This comes as a reply to Ben Seattle's Annual report. The reply is from comrade
Frank, a member of the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committe and Communist Voice
Organization. It is my understanding that Frank and Ben have worked in and
around each other for a number of years; presently in SAIC (although Ben is not
a member) and formerly in the Marxist-Leninst Party. I thought that it would be
good for readers of the POF e-lists to see both Ben's thoughts on SAIC and
Frank's opposing viewpoint on SAIC. At some point in time, maybe I'll toss in
my two cents as well. Until then, read on!


---


A few weeks ago Ben Seattle sent out an "Annual Report" letter as well as a
10-point proposal for the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee. I've taken the
time to write the comments below regarding these materials because I think the
letter---and Ben's politics in general---are instructive in showing how the
sloughing over political questions can lead one into a sterile desert. I hope
that you all, and especially Ben, find something useful in my effort.

I

According to Ben,

"The current US imperialist adventure in the Middle East is business as usual.
In reaction to it a movement has emerged here in the U.S. The movement is not
yet large or militant or sufficiently politically conscious to make a decisive
break from imperialist politics. Movements like this emerge periodically and
usually they do not amount to much. What this movement will amount to remains to
be seen."

Nothing to get excited about. And the movement of millions of migrants and
others that has risen during the past 14-15 months against the attacks the
government is launching against them clearly isn't worth mention. But,

"What is new at this time is the emerging revolution in communications."

Now this is something that we should be excited about!

Yet this new revolution has been going on for much more than a dozen years, and
during all these years Ben has poured hundreds of thousands of words onto the
internet, participated on lists and Indymedias, set up numerous webpages that
he's very widely advertised, bought-up a number of domain names, etc., etc. And
what has practice shown about this effort?

"So far there is little to show for my efforts. The email list has 170
subscribers -- but most are completely inactive and few have a clue.

"The list has occasionally had on it activists with a clue. But, generally, they
have not stayed because they saw no reason to do so."

Thus, social practice would seem to show that Ben's internet-organizing scheme
is wasted energy. One might even conclude that it has proven to be bankrupt.
But, no, Ben doesn't stop to deeply ponder this. If he can just convince the
well-known Joćo to write four posts a year to his list then it might save the
day!

He goes on to tell us that


"What has not happened, Joćo, is for any revolutionary trend to make systematic
and determined use of the emerging revolution in communications.

"This has surprised me, Joćo.

"And the possibilities of making use of the internet to fuel and organize a
revolutionary movement are growing with each year. But so far there is precious
little fruit growing on this tree."

But it's almost impossible to name a political trend (reactionary, reformist, or
revolutionary) that does not use the internet to help fuel and organize a
movement around its politics! And the SAIC does this not just with a website,
but by posting materials in various places (including nationally), replying to
responses, etc., as well as with a page on a "web within the web" (myspace).
Additionally, a number of individual members have blogs that they use to promote
and defend SAIC's activities and politics. And, lastly, one of the ironies is
that two SAIC members, Edward and Frank, actually make more use of the internet
to fuel and organize the revolutionary movement than Ben does!

Thus, it cannot be said that the SAIC does not make use of the internet, or that
it fears open debate on it. Nor can it be said that other leftists don't use it.
But all of this is not systematic and determined enough for Ben; and the only
explanation that he can offer is that all of the many, many left-wing political
groupings around the world are either "deeply confused", or they fear
transparency. It just doesn't occur to him that perhaps all these groupings,
whatever their politics, recognize, and recognize from their experience, that
there are great limits on what can be achieved over the internet (be it in
developing theory or in practical organizing), and that the decisive work (be it
in Covey's Quadrant 1 or in his Quadrant 2) must take place away from a computer
terminal. (Interestingly, the people who recognize this the least---and are most
systematic and determined about using the internet---are the generally
politically shallow people grouped around Indymedia and Alt ernet.)

