What principles must guide the revolutionary movement? (Martin and Ben Seattle)

[Ben Seattle]

Hi Martin,

Developing our discussion

In accord with the principle of political transparency, I have started a new thread at RevLeft with the following title:

What principles must guide the revolutionary movement?
(discussion thread for Comrade Martin and Ben Seattle)

To the extent practical, I have concluded it is best if our discussion is public. The main reason for this is so that, eventually, other activists with experience and maturity can join the discussion and contribute their thoughtful comments.

Of course, by creating this thread on RevLeft, I am also making it possible for activists who do not have experience or maturity to inflate the thread with shallow comments. It seems reasonable to me, however, to go ahead anyway--in order to increase the chance that our conversation may attract and encourage the best and most thoughtful contributions. We can deal with the less experienced or serious element by keeping in mind that the primary purpose of this thread is to allow the two of us to engage in public discussion concerning the principles that are most important to the revolutionary movement.

What are the decisive principles?

I have concluded that the revolutionary movement will not be restored by following great men. It will be restored by following great principles. These principles are much larger than us--but if we have humility we may be able to recognise the power of these principles and be part of learning how these principles can be applied to shake the world.

It is my intent with this discussion to explore the degree to which we can move toward a common sense consensus of which principles are most decisive.

Centripetal vs. centrifugal forces in discussion

I have noted the existence, in discussion, of what I call centripetal (ie: towards the center) and centrifugal (away from the center) forces related to the intended and necessary focus. I want to approach this discussion in a conscious way. Any time a discussion becomes interesting, the number of potentially interesting off-topic subjects increases. Naturally it can be useful to pursue some of them. At the same time we must keep in mind the necessary focus of this thread and return to it on a regular basis.

Ground Rules

Our expectations, as I see it, should be, more or less, that we are responsive to one another. What I suggest, is that we think in terms of making at least one post per week and determine (on the basis of experience we accumulate) if that will be practical. I would like to try this out for a month or so, maybe longer. Naturally, there is no problem in posting more often. My main concern, however, is to develop interesting discussion over time.

As far as format--we will express our thoughts and ask one another questions. We should commit to replying to at least three questions per week. Naturally, in an interesting discussion, there may be more than three questions--but it may not be realistic to commit to attempting to reply to all the questions that come up. So it may be useful for us to number the questions to indicate those to which we would most like a reply.

Your question for me: Am I aware of RedStar2000 ?

You asked me if I was familar with the work of RedStar2000. Yes, to a limited extent. RS2K made a useful comment in the course of the anarcho-leninist debate on the state (Oct 2002 - January 2005, available online at: http://struggle.net/alds/ ) but I did not really know who he was until I checked out RevLeft about two years and learned that he was popular here but had had a stroke or something and was no longer able to post much.

What I like about RS2K's work is that he (1) encourages activists to think for themselves and (2) has contempt for the self-deception common within revolutionary circles.

How my conclusions differ from other original thinkers

I should take this opportunity to briefly list some key differences between my conclusions and those of some others (including RS2K) who have (1) recognized the need to deal with the theoretical bankruptcy of the single-party police state command economy that is popularly considered to be "socialism" and (2) created original theoretical work concerning how society will function when it is run by the working class. Three currents of thought come to mind:

(a) The "demarchy" theories of RedStar2000
(b) The "separation of party and government" theories of the Party of Proletarian Dictatorship (a small group based in Samara, Russia)
(c) The "ParEcon" (ie: Participatory Economics) theories of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel

All three theories, in one way or another have to deal with the principle, most concisely formulated by Lord Acton in 1887, that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

RS2K has written of demarchy (ie: the random selection of people to make decisions) in this article: http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory4b32.html . I have only read the first paragraphs but it appears that RS2K argues that this will play some kind of significant role in the future. The best known examples (to me) of demarchy in current use are (a) juries and (b) the system used to rate postings at http://slashdot.org . It is possible that demarchy or many other kinds of weird things might be useful when workers rule the world. I am sure that there will be a large number of weird experiments--and who can say what things might or might not be useful? But as a fundamental solution to how things will work--this has little in common with my conclusions.

The group in Samara, Russia is known for a principle that people would have to resign from the party of the working class before they became part of the government. To me this, also, seems weird.

