| deleonism.org | >> | All Archived Forum Messages Federation Proposal |
>> | Archived Forum Messages about the Federation Proposal |
topic 28
IDF -- General Discussion
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 24 Nov 2004 10:49 pm
I just came online and read the proposal for the IDF. Of course I
think it's a very very good idea and I intend to post the document
on my discussion forum.
A few things though I would like to ask. It does seem there is a
fair amount of hostility towards the SLP. Since I don't live in
America, and have never been an SLP member, I cannot really
comment, but I would really like to know why there does seem to be
several "independent" De Leonists who prefer to keep their
distance from the SLP. Surely in our fragmented situation there is
strength in unity, and any fallings out should be resolved by a
persistent attempt to criticise any perceived flaws and bring them
to a mutually beneficial conclusion?
Also, I have a few problems with the document. It seems to be
saying that any illegal activity is to be avoided, almost as a
matter of discipline or principle. In my mind, a revolutionary
organisation at best has little respect for capitalism or the laws
the capitalism brings up to protect its interests. It's been shown
in the past (WW1 mass censorship, Bismarck's anti-socialist laws,
the riot act etc) that the capitalist class is perfectly ready to
instigate new laws to defend its interests (in fact all capitalist
laws suit capitalist interests by default). What then? Why should
we respect these laws? Why should we respect the law today, a law
that is suited to the ideal exploitation of the working mass? If
the revolutionary party obeys the law passed down from the state,
it's due to the practical needs of avoiding persecution, certainly
not a matter of principle or organisational discipline.
Also, and this is my personal view, socialist propaganda is not
effective when it simply "advocates" or talks in depth about some
future society. The great mass of the working class will react to
such views as abstract, you only have to look at the examples of
parties such as the SPGB, that for 100 years have followed the
trend of just creating abstract propaganda, and forming policies
to deem any practical activity as non-socialist, the end result
being that they have less than 400 members and have never grown
beyond 1,100 members or a monthly publication.
Socialist propaganda appears to be most effective when it keeps
itself in the here and now, dealing with the antagonisms thrown up
by class society, immersing itself in the very real class
conflict, and linking social science with set issues of the day.
It does appear that when the De Leonist movement was in its prime,
it was precisely the more kind of relevant, "here and now"
propaganda delivered in the Weekly and Daily People, and in
speeches by De Leon, that caused large numbers of our class to see
the validity of the Socialist Industrial Union program. Therefore
it's this kind of propaganda that can still be seen in The People,
that benefits us mostly, instead of talking of a far off perfect
society or calls to "advocate" something outside of capitalism
that is ultimately divorced from current social relations. (And no
I'm not accusing anyone of being a utopian)
Then there's the matter of organisation. I don't see how putting
the emphasis on "an anarchist flavour" or even that of large scale
decentralisation could benefit us in any substantial manner. While
it's early days yet and I don't intend to be harsh or even overtly
critical, I think the organisational question is something we very
much need to concern ourselves with at this time. For such a
federation to work, in reality or on paper as it is now, some form
of delegated decision making body would be required, based on full
participation by the member organisations and their rank and file
members. In my view, ideally the ultimate decisions for the
federation would consist of some form of global conference that
all the member organisations could send delegates to, depending on
their size or other factors. The decisions made at this
conference, would of course be binding to the whole organisation,
and I cannot see any reason why this should not be so. Clearly
this conference would not exist in any permanent manner to avoid
the autocratic past that is rumoured to have plagued the De
Leonist movement, but that it could be convened perhaps once per
year or under unusual circumstances. Anyway, this may be jumping
the gun a little since we are not a concrete organisation as of
yet.
Still, when all is said and done I'm still very interested in this
new venture, and I apologies if my criticisms seemed a little over
the top at such an early stage, but I think its best to get these
things out in the open. I would also be very interested in the
position of IDF General Administrator, and would certainly be
prepared to recommend any emerging De Leonist group here in the UK
(and one will emerge!) to join with this new venture. Does anyone
know what the SLP does or might think of this?
Regards
Dan Read
danread20@yahoo.com
http://groups.myspace.com/socialistdiscussion
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 25 Nov 2004 11:13 am Post subject:
Im worried that I may been overly critical. I just wanted to make
clear my concerns and recommendations. I also want to make clear I
have nothing but the utmost respect for those comrades who have
sought to develop the idea of a global de leonist federation,
somthing that makes perfect sense since capitalism is
international, therefore so is the working class and thus
socialism.
Hoping to hear from you all soon
Dan Read
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 30 Nov 2004 05:20 am Post subject:
> why there does seem to be several "independent" De Leonists
Others may give different reasons, but I will cite these:
1. While the SLP application form makes it appear that the party
is for everyone who agrees with the fundamentals, in fact, members
can't remain in the party if they publicly express disagreement
even with the more minor party positions. For example, a member
cannot remain a member and publicly disagree with the resolution
supporting the national independence of Puerto Rico, or the
party's statement condemning the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision
Regents vs. Bakke (in which the court ruled that the University of
California committed illegal racial discrimination against a white
person). Perhaps this situation can be compared to the SPGB not
allowing members who believe in religion. In both cases, the
membership requirements have gone beyond "basic" agreement and
have become a requirement of an excessive degree of agreement.
2. SLP members need permission before they may publish. If I were
a member, this web site you're now looking at would not exist
unless and until I had received permission and had acknowledged
certain guidelines. I have asked members why, when they post to
newsgroups, they usually copy-and-paste official articles, without
further comment, instead of debating in their own words, and they
have cited this policy as their reason. I can't function with that
degree of micromanagement. I was micromanaged as an engineer
working for a large corporation, and I couldn't stand it.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 30 Nov 2004 05:38 am Post subject:
On the points about legal and illegal tactics, I will email Vince
and draw his attention to this forum, so he can see your comments.
As it is now, he only has internet access when he has gone
somewhere, but not at home. I won't make this a clickable email
link, but Vince can be contacted at the address: powerkord at
fastmail dot us -- and I hope his financial situation improves so
he can buy a computer.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 30 Nov 2004 05:56 am Post subject:
> Also, and this is my personal view, socialist propaganda is not
> effective when it simply "advocates" or talks in depth about
> some future society.
I think you're probably right. Actually, I think the socialist
input is useful everywhere: in art criticism, in teachers'
journals on educational methods, in philosophy forums ...
literally anywhere we can stick it in. But I guess you're right
about coverage of real world problems. I think it may be fruitful
if we can collaborate in producing a statement that lists several
social problems and how they are related to capitalism vs.
socialism. One of the most compelling things that made me become a
socialist in the first place (in the 1960s) was an SLP fold-out
leaflet that had a section entited "Why capitalism frustrates our
needs, no matter which party is 'in' ..." -- and within that
section it provided a few paragraphs under each of such
subheadings as "war", "pollution", "unemployment"....
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 30 Nov 2004 06:02 am Post subject:
> Does anyone know what the SLP does or might think of this?
This is all I can say: In March I informed the National Secretary
about this site, and in September I informed him that I had added
a discussion forum.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 30 Nov 2004 06:09 am Post subject:
> I would also be very interested in the position of IDF General
> Administrator
Then I nominate you. If Vince checks in, he may wish to discuss.
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 30 Nov 2004 03:01 pm Post subject:
Its interesting that you say that because I remember reading the
resolution on Puerto Rico and disagreeing with it utterly on every
level. With this idea for a federation we will certainly need to
ask ourselves some tough questions based on what kind of
organisational norms best represent our class party. Personaly I
think working class interests in a class organisation is best
formed around adherance to certain principles, the maintainence of
discipline, and the fullest possible freedom for debate and
decision making by the rank and file.
Have you any idea when Vince might be able to gain net access? Is
it somthing pretty irregular?
I must say I was disapointed to learn that you had left my
discussion group, though I did contact you via Myspace about this
yesterday.
Of course I would be glad to be IDF administrator as soon as
possible, but how developed is this idea? Is it still very much a
mere idea or are there some concrete proposals now on paper? Have
any other organisations expressed an interest?
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 01 Dec 2004 05:21 am Post subject:
Who, me? I didn't leave your discussion group. You may have
confused me with someone else. My recent low in online appearance
has more to do with my autumnal need to cut a lot of firewood with
my chainsaw.
With Vince, it's partly about not having a computer or internet
service provider, but also a hand injury which requires him to try
to avoid typing. He always stresses that he strongly prefers phone
conversations, and I always stress that I'm too poor to make long
distance phone calls, so we don't have a clear plan for
communication.
Nothing is concrete yet. I hope we find more contacts. I think
they're out there somewhere. I'm not clear on what happened with
the rumors of the dissolution of the NUP, which might have left
some people floating around without affiliation. I guess we're
still in the creative brainstorming stage of the idea.