Thus, although there's no doubt that the opportunist trends and groups have
something to fear from public debate, this fear may not at the present time be
the main reason that they do not set up interactive websites or otherwise be
more active in cyberspace. (And, as a matter of fact, a number of them are on
myspace, a forum where comments can be made.) But let's look more at the "deeply
confused" people of the SAIC, or me, the "short-sighted and timid" CVO supporter
that he takes to task in his letter.

The SAIC has already, at its own pace, implemented some of the ideas that Ben
(but not just Ben) suggests. And, it may eventually take up some of the
suggestions in his10-point proposal that it has not already implemented---at
least those which apply to a committee with SAIC's basis of unity. But at the
committee meeting to which Ben presented this proposal I indeed gave the opinion
that SAIC would "crash" if it tried to take up all of the points that applied to
us at once, and in the discussion I said that I thought that he didn't realize
how fragile the committee was. So here I would like to elaborate more on this.

One year ago Ben argued that the SAIC was approaching or had already passed the
limits of its effectiveness in Seattle in order to argue that the committee
should begin to post and follow up things all over the internet, participate on
lists, etc. But, I and others held that we had just begun to touch the surface
of the possibilities existing here. Thus, if his yearly letter to the movement
were honestly thoughtful and self-critical, one would think that Ben would
mention that practice has shown that I and others were right, and that he was
wrong. For example, one measure of our effectiveness has been that the committee
continues to grow, which is a reflection of influence in the movement. This
growth, however, is in almost all cases not the result of the internet work that
we've done (which has been quite a bit), although having the website might have
helped. Ben fails to ponder this.

One year ago Ben also asserted that the SAIC had "embarked on a well-traveled
path", the result of which "tends to be sterile organization which is largely
closed off to the life of the movement." But we're certainly more involved in
the life of the movement than we were a year ago. Thus, practice has again
proven Ben wrong. Further, this connection with the living movement came through
persistence in spreading our politics through leaflets and discussions,
organizing contingents, and beginning to concentrate our work in a definite
material base: SCCC. It for most part did not come from the internet work that
we did, which included postings, discussions and debates on Indymedias.

None of this is to say, however, that I don't think that the internet work that
we've done is not important, only that it must be kept in perspective. For
example, I think that our immediate postings of leaflets or statements helps
spread our politics---which is important in its own right---as well as helps
prepare conditions for future growth of the committee itself. Further, I think
that the internet discussions or debates that we get into have value, and I
personally have even at times used tactics designed to provoke debate on
Indymedia for this reason. But, since the readership of Indymedia is largely
unknown, this has an element of shooting in the dark about it (with some
educated guesses), and it can't be a substitute for face-to-face political
discussion or debate on the streets, at SCCC or in workplaces, and at
demonstrations.

Returning to the past year's practical experience, I think that it shows that in
order to have more influence, more growth, and to organize a real fighting
anti-imperialist pole of attraction in the anti-war movement requires
persistence along the path that we've been on, i.e., not getting diverted from
it. This path requires analyzing events and what various political trends are
doing in relation to them; writing and distributing leaflets; face-to-face
discussions with people in the streets, in their schools or workplaces, in their
homes, and at meetings; theoretical study, and summations of practice based on
that study. To say that working to solve these problems is to be stuck in
Covey's Quadrant 1, or urgency addiction, or narrow focus on "(a) the next
leaflet or next action (b) what needs to be done in the next 60 days (c) what
will keep people who are around SAIC energized and excited" is to be politically
blind. For example:

developing analysis of events and political trends isn't just a matter of rising
to the immediate demands of the movement, but it also lays the basis for future
practical work, and it gives comrades needed experience in how to actually
developing scientific analysis;

the attempts of the committee to involve every member in discussion of leaflet
drafts (and themselves writing drafts) isn't just a matter of meeting immediate
practical demands of the movement, but is laying the basis for us to in the
future have more leaflet writers (and perhaps better ones), and it helps us to
cement ourselves around and have confidence in our politics;

discussions with people aren't just a matter of convincing them of something
now, but also of planting seeds for the future, and of learning many, many
priceless things that we could learn in no other way (which also prepare us for
the future).

