deal with people on internet forums who are not able to conduct themselves in a mature manner such that exchanges are productive. We have all seen this. Some people have such an ax to grind that they turn into hot-headed, word-twisting time-wasters. After considerable study of this issue I concluded many years ago that nine out of ten times the best thing to do is to simply ignore such people.
That is what I did on Indymedia when Frank and X-9 seized on an imperfect and incomplete formulation to attack me for supposedly opposing the struggle for partial demands. It is not realistic to believe that some Indymedia reader might have read my comments and mistakenly conluded that the struggle for partial demands was somehow useless or counterproductive–especially inasmuch as at the beginning of my comments I specifically said that these were just demands and deserved support.
When I criticized the SAIC leaflet I mentioned the comments I made two years ago so that readers would understand that my problem with the SAIC leaflet was not that they criticized the slogan–but that this was a was a weak basis on which to attack every other group in town.
Frank now uses my comments two years ago to say I supposedly have a sterile, sectarian, left phrase-mongering political practice. In opposition to such a supposedly sterile path as mine we have the work of SAIC–which writes and distributes thousands of leaflets that are generally very good. But my comments here have been directed at _improving_ those leaflets (as all readers can verify). I criticized a significant error (ie: attacking every group in town on a somewhat flimsy basis rather than a solid basis) and pointed out that there is a way SAIC can avoid (or greatly reduce) such errors in the future: make the drafts available for public comment on the internet _before_ printing and distributing hundreds of them. When I proposed this last year, Frank first claimed that there were not enough hours in the day to do this. Kyo now claims that this can’t be done because of the threat of political persecution by the police and the opportunists. All of these reasons are bullshit, pure and simple.
(to be continued)
Ben Seattle writes:
“Strange as it may seem to some, this is often how ideas and analysis are developed: by mean of productive exchanges between thoughtful people.”
This is almost comical coming from Ben Seattle, who for two years treated Frank, X9 and everyone who read Ben Seattle’s “leftist” formulations to nothing but silence in response to the correct criticisms of what he wrote. Now, after two years, he calls this criticism “tedious word-twisting” and then wants to lecture us about “productive exchanges between thoughtful people” when he gets called on it! But for two years Ben Seattle deemed these comments unworthy of his time and attention. Needless to say, it is worth paying attention to the practice behind Ben Seattle’s sermons.
Also: I do not think that Ben Seattle has made the slightest case for his claim that SAIC “attack[ed] every group in town on a somewhat flimsy basis…” (as if a handful of consolidated opportunist trends = “every group in town”!). The opportunists’ use of the slogan “money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation” is a symptom of their overall reformist subservience to U.S. imperialism and a disorienting drain on the movement as a whole. In their attempts at justifying themselves, the opportunists make no secret of their preference for simplicity (deceptive simplicity) over accuracy and serving the people. But in the grand scheme of things, it is indeed a secondary issue at this time. And, for this reason, it may have been inappropriate to include the paragraph in question in a mass agitational leaflet. But this is a separate question. It does not make what SAIC said any less correct or “solid.”
Also worth noting is the fact that the SAIC formulation in question is actually from the second edition of this leaflet, released about a week after the first edition. For a week, Ben Seattle and anyone else who felt like it were free to make comments/criticisms and offer suggestions about how the leaflet can be improved. Ben Seattle had ample opportunity to do this, despite the fact that no drafts were made public. But he did not do this. In fact, he had nothing to say until after “honest activist” launched an unprincipled and lying attack on SAIC. To Ben Seattle, this was simply ammunition in his own “information war” against SAIC.
Ben Seattle attaches great importance to making leaflet drafts (and the discussions around them) all a matter of public record. In practice, this would mean that no one in or around SAIC would be able to give their views of a draft in consideration without entering into a public polemic. If Ben Seattle cannot see how this would severely inhibit every single attempt at working out a leaflet draft, then I don’t even see the point of continuing this discussion with him. I am confident that the vast majority of people—and practically all revolutionary-minded people—will see how and why this is and will not be fooled by Ben Seattle’s highly selective use of terms like “transparency.”