Please say more about your meaning of the word "discipline."
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 01 Dec 2004 09:22 am Post subject:
I don't think the NUP really did disband as in it dispersed as an
organisation; they have just removed their party status. They
continue to do what they did before, which is writing and
distributing the New Unionist.
You didn't leave the group? Then something fishy is going on. I
seem to randomly lose members periodically, and I can't think why.
I wouldn't say I was being paranoid to think that the internet
isn't such a friendly place for real socialists (I notice the
anarchist forums who just waffle on about nothing and the
reformist socialist forums always have a huge membership). I
notice now that you have posted on the forum, so the confusion was
probably created by the fact that Myspace seems to be rife with
technical problems at the best of times.
My concept of discipline in the party is best summed up in the
pamphlet "Daniel De Leon: Disciplinarian". The enforcement of
self-discipline, the understanding that you are one of many party
members, the submerging of the more harmful aspects of the ego to
what is in the best interests of the party etc. These things are
very important, and I advise people to obtain this pamphlet and
consider the effects it may have on the formation of a possible
IDF. For too long in politics certain personalities have risen
that have tended to quash all collective interest for the
interests of their own personalities. That is something that
clearly has to stop.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 02 Dec 2004 06:16 am Post subject:
If the software said I left the Myspace SIU group, then the
software made a mistake. I logged-in and posted something
yesterday.
I agree with the points about discipline that you wrote, but the
word 'discipline' is generally used among socialists to imply the
concept that the organization has to speak with one voice on
everything. I don't see any reason why a socialist organization
shouldn't, for example, report to the public: "63 percent of our
members voted to adopt this resolution. This statement reflects
the viewpoint of those who voted for it." I don't think that would
do harm, but would have positive effect of openly acknowledging a
reality. It would help the working class learn that the socialist
movement has some basic principles that we all agree 100 percent
on, but also some peripheral issues that we are still working
through dialectically.
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 04 Dec 2004 01:30 am Post subject:
Yup yup I certainly agree with that.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 17 Jan 2005 09:44 pm Post subject: International De
Leonist Federation
Dear Mike, Dan, and Others,
Greetings!
Thanks so much for your vital remarks and consideration of the
idea of the "International De Leonist Federation."
I have, and have had, a computer. My lack of ready Internet access
was self-imposed. However, I have now lifted the imposition. I
still request that email, if sent at all, be concise. I still
strongly prefer the telephone, especially for routine
conversation, or that which does not benefit a larger audience.
For the latter, public discussion is obviously more appropriate.
I apologize that it has taken so long for me to begin my
participation in this Forum.
Below are my responses, in brief, to some of the many important
points raised so far in this wonderful and essential Forum. I have
used a "quote - response" model. Discussion of remaining points,
those deemed of special significance, has been incorporated into
the new revision of the IDF "Draft of Charter Document." Also see
supporting documents, which are, or will, be published at De
Leonism.org.
".I would really like to know why there does seem to be several
"independent" De Leonists who prefer to keep their distance from
the SLP. Surely in our fragmented situation there is strength in
unity, and any fallings out should be resolved by a persistent
attempt to criticise any perceived flaws and bring them to a
mutually beneficial conclusion?"
The SLP, were it more amenable to working with other De Leonists
and De Leonist groups, nay to even recognizing same, would
certainly be the logical and preferred organizational node around
which to work. However, the SLP seems almost organically incapable
of the kind of reconciliatory and productive action described
above. I suppose it's fair to say that many simply consider them
essentially hopeless.
I'd love to be wrong on this, and I certainly invite the SLP to
join this conversation. They are welcome, as far as I am
concerned, to participate in the IDF.
"Socialist propaganda appears to be most effective when it keeps
itself in the here and now, dealing with the antagonisms thrown up
by class society, immersing itself in the very real class
conflict, and linking social science with set issues of the day."
I don't know if it's "most" effective, but it is effective, as
well as necessary if one is to act morally, for ignoring the
suffering of people is immoral. So, yes, reform work, providing it
is continually linked to arguments explaining its own ultimate
impotence, is extremely important. Abstract arguments alone will
not suffice.
"Im worried that I may been overly critical."
No. your remarks have been wonderful. Criticism, in its broadest
sense, and even when pointed, is required by any democratic
process, no less the socialist project, which purports, as one of
its central general planks, founding principles, and claims of
benefit, virtue, and advantage over capitalism, a higher, more
evolved, more inclusive, more active, more thoroughgoing, and more
democratic, form of democracy.
The only transgression is discourtesy, which you have not shown.
"One of the most compelling things that made me become a socialist
in the first place (in the 1960s) was an SLP fold-out leaflet that
had a section entited "Why capitalism frustrates our needs, no
matter which party is 'in' ..." -- and within that section it
provided a few paragraphs under each of such subheadings as "war",
"pollution", "unemployment"...."
I have long advocated the "mini-expert" concept of public
socialist pedagogy: become a mini-expert on the issue which
interests you, poverty, homelessness, abortion, health care, or
the like. Learn the facts of the issue as intensively as possible,
and learn equally how to explain to people how and why that
particular problem either would not exist in a cooperative
society, or how and why it would far less problematic or
difficult. Thus can we build an army of teachers, who in the
aggregate can present a concrete and comprehensive argument for
socialism, in the public arena, to the public mind.
"I would also be very interested in the position of IDF General
Administrator."
I conceive this as an elected position; accordingly, the first
officeholder would be an interim GA, to serve until a membership
exists and can vote. If Mike will retract his nomination of Dan
Read for GA, and replace it with a nomination of Dan Read for the
position of interim GA, I would, and do, second that nomination.
Since there is no membership to vote "In Favor" or "Opposed," I
propose that as of my second, just described, Dan would hold the
position.
I would suggest the election take place no later than May 01,
2005, or if there is still insufficient membership for an
election, the interim officeholder be reviewed by that date.
".avoid the autocratic past that is rumoured to have plagued the
De Leonist movement."
I'd describe this past as founded on more than simply rumors. I
have personally been on the receiving end of this autocracy
(though I'm sure it's practitioners don't think of their actions
as autocratic). And I've known numbers of people in the movement
who have suffered similarly, or worse (a principal reason the SLP
remains such a tiny party is that, it is in the exasperating
historical habit of arbitrarily, perhaps even capriciously,
expelling members). Autocracy to varying degrees is a real problem
in the U.S. De Leonist movement; in fact it is probably it's most
pernicious and insidious problem.
This underscores one of the reasons I have seen the utility of
integrating the "love ethic" into a theory of socialism, and even
socialist party politics, now. A true spirit of Agape, or
brotherly love, with the value system, mindset, and orientation
toward others it implies, would choke the baby autocracy in its
cradle. This could very well be the most plausible, potent, and
perhaps only, answer to the continuing problem of dissolution and
fragmentation of this movement, and other movements.
Every act of hostility, spite, backstabbing, cynicism, and lack of
charity in interpreting the actions of others, feeds and increases
this dissolution and fragmentation. Insofar as the love ethic
might actively inform our worldview and actions, such behaviors
would probably not occur.
"Does anyone know what the SLP does or might think of this?"
You must understand that to the SLP, there are no true De Leonist
groups besides itself! So they would probably not even recognize
those other groups as De Leonist. This baffling limitation is why
it seems next to impossible to affiliate with the SLP.
".the submerging of the more harmful aspects of the ego to what is
in the best interests of the party."
Absolutely, providing we retain the distinction between such
submerging, and democratic debate and discussion. Additionally, in
terms of a suggested broader context, the love ethic requires
something not traditionally found in socialist parties: active
caring, consideration, and sensitivity. See above remarks.
"It would help the working class learn that the socialist movement
has some basic principles that we all agree 100 percent on, but
also some peripheral issues that we are still working through
dialectically."
Yes. That spirit is why the IDF draft states:
"While recognizing and actively espousing the superior theoretical
platform of De Leonism, members also hold that no one can know the
exact theoretical and practical form democratic socialism will
ultimately take. Additionally, members recognize the theoretical
richness inherent in, and beneficial to, De Leonism specifically,
and libertarian socialism, generally. Thus, members may espouse
variants, or creative additions or interpretations, to classical
De Leonist theory. What binds every Federation member together is
a belief in the basic SIU structure."
I will continue refining my conceptualization of the IDF, and
supporting issues and ideas, and contribute same accordingly. I
will leave the practical building of the IDF, and its day-to-day
operations, to those inclined to those tasks.
Warmly,
vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 18 Jan 2005 12:10 am Post subject:
You will all have to bear with me since I have a dose of the flu
and finding it a little hard to concentrate.
Its a shame that the SLP could be like that, and it will of course
make our job more difficult. I will see to contacting some SLPers
that I know of on my forum and ask them if they are aware of the
proposal for the IDF. I dont see how they could fail to be
interested, if they are though it is indeed a great shame.