Further, although the committee itself has not initiated any study of theory,
the majority of present members do actively participate in study groups, while
the rest have read (or read) various theoretical articles or books. This too is
obviously an investment in the future by these comrades, and, moreover, the SAIC
itself may want to initiate study of imperialism as new members are attracted
who are less versed in theory, or for other reasons.

But in persisting on the path that we've been on I think that it's important
that we recognize that we are ideologically and organizationally fragile. True,
were we to have a coalition with the FSP, for example, I don't think this party
could split members away from the committee for its brand of sham
anti-imperialism. (I would welcome any such attempts!) True also is the fact
that although we've several times had to retreat from initial plans that were
too ambitious, we did fairly rapidly recognize the limits of our capabilities.
Further, although nearly every leaflet or statement that we've produced has
required a lot of ideological struggle (even if only by the writer of the
original draft), we've so far avoided making any big blunders. So when I speak
of fragility I have in mind committee members staying political, and becoming
more so. And I think that this is an issue is evidenced by the fact that we've
often had only a small part of the committee engage in discussion of l eaflet
drafts (particularly of the political issues in them), and by the fact that
we've also often had only a small part of the committee leafleting other than at
large events---which must evidence an infirm grasp of political necessity, and
of what we can actually do in the present situation (where there are more
openings all the time). Further, we've had two periods in our history where
several people missed several meetings.

Thus, I think constant politicization is a real issue, and that Ben is blind to
this reality. Such politicization requires confronting the ever-changing
political issues in the movement, and resolution of internal ideological and
organizational issues on this basis. It requires lots of individual
investigation and study, and lots of collective discussion (i.e., more than
we've had). And all this takes time. So this is why I think that we would crash
if we were to get our feet off the ground chasing illusory gains that are
allegedly to be found in Ben's internet organizing schemes.



II

I would now like to take up what I think is the fundamental issue with Ben's
latest letter, his 10-point proposal (as well as many earlier proposals), and
with Ben's politics in general. This is tendency to not want to deal with living
politics.

Thus, we saw in the beginning that he's not too interested in the present
anti-war movement: "Movements like this emerge periodically and usually they do
not amount to much." But he's not too interested in the movement to defend and
develop revolutionary theory either. Thus, this man who constantly talks about a
crisis of theory, says that his theoretical work is essentially completed!

Last year, when Ben said the same thing, I was astonished by the self-satisfied
theoretical complacency. But I really shouldn't have been at all taken aback
because a look at Ben's "work" shows that it's merely long-winded attempts to
sell anarchist prejudices as Marxism-Leninism, i.e., see
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/04cBen1.html#T6. And anarchism is generally
satisfied with having a few dogmatic ideas and slogans that it thinks
universally satisfy the needs of the movement.

A perusal of the mentioned materials shows that "anarchism" is not just a slur
that CVO people long-ago made up because they for some reason didn't like Ben.
Moreover, anarchism is known for substituting emotional phraseology for
politics, and this is exactly what Ben today does when he writes the following
references to the late MLP:

"I have seen what was most precious to me in all the world, the MLP, destroyed
because the loyal comrades were unable to see beyond what they thought was
'urgent'.But the MLP died, I am convinced, because it got trapped in the first
quadrant and could not find its way to Quadrant 2."

Thus, politics are reduced to schematics; and, as a matter of fact, it simply
was not the case that MLP comrades were urgently (in any negative sense) trying
to get out leaflets, lead immediate struggles, sell the Workers' Advocate, etc.,
etc., during it's last years. The very opposite. During the '80s the central
bodies constantly warned against running around in the mass movements, warned
against getting over-extended, advised sacrificing previous fronts of work, etc.
Moreover, the party had consciously decided to try to resolve various vexing
theoretical problems during the lull in the mass movement that had set in during
the '80s. And, like everything else it did, the MLP did this in an organized and
militant fashion, with every branch (and even supporters) being involved in the
work, and important theoretical advances were made.