Dear Ben,
I
To reply to Kyo’s and my criticism of your politically erroneous paragraph, all you had to do is say that you had made a mistake, or not. Instead you charge this way and that for eight paragraphs, and end up in a mass of contradictions. Oh, you allow that you did write an “imperfect and incomplete formulation;” but this is only in the context of charging that I and X-9 had “seized on” this formulation in order to attack you.
But my “attack” was that after devoting three full paragraphs to the “money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation” slogan (the subject of your article), I ended my comment with the following:
“I think X9 is entirely correct in his criticism of Ben Seattle’s formulation above. To pose the struggles for partial or immediate demands against the revolutionary struggle for socialism is an error.”
This is not seizing on something in order to attack you, but raising a political criticism on an important issue. But look at your response:
You (first) try to pass off your formulation under the camouflage that you had difficulties verbally describing the problems with the SLOGAN, that these were your initial thoughts, that you made no claim that your comments were perfect, etc., when my criticism was NOT of how you dealt with the slogan, but of the general line for building the movement that you posited. This line posed revolution against struggles for reforms, i.e., stop asking for money for jobs, start asking the working class to join in the struggle to overthrow the system.
This is a seemingly simple point to some, yet a whole section of the movement makes this error, as do many of the broader masses.
Now in this thread we’re talking about how to wage the struggle against opportunism, and this struggle is obviously not won or lost through polemics against weak slogans. But I don‘t think that it’s fundamentally won through polemics on key issues either, important as such polemics are. No, it’s fundamentally won through studying, working out, seeking, and divining revolutionary tactics through which to move the struggles for partial demands inch-by-inch forward. And it’s around this work that revolutionaries unfold the struggle against opportunism. But the “left” counter-posing of reform (partial demands) and revolution is a formula for sectarian political practice and/or passivity in the form of waiting for the “great days.” Hence, my original support for X-9’s criticism of your paragraph, and my criticism of your silence in response.
You reply by speaking out of both sides of you mouth:
“Maybe it would have been useful. BUT my time is limited and I TEND TO INVEST MY TIME AND COMMENTS IN PLACES WHERE I BELIEVE THERE IS A SOBER AND REFLECTIVE READERSHIP.” (My emphasis.)
But you presumably thought that Seattle Indymedia had a sober and reflective readership when you posted your article there, especially when it was on a subject that you yourself say is not easy to understand. In fact, after implying the above bad things about Indy readers you turn around to hide behind these same readers by writing that
“It is not realistic to believe that some Indymedia reader might have read my comments and mistakenly concluded that the struggle for partial demands was somehow useless or counterproductive–especially inasmuch as at the beginning of my comments I specifically said that these were just demands and deserved support.”
And this ignores the fact that Indymedia has many articles and comments that uphold “that the struggle for partial demands (is) somehow useless or counterproductive”—as well as articles that say both that they deserve support and the very opposite, which I think that yours did. Hence, on the Indymedia forum it’s particularly important to be clear on this issue, and you were not. Thus, in 2007 I was not seizing on something to attack you with, and in this present thread I allowed that maybe your error was only the result of hasty writing.
Finally, while you lecture against “people on internet forums who are not able to conduct themselves in a mature manner,” and people who “have such an ax to grind that they turn into hot-headed, word-twisting time-wasters,” look at another of your charges against me:
“Frank now uses my comments two years ago to say I supposedly have a sterile, sectarian, left phrase-mongering political practice.”
But this is what I actually wrote:
“Stop asking for money for jobs, start asking the working class to join in the struggle to overthrow the system.
“This posing of the struggle for a partial demand (jobs) against the struggle for revolution is the theoretical premise for sterile, sectarian, left phrase-mongering political practice. Thus, two years ago, X-9 and I both criticized this formulation of yours under your Indymedia article because, indeed, this is one of those issues that it is much more important to deal with than a weak slogan is.”
And you’re word-twisting when you claim that this says that you have a sterile, sectarian, left phrase-mongering political practice. Sure, I may think that you have such practice, and you may have it, but these sentences are not interested in you. They’re interested in making the point that the formulation you gave leads to such practices, which is why I criticized it.
Again, Ben, you could have dealt with this criticism in a paragraph or two, or even in just a clear sentence or two. But instead you led us over hill and dale for eight paragraphs.