I still think that the "illegal acts" part of the IDF document
would rather hurt our cause, since it might prove confusing to
some and an annoyance to others. Lets remember that if we are
indeed aiming at a global federation, some workers who may be
discovering socialist, and De leonist ideas, may find that in
their respective countries its illegal even to form a workers
party. When they read that we prohibit illegal acts it may appear
to them that we are simply viewing the political situation from
our local enviroment of political "freedom" and not adapting
ourselves to the political climate of the globe. As
Revolutionaries, we are also in the role of potential breakers of
the law, since revolution by default will be seen by the state as
a direct assualt upon it, and thus illegal.
Im glad we agree on the issue of propaganda.
Also, I would of course be willing to be intrim General
Administrator. Also, what work is currently being undertaken to
make this idea known to the rest of the De Leonist, and Socialist
political sector?
I agree now with your outlook on the organisation question, though
as time goes on, and when membership increases, I think a change
in the structure of the federation may be on the cards, depending
on what the membership wishes. I am personaly in favour of a
degree of centralisation, but thats just me.
We would also need a website for this undertaking. Now Im assuming
its Mike who made this one, so thats not a problem, but somthing I
have been thinking about for a while now is the importance of
having multiple language options in a website. Since we are trying
to reach the working class, and some of the more intense aspects
of the class struggle are in operation in the non-english speaking
world, having a multiple language option would be invaluable.
Anyway I will leave it at this and let me know what you think.
Regards
Dan Read
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 18 Jan 2005 04:01 am Post subject:
Hi, Dan,
You are now interim General Administrator for the International De
Leonist Federation..Congrats!
Note, however, that soon to be published at DeLeonism.org is a
separate document listing several IDF open positions. That
document contains slightly expanded language for IDF General
Administrator, as follows:
IDF General Administrator ("GA")
An elected position. Interim GA to serve until membership election
of elected GA.
Position, and position title, is that of "administrator," as that
is what it is. It protests the inflated power perceived in past
"general secretaries" and the like. Position holder will answer
mail, facilitate contact between nodes (i.e. groups and
individuals), keep records, etc., Thus does the GA have a sort of
de facto power, but such power should be kept in strict
perspective: GA is not a position with significant decisionmaking
authority, as such, especially as regards the substantive affairs
of the federation. GA is not a position such as president,
vice-president, chair, committee head, or senator; nor is it an
"acting" or stand-in position for any of these. It is more akin to
a secretarial position than a position of governance.
To whom is the GA secretary? To the member entities, both groups
and individuals.
I presume you are comfortable with this description. Please
apprise me if you are not. We will leave the job description in
the document, until such time that an elected GA fills the post,
or until an IDF web site is created, and we can properly place all
the job descriptions in their appropriate permanent location at
the site.
Next: the latest revision of the IDF draft document, now called
the IDF charter, will be live here in a few days. You will be
pleased to hear that it omits the phrase proscribing illegal
activity.
In this, I think what I had in mind was the fact of De Leonism's
formal call for the ballot as the mechanism by which to achieve
the basic revolutionary end. However, your last point is
well-taken, regarding the intersection between "illegal" activity
and oppressed peoples suffering non-democratic rulers:
I still think that the "illegal acts" part of the IDF document
would rather hurt our cause, since it might prove confusing to
some and an annoyance to others. Lets remember that if we are
indeed aiming at a global federation, some workers who may be
discovering socialist, and De leonist ideas, may find that in
their respective countries its illegal even to form a workers
party. When they read that we prohibit illegal acts it may appear
to them that we are simply viewing the political situation from
our local enviroment of political "freedom" and not adapting
ourselves to the political climate of the globe. As
Revolutionaries, we are also in the role of potential breakers of
the law, since revolution by default will be seen by the state as
a direct assualt upon it, and thus illegal.
However, I disagree with what appears to be the general thrust of
your previous remarks on this topic:
"In my mind, a revolutionary organisation at best has little
respect for capitalism or the laws the capitalism brings up to
protect its interests. Why should we respect these laws? Why
should we respect the law today, a law that is suited to the ideal
exploitation of the working mass? If the revolutionary party obeys
the law passed down from the state, it's due to the practical
needs of avoiding persecution, certainly not a matter of principle
or organisational discipline."
Are we to throw up a blanket declaration of disagreement with
every law, large and small, passed under capitalism, and adopt a
permanent, angry posture of defiance, accordingly? Class society
means class-based laws, generally, we know that. But within that
context many laws are perfectly reasonable, some are even humane
and advantageous to everyone, and I daresay some are probably even
laws we'd pass ourselves in a socialist society. Perhaps you did
not mean for that paragraph to give the impression it does.
Additionally, you wrote:
"...revolution by default will be seen by the state as a direct
assualt upon it, and thus illegal."
Not if it occurs peacefully via the ballot, which we hope it will.
I have a brief document exploring this issue in the greater detail
it requires and deserves. Look for that here, eventually.
As regards centralization vs. decentralization, the new Charter,
not yet posted, has more language exploring what I conceive as the
IDF position.
Additionally, regarding a web site: your point about a
multi-language option is a good one. I support it. We'll have to
consult with the web operations person--once we get one--about it.
Regarding a domain name for the site, here is an excerpt from a
recent email I sent to Mike Lepore (I trust he won't mind my short
reprint, here):
Also, suppose for a moment Dan becomes IDF General Administrator
("GA"). Should he, or do you want, to register a domain for the
fledgling group, and begin constructing a rudimentary site? My
sense is you'd be the person. Or perhaps you guys can discuss it
between yourselves.
Domain names presently available include:
DelFed.org
I-D-F.org
confederation.ws
confederation.cc
DDFed.org, .com, etc.
IDFd.org, etc.
Also available is:
deleonist.org
I believe I favor this one; it seems perfect. It even works in
upper case: DeLeonist.org
My second preference: DelFed.org.
"...what work is currently being undertaken to make this idea
known to the rest of the De Leonist, and Socialist political
sector? "
At present, only the efforts of you and Mike. I will leave that
task, generally, to the two of you, consistent with what I wrote,
above:
"I will continue refining my conceptualization of the IDF, and
supporting issues and ideas, and contribute same accordingly. I
will leave the practical building of the IDF, and its day-to-day
operations, to those inclined to those tasks."
In past years I was very active in socialist party politics,
having been a member of the Industrial Union Party, for example; I
also spent much time in personal agitation with people in the
street or at the market. Now, however, I see my my role in this
movement as that of writer, musician, and occasional generator of
ideas. If I achieve any degree of success with my
political-musical project Message of Hope, my role will expand to
include public spokesperson for these ideas.
Best,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 18 Jan 2005 06:13 am Post subject: THE SLP DESERVES
FAR LESS ENTHUSIASM
Dear Dan,
A word about the SLP, an organization I find myself thinking far
too much about these days, especially given that I'm not a member!
In beginning to read through your Myspace.com site, it appears
that you actively promote the Socialist Labor Party, and you
channel persons interested in De Leonism to that organization. In
my view, as someone acquainted with the party from a limited
firsthand experience, from first-hand conversations with a goodly
number of ex-members, and from my own reading, I must say, with no
pleasure, that the SLP seems more-or-less a dead-end.
Besides the overly-rigid entrance requirements, and the
requirement that one tow the party line to an inordinate degree
according to Mike Lepore, who asserts that members cannot even
publish on their own without party approval, besides these
liabilities and what they say about this group, most disturbing of
all is the proven track record of this party in effortlessly
expelling members of 10, 20, 30, and even 40 years membership,
without much of a second thought. Yes, it's true. Ask Mike Lepore,
an ex-member. Ask the members of the (now-defunct) New Union
Party, many of whom are ex-members, including one of their most
prolific writers, Connie Furdeck. Ask Mike Hinnenkamp, an
ex-member. Or Jules Levin, an ex-member. Or Bob Massi, an
ex-member. Or Ben Doganiero, an ex-member. On and on it goes. One
has to ask themselves why there are so many EX-members of the
Socialist Labor Party.
In examining the long arc of history of this organization, and the
fact of their eviscerating themselves again, and again, and again,
and again, by slicing out (ie expelling) their most vital, active,
productive, and committed members and sections, one can very
reasonably draw the conclusion, without being facetious, that the
most evolved talent this party possesses is not spreading
socialist revolution, but self-destruction.
This unyielding tendency toward self-destruction is so pronounced,
in fact, to persons who know the history of the party, that I,
personally, speculate loosely that the FBI, in fact, is secretly
running this organization. I simply can't fathom any other
reasonable explanation; it really appears that this seemingly most
promising group deliberately moves against itself, and keeps
itself tiny and underdeveloped. I articulated this theory to Mike
Lepore, and if I understood his reaction properly, he said he
considered it plausible.
