Updated: 4:30 AM 11/20/2020 ============================================================= Ben replies to a WSWS supporter The dawn of transparency and the twilight of the cargo cults None of the existing cargo cults will survive the information fireball that will mark the advent of transparency Ben Seattle -- November 17, 2020 ============================================================= Hi there, First, thanks for your reply to my article "Who is Afraid of Transparency?" and my associated letter to the WSWS. I know you are busy, and it is clear that you are interested in conducting yourself in a principled way. I hope you are not offended to be challenged. You said: > The article reflects a fundamental disagreement > about who the WSWS is written for You are on safe ground when you say that we have a fundamental disagreement. ============================================================= 1. Are you on this earth to fight? ============================================================= I will get into the details in just a bit, but for now I will say that, from my perspective, only one question is important: are you here on this earth to fight for the class interest of the proletariat? If the answer to this question is yes, then we have a basis for a long-term relationship in which we exchange opinions, in the public arena, on the most important questions of our time. If the answer is no, then this will become clear, probably soon, either by your non-reply, or another weak reply that evades what is important. In any event, I will attempt to concisely explain why your arguments (which I have heard a thousand times) represent cargo cult logic of a kind that is rapidly hurtling toward extinction, and I will make use of this opportunity to spell out how activists such as ourselves can overcome all of the problems of our present time, and do what is necessary to create the unshakable foundation of a movement deserving of the attention, respect and support of the working class in their millions. ============================================================= 2. More energy will be released than we can imagine ============================================================= I have no great accomplishments to which I can point. I write words that no one reads, and create graphics that few like. I discuss topics that few understand, and principles that most find abstract to the point of uselessness. I am a theoretician, by nature. Growing up, I learned that I could use Newton's Laws and calculus to understand the trajectory of an artillery shell, but found figuring out which way to turn a screwdriver to be a challenge. When I was in the Marxist-Leninist Party, I was the comrade who was unable to organize himself out of a wet paper bag. But there is a time and place for theory. Our movement is in a period of extreme theoretical crisis that impacts everything. Little will happen until we resolve this crisis. Once we do, more energy will be released than we can imagine. Our movement is in crisis concerning the two fundamental questions: (1) How can activists and the working class create the independent and democratic organization we need?, and (2) How will the working class run society when it is no longer ruled by capital? So, while I am not necessarily the most practical person, I am a student of Lenin--and also a student of Turing and Shannon and Stallman--and have found that this gives insight into the tasks of activists at a time when the impact of social media and transparency is doubling every decade with no end in sight. ============================================================= 3. No less significant than the Manhattan Project ============================================================= The practical impact of a project based on theoretical insight was demonstrated, explosively, in the chilly dawn of the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945. More energy was released in an instant than most humans at the time would have ever thought possible. Today, the development of modern communications and computer technology, under capitalism, has created conditions for activists to undertake work, today, that will eventually lead to the emergence of a universal, public and democratic social media platform that will bring light and consciousness to the proletariat--and knowledge of its historic mission and destiny. The work to create such a democratic platform will eventually lead to the emergence of the class independent democratic organization(s) the proletariat needs. As such, this work will be no less significant than the work on the Manhattan Project that led to Trinity. ============================================================= 4. We need to aggregate articles from all anti-capitalist trends ============================================================= One of the first and most important steps in this direction will be the creation of a common public democratic platform that will aggregate articles from all anti-capitalist trends, make these articles easy to find, filter and read, and link to all discussion threads on existing commercial social media platforms that talk about these articles. Your organization appears to have resources coming out the wazoo that could be used to assist this, but considers such an effort to be a poor investment. So, let's look at your arguments. ============================================================= 5. "We do not intend to talk" ============================================================= You said: > we do not intend to talk to > self-proclaimed anti-capitalists, This would only be effective if your aim is to inflate a bubble around your group and recruit the gullible. When I was growing up, millions of people proclaimed themselves anti-capitalists. I guess the WSWS would not have wanted to talk to them either. The problem is that these