II
From our different political frameworks, we agree that inclusion of the paragraph on the “money for jobs…“ slogan was an error in an otherwise very good leaflet. Your “solution” to making similar errors—or at least reducing their number—is to make drafts of leaflets available for public comment on the internet. Kyo has already pointed to one of the problems with this idea, and I could add others. But why should I try to explain these things to you when you show no honesty in discussions of your schemes to organize over the internet?
For example, you baldly assert that a year ago I claimed that there was not enough hours in a day to make DRAFTS available for public comment on the internet. But what I actually said is available under the Unity Statement posting on this website, and it reads as follows:
“…if we tried to do everything that Ben has in his organize-over-the-Internet ‘program’ for us, 24 hours a day on a computer would probably still not be enough time. (And there‘s more to his program than is in just this article.) Taking this up would utterly destroy the committee as an anti-imperialist political force, or any political force at all.
“Meanwhile, for 15 years the individual, Ben, HAS been striving to make “full use of the emerging revolution in communications.” (It was emerging 15 years ago, it‘s emerging today, and if Ben is still alive15 years from now, he‘ll be singing the wonders of this emerging revolution then too.) But his practical experience shows that he essentially remains an isolated individual posting his ‘wisdom’ around the Internet, and this is what he would reduce us to were we to follow his suggestions, i.e., atomized individuals.”
So, ahem, this was in reference to an article by you that contained at least five suggestions about what SAIC should do on the internet, only one of which was posting leaflet drafts. Moreover, those five suggestions were only part of a large number of other suggestions that you’ve been hectoring SAIC about since it was founded. Thus, you resort to the very tedious word-twisting that you accuse others of, and it really is a time-waster to deal with you on this issue.
Frank
Hi folks,
I started this thread by notifying SAIC of a tactical error in their leaflet (something that is no longer in dispute). I followed up by describing a method SAIC could use to reduce errors in the future and help train activists as well as draw activists into SAIC’s work: post leaflet drafts on public forums and ask for comments.
Frank and Kyo have replied that posting drafts would not be useful or practical. They have given a number of reasons for this. I think that the main reason–is that in order for this to be useful and practical–SAIC members would need to understand how to engage with others in a productive way.
This appears to be a skill of which they have a lot to learn.
In order to appreciate this one need only consider this thread–which illustrates the problem.
I have made an effort to contribute to this thread in a positive way. The main response I have encountered is a rather large amount of drama concerning my decision not to carry on an unproductive exchange with these people two years ago on Indymedia. I have also been called dishonest and so forth.
Considering my experience here, some might call me naive or foolhardy to believe it is worthwhile making an effort to help these people wake up and smell the coffee. Our actions reveal what is in our heart. Our actions reveal the depth of our devotion to the principles which are decisive to the movement. I am unshaken in my conviction that the internet remains a powerful tool for helping activists overcome their isolation. And I continue to have great respect for Frank and Kyo and other SAIC members. But waking them up and showing them that there is a path to sober and serious work will require more than my efforts alone.
Ben Seattle
“I started this thread by notifying SAIC of a tactical error in their leaflet…”
Well, SAIC set up and maintains this website to, among other things, solicit comments. And, in this case I think that your comment (part of it) had value because the issue is important. It’s often said that hatred of opportunism is the beginning of wisdom. Yet it‘s an error to stretch to make points against the opportunists, and real wisdom comes through learning how to deal with opportunism in the course of developing the objective class struggle.
But SAIC has not been entirely wandering in the dark on this issue, and in this case your comment really wasn’t notification of a tactical error. No, there was a view argued in the committee that the paragraph dealing with “money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation” should NOT be included in the leaflet for the reasons touched on in this thread, and agreement that this was a question that the committee should discuss a lot more in the coming months, which I‘m sure it well.
Nevertheless, it won’t always be the case that the committee, or at least part of it, sees a problem in something that it has produced. Hence, I for one encourage you and others to continue to either post your ideas on these matters here, send us an email about them, or talk with us in person about them
“Considering my experience here, some might call me naive or foolhardy to believe it is worthwhile making an effort to help these people wake up and smell the coffee. ”
Personally, I don’t think that your experience here has been so terrible, Ben, but other readers can also judge this. But what is this coffee that we’re supposed to smell? Your next sentences indicate that it’s NOT the necessity to resolve the political issue of how to deal with opportunism, the purported reason for your comment, but something else! You write:
“Our actions reveal what is in our heart. Our actions reveal the depth of our devotion to the principles which are decisive to the movement. I am unshaken in my conviction that the internet remains a powerful tool for helping activists overcome their isolation….But waking them up and showing them that there is a path to sober and serious work will require more than my efforts alone.”
