"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency

[Weapon_of_Transparency]

Part 1 can be found here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69511

For some reason, I'm having extreme trouble posting this here, so I will give you a summary and a link

Author
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)

Summary

Many, so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.

Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.

What is the solution?

We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!

This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.

http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/c...ism-part-2.html (http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-2.html)

Your comments are both necessary and welcome!

[Weapon_of_Transparency]

Part 3 of "Cargo-Cult Leninism:"


These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
-- by Ben Seattle, June 2007

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is revolutionary theory?
(– Is it GLUE to hold an organization together? – or a STICK we use to beat heretics? – or is it a LIGHT that helps us see?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organizations based on cargo-cult Leninism often see revolutionary theory as a kind of “glue” (ie: a set of tribal totems and taboos)
that holds their organization together. Frank appears to uphold this view in his description of the real “crisis of theory” faced by the MLP as it disintegrated. In his reply to me, Frank noted that at this time a number of weird and wrong views sprouted among supporters of the party.

In Frank’s view the most important priority was to mobilize people around the party to condemn the heretics. Frank explains that this was “the only way to salvage anything from the situation”.

This was not my view. I dealt very heavily with theory during this period but, for the most part, I ignored most of these weird (and obviously wrong) views because it was clear that other theoretical issues were more important.

Frank hints at one of these issues when he describes one of the wrong views:

“Stalinism, it was implied by some, was merely the logical product of Leninism.”

Now I am not in agreement with this particular wrong view that Frank cites – but I did consider this an important issue to investigate – and I have done so (see: “The Foundations of Modern Revisionism”). The suppression of democratic rights for which Stalin is well known did not begin with Stalin. This suppression began under Lenin’s leadership. The difference between Lenin and Stalin was that Lenin made clear that these measures were temporary emergency measures – while Stalin (without even waiting for Lenin’s body to get cold) proclaimed these measures as eternal principles of working class rule. But you can’t oppose the wrong view that Frank describes in a very clear way unless you understand this difference. And this difference was never understood by the MLP – and has never been written about by Frank’s organization, the CVO.

This is a key difference in how Frank and I view the role of revolutionary theory. Revolutionary theory is not a stick we use to beat or humiliate heretics. We use theory to answer questions – and to guide our work by helping us see the vital connection between our work in the day-to-day struggles today and our revolutionary goal tomorrow. If someone is hesitant to work for a future society that he thinks may be a police state – we can make use of this doubt to help us understand the theoretical questions for which the entire revolutionary movement needs answers.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spectre of Endless Discussion
(We don’t need to live in fear of talking about our goal. We can sort things out a little bit at a time …)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, in response to my proposal that SAIC take steps to address the need for a clear vision of our revolutionary goal, X9 said that this raised the issue of “endless discussion”.

This line holds that so-called “endless discussion” represents a threat – and will divert SAIC from other important work – as evidenced by numerous people who spend all their time talking on the internet instead of doing anything to build the movement.

I call this the "don’t drink water" argument. It is a scientific fact that drinking too much water will kill you. But no one uses this as an argument against ever drinking water. Sometimes water is essential. The way to avoid drinking too much water is to use a little bit of common sense. Then we don’t have to be afraid of drinking water.

It is true that if we spent all our time discussing our disagreements or controversial issues – then we would get nothing done. But this does not mean that we should not be able to participate in discussion in a measured way on an ongoing basis. The way to prevent long-term, ongoing discussion from undermining our work and focus – is to manage our time, focus and priorities so that the time we spend in discussion does not undermine other necessary fronts of work.

Frank makes a similar argument against developing SAIC’s web site. Frank argues that if we put too much energy and focus on developing our website – this will lead to neglect of other necessary fronts of work. And, of course, this is true. Here, again, the way to develop our website without undermining our work is be careful about what is “too much” – and to begin modestly, gradually putting work into our website and paying careful attention to the point at which other necessary work begins to be neglected.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foundations of modern revisionism (“Marxism-Leninism” is anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist and revisionist)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank says that I have abandoned “Marxism-Leninism”. This is true. But what does the phrase “Marxism-Leninism” really mean? This term was never used by Marx or Lenin – it was coined by Stalin after Lenin’s death in order to oppose the principles for which Marx and Lenin fought.