The Samara group is best known for their proposal to replace the term "socialism" with "proletarism" as the goal of the workers' movement, in light of the massive betrayal which took place and the elevation of a new exploiting class to power. I have supported this proposal, and had some contact with a supporter of the group, although I consider the group to have serious problems. My article on the proletarism proposal (online at: http://proletarism.com -- the .org and .ru sites belong to them) gives some background.

The ParEcon theories are much better known, probably because of their association with "Z", a popular anarchist magazine. I have never thought much of these theories. The ParEcon economy would still rely on exchange (and thus be subject to all the laws of commodity production). The ParEcon economy would also be based on central planning although, in their conception, workers would participate in this planning more than what happened in the police states. More about their theories can be seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

My views on politics and economics

My own views are very different. After the overthrow of bourgeois rule, corruption of all kinds will be effectively combatted by the entire population, which will be armed with the fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization. There will be a very large number of independent organizations focused on politics, economics, culture and so on. There will be intense competition as well as principled cooperation.

Classless society, as I see it, will make use of a gift economy in which there will be neither exchange (ie: money, capital, prices or wages) nor a central planning authority that tells everyone what they have to do. All labor, goods and services will be free and voluntary.

The transition to this gift economy will consist of two distinct waves of expropriation

The first wave will consist of the takeover of capitalist enterprises by workers (or their state). My guess (it is only a guess) is that this process would be relatively rapid--with roughly half of the private economy expropriated within five years and half of the remainder expropriated in the next five years, and so on. In my work I call the sections of the economy that have been expropriated by the workers (or their state) the "state capitalist sector". In my chart (below) this sector is colored light blue. The workers and/or their state would run this sector but exchange (ie: some form of money, prices, wages, etc) would still play a significant role in measuring productivity and making decisions or making sure that things balance out.

The second wave of expropriation would take place more slowly. I estimated (again--the time frame is only a guess) that it might take four decades for half of the economy to be expropriated in this way. The second wave of expropriation would be into what I call the gift economy (or the "self-organizing moneyless economy"). It is this economy, as I have noted, that would correspond to that of a classless society. In my chart this is colored red.

By the time the gift economy creates the overwhelming majority of goods and services--all labor will be totally voluntary. You will get the essentials of life whether you choose to work or to goof off.

The easiest article which outlines my views on the transition economy is: "Politics, Economics and the Mass Media when the working class runs the show" at: http://struggle.net/ALDS/essay_153_content.htm . My article on the gift economy is called "The Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy" and is online at: http://Leninism.org/some/ . Here is my chart, showing the economic sectors during the transition:

http://struggle.net/ALDS/transition_economies.gif

My questions for you

I have three questions:

(1) How do you become a political activist and what how did you decide to become a revolutionary activist?

(2) What, briefly, was your experience with the Kasama project? How and why did you get involved with them (and with what expectations) and what led to your conclusion that this project did not represent a good investment of your revolutionary time and energy?

(3) What, if any, conclusions have you reached regarding the fundamental principles that will lead to the healthy regeneration of the revolutionary movement? What will the goal of this movement be? What fundamental tasks will unite the efforts of activists? What can be said about the kind of organization or organizations we may need?

My apologies for my delay in getting back to you

I would like to apologize for my delay in getting back to you. I took a little time to develop a criticism of the Kasama group. This is posted at: http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=1011 with this title and subtitle:



Criticism of Kasama 's social-democratic mission statement

The Kasama group appears to have eliminated
the class struggle and class politics from
its mission statement in a bid to be "respectable"
and acceptable to a strata of social-democratic activists

My conclusion is that the Kasama project is essentially militant-sounding reformism wrapped in a sea of red flags. I created a new political cartoon (probably my best so far) to illustrate my argument. The cartoon helps to illustrate for activists some of the concrete ways in which the pressure for a reformist orienation asserts itself.

sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle

[Comrade Martin]

Thanks, Ben, for giving me some incentive to come back to the RevLeft community.

I haven't trolled these boards since I was a Leninist back in 2005.

My, how things have changed!

For myself, anyway... not so much for the board, it appears.

Without too much ado, I'll jump right in.



Our expectations, as I see it, should be, more or less, that we are responsive to one another. What I suggest, is that we think in terms of making at least one post per week and determine (on the basis of experience we accumulate) if that will be practical. I would like to try this out for a month or so, maybe longer. Naturally, there is no problem in posting more often. My main concern, however, is to develop interesting discussion over time.