anti-capitalists are thirsty for politics, because our bourgeois culture is a fucking desert. If the WSWS refuses to talk to these people--there is no shortage of social-democratic reformists and cargo-cult sectarians who are willing to talk to (and recruit) these of people. That state of affairs is just fine to some people. Not to me. You continued: > but to raise the political consciousness > of the working class. That could be difficult if you refuse to talk to anti-capitalists. > This includes making clear the role of > those who claim to oppose capitalism > but subordinate workers to a struggle > inside the capitalist system - a description > which encompasses just about every so-called > anti-capitalist group today. It is correct (and necessary) to make clear the treachery of the social democratic reformists. And the politics of the reformists are precisely (as you note) to subordinate workers to struggles between the left and right hands of capital. But in order to help people understand this treachery, we need to talk to people, including people inclined to be disobedient. The problem with the WSWS appears to be this: you folks, it certainly appears, only want to talk to gullible people that you might have hopes of recruiting. ============================================================= 6. Thousands of middle-class vs. millions of workers ============================================================= > Your proposal to have the WSWS commit > to publishing material from any and every > anti-capitalist trend makes sense if and > only if one accepts that we are oriented > not to the millions of workers who react > instinctively against the attacks of > capitalism on their conditions, but instead > to the mere thousands of mainly middle-class > activists who have spotted a niche for > themselves spouting radical phrases. I love this phrase: "if and only if". Lenin used this phrase a fair amount. But when Lenin used this phrase, he understood what he was talking about. You do not. You cannot reach millions if you lack the ability to talk to thousands. Many of these thousands are hopelessly confused about everything, and largely irrelevant. But the working class still needs an organization with the ability to shine a clear light on their strengths and weaknesses. And how can you differentiate, in practice, between middle-class niche-seekers and instinctive workers? Obedience? Recruitability? Maybe you are also good at separating finely ground black pepper from flyshit? There certainly is a difference in the experience, attitudes, world-views, and class consciousness of workers in different industries. I have worked in lumber mills, foundries, shipyards, aircraft manufacturing, R&D, and in software. I have also seen differences on the basis of generation and nationality. What I saw is what inspires me today. What I can say is that I found workers everywhere to have questions and be thirsty for knowledge. We need to be able to answer their questions, not dismiss them. ============================================================= 7. "Looking good is better than being good" ============================================================= > At the moment, a worker who comes across > the WSWS will see only clear, powerful, > consistent analysis of the issues they > confront. To an extent. Not all of your articles are clear. Not all are powerful. More to the point, it is not unusual for one of your articles to get wrong something that is important. Needless to say, the WSWS is not interested in my opinion of what they get wrong. That is why the WSWS has blocked me (without any explanation whatsoever) from posting comments to their website. Obviously, I am nothing but a middle-class niche seeker, best ignored. > I don't mean that as a boast Understood. > if that isn't what I'd seen when I first saw > the site, I would never have joined; You have perfectly explained the organizational logic that (in order to effectively recruit) "it is better to look good than to be good". But prioritizing "looking good" over "being good" is the root of sectarian cultism. > if I had gone from reading one interesting > article on the WSWS to seeing yet another > promoting the "left" faction of my union, > I would have rolled my eyes and stopped > reading. Yes, but this does not prove what you think it does. ============================================================= 8. The need for an anti-reformist pole ============================================================= Before outlining the weakness in your argument, let's first look at what you get right. Probably at least 90 to 95 percent of the organizations that people know as "socialist" are what I would call social democratic reformists, who work to channel activists into the black hole of reformist politics. You gave one of the best examples of this: sucking trade union workers into lesser evil unionism and similar schemes. If you understood how disgusting this was before looking at the WSWS website--then you were pretty advanced or experienced politically, at least by U.S. standards. At a certain point in someone's political growth, they start to develop, first disgust, and eventually hatred, of opportunism. So there is a need for political trends which take a clear and uncompromising stand against all varieties of reformist rot and treachery. More than this, there is a need for trends which are serious about creating an anti-reformist pole in the movement--around which anti-reformist consciousness and energy can coalesce and organize itself. But there is a world of difference between working to create a pole--and attempting to "own the pole". ============================================================= 9. Substituting your organization for the movement ============================================================= Thinking that your group owns the pole (or