Accordingly, then, in my view, rather than channeling interested
persons to the SLP, I urge you to consider channelling them to the
IDF, the SPUSA (which does have DeLeonists in it, I understand),
or to simply urge them to remain interested, at-large persons, for
now.
Dan, I'm simply afraid that after joining the SLP, and pouring
heart-and-soul into it for some number of years, someone you
routed over there may one day find themselves in the position so
many other well-meaning SLP'ers have found themselves
in--expelled, frequently with no good cause, or highly suspect
cause---a heartbreaking experience with traumatic implications.
I make these remarks, and provide this recommendation, with no
pleasure. In my early days of socialist involvement, I thought the
SLP was the greatest thing since sliced bread: I was impressed
with the superb writing in their paper and their printed
materials, and the obvious intellectual firepower behind it all. I
was impressed with the strong professionalism they exhibit in
everything they do. I was impressed with their long history. I was
impressed with their rock-solid commitment to fully democratic
socialism. And I was poised to join the party. But just then, a
confounding and disturbing thing happened--my local SLP contact,
Mike Hinnenkamp, along with his entire section, Section Camden,
along with all of, or much of, another local section (like Section
Brooklyn or something), was EXPELLED by the party. In one fell
swoop, five, ten or more members gone. Just...gone. Older men who
were in the party for years, sometimes many years, just
GONE...because the SLP either feared they were "too independent,"
or were upset that the members were mixing with "reform elements"
(another longtime destructive quirk of the SLP).
Dan, you who advocate a vigorous tangle with reform elements, to
win them over, would be particularly displeased with the SLP's
historic pattern of strict disapproval of such actions.
There's really so much more to tell, here, as well, like the fact
that for many years, if you were a party member you were not
allowed to even associate with an expelled member! I mean it's
really madness!
I believe you may already be familiar with some of these SLP
horror stories, as they have apparently been touched on, in other
sections of this Forum.
I will end this post the way I've taken lately to ending all my
remarks about the SLP--by sincerely and respectfully inviting them
into a dialogue about these issues, to correct the record if they
feel it requires correction, and help them restore their image in
the eyes of this movement. Or, alternately, to assist them in
admitting mistakes, and planning a better future for their
organization--an organization which SHOULD, in fact, be the
pre-eminent De Leonist group on this planet, if not also the
pre-eminent revolutionary socialist party, generally.
Not a pleasing tale, I know. But as a socialist I'm not in the
business of self-delusion, no matter how pretty the portrait.
Yours,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
kenellis
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 98
Location: New England
Posted: 18 Jan 2005 04:26 pm Post subject:
So much of Vince's message rings true. It's good to have someone
of his level of sincerity in the forum. I worked at the N.O. in
the mid-70's, and helped move the N.O. from Brooklyn to Palo Alto,
and then worked there for more than 2 years as their shipping
clerk. I wondered why we weren't stronger if we were as great as
we said we were, but then discovered the reason why: Petersen
perpetrated gross fraud, attributing to Marx a theory of a
'dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasantry', when the
whole world knows Marx's dictatorship as 'over the peasantry'.
Then they pointed to the admitted absence of a big peasantry in
the USA, and used it as a reason for rejecting Marx's
dictatorship. I begged my comrades to correct this error, but they
were too afraid of losing the financial support of the Petersen
contingent, so did nothing but censor me, so I left in 1977. I too
speculate on their reasoning for ignoring such errors and I don't
discount gov't involvement. Purveying garbage theories is a great
way to split the movement.
kenellis
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 98
Location: New England
Posted: 18 Jan 2005 04:28 pm Post subject:
Major error in my previous message: Rather, the whole world
understands Marx's dictatorship as 'over the bourgeoisie', not
'over the peasantry'.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 18 Jan 2005 08:01 pm Post subject: Valuable SLP
Remarks From Ken Ellis
Hi, Ken,
In this age of ubiquitous and overwhelming commercial and even
personal duplicity, I will accept "sincerity" as an extremely high
compliment--thank you.
Your posting strikes me as an extremely important one, because:
1. It provides further corroboration of the apparent futility of
trying to work with the SLP.
2. It provides me, personally, with a second speculative
concurrence that the organization may be operating under
infiltration.
3. It may shed light concretely on how and why the SLP went awry.
Accordingly: I don't know if you are aware that if you issue a
standard post here in the Forum, and not a quote-style post, you
will be able to edit your own posts, even after they are posted.
Mistakes can thus be easily corrected.
Additionally, I didn't fully understand your point about the
nature of Peterson's error, and exactly how it affected and
affects the concrete behavior of the SLP, the "observable
effects," as Mike Lepore put it. I have read, casually, the
colloquy elsewhere in the Forum on this, but if you could explain
this relationship--the error and its effect on the behavior of the
SLP, specifically, in clear, layman's, least-common-denominater
terms, that would be extremely helpful, I think.
Perhaps, then, in view of both these things, you could create a
new post, expanding and clarifying your previous one (I would not
suggest deleting the previous one, because, candidly, I like what
you said about me and my remarks!).
I think an expanded post from you would be valuable for those of
us struggling in this movement, confoundingly wondering why the
SLP, the organization arguably most suited to our task, seems so
foreboding, unapproachable, and unworkable.
Cordially,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 18 Jan 2005 09:51 pm Post subject:
Vince, would you consider writing your papers and proposals
directly into this forum, so I can discontinue your use of html
files on this site? (See the buttons at the top of the message
compose/edit screen ... you have full control over font size,
colors, lists, links, etc.)
Lepore
kenellis
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 98
Location: New England
Posted: 18 Jan 2005 10:42 pm Post subject:
Hi, Vince,
Thanks for the reply, and for your tips regarding correcting forum
typos. Live and learn.
My rather extensive writings about my SLP experiences are
available at my web site, specifically at:
http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/lwlindex.html
The first part (A) of my 'book' can be skimmed rather quickly if a
little of my background would be known, while the theories begin
in part B. B covers Petersen's treatment of Marx's dictatorship in
depth, and I strongly recommend that B be read, for it will
illuminate many of the issues you just posed. If you feel
ambitious, part C is equally important, for there Petersen wrongly
asserts that 'Engels didn't know the difference between socialism
and state capitalism.' Again, Petersen can easily be proven wrong.
Regarding 'working within the SLP', you may be right, but my
frustrations while dealing with ex-members makes me conclude that
'they are just as bad as the SLP itself', though I always make my
judgements on a case-by-case basis, and of course I haven't
communicated with ALL ex-SLP members, and am just beginning to
communicate with you. The lack of difference between them and the
SLP is why I've just begun writing an 'appeal to reason' to the
Nat'l Sec'y, with whom I worked at the N.O. in the 70's. He didn't
answer my last appeal to reason, and I don't fully expect a reply
to my new appeal, but I can always hope.
Regarding infiltration, it is either that or else they are
behaving like a business with damaged goods to sell, and are in a
state of denial, just like GM with its tipsy Corvairs, or Ford
with its 'exploding gas tank Pintos'. That is why I would like to
organize some open-minded ex-members and sympathizers to put
pressure on the SLP to behave responsibly.
So far, it's been a distinct pleasure communicating with you, and
I look forward to more of the same. If you don't want to delve
into the book, then I would be glad to answer your questions at
any time. If you don't mind reading my 'book', then take as much
time as you want with it, and don't rush to get back here if
you're having a good time with the reading. Rome wasn't built in a
day. -KE
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 19 Jan 2005 05:49 pm Post subject:
Dear all
Yes certainly the job description meets with my full support. I'm
glad the "legal" clause isn't so much a factor now. Also, you're
right in that I wasn't advocating a general dismissal of ALL of
capitalisms laws, more a kind of realisation and objective
analysis that they are not so much "moral" forces in terms of how
we are concerned, but simple economic ones.
A word on violence though, I'm not saying we should change the
charter here, but I fear we may be still seeing the situation from
our somewhat sheltered lifestyle here in the west. I don't
actually see the revolution being carried through without
violence, in fact as capitalisms contradictions become more acute,
reactionary backlashes will certainly occur, and the use of
violence by our class will probably increase. I'm not so much
supporting these wild, anarchist type "resistance" groups here,
but I'm just saying what I think is probable. Also, outside the
west, where workers rights are even more shaky, the use of
violence by the state against the working class is more likely to
occur, so therefore workers defending themselves with force(on the
picket line or street etc) is more likely to occur, and should
occur. In fact, I can still remember a certain miners strike in
the north of England that happened when I was a lad, with the end
result that the union proved impotent (labour fakers and supposed
communists at work!), the pits were shut, unemployment occurred,
and from what I know, coal exports then brought in via cheap
labour in the far east. However, when it came down to it, and the
state actually used the army to suppress the strike (soldiers were
brought in and dressed in police uniforms to hide this fact, but
received orders not to make arrests, just break heads) nobody
could condemn the miners for putting up a good physical fight as
they were forced back from the picket lines into the town.
