(3 of 3) -- Proletarian democracy requires independent organizations

["Ben Seattle" <Left-Transparency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

---( continued from part 2 of 3 )---

----------------------------------------
Cuba is not a model of workers' rule
for a country with an advanced economy
----------------------------------------

José cannot prove that the Cuban government does not suppress
revolutionaries and I cannot prove that they do.  I think that
most readers here will tend to side with José on this.  The
burden of proof is therefore on me--and I have no proof.

What I do believe is clear, however, is that Cuba cannot be
considered to be a model of workers' rule for a country with an
advanced economy.

I have outlined the reasons for this above (and in many other
posts).  We need to be thinking in terms of how proletarian
democracy will function in a country with an advanced economy and
that is relatively stable and secure.  Will the workers' state,
in such a country, send armed agents to break up meetings in the
homes of those who would like to see a return to capitalism?
Will leaflets (or web sites) that advocate a return to capitalism
be made illegal and punishable by prison?  Not in a society where
the revolutionary forces are strong and enjoy the stable support
of the overwhelming majority of the population.

The people who would like to see a return to capitalism will not
be able to use money (many of them will still have considerable
resources for a period of time) or hired labor to promote their
views.  They will be exposed and ridiculed and kicked out of one
influential forum after another.  But they will have few
opportunites to create "martyrs" who go to jail for their
beliefs.  And their audience and influence will steadily shrink.

----------------------------------------
"bubble boy" vs. strong immune system
----------------------------------------

The masses have a legitimate need to be exposed to reactionary
and counter-revolutionary views.  This is part of learning how to
think for themselves, how to decide for themselves what to accept
and what to reject.  This is part of developing a strong immune s
ystem.

In the medical world there used to be a phenomenon called "bubble
boys".  These were people who were born without a functioning
immune system.  Such people were kept in plastic "bubbles" to
avoid their coming into contact with germs that might have killed
them.  Unfortunately, many attempts at workers' rule have adopted
this model of protecting the working class from the influence of
bourgeois ideology.  And history has not been kind to these
attempts.

It is better to think in terms of a population with robust immune
systems.  It is better to make use of the various pathogens to
mobilize the revolutionary determination and vigilance of the
masses.  The struggles against backward or reactionary thinking
are ultimately struggles that will have to be waged by the
_masses_ themselves--who will learn how to take the initiative in
these struggles.  This struggle cannot be waged _for the masses_
by some external paternalistic agency.

Until we smash up the conception that the alternative to
bourgeois rule is a state machine that decides _for us_ what
ideas we are allowed to express (or even know about) we will not
be deserving of the respect of workers.  We must grasp this on
the level of theory.  Until we do this we simply continue a
situation where the goal of overthrowing bourgeois rule in the
imperialist countries--is something that we do not allow
ourselves to talk about or even think about.  This is the
concentrated essence of the theoretical crisis that has left our
movement paralyzed.  Until we, once again, pick up the weapon of
revolutionary theory our movement will be naked and on its knees
in the presence of our enemies.

----------------------------------------
Maintaining a revolutionary perspective
----------------------------------------

The primary theoretical error that José (and many others)
make is the failure to make a distinction between:

(a) a workers' rule in a country with a modern,
    advanced economy, and
(b) a classless society with no state at all.

Or, in other words, José is confusing Stage IV society with Stage
V society (ie: what most of us would call genuine communism).
This is why, in his earlier post of June 6, José implied that a
workers' state would find it necessary to suppress _all organized
activity_ of opposing trends--as long as imperialism existed
anywhere in the world.

But this is not correct.

What is correct is that a workers' state will continue to be
necessary as long as imperialism exists anywhere (and even for a
considerable period afterword).  This workers' state would exist
for the purpose of suppressing the resistence (and attempts at
restoration) of the former bourgeosie _as a class_.  But we
should not confuse defeating the efforts of the former
bourgeoisie as a class--with making it illegal for them to
associate with one another or create leaflets or web sites.  The
workers' state (and the masses and their independent
organizations) would defeat the resistence of the bourgeosie thru
the means that I have already outlined (ie: (1) the separation of
money and media, (2) the mass exposure of reactionary or
counter-revolutionary views and (3) the systematic filtering of
bourgeois apologists from the various independent political,
cultural or economic forums that have respect and influence).

The main problem with the error which is made by José, and so
many others, is that it leads to an abandonment of any
perspective of raising the consciousness of workers in the
imperialist countries about the necessity of overthrowing
bourgeois rule.  Hence we have the earnest suggestions from
sincere and dedicated activists that we think about Colombia (or
XYZ) _instead_.  Or we have the suggestion by José that we focus
instead on the weakest links where imperialist control is most
likely to break next.  José suggests that bourgeois rule will not
be overthrown in the imperialist countries until after a whole
series of countries have shattered direct imperialist control and
undermined the superprofits that enable imperialism to maintain
internal social peace.