But on this front of party work, as well as on all others, passivity began to
develop by the latter '80s, and popular bourgeois ideas started to appear in the
theoretical reports, speeches, and draft articles. The difficult external
conditions (rampant Thatcherite-Reaganite politics dominating society, the
working class being disorganized by capitalist down-sizing and restructuring,
etc.) were causing the responsible comrades to despair over the possibilities
and prospects of continued revolutionary work, and fashionable bourgeois
theories were being taken up and given Marxist disguises in order to justify its
abandonment.

Hence, we had people theorizing that a multi-polar world had given rise to a
situation where imperialist political domination no longer existed (just
economics), or that monopoly and domination were just imperfections on the world
market, or that imperialism was progressive, or that the realistic path for the
Palestinians was to develop with the help of the imperialist aid and Israeli
capital that would allegedly come from the Oslo Agreement. Others abandoned a
proletarian-revolutionary standpoint regarding the struggle in the Northwest
timber industry for a program of structural reforms that envisioned workers and
capitalists collaborating to compete on the world market. Others theorized that
due to changes in the composition of the U.S. working class we should no longer
base ourselves in the industrial proletariat, but in a "middle strata"; and that
Marxist polarization of society was a myth. And, if one wanted to defend and
elaborate Marxism on such questions, well, Leninism (hence, Marxism itself) was
held up as suspect. For example, Stalinism, it was implied by some, was merely
the logical product of Leninism. And the very idea of anti-revisionism was
jettisoned.

But these and other wrong ideas were opposed by a minority in the party, with
exchanges taking place over them in the Internal Bulletin (which was shared with
supporters outside the party), letters (shared in the same way), and the public
Workers' Advocate Supplement. The leaders of the majority didn't like this
because exposure of their fallacious ideas would mean that they would once again
have to come under the discipline of what the correct ideas said should be done,
i.e., continue the anti-revisionist cause in theory and practice. They no longer
wanted to do this, and, because they wanted to maintain their "revolutionary"
self-images, the only way that they could see out of the situation was to
liquidate the party and say that they had done so because of the difficult
objective situation.

Nevertheless, while in its last years the MLP was marked by ideological decay
and crisis, it was not the case that the majority of the membership necessarily
agreed with the "new" theories being championed by the liquidationist leaders.
Quite a number (including several people who voted with the majority at the
dissolution congress) were simply confused by them. Thus, the only way to
salvage anything from the situation insofar as the MLP membership and circles
was concerned was to actively confront this crisis of theory (to use Ben's
oft-repeated words). Further, there was also the broader issue that the movement
as a whole was being undermined by theories similar to those promoted by the
liquidationist leaders, if not the exact same ones. Thus, there was a duty to
carry the discussion as widely as possible. And, as we've seen, a minority in
the party was determined to confront the crisis of theory that had arisen.

At the dissolution congress a proposal was put forward that a temporary
theoretical journal be funded that would publish and continue discussion of the
theoretical controversies. The vote on this proposal---about two-thirds against
vs. one-third for---is what defined what were from then on known as the majority
and minority of the ex-MLP. And this was in fact a vote to stop and bury from
public view the theoretical debate that had come up. But theoretician Ben wasn't
the least interested in publicizing these theoretical controversies, and
pursuing them farther. Instead, our champion of openness and transparency sided
with the burial party, and personalized the issue by castigating the proposal
that Joseph Greene had made as "Joseph's journal", resorted to right-wing
demagoguery, i.e., "Joseph should get a job!", etc. Further, although he didn't
agree with all of their particular theories, Ben made repeated efforts to form
blocs with the leading liquidators against the minority.

Ben's program for these blocs was to construct a "trend of trends" which many
good things would allegedly come from now that we had been liberated from the
allegedly stultifying atmosphere of the old MLP. Moreover, this "trend of
trends" would make all kinds of use of, you guessed it, "the emerging revolution
in communications", the internet. But Ben had not paid close enough attention to
the "new" political theories of these people, and to where these theories led.
Thus, all his efforts to form alliances with them came to naught as they took
their theories to their logical conclusion: abandonment of all political work.

