Hi folks,

As part of preparation for work in new communities,
I created a concise overview of my work today:
http://struggle.net/ben/concise.htm

My main index page had become way too crowded and confusing.

-- Ben

Ben wrote:

We need a revolutionary mass organization that has the ability
to mobilize the working class and the oppressed in their millions for
the overthrow of bourgeois rule. We cannot create such an organization
in the context of modern conditions without making use of the principles
of "open community" and "political transparency".

Les: On this I agree 100%.

However, I do often find Ben's writing and arguing style hard to follow and that
is one of the main reasons I don't enter into discussions on these list.

Given the above, the question is how do we help create such a mass organization.


Les Evenchick
New Orleans
                                                      piratefish@...


--- On Sun, 11/29/09, Ben Seattle <box601p@...> wrote:

> From: Ben Seattle <box601p@...>
> Subject: [pof-200] (Kasama forum) The Ozymandias argument
> To: pof-200@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: pof-300@yahoogroups.com, theorist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 11:55 PM
> Hi folks,
>
> (this is the only substantive response to my "Conscious
> Forces" essay I
> have gotten so far--Ben)
>
> http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=983
>
>
> Stiofan Posted: Nov 29 2009, 07:46 AM   
>
>
> I did read your annual report as well as the report on the
> conflict
> within the SAIC. Several things struck me right away. As I
> understand it
> you have been hard at work for years in your community but
> have had
> enormous trouble finding a group that appreciated your
> contribution and
> was willing to try your ideas. From the section on Kasama I
> take it that
> you are especially angered at the way in which moderation
> was done on
> this site because
>
> "the interests of the working class require that we do not
> fuck with
> your ability to communicate with other members of our
> community and we
> recognize that you have a fucking right to communicate with
> other
> activists who are here."
>
> In this case I read "you" as being "Ben Seattle" since the
> complaint was
> against the way your posts were handled.
>
> Instead of cursing Kasama, why not take a new path? You
> have plenty of
> material launch your own blog site and if your insights
> inspire a
> response than that could be the basis for your own list.
> Both the blog
> and the follow on discussion list would be devoted to
> modeling the new
> forms of organization and struggle that you are committed
> to. You would
> be the moderator and could run it anyway you want. This is
> precisely the
> method that Louis Proyect has used to build the Marxmail
> list and it has
> worked quite well for him.
>
> If you are unable to attract a following for your ideas,
> then perhaps
> the fault is not the moderation of Kasama or the decision
> making process
> of RevLeft, but rather the way you are expressing your
> yourself and
> engaging with your audience. If your ideas are, indeed,
> critically
> important to the working class than I am sure you will find
> a way to
> distribute them successfully and use them as a way to
> effectively
> organize for revolution. If your work is that important
> then surely
> others will be drawn to them and give you both the
> recognition and
> support that you need. In that case what happens on Revleft
> or Kasama is
> immaterial to what you will be able to achieve on your
> own. 
>    
>
> Ben Seattle Posted: Nov 30 2009, 05:24
> AM   
>
>
> What are our principles of victory?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The principles of "open community"
> and "political transparency"
> will prove to be powerful weapons
> in the struggle of Kasama
> and other communities of activists
> to create a revolutionary mass organization
> capable of leading the working class and oppressed
> in the overthrow of bourgeois rule
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Stiofan and others in the Kasama community,
>
> First, I would like to thank Stiofan for taking the time to
> look at my
> annual report and associated essay on the nature of the
> conscious forces
> which I believe will be shaping the revolutionary movement
> in the
> decades ahead.
>
> Stiofan has some criticisms of me and, before going any
> further, I would
> like to acknowledge his criticisms:
>
> > Instead of cursing Kasama, why not take a new path?
>
> This is an argument that, if I believe that certain
> principles are
> powerful, I should attempt to apply these principles in
> practice in my
> own projects and prove their value instead of hanging
> around Kasama
> where (he hints) I am a nuisance.
>
> > If you are unable to attract a following for your
> ideas,
> > then perhaps the fault is [...] the way you are
> > expressing yourself and engaging with your audience.
>
> In other words I am alienating readers here because I am
> simply "talking
> at" readers and not making a reasonable effort to engage.
>
> I do not agree with Stiofan's conclusions, but out of
> respect for him
> and for the many readers who may find his logic and
> arguments reasonable
> I should reply.
>
> Activists who are familar with my work know that the center
> of gravity
> of my work is not with Kasama and that I have, over the
> years, made
> reasonable efforts to help build an open community (ie: the
> Media Weapon
> community) based on the principles (such as "political
> transparency")
> which I serve. It is natural that readers might ask: "If
> these
> principles are, indeed, as powerful as Ben claims--then why
> have Ben's
> efforts, so far, come to so little? Why have not more
> activists come to
> join his efforts and created some kind of visible success
> to give
> visible proof of the supposed power of these principles?"
>
> This question, in effect, is also the core of Stiofan's