My own view is that the relationship between superprofits and
social peace is often greatly exaggerated.  It may be correct
that social revolution will need to break out in a whole series
of oppressed countries before it breaks out in the imperialist
countries.  But  we should not use this to obscure or evade our
responsibilities to build a movement within the imperialist
countries that is aimed at the overthrow of bourgeois rule.

During the war of US imperialism against Vietnam a powerful
anti-war movement developed in the US.  Part of this movement
gave rise to a revolutionary current that was explicitly directed
at the overthrow of bourgeois rule in the US.  This current was
always small but its influence became large.  By 1970 or so
probably one quarter of college students in the US considered
themselves to be "revolutionaries" of one sort or another.  Now
it is probably an understatement to say that most of these
students did not have a very clear idea of what it meant to be a
revolutionary.  But this phenomenon had a very big impact on
society and led to the emergence and growth of a number of
radical groups.  Many or most participants of this list received
political experience or training in these groups.

So what is my point?

My point is that real internationalism consists, above all, in
working to organize the workers, in the country where you live,
to overthrow their "own" bourgeoisie.  This is the greatest
assistance we can give to the struggling masses in Nicaragua,
Cuba, Colombia or anywhere else for that matter.  The most
militant and solid ideological core of the anti-imperialist
movement is the understanding that imperialism must be destroyed
and that this is synonomous with the overthrow of bourgeois rule.
Thousands (or hundreds of thousands, depending on how you
measure) of activists reached this conclusion in the US in the
late 1960's and early 1970's and this was a frightening
development to US imperialism which was concerned (quite
accurately) that if the war continued this movement would
continue to grow in quantity and quality.  In fact, at one point,
the Democrats accused the Republicans, in the Senate, of
fomenting revolution by continuing the war.

----------------------------------------
Integration
----------------------------------------

Now some may wish to accuse me of sectarianism or say that I am
implying that the work to expose the crimes of US imperialism in
Cuba, Columbia, etc should somehow be abandoned in favor of
building sectarian grouplets.  I hope that all participants here
have greater maturity than to make such accusations.  What I am
saying is that solidarity work can and should be combined with a
revolutionary outlook that raises consciousness of the _source_
of imperialist intervention (ie: a political and economic system
of imperialism) and a _solution_ to the problem (ie: the
overthrow of the system of bourgeois rule).  And I am saying
that, in order to do this effectively, we must recognize and
smash up the principal theoretical obstacle that defends
bourgeois rule--the notion that  _t_h_e_r_e_  _i_s_  _n_o_
_a_l_t_e_r_n_a_t_i_v_e_.  The alternative to bourgeois rule is
workers' rule.  But we must have the ability to understand
workers' rule in a realistic way.  If our conceptions of workers'
rule are restricted to a police state that tells you what you are
allowed to say (or to know about) -- then we don't really
_h_a_v_e_  a conception that we can effectively
_i_n_t_e_g_r_a_t_e_  with the rest of our political work.

----------------------------------------
José retreats
----------------------------------------

José:
> My objection to your speculations about the "shape"
> of workers democracy in the U.S. is that it seems
> to me you have many useful insights and ideas, but
> then you take this and make them into some sort of
> norm and standard by which to measure Cuban reality,
> and of course reality is found wanting.

I think that José and I are moving closer to an understanding.  I
strongly suspect that, after 40 years, the Cuban government
should not feel itself so threatened by people who want to
organize protests of various types.  Some (not all) of these
protests would probably be quite useful.  But I cannot prove my
point, mainly because my ignorance of Cuba and Cuban conditions
is too vast.

But my contradiction with José did not originate in discussion of
Cuba.  This should be kept in mind.  My contradiction with José
began when I replied to the June 1 post by Gunnar Kreku [4], a
Swedish bus driver, who said that we need a better understanding
of "the socialism we want" and must take into account the
failures in the Soviet Union and China.  I replied the next day
[5] to both Gunnar and Chris Brady.  Chris had said that "like
Wallace, Nader offers no comprehensive alternative to
capitalism".  I replied "Neither do we".  I then went ahead and
outlined the _theoretical crisis_ that prevents us from being
able to talk about or think about how workers' rule will function
in a country with an advanced economy.

At this point there was no mention of Cuba or Cuban reality.

This is the point where José entered the action [6].  José said
that my speculations were "hopelessly lost in space", that
consideration of how workers' rule would function in a country
with an advanced economy was a "happy problem" that I was dealing
with by "drawing up utopian plans and schemas" that belonged to
the "pre-history of the socialist movement".

I replied [7] on June 6 and emphasized the importance, in "a
modern society with a modern economy", of the right of workers to
create independent organizations.  José replied later that same
day [8] to ridicule the notion that the right of workers to
create organizations that were independent of the state
machine--had any relation to their ability to control that state
machine.  José then added, in the next sentence:

> Which brings me quite logically to Cuba.
> I believe the Cuban revolution gives
> a good example of what SHOULD be done.