Now, as I've noted, Ben didn't necessarily agree with all of the particular
theories of the leading liquidators. He agreed with some of them, disagreed with
others, and had no stand on others. What he shared with the liquidationist
current was the an inability to stick to Marxism-Leninism in the face of the
neo-conservative political climate. Where he differed was that his "liberation"
from Marxist ideas went in the direction of anarchism disguised as Lenininism.
And, while Ben today tugs our heartstrings by writing about "what was most
precious to me in all the world, the MLP" he in fact became a renegade from
everything that this party had stood for.

Thus, while the "minority" was determined to continue anti-revisionist work, and
started to organize itself to do so, Ben was bitterly against the reorganization
of a trend that opposed his "new" and liberated political ideas. This led him to
further abandon the style of careful analysis that was so characteristic of the
MLP in order to launch a campaign of vilification and political abuse against
individual members of the minority rather than deal with the political questions
being debated. And this, of course, is characteristic of anarchism. (I have a
several-inches-thick pile of abuse-filled documents written by Ben that
demonstrates this, and there may be some on his websites.)

III

During the past 15 years Ben has never abandoned his "trend of trends" idea.
Thus, shortly after the SAIC was founded he theorized as follows:

"Why use the phrase 'pole of attraction' rather than 'trend' or 'organization'?
Because we want to convey the idea that we want to put something together that
includes multiple trends that will compete with and struggle against one another
as well as cooperate. This is what happens in any movement or organization which
has a genuinely mass character. As the movement polarizes, various trends (and
parts of trends -- as some trends break apart as the field strength, so to
speak, increases) will be drawn to the anti-imperialist pole. The contradictions
between the trends which gravitate to the anti-imperialist pole will not
disappear-- but rather will become more concentrated and will likely manifest
themselves in more visible ways.."

(http://struggle.net/ben/2005/mass_democracy.htm).

Thus, if in his anarchist vision of future society Ben can only see endless
competition between independent economic units ("kind of like a war"), today he
can only see endless competition between political trends. That resolution of
contradictions between anti-imperialists is possible through seeking truth from
facts (for example) is missing from his schema. But a classless society will be
impossible so long as the working people cannot run the economy in common, and
building the anti-imperialist movement today is impossible unless activists
fight to overcome contradictions among themselves, and do overcome them.

Behind Ben's organizational theory, I believe, is the anarchist tendency to see
organization and discipline and joint effort as a shackle on the individual, and
failure to see how they can be the agencies of liberation. And, historically,
anarchism has always had a disorganizing effect in the class struggle. Thus,
while we're struggling to build an organization of anti-imperialists in Seattle,
including struggling to build a committee website, Ben comes forward with the
proposal to "change our website so that all SAIC members and supporters (which
includes Ben--Fk.) have a place where they can post their own articles (and
where readers can post comments just as they do on the SAIC articles).". I
submit that this is a proposal that fails to see the value of building the
committee and the committee website, and that would have a disorganizing effect
if adopted.

More regarding organization:

Ben enthusiastically writes over and over of "community", "authentic community",
"open and relatively unstructured community", and "self-organization"---all very
popular substitutes for class organization among anarchists and petty-bourgeois.
He also writes of organization in another sense, i.e., a future supposedly
Marxist organization that will command the actions of millions, or gain the
respect of millions. But I don't think Marxists build organization with the aim
of either commanding or of having respect. Rather, I think they want to use the
power of organization to politically influence, inspire, and lead the class
struggle; to facilitate and better organize it. Further, when Ben writes of the
CVO members in SAIC he can only think of posing the issue in terms of control:
"The CVO does not have total control of SAIC." But, according to Ben, "even if
it was true that the CVO controlled SAIC -- this would still be a far better
situation than that of SAIC's opponents." (What a blessing!) And, Ben sees the
committee itself as being a "constrained" organization. (By the way, when
writing to the SAIC itself he invariably writes of "our" work, "our" leaflets,
and so on. But when writing to Joćo it's "their kind of organizing".)