As far as format--we will express our thoughts and ask one another questions. We should commit to replying to at least three questions per week. Naturally, in an interesting discussion, there may be more than three questions--but it may not be realistic to commit to attempting to reply to all the questions that come up. So it may be useful for us to number the questions to indicate those to which we would most like a reply.

As per this criteria, I'll try to break down my responses in to relevant headers.

Introduction


Of course, by creating this thread on RevLeft, I am also making it possible for activists who do not have experience or maturity to inflate the thread with shallow comments.

I rather look forward to inexperienced, immature, shallow comments... and I better be impressed with just how shallow those comments are!

I like to set the bar high.


I have concluded that the revolutionary movement will not be restored by following great men.

Well, THAT'S a relief!



It will be restored by following great principles.

Well, no.

You see, the biggest problem in the "revolutionary left" (and I have found it afflicts "Anarchists" and "Communists" just as much) is this fascination with history as a series of "big somethings."

If it isn't great men that "make history," it "must" be great ideas!

The real power of history, self-organized movements of people against the current system, is completely denied because we are waiting for "correct ideas" to emerge from "somewhere."

Marx had a word for this: idealism

But don't misunderstand.

This isn't to say we shouldn't have principles, or some sort of ideological platform.

But we're not in the "business" of coming up with a "holy word" that will "lead" the masses to a "glorious" pie-in-the-sky future.


These principles are much larger than us--but if we have humility we may be able to recognise the power of these principles and be part of learning how these principles can be applied to shake the world.

See, this is what I'm talking about... I find this phrasing to be very troublesome.

These principles that are "larger than us"... "humility" to "recognize the power"...

Are we talking about revolution or religion?

One thing the left needs to do is stop making shit so metaphysical! It's not magic.

We don't need to apprentice with a "revolutionary wizard" before we're able to "save the kingdom."

I got all that crap out of my system playing Zelda for N64.



Any time a discussion becomes interesting, the number of potentially interesting off-topic subjects increases.

That's when you know it's "good." :thumbup1:

RedStar2000

In many ways, I take a great deal of inspiration from RedStar. He was years ahead of his time... Quite possibly centuries.

I'm sure his messed up, stroked out brain would hate this comparison, but I would call him a "modern-day Marx." I would call myself a "RedStar"-ist amongst those "in the know" as readily as I would call myself a "Marxist."

I see them as largely interchangeable. RS2K's objective was to portray Marx's theories as they really were, free of Lenin's "revisions." I believe he essentially succeeded.

Like the original Marx, I certainly don't agree with everything RS2K had to say - for example, I use Dialectical Materialism and believe that it logically prohibits Leninism (it was, in fact, my reason for abandoning it... see my blog entry explaining my view: http://comrademartinlovesyou.blogspot.com/2009/10/dialectics-vs-leninism.html)

But despite some disagreements here or there, I find his paradigm to be more sound and to make more sense than any other I have encountered.

Alternate Paradigms


I should take this opportunity to briefly list some key differences between my conclusions and those of some others (including RS2K) who have (1) recognized the need to deal with the theoretical bankruptcy of the single-party police state command economy that is popularly considered to be "socialism" and (2) created original theoretical work concerning how society will function when it is run by the working class. Three currents of thought come to mind

(a) The "demarchy" theories of RedStar2000
(b) The "separation of party and government" theories of the Party of Proletarian Dictatorship (a small group based in Samara, Russia)
(c) The "ParEcon" (ie: Participatory Economics) theories of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel

I'll save you a great deal of time in this exchange by dismissing them all as any sort of "finite solution."

RS2K's is definitely my "preferred" option of the 3, but I don't think even he was married to that concept... It was just his "favorite" theory.



All three theories, in one way or another have to deal with the principle, most concisely formulated by Lord Acton in 1887, that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I think that feels like a rather metaphysical assertion.

As a gun-owner, when I go out places slinging my AK-47, I certainly have more "power" than all of my unarmed friends combined.

I would even call it "absolute."

But because of my "personality," I have no innate desire to dominate or oppress them - and I can't imagine any scenario where this would happen because that's just not "how I roll."

One could say the same for those guys who watch the nuclear silos all day... They could nuke anyone at any time, or at least threaten people with being nuked. And yet, they don't... Why?