> argument.
>
> I call this argument the "Ozymandias argument" (see the
> poem below for
> why) and I run into it almost any time I criticize any
> collective
> effort. Of course I am not the only person who runs into
> this
> argument--because (just to give one example) this is also
> the core
> _real_ argument that the RCP uses against the Kasama
> project. The RCP,
> in effect, says to its supporters: "We have a newspaper and
> a
> distribution machine. We write and distribute large numbers
> of very good
> articles and so forth while the Kasama project only has a
> blog and a
> pamphlet or two. Therefore we know how to build
> revolutionary
> organization while the Kasama project will never amount to
> much."
>
> The RCP also used this argument against me when I
> criticized the
> reformist orientation of their hysteria about fascism that
> became the
> "World Can't Wait" campaign. After all, they had built a
> powerful
> machine with hundreds of supporters while I was simply a
> sideline critic
> and a pointy-headed intellectual.
>
> Revolutionary activists understand that there is often a
> correct
> material basis to arguments of this kind (ie: it is a
> scientific
> principle that "you shall know the tree by its fruit" -- or
> practice is
> the criteria of truth). But revolutionary activists also
> understand that
> this argument is often misused to justify all kinds of
> bankrupt
> practices. So it is good to approach this kind of argument
> with caution.
>
> To answer readers who may ask why my own projects have, so
> far, amounted
> to very little, I will simply reply that all of my efforts
> have, so far,
> failed to achieve a critical mass of support by experienced
> activists.
> Without this nothing much is going to happen.
>
> The principles (ie: such as the power of open communities
> and political
> transparency) which I struggle to popularize do not belong
> to me. I did
> not discover these principles and I do not own them. I
> simply recognize
> their significance. These principles are immense, like the
> ocean. In
> comparison, my efforts to do something with these
> principles are paltry,
> like a grain of sand. The power of these principles will be
> recognized
> by activists in the course of time on the basis of their
> _own_
> experience--not because of anything I do. All of my efforts
> to
> popularize and argue for these principles, at best, are
> only likely to
> speed this objective process up by a tiny amount.
>
> For example, I was arguing for the significance of the
> revolution in
> communications (ie: things like the internet and the cheap
> easy-to-use
> devices that access the internet) in the early 1990's. The
> potential of
> the internet for use by political activists is more widely
> recognized
> today--but it is not because of my work. It is because
> activists have
> seen with their eyes the power of the internet.
>
> So understanding the correct principles is not some magic
> solution that
> creates instant success. Rather, when we understand correct
> principles
> we can position our work so that we can grow in the right
> direction.
>
> I know that readers get tired when I write long posts so I
> will
> conclude. We need a revolutionary mass organization that
> has the ability
> to mobilize the working class and the oppressed in their
> millions for
> the overthrow of bourgeois rule. We cannot create such an
> organization
> in the context of modern conditions without making use of
> the principles
> of "open community" and "political transparency". This is
> my conclusion.
>
> I cannot prove this conclusion here in a few sound bytes. I
> have argued
> for this conclusion, at great length, in many articles to
> which I
> sometimes link (when my posts are not deleted). If my
> limited and
> restricted participation on this forum helps one or two
> readers to think
> about these principles--then my efforts here have been
> worthwhile. With
> the wrong principles in command--the revolutionary movement
> ends up in
> the sewer, where it is today. With the correct principles
> in command--we
> will win.
>
> I am not cursing Kasama, as Stiofan asserts. I am helping
> Kasama. I want
> to see the Kasama project and community help to lay the
> foundation for
> the revolutionary mass organization that we need. My
> discussion of the
> distinction between a paternalistic community and an open
> community--and
> how this relates to Kasama and its mission cannot be posted
> in this
> forum. However any readers who may be interested are
> welcome to read my
> essay (which includes the most serious criticism of Kasama
> of which I am
> aware): "Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory"
> at:
> http://struggle.net/Ben/2009/conscious_forces.htm
>
> Ben Seattle
> http://struggle.net/ben/
>
>
> From "Ozymandias":
> ------------------
>
> 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.
>
> -- Shelley, 1817 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     pof-200-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Hi folks,

(this is the only substantive response to my "Conscious Forces" essay I
have gotten so far--Ben)

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=983


Stiofan Posted: Nov 29 2009, 07:46 AM


I did read your annual report as well as the report on the conflict
within the SAIC. Several things struck me right away. As I understand it
you have been hard at work for years in your community but have had
enormous trouble finding a group that appreciated your contribution and
was willing to try your ideas. From the section on Kasama I take it that
you are especially angered at the way in which moderation was done on
this site because

"the interests of the working class require that we do not fuck with
your ability to communicate with other members of our community and we
recognize that you have a fucking right to communicate with other
activists who are here."