Next, Ben proposes that the SAIC abandon its unity statement when he proposes
that it

"Recognize that the anti-imperialist movement will remain crippled as long as
the general idea that there exists no viable alternative to the political and
economic system of imperialism dominates the thinking of activists - and take
meaningful steps to address the crisis of theory under which a police state
ruled by a single party is seen as the only possible alternative to the
continued rule by the bourgeoisie."

Since he knows that the committee is not going to take up this proposal, this is
no doubt put forward for propaganda purposes. Nevertheless, I think that it
merits comment.

And the first thing about it, of course, is that a police state ruled by a
single party is not seen as the only possible alternative to the continued rule
by the bourgeoisie---either by committee members, or in the larger movement.
(Nor is Ben's "co-operative anarchy" seen as the only alternative.) But the SAIC
is an activist committee with the definite program of work outlined in its unity
statement. And, although it has room within it for various schools of thought on
what the viable alternative to imperialism is---including room for people who
don't think too much about this question---our unity is that "debating this
question is not the purpose of the SAIC."

Why, would Ben have us overthrow this? I think it's because he has little
understanding of revolutionary tactics---another characteristic of anarchism.
For example, I don't think the SAIC takes the stand that it does because it's
composed of a bunch of conservatives who place no value on the theoretical
struggle over what the alternative to monopoly capitalism is, nor do I think
it's because we want to put off this struggle until some later "stage". In fact,
a great part of our membership is acutely interested in this struggle, with
several people actively participating in it. But our agreement is that other
organizations and forums should be used to wage this struggle: a question of
tactics.

In my opinion---an opinion which I think is generally shared in the
committee---were SAIC to "take meaningful steps to address the crisis of theory
under which a police state ruled by a single party is seen as the only possible
alternative to the continued rule by the bourgeoisie" it would no longer be the
kind of broad anti-imperialist activist committee that it is, and that I think
the anti-war movement (in particular) needs. Of course, the more we pursue our
work, the more people we will have who are seriously looking into the question
of what capitalism should be replaced with. This greatly pleases me and the
other committee members who are very interested in this question, and who want
to build a communist organization. But the SAIC is a committee of
anti-imperialist activists, not a communist organization.

More generally, the longer U.S. imperialism is wreaking havoc in Iraq, the more
people there will be who conclude that imperialism is the problem, who conclude
that there are no solutions to it to be found in the establishment, and who
conclude that revolution is necessary. And they'll act on these conclusions.
Such acting is already going on, of course, and some of the forms it's taking is
that new people are looking into revolutionary theory and investigating trends
and groups that proclaim themselves revolutionary, and new people are starting
Marxist study groups in various parts of the country and combining them with
activity in the mass movements. Among the latter, having an organization like
SAIC, i.e., one that does not "take meaningful steps to address the crisis of
theory under which a police state ruled by a single party is seen as the only
possible alternative to the continued rule by the bourgeoisie" does not seem to
be some kind of mysterious or controversial tactic. For example, a member of one
of these study groups told me in some recent correspondence that they were
discussing setting up a group with the same slogans and same kind of agitation
as SAIC's before they were even aware of our existence.

One of the tasks of Marxists is to fight to find the appropriate forms of
organization and forms of struggle for the concrete situations they're in. Thus,
new revolutionaries in other cities must struggle to find the form of
organization that is most appropriate for their situation. Nevertheless, the
idea of building 1) a fighting mass organization and 2) a Marxist organization
at the same time---and not trying to mix them together---seems to be elementary
for people half Ben's age.

Ben's ninth proposal is as follows:

"Recognize SAIC's responsibility to encourage discussion, at a national level,
on the decisive tasks of the antiwar movement and post summaries of SAIC's
experience and an open letter to activists, at least twice a year, on at least a
dozen imc sites and an equivalent number of activist email lists."