Maybe something like this should be made clear, while still making
it apparent that organisations that support blowing things up etc
can be shown the door. As usual I'm not trying to be overly
critical, but its best to get these things out in the open so
everyone is comfortable.
Now in regards to the website. Who put this one together? I'm
assuming it was Mike, and it seems perfectly professional to me. I
have a friend and comrade who is currently working on a website
for a socialist book distribution service, it should be up and
running soon but unfortunately we have run into problems with
certain parties proving uncooperative. Anyway, I have seen the
multiple language option done many times on other political
websites, and I think its invaluable if we wish to obtain a global
support basis.
The Industrial Union party? What was that like?
Regards
Dan Read
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 20 Jan 2005 05:47 am Post subject: Stuff
Hello, Dan, and All,
1. Dan wrote:
"Maybe something like this should be made clear, while still
making it apparent that organisations that support blowing things
up etc can be shown the door."
My recent document on selected principles relevant to the
formation of the IDF makes exactly that point, in essence.
Unfortunately, at present, that document, another document, and
certain further clarifications of the Charter have not yet gone
live (ie been published on the Internet), as it seems that Mike
and I have gotten ourselves into a bit of a logjam about the
mechanism by which these, and other of my, documents are going to
see the light of day.
I presume this will be worked out.
2. The Industrial Union Party was a small, but national in scope,
DeLeonist party, kind of a sister group to the NUP. Composed in
large part, as was the NUP, of ex-SLP members (Dan, you did read
my post above about the SLP, right?). General Secretary was Sam
Brandon, probably the Socialist I had the most respect for,
because for him it wasn't just about cold Marxism, but he had
something of a real generosity of spirit, something many
socialists seem to lack. He helped people even in the
here-and-now.
(In contrast to other socialists I've known; for example someone
right here in my area, a committed DeLeonist, who told me that
when he is approached by homeless people seeking a dollar or
two--he won't help them. This guy is a socialist?)
Sam's brother, if I recall, was imprisoned years ago here in the
US in Leavenworth prison for refusing to serve in the military. I
believe Sam had been very angry about that. Sam died in October
1993, over 90 years old; he is actually buried about 20 minutes
from my house. Some of the IUP'rs joined the NUP; some remain
unaffiliated. One is Fred Gratiot, 80 years old, a DeLeonist,
living near me in Hoboken, NJ; he is still working on political
issues. I meet with him occasionally. I've tried to interest him
in joining with me to form the two-person core of "People for a
Cooperative Society," a local DeLeonist group, but he's doing
other things right now, apparently.
3. By the way, let me take this opportunity to officially assert
my derision for the unilateral way the NUP disbanded itself. It is
not up to two or three or four people leading the party to
unilaterally decide that the NUP should no longer exist. That sort
of momentous decision should be voted on by the membership. Not to
mention the fact that the NUP has treated me shamefully over the
years, including quite recently. I just don't know what to make of
these NUP "leaders": Jeff Miller, George Kane, etc. Still, based
on the love ethic, I recommended their paper be included in a new
DeLeonist directory at "Jay's Links," at
http://www.neravt.com/left/.
Best,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 30 Jan 2005 09:57 pm Post subject:
I think it's too early to make a lot of decisions about where an
IDF stands on issues. What if we had a group of ten or twenty or
more within a reasonably short length of time? Then it wouldn't be
right for the first three people to make basic decisions. It
wouldn't be right for us to issue anything like a declaration of
principles. We should wait to see if more people join in, so they
can participate in that process.
Even when we have more people, there will be a danger of the group
taking a stand on issues in a way that is too specific. I would
support an official adoption of the most general principles, such
as the industrial and political organization of the working class
to bring about an economic democracy. Many other opinions may vary
from person to person. On many tactical points, and the more
detailed conceptions of a goal, individuals are entited to their
own opinions.
For example, I wrote at length in the yahoo discussion group in
defense of a system of labor time vouchers, and in opposition to a
free access economy. This is my own opinion, and it would be too
specific an issue for a socialist federation to take a stand on.
It' s not fundamental enough to seek a consensus. Something of
such detail may be adopted as the goal of some sort of
subcommittee, but not as the goal of a movement.
I recommend that this and any present and future socialist
organization avoid the expectation that everyone must speak in one
voice and defend one set of beliefs. For 160 years this practice
has caused division instead of unification. I feel that all sort
of resolutions and position statements should be accompanied by a
reporting of the number of people who have signed up in agreement
with them, with the understanding that each such statement
represents the views only of those who have personally voted to
ratify it.
Let's learn from experience. If a movement has principles that are
too general, it becomes taken over by reformism and opportunism;
and if it has principles that are too specific, the movement has a
negligibly small membership. Finding the workable balance may be a
most difficult problem.
I'm not sure how many people know what a Venn diagram is, in the
fields of logic and set theory. It has to do with groupings being
as circles within larger circles, or partially overlapping
circles, according to what they have in common. I believe that the
socialist movement, from the very beginning, should have should
achieved the unification that results from taking the form of a
Venn diagram. I hope to write more about this later.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 31 Jan 2005 07:57 am Post subject: IDF Principles &
Documents
Greetings,
Content of my document "Treatment of Relevant Principle" is
subject to revision, or may be discarded wholesale. Content of my
document "Draft of Charter Document" is just that--a draft, also
subject to wholesale revision, or deletion.
Having said this regarding both documents, I do feel they contain
points which, if not ultimately adoptable, are certainly credible
and principled, and provide a substantive point of departure for
further discussion.
I am principally a writer, so that's what I do--write. I've
written these documents for possible IDF use; I hope they can be
an assist. I have not unilaterally declared myself chief IDF
theoretician. Others may certainly compose relevant documents for
the IDF, as they see fit.
Of course, I believe in the postures contained in the documents
(such belief always subject to change) and I hope the IDF will
ultimately adopt them, consistent with Mike's correct point about
not being overly specific. In fact, if the IDF will essentially
be, as I've advocated, a general De Leonist educational
organization, maybe it should not even take positions on issues,
my own documents notwithstanding. An option would be for the IDF
to act as a publishing or promotional vehicle for the various
points of view of the different member entities (groups and
individuals) on various issues. Thus could debate and discussion
across and among members be encouraged.
I note that if a given document is not formally adopted by the
IDF, it can, if desired, still remain available as a consultative
IDF resource.
Regards,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 31 Jan 2005 07:37 pm Post subject: Re: IDF Principles
& Documents
Let me say why I think it's unavoidable that we take a stand on
certain things. For something to be built in the first place, that
assumes that its founders believe that it has a significant reason
to exist. Even if it were a foundation to promote the distribution
of certain information, that implies holding the viewpoint that
the information is needed by others. The act of starting a public
library implies the premise that reading literature generally is
good, but what is the premise behind the kinds of information that
we select? To promote awareness that capitalism is a class divided
system, undemocratic in the way decisions are made, and
responsible for generating society's problems; to promote
awareness that particular kinds of working class organisation will
make it possible to reconstruct society. But why these ideas, and
not others? Why not conservativism or reformism? Because the
information we are studying contains the evidence that
conservativism and reformism do not take society in the direction
of a certain reconstruction which we consider desirable. Therefore
it will be evident to all that we have an agenda. We might as well
avoid asking other to do guesswork, and simply say explicitly what
our agenda is.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 01 Feb 2005 02:37 am Post subject:
Why the use of DeLeon's name in the name of the federation? Maybe
this is personal to me but I think using names of people to
describe political ideas and groups makes it look like it's an
insiders' club - like everyone should know who DeLeon is or was.
Assuming that DeLeon did in fact come up with the SIU concept -
what makes that "ist" as in "DeLeonist"? I'd rather explain SIU
than to try to explain who DeLeon was. Am I off base here?
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 01 Feb 2005 10:47 am Post subject:
Hi, Dave -- As I see it, we're at the stage of making notes and
drafts so that we will have something to show the next half-dozen
people. I don't think the first three or four people really have
the right to name any organization or adopt its principles. This
is one reason that I'm not enthusiastic about choosing a new
domain name this soon - because the group might grow to ten or
fifty, and then vote to adopt a name with an unanticipated acronym
or initials.
I see both good and bad in saying De Leonist. A bad thing about
(ever) saying either Marxist or De Leonist is that it might
promote the popular impression that socialists worship heroes and
like to "quote scripture."
A good thing about saying De Leonist is that there are so many
groups with socialistic names, probably hundreds of them, that
there's an advantage in a name that says "different from the
others." If the name makes people ask a question, that might be
the conversation-starter.
