seattle indymedia center

since the html version of this article did not print very well I will add the links here:

this article:
 http://struggle.net/ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm

part 2:
 http://struggle.net/ben/2005/rcp_hot_air.htm

The Media Weapon community:
 http://MediaWeapon.com

god bless ya, Ben, you do try, but I don't think you have any more idea of how to "mobilize the multitudes" than the RCP does. And I think you stand in danger of making a fetish of your digital revolution concept. Any revolution that comes to the US is going to be very, very hard fought(and very far off). Igoring the problem of the persistance of the bourgeoise after the Great Change will not make the problem go away--nice sounding rhetoric about mass democracy in the USA is not going to do it. Wishful thinking. These folks are packing nukes, Ben, and they are not going to just let you Nintendo your way to communism--these folks are not corrupt feudalists, they employ science to their advantage. They will fight to the bitter end--just as Hitler did, but on a global scale, though Adolf almost made it there. But I do agree with you on the fact that we are not yet under fascism.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Colin.

> god bless ya, Ben, you do try, but I don't think
> you have any more idea of how to "mobilize the
> multitudes" than the RCP does.

Well, for starters, I think we need to give activists an accurate analysis of how society works -- and how the left works. This is something in which the RCP is quite weak. It is certainly true that I don't have all the answers. But I can say this: in order to get the answers -- the serious activists will need to create a community in which they can talk to one another. This Indymedia board (with all the abuse from right-wing trolls and the emotionally immature) cannot be the basis for such a community. The Media Weapon community (at  http://MediaWeapon.com ) may (or may not) eventually do better.

> And I think you stand in danger of making a
> fetish of your digital revolution concept.

Lots of people think that. You have some very good company.

> Any revolution that comes to the US is going
> to be very, very hard fought (and very far off).

This may (or may not) be. My guess, as far as timeframe, is it may take place sometime around the middle of this century. But in any event, it can only help if we are able to conceptualize (ie: understand well enough to talk about in an intelligent way) various alternative ways (some with more bloodshed and some with less) that this may unfold. The working class movement may, via a combination of force and diplomacy, have the ability to arrange a transition that does not involve Armageddon.

> Ignoring the problem of the persistance of the bourgeoise
> after the Great Change will not make the problem go
> away--nice sounding rhetoric about mass democracy in the
> USA is not going to do it.

My work (part 7 of the anarcho-leninist debate on the state at  http://struggle.net/ALDS is a good place to start) deals at length with how the working class will restrain bourgeois influence (and attempts at restoration) after they have broken the system of bourgeois rule. It will not be all that difficult in a modern society because so many millions will be politicaly conscious and assisting this process with their energy and enthusiasm.

However none of this can happen without a movement in society -- and we cannot create a movement that is deserving of the respect of the working class if we fail to understand mass democracy.

> Wishful thinking. These folks are packing nukes, Ben,
> and they are not going to just let you Nintendo your
> way to communism--these folks are not corrupt feudalists,
> they employ science to their advantage. They will fight
> to the bitter end--just as Hitler did, but on a global
> scale, though Adolf almost made it there. But I do
> agree with you on the fact that we are not yet under
> fascism.

Yes, the bourgeoisie has nukes and yes, as they contemplate their overthrow, the possibility exists that they may use them. So we need to take a serious, conscious attitude toward this in order to decrease this possibility. The working class and masses will increasingly have the ability to make themselves conscious. This will be non-negotiable. Other things may be negotiable for a temporary period. It is likely that a section of the bourgeoisie will recognize that its time is up -- and settle for a world in which they will be able to live on a similar basis as others -- rather than seek apocalypse or Gotterdammerung.

Is it just the RCP? Are they crying wolf?

I'm not sure this is just a propaganda tactic. They clearly believe that something qualitatively different is happening in the US government -- and I share the fear.

Is it just "compelling material interest" that leads the ruling class to install fascism, or is it more complicated than that?