In this case I read "you" as being "Ben Seattle" since the complaint was
against the way your posts were handled.

Instead of cursing Kasama, why not take a new path? You have plenty of
material launch your own blog site and if your insights inspire a
response than that could be the basis for your own list. Both the blog
and the follow on discussion list would be devoted to modeling the new
forms of organization and struggle that you are committed to. You would
be the moderator and could run it anyway you want. This is precisely the
method that Louis Proyect has used to build the Marxmail list and it has
worked quite well for him.

If you are unable to attract a following for your ideas, then perhaps
the fault is not the moderation of Kasama or the decision making process
of RevLeft, but rather the way you are expressing your yourself and
engaging with your audience. If your ideas are, indeed, critically
important to the working class than I am sure you will find a way to
distribute them successfully and use them as a way to effectively
organize for revolution. If your work is that important then surely
others will be drawn to them and give you both the recognition and
support that you need. In that case what happens on Revleft or Kasama is
immaterial to what you will be able to achieve on your own.


Ben Seattle Posted: Nov 30 2009, 05:24 AM


What are our principles of victory?

------------------------------------------------------------
The principles of "open community"
and "political transparency"
will prove to be powerful weapons
in the struggle of Kasama
and other communities of activists
to create a revolutionary mass organization
capable of leading the working class and oppressed
in the overthrow of bourgeois rule
------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Stiofan and others in the Kasama community,

First, I would like to thank Stiofan for taking the time to look at my
annual report and associated essay on the nature of the conscious forces
which I believe will be shaping the revolutionary movement in the
decades ahead.

Stiofan has some criticisms of me and, before going any further, I would
like to acknowledge his criticisms:

> Instead of cursing Kasama, why not take a new path?

This is an argument that, if I believe that certain principles are
powerful, I should attempt to apply these principles in practice in my
own projects and prove their value instead of hanging around Kasama
where (he hints) I am a nuisance.

> If you are unable to attract a following for your ideas,
> then perhaps the fault is [...] the way you are
> expressing yourself and engaging with your audience.

In other words I am alienating readers here because I am simply "talking
at" readers and not making a reasonable effort to engage.

I do not agree with Stiofan's conclusions, but out of respect for him
and for the many readers who may find his logic and arguments reasonable
I should reply.

Activists who are familar with my work know that the center of gravity
of my work is not with Kasama and that I have, over the years, made
reasonable efforts to help build an open community (ie: the Media Weapon
community) based on the principles (such as "political transparency")
which I serve. It is natural that readers might ask: "If these
principles are, indeed, as powerful as Ben claims--then why have Ben's
efforts, so far, come to so little? Why have not more activists come to
join his efforts and created some kind of visible success to give
visible proof of the supposed power of these principles?"

This question, in effect, is also the core of Stiofan's argument.

I call this argument the "Ozymandias argument" (see the poem below for
why) and I run into it almost any time I criticize any collective
effort. Of course I am not the only person who runs into this
argument--because (just to give one example) this is also the core
_real_ argument that the RCP uses against the Kasama project. The RCP,
in effect, says to its supporters: "We have a newspaper and a
distribution machine. We write and distribute large numbers of very good
articles and so forth while the Kasama project only has a blog and a
pamphlet or two. Therefore we know how to build revolutionary
organization while the Kasama project will never amount to much."

The RCP also used this argument against me when I criticized the
reformist orientation of their hysteria about fascism that became the
"World Can't Wait" campaign. After all, they had built a powerful
machine with hundreds of supporters while I was simply a sideline critic
and a pointy-headed intellectual.

Revolutionary activists understand that there is often a correct
material basis to arguments of this kind (ie: it is a scientific
principle that "you shall know the tree by its fruit" -- or practice is
the criteria of truth). But revolutionary activists also understand that
this argument is often misused to justify all kinds of bankrupt
practices. So it is good to approach this kind of argument with caution.

To answer readers who may ask why my own projects have, so far, amounted
to very little, I will simply reply that all of my efforts have, so far,
failed to achieve a critical mass of support by experienced activists.
Without this nothing much is going to happen.

The principles (ie: such as the power of open communities and political
transparency) which I struggle to popularize do not belong to me. I did
not discover these principles and I do not own them. I simply recognize
their significance. These principles are immense, like the ocean. In
comparison, my efforts to do something with these principles are paltry,
like a grain of sand. The power of these principles will be recognized
by activists in the course of time on the basis of their _own_
experience--not because of anything I do. All of my efforts to
popularize and argue for these principles, at best, are only likely to
speed this objective process up by a tiny amount.

For example, I was arguing for the significance of the revolution in
communications (ie: things like the internet and the cheap easy-to-use
devices that access the internet) in the early 1990's. The potential of
the internet for use by political activists is more widely recognized
today--but it is not because of my work. It is because activists have
seen with their eyes the power of the internet.

