Insurgent Notes

[S.Artesian]

I have been working with my friends, Loren Goldner and John Garvey on producing a collaborative publication-- something a little different and hopefully a lot better than most of what passes itself off for Marxism.

In this the age of destructive accumulation and vice-versa, also known as the era of Sinkhole /Golf Course Capitalism the objective of the bourgeoisie is not to get rich by producing wealth, or by pocketing the already produced wealth of others, but rather by liquidating the already pocketed wealth of others. Our objective remains the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production, the expropriation of the pickpocket, liquidationist bourgeoisie, the self-emancipation of the working class, everywhere.


Full at: http://insurgentnotes.com (http://insurgentnotes.com/)

[Q]

I just read the presentation (http://insurgentnotes.com/2010/06/presenting-insurgent-notes/) and I have to say I'm impressed. I welcome these parts especially:


We do not wish to start our existence by picking up the 1960s/1970s debates about “forms of organization”: party, soviet, workers’ council, union. All such questions are important but they are subordinate to the larger question of content. Content in this case means a program for radical social reconstruction once the world is dominated by “soviet-type” power. But in our view such a revolution will not take place if there is not prepared in advance a substantial stratum of workers with a clear programmatic idea of what we wish to do with the world when we take it away from the capitalist class. That is the true “vanguard of the working class,” not some self-appointed vanguard party intent on “seizing power.” Such an advanced stratum of workers and their allies may very well at some point form a political party, or even several, but our perspective must always be as a current in the future multi-tendency “world soviet.”

And


Insurgent Notes addresses itself initially to those sympathetic to our assessment of the overall situation and notions of what to do about it. We recognize that, for the moment, this in all likelihood means those intellectuals like ourselves and possibly some working people with a certain political and theoretical formation, or those looking for itand not finding it in the broader (self-styled) anti-capitalist milieu. We seek collaborators, initially, among those who share our interest in making the critique of political economy, the focus on social reproduction, and a program for social reconstruction central to our activity and initial intervention. We do not intend to build a network of unformed activists around ourselves as a general staff but rather, to the extent possible, within current conditions, a network fusing “universal labor” (critical intellectual work) with “cooperative labor” (practical intervention). That will mean, initially, the work of writing, editing and publicizing this journal. We intend to organize internal and external study groups on Marxian theory and revolutionary history. As our capacity to do so grows, we intend to establish ongoing investigative work on the global political economy, in order to arrive at ever-clearer understanding of what a revolutionary program and global reconstruction can mean. When we have the numbers and resources to do so, we intend to move to more popular and accessible forms of expression.

I warmly welcome this much needed focus on programmatical and theoretical development. What is unclear though for me is that while there is a call for collaborators and thinkers that agree with you, what about those that don't agree with you? Will Insurgent Notes act as a genuine intellectual platform in which the movement can discuss its burning questions of the day, presenting different arguments even if they totally oppose the editorial board?

In my opinion this is a crucial difference between a class orientation and a sect mentality. If there is an open mechanism in place there is a good way to correct mistakes in tactics and theory and become a real contribution to working class development. Otherwise there's a high chance it'll just become yet another self-professed all-knowing sectlet which is irrelevant in the development of broader layers of working class militants.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In my opinion this is a crucial difference between a class orientation and a sect mentality. If there is an open mechanism in place there is a good way to correct mistakes in tactics and theory and become a real contribution to working class development. Otherwise there's a high chance it'll just become yet another self-professed all-knowing sectlet which is irrelevant in the development of broader layers of working class militants.

So, in your opinion, an organization can be working class in character even when it admittedly will be made up of and lead by "intellectuals" and "possibly some working people," as long as it publishes varying viewpoints in its journal?

[black magick hustla]

To be honest NHIA sometimes there is a confusion with the word intellectual. From what I know about Golder is that he is an ESL secondary school teacher who writes communist articles in his spare time. He is as much as a worker as anybody else.

[S.Artesian]

don't[/I] agree with you? Will Insurgent Notes act as a genuine intellectual platform in which the movement can discuss its burning questions of the day, presenting different arguments even if they totally oppose the editorial board?

In my opinion this is a crucial difference between a class orientation and a sect mentality. If there is an open mechanism in place there is a good way to correct mistakes in tactics and theory and become a real contribution to working class development. Otherwise there's a high chance it'll just become yet another self-professed all-knowing sectlet which is irrelevant in the development of broader layers of working class militants.