is the pole) is a relatively common error. This error is sometimes called "substitutionism" (ie: where you substitute the role of your group for the role of the movement, or the role of the working class). This error is also related to a belief in the infallibility of your group. But we will betray our deepest convictions if we place our faith in infallibility. Let's consider how activists could create an anti-reformist pole without the need for an "infallible" organization (such as the WSWS) with the ability to tell everyone who to clap for and who to boo. Let's consider this in the context of my proposal for the aggregation of content from all anti-capitalist trends onto a common democratic platform--that would serve as a level playing field for competition and struggle--as well as the common workspace we need for principled cooperation. ============================================================= 10. Collaborative filtering on a level field of struggle ============================================================= The idea of a common anti-capitalist platform is simple. While it would start out somewhat modestly, eventually it would include content from all anti-capitalist political trends. This would mean that, as a user, it would be far easier, than it is now, for you to learn about all anti-capitalist organizations, and read their articles, watch their videos, and follow (and take part in) the public discussion and debates in which they participate. Of course, as you note, this content would include a large amount of nonsense. Any group of confused people would be able to call themselves an anti-capitalist organization--because the website would only exclude fascists and racists. So we must immediately consider how people would make use of collaborative filtering to filter out the nonsense and clutter. The algorithms on the site would serve the users, not greedy corporations or repressive governments. So users would have the ability to give ratings to articles, organizations, authors, and other users. Users would also have the ability to form "trust groups", which would be people who give ratings that you would consider to be trustworthy. Users would then be able to filter content by the ratings given to articles and organizations by people in their trust group. So, for example, if Andy starts to get fed up with reformist illusions, he can add Bob and Chris to his trust group, because Andy has learned that Bob and Chris share his disgust with reformism. Then Andy can filter out articles (and organizations) which promote reformist illusions. If Andy gets better at recognizing reformism, then Andy can give his own ratings, and Bob or Chris can consider adding Andy to their trust group. As people take part in discussion and debate, and gain experience in real world struggles, their views will evolve, and they will change their trust groups. The entire platform will exist as an ecosystem, with each part adjusting itself in response to the other parts. ============================================================= 11. Change rapidly or face extinction ============================================================= It is awkward describing how this will work, because nothing quite like this has existed before. Collaborative filtering is used today--but it is mainly used by corporations to steal our attention and shove advertising down our throat. The use of this technology to serve activists, and the working class, will be entirely different. In this way, the technology is like a gun: how it works depends on where it is pointed. I have created a few graphics and mock-ups that help to illustrate how this might look or would work. People would filter out content on the basis of reformism and/or sectarianism. They would find content on the basis of recommendations. They could filter out jerks, assholes, timewasting idiots and the hopelessly confused. The platform would provide a level playing field, and be the basis for both principled cooperation and principled competition between trends. It would provide many opportunities for activists to find one another, and to engage in common work on useful projects. It will provide far more interaction (and principled public debate) between different trends. All this would accelerate the healthy growth and development of the anti-capitalist movement. Would there be a downside to such a platform and the increased transparency it would bring to the movement? That would depend on whether you were part of a group based on reformism or sectarianism, because as transparency spreads and deepens, your group would need to change rapidly or face extinction. ============================================================= 12. Like a hot knife through butter ============================================================= Your description of how you were looking for something, when you visited the WSWS site, that stood up against reformist illusions, fits well with the democratic platform I have described. A democratic platform (and the political transparency it will bring) will do far more to defeat the influence of reformism than a site which simply stands aloof (and supposedly "above") the swamp of confusion that characterizes the left today. It is useful to keep in mind that, for a lengthy period (approximately 1903 - 1911) the bolsheviks and mensheviks engaged in many forms of principled cooperation. Of course they did not have the internet, but (for example) in some locations they put out publications that had their articles side-by-side. This was for practical reasons--but was also to help workers understand the differences between the bolsheviks and mensheviks. With these things in mind, it is easy to reply to the other points you raise: > the group of "all anti-capitalist trends" > includes a number of outright liars. Yes, and liars will be exposed better with