On Vanguard Parties

By Alex

However necessary a vanguard party is, the Left as a whole is currently confused and disoriented because not only is there no vanguard, but the whole idea of a vanguard has become muddled and distorted by the degeneration of the workers’ state in the USSR and the flat-out non-existence of the workers’ state in other “communist” nations.

The massive amount of misconceptions that came out of the October Revolution of 1917 will be difficult to clear up, but it is possible.

Unfortunately, the main reason those misconceptions have NOT been cleared up at this point is because of the countless cult-like organization where Marxism and Leninism have been converted into a sort of religion. These groups denounce the failures of the USSR and other regimes on the surface, yet they turn around and throw phrases at us like “democratic centralism” and “dictatorship of the proletariat” without understanding what those phrases actually mean.

These organizations claim to support democracy and genuine workers’ rule, but when asked the tough questions like “will one party hold a monopoly over political power?” they cannot answer! When asked about the need for the entire working class to have CONCRETE democratic rights of free speech and organization, they cannot answer! When asked about whether the workers will have direct control over their vanguard organization, they will not answer!

This is extremely confusing for people on the Left and it has led to the complete theoretical bankruptcy of nearly all 21st century “Marxist” thought.

We have to be clear that classes are led by parties. I believe that history has demonstrated that a vanguard party in some form will be a necessary tool in mobilizing the masses.

However, if we want to create a successful vanguard capable of mobilizing the masses and ending bourgeois rule, I believe there are several things that have to be done:

1. This organization must implement the principle of COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY. Workers need to be able to see what goes on behind the curtain and provide input, or else it’s not really their organization is it?

2. We must dare to talk about our goal. We must make clear that workers’ rule WILL NOT look like the degenerated police state of the USSR. Further, we must also drive home that even workers’ rule is not our ultimate goal. Stateless, classless society with peace and abundance is our long-term goal, with the necessary precursor of workers’ rule as a short-term goal.

3. We must make clear that in a post-revolutionary situation, the vanguard party CANNOT be the ruling party. If there is one party that maintains a monopoly over political power, it must suppress all that oppose it to maintain this position. This includes the suppression of those who expose the possible corruption, hypocrisy, and degeneration that may exist within the party. Thus, a monolithic party-state will lead to degeneration (this is what has happened every time to date) and is contradictory to the concept of workers’ rule.

4. Above all, we have to be clear that workers will have concrete democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule.

We have to be sure not to separate democratic rights from popular support, however. Revolutions like the Hungarian revolution ultimately failed because the revolution did not have popular support.

If the vanguard party does not have the popular support of the masses before and after the revolution, it cannot allow democratic rights of free speech and organization because the unhappy population will go along with anyone who opposes the vanguard, and thus the bourgeoisie will be able to manipulate the masses and retake power.

However, workers’ rule will be suffocated and in its place will arise a corrupt bureaucracy if such democratic rights of free speech do not exist.

So, we had damn well better make sure that the vanguard party has the support of the masses.

Many Leftist organizations insist that one party (the “real” Marxist party) will have to maintain a monopoly over political power because they are the only “real” representatives of the class, and that socialism cannot afford “breaks in the ranks.”

But if the “real” Marxist party has the popular support of the masses, it will not need to suppress democratic rights, and thus, workers will be able to expose any potential corruption from within the party and deal with it. In short, workers’ rule will be successful.

Further, the key to gaining the popular support of the masses is to assure them that true workers’ rule will not have to suppress democratic rights. So it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: if we gain popular support, workers will have democratic rights of free speech and workers’ rule will be successful; if we assure the masses that they will have democratic rights and workers’ rule will be successful, we will have popular support.

——————————————————————————————-

Appendix A: On Centralism

——————————————————————————————-

One of the reasons for the rejection of the concept of a vanguard party is that it has a tendency, many claim, to become a corrupt group of elitists who do not really represent the class. They assert that such a party is naturally undemocratic. It is true that vanguard parties in the past have has this problem, but this is no reason to reject the entire notion of a vanguard party. The Left in a state of confusion and disarray, and a vanguard in some form will be a very usefull and, I believe, necessary tool in organizing the masses. Unfortunately, this issue is not being resolved because of the prethera of “Marxist-Leninist” groups that continue to assert that centralism is a necessary feature of a vanguard party in the 21st century.

Lenin’s ideal vanguard organization was one that would have been completely transparent, where the “entire political arena is as open to the public view as is a theatre stage to the audience.” In this way, elitism and corruption that could emerge in the party would be exposed, and the masses would be able to assert genuine control over the vanguard organization. In short, transparency would allow such a party to belong to the working class.

However, the implementation in Russia was quite different. The extremely harsh political conditions led Lenin to believe that the vanguard would need a more centralized and secretive structure. Members of the party had to distribute pamphlets and newspapers in secret, as they were illegal, and they often had to avoid Russia’s secret police. Further, such a centralized structure can be useful in terms of military effectiveness, as it was understood that in Russia, such military discipline would be necessary in order to effectively confront the powerful Czarist regime.