I could give you any of a number of answers about serving as an open intellectual platform, but honestly I don't know the answer to that. It remains to be seen, no?

At one and the same time, there are differences among us-- John and I have serious disagreements about certain things. Loren and I have disagreements about many things, including the importance of fictitious capital, an area he has concentrated on.

There are, obviously, degrees of openness-- if somebody submits an article quoting Marx, or using some abstraction of a critique of value to endorse United States presence in Afghanistan, or to oppose the Palestinians' right of return, that's not going to be published... or if it is, I for one will be terminating my association with Insurgent Notes.

Short version: hopefully, we'll stick around long enough to find out.

[Q]

So, in your opinion, an organization can be working class in character even when it admittedly will be made up of and lead by "intellectuals" and "possibly some working people," as long as it publishes varying viewpoints in its journal?

You make a completely arbitrary difference between intellectuals and the working class. The working class can produce its own intellectuals.


There are, obviously, degrees of openness-- if somebody submits an article quoting Marx, or using some abstraction of a critique of value to endorse United States presence in Afghanistan, or to oppose the Palestinians' right of return, that's not going to be published... or if it is, I for one will be terminating my association with Insurgent Notes.

In my opinion this is the wrong approach. I think we both agree on the need to reach out to the whole class (or rather, all its militants) given the historic mission of this class at worldrevolution? Given that, I think such a platform would best be built to include all self-proclaimed revolutionary views (this is ensured given the very character of the publication, tea partiers would obviously be blocked from such a theoretical platform), whether they are obviously right or reactionary wrong. The point is to include as many viewpoints as apparently live in the wider workers movement and if such a viewpoint actually existed then surely it must be tackled and resolved head on. Besides, there is a very self-purifying mechanism in such a platform: obvious bullshit is immediately tackled from all sides, not only by the editorial board, but by other writers out there.

In short: what is there to be afraid of?

[S.Artesian]

So, in your opinion, an organization can be working class in character even when it admittedly will be made up of and lead by "intellectuals" and "possibly some working people," as long as it publishes varying viewpoints in its journal?


In my opinion, that, the above is a non-sensical question until such time that there is actually that working class movement that defines itself as working class.

To debate what constitutes working class character abstracted from a) the material analysis of the current and anticipated condition of the working class movement itself and b) the actual content produced that the "organization...lead by 'intellectuals' " is a waste of time, and a diversion.

I understand that at the first appearance of a publication, there will be questions about the intent, the content, the 'membership' of the organization itself, but I would hope everybody interested in those questions would understand that the "real" issues are the analysis of concrete events, incidents, and problems as provided in the publication itself, in the articles in that publication.

[S.Artesian]

To be honest NHIA sometimes there is a confusion with the word intellectual. From what I know about Golder is that he is an ESL secondary school teacher who writes communist articles in his spare time. He is as much as a worker as anybody else.


Loren retired from that position in Korea, and is back in New York. While in South Korea, he was invited to, and did, address the striking auto workers at the Ssangyong plant-- which is pretty damn cool, isn't it?

Actually, I'm the one who wrote communist articles in my spare time, having worked on railroads in the US for 36 years, starting as a brakeman [no sexism intended, that's what the position was officially called in labor agreements]and ending as the chief of operations [yes, senior management, on the other side of the bargaining table from the unions]. Those jobs were, for the most part, 24/7 jobs-- always subject to immediate return to duty.

Kept me from drinking, that's for sure. And now that I'm retired, I don't even have the desire any longer.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is the true “vanguard of the working class,” not some self-appointed vanguard party intent on “seizing power.” Such an advanced stratum of workers and their allies may very well at some point form a political party, or even several, but our perspective must always be as a current in the future multi-tendency “world soviet.”

The only problem I see with this material is that it retains a very limited definition of "party" that completely ignores German precedents. Real parties are real movements and vice versa, hence the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD.

[S.Artesian]

In my opinion this is the wrong approach. I think we both agree on the need to reach out to the whole class (or rather, all its militants) given the historic mission of this class at worldrevolution? Given that, I think such a platform would best be built to include all self-proclaimed revolutionary views (this is ensured given the very character of the publication, tea partiers would obviously be blocked from such a theoretical platform), whether they are obviously right or reactionary wrong. The point is to include as many viewpoints as apparently live in the wider workers movement and if such a viewpoint actually existed then surely it must be tackled and resolved head on. Besides, there is a very self-purifying mechanism in such a platform: obvious bullshit is immediately tackled from all sides, not only by the editorial board, but by other writers out there.