Yes, the internet is a tool of sorts, and SAIC uses it and experiments with it. Nevertheless, it remains only a tool, it will never be any more than a tool, and if people are truly activists then it can only HELP them to overcome any isolation that they might have. But, in my humble opinion, if we took up all of the grand schemes for using the internet that you post here and on other websites that allow you to post, we would be truly isolated, and no organization at all. Said another way, I think that your “path to sober and serious work” would liquidate such work.
Hi Frank,
Ok, so there was disagreement within SAIC concerning the paragraph and SAIC decided to go ahead with this (against your better judgement) with the understanding that the differences would be discussed in the coming months (ie: a reasonable way to handle the disagreement). Activists learn from their mistakes.
The principle at issue is that it is best to focus on the issues that are important and stay away from nitpicking where small issues get blown out of proportion.
I believe it would also be helpful if you kept this principle in mind when you reply to me. Sometimes your replies appear to be calm and sober–and other times you act as if you are intoxicated–and take things out of context and magnify insignificant things. Constructive and productive engagement requires that we focus on what is real.
Frank:
> what is this coffee that we’re supposed to smell?
Ben replies:
For starters–that you could learn a lot (and create better leaflets) if post drafts to various forums. This would be a win for the movement.
When challenged on this you avoid giving a clear explanation of why this would not be practical (explaining that I am supposedly so dishonest that it is not worth the effort to explain this to me). But you should know, Frank, that there is a possibility that other activists may be reading this thread.
Instead of dealing with the concrete proposal that has emerged from discussion of the tactical blunder in the leaflet–namely my proposal that leaflet drafts be posted publicly–you raise the spectre of all the other proposals I have ever made. It is as if you are afraid that if one of my proposals proves itself to be practical and useful–this will create pressure on SAIC to adopt other proposals–until SAIC is supposedly destroyed.
Truth is always concrete.
So let’s deal with this concretely.
Posting leaflet drafts will not liquidate SAIC’s work in creating and distributing leaflets. On the contrary it will help such work.
Further–Kyo’s supposed concern–that no one will submit their honest opinion if lealet drafts are posted publicly–does not appear to make any sense (ie: because anyone would still be able to send private email).
Of course there still remains a important issue that I have identified in my previous post. In order that this be practical–SAIC members would need to develop their skill at constructive and productive engagement with other activists. If you study this thread (when you are in calm frame of mind) I believe you will be able to see many instances where both you and Kyo bring up all kinds of petty and irrelevant topics that are not important. And this is also what I am talking about when I discuss the need for sobriety. Yes, I am sure you could fill an encyclopedia with all the examples of contradictions and dishonesty in my behavior that seem so clear and vivid to you. But no one would want to read it. The movement wins when we focus on what is real. We show what is in our hearts by our ability to focus on what is real.
Love and struggle,
your comrade Ben
Well, that sounds like a typical Ben Seattle cop-out. As he says, “all roads lead to information war.” What this means in (Ben Seattle’s) practice is that all live political issues must take a back seat. Clearly these are just pretexts for Ben Seattle to sing his tired old refrain (or “petty and irrelevant topics”).
By the way, Ben Seattle’s comment about “private emails” also misses the point. It ignores the polemical content of opposing leaflet drafts. It ignores the fact that many drafts are not polished for public presentation and scrutiny but consist largely of thoughts-out-loud, so-to-speak. Would comrades tend to think twice about submitting a half-finished leaflet draft if they knew it was going to be a matter of public record which they would then be held accountable for? Of course! Some comrades, especially those with less experience, may well be hesitant to say much of anything at all. But Ben Seattle has now modified his scheme to allow for “private emails.” However, this would, at least in many cases, have the effect of reducing the “public” discussion to a caricature dominated by blowhards (ahem) while much of the real discussion (especially regarding the more contentious issues) would remain in the background. For anyone truly concerned with building a mass movement and genuinely bringing the masses into the process of developing leaflets (among many, many other things) this would seem to be a big problem.
