Hi Edward,

First, I should explain why I am posting a copy of this email to the pof-200
list.

I am committed to creating revolutionary organization which is real. This is
not going to happen without political transparency.

At this time you and I have different opinions concerning whether the web site
for the anti-imperialist contingent for Sept 24 should be "interactive" (ie:
will allow readers to post comments, questions and criticisms which would then
appear _immediately_ on the page).

You and Frank and the supporters of the Communist Voice Organization (CVO) have
decided that the web page should not be interactive.

On the other hand, from the beginning, I have made clear that there is no way
that I will invest significant time in the work for the contingent unless:
(a) all literature which is distributed references a website,
(b) the website is interactive and
(c) the literature which is distributed specifically tells readers
that they are welcome to come to the website and to post
their comments, questions and criticisms.

At this point it appears that you and the CVO supporters have decided that your
opposition to the interactive webpage is more important than my participation in
the work of distributing the literature.

I made my decision and you have now made yours. As activists in the movement we
make decisions every day. Sometimes our decisions help the movement and
sometimes they do not. But either way we learn from our experience.

I am in favor of learning from experience. I want other activists within the
Media Weapon community such as Marik and Ulyanovist to have an opportunity to
learn from our experience also. This is the meaning of political transparency.
And this is why I posting this letter to pof-200.

If you would like to reply (and I hope that you do) I would like you to post
your reply to pof-200 also. It is my conviction that others will be able to
more easily learn from our experience as we stumble forward -- if they can watch
our actions as they unfold.

------------------------------------------------------------
your counter-argument
------------------------------------------------------------

I thought that I should also address your counter-argument to the effect that an
interactive website is not important since, supposedly, all that really matters
is whether or not we have a commitment to make public the criticisms which we
receive.

You argue (I will not quote your exact words since you sent them to me in
private -- but I will summarise your argument) that (a) if such a commitment
exists then an interactive website is not necessary -- and (b) if such a
commentment does not exist then an interactive webpage would do little good
since all criticism could be "moderated" out of existence.

This counter-argument looks reasonable at first glance. However let's examine
it more closely.

First -- it is clear to me, for several reasons, that there is no real
commitment to making criticism public.

You may think that _you_ have a commitment. But the CVO has a commitment in the
opposite direction. And you do not appear to have either the experience or the
conviction to stand up to them on this. On the contrary, it appears that you
want to work with them so badly that you have already folded.

The value of an interactive website (in the absence of a commitment to make
criticism public) is that it would make the absence of this commitment more
obvious to activists. In other words, each censored post would help to expose
the hypocrisy of the CVO supporters who claim to support the idea of public
criticism but who are actually bitterly opposed to it.

------------------------------------------------------------
Experience of SAIA shows that the CVO
is bitterly opposed to political transparency
------------------------------------------------------------

How this hypocrisy works is illustrated by the history of the Seattle
Anti-Imperialist Alliance (SAIA). SAIA was formed in October 2001 by (a)
supporters of the CVO, (b) independent activists who soon become supporters of
the CVO and (c) myself. Our unity statement, titled "Who we are and what we
believe" included a section which said: "we are committed to making serious
criticisms of us public".

After (a) the CVO consolidated the other independent activists as CVO supporters
and (b) I made clear that it was necessary for me to publically criticize the
path that SAIA was on -- the supporters of the CVO then voted to liquidate SAIA
in July 2002. I opposed the liquidation of SAIA and wrote a statement titled
"SAIA Recoils--then Liquidates itself" (which can be found at
http://leninism.org/stream/2002/saia-recoils.htm ). Per the unity statement I
had the right to have (a) a link to my criticism of SAIA's liquidation posted on
the SAIA website -- and (b) my statement sent to the activists on SAIA's email
list. Neither of these things happened. The CVO supporters (under the lame
excuse that they had a majority of the votes and could therefore do whatever
they wanted) tossed into the garbage their commitment to make criticism public.

------------------------------------------------------------
Moderation guidelines would
serve to expose hypocrisy
------------------------------------------------------------

The moderation guidelines for an interactive webpage which I insist on are
simple and easy to enforce. We delete all posts which:

(1) Support or endorse neo-nazi groups or ideology
(2) Are commercial spam
(3) Include personal threats of any kind
(4) Include personal insults and have little political content
(5) Are obviously insincere

I have developed these guidelines as a result of moderating the discussion
forums at http://communism.org and http://communism.com . Thousands of readers
have posted comments over the years. Few comments that fall into any of the 5
categories above have survived for more than 24 hours. These guidelines make it
suprisingly easy to quickly decide what stays and what does not.