In short: what is there to be afraid of?

I agree on the need to reach out to militants. And I don't think there is much to be afraid of... but there are so many existing outlets for those who want to advocate Maoism, progressivism, Bolivarianism, that I don't see the need for yet another publication to provide yet another iteration.

But, I would like to repeat, these are issues that we will confront, hopefully, in the concrete, and everyone will see how we will deal with them.

In the meantime, there is some real content in this first issue, on the US, on the recovery/double dip/double crater/economy, on California... and I hope readers find something that triggers agreement, disagreement, etc.

[ChrisK]

Just finished your article "Bring in the Paper, Bring on the Torches." It was an absolutely excellent analysis. Keep up the good work.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The only problem I see with this material is that it retains a very limited definition of "party" that completely ignores German precedents. Real parties are real movements and vice versa, hence the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD.

Do you wish you had a time machine so you could travel back to Germany circa-1919? :rolleyes:

[Zanthorus]

I've read the introductory essay and the first article by Goldner. Really good stuff guys :)

I might have something more substantial to say when I have time to flick through the rest.

[S.Artesian]

I've read the introductory essay and the first article by Goldner. Really good stuff guys :)

I might have something more substantial to say when I have time to flick through the rest.


We hope to. As Marx would say, production is nothing, reproduction is everything. At least I think he would.

So we are at work on issue 2 and if there is something you think you would like to submit, please contact us.

That goes for all-- including those I disagree with most vehemently about things that are not the most important-- and Hegel and dialectics are certainly NOT anywhere close to being the most important things.

[Q]

How frequent is this publication?

[S.Artesian]

How frequent is this publication?


Little tough to say, right now. We've only done 1 issue, and we are now gathering material for another issue. I'd love to see it go to 6-8-10-12 times a year, or more. But that depends on a lot of things-- how many contributors we get, and how much time we can put into uploading material.

We're going to meet this week to discuss that, but right now, I just don't know, other than to say I'm pretty sure we can get it up to 6 times a year pretty easily.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You make a completely arbitrary difference between intellectuals and the working class. The working class can produce its own intellectuals.There are intellectually inclined workers, but typically when leftists talk about "intellectuals" as a group they are talking about petty-bourgeoisie thinkers. That's especially the case when they are honest enough to point out the difference themselves.

In this case they said "intellectuals like ourselves and possibly some working people." They didn't say "intellectual workers like ourselves and possibly some other workers."

Petty-bourgeois socialists tend to blur class lines and eliminate class distinctions all together in one way or another. This has resulted in "intellectuals divorced from class relations," "a bureaucratic caste," and other similar bullshit.

The fact remains that you hold the idealist position common on the left that the class character of an organization is determined not by its actually class makeup but rather its "line" or methods of functioning.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

To be honest NHIA sometimes there is a confusion with the word intellectual. From what I know about Golder is that he is an ESL secondary school teacher who writes communist articles in his spare time. He is as much as a worker as anybody else.Yes, there is much confusion on issues of class. That's the case with your organization too.

It's a direct result of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois efforts to dull class conflict and obscure classes all together over the years.

[black magick hustla]

character of an organization is determined not by its actually class makeup but rather its "line" or methods of functioning.

the character of an organization is not necessarily determined by its "makeup" for the good or the worse. if that was the case most capitalist organizations would be workers' organizations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For once I'll side with NHIA here, but be more balanced (since I am at least pro-party). The character is determined by both "line" and "makeup."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So.. you can have a "workers organization" with no workers. As long as they have a "proletarian line" ... which apparently people of any class are capable of formulating.

That's idealist rubbish, or worse.

And our "Marxists" should know that it's not the position of either Marx or Engels.

"Citizen Marx has just been mentioned; he has perfectly understood the importance of this first congress, where there should be only working-class delegates; therefor he refused the delegateship he was offered in the General Council." - James Carter, Geneva Congress of the First International.

"...Victor Le Lubez ... asked if Karl Marx would suggest the name of someone to speak on behalf of the German Workers.' Marx himself was far too bourgeois to be eligible so he recommended the emigre tailor Johann Georg Eccarius..." - Karl Marx: A Life, Francis Wheen.

