[Oct. 17 Seattle] On the proposal to group-write leaflets

[chr2eemail at comcast.net]

All,

At the summation meeting, Ben Seattle proposed that the Seattle Anti-War Mobilization take up group-writing of leaflets, including leaflets that elaborated our vision of what should replace the capitalist system that’s at root of modern wars. I think that this proposal deserves a response because in my opinion it's wrong in theory, and if it were implemented it would wreck the mobe. 
The groups that I belong to think that developing the class struggle requires numerous kinds of organizations, including united fronts for action against the bourgeoisie. SAIC is one such united front organized around it’s unity statement, for example, while the mobe is a much broader united front originally organized to conduct a demonstration under the slogan “U.S. out of Afghanistan, now!” Furthermore, not just the groups that I belong to, but everyone in the mobe plus many people outside of it saw (and see) the value of such a united front effort.
But, as I’ll try to show, Ben’s proposal is based in a blindness to this. I also think that this is connected with the fact that while he today has all kinds of great things to say about O-17, he was passive in mobilizing it, i.e., he didn’t report passing out any leaflets in three months, nor did he report of putting up any posters. (Oh, he did a couple things on Indymedia that took a few minutes, but who didn’t do this or similar things? And how many of us make sure to advertise our websites every time we post something?)
By definition, a united front is comprised of various class-political forces or trends united to fight the main enemy in any particular time or place. And if it’s democratic, rather than the top-down bureaucratic set-up that’s so common in the anti-war movement, then this means that all in it have freedom to agitate for the action(s) as they see fit, and to publicly criticize other members of the front. 
Naturally, a united front may produce its own leaflets or other publications, as the mobe did w/ it’s little half-sheet flyer plus the poster. But other than a little flyer with a slogan and some sentences ending with “no more!” and “enough!,” what would happen if those who’ve come to meetings (or who are on this listserv) tried to agree on a leaflet that said much more? 
Well, there happen to be differences among us on such questions as why the U.S. fights so doggedly in Afghanistan, differences in what our agitational approach should be (legalistic, moralistic, “shock” politics, identity politics, class politics, etc.), and even differences in attitude toward the Taliban. These differences would either lead to interminable arguing, or to compromises that satisfied few. And those dissatisfied wouldn’t have enthusiasm to pass out the leaflet---which they wouldn‘t have to do anyway since all are free to organize for mobe events with their own materials. 
These and many other differences between us are long-standing, deep, and in my opinion they’re based in differing class viewpoints. If Ben thinks that we’re going to resolve them in debates over leaflets (which I don’t think he does) it would be naïve. If he thinks that this exercise before a small audience would serve to “expose” the upholders of the wrong line, or to at least lay out the essence of the disagreements, then I think that he’s immersed in small-groupism. A united front for action against the bourgeoisie would suddenly be transformed into a debating society for those interested in such things. Or, to use some of Ben’s favorite terminology, the mobe would have proven “useful” in collecting “warm bodies” to then argue over leaflets, and especially with Ben‘s ideas about them---which he would not be shy about putting forward!
I say let the debate over our differences rage, and the more of it the better. But let this be outside the mobe, which is a simple action front. 
But the real kicker is that Ben wants the mobe to put out leaflets that elaborate "our" vision of what the capitalist system should replaced with, which he defines as socialism. 
Well! On this listserv we have people whose visions are anarchy or anarcho-syndicalism, are they now excluded? And what about the people who profess Marxian socialism? Are you going to get those who uphold state-capitalist tyrannies as being socialist to agree with anti-revisionist socialists about anything of import concerning the future? And what about the people who’ve come to meetings or endorsed O-17 whose vision of the future is a reformed capitalism? Where do they fit into this scheme? (And, by the way, I think that we should strive to find ways to get all of the endorses, and others, to formally and actively participate in the mobe. But several of them don't have socialist visions of the future, and can't have one if they're to continue to be the kind of broad united front organizations that they are.)
If this proposal were accepted, I think that there would be an immediate rush for the doors, and for good reason. The essence of it is to set up an exclusive, sectarian, “pure” anti-war organization (where a tiny handful would argue on and on…and then collapse) when we came together for united-front action. 
Ben, of course, doesn’t see it this way. And, portraying himself as a defender of socialist agitation while unnamed others he alluded to at the summation meeting were not, he remarked that these others opposed raising the issue of what we’re ultimately fighting for. But this is blatantly untrue. 
At least one member sells Revolution, which puts forward a conception of socialism. Several members sell Communist Voice, which puts forward another conception of socialism. The WWP person in IAC who came to the last meeting distributes Workers’ World, which puts forward another conception of socialism. And I’m sure that Geov, the members of Tacoma SDS, Seattle Solidarity Network and others on this listserv all, in one way or another, put forward their visions of the future in their work. 
The only truth in Ben’s remark (which he distorted by omission) is that SAIC opposes putting out leaflets that directly agitate for Marxian-socialist, or anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, pareconite, or any other leftist visions of the future---which he has long publicly argued that we should do. But we overruled Ben because we think that having a form for uniting anti-imperialists in the area for action is important, and that agitation for a particular vision of the future would violate this broader basis of unity in favor of having the kind of “pure“ organization that Ben wants. (Of course, we all think that a better world than what we now have is possible, and without this belief there’s no way that we could maintain the high level of activity that we do. But we all agitate in our own ways for our particular visions outside the committee. Some of us also belong to another organization that devotes thousands of hours of study to this question, and agitates around its views.) 
Ben, of course, has his own conception of socialism that he‘s been arguing at length for 16 years on the internet, and acceptance of his proposal would allow him to argue it in meetings and here on the listserv. I don’t think that we should allow this...but not because I disagree with Ben’s conceptions, but because it’s not what an anti-war united front for mobilization is about. Meanwhile, no one but Ben himself prevented him from writing and passing out his idea of a socialist leaflet to mobilize for O-17 with. 
Lastly, Ben had the right to make this proposal, and he has the right to reargue it here. But those who are familiar with him know that he will press an issue forever if given a chance. Thus, I think that once he’s reargued his point (if he wants to), a formal vote should be taken in order to dispense with the issue. 
If we’re going to successfully do more together, then it’s going to require a lot of deep thought and discussion about other issues than co-writing socialist leaflets, which would exclude a huge part of the movement from the get-go. But despite all of our study of our experience, all of our seeking and divining tactics that we can employ together to advance the situation a little, we may find that there are only some very minimal things that we can do as a front for some time.
Nevertheless, I think that most of us agree that it’s well worth the effort because we are indeed good anti-war activists. I, for one, also happen to think that the present level of mass consciousness and militancy are bound up with the question of what the capitalist-imperialist system should be replaced with, which is why I participate in an organization that struggles on this front. But I also think that without work to unite all possible trends into united actions against the imperialist ruling class, all talk about future systems becomes nice words and wishes. And I think that a united front for anti-war actions cannot deal with the issue of what to replace capitalism with (or even if it should be replaced through revolution) without destroying itself. 
Since I’m beginning to repeat myself, it appears that I‘ve beaten this horse enough.
With high regard to all,
Frank
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hcoop.net/pipermail/antiwar/attachments/20091025/e1475f83/attachment.htm