If, as a group of activists, we agreed that readers could post their criticisms
to our page under the moderation guidelines which I proposed -- then it would
become very difficult for the CVO supporters to delete serious criticism without
exposing both their hypocrisy and their bitter opposition to public criticism.

And that concludes my reply to your counter-argument.

I will also add one more item which should be obvious: Readers are more likely
to come to the webpage and post comments, questions and criticisms -- if they
understand that they will not be wasting their time -- and that their comments
will actually get posted on the page. And the most effective way for readers to
understand that our commitment to making criticism public is not a sham (ie: as
it was for SAIA) -- is if they can see that comments get posted immediately.

------------------------------------------------------------
For organization which is real
------------------------------------------------------------

I can understand, Edward, why you want to work with the CVO supporters. They
are very talented activists who (a) recognize the need for our movement to be
completely focused on mobilizing the masses and (b) have an incredible amount of
experience at fighting the reformist treachery of the movement.

I want to work with them as badly as you do. In fact my desire to work with
them is even greater than yours.

However I work with others only on a principled basis. I am a slave to
principles. I do not bend my principles for any reason.

Period.

The CVO includes some very talented activists. However more than 95 percent of
their potential is completely wasted -- because they are bitterly opposed to any
course of action which might compel them to be accountable for (or even to
discuss) their errors. And it is precisely such actions which represent the
salvation of our movement.

We cannot confront the needs of our time without building organization which is
real.

We cannot create a real organization by gathering a few activists in a room and
slapping on some pretend organizational name. We cannot create a genuine
organizational democracy by simply insisting that we make decisions on the basis
of voting. Such actions are futile because they represent an effort to create
something which is real by artificially copying the most obviously recognized
external features.

This is like the South Sea islanders trying to carve "microphones" out of wood,
putting coconut "headphones" over their ears and repeating the magic phrase
"Roger, over and out" in order to entice the big silver birds to land and
deliver their precious cargo.

If we want to create real organization rather than simply get caught up in
cargo-cult Leninist invocations to unseen silver birds -- then we need to
understand what organization really is. Organization is activists who are in
some way _committed_ to working with one another on a common objective.

I am committed to work with you and the CVO supporters in ways which are
principled.

Recently the pof-200 list saw a comparitive review of some of the strengths and
weaknesses of leaflets by the CVO, the ALC and me. Such a comparative review
represents real cooperation between activists. This may seem modest in
comparison to slapping together an organization -- but at least it is real --
while an organization which is artificially thrown together -- will accomplish
very little and will not last.

If you want me to set up a website for you at http://struggle.net/s24 (instead
of at http://struggle.net/924 ) I will set it up with script interface. I
believe that the existence of a website itself was a concession to me. And this
is obviously no longer necessary since I have no intention of helping to
distribute literature which is not backed up by an _interactive_ website. But
if you and the CVO supporters actually want a site at "s24" -- I will create the
directory and then you guys will be able to put up pages with anything which you
believe will help the movement.

For my part I will make the time to go to the public meetings that you organize,
including the next one at:

Capitol Hill Library (upstairs)
Saturday, Sept 10 at 4:00 PM

and I will encourage activists on this list to attend.

I will also make two suggestions for the work around the anti-imperialist
contingent:

1) The poster announcing the anti-imperialist contingent should (a) combine the
two slogans about the Iraqi resistence (I sent a separate private email to you
and Frank about this two weeks ago) and (b) we may want to consider adding a
slogan against the phony "exit plan" that the Democratic Party is promoting as a
way to continue the war.

2) We should have a public summation meeting following the Sept 24 protest.
Various activists may be interested in attending. Marik (and possibly one or
more of his political contacts in Portland) may be coming to Seattle for the
protest and it would be useful for him to meet you and the CVO comrades. Lonnie
has also expressed interest. And there may be other activists also.

------------------------------------------------------------
For an alternative to forums controlled
by social-democrats
------------------------------------------------------------

No activist, or group of activists, is immune from making mistakes. I criticize
everyone and every group. I focus in particular on the activists and groups
with the greatest potential -- because it is the mistakes of the most talented
and dedicated activists and groups which hurt our movement the most. Those with
the most potential need criticism the most.

Since it appears that the organizing effort for the anti-imperialist contingent
will not have an interactive webpage -- then if or when I find the time to make
a public criticism -- I will only be able to bring this criticism to the
attention of most local activists by posting it on Indymedia. Indymedia is a
useful resource for such purposes, Edward, but I believe you understand that it
is run by social-democrats. It is a shame that public criticism can reach
activists only because of the efforts of social-democrats. I work for the day
when revolutionary activists make this possible in forums of their own.

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

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