It's a little simplified to say "power corrupts" - its a sweeping generalization that doesn't cover the ABC's of the question. What kind of power? How is it wielded? What would lead someone to want to abuse it? Etc.

Whatever someone's motivations, in order for "corruption" of "power" to be meaningful enough to destabilize the existing social system, that social system would have to have been constructed with abuse as a possibility.

Of the 3 choices you offered, only Demarchy seems to sufficiently addresses that possibility by structuring the system in such a way that everybody holds power at various times, and thus nobody in particular.


It is possible that demarchy or many other kinds of weird things might be useful when workers rule the world. I am sure that there will be a large number of weird experiments--and who can say what things might or might not be useful? But as a fundamental solution to how things will work--this has little in common with my conclusions.

It's actually not as "weird" as it sounds... Its basically like "taking turns" with power via random selection. You listed a couple examples where you are aware of its practice, but its actually used all over the world for often very unideological reasons.

(Due to Christmas obligations, this is the end of my "Part 1" - I will continue writing again in the next few days.)

[Q]

This is a very interesting thread :)

Perhaps it fits better in Strategy though?

[Ben Seattle]

This is a very interesting thread :)
Perhaps it fits better in Strategy though?

Maybe so. I posted here in Practice and Propaganda before I was aware that there was a section called Strategy (it was not visible until I scrolled down afterword). I would have no objection if you moved this thread to Strategy although it might be better to wait until after Martin makes his 2nd post--so that he will see our recent comments and not simply think that this thread has disappeared. -- Ben

[Dimentio]

How would a gift economy be supposed to calculate what resources are available and how the infrastructure should be managed?

[Comrade Martin]

How would a gift economy be supposed to calculate what resources are available and how the infrastructure should be managed?

Ask the Internet.

When's the last time you paid for music?

When you got it, how was that resource calculated and managed? What methods ensured its adequate quality and distribution?

A system of production in which material abundance is the conclusion lays the objective conditions for a classless society, as executed by a "moneyless gift economy," in Ben's words.

Very few (if any) people will decide how it should be structured based on a "conscious" ideological approach... It will just happen... Kinda like how the Internet just happened.

All the forms of free distribution were the objective conclusion of the material abundance of a given commodity: creative productions.

Pictures, pornography, movies, music, video... It's all free now - and the "relations of production" (Capitalism) are but a fetter on the "means of production" (free internet distribution.) Exactly as Karl Marx predicted... No "assembly" required!

This would call in to question Ben (and Leninism's) whole notion of a "transitional" State-Capitalist economy... I think history is proving it to be increasingly unnecessary, if it was ever necessary at all.

But I will reserve any further comments on this sidebar (which is fair game for you to respond to, Ben) before finishing my original reply above.

[Pogue]

This should be in strategy.

Principles have nothing to do with it, your movement should be informed by what best meets your objectives. That should exclude most things your against 'in principle' anyway.

[Ben Seattle]

How would a gift economy be supposed to calculate what resources are available and how the infrastructure should be managed?

Hi Dimentio,

Your question is a good one. The answer is neither obvious nor trivial. How things might work are relatively easy to understand in the information sectors of the economy (ie: software, entertainment, etc) but are more complex when we are talking about building airplanes and freeways.

The way the "calculation of resources" (to which you refer) would take place would depend on the nature of the industry and the kind of project.

For example, creating a freeway requires a fair amount of centralized planning. Creating airplanes would probably involve more than one group in competition with one another. Each airplane group would do its own planning independent of the other (ie: similar to Boeing vs. Airbus). Operating a grocery store is something at a smaller scale and would be more likely to involve independent groups positioning themselves in an economic ecosystem.

All of these projects would involve goods and services and labor being donated by groups of workers who would find many different ways to coordinate their activities. The main point is that they will be able to do this without either the market or a supreme authority telling everyone what they need to do. There would be lots of disagreements and lots of people (in some cases large segments of the general population) would often become involved in the resolution of these disagreements over how best to do things. These disagreements (and passions) would likely emerge concerning things like: (1) consumption in the present vs. investment in the future, (2) local vs. international development and (3) ecosystems preservation vs. development.

That is the best I can do to answer your question in eight sentences.

Since I have spent so many hours writing thousands of words about this I would like to ask you to take a little bit of your own time to at least skim, if not read, some of my work (see below) on this question. I would like to be responsive to you but I also expect you take a certain amount of initiative and responsibility. I am sure you can understand this. If you take some time to take a look at my work I will take some time to be responsive to your comments, questions or criticisms.