The first thing we have to understand is that this centralized structure comes with a fairly large number of problems. Centralization and secresy, which was intended to keep the Russian government “out of the loop,” in many cases kept the workers “out of the loop” as well. And organization can also be so secretive that members of the party don’t know what’s going on. Although this ensures that no one will leak any information, it can lead to huge misunderstandings in a time when clarity is needed. Moreover, if the workers cannot see what goes on behind the curtain, corruption, hypocrisy, elitism, etc. can all go unchecked.

The second thing we have to realize is that the centralization of the vanguard party in Russia was a measure designed for Russia specifically. Russia was an extremely backward society. It is wrong to believe that such measures will be necessary in a stable, modern society like the United States, for example. And the risks of centralism today far outweigh its benefits.

It is necessary for vanguard organizations in the 21st century to adopt a much more transparent program similar to that which was advocated initially by Lenin in “What is to be Done?” The workers must be able to see what goes on behind or else it’s not really their organization.

——————————————————————————————————-

Appendix B: What about counter-revolutionaries?

——————————————————————————————————-

This came up in a discussion when I mentioned that the vanguard party cannot be the ruling party:

>not necessarily. The revolution may need to defend itself and thus need to
>defend the workers. a party of opposition may be to the state a party of counter-
>revolution.

Indeed. But first of all, it is not practical or necessary to suppress such parties for this reason:

The authority to decide what is acceptable, healthy, or unhealthy in culture must be given to the working class and not a centralized point of control.

Frank (founder of the CVO and a proponent of single-party rule) argues:

> To even gain power and therefore have democratic rights
> like freedom of speech the proletariat is going to have
> to deny such freedoms to others.

This is simply not true. In capitalist nations, the bourgeoisie firmly hold power, but the workers still have democratic rights of free speech even though what they say goes against the very existence of the bourgeoisie [this is why we are able to have this discussion :)]. But no one who truly understands how our society works would say that the workers rule.

Similarly, the democratic rights of those who oppose workers’ rule will not need to be suppressed for the workers to rule.

Secondly, if the vanguard party has the popular support of the masses, it will have nothing to fear from allowing democratic rights. Specific, corrupt individuals may have something to fear from it, but workers’ rule, as a whole, will have nothing to fear. On the contrary, workers’ rule NEEDS these democratic rights.

Further still, there is a major difference between closing a bourgeois TV station that exploits its workers and limiting the ability of people to organize in the streets and distribute leaflets, etc. The first would be completely acceptable. But the second is extremely dangerous and such suppression has led to the degeneration of every single workers’ state to date.

The fetish with centralized control over politics and economy that has infected a large portion of the Left comes from a misunderstanding of what happened in the USSR. The suppression of democratic rights in the USSR didn’t start with Stalin. It started with Lenin. But the fundamental difference between these two people was that Lenin made clear that the limitations on democratic rights and the merger between party and state were temporary emergency measures. Lenin knew it was a gamble but in Russia there were two options: a) Hand over power to the bourgeoisie, or b) temporarily suppress democratic rights to allow the Bolsheviks time to repair the shattered economy, so that there might be a chance that workers’ rule would be possible in the future.

But Lenin was incapacitated and Stalin took over. Stalin turned these temporary emergency measures into supposedly necessary and essential features of socialism. And although most organizations on the Left denounce the Stalin of the 1930s that murdered a huge portion of the working class, they do not denounce the early Stalin that asserted that the suppression of democratic rights was essential to socialism. And this is where the Left is crippled theoretically.

It is completely backward to assume that such measures, which were recognized by Lenin to be temporary emergency measures that were necessary specifically in Russia, will be necessary in a stable modern society.

In fact, such suppression will not only be dangerous to the emergence of genuine workers’ rule, but it will be detrimental to the economy. Suppression of democratic rights will necessarily mean the censorship of the internet to some extent. And since so much of the economy has gone digital, this will mean that limiting the internet will cripple a modern economy’s ability to function and sustain itself. One only has to look at China to discover the impracticality of censoring democratic rights.

In short, we need new paradigms that apply to modern societies like the ones in which we currently live and are applicable to the 21st century. And to be able to mobilize the masses and guide them to victory, political organizations will have to make this point clear; they will have to physically go out an tell people that complete democratic rights will be essential to workers’ rule, instead of just “implying” it the same evasive way that people use to justify the corrupt Soviet and Chinese regimes. Because without doing this, the masses will remain confused and will be turned off by the increasing cultishness of mainstream Leftist organizations.

The party can lead the class, but the party is not the class. If one party rules, the class does not. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

“The proletariat cannot achieve the socialist revolution unless it is prepared for this task by the struggle for democracy; victorious socialism cannot retain its victory and lead humanity to the stage when the state withers away unless it establishes complete democracy.” — V.I. Lenin

Why NO Revolutionary Votes Democrat (How to End the War)

With the imperialist war in Iraq and a failed health care system, it sure is tempting to buy into the Democratic Party’s empty promises and outright lies. In a time when the nation has dug itself into a hole it is now extremely difficult to get out of, it is tempting to support anyone who promotes any kind of change. But NO ONE who wants real social change, NO ONE who is a genuine revolutionary, votes Democrat.

