seattle indymedia center

Wow. "Cargo Cult?" "Discipline?" "Sobriety?" I think that someone could argue for transparency without using dismissive labels, if one wanted to actually create the trust and forbearance needed for a mass revolutionary organization which has transparency and the space for honest discussion of disagreements.

That you've chosen instead to engage in insults rather than argument shows that your isolation might be self imposed. When one feels that an organization "isn't listening" how do insults add to the "signal to noise ratio"? When you're setting tasks for others, are you being a boss, or a co-worker?

Making up unrealistic time budgets for listserv administration, or misinterpreting the reluctance of others to follow YOUR recipe for THEIR tasks is one symptom of exactly what anti-imperialists are trying to undo: you have a lot of assumptions about what everyone else should be doing. Check that. Do for yourself what you want to see happen. Let others find their own path.

Ben Seattle has done shit in ten years to build a movement of any sort. He has in fact done the work of the bourgeoisie by tearing down others' attempts at movement work. It's his way or no way at all. And his activism is confined only to those who have hours and hours to debate and fart around in front of a computer screen.

oh. lets not wait longer for the revolution, it must be finished for my next birthday so I can be a happy satisfied being.

Lets not wonder how to get togather with others who won't go our (loony, asocial, jacobean, elitist, spoiled, narrow, hairshirt, pie in the sky, half baked.....)way and our program. And fuck those who try to give constructive criticism. THEY are the reason we have not been able to make the world in our image. Its never that our image is unpoppular, or that we are not good salespeople. Its external causes that defeat us, never shooting our own foot.....

And if ben is such a thorn, what have you done on your own kiddies? Unless you started f not b, or the street medic program. nada zip zilch of "progress" since the uterly waisted wto marches that brought togather what youve spent over 7 years ensuring was gone forever, by ....see parenthesis above...

It is good that my post has drawn a few comments.

"You don't really want to know that" (Ydrwtkt) asserts that my criticism of SAIC is based on insults rather than political arguments. I will get back to this shortly.

Cargo Cultist asserts that I have done nothing significant in ten years except to "tear down" the work of others.

Burrr defends me and argues that my efforts are directed at constructive criticism.

First, in reply to Cargo Cultist: my criticism is directed at a particular organization: the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC). My work helped to bring this organization into existence: specifically, I helped an energetic young activist to break from the suffocating orbit of the RCP and helped to introduce him to another, much more experienced activist. These two activists then founded SAIC. Of course it is possible that, in the absence of my work, these two activists would have eventually found one another. But even if this is true--my work helped to speed up this process. So it is not accurate to claim that I have done nothing. Furthermore, this style of criticism (ie: "Who are you to dare to make a criticism? What have you accomplished?") is not a very good one.

The criticism from Ydrwtkt, by comparison to that of cargo cultist, strikes me as much more thoughtful. I disagree with ydrwtkt but I appreciate his effort to present his views with conviction and clarity.

Ydrwtkt argues that my tone is not serious or sincere because I have supposedly used dismissive labels and insults instead of political arguments. However my post is centered on a political argument. I argue that the six specific measures I advocate for SAIC are realistic and practical. I point out that Frank's estimate of the time required for these measures (ie: more than 24 hours a day, every day) is not realistic and I give my own estimates (ie: XX hours per week for this and YY hours per week for that--which are based on practical experience).

Ydrwtkt argues that my estimate for the time required to manage an email list is not realistic. I don't know what experience Ydrwtkt has in managing email lists. I manage several. I do not have very much time and, over the years, I have developed methods of running email lists that do not require a lot of time. I discussed one of the methods I use in my post: my main list (pof-200) limits subscribers to one or two posts per week (ie: people who march in antiwar actions get two posts per week and everyone else gets one post per week). This simple measure, by itself, has eliminated 95 percent of all problems. I also rely on subscribers who have volunteered to moderate the lists. My rules for the list are simple, effective and easy to enforce.

And I have offered to assist SAIC in the measures I advocate. I believe that the supposed impracticality of the measures I advocate--is a myth used to justify rejection of these measures. I believe this myth-making reflects a profound uneasiness with political transparancy and the concept of creating an open political community.

Ydrwtkt asks if, by making such constructive criticism, I am being a boss or a co-worker. And he asks that I let others find their own path.

I am a co-worker, of course. I assist SAIC on this basis (and not only with criticism--but in other ways). Of course everyone finds their own path in the movement. But we also help one another. SAIC, for example, helps activists develop clarity on the treachery of the Democratic Party and its imperialist nature and the special role the Democratic Party plays in sabotaging and undermining the antiwar movement. The reformist big shots (and the flunkies who defend them) heap abuse on SAIC for this. But SAIC is completely correct to participate in the war of ideas within the movement and to bring clarity and consciousness to activists who seek to sum up their experience. I also participate in the war of ideas. Some people like my ideas and some do not. Does this mean that I have some magic ability to supposedly prevent anyone from finding their own path? How could I do such a thing--even if I was so stupid as to make the attempt? It would be easier to emulate the Persian king who went to the shore and commanded the waves to stop.

Our movement needs criticism. Real criticism. Not cynical criticism--but sincere criticism; thoughtful criticism; criticism based on hard work and humility. My arguments stand by themselves. SAIC could easily set up an email list. Or I could do it for them. Or SAIC could use one of my email lists. The time required for SAIC to manage the email list is not the problem. The problem is that the experinced core at the heart of SAIC is profoundly uneasy about the forces that such an email list might unleash. That's certainly how it looks to me--and I would be dishonest, at this point, to hide my opinion from my readers.

Ydrwtkt says:

> I think that someone could argue for transparency
> without using dismissive labels, if one wanted to
> actually create the trust and forbearance needed
> for a mass revolutionary organization which has
> transparency and the space for honest discussion
> of disagreements.

I disagree with Ydrwtkt that I have been dismissive or insulting (and even less that my post is centered around insults). I dealt with Frank's _specific_ arguments (ie: 24 hours a day vs. a few hours per week). The terms I use are scientific in nature. Cargo cult, for example, is a scientific term (look it up--the term was popularized, in part, by Richard Feynman). And, never before have I been accused of being insulting because I argued for the need for discipline (a rather traditional word).