All the best,
Ben

Humanity's Future Gift Economy

• The Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy (http://leninism.org/some/) • (1995) • The first scientific speculation on how a the economy and political system will function in a classless society. Featuring brief sketches of the organization of political, cultural and economic life in a future where all authority flows from principles that have been distributed universally and are part of everyone's internal compass rather than institutions which are external to the individual and which use one or another form of carrot or stick.

• The ascendency of the self-organizing moneyless economy (http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7_F.htm) • (2004) Ben speculates on some of the ways that the self-organzing moneyless economy may unfold as it overtakes and overwhelms the commodity economy in the period following the overthrow of bourgeois rule • (Appendix F of The World for which We Fight (http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7.htm))

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is an interesting discussion of ideas however the main criticism I have with much of this is that it seems to locate the problem with the left right now in the sphere of ideas not action or praxis. It seems to me that we don't have a problem of ideas - there are plenty of ideas, plenty of principles - there is just no way to test them against reality because there is no movement.

Second, Ben, I find it profoundly undemocratic for people in today's society to write up (in fact dictate) a road-map of how parties or decision-making or economics will be handled by a future society. This is not and can not be our job as radicals because if workers are to run society in their own interests, they will need to decide these things themselves, democratically, through the process of revolution.

I also find this statement problematic: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

This is a anti-materialist bourgeois idea that ignores class in society. Absolute power for who and by who?! The working class - that's fine by me. Absolute power for a clique or party claiming to speak on behalf of the working class is wrong no matter how benevolent or not it might be should be opposed. Absolute power for aristocrats or the capitalists or Stalinist bureaucrats is bad not in the "how" but in "who" has power.

The working class should have absolute power over production, absolutely.

[Ben Seattle]

Hi Gravedigger,


the main criticism I have with much of this is that it seems to locate the problem with the left right now in the sphere of ideas not action or praxis. It seems to me that we don't have a problem of ideas - there are plenty of ideas, plenty of principles - there is just no way to test them against reality because there is no movement.

In other words, you are claiming that there is no problem with the revolutionary movement; that there is no crisis of theory that makes it essentially impossible for even the most militant and dedicated activist to understand or explain, in realistic terms, how things will work when workers run everything.

The bourgeoisie claims that the only alternative to bourgeois rule is a police state with a command economy run by a single party with the ability to suppress the voice of its opponents and suppress the voice of the entire working class. And clueless Cargo-cult Leninists (ie: like your organization, by the way) are not capable of challenging this--or even recognizing this as a problem.


I find it profoundly undemocratic for people in today's society to write up (in fact dictate) a road-map of how parties or decision-making or economics will be handled by a future society. This is not and can not be our job as radicals because if workers are to run society in their own interests, they will need to decide these things themselves, democratically, through the process of revolution.

In other words, let's not think about any of this today. Let's think about that tomorrow. Wasn't that the iconic tagline of Scarlet O'Hara?

http://struggle.net/ALDS/scarlet.gif

I made it clear at the beginning of the thread that I was interested mainly in focusing on comments which represent experience and maturity.

I am sure you are a great guy, Gravedigger, and you are very dedicated and so on. But I am going to put you on my "ignore list" for the next ten days. That means the RevLeft software will not show me me your posts, at least during that period. I believe I owe it to the serious people on this forum to focus on their comments rather than yours.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I made it clear at the beginning of the thread that I was interested mainly in focusing on comments which represent experience and maturity.

I am sure you are a great guy, Gravedigger, and you are very dedicated and so on. But I am going to put you on my "ignore list" for the next ten days. That means the RevLeft software will not show me me your posts, at least during that period. I believe I owe it to the serious people on this forum to focus on their comments rather than yours.

What the hell is that? I said nothing disrespectful and was raising alternate points - if you don't want people to question your views, don't post them online, you can easily have a back and forth through email or PM if you want to keep it private.

By the way I've been active in the organized left with syndicalist and socialist groups for 10 years, your comments were completely condescending and elitist and suggest that If you can't handle an alternative view, your are the one who is not serious.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And clueless Cargo-cult Leninists (ie: like your organization, by the way) are not capable of challenging this--or even recognizing this as a problem.:rolleyes:Ok, I see where that post was coming from now, you are just some sectarian.