The name also implies the goal that several existing groups, such
as the SLP and the New Unionist, should eventually unite, at least
for some minimal amount of collaboration and communication. We
have to discuss this more, but I think will be encouraging dual
membership.
(Note to all: David A. Searles was my original mentor. Almost
forty years ago, he handed me that socialist leaflet that changed
my thinking.)
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 01 Feb 2005 12:55 pm Post subject:
I can report a sad reality to you - out in the field, whether or
not the SLP or the ghost of it that remains, joins with the New
Unionist Party has abosolutely no significance. Another reason I
would give to drop the DeLeon name is to eliminate the necessity
of even bringing up the name of the SLP. We have to look out at
the world - no one gives a damn about DeLeon or the STLA or the
Socialistic Labor Party or the thousand and one splits and purges.
We might as well study the splits and wars of the so called
Christian churches. I know, over a few beers or bones it's fun to
lick the old wounds, but the working class doesn't care.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 01 Feb 2005 03:00 pm Post subject:
As an addendum to my latest post - I have violated my own self
imposed rule - that I not use analogies. (the history of the SLP
as compared to churches) Whether or not it's a "valid" comparison,
I'm try to get to the point with myself that I present arguments
that in and of themselves present enough information to not need
an analogy.
As far as the domain name goes, the socialistindustrailunion.com
and . org names are easily had because I registered them. I will
gladly give them to the group and (I don't knoiw about the
technical side of it) but a redirect could be used to come back to
the deleonism.org site. I'm not suggesting a purge of all
references to either DeLeon or the SLP but if you sift through the
posts on this topic there has been way too much talk and time
devoted to an organization that has chosen to make itself
irrelevant. All power to the SIU.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 01 Feb 2005 11:27 pm Post subject:
I have a perspective that's probably unusual even for folks like
us: I know the working class doesn't give a damn but that doesn't
bother me. That's because I imagine that what we're doing will
help the revolution occur 200 years from now. If we weren't doing
this, the revolution might occur in 250 years instead. If those
were the numbers, then all the combined present-day activity would
make the revolution occur fifty years sooner, that is, 200 instead
of 250 years in the future. I'm serious -- that's how I look at
it. Of course I made up those arbitrary numbers, but the point is
that I expect no signs at all of social change before we all die.
However, whenever the revolution does occur, and on whatever
planet or space station or starship it takes place, I believe that
the present-day activities will have made it occur sooner. I don't
have any other expectations.
For the same reason, I don't think the SLP is irrelevant. It has
no progress to show. I wouldn't expect it to have any progress to
show, because it can't, because, no matter what it says or does,
the working class doesn't give a damn. But I think what they have
done, and are doing now, will help to save lives in the 23rd
century.
If a thoughtful enough literature or set of tactics (including the
name of an organization, plus everything else) can accelerate
social change, so that the revolution will occur, say, 100 years
from now, that would be great. I think we're in a position of
determining what we believe to be optimum, in the absense of any
empirical feedback about it.
I'm probably alone in this viewpoint, and that's probably a good
thing, because most other people besides me wouldn't strive for
something that they believe can only develop in the scale of
historical time, that slow time scale which has whole lifetimes
for single tick-tocks. Generally, a belief like mine would lead to
apathy. I hope I'm totally alone in feeling this way.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 01:28 pm Post subject: IDF ISSUES
Greetings, Mike, Dave, and Everyone,
1. Mike, one of my last posts is missing. Where is it? If you
removed it for some reason, please return it, in its original
location in the thread.
2. What is this "Quote" method of posting? I don't understand it.
I see a post from you, in a post packaging making it appear as
though it is from me.
3. Re discussion of the SLP. I don't consider them irrelevant, for
many reasons, ranging from: they're a textbook example of what not
to do (strong autocratic tendency; rigidity), to, in certain
respects, they're a textbook example of what to do (fairly
rigorous analysis, professionalism in all they do, etc.).
Additionally, like it or not, guess what, at present they are the
only De Leonist party in existence, and many of the relatively
small grouping of De Leonists in existence belong to this party.
4. Re naming. Virtue of using De Leonist in the title is as an
organizing mechanism, since it is De Leonists we're trying to
attract, at least initially. Let them know it's a De Leonist group
or structure. And the fact is, something commonly called De
Leonism is an established theoretical platform.
"The name also implies the goal that several existing groups, such
as the SLP and the New Unionist, should eventually unite, at least
for some minimal amount of collaboration and communication."
--Yes, this too.
Downside--for the uninitiated, what the hell does "De Leonist"
mean? I've spent much time over the last years thinking about the
marketing of socialism, so this issue is right up my alley.
If someone wanted to name the thing "Int'l Federation of People
for a Cooperative Society," or some such, that would be fine with
me in principle, but I think names like that--which I actually
consider preferable to cryptic names in general--might be best
suited for member entities, not for the actual federation. I think
naming for the actual parent structure, ie the Federation itself,
should unequivocally and immediately state its theoretical slant,
as supported above.
5. Relatedly, using De Leonist vs. SIU. Several reasons offhand I
advocate the former: A. it's a more elegant shorthand for the
entire body of De Leonist thought, which most DeLeonists probably
accept, at least as a starting point. B. "Int'l De Leonist
Federation" is arguably more elegant and convenient than something
that uses the somewhat unwieldy phrase "socialist industrial
union." It even has its own nifty acronym: IDF.
"socialistindustrailunion.com" --No way! This is what I'm talking
about...too long, too unwieldy, it even violates the two basic
guidelines of a good URL--brevity and memorability.
C. Since "union" has such a negative connotation for many I think
it's use is disadvantageous. Ditto the word socialism (which is
why I thought the NUP approach was good, except they fell into the
second trap--using the word "union").
6. Sorry, Mike, but in the main, I personally agree with your
analysis regarding the timetable for the adoption of socialism. If
it ever does happen, I'm not at all looking for it in my lifetime.
It's nothing but a completely open-ended proposition. You said you
hope you're the only one with such a magnanimous view--but I think
such a view is a mature and correct one, suggesting a mature
socialist, who's been around the block, and is in this movement
for the right reasons--genuine belief in the idea and the desire
to help ensure that someday it comes about; as opposed to people
in this movement for some sort of ego or self-esteem issue.
7. Mike, you never told me you were reluctant to get a domain, and
why. Don't know why you haven't mentioned this until now.
8. "...we're at the stage of making notes and drafts so that we
will have something to show the next half-dozen people. I don't
think the first three or four people really have the right to name
any organization or adopt its principles."
I'd argue this is less true in this case, than other cases,
because, at least as originally conceived, this is to be a
federation, which is to say an associative structure of member
individuals and groups, not a party or other
self-and-internally-contained group; such a group ordinarily would
require extensive conception and refinement of beliefs and
principles. Less so a federation, I believe. As you said,
yourself, Mike, general De Leonist principles will probably do.
From there, each member entity can formulate their own "take," if
they choose.
Maybe we should call them affiliates, not members, suggesting an
even more casual structure, hence more theoretical and practical
autonomy for each affiliate (/member).
9. "Another reason I would give to drop the DeLeon name is to
eliminate the necessity of even bringing up the name of the SLP.
We have to look out at the world - no one gives a damn about
DeLeon or the STLA or the Socialistic Labor Party or the thousand
and one splits and purges."
No one says we have to mention the SLP, no matter what the name
is. And look, the fact is we have to name the thing something....
Cheers,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 04:04 pm Post subject:
Vince,
I didn't move or delete anyone's posts. It's possible that this
software has bugs - it's a free package - but I haven't heard any
bug reports. Did you start checking from the first page in the
thread? (The "1" link at the top and bottom of each screen).
The "quote" option is similar to a reply button which quotes the
entire message that you're responding to, inside of a separate
rectangle ... so-and-so said [quoted message] ...... That's why
there is a "quote" button for each post, althought there is only
one reply button at the bottom of the page. If people want to
experiment they can try it, and then instead of clicking 'submit',
click 'preview' instead, which shows how things would look if
'submit' were pressed. There is also a test and practice thread
where people can experiment.
More later ...
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 04:18 pm Post subject:
Although the term De Leonist has no meaning for most people, a
least that avoids the fact that all "real" words have incorrect
connotations. Socialism = Where the government forces people to
pay high taxes. Democracy = Where a carnival with balloons and
paper hats is held every four years to choose which rich person
will rule the country. Labor and/or union = Thar's where the mafia
gets the money to start casinos in Las Vegas. The lack of
understanding is so bad, only a word that currently sounds like
gibberish to people does NOT convey the wrong connotation. De
Leonist / -ism doesn't have a lot of "baggage", does it?
