Key Ideas

The Crisis of Theory

The idea of “Crisis of Theory” was first put forward by Ben Seattle (http://struggle.net/ben). Alex, along with some other members of the Media Weapon Community, have distributed it along with Ben for the past several months.

Ben’s idea of “Crisis of Theory” holds that the left is currently paralyzed and incapable of ending bourgeois rule because:

a) It is plagued by reformism, i.e. many “anti-war” organizations are still tied with a thousand threads to the imperialist Democratic Party and its “progressive” wing

b) It is completely incapable of breaking from the failures of “communist” nations such as the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.

c) It has failed to put forward a vision of what future society will look like in a way that makes sense to anyone who is not in extreme denial or has not had a lobotomy. It is incapable of distinguishing between the emergency measure taken in the USSR (i.e. limitations on democratic rights) and what is needed in the 21st century.

If the Left is to be successful, it will have to make clear that under workers’ rule, we will not be led by a single organization that maintains a monopoly over political power, and the workers will have concrete democratic rights of free speech. Only in this way will workers’ rule, and eventually stateless, classless society, ever be successful.

Political Transparency

The Left needs leadership, but what will be the nature of this leadership?

In order for the workers to exorcise complete control over their vanguard organization, such an organization will have to incorporate the principle of POLITICAL TRANSPARENCY. People 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?

Many organizations on the Left are afraid of this because a) they have something to hide and transparency would expose that, or b) they feel that transparency would lead to stagnation, as people would spend all of their time arguing and no time doing anything.

We must develop a mixture of theory and practice. Yes, too much talking will lead the Left nowhere, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it at all. Drinking too much water will kill you, but that doesn’t mean you should never drink water.

In short, transparency ensures an organization accountable to the people, and this is what the Left needs. Only a transparent organization will be able to mobilize the masses and guide them to victory.

Democratic Rights Under Workers’ Rule

If one organization, be it Marxist or not, maintains a monopoly over political power, it will naturally have to suppress all rival political organizations to keep that position. This includes all who would expose the possible corruption and hypocrisy that may develop within this party. Therefore, single-party rule is completely contradictory to the concept of workers’ rule. The workers will undoubtedly be led by parties, but these parties cannot rule AS OPPOSED to the class. The party is not the class. If one party rules, the class does not.

Therefore, workers’ must have concrete democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule. They must also be able to organize independently of the “Marxist” party without permission from the state. This ensures that the workers will truly rule; not just a monolithic party.

Open Debate Leads to Resolution

The Left faces many contradictions. But the only way for these contradictions to be solved is to bring them into the light. Many people don’t want to think about the future and adopt an “I’ll deal with it later” attitude. But because the Left is so disillusioned and confused, we need to talk about our goal, i.e. a world without bourgeois rule. It won’t kill us. It will require effort on our part, but the long-term benefits will be astronomical.

 Getting Rid of “-isms”

Ben Seattle and Alex agree that the terms “communism,” “socialism,” and related terms like “dictatorship of the proletariat” have been completely soiled by the failures of the USSR and other “communist” regimes. While we must be able to explain what these words actually meant in context to those who ask, it is important for the Left to stop using these terms in actual practice.

The precedent for this came from Lenin in 1914. The original name for the Marxist party in Russia was “Social-Democracy.” However, in 1914, there was a split amongst the party over World War I. The act of certain party members supporting Russia’s involvement in the imperialist World War has been dubbed “The Great Betrayal of 1914.”

Lenin felt that this act had permanently soiled the name of “Social-Democracy,” and that continuing to use it would confuse the masses and turn them off. So he left the name to the reformists and imperialists, and it is now a synonymn for reformism (i.e. the belief that capitalism can be “fixed” by “saviors” within the bourgeois government). Instead, Lenin began to use the name “communism,” the term that had been used in Marx’s day.

Now, the various betrayals of Marxism in the past have soiled the terms “communism” and “socialism” in a similar fashion, and Alex and Ben believe that they should be dropped in favor of new terms. For example, the Russian Marxist party “Party of the Proletarian Dictatorship” uses the term “Proletarism.” However, they still use the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” as opposed to “workers’ rule” or the like, and it is still an “-ism.” It is likely that a new name will have to arise for the Left to be successful.