Ydrwtkt argues that there is a more skillful way to argue for political transparency in the context of a mass revolutionary organization with open and sincere discussion of disagreements.

My reply to Ydrwtkt is simple. Please show us how this is done. You have my attention.

All the best,
Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben/2008/saic-sobriety.htm

"Ydrwtkt argues that my estimate for the time required to manage an email list is not realistic. I don't know what experience Ydrwtkt has in managing email lists."

I've managed discussion and news lists for several years, and currently help administer three. I won't name them since I'm not here as a personality, but as a voice. (One concern with making such lists of anti-imperialists is the ease with which such lists can be used against us.)

"I manage several. I do not have very much time and, over the years, I have developed methods of running email lists that do not require a lot of time. I discussed one of the methods I use in my post: my main list (pof-200) limits subscribers to one or two posts per week (ie: people who march in antiwar actions get two posts per week and everyone else gets one post per week). This simple measure, by itself, has eliminated 95 percent of all problems. I also rely on subscribers who have volunteered to moderate the lists. My rules for the list are simple, effective and easy to enforce."

I'm sure simple rules are simple to enforce, and that rule enforcement is a serious issue where consent is not present. How were these rules obtained or arrived at? What level of discussion is possible if everyone is limited in scope of their communication? It's easy to have a news list (only admin posts) and avoid traffic overload, too. But it's not easy to allow transparency when everyone only has a limited voice on the channel. That's not transparency if you're the only one with the leisure time to read, digest, and respond. I do like the idea that organizers have more voice than kibbitzers, though. How do you differentiate?

"I disagree with Ydrwtkt that I have been dismissive or insulting (and even less that my post is centered around insults)."

Then re-read the paragraph above where it was perfectly clear to you that your rules and assumptions were the only ones which are valid. And then look back at your original post, where you clearly were dismissive and labeling of your opponents. You might think that is criticism, but you apparently learned critique from those who label and blame in place of reason. Just because you have reasons, does not make your arguments reasonable. Just because your arguments seem right for you, does not mean that YOUR vision should control MY work. Let your vision guide YOUR work, and build an open transparent org outside of the channels you see as non-transparent. That will take far less energy than overwhelming the resistance of those you think "are not doing it right." No one knows how to end Capitalism and Imperialism, or it would be finished already. We're all wandering toward solutions on this.

"I dealt with Frank's _specific_ arguments (ie: 24 hours a day vs. a few hours per week). The terms I use are scientific in nature. Cargo cult, for example, is a scientific term (look it up--the term was popularized, in part, by Richard Feynman)."

WOW. Classic classism. You have the time, why don't you enlighten us as to YOUR meaning for Feynman's racist term? I don't know, and do not care to research, what google or wikipedia might mean by the term you use. I see it as a label, and a racist one at that, referring to Pacific Islanders who hoped that the Imperial US Marines would again resupply them with fetish objects. How do you mean that term? Why does it apply to the people you say you're critiquing? Why would you want to work with these people if you hold them in such utter contempt?

"And, never before have I been accused of being insulting because I argued for the need for discipline (a rather traditional word)."

Never heard that before... so, does that imply that it's not valid?

Yeah, 'traditional' is a great argument to make to a fellow revolutionary. Discipline on whose terms? Yours? Do you use corporal punishment, or censure, or fines, or what? Do you seriously mean that I'm supposed to swallow "discipline" as if it means the same thing to you as it means to me? My dad used to discipline me by lifting me bodily by my left ear. Is that what you have in mind? Or perhaps you mean self-discipline and the ability to withstand discomfort. But by itself, the word means little in the context given, except to imply that people you criticize have none.

"Ydrwtkt argues that there is a more skillful way to argue for political transparency in the context of a mass revolutionary organization with open and sincere discussion of disagreements."

"My reply to Ydrwtkt is simple. Please show us how this is done. You have my attention."

I'm not going to explain to you how to respect people and say what you want to happen in a positive way (This is what I would do) rather than a destructive way (Those people don't really want to play nice, their morals are suspect and they're really 'Cargo Cultists.') since you are presumably more than 15 years old.

Look to Olympia for innovative techniques in how to have these discussions; they call it consensus process I think - and it tends to work better than the traditional discipline model in my personal experience.

Check the definition of the word Hubris sometime.

SAIC=Special Agent in Charge
SAIC=Science Applications International Corporation (A surveillance support company owned by the employees formerly of the FBI technical services bureau).

I'm not sure what SAIC the anti imperialist group meant by it, but when IAC chose that moniker for International Anarchist Conspiracy, it did raise some eyebrows. Just sayin'

hi YDRWTKT,

Since we are discussing important questions related to creating a movement and mass democratic organization, why not conduct our conversation in a forum better suited to the kind of discussion which unfolds over weeks (ie: with time to give thought between posts) rather than here on the Indymedia newswire (ie: where posts fall off the front page and into obscurity after a few days total) ?

Subscribers to pof-200 are not limited in "scope" (ie: what they discuss). They are limited only in how often they can post. There is a sister list (ie: pof-300) which allows unlimited posting. Each list has its strengths and weaknesses. On pof-200 (with 220 subscribers) sometimes you have to wait to post. On the pof-300 list (with 30 subscribers) there is sometimes a lot of noise. Both lists have public archives, searchable by friend and foe alike.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

You say:

> One concern with making such lists of anti-imperialists
> is the ease with which such lists can be used against us.

We need a security culture. But this cannot be used as an excuse to avoid doing what is necessary so that we can understand the nature of the society in which we live and the nature of our tasks which are decisive. We are hurt a thousand times more by our own ignorance than by police battons or arrests. Certain time-sensitive tactical information (ie: how we might plan to outmanuever the police at next week's mass action) might be best discussed in person. But the revolution in communications will prove to be a weapon of power immense beyond imagination--once we learn to use it with skill to forge connections to one another and build an unbreakable channel to the masses.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

You ask why I would want to work with people whom I (supposedly) hold in "contempt"?

The comrades involved have great strengths and equally great weaknesses.