In the first place, it has become exceedingly clear that the Democrats are as much an imperialist party as the Republicans. The Democrats have consistently passed pro-war legislation, have consistently been non-committal on ending the Iraq war, and yet nearly all current “anti-war” organizations are tied with a thousand threads to the Democratic Party and its “progressive” wing.

Let us be clear that any promises the Democratic Party and its “progressive” wing make are merely attempts to appease the public while the mainstream politicians go on passing pro-war legislation (thus far, they have been successful). For example, in March, MSNBC and other media like the Wall Street Journal reported on a closed-door meeting between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and some of the “progressive,” “anti-war” Democrats. In it, the “progressives” agreed to make sure Pelosi’s $100 billion escalation of the Iraq war passed in the “Out of Iraq Caucus.”  Then, when the Democrats were sure the legislation would pass, these same “progressives” voted against it when it reached the floor!

And lo and behold, these “progressives” were then invited to ANSWER Coalition “anti-war” rallies!

Thus, it becomes apparent that the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party has a special role: to make the Democratic Party appear anti-war to the public so that mainstream Democrats can go on fulfilling their imperialist interests. It is also obvious that the Democrats’ only opposition to the current situation in Iraq is that the strategy isn’t “working” and thus threatens the power of U.S. imperialism.

Therefore, neither the mainstream or “progressive” democrats deserve our support. But many will argue that electing a Democrat to President in 2008 will make it easier for the anti-war movement to win and that the Democrats are “the lesser of two evils.”

To this, I answer: CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS STILL LEAVES YOU WITH EVIL!

If we cannot show the imperialist politicians that we will not vote for them and that we have broken from the entire economic and political system of imperialism, then they have no reason to listen to us, and no reason to end the war. Supporting the Democrats and voting for them in 2008 will only weaken the anti-war movement, because it shows that we are not a threat. In short, giving imperialist politicians our support is no way to defeat imperialism!

Why the Left is paralyzed
————————————

The Left is paralyzed for many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that nearly all anti-war organizations are still tied in some way to the Democrats and their “progressive” wing, or similar “progressive” but imperialist parties, like the Green Party. At anti-war rallies, groups will often invite politicians as speakers, and they will promote the same old reformist solutions, like writing a letter to your congressman or signing a petition.

The say that all we need do is give up our militancy and start kissing ass, and the politicians will end the war. 

But this has effectively led the Left into complete pacifism and stagnancy, because by resorting to signing petitions and writing letters, the Left has shown the ruling class that it is not a threat, and therefore, the politicians will not feel remotely pressured to end the war. Thus, we need anti-war organization that breaks from both imperialist parties, and, in fact, the entire economic system of capitalism and the imperialist system from which it is inseparable.

What is imperialism?
————————–

Imperialism is an economic and political system into which we are born where the ruling class uses its military and economic power to force its influence upon other countries for profit. Imperialism only leads to death, destruction, and endless war. Because it is a direct result of the capitalist mode of production, no “saviors” from above can “fix” this economic system, as it is not a “policy.” The rich ruling class, which finances all of the politicians, will never eliminate imperialism and the capitalist system which creates it because they thrive on its profits.

Learning from the generation of ‘68
———————————————

The U.S. Government did not end the Vietnam war because the people elected the “right” candidates or signed petitions or wrote letters to their representatives. The war in Vietnam ended because the masses threw off their reformist misconceptions and took to the streets. Likewise, change today will not come from electing the “right” candidate into office come 2008. There are no “right” candidates. Because of the nature of the imperialist system, all politicians are representatives of the ruling class and thus will fight for the continuation of the imperialist system that gives them so much money.

Rather, we must take to the streets, and through militant mass action, show the ruling class that we will not support them and that we have broken entirely from the economic and political system of imperialism. Only then will the government feel threatened enough to end the war.

U.S. Imperialism Stops Now!

The war in Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos. And with at least 3,771 U.S. soldiers dead (as of September 12) and perhaps as many as 600,000 Iraqi deaths as a result of the invasion of the country, the only course for the future that the Republicans and the Democrats set is for more death and destruction.

Now, U.S. government officials and military generals have stopped talking about the September “progress” report (which implies that “victory” is near) and are instead talking of keeping troops in Iraq for a decade, perhaps decades.

The current excuse for the continued occupation of Iraq is to prevent a civil war, but a fierce civil war has broken out in spite of (or because of) the U.S. imperialist occupation. In an act of desperation (or as part of its efforts to put pressure on some of its Shi’ite allies) the U.S. military is now backing Sunni tribes that were previously blowing up American troops.

Since the military invaded Iraq four-and-a-half years ago, the Bush Administration has given excuse after excuse for the occupation. First, Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, so he changed his story. He said that the military went in to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein. But after this was accomplished and troop withdrawal was still nowhere in sight, Bush changed his story once again, claiming that the intent of the Iraq invasion was to “spread democracy.”

But it’s not about “spreading democracy” and it never was. The real reason the U.S. military invaded Iraq was to gain control of their vast oil resources and establish a permanent military base in the region. This becomes apparent when we see that all plans for “withdrawal” include maintaining a military presence in the region for an indefinite period of time, and when we see that one of the “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government is to pass laws favorable to U.S. oil.

