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

[chr2eemail at comcast.net]

Comrades,

Ben struggles to defend his proposal as correct, but concedes that “as a practical matter” it’s “not going to happen.” I accept this, and hope that the entire front does. But before moving on I would like to revisit some things because I think that the making of this proposal has broad implications that we need to firmly grasp. 
First of all, I would re-emphasize that the Seattle October 17 Anti-War Mobilization is a united front (or coalition); and if it’s to grow to encompass other groups (which I think we recognize may not happen in the present objective situation), then I think that we must at all times remain very conscious that we’re building a front. 
But Ben repeatedly refers to the mobe as a group, and even “our group.” 
Whoa! This is a very different concept and leads to very different conclusions about what to do. 
For example, if we’re a group, then we should put out political agitation that’s agreeable to the group as it now exists; and if this keeps out or drives away other groups or trends it’s O.K. because we’re building a good anti-war group that‘s doing a useful task to serve the movement. 
But activists trying to build a united front for anti-war actions have to look at things very differently. Thus, while the mobe did put out anti-war agitation, it was a simple statement that every anti-war group or trend could agree with. This did not mean that the flyer was somehow weak, watered down, or a compromise. In fact it was uncompromising and militant, Yet Veterans For Peace Greater Seattle, Chapter 92, Peace Action of Washington and others distributed it, with VFP later probably turning out the largest single force for October 17. 
The latter groups (and others), however, do not agree with Ben’s assessment of what the most important ideological problem in the movement is. They have other assessments, which they attack in their literature. Meanwhile there are anti-war groups that see almost no value in leafleting, and who dislike leaflets dealing with theoretical problems, but who will unite with others for joint actions. Thus, whether we were to struggle to achieve a common viewpoint on Ben’s idea, or merely struggle to find a way to “point out that it is an important problem…encourage readers to participate, with us, in public discussion and debate on this important theoretical question,“ etc.--- either way, these groups at minimum would not be interested in struggling out and distributing such a leaflet. They could also conclude that participation in the front was not worth the effort because it was dominated by sectarians. 

So I think that Ben’s illustrative example of how his proposal might have worked indicates that he’s stuck in the small-group outlook that I previously mentioned, and that this is rooted in blindness to the value of united front efforts. The result was a sectarian proposal that would have led to sectarian practice had it been accepted. 
I’ve raised this not to abuse Ben, but because we’re in fact dealing with a rampant problem in the movement. For example, consider the following:
Most of us have had experience with anti-war coalitions where groups are so interested in fighting others over what the slogans or demands of the coalition should be that numerous “irrelevant” people melt away, or, as in last year’s SAWAC, representatives of a large trend in the movement walk out. What is happening in these coalitions is that the value of slogans in building the movement is being overplayed in general, while the value of the slogans favored by various groups is being overplayed in particular. Hence, it’s just so important that the coalition have slogan a, b, or c that we shouldn‘t worry if a few head for the doors, and we shouldn’t worry if others later refuse to join the coalition because they don’t like the slogans. 
Well, if in place of slogans, one substitutes group-writing of leaflets that deal with one of “the most important ideological problems in the movement“ (as Ben sees it), then I think it’s plain to see that this would have the same effect of causing some people to melt away, other people or groups not to join, etc. And having these few sentences in a mobe leaflet would be so important that we could ignore this because we were really taking up something important and useful. 
In both cases the overall interests of the movement are being sacrificed in the interest of getting a united front (or coalition) to either raise particular slogans, or raise an idea about what to replace capitalism with (which any of the participants are entirely free to do in their independent work anyway). 
What is forgotten in all this is that we need united fronts in order to mount the largest anti-war actions possible, thereby making them actions of the broadest masses. That‘s why we‘re interested in them. (Certainly, parties or groups may organize united-front type organizations around themselves to conduct propaganda or other work, but this is not what we’re here dealing with.) Yet to successfully build one means that we at all times must remain cognizant that a united front is a coalition (or grouping) of groups or trends, and not a group per se. To begin to view one as simply a group, or “our group,” represents a narrow outlook that leads to sectarian proposals and practices. In my opinion, a real strength of the Seattle October 17 Anti-War Mobilization is that it has not fallen into mushing up the differences between a united front and a group.

----- Original Message -----

From: Ben Seattle 

To: antiwar at lists.hcoop.net

Sent: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:14:01 +0000 (UTC)

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



Hi folks,



I proposed that our group consider working together to create agitation

that addresses the ideological problems in the movement.



Probably one of the most important ideological problems in the movement

is the idea that the only alternative to the capitalist system is the

rule of a single party with the permanent ability to suppress the voice

of its critics and the independent voice of the working class.



However, as a group, we do not have the ability to agree on anything

meaningful to say about this problem.  Frank has pointed out that we

cannot forge a common viewpoint on the solution to this problem because

our differences on this topic would either lead to interminable arguing,

or to compromises that satisfied few.



However there are ways that, as a group, could could address this

question even if we lack the ability to forge a common viewpoint.  For

example, we could point out that it is an important problem and we could

encourage readers to participate, with us, in public discussion and

debate on this important theoretical question.



However, as a practical matter, it is clear to me that this is not going

to happen either.



Frank appears keen to oppose this as do the other SAIC members who, like

Frank, appear to believe that giving any amount of attention to

important questions such as this would represent a fatal retreat from

action and a reduction of our common work to that of a useless debating

society.



A group organized as a united front only works when it is centered on

the tasks that its supporters agree are important.



So, while some tasks might be useful and serve the movement--these tasks

cannot be done by a group if the supporters of the group do not want to

do them.



As far as Frank's argument that my supposed blindless is connected with

my passivity during the campaign: I think it is good to be cautious

about these kinds of arguments because of where they often lead.  All

things being equal, it is good that campaigns have energetic and

enthusiastic people to support them.  But this does not necessarily mean

that those who are not as involved may lack useful insight into the

contradictions in the movement which, sooner or later, we must confront.

I did, by the way, make one minor contribution to the campaign: I made a

suggestion to improve the wording on the banner.



With respect to everyone,



Ben 

http://struggle.net/Ben/







_______________________________________________

antiwar mailing list

antiwar at lists.hcoop.net

https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/antiwar


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hcoop.net/pipermail/antiwar/attachments/20091027/335dae72/attachment.htm