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

[Ben Seattle]

Hi everyone,

Frank's reply to reflects a lot of thought on his part.  This note of
mine will be shorter.

1. There is nothing incorrect or wrong about refering to the Seattle
October 17 Anti-War Mobilization as "our group" (ie: rather than "the
mobe" or "the front").  Yes it is a united front organization.  This
means it is an organization.  Organizations are groups.  We are all part
of this group.  It is our group.  This is how language is used.  Yes, it
is important to keep in mind that our group is not just ours--but also
belongs to the movement as well.  And, in particular, it is a united
front.  All the same I hope I can use language as it is commonly used
without unnecessary drama.

2. There is more content to Frank's argument that, if we were to deal
with some of the bigger questions in the movement, we might lose support
from some of the groups that supported the October 17 action, such as
Veterans for Peace and Peace Action of Washington.

It is possible that this argument of Frank's is correct.

It is also possible that Frank's argument is not correct.

I do not think that it is simply a question of whether or not we deal
with the bigger questions in the movement--but also _how_ we deal with
these questions.

Yes, it is important to be sensitive to the concerns of organizations
such as VFP and PAW and others.  But that does not necessarily mean that
our United Front organization cannot take any steps to encourage
discussion and development of ideas related to the development of the
movement.

Most of those around our group are familiar with my proposals that we
create a public email discussion list and wiki in order to (1) develop
our own ideas and (2) provide an accessible space where we can interact
with activists and readers of our leaflets.  Such forms would make it
easier for us to develop our ideas with help from activists as well as
to better understand and address the concerns of activists.

If we were to take such steps--then our leaflets could encourage readers
to take part in these forums.  It is quite possible that, if we handled
things in this way we would not unnecessarily alienate groups like
Veterans for Peace or Peace Action.

Ben
http://struggle.net/Ben/

-----Original Message-----
From: chr2eemail at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 5:26 PM
To: antiwar at lists.hcoop.net
Subject: Re: [Oct. 17 Seattle] On the proposal to group-write leaflets

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/