They understand the need to openly, consistently and skillfully oppose the treacherous influence of the imperialist Democratic Party (and its flunkies and allies) in the movement. Many or most activists _think_ they understand this. The SAIC comrades _prove_ they understand this by their _actions_ (for example: consistent agitation which exposes, with clarity and concision, the manuevers of the Democratic Party on the basis of current items in the news). SAIC stands up to the bullying of the propped-up reformist big-shots and their system of sleazy and corrupt alliances (and illusions) which dominate the movement and hijack the energy of activists.

It is not true that I have contempt for the comrades. I have contempt only for the political disease which obscures their vision and undermines their own effectiveness. I respect these people enough to tell them the truth that they (sometimes) do not want to hear. I believe they will eventually thank me. I have walked in their shoes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Is the term "cargo cult" racist?

Or does this term contain profound content which the left must confront?

We disagree.

You assert that I have the time to explain this term to you.

You are mistaken.

I have precious little time.

I have written about cargo cults and cargo-cult Leninism for many years. If you are interested you can start here:

 http://struggle.net/Ben/2007/cargo-4-cults.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I wrote of the need for discipline in the context of opposing bullshit estimates for how many hours it takes to run and participate (in a meaningful way) in an email list.

Discipline, in this context, means things like refusing to give attention to people who are aggressively clueless, word-twisting, time-wasting, know-it-alls -- and reserving one's limited time and attention for those who are serious, have humility and are determined to build a movement. So the discipline I describe is not imposed by me--but rather is imposed externally by the nature of the society in which we live--and the nature of our tasks. I'm only the messenger. If my informing you of this leads you to be resentful of me -- this is your issue to deal with (or not) as you choose.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you want to continue this discussion, you are certainly welcome on the pof-200 and pof-300 lists. I (and, I am certain, others) would like to learn more about your experience and your conclusions which are based on your experience. Creating an open political community requires activists like yourself.

I will be online and checking the POF lists until end-of-day Saturday. Then I will be offline for a month or two as part of my political sabbatical.

sincerely,
Ben Seattle

** Information war wants to be free to serve the working class
** in the struggle to overthrow bourgeois rule

 http://struggle.net/Ben/ - general index to my work
 http://MediaWeapon.com - the Media Weapon community-in-embryo and the pof-200/300 lists

> Look to Olympia for innovative techniques
> in how to have these discussions; they call
> it consensus process

Consensus has its value--and also some very real limitations when sharp struggle emerges. We need methods of open, public struggle.

> I'm not going to explain to you how to respect people
> and say what you want to happen in a positive way

I do not want to see an explanation. I would like to see you show (ie: by your actions) how you assist the SAIC comrades to see the value of being part of an open political email list and a long-term open political community. (I rather suspect they will only come to this conclusion on the basis of events that will compel them to do so.) It is easy to be "respectful" and avoid offending anyone--if you don't really have anything to say.

I am not surprised that Ben will cling to his "cargo cult" terminology in spite of everything else. Nor is it surprising that he equates using "scientific" terminology with actually being scientific. These are the tried and true methods of Ben Seattle, and I do not expect them to change anytime soon. However, there are a few outstanding issues on this thread which I'd like to clarify for anyone who may be curious.

1. Ben writes: "My work helped to bring this organization into existence: specifically, I helped an energetic young activist to break from the suffocating orbit of the RCP and helped to introduce him to another, much more experienced activist." <--This is a lie which Ben has repeated to himself and anyone who'll listen so many times that he probably now believes it. He gives himself, and his wooden (and completely unconvincing) critique of reformism, far too much credit. More, he has had the falsity of this particular claim pointed out to him over and over again but that does not seem to deter him from constantly repeating it. And that says a lot.

2. Anyone who has ever spoken to anyone in SAIC for even a couple of minutes can see through Ben's lie that we do not "encourage discussion of decisive issues." However, I hope that Ben will continue to repeat this claim so that anyone who has ever had any interaction with SAIC can see the clear difference between reality and Ben's claims.

3. Of course, if one (Ben) equates "encourag[ing] discussion of decisive issues" with setting up websites, email lists, etc. dedicated to "discussion," then that's another matter altogether. But I don't see why there needs to be yet another space on the internet for such discussion. Frankly, there are no lack of "left" message boards and email lists for discussing these matters. The world does not, at this point, need yet another one administered by SAIC. Therefore, it would be a complete waste of time for our small, overworked organization to delve into such a project (which would generate very little interest at this time). If conditions changed, and we felt there was a real need, then perhaps we'd change our minds. But this change, if it were to take place, would be relative to the needs of the situation and our priorities in relation to the situation (in another words, not because of adherence to an abstract "principle" supposedly good for all time).

4. Ben still shamelessly uses the resignation of a particular woman comrade to promote a political line that she herself continues to despise. Ben may not even be aware of this, because he has never really paid much attention to her or what she thought. That's why it's all the more galling to read him write things like "...the possibility that this woman's resignation did not so much reflect on her lack of consciousness as it did on SAIC's distorted priorities and excessively narrow conception of its tasks." In fact, she explained the reasons for her resignation in a private letter to SAIC. SAIC doesn't need to guess about the reasons, because they're not a mystery. Ben doesn't know the reasons, even though he has the ability to contact, and ask, her. Please note that "sober" Ben has not done this. For all his dramatic bluster, his only concern regarding her is what he sees as an opportunity to promote his old, bankrupt views on internet "information war."

I would also like to thank Ben for the following line:

"Discipline, in this context, means things like refusing to give attention to people who are aggressively clueless, word-twisting, time-wasting, know-it-alls -- and reserving one's limited time and attention for those who are serious, have humility and are determined to build a movement."

Now perhaps "refusing to give attention to" is taking matters a bit too far, but in general I completely agree with the overall thrust of what Ben is putting forward here. And, in fact, this is precisely the reason why SAIC members are not lining up to join Ben's email lists, repeatedly debate Ben about Ben's "information war" theories, etc., etc.

Well, thanks for the links, Ben. I'm better informed of what you think about the Cult of Lenin, but that term would have been just as short and would have meant a lot more to me than your specialist / insider term (Cargo Cult). So much for being objective, open, accessible, etc. But at least I know you meant something real, and specific, about it and that counts for a lot.