I’m commenting because a friend (and SAIC member) solicited my opinion, and I suppose (though I could be wrong, and I feel a bit hypocritical given the content of my response) it’d be better for me to share my thoughts publicly than just with him.
There are a few points worth taking away from this exchange, which are mostly general and probably shared, to some extent, by all participants. I think these points are as follows:
1. It’s worth challenging groups such as ANSWER, ISO, SA and FSP, and the politics and tactics they put forth and represent. It’s not clear, or rather there is no consensus on, how this is best approached.
2. This challenge is not fulfilled in an off-the-cuff remark about a slogan in a leaflet.
3. Bickering over what is essentially a personality clash is not productive.
I could really do without the rest of the exchange, to be entirely honest. And as a radical activist in, essentially, extended hiatus from concentrated political activity, I don’t think that I’m alone. It’s this sort of behavior that I find immediately repulsive about all of the political cliques in Seattle, before even considering the particular politics of each respective organization.
I would not say that it is without worth for SAIC members and Ben Seattle to hash out their personal differences, but I would say that it is generally irrelevant to the subject matter presented in the post, or any conclusions that could be drawn therefrom. And, whatever I think about the particular political activities of SAIC and Ben Seattle, I am positive that this exchange would be off-putting to anyone who doesn’t already have a horse in the race.
As far as the post itself is concerned, there isn’t a lot I disagree with beyond general displeasure with the word “mass” in any context besides physics.
Hi Trevor,
First, I would like to thank you for having the courage to wade through this mess and make your comments public. I know that, to most readers, this thread appears to be mostly a morass of petty bickering and petty accusations.
You are by no means alone, Trevor, in finding yourself repelled by unnecessary drama and stupid arguments about nothing.
Activists are repelled by such behavior–because it is always a symptom of putting petty differences ahead of the needs of the movement. The movement must be first in our hearts and in our actions. It is as simple as that.
To the extent that I have contributed to a crippled or petty spirit in this thread–I repudiate these actions. There are important principles being discussed in this thread–but these principles can be difficult to recognize when masked by a high volume of meaningless sound and fury.
It is my conviction that activists must find a way to discuss important topics publicly–in full view of friend and foe alike. This is the road forward in order to overcome many of the traditional (and dysfunctional) practices that hold back the movement.
It is also my conviction that threads can only be useful (and understandable) to readers if the participants make every possible effort to avoid the appearance of personal attack–and to create a clean focus on the principles which are important to the movement.
This is key to creating exchanges that are productive and which attract (rather than repel) intelligent readers–and which will raise consciousness of the principles with the power to liberate the working class and all humanity.
Kyo wrote:
Ben Seattle’s comment about “private emails” also misses the point.
It ignores the polemical content of opposing leaflet drafts. ,
It ignores the fact that many drafts are not polished for public
presentation and scrutiny but consist largely of thoughts-out-loud,
so-to-speak. Would comrades tend to think twice about submitting
a half-finished leaflet draft if they knew it was going to be
a matter of public record which they would then be held
accountable for? Of course!
Ben replies:
Kyo, you appear to oppose the practice of “thinking out loud” in public on the grounds that whoever does this will be somehow held accountable (and, presumably, publicly whipped and humiliated) by a mysterious accountability entity. But this appears silly to me.
Are there any concrete examples of this phenomenon? It would be useful if you could provide an example or two in order to help focus this thread in a concrete way rather than to leave things at the level of being afraid of something which cannot be described.
If it is important–an example or two can be given.
I consider it important that we have the ability to make public comments, often quickly. I believe we need to develop a culture of openness which respects and takes into account the fact that we need (for purposes of speed and mass participation) unpolished comments (as well as more polished comments). The most natural way to develop this culture is to use forums with smaller audiences for the less finished comments and larger forums for comments which are more developed and all-sided.
Kyo wrote:
Ben Seattle has now modified his scheme to allow for “private emails”
Ben replies:
Your statement appears to imply, Kyo, that I have somehow opposed private emails in the past. This is not true. (By the way, is there any reason to put scare quotes around the phrase “private emails”? I believe this thread would be more accessible to readers if we wrote in a more normal way–like ordinary people.)