It can be argued that there are "compelling" interests that have unleashed the new war against everyone -- and the changes in legal structure, collapse of the Democrats as anything like an effective opposition and well-developed social base for fascism are all real.

Delay. Gonzalez. Rumsfeld. These are names we know. What about the Christian fundamentalists who are largely running the Pentagon? What about the purges of the CIA? What is the effect of media consolidation? And so on...

I think the RCP's analysis is correct in terms of the danger we are facing. I also think that radicals need to think through what the implications of it are for what they are doing now. The right isn't playing around. They are very focused and intent on putting this country together in a vastly more repressive and militarist way. They publically defend torture -- something the Nazis didn't even do!

The distribution of the RCP paper is also something to take note of. It's not enough to put flyers up in hip bars and East Village bathrooms. People need to be thinking in the millions with everything they do.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. These are important
questions and all discussion is welcome.

> Is it just "compelling material interest"
> that leads the ruling class to install fascism,
> or is it more complicated than that?

99 percent of the complication lies in accurately
understanding the compelling material interest at
stake.

The changes we have seen since 9-11 (ie: the wars
in Afganistan and Iraq, the increasing repression
at home, the refusal of the Democratic Party to
lift a finger to oppose any of this) are a clear
reflection of the class interest of the bourgeoisie.

The Soviet Union collapsed. Now is the time for
U.S. imperialism to establish unrivalled hegemony
over the Middle East and the world's oil supply
in order to better compete against European
imperialism and what is left of Russian power
and to prepare for inevitable conflict with the
rising power of China. Oil is the most strategic
of commodities and control of the largest oil
reserves in the world (ie: permanent military
bases in the heart of the Middle East next to
Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc) will give
U.S. imperialism immense leverage for decades
against both India and China which need oil for
development.

But the bourgeoisie does not have a compelling
need for fascism at this time. Bush will push,
of course, but will not exceed the limits of
his leash. Bush is irritated at the confines
of his leash -- but if he failed to respect
this leash he would be bounced around like a
rubber ball.

The bourgeoisie has much to _lose_ by unleashing
fascism. I advanced three arguments in my essay
above. I repeat them here:

Such a desperate course of action by the bourgeoisie would:
(a) instantly politicize tens of millions of people,
(b) destablize the entire system of bourgeois rule and
(c) destroy illusions in the bourgeois political system
. that the bourgeoisie has carefully crafted and
. painstakingly cultivated over many decades.

We need to understand these arguments concretely.
A good start would be to recognize that they require
a reply.

> What about the Christian fundamentalists who are
> largely running the Pentagon? What about the purges
> of the CIA?

What about them? What do these things prove? Different
sections of the bourgeoisie will have squabbles with
one another. It is fine to be aware of these squabbles
but we should be careful not to exaggerate their
significance. The main thing to keep in mind -- is
that the bourgeoisie is united by its common class
interest -- and this common class interest requires
keeping society running in a smooth and stable way.
Fascism is notoriously unstable. Bourgeois class
interests are better served (under present circumstances)
by a system that keeps the majority of the population
complacent and under the illusion that they live in a
"democracy".

In my view, browser, your thinking tends to overlook
the fact that the bourgeoisie cannot rule by force
alone -- cannot rule without political deception.

If the Christian fundamentalists even thought about
slipping their leash -- they would be disciplined
and humiliated. The general who recently talked
about how much fun it is to kill people, for example,
was told to shut up. The bourgeoisie as a whole
(and in particular the section which specializes
in political deception -- the liberals) understands
that a ounce of political deception can be more
effective (and cheaper) than a ton of force -- and
that the fascist-minded who talk too loud must
have their mouths washed out with soap lest they
give the game away.

It is important to undertand how our society really
works and to understand that the bourgeoisie would
not be able to maintain their class rule for very
long without the effective use of political
deception. Understanding this will energize and
motivate activists -- because as we build a
conscious movement we will build with it an
increasingly powerful weapon that will puncture
the political deception of the bourgeoisie.