I'm also a refugee from the "Old Left" who has had my share of infights and outfights with those who chant mantra better than me (and pronounce it more correctly). I sympathize to some extent with what you're arguing. But we disagree about the need for yet another open discussion list. I'm not (at this time in our history in the United States) willing to send young folks directly into the lists of those who supervise and catalog our personalities for later 3am-6am visits or long term surveillance. Let us not forget that DARPA invented the net, not our allies. We don't control who has copies of our interpersonal arguments when we put them online. They remember this stuff far longer than we do.

Security Culture is fine for tactical discussions, but you limit its use to just that instance. That all goes out the window if the identities of the people having the discussion are known, and the face to face discussion is supervised with a through the wall listening device (often a microwave tuned to reflect off of voice modulated materials within a meeting space). We know the FBI used just this technology in the Backfire cases, and thus should expect it to be used against us in pre-RNC, pre-DNC situations. Being even more secret (not making e-traffic lists and membership lists in the first place) and having discussions in public places where supervision is less likely to be effective (lots of covering sounds, spurious reflectors closer to sound sources, etc) is better tradecraft in the current environment. But what would I know? I read history and search warrant applications so I know what I know, you know?

Your need for open communication is admirable and one of the reasons I don't practice anonymous politics in my own watershed. But here in Seattle, I'm anonymous if I'm present at all. Not my area of responsibility, you know? So no, I won't be joining your list for further hash/rehash of the specific SAIC controversy. I'm on enough lists anyway.

Soon, an organization which will coordinate the direct action opportunities in our Salish Sea area will be born, and I hope you watch for that. I don't know what kinds of outreach / infowar it will end up supporting, but it will be a venue where more of this kind of political scene (the Seattle scene) is involved. So my voice might be heard in that neck of the woods with a name and a history attached to it, soon. Maybe we'll meet. Who knows?

Watch out for Burr, we think she's "mop head" of OSOT.

A SAIC member writes:

> 1. Ben writes: "My work helped to bring this organization
> into existence: specifically, I helped an energetic young
> activist to break from the suffocating orbit of the RCP and
> helped to introduce him to another, much more experienced
> activist." and anyone who'll listen so many times that he probably now
> believes it. He gives himself, and his wooden (and completely
> unconvincing) critique of reformism, far too much credit.
> More, he has had the falsity of this particular claim pointed
> out to him over and over again but that does not seem to
> deter him from constantly repeating it. And that says a lot.

Since a SAIC member has (again) called me dishonest, I will reply. My account (above) consists of two parts:

part 1:
> I helped an energetic young activist to break
> from the suffocating orbit of the RCP

part 2:
> and helped to introduce him to another,
> much more experienced activist.

The SAIC member does not bother to say which of the two parts is supposedly a lie. I know readers are busy and "he said/she said" stuff is tedious and boring. So I will be concise (and entertaining).

In January 2005 I met a young activist (whom I will call X9) at an antiwar demo. This young man was passing out a leaflet from the RCP that promoted hysteria about supposedly imminent fascism--and that laid the groundwork for the RCP's infamous alliance with a section of the imperialist Democratic Party (ie: the "World Can't Wait" campaign).

X9 was clearly more thoughtful than most of the kids around the RCP and he asked me some intelligent questions. So I told him his leaflet was bullshit and asked him to look at my website where I would write an article explaining it in more detail [1].

Over the next five months or so I met X9 at various mass actions and explained to him that the RCP refuses to seriously fight the treacherous influence of the Democratic Party in the antiwar movement. During this period the trajectory of the RCP toward a section of the Democratic Party was becoming more clear.

Eventually, X9 said that he agreed with me on this--and at this point I helped X9 to see the need for a clean break from the RCP: Yes Avakian can tell an entertaining story and all that--but the organization is a bankrupt cult and has no chance of overcoming its problems.

I told X9 that it was important for him to make a _public statement_ critical of the RCP's rightist campaign--and X9 did so in a July 2005 post on Seattle Indymedia [2]. This post attracted the attention of Frank, who made a comment on it.

X9 and I exchanged email discussing Frank's comment and X9's planned reply to Frank (we had also previously discussed Frank and I had informed X9 that Frank was without question the best activist in the city). I wrote to X9 and urged him to contact Frank and emphasized to X9 that he must understand that his reply to Frank must be "part of developing a solid relationship with a serious and mature revolutionary activist". X9 then made contact with Frank.

The above is what I mean when I say that I "helped introduce" X9 to Frank.

My description is now being called a lie. However it should be clear that my personal intervention, at several points, helped this process along. I helped X9 to break from the RCP and I helped him understand the importance of making a public statement opposing the RCP's campaign. X9's contact with Frank came as a result of the public statement. And I helped X9 to understand the importance of Frank. No one is in a position to dispute this.

Our SAIC comrade continues:

> 2. Anyone who has ever spoken to anyone in SAIC
> for even a couple of minutes can see through Ben's
> lie that we do not "encourage discussion of decisive
> issues." However, I hope that Ben will continue to
> repeat this claim so that anyone who has ever had
> any interaction with SAIC can see the clear
> difference between reality and Ben's claims.

When this guy claims that I "lie" -- this is just a dramatic way of saying that he disagrees with me.

In part 1 of this essay (July 17) I advocated that SAIC should:

> (10) Encourage discussion and debate concerning
> how society can exist and function without the
> political and economic system of imperialism
> (and the capitalist system of production for
> profit which makes imperialism inevitable) in
> order to help overcome the universal belief that
> the only alternative to the existing system of
> bourgeois rule is a corrupt police-state, such
> as the former Soviet Union or China, where a
> single party holds a monopoly of power and can
> suppress the voice of its opponents.

SAIC does not encourage public discussion of this question (ie: what is probably the most important theoretical question of our time). If SAIC did encourage public discussion of this question--there would be links to such discussion on their website.

Our movement can never overthrow the corrupt views on these topics without public discussion of them.

> I don't see why there needs to be yet another
> space on the internet for such discussion.

The issue is not to "set up a space" for discussion. The issue is for the discussion to take place in a democratic way and in public--where activists struggle to confront the issues--and readers have access to the views from all sides.

An example of a non-democratic space for discussion is the website of the "Communist Voice Organization" (CVO). This website gives readers an opportunity to read an article by a local SAIC supporter, Eric, which opposes my views--but hides my reply to Eric from its readers [4].