This is called IMPERIALISM, an economic system into which we are born where the government uses its military to force its influence upon other nations for the benefit of large corporations like the oil companies. The bloodshed must be stopped, but change isn’t going to come from above! Imperialism cannot be “fixed” by ANY politicians, because those politicians are_part_of the economic system of imperialism!

What of the “anti-war” Democrats?

The Democrats have achieved an amazing feat. They have managed to pass pro-war legislation while maintaining their image of being “anti-war.” Recognizing that the fiasco in Iraq posed a threat to U.S. imperialism, the Democrats proposed a non-binding resolution opposing the “troop surge.” But when their resolution was a flop, they gave Bush and the Republicans exactly what they wanted: more money and more troops for the war.

This has enraged many, but what about the supposedly “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party? This wing of the Democratic Party has a special mission: to promote one of the most bloodstained lies of all time. Democratic Party politicians like Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, and Jim McDermott are on a leash. They are allowed to mouth off a bit about Bush’s criminal war in order to promote the illusion among activists that, if they only give up their independence and militancy and kiss enough ass – the imperialist Democratic Party can be transformed into a party of “peace” that serves the people. We must ask these “progressive” politicians: if you oppose imperialism then why are you a member of the Democratic Party — why do you, by your actions, promote the idea that this die-hard imperialist party can be fundamentally changed?

In March, the media reported of a closed-door meeting between Nancy Pelosi and some of these “progressive” Democrats. In it, a deal was made that the “progressives” would make sure Pelosi’s $100 billion escalation of the war would pass in the “Out of Iraq Caucus.“ Then, it was agreed that these progressives would personally vote against the bill when it reached the floor! Similarly, when the Democrats were sure that this legislation had enough votes to pass, they allowed their top presidential candidates (like Clinton and Obama) to oppose it as well. Thus, the Democrats were able to pass pro-war legislation while maintaining an “anti-war” image. Further, the only “alternatives” currently being suggested by the “progressives” are simply different ways to achieve the same imperialist goals that the mainstream Democrats and Republicans want. Finally, although Bush announced a “partial withdrawal” of troops, this is only to avoid an uprising by the American people, and no one said anything about a total withdrawal!

Therefore, waiting for change to come from above won’t work, and we must take action ourselves!

We need organization which is independent of the mainstream antiwar organizations

In recent months the die-hard imperialist nature of the Democratic Party has become more clear to a wider section of activists. Because of this, the mainstream antiwar organizations are now talking a bit more than they have in the past about the treachery of the imperialist Democrats. It is good thing that the mainstream antiwar organizations are organizing demonstrations and other mass actions, but unfortunately, these organizations remain bound with a thousand threads to the left wing of the Democratic Party and the liberal brand of imperialist politics. For example, the speakers at their rallies will often promote the same old reformist solutions like writing letters that appeal to the conscience of politicians, or encourage sending troops to Iraq (under a NATO or United Nations flag).

The antiwar movement will remain weak and powerless until it makes a decisive break with all sections of the Democratic Party and with the imperialist politics and imperialist illusions that are inseparable from the Democratic Party. The antiwar movement will become powerful when it is based on the masses and on mass action, and when it recognizes the need to fight for a world without imperialism. A world without imperialism will be a world that is not run by the rich (i.e.: the bourgeoisie — the ruling class of big-time capitalists) but will instead be run by the working class and masses, with peace, abundance and genuine democracy for all.

When the antiwar movement recognizes the need to target and get rid of the entire economic and political system of imperialism (and the rule of the rich which makes imperialism inevitable) this will set off the alarm bells in the corridors of power, and increase the pressure on all the political flunkies of the rich to end the criminal war in Iraq.

Antiwar activists need organizations which work consistently to oppose illusions in all imperialist politicians and saviors from the establishment. But this alone is not enough. In order to avoid the sectarian disease with infects much of the left, we need organization which is based on democracy and political transparency. The authors of this leaflet want to see such an organization develop. We need your help to make this happen.

"Cargo-Cult Leninism" (Part 3)

Author
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)

Summary

Many so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.

Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.

What is the solution?

We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!

This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.

==============================================
What is “The Red Beacon?”
==============================================

This is a news channel run by Alex.

The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war — or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.

The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.

This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).

More info can be found in the “Afterword” section of this article.

====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================

These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
— by Ben Seattle, June 2007

———————————————————————————-
What is revolutionary theory?
(– Is it GLUE to hold an organization together? – or a STICK we use to beat heretics? – or is it a LIGHT that helps us see?)
———————————————————————————-

Organizations based on cargo-cult Leninism often see revolutionary theory as a kind of “glue” (ie: a set of tribal totems and taboos)
that holds their organization together. Frank appears to uphold this view in his description of the real “crisis of theory” faced by the MLP as it disintegrated. In his reply to me, Frank noted that at this time a number of weird and wrong views sprouted among supporters of the party.

In Frank’s view the most important priority was to mobilize people around the party to condemn the heretics. Frank explains that this was “the only way to salvage anything from the situation”.

This was not my view. I dealt very heavily with theory during this period but, for the most part, I ignored most of these weird (and obviously wrong) views because it was clear that other theoretical issues were more important.