And this will change everything.

> The distribution of the RCP paper is also
> something to take note of. It's not enough
> to put flyers up in hip bars and East Village
> bathrooms. People need to be thinking in the
> millions with everything they do.

Yes it is a very good thing that the RCP is
developing a machine that can distribute a
million leaflets independent of the mainstream
bourgeois media. But this cannot amount to much
if the RCP is unable to defend its views in forums
such as this one.

Finally, browser, since you have made the same post
in response to my article on Indymedia sites in
New York, Chicago, DC, Denver and Seattle -- I will
make it easier for you if you want to expand your
challenge.

I have posted on the following theads:

 http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/244358.shtml
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310064.shtml
 http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/122188.php
 http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1719881.php
 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/1710707.php
 http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display/21620/index.php
 http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/37243.php
 http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10161/index.php
 http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/33323/index.php
 http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/36407/index.php
 http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=6512
 http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/52350/index.php
 http://michiganimc.org/newswire/display/9305/index.php
 http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/116938/index.php
 http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/140883/index.php
 http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/14568.php
 http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/06/0751235

Go ahead. Reply to me elsewhere (I think that supporters
of the RCP may need a little help, if not adult supervision,
in Atlanta). I am in favor of wider discussion.

Sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben

Reply from Carl Davidson

Ben:

Even though I am often at odds with the RCP, I think they are at least right to raise the danger of fascism and put it on the table. We can argue about its nature or how impending it is, but I agree the question is serious and worthy of more discussion.

As for your position. You say:

Query to Ben:

> What about the Christian fundamentalists who are
> largely running the Pentagon? What about the
> purges of the CIA?

You answer:

"What about them? What do these things prove? Different sections of the bourgeoisie will have squabbles with one another. It is fine to be aware of these squabbles but we should be careful not to exaggerate their significance. The main thing to keep in mind -- is that the bourgeoisie is united by its common class interest -- and this common class interest requires keeping society running in a smooth and stable way.

"Fascism is notoriously unstable. Bourgeois class
interests are better served (under present circumstances) by a system that keeps the majority of the population complacent and under the illusion that they live in a 'democracy'."

-----

My Point:

You belittle these divisions by referring to them as 'squabbles' that are more or less around all the time, while the class unity of the bourgeosie is fundamental. I think we need to look at each period of history concretely, in its own context first.

It's true that the bourgeosie prefers stability and, in most cases, bourgeois democratic forms of rule to mask their armed power--both the hangman and the priest, as Lenin said. They need both.

But I think you're missing two important points.

Part of the argument in the ruling circles at this point is precisely on the need for stability. the anti-Bush folks believe his unilateralist approach is bringing great instabilty to the world.

Which leads to the second point.

These 'squabbles' are taking place, not only within the US ruling class, but on a world scale. In the past, it was mainly between rival national bourgeosies, even if the bourgeosies in question spread their tentacles wide and had offices and plants in many countries.

But I would argue that there is something new on the rise, ie, a truly global capitalist class-in-the making, a force with no national loyalties. This rising global force finds itself in sharp conflict--not with every section of the US bourgeosie, since it has local representatives, here and in other countries--but mainly which the Bush hegemonists who still believe that this is their 'unipolarar moment,' rather than the more realistic view that this is a multipolar world.

This is why the like of Soros and other globalists worked so hard to defeat Bush, precisely because they see him and his particular sector of class forces, as a threat to the global stability they crave.

To defeat their effort to unseat him, Bush & Co. rallied the Christian Zionist right, which is now demanding advances on its own agenda, and posing threats to stability, both at home and abroad.

Therein lies the fascist danger. Not ready for a full fledged takeover imminently, but a danger we need to defeat nonetheless.