So the actual history of this discussion shows that it came up in
the exact opposite way from how José thinks it came up.  I was
focused on, and discussing, the theoretical black hole that
prevents us from talking about or thinking about how workers'
rule would function in a country with a modern economy and
infrastructure.  José entered this discussion in order to oppose
the idea that independent organizations were necessary in a
modern economy.  José introduced Cuban reality to support his
argument that I had put things "upside down" by asserting the
need for independent organizations .  Now José is complaining
when I make it clear that the methods that are used by the Cuban
government to deal with its opponents would be both unnecessary
and extremely impractical in a country with a modern economy.

What should be clear is that José has _retreated_ from his
original position.  José is no longer claiming that the methods
used by the Cuban government would be applicable to workers' rule
in a country with a modern economy.  But José still fails to
recognize the necessity of independent organizations.  Here is
his opening paragraph in his most recent post:

> The question isn't, I don't think, the "independence"
> of the workers organizations, but the "dependence,"
> the practical subordination of the
> bureaucratic-administrative-military state apparatus
> to the working class ORGANIZED as a ruling class.

I have seen the phrase "working class organized as a ruling
class" hundreds of times.  Heck, I have probably used it myself a
few hundred times back when I thought my organization, the
Marxist-Leninist Party-USA, understood this question.  I have
come to the conclusion that we should regard as charlatans (or
clueless) anyone who uses this phrase in the context of a modern
society--if they fail to recognize the necessity of workers
having the right to create independent organizations.

José:
> It may seem that what's going on in Cuba is
> small potatoes compared to your dreams of what
> American workers democracy may be like ...

I have no doubt that the Cuban experience is worth study by the
revolutionary working class (both in regard to its strengths and
weaknesses).  But that does not mean that all of the Cuban
methods will be emulated.  The Soviet revolutionary experience of
1921-22 is also worth study--but that does not mean that we will
find it useful or practical to deal with our opponents in the
same way that Lenin found it necessary to deal with many of his.

I do not know to what extent the "Cuban reality" described by
José actually fits Cuba.  I will leave this to others who may or
may not wish to take this up.  But I would like to see José
acknowlege that:

(1) The methods used by the Cuban
    government to suppress its opponents
    are not applicable to workers' rule
    in a country with a modern economy.

(2) He will give active thought to the ideological
    obstacles that prevent us from talking about
    or thinking about workers' rule in
    the countries with advanced economies

(3) The "dream" of workers' democracy in a
    country with a modern economy (like the US)
    is his dream also and should be a dream and
    inspiration to all progressive activists.

________________________________________
Information war wants to be free
to serve the working class

Ben Seattle
----//-// 5.Sep.2000
www.Leninism.org

     ========================================================
     Read "Notes of an Information Theorist"
     --------------------------------------------------------
     Watch Ben apply the tactics of "information war"
     (characterized by intelligent listening and calm,
     scientific argument) to help transform the marxism space
     into a powerful weapon against bourgeois rule.
     --------------------------------------------------------
     Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/theorist/
     To subscribe: theorist-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
     ========================================================

----------------------------------------
Notes:
----------------------------------------

---[1]---

  see section: Lenin on a Bolshevik "two-party system"
  Title: "Workers' rule and the mass media", Feb 5, 1999
  At: http://Leninism.org/stream/99/zhang/wr_mmedia.asp

---[2]---

  From: Carrol Cox
  Date: 03 Sep 2000 15:32:29 -0500
  Subject; [CrashList] What is really worth talking about
  http://lists.wwpublish.com/pipermail
       /crashlist/2000-September/000836.html

---[3]---

  (contains the referenced quote)
  From: Ben Seattle
  Subject: Breaking the taboo against
           serious thought (reply to Macdonald)
  Date: Fri Jul 14, 2000 7:34am
  http://www.egroups.com/message/theorist/26

---[4]---

  From: Gunnar Kreku
  Subject: The socialism we want
  Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:25:08 -0700
  www.mail-archive.com/marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg04345.html

  Note to anyone viewing this thru the eGroups archive:
  the URL following the "@" sign is:
            lists.panix.com/msg04345.html

---[5]---

  From: Ben Seattle
  Subject: Vision of a better world ?  We don't have one.
  Date: Friday, June 02, 2000 10:33 AM
  http://www.egroups.com/message/theorist/22

---[6]---

  From: José G. Perez
  Subject: Re: Vision of a better world ? We don't have one.
  Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:32:02 -0700
  www.mail-archive.com/marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg04387.html

  Note to anyone viewing this thru the eGroups archive:
  the URL following the "@" sign is:
            lists.panix.com/msg04387.html

---[7]---

  From: Ben Seattle
  Subject: Unwitting accomplices of Margaret
           Thatcher's T.I.N.A. (reply to José G. Perez)
  Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 01:58:09 -0700
  http://www.egroups.com/message/theorist/24

---[8]---

  From: José G. Perez
  Subject: Workers Democracy & Workers Power in a
           workers state (a reply to Ben Seattle)
  Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:53:03 -0700
  www.mail-archive.com/marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg04553.html

  Note to anyone viewing this thru the eGroups archive:
  the URL following the "@" sign is:
            lists.panix.com/msg04553.html

<>