> 4. Ben still shamelessly uses the resignation of a
> particular woman comrade to promote a political line ...

Note the use of the word "shamelessly". These people actually believe I should be ashamed of thinking for myself instead of being mired in groupthink.

> she explained the reasons for her resignation in
> a private letter to SAIC. ... Ben doesn't know
> the reasons, even though he has the ability to
> contact, and ask, her. Please note that "sober"
> Ben has not done this.

Yes, the sober thing to do would be for me to contact the woman and ask her about her views and experience. And this is what I did.

I exchanged private email with the woman in July. I did my best to draw out her reasons for resigning. She gave me an explanation that was somewhat vague and generalized--but which was consistent with my own conclusion that she had recognized that SAIC was failing to have an impact sufficient to justify the sacrifice she was making to support its work. I expressed my view to her that there was a need for a conscious discussion and public summary of experience. I was unable to persuade her of the value of making her views public.

It would also be "sober" for the SAIC member to refrain from publicly claiming (falsely) that I did not contact the woman involved. This is so weird. Why make these kinds of claims? And, for that matter, why post as a "SAIC member" rather than as a _person_ who is part of SAIC? Does SAIC (as an organization) take responsibility for falsely claiming I did not contact this woman? Presumably not. But, if that is the case, this would be more clear (to other readers) if the person who posts used a psuedonym--to help indicate that responsibility for this kind of bullshit stupidity is his own and not SAIC's.

So much for the "he said/she said" stuff and the talk of (supposed) "lies". Let's talk about what is important:

Our movement has gone to hell because key principles were abandoned. Only when our work, once again, revolves around these key principles will we be able to organize the salvation of our movement. One of these principles is the need for public discussion, public cricitism and public struggle. The SAIC comrades are obviously uncomfortable with this. This is why they call me "a liar and demagogue" [5] and all the usual cheap talk about being "shameless" and so forth. This is more comfortable to some of them than struggling with principles.

Ben Seattle

--Information war wants to be free to serve the working class
--in the struggle to overthrow bourgeois rule

notes:

[1] See: Crying "Wolf" over Fascism
- Hysteria about "fascism" serves to hide
the essential role of the Democratic Party in
the political and economic system of imperialism
 http://struggle.net/Ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm

[2] A Response to "Drive Out the Bush Regime" Statement
 http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/246938.shtml

[3] See part 1 of this essay (July 17) posted at:
 http://struggle.net/Ben/2008/saic-sobriety.htm

[4] See: Workers' Rule: Is it Dead or Alive?
Ben Seattle replies to Eric Gordon - May 16, 2008
 http://struggle.net/Ben/2008/eric/moment_of_truth.htm

The CVO has a webpage with links to various articles opposing
my views but refuses to give its readers a link to my replies.
 http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/00SeattleBen.html

[5] See: "Ben is a liar and demagogue" - Frank, July 25
 http://struggle.net/Ben/2008/saic-sobriety.htm

I understand your concern about 3 am visits. The problem is that you appear to be so focused on this concern that you fail to see the potential of open communications.

In many countries the 3 am visit (ie: by police or by death squads) is a daily reality. And this may be a reality here in the U.S. some years down the road. But we have the ability to openly (ie: legally) organize today and, in my view, would be foolish to give up the opportunity to fully do so due to fear of what may happen tomorrow.

It is our actions _today_ that are the best defense against all the ugly things that may happen tomorrow.

So, on this question, my motto is: "Make Hay While the Sun Shines".

By the way, the political police can fairly easily track whoever posts (or even reads) Indymedia, if they think it is important enough. The issue is that it is _more_ important for us to openly communicate with one another. If we fail to do this because of fear--then they have already _won_. Activists in countries where death squads are part of daily life would be amazed by the attitude that (while we have so many legal opportunities to take action) we must scurry around and think like mice.

Ben

Related articles (for your reference):

[1] A scenario for the overthrow
of bourgeois rule in the U.S. in
the middle of the 21st century
 http://struggle.net/alds/part_03_content.htm

[2] "Make Hay while the Sun Shines"
Building the movement
on a solid foundation requires
accountability and political transparency
 http://struggle.net/Ben/2006/520-to-michael.htm

Yes, yes, Ben is a genius. Too bad that uneasy fact is lost in his own wordiness and formality. Ben, if you could just stop the buzzword machine, stop trying to make others say "uncle," truly confront and oppose your own obviously patriarchal, privileged attitudes, TREAT OTHERS AS YOUR EQUALS, and for the love of Lenin, SIMPLIFY your epistles, you'd be heard.

You'll have an audience when you stop seeing us as your audience. You'll have real comrades when you stop seeing us as potential followers. You have great points. But lose the pedestal, and stop the condescension. Your ego-driven attitude, not others' lack of "humility" and "sobriety" (and other such moralistic, vague, judgmental buzzwords) is your primary and perhaps your only impediment.

Ben, if you could make your points in fewer words, fresher words, and without the overweening EGO, I'd listen, and so would others.

The rest of you? See past the ego, and you might see some good points. His ego, and yours as well. We do not have time for this infighting.

Now let's all get some fresh air today, and prepare ourselves for real battles in the real world REAL SOON. We'd better get past our tiffs and grudges and paranoia, and pull it together. We do not have time to waste on personal attacks, nor do we have energy to waste on endless rehashing of wordy wanks.

Yes, yes, Ben is a genius. Too bad that uneasy fact is lost in his own wordiness and formality. Ben, if you could just stop the buzzword machine, stop trying to make others say "uncle," truly confront and oppose your own obviously patriarchal, privileged attitudes, TREAT OTHERS AS YOUR EQUALS, and for the love of Lenin, SIMPLIFY your epistles, you'd be heard.

You'll have an audience when you stop seeing us as your audience. You'll have real comrades when you stop seeing us as potential followers. You have great points. But lose the pedestal, and stop the condescension. Your ego-driven attitude, not others' lack of "humility" and "sobriety" (and other such moralistic, vague, judgmental buzzwords) is your primary and perhaps your only impediment.

Ben, if you could make your points in fewer words, fresher words, and without the overweening EGO, I'd listen, and so would others.