So understanding the correct principles is not some magic solution that
creates instant success. Rather, when we understand correct principles
we can position our work so that we can grow in the right direction.

I know that readers get tired when I write long posts so I will
conclude. We need a revolutionary mass organization that has the ability
to mobilize the working class and the oppressed in their millions for
the overthrow of bourgeois rule. We cannot create such an organization
in the context of modern conditions without making use of the principles
of "open community" and "political transparency". This is my conclusion.

I cannot prove this conclusion here in a few sound bytes. I have argued
for this conclusion, at great length, in many articles to which I
sometimes link (when my posts are not deleted). If my limited and
restricted participation on this forum helps one or two readers to think
about these principles--then my efforts here have been worthwhile. With
the wrong principles in command--the revolutionary movement ends up in
the sewer, where it is today. With the correct principles in command--we
will win.

I am not cursing Kasama, as Stiofan asserts. I am helping Kasama. I want
to see the Kasama project and community help to lay the foundation for
the revolutionary mass organization that we need. My discussion of the
distinction between a paternalistic community and an open community--and
how this relates to Kasama and its mission cannot be posted in this
forum. However any readers who may be interested are welcome to read my
essay (which includes the most serious criticism of Kasama of which I am
aware): "Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory" at:
http://struggle.net/Ben/2009/conscious_forces.htm

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/


From "Ozymandias":
------------------

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.

-- Shelley, 1817

Hi folks,

My annual report is now online (along with a substantial essay):

Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory

How, in the coming period of intensified class struggle, activists will
use open communities and information war to win ever-increasing
attention and support and create the conscious forces that will bring us
certain victory

http://struggle.net/ben/2009/conscious_forces.htm

Your comments and impressions are very appreciated!

Contents are below.

All the best,
Ben Seattle


  Contents:

  ---------------------------------------------------------
  My annual report
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  (1) What I have done in the past year
  (2) What I plan to accomplish in the coming year
  (3) Problems that came up and solutions that were developed

  ---------------------------------------------------------
  Overview: Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  A background of economic crisis and imperialist war
  The objective factor
  The subjective factor
  The CPUSA was a revolutionary mass party
  The degeneration of the CPUSA
  Groundhog Day
  The good news today -- conditions are maturing
  The emergence of conscious forces
  Ever-increasing amounts of oxygen
  The hangman and the priest
  .... (media control in modern society)
  The emerging power of open communities
  Conscious forces will focus on building
  .... a healthy revolutionary movement
  We are only as sick as our secrets
  .... (ie: the need to speak out)
  Conscious forces will be invincible
  How open communities of struggle
  .... will lead to the emergence of
  .... a revolutionary mass organization
  So how exactly will this happen?
  My experience in four communities of struggle
  -- 0 -- The RevLeft community
  -- 1 -- The Media Weapon community-in-embryo
  -- 2 -- The Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC)
  -- 3 -- The local marxist study group
  -- 4 -- The Kasama blog
  Fiery collisions and eventual merger
  Conclusion: the Alkali Lake Band of Indians

<>

Greetings Comrades and Citizens:

We are hearing a lot in the news these days about the radical
conservative right's opposition to a public option when it comes to
health-care insurance.  The political-right calls this public option
socialism.  In fact, the very idea of insurance per se was originally a
socialist idea.  And so, one could say that what the conservative-right
advocates was itself conceived and created by socialists.

Granted, the socialists who first imagined insurance did not envision
insurance as a for-profit business venture.  But the basic idea of
individuals pooling together their financial resources into a collective
insurance fund was initially a socialist proposition.  It is ironic that
what the radical-right calls socialism is a liberal-leftist adaptation
of a socialist idea to a capitalist and statist context.  The
liberal-left -- aka, the capitalist-left -- wants people to have access
to a safe and secure collective insurance, which will not be shackled to
the vagaries of the market, or to the pressures of profit maximization.
The liberal-right -- aka, the capitalist-right -- wants people to buy
collective insurance from a profiteering and private insurance company,
which is shackled to the vagaries of the market, and to the constraints
of profit maximization.  What the radical-right advocates had its
nativity in socialist theory.  What the liberal-left advocates also had
its nativity in socialist theory.  If what the liberal-left advocates
can be called socialism, then what the radical-right advocates can also
be called socialism.  To advocate any kind of insurance -- whether it be
private or public, whether it be business or government -- is to
advocate a socialist invention.

This is something to remember when you're talking to one of your
right-wing friends.  Tell them that what they are advocating, when they
advocate private health insurance,  is almost socialism; it is bordering
on socialism.  Of course, it's not pure socialism, because private
insurance companies are for profit businesses.  But, the noble
principles behind insurance are socialist principles, even though the
actual practice of insurance companies has been adapted to a capitalist
context.









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]