This seems to imply that the committee feels no responsibility to the national
(and world) movement, i.e., we don't "recognize.", etc. But this is wrong, and I
think that it is precisely because we do feel such responsibilities that we can
get so much work done, consistently fight opportunism, and persevere.
Furthermore, from this framework our responsibility is first and foremost to
build up the struggle where we exist! It's the latter effort that gives us a
basis for encouraging and participating in discussions with groups and
individuals elsewhere. For example, I mentioned above what some groups are doing
in a few parts of the country. But I would never have come across this
information had I not been involved in building a definite organization, the
SAIC, as well as being excited about building the present-day living movement
everywhere. Conversely, the only reason people in other cities have asked
questions of me is because of my involvement in building someth ing concrete in
this area.

Clearly, the SAIC has never had a passive attitude about encouraging discussion
nationally, and we do have some practice to sum up in this regard. For example,
last year we posted our immigrant rights leaflets on several IMCs around the
country located either where the movement was large, or where many migrants
live; this year we posted the May Day leaflet in Chicago and L.A.; we posted the
WCW leaflets in quite a few places; etc. (A few times, to my knowledge, others
have picked up our leaflets and reposted them as far away as Peru, Australia,
and a refugee group's website in Lebanon.) But, besides on PDX Indy, these
postings have given rise to little discussion, and no letters to us. Of course,
I do think that we should continue to post particular leaflets or statements at
particular times to particular national sites (i.e., post with some political
rationale), but not with the expectation that much discussion will result.

Of course, Ben wants us to post an open letter calling for discussion, which is
a little different than posting leaflets. But he essentially proposes that SAIC
shoot in the dark by posting "summaries of SAIC's experience and an open letter
to activists, at least twice a year, on at least a dozen imc sites and an
equivalent number of activist email lists." And this while his own years of
efforts in essentially spamming the internet with articles and comments
advertising his websites leave him complaining that this work "if not completely
dead -- is in a state of suspended animation."

I think that we can do better than shooting in the dark this way. For example,
our myspace page---which Edward took the initiative to set up, and which is not
three months old---now has close to 300 friends from every part of the country,
quite a few of whom do "have a clue" (to use Ben's terminology), and quite a few
of whom are active in their own right. We send these people our leaflets in the
form of myspace "bulletins", and we receive their bulletins. Further, although
we have not yet had organization to organization discussion (or organization to
individual discussion) with any of them, individual SAIC members who have some
of these friends in common on their own pages have had some discussions with a
handful of these friends, with mine seeming very promising. I've given my
personal summaries of SAIC experience in these discussions---which were
expressed as such, and understood as such---just as other SAIC members no doubt
do, and should do. And, during the summer, we may want to go to talk with some
of these people.

This, I think, we do have time to do! It may be "their kind of organizing" (as
opposed to Ben's superior methods); but it's through groups and individuals
beginning to correspond with each other, going to talk with each other about the
common work, learning from each other in the discussions, and advancing the work
in their particular areas that I think real national discussion can be built up.

I began this letter by saying that sloughing over the living political questions
can lead one into a sterile desert, and asserted that this applied to Ben. And,
I hope that I've shown a little of how he did this during the final crisis of
the ex-MLP, and how he does it today. This detachment from living politics
leaves him making subjective judgments that repeatedly prove to be wrong: In
letters and articles he first said that founding the SAIC was "hasty",
"premature", etc. Then he said that the CVO people in SAIC were only "paying lip
service to the goal of building an anti-imperialist pole of attraction and that
their actual agenda is (a) to use SAIC to recruit into their group and
consolidate those activists who are new on the scene and looking for some trend
to hook up with and (b) to then liquidate SAIC once it has served this purpose."
Then, a year ago, he said that the SAIC was approaching or had already passed
the limits of its effectiveness in Seattle.

Meanwhile, Ben has been pursuing his internet organizing scheme ("our" way of
organizing) to little avail, but he refuses to entertain the idea that it has
come to little because it's not what the movement wants or needs. (I think that
what it wants and needs, Ben, is revolutionary, really Marxist, politics! The
result is that he's writing letters halfway 'round the world pleading that Joćo
post to his list in order to keep this "open and relatively unstructured
community" alive. But alive to do what? "Leverage and expand the work, and
influence, of an activist organization like SAIC!"