The rest of you? See past the ego, and you might see some good points. His ego, and yours as well. We do not have time for this infighting.

Now let's all get some fresh air today, and prepare ourselves for real battles in the real world REAL SOON. We'd better get past our tiffs and grudges and paranoia, and pull it together. We do not have time to waste on personal attacks, nor do we have energy to waste on endless rehashing of wordy wanks.

In Ben’s reply to Frank, he has shown that his program would not take 24 hours a day to implement. But that is not really the question, is it? The question is, how much of what we are already doing would we have to give up to implement his program? Well, looking at Ben as a consummate example of carrying out the Ben-ist program with “a disciplined approach”, it appears that we would have to essentially resign from the concrete immigrant rights, health care, anti-war, and anti-police state struggles -- given that Ben takes almost no part in these struggles. We would have to produce only one or two leaflets a year, rather than the 8 to 10 we do produce -- given that Ben produces very little agitation for distribution. We would have to drop the analysis of current events that we do to write these leaflets -- given that what Ben does write on the current struggles consists of spouting a few ”catchy phrases” and generalities, and contains almost no analysis of current events. We would have to drastically cut back on distributing the tens of thousands of leaflets we distribute in demonstrations and in working class neighborhoods each year -- given that Ben engages in little or none of this work.

When challenged on his lack of participation in various political activities, his pat response is that it is a matter of setting priorities. I prefer our priorities.

As for the details of Ben’s “program” for SAIC:

> (1) make a commitment to building an open community of supporters

SAIC does everything in its power to create a community of supporters. We focus on supporters in Seattle, since we are a Seattle based organization. I don’t know what Ben means we should do beyond what we do, but I am pretty sure it involves organizing on the internet. We prefer flesh and blood supporters, since the struggle must be carried out in the real world. We aren’t fighting to end imperialism in Second Life, after all.

> (2) make greater use of internet forums on a national level

SAIC is a Seattle-based organization. We are doing everything we can to build the movement in Seattle, because we are based in Seattle. We are too few to take on a national program. As individuals, we do participate in various forums and discussions around the world, but at a manageable level. Ben spends almost all of his time on “internet forums”, and by his own admission, even spending that much time he has had no success. And he wants us to throw over our program to implement his?

> (3) be more politically transparent,

When Ben goes on and on about SAIC being “transparent”, the net effect is to make it sound as if SAIC is a totally undemocratic organization, which makes all sorts of decisions behind closed doors. This is pure demagoguery, and Ben knows it. SAIC is the most democratic organization I have ever been a part of. In practical terms, what it turns out that Ben means is a series of things that, if examined, are somewhat absurd (more on this under pts 5 - 10 below).

> (4) take a long-term view of its tasks, including those theoretical tasks which are decisive for the revolutionary movement.

We are a coalition, with points of unity crafted to include anarchists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists, and radical reformers. Tackling revolutionary tasks, or even coming to agreement on these tasks, is outside the scope of this coalition. It isn’t a proletarian organization, and it is not intended to be. If we were to address them, we would limit our effectiveness as a coalition. All members engage in one way or another in tackling these tasks, including intensive study of past failed revolutions and the class struggles that were going on as these degenerated, including study of modern revisionism (the revision/gutting of Marxist ideas to justify reliance on classes other than the proletariat to carry out the decisive tasks) and its current manifestations, and other topics. We just don’t do it through SAIC because we understand that is not an appropriate place to do so.

> (5) distribute a political summary of its work to activists and activist organizations
> at least once a year (making wide use of electronic forums) and ask for and
> publish feedback and advocate that other organizations create, publish and
> discuss similar summaries of their own experience
>
> (6) maintain a public email discussion list
>
> (7) publish summaries of their public meetings in postings on their blog, so that
> readers can more easily understand (and publicly comment on) SAIC's priorities
> and the confrontation of agendas which is inevitable in any genuinely mass
> organization.
>
> (8) Give all members and supporters of their organization the right to some form
> of representation on its web site -- so that the politics of the people and political
> trends within SAIC can be public and the SAIC web site can represent and function
> as the union of its members' politics rather than the intersection or "least common
> denominator" everyone can agree with.
>
> (9) Post drafts of their leaflets as these leaflets are developed, along with
> summaries of the related discussion (to the extent that time allows) so that
> other activists can better understand how high-quality political agitation is created
> and participate in this process.

Ben sends out an annual summary of his activities, and has done so for years. It is the most self-serving, self-aggrandizing, sickening tripe that I have occasion to read each year.

As has been pointed out in this thread, there are plenty of public email discussion lists out there. At some point we may decide to do so, but not because Ben claims that we are anti-democratic if we do not do so. If we do it, it will be because we have examined the political climate in Seattle and nationally, and decided that it would be a useful tool for building the movement.

The discussions in SAIC meetings are of limited interest to the anti-imperialist masses, or the masses in general.

As for posting leaflet drafts publicly, we post our finalized leaflets and get one or two comments over a period of months, usually general things like “you guys are on the right track”. And, the editing process, rather than being a period of months, is a period of days. The movement is not at a point where people are chomping at the bit to participate in this way, and no matter how much Ben pretends that it were so, our simply posting drafts is not going to change the level of the movement.

> (10) Encourage discussion and debate concerning how society can exist and
> function without the political and economic system of imperialism (and the
> capitalist system of production for profit which makes imperialism inevitable) in
> order to help overcome the universal belief that the only alternative to the
> existing system of bourgeois rule is a corrupt police-state, such as the former
> Soviet Union or China, where a single party holds a monopoly of power and
> can suppress the voice of its opponents.


Again. SAIC is an anti-imperialist coalition. Our points of unity do not and should not include agreement on the nature of the post-revolutionary society we envision. We want to be open to anarchists, communists, and general left anti-imperialists. As individuals we all engage in discussion and debate on post-revolutionary society through other, more appropriate forums.

Returning to the original topic of this dispute, Ben wrote:

> I am in the position of a messenger who delivers bad news that Frank
> (and others) do not want to hear. In one amusing incident at SAIC's July
> public meeting (no one could make this stuff up) a supporter of the
> Communist Voice Organization bellowed so loudly that I was a "class
> enemy" who made him feel the need to vomit--that the librarian had to
> come upstairs and close the meeting room door in order to avoid further
> disturbing everyone else in the building. And Frank now writes that I am
> a "liar" because I had written that the recent resignation of a SAIC member
> did not result in "a single moment of sober reflection".