In brief, I think this is not the time to stress the 'unity' of the bourgeois' and to minimize their so-called 'squabbles.' A much different course and way of seeing thing is required at this time in our history.


---------------
Reply from Ben Seattle

Hi Carl,

Thanks for your reply. I believe it serves the movement to have our differences in the open.

> I would argue that there is something new on the rise,
> ie, a truly global capitalist class-in-the making,
> a force with no national loyalties.

This is an interesting analysis and it may even contain a particle or two of truth. However, George Soros notwithstanding, the bourgeoisie remains organized on a national basis and this is not going to substantially change within our lifetimes.

Lenin summed it up in his famous book on imperialism. National economies (and the ability to wage war) grow at an uneven rate and result in redivisions of hegemony over global resources (such as labor markets and petroleum). These redivisions sometimes take place without war -- but recourse to war is inevitable because there is no other way to determine, with certainty, which imperialist power is strong enough to win. The only way to end war is to overthrow the economic and political system of imperialism. And this means doing away with the class rule of the bourgeoisie. This is the bottom line and it will not be changed by fancy talk about the development of a global capitalist class. This notion was wrong when it was advanced by Karl Kautsky. Guess what? It is still wrong today.

> I think this is not the time to stress the 'unity'
> of the bourgeois' and to minimize their so-called
> 'squabbles.' A much different course and way of
> seeing thing is required at this time in our history.

For activists like you, Carl, there never is a good time to create clarity on the nature of our enemy.

I find it very enlightening that a social-democrat like you, Carl, defends the analysis of the RCP -- which holds that the fascist danger is so great that activists must give up a sober appraisal of the class interests and class forces which shape modern society and which enable Bush and company to carry our war abroad and to increase repression at home.

The bourgeoisie promotes the theory of "two power centers". The political trend of social-democracy (which is subservient to bourgeois interests) promotes the idea that we can ally ourselves to one of these power centers in order to defeat the other.

This is the biggest and oldest con game in the world.

This is the theory promoted by the Democratic Party and its army of reformist apologists. Instead of building a movement which is independent of bourgeois influence and oriented toward the working class, the reformists preach to us that we should unite with powerful forces who will supposedly help us "defeat Bush" if we only give up our independence and principles and allow ourselves to be blindfolded and lobotomised. This is the lie used by the Democratic Party to suck the life and militancy out of the antiwar movement.

My opposition to the main point of the RCP's leaflet (ie: the promotion of hysteria about impending fascism) was centered on the fact that this analysis tended to support the idea that we should unite with "powerful forces" to "defeat the fascist threat". The RCP did not spell this out in so many words. Nor does Carl spell it out in so many words. But this is Carl's line -- and it fits together with the RCP's line like two locking pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben

See related article:
"How to build a powerful antiwar movement"
 http://struggle.net/Ben/2005/0120-how-to.htm


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

Reply from Carl Davidson

Dear Ben:

You argue that the bourgeoisie remains organized on a national basis and this is not likely to change in our lifetime. You refer to Lenin's 'Imperialism' to back your argument up.

That's part of your problem, Ben. I've read Lenin's 'Imperialism' many times and it contains many fine lessons. But it was written more than 80 years ago, long before the recent revolution in the means of production, ie, the information revolution, that is assisting in the rise of the global capitalist class. In brief, things have changed a bit, Ben, and if you want to understand what's going on today, you have to supplement Lenin with a more up-to-date analysis. If he were around, that's certainly what he would do.

I figured you would come back with Kautsky and the theory of 'Ultra-imperialism.' That doesn't bother me; it might do us all well to take another look at some of his arguments. Just because he was wrong on the Russian revolution and WW1 doesn't mean everything he said was trash, especially in view of how the Soviet project eventually turned out. Even Lenin refered to him as a major theoretician at an earlier point, although Lenin certainly trashed the ultra-imperialism line, and rightly so, for his period.