Kyo:
this would, at least in many cases, have the effect of reducing the “public” discussion to a caricature dominated by blowhards (ahem) while much of the real discussion (especially regarding the more contentious issues) would remain in the background.
Ben replies:
My experience is that important topics and principles can be discussed in public when we have a culture in which we make an effort to learn from one another and to treat one another with respect. I have seen what happens when this culture is present and when it is absent. Such a culture is necessary and serious activists are creating it every day. I view Trevor’s comments (above) as part of an effort to point out the necessity of such a culture. I hope, Kyo, that we can learn from comments by activists like Trevor–because his comments represent the deeply felt conclusions of many readers–who believe that everyone who wants to see the movement develop must make an effort to focus on what is real.
Ben Seattle, I never said nor implied that I oppose the practice of “thinking out loud.” What I oppose is your view that such thoughts should, as a matter of principle, be public when they are contained in leaflet drafts. I think it is often a good idea to publicly discuss drafts of various kinds, but this has to be judged on a case-by-case basis and your dogma of “political transparency” is worse than useless in this regard.
I am not aware of any revolutionaries, ever, adopting your principle so I am unable to provide concrete examples of what I am talking about.
I put “private emails” in quotes because I am quoting you and not for any other reason. I did not mean to imply that you “opposed private emails in the past” but was attempting to highlight an inconsistency in your principle. If “political transparency” is to be upheld as a matter of principle, then selectively departing from this (in favor of “private emails”), and pointing out ones ability to do this as an argument for your principle of “political transparency”…well, this would seem to indicate that you don’t take your own principle all that seriously. You would do well to theoretically ditch this as a principle and instead approach it as useful in some cases and a hindrance in others.
I agree that there needs to be a culture where ideas can be seriously discussed, people can learn from each other, etc., and work to create this. But this is not done by inventing principles regarding “political transparency,” nor is it done by working to divert any and all discussions to your theories of internet “information war.” In another words, I do not think your own practice does very much to assist the development of this culture.
Hi Kyo,
I opened this thread by notifying you of a defect in your leaflet that makes it easier for the reformist trends to isolate SAIC. I then followed up with two concrete and specific proposals that would help you avoid these kinds of errors in the future and write better leaflets:
(1) a wiki with pages for the various topics (such as opportunist trends) which required greater depth
(2) publicly posting leaflet drafts for comment and criticism before printing them
You dismissed my proposals because they supposedly:
(3) included a prohibition on private email and
(4) involve a risk of humiliation for anyone posting comments
It then turns out that both (3) and (4) are fictions that you appear to have invented. You admit I have never advocated prohibiting private email. And the risk of humiliation turns out to be a phenomenon of which you can give no concrete examples–because either you have exaggerated this risk or it simply does not exist.
I think you invent these kinds of fictions in order to waste the time of readers so that they will go away and not watch you attempt to dig your way out of a hole.
You are welcome to have the final word if you want. However it appears to me that this thread has already reached its conclusion: I knocked on the door and no one was home.
Ben Seattle, your two suggestions have been dealt with, in depth, in this thread. Instead of really dealing with what’s been written, your response has been to raise numerous diversions, while dishonestly reducing the number of my objections down to two ridiculous and fabricated points.
Regarding #3: At no point did I claim your schemes involved a “prohibition on private email.” (But do you deal with what I actually did write about “private emails”? No…)
Regarding #4: It is you who has intentionally muddied the waters by fabricating this nonsense about “humiliation.” (But did you deal with my point about “public polemics”? No…)
This is a pretty sad substitute for dealing with what I think are thoughtful objections to your hyped-up dogmas.
You can continually say your “time is limited” to explain why you have next to nothing to say about any live political issues confronting the workers and oppressed today. But I think this thread shows you do have a fair amount of time and what’s lacking is political will to depart from what you incorrectly see as the “decisive task,” i.e., using any and all pretexts to promote your schemes. This is why for several years your sole political activity has been badgering mainly SAIC, but also a few other groups, about a theory and program which you yourself have admitted SAIC will never adopt. Behind this practice lie class interests, but they’re not proletarian.
Ben Seattle refers to this thread as a mess, with a crippled or petty spirit, while going on about the higher culture that he allegedly stands for in his comment to Trevor.