Ben’s assertion that we did not spend “a single moment of sober reflection” is not in the least accurate. This is the substance of Frank’s statement that Ben is a liar.

Ben is not a member of SAIC, so he has only a very limited view of the discussions and reflection that goes on, but he doesn’t let this prevent him from making categorical statements that the resignation “did not result in a single moment reflection”. How does he know that we didn’t reflect soberly, just because we didn’t spend a great deal of time at that meeting? In point of fact, every one of us had numerous discussions with her about her level of activity, whether there were activities that would capture her excitement, and so forth. We also had discussions before and after her resignation abut the reasons for her resignation. Frank pointed this out, and Ben’s response? To ignore it.

But let’s look at Ben’s notion of a “sober assessment” a little more closely. Ben writes:

> My description, however, remains correct: the reflections of Frank, and
> other SAIC members, were not sober if they failed to consider the possibility
> that this woman's resignation did not so much reflect on her lack of
> consciousness as it did on SAIC's distorted priorities and excessively
> narrow conception of its tasks.

According to Ben’s own words then, a “sober assessment” starts with his conclusion: that SAIC has “distorted priorities” and an “excessively narrow conception of its tasks”. To him, the only question to “assess” is whether “this woman’s resignation” was a result of those (supposedly) screwed up priorities or something else. If that is a “sober assessment”, then I plead guilty. I didn’t spend even a moment starting with the conclusion Ben wanted to prove, and then twisting the facts to support that conclusion.

1. Here Ben has simply "give[n] himself, and his wooden (and completely unconvincing) critique of reformism, too much credit" once again. The moral of the story is to be careful about who you speak to at mass actions because you never know who'll actually try to claim credit for your future political trajectory (while getting most of the details wrong in the process).

2. Note Ben's peculiar definition of "encourag[ing] discussion of the decisive issues." Since SAIC has not put a link on the SAIC website with a conversation on that particular topic (which Ben claims is "the decisive issue"), it must not "encourage discussion of the decisive issues"! I think what I wrote in the first #2 still stands.

3. I have no idea what their actual reason for the lack of a link is, but I do have some personal ideas on the subject, now that I think about it. (Disclaimer: I do not spend a lot of time thinking about this particular topic. Please believe me.) There are several links to your page from the CVO website (probably too many). More importantly, I think they have exhausted the debate at this point. The fact that you can repeat the same points using new language (and pretexts) does not entitle you to unlimited linkage.

4. I am happy to admit and apologize for my error. The error was based on assumption that, if Ben had actually contacted the comrade in question, he would realize that his insinuations regarding her resignation were utterly baseless and would, at the very least, lay them to rest. It turns out that he HAS contacted her, only he thinks he's found something in her "vague and generalized" explanation ("vague and generalized" because she did not wish for her resignation to be used as ammo in Ben's "information war" against SAIC, most likely) to support his views! "This is so weird," Ben. What's even more weird is how you top it off with a speech about "principles." God forbid we call you a "demagogue."

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 1:08 PM
To: 'pof-200'
Cc: 'pof-300'; 'theorist'
Subject: The Ozymandias argument and
the culture of groupthink (reply to Eric)

Hi folks,

After today I will be offline for a month or two again as
part of my political sabbatical.

I thought, before I sign off, I would make a comment on the
reply to me from Eric (SAIC and CVO supporter) from the
recent Seattle Indymedia thread at:
 http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2008/09/268695.shtml

*** I advocated that SAIC make a commitment to building an
open community of supporters.

Eric replies that "SAIC does everything in its power to
create a community of supporters."

Eric then goes on to explain that this community is mainly
restricted to Seattle and does not make use of the internet.
Eric also fails to deal with the concept of the community
being "open".

I don't believe that Eric (or SAIC) understand the concept
of an open community. It should be possible (for example)
for anyone who reads a SAIC leaflet to go to the SAIC
website and, from there, be able to learn about (and make
contact with) any supporters of SAIC who want information
about their views (or political work) to be public. An
example of how this can be done is the wiki page listing
some of the members of the media weapon community-in-embryo
at:  http://mediaweapon.wetpaint.com/

The central idea behind any genuine community is that the
members of that community have abundant opportunity to
interact with one another without permission or control by a
guiding center. I don't think SAIC understands this. For
example, SAIC maintains a MySpace page--but their website
does not link to it. You can only find this page if you are
"in the know" or search google.

The concept of an open community is alien to cargo cultists
because they would not be able to _control_ it. However a
genuinely mass anti-imperialist organization would
understand that an open community of supporters would be
essential to reaching activists and developing the influence
of the organization.

*** I advocated that SAIC take a long-term view of its
tasks, including those theoretical tasks which are decisive
for the revolutionary movement. Central to these tasks is
encouraging discussion and debate concerning how society can
exist and function without the political and economic system
of imperialism. This question is important because the
dominant view in our society is that the only alternative to
our current political system is a repressive police state
and the rule of single party.

Eric replies that, since SAIC's points of unity do not
require agreement with any particular view of the nature of
the post-revolutionary society, any and all discussion,
debate or mention of this topic must be avoided entirely.

A genuinely mass anti-imperialist organization would not, of
course, require its members to have agreement on this topic.
But it would recognize that this is an important question
and it would take practical steps to encourage discussion
aimed at developing our confidence that a better world,
without imperialism, is possible.

*** I won't deal with everything Eric says, but will add
that the guiding spirit of Eric's remarks is captured in his
introduction:

> In Ben's reply to Frank, he has shown that his
> program would not take 24 hours a day to
> implement. But that is not really the question,
> is it? The question is, how much of what we are
> already doing would we have to give up to
> implement his program? Well, looking at Ben as
> a consummate example of carrying out the Ben-ist
> program with "a disciplined approach", it
> appears that we would have to essentially resign
> from the concrete immigrant rights, health care,
> anti-war, and anti-police state struggles --
> given that Ben takes almost no part in these
> struggles. We would have to produce only one or
> two leaflets a year, rather than the 8 to 10 we
> do produce -- given that Ben produces very
> little agitation for distribution. We would
> have to drop the analysis of current events that
> we do to write these leaflets -- given that what
> Ben does write on the current struggles consists
> of spouting a few "catchy phrases" and
> generalities, and contains almost no analysis of
> current events. We would have to drastically cut
> back on distributing the tens of thousands of
> leaflets we distribute in demonstrations and in
> working class neighborhoods each year -- given
> that Ben engages in little or none of this work.