Frank hints at one of these issues when he describes one of the wrong views:

“Stalinism, it was implied by some, was merely the logical product of Leninism.”

Now I am not in agreement with this particular wrong view that Frank cites – but I did consider this an important issue to investigate – and I have done so (see: “The Foundations of Modern Revisionism”). The suppression of democratic rights for which Stalin is well known did not begin with Stalin. This suppression began under Lenin’s leadership. The difference between Lenin and Stalin was that Lenin made clear that these measures were temporary emergency measures – while Stalin (without even waiting for Lenin’s body to get cold) proclaimed these measures as eternal principles of working class rule. But you can’t oppose the wrong view that Frank describes in a very clear way unless you understand this difference. And this difference was never understood by the MLP – and has never been written about by Frank’s organization, the CVO.

This is a key difference in how Frank and I view the role of revolutionary theory. Revolutionary theory is not a stick we use to beat or humiliate heretics. We use theory to answer questions – and to guide our work by helping us see the vital connection between our work in the day-to-day struggles today and our revolutionary goal tomorrow. If someone is hesitant to work for a future society that he thinks may be a police state – we can make use of this doubt to help us understand the theoretical questions for which the entire revolutionary movement needs answers.

———————————————————————————-
The Spectre of Endless Discussion
(We don’t need to live in fear of talking about our goal. We can sort things out a little bit at a time …)
———————————————————————————-

Recently, in response to my proposal that SAIC take steps to address the need for a clear vision of our revolutionary goal, X9 said that this raised the issue of “endless discussion”.

This line holds that so-called “endless discussion” represents a threat – and will divert SAIC from other important work – as evidenced by numerous people who spend all their time talking on the internet instead of doing anything to build the movement.

I call this the “don’t drink water” argument. It is a scientific fact that drinking too much water will kill you. But no one uses this as an argument against ever drinking water. Sometimes water is essential. The way to avoid drinking too much water is to use a little bit of common sense. Then we don’t have to be afraid of drinking water.

It is true that if we spent all our time discussing our disagreements or controversial issues – then we would get nothing done. But this does not mean that we should not be able to participate in discussion in a measured way on an ongoing basis. The way to prevent long-term, ongoing discussion from undermining our work and focus – is to manage our time, focus and priorities so that the time we spend in discussion does not undermine other necessary fronts of work.

Frank makes a similar argument against developing SAIC’s web site. Frank argues that if we put too much energy and focus on developing our website – this will lead to neglect of other necessary fronts of work. And, of course, this is true. Here, again, the way to develop our website without undermining our work is be careful about what is “too much” – and to begin modestly, gradually putting work into our website and paying careful attention to the point at which other necessary work begins to be neglected.

———————————————————————————-
The foundations of modern revisionism (“Marxism-Leninism” is anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist and revisionist)
———————————————————————————-

Frank says that I have abandoned “Marxism-Leninism”. This is true. But what does the phrase “Marxism-Leninism” really mean? This term was never used by Marx or Lenin – it was coined by Stalin after Lenin’s death in order to oppose the principles for which Marx and Lenin fought.

Stalin argued, in his book “Foundations of Leninism” (1924) that the “unity of will” of workers’ parties everywhere required “iron discipline” to prevent “the existence of a number of centers” and “division of authority”.

In this case “number of centers” and “division of authority” are code phrases for democratic norms of open struggle between groups within the party that have opposing views on important questions.

Unlike Lenin – who had argued that various restrictions on democracy (both within the party and in society as a whole) were temporary emergency measures in a truly desperate situation – Stalin proclaimed that all workers’ parties (in all times, places and conditions) must speak with a single voice and, under Stalin, the merged party-state ruthlessly suppressed the independent political voice and independent political life of the working class.

As a result, the concept of rule by the working class (ie: the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “socialism”) has since become identified with a police state – the rule of a corrupt minority which falsely claims to represent the interest of the workers and which suppresses the voice of all opposition.

The Marxist-Leninist Party (which both Frank and I supported until its dissolution in 1993) did extensive theoretical work which exposed Stalin’s capitulation to international capitalism in the mid-1930’s when (frightened by Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Germany and desperate to make a deal with the west in the hopes that they would put a leash on Hitler instead of financing the build-up of the nazi war machine) Stalin liquidated the International Communist Movement and led it into the social-democratic sewer.

While the MLP repudiated the Stalin of the 1930’s – it never repudiated the early Stalin who turned Lenin’s temporary emergency restrictions on democratic rights into supposedly essential and eternal principles of working class rule. The MLP paid dearly for failing to pursue the vital theoretical questions involved in how democratic rights were necessary to (and inseparable from) the stability of workers’ rule.

The resulting crisis of confidence led to a meltdown which destroyed the organization. The leftover religious orientation (see sidebar on “cargo-cult Leninism”) resulted in great bitterness between the majority (who concluded that banging one’s head against a brick wall would accomplish very little and who therefore became demoralized and politically passive) and the minority (who concluded that banging one’s head against a brick wall would eventually produce results as long as one did not lose faith).

