seattle indymedia center

Hi everyone,

The real topic of Carl's post is not me -- it is the role of the Democratic Party in the antiwar movement.

Is the Democratic Party an imperialist party that specializes in sucking the lifeblood and militancy out of the antiwar movement? Or can the Democratic Party be somehow transformed into a servant of the antiwar movement?

Will the antiwar movement become more powerful if it sacrifices certain principles for the sake of an alliance with the Democratic Party? Or Will the antiwar movement become more powerful if it turns its back on this treacherous imperialist party -- and becomes more independent of bourgeois influence?

I have one view. Carl Davidson has another.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
How to turn the antiwar movement into harmless doorbell ringers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl's boundless faith in the Democratic Party has led him to publicly endorse [1] the enthusiasm of Tom Hayden (another former radical sellout) for meaningless "conditions" (such as a supposedly "realistic assessment of the situation" and a pledge to "make sure our troops have everything they need" [2]) that some congressmen might insist on in exchange for voting to fund the war or send addition troops. Tom Hayden and Carl Davidson are enthusiastic about these meaningless conditions because they view such empty, hypocritical gestures as a "small step toward threatening funding" of the war.

The apologists for the Democratic Party dream of "step by step" turning the Democratic Party into an antiwar party. But if we follow their advice we will instead "step by step" turn the antiwar movement into nothing more than harmless doorbell ringers for these sleazy, lying bastards. Hayden even admits this [3] although he sees it as a good thing:

> Beginning with marches of 100,000 or more in fall 2002,
> and millions in February 2003, the anti-war forces
> inevitably flowed into electoral politics through
> the Dean and Kucinich campaigns, just as many went
> "clean for Gene" McCarthy and Robert Kennedy in 1968.

The problem with these kinds of supposedly "realistic" electoral politics and the reason that they hurt the antiwar movement -- is that they represent an attack on the consciousness of antiwar activists -- and give antiwar activists an utterly false understanding of how our society really works. For example, the Democratic party is not really "a political party confused about its soul" as Hayden proclaims [4] but a machine that has been consciously created by the bourgeoisie to suck the life energy and militancy out of the mass oppositional movements (such as the antiwar movement) and channel the energy of these movements into harmless directions.

The antiwar movement can only become truly powerful by becoming oriented toward the working class and masses. The opposite path is to become oriented toward the Democratic Party and the social strata (of trade union bureaucrats, religious leaders, poverty pimps, liberal politicians and other professional opinion leaders and media personalities) around the Democratic Party.

If the antiwar movement is oriented toward the working class and masses -- then we will tell them the truth about the economic and political system of imperialism which we live under and which launches one brutal war after another. On the other hand, if we are oriented toward the Democratic Party and the social strata that surrounds it -- then we must hide the truth about imperialism -- because this will alienate our powerful "allies" and will make our movement (in Carl's words) "too narrow".

This is the basic choice that our movement faces. Around this basic question revolve a thousand other questions and attitudes toward strategy, tactics and everything else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
How to move the Democratic Party to the left
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If we really want to move the Democratic Party to the left -- we should turn our backs on _all_ the sleazy Democratic Party politicians -- and make it clear that they are not welcome to sing their lullibies at our antiwar rallies. Then these false friends of the antiwar movement will be forced to report back to the mothership that the Democratic Party is losing credibility -- is losing its ability to mislead and restrain the antiwar movement. And then their bourgeois masters will add some slack to their leash -- and give them permission to mouth a few more meaningless leftist phrases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Carl have the courage of his convictions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is good that Carl is defending his views openly in this post on Seatle Indymedia. All activists should have the right to see a calm and principled confrontation between opposing trends (ie: for and against the imperialist Democratic Party) in the antiwar movement. But there are better forums, where the pace of response is slower and more thoughtful and the audience is not restricted to Seattle.

I invited Carl to defend his views on the email list maintained by the Media Weapon community (at  http://MediaWeapon.com ). That list is designed to encourage young activists to ask questions of (and hold accountable) people like Carl. Unfortunately, Carl declined, saying that he lacked the time.

It appears to me that Carl may lack something else -- the stomach to face the activists on the Media Weapon community's email list.

Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben

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

--[Note 1]--

Details of Carl's support for Tom Hayden's proposal can be seen at:
 http://struggle.net/ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm
(see the section titled: "How Carl Davidson promotes illusions
about the Democratic Party to defend funding the war in Iraq")

Carl's evasive responses to this serious matter can be seen at:
 http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/52350/index.php

More about the treachery and history of the Democratic Party can be found in the sections of my leaflet which Carl did not quote at:
 http://struggle.net/ben/2005/0120-how-to.htm

In particular there was this sidebar:

The carrot and the stick --
The great "secret" of how the bourgeoisie
works to tame the antiwar movement:

The antiwar movement is attacked on two sides. The movement is attacked on one side by the agents of force (ie: the cops -- who will do everything possible to frustrate, intimidate and humiliate activists) and is attacked on the other side by the agents of political deception (ie: a section of the Democratic Party which promises the sun, the moon and the stars if only activists will do the "smart" thing and work within the "established channels" that have been engineered to demoralize or corrupt activists).

This is how it works: the carrot and the stick. On one side we are clubbed by the cops. On the other side the Democratic Party machine offers us unlimited power if only we give up our militancy and be "realistic" (ie: hitch our star to some savior from within the establishment). This is a tag team. This is an ancient con. This is how everything has, from the very beginning, been engineered to work.

--[Note 2]--

"More Money For Iraq? Not Without Conditions"
by Arianna Huffington
 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0120-20.htm

(This article is truly disgusting.)

--[Note 3]--

"clean for Gene" section from:
"Learning from the Loss" by Tom Hayden
 http://www.alternet.org/story/20429

--[Note 4]--

"a political party confused about its soul"
[ibid]

Ben, I have no way of saying, with certainty, that a significant number of elected officials, Democrat and GOP, will break with Bush and the war, and oppose it. And likewise, neither can you say with certainty that a significant number will not. All we know for sure is that a number of them already have done so. Not enough, too be sure, but a number have.

Can that number grow? The proof is in the practice that is unfolding, with all its up and downs. What would it take to make them grow? You suggest trashing them and having nothing to do with them--mind you, I' not talking about the party as a whole, but about the small sector opposed to the war. For my part, I suggest drawing them into antiwar activity and in the process, encouraging them to break even more with their more pro-war colleagues by showing them that there is a growing antiwar majority, and antiwar majority that still believes in voting, much to your dismay, but growing in experience and consciousness nonetheless.

Ben, the beginning of wisdom for progressives is that the Democratic Party, as an alliance of a section of capital and the masses, has to be broken up. It has to be replaced, not reformed or realigned, with a party of popular, participatory democracy,based on the insurgencies, most important working-class insurgencies, that can help bring a progressive electoral majority into being. Within that movement, we also need a more advanced conponent standing for a socialism for the 21st century, which I have defined elswhere, at www.cyrev.net and www.solidarityeconomy.net.

Now you can call this kissing the butt of the Democrats and wanting to save the Democrats or whatever all you want, but it's just not so about me and many others , Ben, and everyone knows it. It just makes you look silly. All it shows is that you have a dogmatic, 'propaganda-only' line, a childish notion of strategy, and no sense of tactics whatsoever. That's why you're forever doomed to rant in teeny circles, and don't even know where the real arena where class struggle in reality is really being waged, I posted my remarks to your email list, but the way you have it set up is so off-putting, it takes more time than it's worth. So let's debate out here in front of a broader audience, where it's much easier for folks to join in. You started here, with a polemic vs the RCP on fascism. I'd actually like to get back to that topic, if you can ever get over you delusions about me and others vis-avis the Democratic and Republican parties.

Carl Davidson

This is a comment and a question for Carl Davidson:
Several times in your post you made reference to what you call "semi-anarchism" and the way you wrote the term, as a dismissal, as a bad idea, leaves me wondering. Because you never actually stated any reasons why one would want to avoid "semi-anarchism" or why "semi-anarchism" would be even remotely undesireable.

Please define the terms you create, else they're nothing more than snipes and cheap jabs.