But even so, I would suggest some of the more modern bourgeois writers like Wriston, Stiglitz or Svieby might help get you up to date with what's going on in the world today. Otherwise, just to limit ourselves to re-reading Lenin, we're left with the prognosis of a new round of inter-imperialist war, say, between the US and France? Or Russia? I don't think so.

You want us to be independent of the Democrats and become more oriented to the working class. But what does this mean, concretely? It's can't mean to adopt the views of most of the white workers, since they went for Bush. It can't mean most of the minority workers, since they went for Kerry. It can't mean the workers' organizations, the unions, since they are firmly connected to the Democrats, with some playing footsie with the GOP. It can't be the various socialist groups in the US, since you think they're all social-democratic or revisionist sellouts.

So it means one of two things. You have a metaphysical conception of what the working class, ie, sort of like Plato's forms, that we need to orient ourselves to. Or we need to orient ourselves to the true expression of the class line represented by the works of Ben Seattle. Thanks, but no thanks on both counts.

I do agree that we need to develop our own analysis, strategy and tactics for the mass struggles that are a counter-hemononic project not only to oppose the Democrats, but to replace them with a new organization that a majority of workers and others among the masses would see as their own. I would like it to reflect the market socialist ideas in Schweickart's book, 'After capitalism' for starters. And, finally on this score, I'm hardly a social-democrat; if you want to pin an old label on me, try neo-Bukharianite Gramscian revisionist instead. It's more accurate.

You probablt know where our views can be found, but in case others are interested, try

 http://www.cyrev.net and
 http://www.solidarityeconomy.net

But all this is beside the point initially raised, the current danger of fascism. I tried to take it seriously and suggest why it is rising at this time. I agree some of the RCP stuff is more than a bit hyper. But besides some old dogmas, you don't have much new and concrete to say, which would be much more interesting to hear from you about. I've read many of your works, appreciate some of them, and know you can do better.

Have you studied the new Christian fascists? What do you think of them? Can we just pooh-pooh and ignore them and aim our main blow at the liberals? Or do we have to counter them in some way, especially since they have some foothold in the working class?

All this is much more interesting than getting in a pissing match about who can better quote the classics written 80 to 160 years ago, which I can do just as well as you, but in the end is quite boring.

Seriously, Ben, let's try to get this discussion on a better level.

Hi Carl and everyone,

I will keep this short.

I added a section to my page at  http://struggle.net/Ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm which shows that Carl Davidson and his fellow former radical sell-out, Tom Hayden, argue that it is fine for "progressive" Democrats to vote for money and additional troops for the Iraq war. This is part of their plan to magically transform the imperialist Democratic Party into an antiwar party. This treachery is really aimed at transforming the antiwar movement into a pro-war movement. Carl may not understand this even though he is now an instrument of this treachery because years of involvement with Democratic Party politics have destroyed much of the integrity and backbone that he may have once had.

Carl writes as though I am only concerned with matters 80 years ago. The simple truth is that I oppose the efforts of the flunkies of the Democratic Party, today, to liquidate the antiwar movement.

If Carl is sincere about continuing this discussion he is welcome to join the pof-200 email list which I maintain. The pof-200 list is focused on the crisis of theory that has paralyzed the revolutionary movement as well as other tasks which are decisive in the struggle to overthrow bourgeois rule. The pof-200 list allows all subscribers to post once a week.

More about the list can be found at:  http://MediaWeapon.com

Currently the list includes about 70 subscribers. I would like to see the list include experienced activists with a range of political views. I would also like to see Carl on this list because I am working to help activists on the list to better understand the nature and results of reformist treachery. Carl would be a perfect example. I can tell Carl that, despite his treachery and the fact that his actions serve the bourgeoisie, he will be treated with respect on the pof-200 list. This is a reasonable and appropriate compromise since Carl's participation on the list would help subscribers there better understand the nature of our enemy.

Ben Seattle -- February 13, 2005
 http://struggle.net/ben