The Communist Voice Organization originated from the wreckage of the MLP, as did my own work. But while the CVO has never confronted any of the key theoretical questions (ie: the inseparability of democratic rights from workers’ rule, the incompatibility of workers’ rule with the dictatorship of a single party or organization, etc) – I have seen the consequences of ignoring the vital questions of theory and have pursued the decisive theoretical struggle.

This has led me to repudiate the revisionist orientation and religious methods which were part of “Marxism-Leninism” since its birth in 1924. This has led me to look again at the profoundly democratic principles of Lenin which Stalin worked to bury. As a result I have supported the proposal advanced by Russian worker comrades such as Gregory Isayev (arrested for organizing workers under the rule of both Brezhnev and Yeltsin) that the movement for workers’ rule abandon the name “communism” in order to signal a clear and decisive break with the treachery of the “communist” leaders who have betrayed the working class.

The precedent for this is the decisive break that was made against the treacherous parties of the Second International which, in 1914, supported the mutual slaughter of worker against worker that has become known as the first world war. At that time Lenin argued that the name “social-democracy” was hopelessly discredited in the eyes of workers and that a new name for the workers’ movement was necessary. Lenin proposed using the name “communism” (as had originally been used by Marx at the time of the Manifesto). Isayev has proposed that the new name be “proletarism”. That sounds just fine to me.

Stalin’s argument against “the existence of a number of centers” and the need to speak with a single voice appears to me to represent the real basis of Frank’s argument that SAIC would be “disorganized” if its website featured a diversity of voices. Frank has attempted to support his position with a variety of arguments – but none of these arguments seem very solid to me.

“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy

=================================================
Afterword
=================================================

Contents
—————————————–
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is “The Red Beacon?”
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info

———————————————————————–
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
———————————————————————–

YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.

However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:

1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html

2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.

3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.

4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.

——————————————————————————–
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
——————————————————————————–

First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don’t have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.

If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html

Note that if you’re already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).

————————————————————
3. What is “The Red Beacon?”
————————————————————

Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.

It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com

At this stage, the “community” is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.

However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.

———————————————————————–
4. Our Mission
———————————————————————–

The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war — or the democratic, open struggle for ideas

My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.

This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).

————————————————————————–
5. Links for more info
————————————————————————–

Ben Seattle — http://struggle.net/ben

“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political Transparency — http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy

The Red Beacon — http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com

"Cargo-Cult Leninism" (Part 2)

Author
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)

Summary

Many so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.

Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.

What is the solution?

We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!

This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.

==============================================
What is “The Red Beacon?”
==============================================

This is a news channel run by Alex.

The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war — or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.

The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.

This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).

More info can be found in the “Afterword” section of this article.

====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================

These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
— by Ben Seattle, June 2007

———————————————————————————-
The problem with pragmatism
———————————————————————————-

Frank’s main argument is that readers need only look at the fruit of his work and compare it to the fruit of Ben’s work – and that is all you really need to know about our respective principles.

In other words, Frank points to the success of SAIC and compares this to the lack of success (so far) of our community-in-embryo. On this basis, Frank argues that his views must be correct and that the “information war” and “community” principles which I advocate must be worthless.

The problem with this argument is that it amounts to what is sometimes called “pragmatism”.
It is true that, by its fruit, we can know the tree (ie: we can judge the effectiveness of competing principles by looking at the practical results of these principles when applied to the real world). This is the basis of the scientific method: you determine truth by experiment.
But “pragmatism” tends to take this principle too far. Some experiments may only produce results when there is:

(1) a critical mass of talented and dedicated people

(2) sufficient time and

(3) favorable circumstances

So Frank may be deceiving himself when he claims that the “information war” and “community” principles are worthless. We have not yet proven that these principles are powerful but neither has Frank proven that they are not.
So this question is not yet settled. [1]

Attempts to create light bulbs and airplanes were not successful except after many repeated attempts. Nor has there ever been a revolution that put the working class firmly into power. But we do not conclude from this that light bulbs, airplanes or proletarian revolutions are impossible.

Further, sometimes the results of an experiment can be misleading. The RCP, for example, has been able to put together a national organization and organize actions of various kinds. However this does not prove that the RCP’s orientation is correct. On a larger scale, the Soviet people, under Stalin’s leadership, defeated Hitler. However this does not prove that Stalin’s principles were all correct either.

Footnote 1: The sentence “So this question is not yet settled” was added, for clarity, on July 14

———————————————————————————-
Cargo cults and cargo-cult Leninism
———————————————————————————-

There is a name for the kind of religion that is formed when people encounter an advanced technology which they are unable to understand: it is called a “cargo cult” (named after the South Pacific islanders who encountered American military logistics teams during the second world war and who, as a result, attempted to contact the gods of cargo by doing such things as carving microphones out of wood and headphones out of coconut shells and repeating the magic phrase “Roger, over and out” in hopes that the big silver birds would land with their bellies full of precious cargo).

Anthropologists have counted at least 75 cargo cults that formed independently of one another, in regions separated by thousands of miles, in the period from the 1890’s to the end of the second world war. These cults became popular because they embodied the anti-colonial sentiments of the native islanders and their belief that they, too, were entitled to a share of the material benefits of civilization. Cargo cults united peoples of different tribes that, previously, had little in common and led to such things as mass boycotts of mandatory attendance at missionary churches.