Well I'll respond anyway since there are other reasonable people to talk to. After reading all the responses to your post I've realized that the points I made are not too different from the ones made by Comrade Martin - this has led me to conclude that since the content of my comment was no different, since other people have posted on this topic without being rudely "dismissed" then the only remaining factor is my political tradition which you went out of your way to unproductively note.


In other words, you are claiming that there is no problem with the revolutionary movementNo, I said the problem on the left was the current lack of working class movements.

You can have all the ideas in the world but if there's nothing to apply them to and test them against then it's worthless. With no empirical way to test these ideas, often political differences that can not be tested lead to sectarianism... hmmm.


In other words, let's not think about any of this today. Let's think about that tomorrow. Wasn't that the iconic tagline of Scarlet O'Hara?Aww cute. No, I said you can not dictate to workers how they will run society. As Comrade Martin said, it's fine to argue for a way that you think workers might be able to run things the best, but at this point in the game, to lay out FOR WORKERS, how they should run things is idealism at best, top-down socialism at worst.

Again, the crisis in the revolutionary movement is that there needs to be self-conscious movements of workers fighting in their own interests... you want to pick out a honeymoon spot, but you don't even have a date to the prom yet! I have no problem with debating about what the best ways for workers to run society and prevent the loss of working class power to either counter-revolution or some kind of takeover by a new class of bureaucrats like in the USSR - my criticism is with the idea that IDEAS are what are keeping the movement back. You can have the most perfectly laid-out plans and principles, but this will not change anything regarding the current state of the left. I have no doubt that as working class movements develop, new debates and ideas will emerge and when we are on the verge of revolution, THEN the questions you are posing will be something to debate concretely and all workers will be involved in these debates about the best way to run society.

[Q]

Moved from P&P to Strategy.

[Patchd]

This should be in strategy.

Principles have nothing to do with it, your movement should be informed by what best meets your objectives. That should exclude most things your against 'in principle' anyway.
No that's ridiculous, you can't simply abandon your principles for supposed 'pragmatism', that's what the 'revolutionary' movement has been doing for some time (along with many other aspects of struggle which I would place much less emphasis on, eg; single issue campaigning), abandoning it's revolutionary principles in favour of reformist tactics. The point is, workers who you may interest at first may well be deterred, or even disillusioned by excessive reform campaigning. Afterall, what do reforms actually bring? Yes, some material benefit, I've definitely benefited from the free healthcare we have here, but as we can see, even this great reform that was granted to us is being withered away and has been withering away since after the first year in which it was introduced with the removal of free prescriptions.

In addition, the implication that we have to be 'pragmatic' over principled suggests that we are somewhat removed from the class, that we, as enlightened individuals have come round to some revolutionary thinking which other working class people simply cannot comprehend, so we will have to explain to them things slowly, step by step, and conduct our activity in 'transitions'. It's a common misconception that 'the workers are not ready for revolution', the workers will be ready when the material conditions are ripe for revolution, but how can this be achieved when the 'left' continues to campaign only on reforms giving into the illusions that we can achieve emancipation through the capitalist system. We are workers, and we are revolutionary workers, revolutionary workers with principles no doubt, you have principles Pogue, everyone does, what's to say that other workers can't also be swayed by revolutionary politics if we talk up front to them about it?

I'm sorry if I'm entirely missing your point Pogue, please elaborate on it and correct me if I am.

[Ben Seattle]

you can't simply abandon your principles for supposed 'pragmatism'

Patchd hits the nail on the head.

Principles are ideas that have proven
to be so useful that we make a decision
to consistently base our actions on them.
Some people claim that they do not base their actions on principles. But, in this case, their actions are based on the principle that "principles are not important". Generally these people accomplish very little.

Stephen Covey talks about principles as habits. I include his famous 7 habits here (see below). Covey claims that essentially all successful people practice these 7 habits in one form or another. He may be right. Covey, as a person, has a lot of problems (ie: he is part of a reactionary religion that, in particular, works to oppose gay rights, he is a bourgeois, etc). But we can learn from the class enemy. And the revolutionary movement, in particular, has a lot to learn from Stephen Covey.

One of Covey's principles, in particular, is worth noting: begin with the end in mind.

Applied to the revolutionary movement, this means that our actions must be taken with a view to our objective: replacing the capitalist system with something that is better. This may seem simple and obvious, but there is no shortage of people who start out with this goal and lose sight of it as they become discouraged--or spend all of their available time on actions which have little real connection with this goal.