And what is this about ben seattle not being in the 'real' circles and only being in 'teeny' groups. What a cheap shot. Are you then, 'where its at' and in 'the real deal' ol' boys activist clubs? I see ego overwhelming you.

the anarcho leninist debate on the state is fairly popular, in fact ive not seen much serious discussion of revolutionary theory out in the open and as detailed as it is.

for a little humor, and a evidence of the site being somewhat popular (as opposed to your derisive 'teeny'), check this google search out:

 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=i+think+we+need+to+transition+to+a+non+magic+fish+based+economy&btnG=Search

 http://tinyurl.com/6tpcl

So in closing, i'll continue to sit back on the pof-200 mailing list and browse alds and mediaweapon occasionaly... but what i really wonder, Carl Davidson, is what a pamphlet that you produce would look like.

solidarity,
Jaboo

By semi-anarchism, Jaboo, I had in mind the way Lenin used it, i.e., that one could avoid or skip over or somehow bypass the electoral arena and partimentary politics, by placing these forms of struggle in a false opposition to direct mass action, especially in non-revolutionary periods, such as the one we are in now.

As for the 'ultimate aim' of getting rid of all classes, including the working class, and thus also getting rid of the state, these aims I share with the anarchists, as did Lenin.

We just have very different ways of getting to our ends.

By the way way, I'm not uncritical of Lenin, or his mentor on one version of democracy, Rousseau, either, on the matter of 'the general will' or the UNRESTRICTED power (Lenin) of the workers in the workers' state. Having been a defender of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge for a brief period in my youth, I've thought that one over long and hard after their practice was more fully exposed, and decided not to make that mistake again.

By 'teeny' I only meant that Ben wanted to have this debate on a list of 300, or a smaller one of 100. Actually and unfortunately, all of us are relatively small and marginalized these days, but Indymedia seemed a broader forum to me.

You're welcome to read any of my 'pamphlets' (actually longish articles) at www.cyrev.net going back 10 years or more recently, at www.soldarityeconomy.net

I googled your phrase, Jaboo, getting 22,000 or so hits, but if you put the phrase in quotes, which you should if that's what you're really looking for, you'll find you get about five hits. Quite large or quite small...So again, it all depends on what you want and how you want to get there...

By the way, I took the bait and googled the phrase you mentionioned in your post, Jaboo, getting 22,000 or so hits. But if you put the phrase in quotes, which you should if that's what you're really looking for, you'll find you get about five hits. Quite large or quite small...So again, it all depends on what you want and how you want to get there...

Hi everyone,

First I would like to thank Marquee Jaboo for his encouraging words about the anarcho-leninist debate on the state and the media weapon community. It is gratifying to know that others find my work helpful.

Second, I should make clear to Carl that I do not have time to contribute to an Indymedia thread on a daily basis. In fact it is all I can do (and sometimes more than I can do) to post to my own pof-200 list once a week. I have a lot of responsibilities -- and my political writing is reserved for the weekend.

Carl -- February 17:
> I posted my remarks to your email list, but
> the way you have it set up is so off-putting,
> it takes more time than it's worth. So let's
> debate out here in front of a broader audience,
> where it's much easier for folks to join in.

The so-called "broad audience" of an Indymedia newswire item usually falls close to zero as soon as the item falls off the front page. This means that posts on a newswire item thread may have some readership (in one city) if they are made in the first day or two. This puts pressure on people to respond quickly -- so that their posts will be read.

Also -- once an item falls off the front page it becomes impractical (and a poor use of time) to periodically check various Indymedia threads to see if there has been any action. Indymedia threads (based on the current design) are a "pull" media and poorly suited to the development of the kind of serious discussion and debate that may only unfold over months, if not years.

Email lists are more of a "push" media and, in certain ways, may be more a practical way to help create a community of activists who treat one another with respect and learn from one another. An email list such as pof-200 is designed to encourage the kind of more thoughtful posts that make better use of the scarce and precious minutes of both readers and writers.

The limit of one post per week on the pof-200 list not only helps to eliminate flame wars -- but also helps to train a new generation of activists to give careful thought to what they say. Yes it is only email -- but you better measure your words with care -- because everyone else may be reading and commenting on them for a week before you can correct or add to what you said.

I believe that Carl may be confused when he says he has posted to my email list and found the process confusing. The pof-200 list is a yahoo email list. It is about the easiest kind of email list in the world to use. Currently there are umpteen millions of yahoo email lists.