For this reason, the European colonialists would beat and imprison cargo cult leaders. There is at least one cargo cult that is still active (the “Jon Frum” movement in Vanuatu, east of Australia).

Cargo cults are fascinating for several reasons. They give us insight into the formation of religion and the process of human cognition. We tend to understand things on the basis of their external features and appearance. Hence the tendency to copy the outward appearance of phenomenon which we want to emulate but do not understand.

Many “Marxist” groups are caught up in what I call “cargo-cult Leninism” and have developed their own tribal totems and taboos. Basically, they have created a little religion on the basis of an appreciation for (but a limited understanding of) Lenin’s 1917 revolution. Frank and the CVO make a fetish out of centralized control and they repeat magic words and phrases such as “dialectical materialism”, “democratic centralism”, “dictatorship of the proletariat”. And they can repeat by rote many sacred definitions. But they do not understand what these words mean.

———————————————————————————-
– Join our group – We can do your thinking for you
(Why do supporters of left-wing groups so often drink the kool-aid ?)
———————————————————————————-

Groups on the left are often bonded together on the basis of special beliefs and practices – which are sometimes shallow and silly – and which often undermine work to build the antiwar and revolutionary movements. Why do supporters of these groups so often “drink the kool-aid” and accept and believe shallow arguments?

Because they WANT to believe
——————————————-

1. They want to be loyal to their group

2. Things seem to be going ok

3. People who advance these arguments have proven knowledgeable in the past on
many related topics and are generally good people, likeable and trustworthy

4. People sense that these common beliefs play a vital role in holding the organization together and any challenge to them might threaten or destabilize the organization.

5. The group has developed an internal language and a system of rationalizations (ie: internal arguments) supporting their beliefs that are plausible enough, (in the absence of effective challenge) to feel good

6. The perception is that there is relatively little harm if one is mistaken. So why worry?

7. Looking too deeply into supporting arguments requires independent thought and analysis which requires hard work and can be difficult and uncomfortable.

What is the Solution?
——————————-

An exclusive focus on rooting for the organization which one supports – might be appropriate for a football or basketball game – but these attitudes are deeply corrupt and immensely damaging to the revolutionary movement. We need a clean break from these kinds of corrupt traditions – we need to develop a new tradition – one of individual accountability and commitment to integrity on the important political and theoretical questions of our time.

Accountability and independent thought require regular participation in public forums
————————————————————-

Supporters of groups on the left can take steps to develop their capacity for independent thought and analysis by regular participation in public forums where they can gain experience in defending the views and practices of the group they support and, in the process, learn from others. Posting once a month (or at least several times a year) in a forum suitable for the kinds of discussions that unfold over weeks or months – and responding to calm and intelligent criticism – can help supporters learn to be accountable to the movement and to discover weaknesses and potential problems in the views, practices and internal rationalizations of the group they support.

“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy

=================================================
Afterword
=================================================

Contents
—————————————–
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is “The Red Beacon?”
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info

———————————————————————–
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
———————————————————————–

YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.

However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:

1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-2.html

2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.

3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.

4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.

——————————————————————————–
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
——————————————————————————–

First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don’t have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.

If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-2.html

Note that if you’re already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).

————————————————————
3. What is “The Red Beacon?”
————————————————————

Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.

It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com

At this stage, the “community” is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.

However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.

———————————————————————–
4. Our Mission
———————————————————————–

The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war — or the democratic, open struggle for ideas

My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.

This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).

————————————————————————–
5. Links for more info
————————————————————————–

Ben Seattle — http://struggle.net/ben

“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political Transparency — http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy

The Red Beacon — http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com

"Cargo-Cult Leninism" (Part 1)

Author
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)

Summary

Many, so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.

Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.

What is the solution?

We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!

This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.

==============================================
What is “The Red Beacon?”
==============================================

This is a news channel run by Alex.

The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war — or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.

The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.

This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).

More info can be found in the “Afterword” section of this article.

====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================

These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
— by Ben Seattle, June 2007

———————————————————————————-
Introduction
———————————————————————————-

In my recent annual report (May 2007) I discussed the principles which I believe must guide the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC) in order for it to fulfill its potential to evolve into a revolutionary mass organization. Frank, a supporter of SAIC and the Communist Voice Organization (CVO), replied to me at length and opposed, in particular, my proposal that the SAIC website add a section where SAIC members and supporters could post articles or opinions — arguing that this would somehow make it more difficult for activists to resolve their differences. Frank also opposed my proposal that SAIC take up explicitly revolutionary tasks, such as encouraging discussion aimed at creating a clear vision of our revolutionary goal. Frank also made a number of criticisms of me and the principles which have guided my political work for the last 15 years.

I am replying to Frank in order to draw attention to the principles which I believe will be the salvation of the revolutionary movement. It is unlikely, in the short run, that my arguments here will have much influence with SAIC or CVO activists, much less Frank. I believe, however, that in the long run — the effort to forge and clearly explain fundamental principles will be of immense value. If the antiwar movement in the US takes a more serious turn, in which a large section of activists throw off illusions that US imperialism can be reformed (similar to what happened in 1968), then many activists will understand organizational principles to be a matter of life and death. In a period of great urgency and confusion we will need clear descriptions of principles that conform to the needs of the movement.