"...When such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. …in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time. ...In any case, the time seems to have come.” - Engels, Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle (private letter to Germany's Social Democratic leadership), 1879.

"The General Council shall consist of workingmen from the different countries represented in the International Association. It shall, from its own members, elect the officers necessary for the transaction of business, such as a treasurer, a general secretary, corresponding secretaries for the different countries, etc." - The International Workingmen's Association, General Rules (emphasis added)

Marx and Engels also called on the U.S. section of the First International to insure that a majority of its membership was made up of workers.

[S.Artesian]

So.. you can have a "workers organization" with no workers. As long as they have a "proletarian line" ... which apparently people of any class are capable of formulating.

That's idealist rubbish, or worse.

And our "Marxists" should know that it's not the position of either Marx or Engels.

"Citizen Marx has just been mentioned; he has perfectly understood the importance of this first congress, where there should be only working-class delegates; therefor he refused the delegateship he was offered in the General Council." - James Carter, Geneva Congress of the First International.

"...Victor Le Lubez ... asked if Karl Marx would suggest the name of someone to speak on behalf of the German Workers.' Marx himself was far too bourgeois to be eligible so he recommended the emigre tailor Johann Georg Eccarius..." - Karl Marx: A Life, Francis Wheen.

"...When such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. …in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time. ...In any case, the time seems to have come.” - Engels, Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle (private letter to Germany's Social Democratic leadership), 1879.

"The General Council shall consist of workingmen from the different countries represented in the International Association. It shall, from its own members, elect the officers necessary for the transaction of business, such as a treasurer, a general secretary, corresponding secretaries for the different countries, etc." - The International Workingmen's Association, General Rules (emphasis added)

Marx and Engels also called on the U.S. section of the First International to insure that a majority of its membership was made up of workers.

If you're referring this to me.. that's certainly not what I said. We're not a "workers'" organization, even if we slip and refer to ourselves as that in an editorial-- wishful thinking, eager anticipation in that.

Secondly, workers' organization does not refer to individual production, but refers to the social production, functions, operations, etc. Lenin was not a workers' organization. The Bolsheviks became a workers' organization in the course of the revolutionary struggle.

Third-- there's 3 of us steering this publication. I'm a retired railroad worker-- although most of my working career was spent as an operating officer; John is a former cab driver; Loren is a long-time Marxist activist and writer-- starting in Berkeley right after the FSM and continuing to this day, who worked at a number of jobs in order to study, write, etc.

Somebody wants to call us "petit-bourgeois intellectuals"? Hey, I've been called worse. The only part of that I take exception to is "intellectual." I don't think I qualify.

We produce this epublication. It has a certain content. As much as I hate to say this, if you have nothing to say about that content, then you really have nothing to say period, and you're wasting everybody's time with this argument about "workers" and "workers' organizations."

[Devrim]

I warmly welcome this much needed focus on programmatical and theoretical development. What is unclear though for me is that while there is a call for collaborators and thinkers that agree with you, what about those that don't agree with you? Will Insurgent Notes act as a genuine intellectual platform in which the movement can discuss its burning questions of the day, presenting different arguments even if they totally oppose the editorial board?

In my opinion this is a crucial difference between a class orientation and a sect mentality. If there is an open mechanism in place there is a good way to correct mistakes in tactics and theory and become a real contribution to working class development. Otherwise there's a high chance it'll just become yet another self-professed all-knowing sectlet which is irrelevant in the development of broader layers of working class militants.

Surely there must be limits based around some common points of agreement?

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

So.. you can have a "workers organization" with no workers. As long as they have a "proletarian line" ... which apparently people of any class are capable of formulating.

No, you can't.

I said both were important. Logical "AND" applies here.

Please read my earlier posts before jumping to conclusions.

[Q]

Surely there must be limits based around some common points of agreement?

Devrim

The writers/publishers are of course free in their intent, but it won't have to do with writing and publishing about a working class programme for social revolution, just the view of a narrow group (irrespective of how good or well written that particular view is) telling the working class movement what to do. This reduces the readership from active participants of the content to mere consumers.

So, arbitrary limits based on some common points of agreement would be counter-productive in my opinion. Of course it is true that the publishers are at the "steering wheel" of the publication so to say, so they can move the debate any way they like, in this sense I can agree with "limits" in that outside contributors should stay "on topic".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, you can't.