I will talk more about principles sometime in the near future. But right now I must conform to one of my principles: which is that I will not allow my activity on RevLeft to interfere with things I need to do in my life--like get some exercise. So I am going to take a walk.

All the best,
Ben

from a web review I found of Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

habit 1 - be proactive
This is the ability to control one's environment, rather than have it control you, as is so often the case. Self determination, choice, and the power to decide response to stimulus, conditions and circumstances

habit 2 - begin with the end in mind
Covey calls this the habit of personal leadership - leading oneself that is, towards what you consider your aims. By developing the habit of concentrating on relevant activities you will build a platform to avoid distractions and become more productive and successful.

habit 3 - put first things first
Covey calls this the habit of personal management. This is about organising and implementing activities in line with the aims established in habit 2. Covey says that habit 2 is the first, or mental creation; habit 3 is the second, or physical creation. (See the section on time management.)

habit 4 - think win-win
Covey calls this the habit of interpersonal leadership, necessary because achievements are largely dependent on co-operative efforts with others. He says that win-win is based on the assumption that there is plenty for everyone, and that success follows a co-operative approach more naturally than the confrontation of win-or-lose.

habit 5 - seek first to understand and then to be understood
One of the great maxims of the modern age. This is Covey's habit of communication, and it's extremely powerful. Covey helps to explain this in his simple analogy 'diagnose before you prescribe'. Simple and effective, and essential for developing and maintaining positive relationships in all aspects of life. (See the associated sections on Empathy, Transactional Analysis, and the Johari Window.)

habit 6 - synergize
Covey says this is the habit of creative co-operation - the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which implicitly lays down the challenge to see the good and potential in the other person's contribution.

habit 7 - sharpen the saw
This is the habit of self renewal, says Covey, and it necessarily surrounds all the other habits, enabling and encouraging them to happen and grow. Covey interprets the self into four parts: the spiritual, mental, physical and the social/emotional, which all need feeding and developing.

[KC]

Edit

[Ben Seattle]

Hi Martin,

It is necessary that I take a ten day break from RevLeft. I believe my activity here has been generally worthwhile. But I find that this forum has been taking a big share of my attention and I must apply my attention elsewhere to restore the necessary balance.

I have made a bunch of posts. I have gotten a bit more than a dozen "thanks" and also pissed off a number of people. I have added half a dozen people to my "ignore list", most for being aggressively clueless time-wasters (actw). At some point it would be cool for RevLeft to have public ignore lists--and then, if someone appears to be a waste of time, you could, with a single click of your mouse, see a list of the people who have put that person on their ignore list. This would, ultimately, save a lot of people a lot of time and also encourage some people to clean up their act.

I am glad that we are doing this thread in the public forum rather than my blog. It gets more attention that way. Now I hope we can make this thread deserving of the attention it is getting. Any thread with life in it is likely to attract its share of actw. Eventually, better rating and filtering systems (such as at Slashdot.org) will assist in defending powerful signal-to-noise ratios.

I enjoyed your post. I don't necessarily agree with all your conclusions but you do lighten up my day. I look forward to continuing this discussion and hope we can make something worthwhile out of it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I will contribute to this thread later, I have to work now.

My initial thought is that there are some extremely elitist people in this thread who seem to think that their idea of Socialism is above those who are less informed. I have no time for such people. As has been said, whilst there are such people, there are also those open to conversing with anybody, the topic of Socialism and it's various attachments. As such, I will contribute a bit later when I have time to address the salient points in the thread.

[Ben Seattle]

Hi everyone,

(1) This thread will be inactive until or unless Comrade Martin returns to it. I contacted Martin and he would like to resume his activity on this thread but is pressed for time.

I understand the pressure of time.

(2) I will be off-line until next month. I find that I need to take breaks from RevLeft in order to devote attention to basic things in my life that I would otherwise neglect.

(3) I did reply to Jimmie Higgins and KC, but I did not do so on this thread because I do not want to clog up this thread with that kind of energy. Instead, I created a blog posting devoted to the specific question (that comes up a lot in forums like this) of how to deal with the aggressively clueless. See: Less is More (Why it is not a good idea to waste time arguing with idiots) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=751).

[black magick hustla]

this thread reeks of revolutionary autism