Also, I think that, mainly, only history and political science
teachers, and WSM/IWW/SP/DSA/CP/SWP members, will, upon hearing
the name "DeLeonist", immediately snap back with, "Oh, do you mean
the SLP?" Eveyrone else will say, "What the hell is that?"
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 04:31 pm Post subject: Re: IDF ISSUES
PowerKord wrote:
7. Mike, you never told me you were reluctant to get a domain, and
why. Don't know why you haven't mentioned this until now.
I just started thinking after you said something either yesterday
or the day before, either here or in an email, about a .org name
being available and something like maybe we should "grab it". I
started thinking, what if ten more associates come along next
month, then the new people are a majority over the first three or
four, and what if they don't like the name we already picked? They
would change it anyway. Maybe we need to slow down until Dan makes
some of the contacts he was thinking about making.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 04:36 pm Post subject: Re: IDF ISSUES
PowerKord wrote:
And the fact is, something commonly called De Leonism is an
established theoretical platform.
Exactly. The name would classify us correctly. For those who do
know something about the subject, it would indicate something
about how we would approach analyzing the SP or IWW, for example.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 05:00 pm Post subject: Re: IDF ISSUES
Domain name length is hotly debated in webmaster forums. Brief and
memorable URLs are better when people see or hear the name
somewhere, maybe write it down on scrap paper, then go back home
and type it. Longer names composed of several keywords get more
visitors through search engines, because there's a greater
probability that the URL will partially match the search phrase,
for example, when someone types into google or askjeeves,
"socialist opinion about unions" or "information about de leon."
In a search engine algorithm, page URL match and page title tag
match are important factors in determining rank. For links from
other sites, the length or memorability of the name doesn't matter
at all.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 05:03 pm Post subject:
I'd say forget the initials SIU. If anyone were to use that for an
organization, I think they would be sued by Staten Island
University.
yojudo71
Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 07:35 pm Post subject:
I posted a message yesterday also that is missing. Like a fool,
after spending much time and thought, I neglected to save it on
file.
When I have the time, I will attempt to recall what I posted.
Don
yojudo71
Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Posted: 02 Feb 2005 07:37 pm Post subject:
This time my last post was immediately posted on the forum.
Don
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 04 Feb 2005 08:22 am Post subject:
Hmm .. another missing post .. first let's be sure that everyone
clicks the right buttons. After typing a message, click "submit."
If you click the browser's back button instead, then the message
was never submitted. Also, accidentally clicking the "x" button
above a message will delete it, if the author has signed in with a
password.
There is no way to undelete a deleted message. Each post is stored
as a record in a MySQL database. Delete is permanent.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 06 Feb 2005 12:11 am Post subject:
Mike, I had a crazy idea that it was a socialist industrial union
that the group had as the goal. Now I see that the main idea
actually is to see if some or all of the many splits that have
occurred over the years can be unsplit. You guys apparently think
that this is a lofty goal. Who am I to discourage you? So we'll
put off really concentrating on promoting the SIU (Oh yeah, Staten
Island University, that's why we shouldn't use those initials -
it's sure to confuse people) concept until we get the members of
the old Deleonist groups back together. Oh happy day! Almost as
important to the workers as that great day on Labor Day 1976 when
Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis appeared together on stage for the
first time in 20 years. Happy nostalgia everyone!!!
By the way, isn't there some way that people could email Mike
directly with the technical problems?
Dave Searles - the Old Grouch
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 06 Feb 2005 08:59 am Post subject: Response To Dave
Searles
Hi, Dave,
>>>Mike, I had a crazy idea that it was a socialist industrial
union that the group had as the goal.
The goal, from my standpoint, is democratic socialism, of which
the SIU structure is essential.
I phrase it this way because as important as the theoretical
platform is, the goal itself is socialism. This has important
implications for naming and marketing; for example it's one of the
reasons why I thought the name "New Union Party" was unwise--why
present a theoretical detail, even a key one like the SIU
structure, as the very first conceptual element an uninitiated
person encounters? Then you have to go explaining the detail,
instead of having the opportunity to lay out the beautiful and
elegant logic of socialism itself (i.e. this world already has all
the resources required to provide for all, most human suffering is
unnecessary, as is money, etc. etc.). Then, you can drill down to
the supporting details as warranted by the flow of conversation.
This is always the way I've done it. First you hit people with the
basic logic of socialism, and illogic of capitalism, and presuming
they remain interested as the conversation continues, the mention
of the supporting details will occur naturally and organically.
I've met very few people who dispute an opening statement like
"You know, our world really already has all the resources we need
to provide a decent life for everyone."
So, in my view, the name of a socialist group should convey the
broad vision, the goal, itself, which is socialism, a socialist
society, a cooperative society, etc. Pick your phrase.
>>>Now I see that the main idea actually is to see if some or all
of the many splits that have occurred over the years can be
unsplit.
No, incorrect; although I would classify that as a highly
desirable other goal, either parallel or secondary.
>>>By the way, isn't there some way that people could email Mike
directly with the technical problems?
There was private dialogue going on via email for a while there,
on various topics, but I am the one who discouraged it, because
I'd rather just deal with one communication mechanism, the Forum,
rather than two, the Forum and email. I realize its more proper to
conduct certain subsidiary conversations out-of-Forum, although in
the case of Forum technical glitches it's probably better to air
them in the Forum, so Mike can determine if others are having
similar problems.
Best,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Last edited by PowerKord on 06 Feb 2005 09:09 am; edited 2 times
in total
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 06 Feb 2005 09:01 am Post subject: Another Apparent
Forum Glitch
Mike,
Message status seems erratic in the Forum.
For example, it appears that, with the exception of the message I
just posted (before this one), every other post in this Forum,
from everyone, exists as a "Quote" post. For example, I could not
edit any of my posts, as I should be able to; there was no Edit
button, nor a Delete button.
Now, however, I'm seeing the Edit button for my posts, but not the
Delete button.
The whole thing seems glitchy.
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 06 Feb 2005 11:11 am Post subject:
Dave, what other method would you suggest to promote organizing
the SIU? You didn't specify do x instead of y.
In real life, to get any job done, don't we begin by contacting
other people who also want to do it, so we can compare notes with
them, or do other things in cooperation with them?
We actually have a new and untried tactic here. We're envisioning
a organization where people can be affiliated around the basic
idea without having to swear that they agree with all the details
of the "party". It doesn't matter whether they're socialist
old-timers or whether they first heard of the idea last week. No
one is going to be grilled to see if they can recite the equation
for surplus value. No one is going to be kicked out for openly
questioning or doubting. Multiple membership is encouraged, and it
would be okay for you to join seven political parties and six
labor unions if that's what you wanted to do. You don't need
permission from the Politburo before you begin publishing a
newsletter. We admit that we, as imperfect humans, can't be
certain of where to draw the line between reform and revolution.
Can you see that the people congregating around this idea want to
try something new and different?
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 06 Feb 2005 11:59 am Post subject:
Seeking comments on something that De Leon said in "Reform or
Revolution" ... on the responsibility of a revolutionist ...
"He knows that in the revolution demanded by our age, organization
must be the incarnation of principle. Just the reverse of the
reformer, who will ever be seen mocking at science, the
revolutionist will not make a distinction between the organization
and the principle. He will say: 'The principle and the
organization are one.'"
Me first? Okay. I hate it. This has been the excuse whenever any
degree of skepticism or individual expression has been suppressed
in the socialist movement.
I don't think the SLP started it. I think Marx and Engels started
it, when the International expelled Moses Hess. The tradition of
socialists having nothing better to do than to bring each other up
on charges before the Grievance Committee is one of our oldest
traditions.
* * *
"If we had as little control over our bodies as we have over our
minds, we would never make it across the street alive." -- Ancient
proverb in Zen Buddhism
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 06 Feb 2005 12:14 pm Post subject:
Since we're not going to be a "party", maybe it will soon be time
to take another stab at collaboration with the IWW. Contrary to
SLP assertions, the IWW never adopted "anarchism" -- what they
actually did was to take the issue of IWW members joining
political parties and put in into the same category as the issue
of IWW members joining religions, that is, to declare it to be an
individual choice. In fact, official IWW support for anarchism is
just as prohibited as official affiliation with a political party
is.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 06 Feb 2005 12:40 pm Post subject:
PowerKord, I'm not totally convinced that the first impression
conveyed by a name like 'cooperative society' is that important.