increased transparency. > the WSWS has the duty to make clear > what is true and what is a lie, Yes, and it would be able to do this better with increased transparency. > and will not blur the line by including > any such material on our site. Readers would certainly understand what is your voice and what is the voice of the lying liars. > Let such a forum be built and we will > have no fears about engaging in it, I doubt that, based on what I have seen. On a level playing field, critics like me would go through your pompous arguments like a hot knife through butter. Your group appears to be afraid of even allowing me to comment in response to your articles. > but it is not the task of > the revolutionary party. On the contrary, this is what a revolutionary party would do. More to the point, this is how a genuinely revolutionary party will emerge. ============================================================= 13. "objectivist homogeneity" ============================================================= > Ultimately, the article You are referring to my article at node 4006 > attacks the WSWS for maintaining > a Trotskyist programme, This may or may not be true, depending on what you mean by "a Trotskyist program". I refuse to make a guess as to what you mean by this--because you could mean anything. > and it is telling that the only reason > given for our not immediately adopting > the programme put forward is the fact > that we are a "cargo cult" - no analysis > whatsoever of our political line is made. Your policy is to refuse to recognize, in a principled way, the value and contributions of other groups. Such a policy is based on politics. I have other criticisms of other aspects of your politics--but what would be the point of spelling them out? I am not even allowed to post a comment on your articles. > If the author truly believes that capitalism > will be brought to an end through building > a "proletarian social media platform", then > let him try to convince the reader. Capitalism will be brought to an end by the actions of untold millions of people. These actions will be enabled by organization. Organization will be greatly helped by a democratic social media platform. I have been explaining these fundamental principles, to the best of my ability, for quite some time. > Every revolutionary is faced with the problem > of their perspective being hard to take > at face value; the vital task is to link > the ultimate task with workers' struggles > in the real world. That is vital--but we do not need to make a fetish of it. We also need to be able to answer questions. > The article's objectivist perspective > (that the work to overthrow capitalism > will only become possible "towards > the middle of the century") abandons > this responsibility. Is "objectivist" even a word? I think you are reaching here. I have never said that the work to overthrow capitalism will only become possible towards the middle of this century. You are engaging in what is called "word twisting" and "time wasting". That kind of thing kills brain cells. On a democratic platform, if you develop a reputation for word-twisting, no one would read your posts. Maybe that is why you lack enthusiasm for it? > nor do I think it would be worth sacrificing > the WSWS's homogeneity The class independent and democratic organization the working class needs would not be homogeneous (ie: everyone having the same opinion) on most questions. There would be certain core key questions on which everyone would agree. But the cargo cults exaggerate this to the point of absurdity. ============================================================= 14. Shame-based argumentation ============================================================= > but denunciations on the unrefutable basis > of being a "cargo cult", and your frankly > shameful response to the moderators of r/socialism, Actually, shame-based argumentation turns out to be a hallmark of cargo cults. Maybe this is why I am not allowed to post comments on your website: you folks did not like my response to the r/socialism moderators? And, by the way, there was nothing wrong (as readers can verify by looking at nodes 4010 and 4013) with my response to the mods. > I would expect better than to reply > to the classical methods of preventing > a democratic discussion A classic method of preventing democratic discussion is to block people from posting comments. That is what you have done to me. My conclusion is that you are afraid of democratic discussion ============================================================= 15. Conclusion -- a fucking ocean ============================================================= I understand you are attempting to reply in a principled way. I have stood in your shoes. Denial is not a river in Egypt. It is a fucking ocean. I see no good alternative other than for us to be honest with one another. You can do better than to be a relatively mindless trotbot until your organization's bubble pops, and it all comes crashing down like a house of cards. You can make a choice to wake up and smell the coffee. All the best, Ben Seattle ============================================================= Updates (after initial posting) 4:30 AM 11/20/2020 ============================================================= Since my initial posting, i have made the following updates: (1) Fixed spelling of "substitutionism" (2) Section 13 -- upgraded sentence structure, for clarity: was: > Your policy is to refuse to recognize the value and > contributions of other groups, in a principled way. corrected: > Your policy is to refuse to recognize, in a principled way, > the value and contributions of other groups. (3) section 14 -- added ref to nodes 4010 and 4013 in response to comment (4) Updated "splash" image at top of node to tie together thread manifesto and the idea of Trinity --[_]--