Carl -- you simply send a blank email to:
 pof-200-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Then, a minute or so later, you get an automated email from yahoo asking you to confirm (ie: to verify that it was really you and not some spammer that sent the email).

The public archives of the list can be seen at:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/messages

What could be simpler? Is the originator of the cybernetic revolution website going to seriously claim that it was too complicated for him to join a yahoo email list?

If Carl lacks the courage to defend his views in a forum which is designed to encourage thoughtful participation and make economic use of everyone's time -- then he should not blame the way I have "set it up". It was "set up" by a company that makes lots of money because they figured out how to make their lists easy for people to use.

Finally, since this is likely to be my last post to this thread, I will briefly reply to some of the minor points that Carl has raised.

1) The beginning of all wisdom:

> Ben, the beginning of wisdom for progressives
> is that the Democratic Party, as an alliance
> of a section of capital and the masses, has
> to be broken up. It has to be replaced, not
> reformed or realigned, with a party of popular,
> participatory democracy, based on the
> insurgencies, most important working-class
> insurgencies, that can help bring a
> progressive electoral majority into being.

The beginning of wisdom for the working class is the hatred of opportunism.

The Democratic Party is supposedly "an alliance of a section of capital and the masses"? Only if you count the corrupt social strata (of trade union bureaucrats, religious leaders, poverty pimps, liberal politicians and other professional "opinion leaders" and media personalities) as "the masses". I don't.

Also -- note this:

Carl, in his comments on my leaflet, pleads guilty to promoting the idea that the imperialist Democratic Party can be turned into a vehicle for the antiwar movement. This bloodstained lie is also promoted on Carl's web page -- where he enthusiastically quotes Tom Hayden saying:

> "we need to build a Progressive Democratic movement
> which will pressure the Democrats to become an
> anti-war opposition party."
 http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/editorials/carl_editorial5.htm

Now, the very next day, Carl tells us that the Democratic Party must be broken up and "not reformed". But then why lie to readers and tell them that this imperialist party can become an antiwar party -- if it really needs to be broken up?

2) Carl also equates "the electoral arena and partimentary politics" with attacking the consciousness of activists by giving them a totally false and misleading view of the society in which they live and struggle.

3) To top it all off, Carl manages to imply that the Khmer Rouge (ie: the ruling regime in Cambodia responsible for millions of deaths in the 1970's) was an example of the "unrestricted power of the workers". This is how social-democrats think. Social-democrats are afraid of the working class. Social-democrats absorb this fear from their social role as flunkies of the bourgeoisie.

Serious, militant activists, on the other hand, take a more thoughtful attitude concerning what the unrestricted power of the workers would like like. They do not think it would look like the Khmer Rouge. Those readers who may be interested in my views on this are welcome to check out my article:

"Politics, Economics and the Mass Media
when the working class runs the show"
 http://struggle.net/alds/essay_153_content.htm

Finally, Carl, if you lack the courage to defend your views on the pof-200 list, I understand. The list is mostly a bunch of kids who don't understand the difference between socialism and Star Trek. But if you feel that you would be over your head having one or two of them ask you a few questions -- that's unfortunate. I had been hoping that watching your evasions would help to wake them up.

Sincerely,
Ben Seattle --  http://struggle.net/ben

Isolated from one another we are easily defeated.
Connected to one another no force on earth can stop us
 http://MediaWeapon.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Ben and other activists in the Media Weapon community.
With an email list, wiki, competing projects and a community of
activists who engage one another with sincerity and respect.

Open to all activists who want to see the development of
a mass movement for the elimination of bourgeois rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In re-reading point 2 (above) I realized this might not be completely clear to many readers.

What I said was:

> 2) Carl also equates "the electoral arena and
> partimentary politics" with attacking the
> consciousness of activists by giving them a
> totally false and misleading view of the
> society in which they live and struggle.

It would have been more clear to say something like:

> 2) Carl also implies that I oppose all forms
> of struggle in the electoral or parliamentary
> arena. This is not true. What I oppose is
> deceiving activists. Promoting illusions
> that the imperialist Democratic Party can be
> "pressured" to change its nature is political
> deception of the worst kind -- and gives
> activists a totally false and misleading view
> of the nature of the society in which they
> live and struggle.