Fw: [Cuba SI] Proletarian democracy requires independent organizations

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

Hi everyone,

This post, forwarded from the Cuba Si list, may serve to
summarize the recent discussion on proletarian democracy (which
ended up on a Cuban detour).  All I will add, to Per Rasmussen's
request for a concrete illustration, is an example of the need
for independent organizations even after bourgeois rule is
overthrown.

Consider a workers' state that is considering building a major
dam somewhere.  The dam will have a major ecological impact but
will also provide much needed power.  (I am picking an example
where the various factors are complex--because in real life such
issues often are very complex.)  In a genuine workers' state
there would be room for organizations in favor of the dam as well
as organizations which oppose the building of the dam.  There
might also be organizations with alternative solutions (ie: a
series of smaller dams somewhere else, or simply better
compensation for those who will be relocated, etc).  These
organizations would collect information and write leaflets (and,
in a modern economy, create web sites, etc) and seek to mobilize
public opinion and influence public policy.

The real life inspiration for such a scenario are controversial
dams in India and China (such as the Three Gorges Dam).  In a
real workers' state the decision making process, the various
complex considerations, would take place under conditions of
transparency, would rely on the consciousness of the masses and
drew the masses into struggle.

Since the situation is genuinely complex, the usefulness of
competing organizations should be clear:
(1) they help to overcome one-sidedness because
      they collect, refine and distribute information
      about one side or another of the issue, and
(2) they help to stimulate the thinking of the masses;
     draw the masses into active participation into
     important questions and raise the educational
     level and consciousness of the masses.

The opposite view, supposedly justified anytime a country is
under seige, has been provided by José: Fidel's maxim that
"division in the face of the enemy is not an intelligent and
revolutionary strategy".  With this view the administrative
apparatus collects the information, makes the "correct"
decision--and those who oppose this decision are not allowed to
work with one another to mobilize public opinion against it.

Seige conditions are very costly for a country and in some
extreme conditions (for example Russia in the early twenties) it
has been necessary to suppress independent organizations.  The
complicating factor is that democratic rights can be used by the
enemy, used by imperialism.  (And there are similar
considerations in relation to the right to national
self-determination--because this also must be understood as a
democratic right--but I do not have time to go there.)  But it is
our obligation to think for ourselves and examine closely, with
great skepticism, any claim that seige conditions make necessary
the immense cost of suppressing independent organizations.

Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
----//-// 13.Sep.2000
www.Leninism.org
www.egroups.com/group/theorist/

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle <left-transparency@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cubasi@xxxxxxxxxxx <cubasi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: theorist@xxxxxxxxxxx <theorist@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Cuba SI] Proletarian democracy requires independent
organizations


Brief replies to Per and Dan,

Per Rasmussen:
> Independent - and independent organizations
> - what does that mean concrete?

Hi Per,

Thanks for your question.

It would mean a whole lot of organizations of all kinds that deal
with the entire range of economic, cultural and political
questions--and mobilize public opinion on matters large and
small.  It would mean that you don't need anyone's _permission_
to associate with people who think like you do--or to carry out
common work to win people to your views.

It would mean vigorous public debate--with nothing and no
one beyond criticism.  It would also mean that organizations like
the PSRDC would have the right to exist and create leaflets as
long as the leaflets were not paid for by money from either
bourgeois or foreign sources.

In a country with a modern economy it would mean that web sites
were essentially uncensored as long as they were created with
volunteer labor and were not paid for by money from either
bourgeois or foreign sources.  (I am not speaking here of extreme
cases, such as incitement of racist attack, etc.)

It would mean that organizations like the PSRDC, which appear to
support a return to capitalism, would be opposed by "normal"
means (exposure, denunciation, ridicule) rather than with prison
or the threat of prison.  And it would also mean that any correct
views that such an organization might have would also circulate
and interact with others.  And it would mean that the masses
would play an greatly expanded role in determining what was
backward and what was progressive.

________________________________________

Dan:

> You seem to be saying that we need a detailed vision
> (or theory) of just how socialism or communism will
> work-- one that will "sell" to the working classes of
> the advanced capitalist countries.  [...]

> Maybe what is needed is not so much a detailed vision
> of some future utopia  [...]

You are a good man, Dan, and I admire your dedication.  José
started out this way also.  I dealt with this at length in my
post.  The problem is that many intelligent and dedicated
activists refuse to talk about (or think about) what should be
the goal at the center of our work: life without bourgeois rule.

Supposedly, life without bourgeois rule in the country where we
live is "utopian" or some kind of childish dream.  And so
therefore we should not talk about it or think about it.

We do _not_ need to talk about utopia nor about a detailed vision
of anything.  We _do_ need to be able to talk about life without
bourgeois rule in a way that does not insult the intelligence of
anyone who has not had a lobotomy.  Based on what I have seen--we
do not have this ability at present.  We cannot answer even the
most simple questions we get from workers without bombarding them
with empty and stupid generalizations that insult their
intelligence.

If we don't talk about life without bourgeois rule--people will
still hear about it--from the bourgeoisie.  People will hear,
from the bourgeoisie, that the only alternative to bourgeois rule
is a police state that will create less wealth than capitalism
and seek to permanently exterminate all political life.

I asked José several questions in my post.  He has not answered
them.  Maybe you could answer for him?  Unless I receive some
substantive reply there is not much else for me to say.  I must
respect the limits of my time.  And, further, there is probably
not much more I can add without boring readers to death.

> This is precisely were Cuba has shown the way.
> They first overthrew capitalism in their country and
> then, thanks to an enligthenend leadership, evolved
> into an advanced form of democracy over the years.
> But there is no reason that it couldn't work the other
> way in other countries, i.e., instituting electoral
> reforms first.

There is a reason it would not work Dan.  The reason is that the
bourgeoisie are not in favor of meaningful electoral reforms.
The bourgeoisie will not _allow_ meaningful reforms.  The
bourgeoisie is capable and experienced at siphoning the energy of
naive activists into a black hole.

It is interesting to consider the arguments put forward by the
right wing in this regard.  They say that if real limits are
placed on campaign contributions--that the "media" (ie:
newspapers, magazines, TV, Hollywood, etc) would have a
disproportionate amount of influence relative to the other
industries.

Since you and I know that the media and communications industries
are run by the capitalists and have the power to shape public
opinion--how would you propose to curb their power?  Under
workers' rule the workers' state will have jurisdiction over all
forms of commercial media.  But the capitalists would never
permit even a bourgeois state to regulate their ability to
bombard us with their ideology.

> In my opinion, if we take care of democracy,
> socialism can take care of itself. Socialism,
> after all, is nothing more the democratization
> of all aspects of political and economic life.
> It would be the natural outcome of any truly
> democratic process.

The bourgeoisie is a _conscious_ class.  It is organized and
fully capable of action to defend its vital interests.  The
bourgeoisie will not allow any "truly democratic process".
Ultimately bourgeois rule will have to overthrown by a mass
movement organized around this goal.  Such a mass movement will
require a very high level of consciousness from activists.  And
we cannot organize around a goal if we do not allow ourselves to
think about it.

Sincerely,
Ben Seattle
----//-// 13.Sep.2000
www.Leninism.org
www.egroups.com/group/theorist/









Cuba SI - Imperialism NO!
Information and discussion about Cuba.
Socialism or death! Patria o muerte! Venceremos!
http://www.egroups.com/group/cubasi

Subscribe:  cubasi-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  cubasi-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
Change Delivery Options: http://www.egroups.com/mygroups