Resolution requires open struggle
———————————————

The first principle of a mass organization based on mass democracy — is that resolution of our differences requires a period of open struggle in which the best arguments on each side are brought out in the light of the sun and sufficient time exists for activists to study, consider, discuss and debate these arguments. Allowing supporters to post to the SAIC website conforms to this principle.

Movement needs revolutionary organization
————————————————————

Frank has argued that SAIC cannot take up revolutionary tasks because it is not a “communist” organization and that “our agreement” is that these tasks be entrusted to “other organizations and forums” (ie: the CVO). It is traditional in the movement for a cargo-cult organization of one or another flavor (ie: trotskyist, avakianite, etc) to lead a mass organization which includes those not inclined to drink the kool-aid. But that does not make it right. Frank advocates that SAIC entrust the CVO with tasks such as:

(a) developing SAIC’s ideological life (ie: by means of the CVO study group [*]) and

(b) developing and putting forward aclear vision of our revolutionary goal.

But SAIC should not be dependent in either of these ways on the CVO. First because SAIC should stand on its own feet and second because the CVO is utterly unreliable on both counts:

(a) people like me (who have done independent theoretical work and are aware of the CVO’s shortcomings) are excluded from the CVO study group

(b) the CVO is totally incapable of putting forward a clear vision of our revolutionary goal. For example: in the 12 years since they were founded they have never said a single word in print that recognizes and discusses the need for the working class and masses to have the democratic rights of speech and organization in order to exercise control over the economy, culture and politics of society in the period after bourgeois rule has been overthrown. The CVO appears to be aware of the brutal suppression of democratic rights over many decades by the former Soviet Union and the current Chinese regimes – but they are unable to reach the conclusion that they have any obligation to make it clear that their goal is not a similar society – even though their leaflets and theoretical journal are festooned with the hammer and sickle symbols of these regimes and they use various phrases (like: “socialism”) which they repeat but are unable to understand, explain or defend.

We need calm, long-term discussion
————————————————-

I look forward to reading calm and considered opinions concerning the principles which are decisive to our movement. In the months and years ahead we will all gain experience and learn from our mistakes.

* [Footnote by Ben. July 14] After writing this I learned that the study group is not an official CVO study group. It is an informal study group. A SAIC supporter emailed me and informed me that the reason I was not welcome was because my participation would tend to distract from their study.

———————————————————————————-
What is political transparency? (It means that activists can see what goes on behind the curtain)
———————————————————————————-

What is political transparency? Political transparency means that everything that is politically important can be known by anyone who cares. In the context of a mass organization it means that activists can easily find out (for example, by going to the website of the organization) about the internal struggles, or contradictions, within the organization. It means that activists have the right to know:

1) What political trends play an important role in the life of the organization and

2) What political agendas exist and how the struggle between these political agendas unfolds.

It is also important (in order to clear up common misconceptions) to explain what political transparency is not. Political transparency does not mean that there will be unnecessary compromise of issues related to:

(1) personal or organizational security,

(2) personal privacy or

(3) time-sensitive tactical info related to upcoming mass actions.

Activists must have the right to know about the internal struggles within the mass organization – so that they can intervene in these struggles with the weight of their convictions and experience.

If activists do not have this right – then it is not really their organization – it does not really belong to the movement. It is as simple as that.

———————————————————————————-
The opposite of transparency (Stonewalling: the easy answer to all criticism)
———————————————————————————-

Are there any bothersome questions that it is difficult to answer? Are you not sure how to reply when someone suggests your actions reflect incompetence, hypocrisy or corruption?

The solution is easy! Just don’t answer! Let hell freeze over before anyone can hold you accountable for what you say or do!

Why does the CVO refuse to talk about the necessity of fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization when the working class runs society? Your guess is as good as mine … they will not say. Does the CVO understand that concerns about a police state are a major ideological roadblock that makes it difficult for activists to recognize the need to overthrow the system of bourgeois rule? They will not say. Why did the CVO refuse to condemn the US imperialist bombing of the Balkans that helped to pave the way for the current war in Iraq? They will not say. Does the CVO believe it is important for a revolutionary organization to be accountable and to answer questions? They will not say. But, in this case, their actions tell us everything we need to know.

“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy

=================================================
Afterword
=================================================

Contents
—————————————–
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is this?
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info

———————————————————————–
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
———————————————————————–

YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.

However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:

1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-1.html

2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.

3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.

4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.

——————————————————————————–
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
——————————————————————————–

First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don’t have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.

If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-1.html

Note that if you’re already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).

————————————————————
3. What is “The Red Beacon?”
————————————————————

Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.

It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com

At this stage, the “community” is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.

However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.

———————————————————————–
4. Our Mission
———————————————————————–

The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war — or the democratic, open struggle for ideas

My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.

This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).

————————————————————————–
5. Links for more info
————————————————————————–

Ben Seattle — http://struggle.net/ben

“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political Transparency — http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy

The Red Beacon — http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com