Eric's argument is a good example of the phenomenon often
called "groupthink", common in political cults of all kinds.
I call this kind of argument the "Ozymandias argument" (see
the poem below for why). To see what is wrong with it,
consider how this argument might be applied by an RCP
supporter to defend the RCP from a critic who says that the
RCP does a lot of good and useful work--but that the cult of
Avakian stuff is a real problem.

The RCP supporter can point to all the articles (some of
which are quite good) in the RCP's newspaper and the
hundreds of thousands of copies that are distributed. The
RCP supporter can then ask: "And what are you doing except
for sitting on your rear end?". With a triumphal smile the
RCP supporter can then declare that if the RCP did what the
critic was doing--it would not be writing articles and
distributing its newspaper.

The problem with the Ozymandias argument is that it is
mainly a way for supporters of a cult to feel good about
what they are doing while failing to seriously confront
criticism.

Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben/ -- my web page
Exchanges on how to build revolutionary organization:
 http://struggle.net/mass-democracy/

From "Ozymandias" (Shelley, 1817):

And on the pedestal, these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

I stand by my argument. If we were to follow your pie-in-the-sky program, we would have to give up the concrete program we are pursuing, and you have given no meaningful argument for why your program would be more effective in building a conscious anti-imperialist trend the movement.

Are we supposed to be impressed by your citation of a poem you learned about in English 101?

Eric repeats his empty argument:

> I stand by my argument. If we were to follow
> your pie-in-the-sky program, we would have to
> give up the concrete program we are pursuing,
> and you have given no meaningful argument for
> why your program would be more effective in
> building a conscious anti-imperialist trend
> the movement.

What Eric has left out is _any_ explanation of _why_ SAIC would need to abandon any part of its present concrete program in order to implement the six specific measures that I advocate:

1) maintain a public email discussion list
2) post summaries of its public meetings
3) create and distribute an annual report
4) post leaflet drafts and comments
5) give SAIC supporters the right to representation on its website
6) encourage discussion of decisive issues

Let's concisely review what this is all about:

1. In July I posted a letter criticizing SAIC for failing to implement these six measures.

2. Frank responded a week later and claimed that SAIC could not implement these measures because they would supposedly take more than 24 hours per day to implement. For good measure Frank also claimed I was a liar and a demagogue and failed to appreciate or respect women (ie: because I had forgotten the name of woman in SAIC).

3. I responded to Frank on September 7 (see above) and showed, concretely, that Frank's estimate of the time necessary for SAIC to take up these tasks was not a sober estimate. Rather than 24 hours a day -- the six measures would take closer to two or three hours per week (something that might be achievable for an organization with at least half a dozen active members).

4. Eric replied on September 12 (see above) and admitted that Frank's time estimates were not realistic. Eric insisted, however, that SAIC would have to abandon most of its work (ie: create and distribute only one or two leaflets a year instead of 8 to 10 leaflets a year) in order to implement the six measures I advocate.

But _why_ would it be necessary for SAIC to reduce its output from 8 to 10 leaflets down to 1 or 2 leaflets?

Eric's only argument was that I was not creating and distributing very many leaflets. In other words (according to Eric's argument) if SAIC were to recognize the need to implement the six measures I advocate (such as maintaining a public discussion list and posting summaries of their public meetings to their blog) -- then they would also have to be like me in every other way. So (for example) if I fart a lot--then all the SAIC comrades would supposedly be required to also fart a lot.

5. I replied to Eric on Sept 13 (see above) and pointed out that his argument was silly:

> consider how this argument might be applied by an RCP
> supporter to defend the RCP from a critic who says that
> the RCP does a lot of good and useful work--but that
> the cult of Avakian stuff is a real problem.
>
> The RCP supporter can point to all the articles (some
> of which are quite good) in the RCP's newspaper and the
> hundreds of thousands of copies that are distributed.
> The RCP supporter can then ask: "And what are you doing
> except for sitting on your rear end?". With a triumphal
> smile the RCP supporter can then declare that if the RCP
> did what the critic was doing--it would not be writing
> articles and distributing its newspaper.

6. Eric replies on October 15 (see above) and simply repeats his assertion. SAIC cannot do relatively simple things--such as maintaining a public discussion list or posting summaries of its public meetings on its blog--without reducing its leaflet creation by a factor of 80 percent.

Eric presents no reason _why_ SAIC would find it necessary to reduce its output 80 percent. We are supposed to (presumably) accept Eric's assertion as an article of faith. Why should we need scientific arguments when we can have the security and certainty of faith?

Eric continues:

> you have given no meaningful argument for
> why your program would be more effective in
> building a conscious anti-imperialist trend
> the movement.

I am not arguing, of course, that SAIC should abandon its current program. Nor am I arguing that SAIC should reduce it leaflet creation by 80 percent. The issue is not my six points vs. writing leaflets. The issue is to _combine_ SAIC's current work with _practical_ measures that are relatively easy to implement and which will help to make SAIC (and SAIC's anti-imperialist politics) more accessible and accountable to a larger number of activists.

A more sober response by Frank or Eric or X9 (the author of some of the other posts above) would be to engage someone like me in a way that is more calm and focused on the substance of the criticisms which I make.

We are all ordinary people. We all make mistakes. For the good of the movement we must learn methods of engaging with one another in calm and productive ways.

Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben (Ben's site)

** ---- WE NEED MASS DEMOCRACY ----
**  http://struggle.net/mass-democracy
**
** Real organization cannot be built on a foundation of sand.
**
** If we can create a mass anti-imperialist organization
** where decisions and struggle are based on mass democracy
** then we will capture the imagination of serious activists
** everywhere--and be in a position to change the dynamics of
** the entire antiwar movement. In other words: we will win.