I said both were important. Logical "AND" applies here.

Please read my earlier posts before jumping to conclusions.

I was replying to maldoror's claim that "the character of an organization is not necessarily determined by its 'makeup' for the good or the worse."

[S.Artesian]

The writers/publishers are of course free in their intent, but it won't have to do with writing and publishing about a working class programme for social revolution, just the view of a narrow group (irrespective of how good or well written that particular view is) telling the working class movement what to do. This reduces the readership from active participants of the content to mere consumers.

So, arbitrary limits based on some common points of agreement would be counter-productive in my opinion. Of course it is true that the publishers are at the "steering wheel" of the publication so to say, so they can move the debate any way they like, in this sense I can agree with "limits" in that outside contributors should stay "on topic".


I think the Q hits it spot on in his remarks about working class programme for social revolution and the view of a narrow group. Does that sound odd coming from a member of that narrow group? I hope not. One of the areas where I have differences with even my closest friends and collaborators, and I regard Loren as both, is on the presentation of revolutionary program. Doesn't stop him from presenting one of 18 points. Doesn't stop me from disagreeing with some of the specific points, or the idea of such a presentation at this stage. Doesn't stop us from wanting to work together.

While I think few things are more important than the development and elaboration of that program, I think there are few organizations less qualified to do that work by and in itself than a group of 3, or 30, initiating a new publication.

If the emancipation of the workers is a self-emancipation that "drags" or "shoves" along everybody in its wake or in its "gravitational field," then certainly the elaboration of the program for the emancipation of labor has to result from the workers themselves.

I, we can analyze, criticize, heap scorn upon the bourgeoisie and their advertising agents [that happens to be my speciality, BTW. When I read Marx, I think he's practically spitting the word "bourgeoisie."], illuminate results and prospects, paths and pitfalls; we can even develop strategies, or at least propose strategies-- but if the workers don't develop a revolutionary program-- that unity of method, organization and content-- there isn't going to be a revolution, is there?

The issues of agreement and disagreement, limits, are really difficult issues to navigate, particularly for someone as aggressive, excessively self-confident, and flat out loud-mouthed as I am.

I don't know how it's going to work out. Perhaps, knowing me, I'll burn that bridge when I come to it. Maybe, hopefully, the workers will have advanced the struggle to the level that the "limits" are self-evident, no longer being limits but sides in the class struggle.

I simply don't know how we're going to deal with it. Right now, the quality of the articles, submissions, etc. is the most critical issue. But content cannot be sequestered, isolated from quality. If somebody wants us to publish an article supporting Zuma in the ANC, well unless we're prepared to abandon what I think we said we stand for in the editorial, I don't see how we can publish it--- unless we publish it in order to criticize it, as an object lesson in what we don't stand for.

[Q]

If somebody wants us to publish an article supporting Zuma in the ANC, well unless we're prepared to abandon what I think we said we stand for in the editorial, I don't see how we can publish it--- unless we publish it in order to criticize it, as an object lesson in what we don't stand for.

My point exactly. I wasn't saying or intending that the editorial board should stay "objective" (as if such a thing existed) or impertial, but that opposing views must be published in order to deal with them head on. I hope this elaborates.

If your co-editors agree with you on these points, this publication is looking like it has potential :)

[S.Artesian]

My point exactly. I wasn't saying or intending that the editorial board should stay "objective" (as if such a thing existed) or impertial, but that opposing views must be published in order to deal with them head on. I hope this elaborates.

If your co-editors agree with you on these points, this publication is looking like it has potential :)


Well, I think they do, but space and time limitations would determine how much, when, and if, we devote time to a particular divergent view.

But yeah, I like the idea of kind of doing a "side-by-side"-- or publishing an article and including a critique thereof.

[black magick hustla]

So.. you can have a "workers organization" with no workers. As long as they have a "proletarian line" ... which apparently people of any class are capable of formulating.

.

No you can't. but you can definitely have an organization made up by mostly workers and not be a "workers' organization". Trade Unions can be like that.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yea that's true, but it's not what we're talking about here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was replying to maldoror's claim that "the character of an organization is not necessarily determined by its 'makeup' for the good or the worse."

Sorry about that. Carry on.

[9]

This looks very interesting, thanks for posting.