But in the eleventh comment above I patiently showed how in defending something that he had written, Ben squirmed, consciously led us over hill and dale, falsely attributed words or stands to me, and resorted to self-contradictory arguments. In reply, Ben just brushed this all off: “Yes, I am sure you could fill an encyclopedia with all the examples of contradictions and dishonesty in my behavior that seem so clear and vivid to you;“ and “I have also been called dishonest and so forth.” So my comments weren’t even worthy of his consideration, they were just name-calling “and so forth.” I don’t think that this is the revolutionary culture that we strive to build.
Meanwhile, Ben left aside that his own political methods are real, and told Kyo and me that we must focus on what is real. This, of course, is really saying NOTHING since everyone on the left agrees with the general statement that we should focus on what is real. The problem for revolutionaries is to sort out WHAT to focus on among the trillions of things that are real in this world, and how.
Thus, for my part I think that the issue raised in this thread that SAIC should focus on is why it made the error of raising criticism of the “Money for jobs…“ slogan in the above leaflet. In my opinion if the committee does not correctly deal with the thinking that led to this error (which may be relatively minor when taken by itself) then it will be headed away from being the live force in the movements of the oppressed that it presently is. But we probably have as many views on this issue as we have comrades, so correctly sorting it out is going to require protracted thought and political struggle.
But it’s only through such internal struggles that organizations can really advance; and one of the things that inspires us to wage them is that today‘s movements so sorely lack organization. Hence, someone has to stand up to patiently build organization; and solid organization, revolutionary organization, is not going to be built on the internet.
Another important political question that came up in this thread is the posing of revolution AGAINST the struggles for reforms, i.e., stop asking for money for jobs, start asking the working class to join in the struggle to overthrow the system. True, SAIC has never made this error, but we’re under ideological pressure to make it, and there’s a danger of making it. Hence, I think we need more theoretical thought and study—focus if you well—on this issue too.
So to steal Ben’s lines, the movement will win if SAIC focuses on these political issues, and we will in this way be showing what is in our hearts. But most of Ben’s comments in this thread have not been focused on these political issues. Instead, he wants to talk about his proposal for posting of leaflet drafts, when SAIC members and all readers heard him the first time, the second time, the third time…and on and on, when this is a really secondary question. Yet if SAIC is to be a fighting organization of anti-imperialist activists it must fight to maintain its organizational integrity. This means struggling out the above political questions and many others, as an organization. And, of course, IF any member wants to put Ben Seattle’s proposal on the committee agenda it also means taking a decision on it.
I will reply to Frank out of respect to him as an activist whom I have known and greatly admired for many years:
Frank:
——
So my comments weren’t even worthy of his consideration,
they were just name-calling “and so forth.”
Ben replies:
————
This is true.
You take a lot of time to build palaces out of fairy dust and unicorn tears.
Frank:
——
I don’t think that this is the revolutionary culture
that we strive to build.
Ben replies:
————
Yes it is. We need a culture where we focus on what is real and important to the movement.
For SAIC members to better understand the thinking that led to the minor tactical blunder in the leaflet–the two concrete measures I have proposed (ie: wiki + public discussion of leaflet drafts) would help. It is valuable for SAIC activists to gain a better understanding of the thinking of other activists. Frank, you call this an “internal” struggle. The problem with this view is that it can lead to a practice where SAIC members tend to limit their discussions to one another. I believe it would be helpful to view this struggle as one which requires feedback from _many_ activists–including activists who are not in SAIC. SAIC (and the movement) need constructive and productive engagement focused on what is real and important to the movement.
Ben Seattle raised the same “proposal(s)” in six (6) different comments under this leaflet, and this is but one example of his endless hectoring of SAIC about his many proposals for winning the world on the internet.
I think that such activity is also called spamming.
And in reply to my diplomatic criticism of a political formulation of his (an alleged attempt by me to “nail” him!) he led us in circles for six paragraphs, while never making a clear admission of error. Further, throughout the thread he wrote paragraphs full of general truths interspersed with one-liners that had little or nothing to do with the discussion.
I think that this is commonly called being a wind bag. But if readers disagree, and want to read more of it, they can always go to Ben’s websites, websites that he very freely advertises on this site and others.
Nevertheless, according to Ben, “SAIC members…need to understand how to engage with others in a productive way. This appears to be a skill of which they have a lot to learn.”
Wonderful, is it not?