This is sad.. After 15 years of internet fire and thunder from the sidelines of
the movement in this country, and 15 years of trying to get anyone he can to
join with him---the liquidators of the ex-MLP, Sal of Seattle, the dissolved
Seattle Anti-Imperialist Alliance, CVO people, Marik, Joćo, SAIC, anyone---as
elitist internet generals waging "information war", all Ben has to propose to
his "informal community" is political parasitism upon the living work of others.

Equally sad is the fact that through such parasitism Ben hopes to spread his
"compelling" vision of the future. In reference to this, he oh so humbly writes
that "My contribution to marxist theory, in my view, is modest.my theoretical
work is nothing brilliant -- deserving of only a footnote in the book of marx's
theory. I have earned this footnote." (Lord, deliver us from this kind of
modesty!) Unfortunately, according to Ben, his work is not "known" yet, but when
it is.!

The pareconites, anarchists of various schools, Socialist Labor Party, Socialist
Party of Great Britain (Socialist Standard) all condemn capitalism and have
their visions of the future, with the latter boasting that it has been
broadcasting it since 1904. But they're "above" doing the detailed work
necessary to advance the movements of today toward overthrowing capitalism. All
that is necessary is that people grasp that capitalism is no good, and their
proposed system better. These barren politics leave them perpetually on the
sidelines, and, perhaps like Ben, consoling themselves over the fact that few
see their brilliance because they're all either "deeply confused", or something
else.

Practice seems to bear out that since leaving the ex-MLP, Ben has been part of
this family of "left" socialist sects and anarchists. Further, when he's done
anything political, I think that it's generally been with the underlying aim of
convincing others to join him in spreading the gospel. Thus, his program for
SAIC is that it "Recognize that the anti-imperialist movement will remain
crippled as long as the general idea that there exists no viable alternative to
the political and economic system of imperialism dominates the thinking of
activists - and take meaningful steps to address the crisis of theory under
which a police state ruled by a single party is seen as the only possible
alternative to the continued rule by the bourgeoisie."

An After Word

From Mt. Olympus, Ben says of the present anti-war movement that "Movements like
this emerge periodically and usually they do not amount to much. What this
movement will amount to remains to be seen." But, he's not going to help it .
Oh, no, there's something "new" to be involved in, the internet and "information
war"! He will work to "draw.activists into this community", work on "a new kind
of combined wiki-blog", and through such methods he'll allegedly "leverage" the
work of groups like SAIC.

In a discussion between me, Ben and a newer SAIC member following the last SAIC
meeting Ben commented that he and I were comrades, but also political opponents;
and he went on to say that he wanted to work much closer with "Frank" (typical
of his ingrained habit of reducing politics to the question of individuals, and
of his only being able to see competition forever). I replied that I wanted Ben
to throw himself into really building the committee. But to do this he must
fight and overcome all of the anarchist and subjective prejudices that he's been
cemented into for a great many years. He must open his eyes to really look at
the class struggle, and not from an elitist standpoint. He must get truly
political, and see that his past 15 years were a ridiculous wasteland that he
actually tried to lead other people into.

Moreover, people may wonder why it is that after 15 years Ben remains an
"organization" of one. No doubt his style of preaching generalities and his
personality have something to do with this. But I would submit that more
fundamental than this is individualistic fear of collectivity and collective
discipline. Further, I would suggest that the only way that this fear can be
fought against and overcome is through focus, real focus, on the issues
confronting the masses of people, and focus on revolutionary theory. This is
what can lead Ben (and all of us) to the conclusion that we must and can
organize, now!

The main point on the next SAIC agenda will probably be what we're going to do
"in the next 60 days", our next leaflet, etc. (Horrors! Quadrant 1!) What impels
us to take up these items is hatred of the crimes of imperialism all over the
world, the desire to overthrow it, and some vision of what the new society will
be (lest we wouldn't be for overthrowing the present one). Ben should abandon
his 15-year-long debacle and reclaim his youth by joining in this collective
effort. Rather than being on a well-trodden path---as he says we are---we're on
a very new one.


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