Stalin argued, in his book “Foundations of Leninism” (1924) that the "unity of will" of workers' parties everywhere required "iron discipline" to prevent "the existence of a number of centers" and "division of authority".

In this case "number of centers" and "division of authority" are code phrases for democratic norms of open struggle between groups within the party that have opposing views on important questions.

Unlike Lenin – who had argued that various restrictions on democracy (both within the party and in society as a whole) were temporary emergency measures in a truly desperate situation – Stalin proclaimed that all workers' parties (in all times, places and conditions) must speak with a single voice and, under Stalin, the merged party-state ruthlessly suppressed the independent political voice and independent political life of the working class.

As a result, the concept of rule by the working class (ie: the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "socialism") has since become identified with a police state – the rule of a corrupt minority which falsely claims to represent the interest of the workers and which suppresses the voice of all opposition.

The Marxist-Leninist Party (which both Frank and I supported until its dissolution in 1993) did extensive theoretical work which exposed Stalin's capitulation to international capitalism in the mid-1930’s when (frightened by Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Germany and desperate to make a deal with the west in the hopes that they would put a leash on Hitler instead of financing the build-up of the nazi war machine) Stalin liquidated the International Communist Movement and led it into the social-democratic sewer.

While the MLP repudiated the Stalin of the 1930’s – it never repudiated the early Stalin who turned Lenin's temporary emergency restrictions on democratic rights into supposedly essential and eternal principles of working class rule. The MLP paid dearly for failing to pursue the vital theoretical questions involved in how democratic rights were necessary to (and inseparable from) the stability of workers’ rule.

The resulting crisis of confidence led to a meltdown which destroyed the organization. The leftover religious orientation (see sidebar on “cargo-cult Leninism”) resulted in great bitterness between the majority (who concluded that banging one’s head against a brick wall would accomplish very little and who therefore became demoralized and politically passive) and the minority (who concluded that banging one’s head against a brick wall would eventually produce results as long as one did not lose faith).

The Communist Voice Organization originated from the wreckage of the MLP, as did my own work. But while the CVO has never confronted any of the key theoretical questions (ie: the inseparability of democratic rights from workers' rule, the incompatibility of workers' rule with the dictatorship of a single party or organization, etc) – I have seen the consequences of ignoring the vital questions of theory and have pursued the decisive theoretical struggle.

This has led me to repudiate the revisionist orientation and religious methods which were part of “Marxism-Leninism” since its birth in 1924. This has led me to look again at the profoundly democratic principles of Lenin which Stalin worked to bury. As a result I have supported the proposal advanced by Russian worker comrades such as Gregory Isayev (arrested for organizing workers under the rule of both Brezhnev and Yeltsin) that the movement for workers’ rule abandon the name “communism” in order to signal a clear and decisive break with the treachery of the "communist" leaders who have betrayed the working class.

The precedent for this is the decisive break that was made against the treacherous parties of the Second International which, in 1914, supported the mutual slaughter of worker against worker that has become known as the first world war. At that time Lenin argued that the name “social-democracy” was hopelessly discredited in the eyes of workers and that a new name for the workers’ movement was necessary. Lenin proposed using the name “communism” (as had originally been used by Marx at the time of the Manifesto). Isayev has proposed that the new name be “proletarism”. That sounds just fine to me.

Stalin's argument against "the existence of a number of centers" and the need to speak with a single voice appears to me to represent the real basis of Frank's argument that SAIC would be "disorganized" if its website featured a diversity of voices. Frank has attempted to support his position with a variety of arguments – but none of these arguments seem very solid to me.

“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy

[Die Neue Zeit]

This should be in the Article Submissions forum (sorry for the bump, comrades, but this deals with crises of theory that EVERYBODY needs to pay attention to at some point).