Seems to me that anyone who would turn away due to the wrong first
impression wasn't within our reach anyway. This is different from
marketing. In marketing, you know that the customer already uses
toilet paper, so all you have to do is sneak up on the customer
with the message that ours is softer. In our case, people (today)
are already lined up behind various kinds of 'pro-establishment'
and 'anti-establishment' creeds, and we need to sift through a lot
of vague 'anti-establishment' people to find the ones who are able
to achieve awareness that strategies and tactics can mean the
difference between genuine socialism and fake socialism. If we had
a ghost of a chance of recruiting Archie Bunker, I'd worry more
about first impressions. I have a suspicion that we only have a
chance to recruit someone whose self-description is "I'm already
some sort of radical, but I'm not yet decided on what kind." I
believe this is a temporary condition, but that's how it is today.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 06 Feb 2005 05:27 pm Post subject:
Response to Vince:
"Democratic Socialism" as opposed to Undemocratic Socialism?
"Democratic Socialism" is that something espoused by the
Democratic Party? Class Struggle? Aren't Capitalists and their
legions of lackeys going to claim to be an integral part of the
"demos" - do they get to participate in controlling "Democratic
Socialist" society?
The SIU is merely a "structure"?
"the name of a socialist group should convey the broad vision, the
goal, itself, which is socialism, a socialist society, a
cooperative society, etc. Pick your phrase." Why not Universal
Love, Peace and Harmony Federation. We all want that don't we?
>>>Now I see that the main idea actually is to see if some or all
of the many splits that have occurred over the years can be
unsplit.
"No, incorrect; although I would classify that as a highly
desirable other goal, either parallel or secondary."
You failed see that I wrote: I SEE THAT THE MAIN IDEA ACTUALLY IS
TO SEE IF SOME OR ALL .. I am not incorrect, because that is what
I saw (and still see) as the main idea of the previous posts.
Response to Mike:
The "Y" that I am prosing for the current "X" is that the stated
focus be to promote the SIU. (but not Staten Island University)
Contrary to the assertions of Arnold Petersen - I doubt that
future mankind will look back on Daniel DeLeon as any kind of a
hero. He was probably the first to describe the future cooperative
industrial society - but that's a footnote. Just as important, but
no more important as the first person to have brakes put on all
four wheels of an automobile (Eddie Rickenbacker) Yes he was first
- but do we doubt that it still would have been though of without
Rickenbacker?
Was DeLeon the great humanitarian that Petersen described? He was
a teacher of Constitutional Law at Columbia. Plessy v. Ferguson
was decided in 1892 - a case that had almost immediate
repercussions throughout the country. In the next 20 years of his
life did DeLeon ever once address the crises in the Black
community and the country as a whole caused by that decision? If
he did I would be pleased to hear it. What was the "DeLeonist"
position on Plessy v. Ferguson? DeLeon was a narrow thinker. He
was a damned good narrow thinker, I will give him that. I can only
wonder, what would DeLeon want - a federation focused on DeLeon or
focused on his brain child - the SIU.
To me, if you want to be a DeLeonist you will focus on SIU, not on
the DeLeon name.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 01:29 am Post subject:
Greetings, All,
I'll start with Dave's remarks, then go to Mike's.
>>>"Democratic Socialism" as opposed to Undemocratic Socialism?
"Democratic Socialism" is that something espoused by the
Democratic Party? Class Struggle? Aren't Capitalists and their
legions of lackeys going to claim to be an integral part of the
"demos" - do they get to participate in controlling "Democratic
Socialist" society?
I don't understand the basic question behind this string of
variant questions. I routinely use the word "democratic" to
preface the word "socialism," as a buffer given the wrong-headed
ideas conveyed by the simple word "socialism." Again, a marketing
issue.
>>>The SIU is merely a "structure"?
No, not "merely" a structure, a KEY structure; I believe I said
that. But the term "SIU" *does* describe a managerial,
operational, and organizational structure (as counterposed to the
basic logic or vision of socialism, which I think a good name
should embody).
>>>"the name of a socialist group should convey the broad vision,
the goal, itself, which is socialism, a socialist society, a
cooperative society, etc. Pick your phrase." Why not Universal
Love, Peace and Harmony Federation. We all want that don't we?
If that phraseology would stimulate emotional and/or intellectual
affirmation in people toward socialism, I'd say, yes, why not. We
can always change terminology later. The idea is what's important;
that's what we want to get people to focus on. Why not use our
collective brains to find the wording which seems to do that most
effectively? Let's be shrewd, here.
>>>To me, if you want to be a DeLeonist you will focus on SIU, not
on the DeLeon name.
I'm not a De Leon worshipper, nor am I advocating the cult of De
Leon. He may very well have been a narrow thinker; I'm not versed
enough to express an opinion, although the entire history of the
De Leonist movement in America seems characterized, somewhat, by a
narrowness of *some* sort. I'm actually trying to open up De
Leonism, to begin to cultivate some of its hidden richness, and
I've built such notions into the Charter document; they are also
implicit and explicit in my work to bring the "love ethic" into
the body of socialist theory (www.loveethic.org).
The only reason I preliminarily endorse using the De Leon name,
which I think I've already said, is that something called De
Leonism is ALREADY an established theoretical platform, covering
the theory itself, as well as De Leon's body of thought *about*
the theory, which, while engendering some disagreement, is
probably considered valuable and relevant by most De Leonists.
Additionally, isn't it true that the SIU idea and program is most
strongly and closely associated with Daniel De Leon? Is there
another thinker or advocate we're missing here?
For further context, let me say this: I view the IDF as something
of a "wholesale" organization, ie that which existing De Leonist
groups and individuals would become acquainted with and affiliate
with. I consider those existing De Leonist groups, themselves, as
the "retail" organizations, ie those the general public, the
uninitiated, would become acquainted with and join. Naming might
proceed accordingly.
Actually, there is one other thing. I'm somewhat opposed to the
historical phrase "socialist industrial unionism" because I think
it's too long and unwieldy, I've already said that. But also:
"industrial"...? We're not even in an industrial age anymore, so
it is said. And "union" or "unionism"? Right there you alienate a
lot of people, or find indifference in others.
The whole phrase to me may require an overhaul. Again---marketing.
. . .
>>>We're envisioning a organization where people can be affiliated
around the basic idea without having to swear that they agree with
all the details of the "party".
Yes.
>>>"He knows that in the revolution demanded by our age,
organization must be the incarnation of principle. Just the
reverse of the reformer, who will ever be seen mocking at science,
the revolutionist will not make a distinction between the
organization and the principle. He will say: 'The principle and
the organization are one.'"
The P and O are one, if we're by organization we mean the
governing socialist structure, under socialism. I don't see why
this must apply to the political organization now, before
socialism.
>>>...maybe it will soon be time to take another stab at
collaboration with the IWW
Maybe, although, if they don't believe in the necessity of
organization on the political field, they couldn't even agree with
the minimalist set of principles necessary to affiliate with the
IDF, the most basic of which asserts the necessity of organization
on the political and industrial fields.
>>> If we had a ghost of a chance of recruiting Archie Bunker, I'd
worry more about first impressions. I have a suspicion that we
only have a chance to recruit someone whose self-description is
"I'm already some sort of radical, but I'm not yet decided on what
kind."
Disagree:
1. Why pick a name which will only appeal to existing radicals,
when we can pick one which will potentially appeal to everyone?
What do we have to lose?
2. When you *do* appeal to those radicals, THEY will then have to
go out and appeal to--to whom? To the public, which will
inevitably include its share of Bunkers, and semi-Bunkers. It has
to do with the principle of "training the trainers" in the most
effective way possible.
3. You may not recruit the Bunkers--but if the Bunkers perceive
you in an especially harmful light, those Bunkers alone, or
together, can do your group and its message great HARM, in a
variety of ways. So if the name does not ingratiate people, at
least let it not offend people or play on entrenched negative or
threatening stereotypes.
By the way, as a last thought: I think member entities should be
considered affiliates, not "members." One would speak in terms of
"affiliating" with the IDF, not joining. This seems congruent with
the official definition of the organization as a federation. It
preserves the impression of the loose organizational tie with the
IDF of each affiliate group, and thus the strong retention of the
identity, autonomy, principles, background, and experiences, of
each individual affiliate group.
Warmly,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 04:42 am Post subject:
>>>"the name of a socialist group should convey the broad vision,
the goal, itself, which is socialism, a socialist society, a
cooperative society, etc. Pick your phrase." Why not Universal
Love, Peace and Harmony Federation. We all want that don't we?
>>>If that phraseology would stimulate emotional and/or
intellectual affirmation in people toward socialism, I'd say, yes,
why not.
Vince, tell us, this time without interposing a qualifier, do you
think that Universal, Love, Peace and Harmony Federation is a
better name than International DeLeoinst Federation?
>>>The idea is what's important; that's what we want to get people
to focus on. Why not use our collective brains to find the wording
which seems to do that most effectively? Let's be shrewd, here.
"The idea" of DeLeonism is to promote SIU is it not?
>>>But the term "SIU" *does* describe a managerial, operational,
and organizational structure (as counterposed to the basic logic
or vision of socialism, which I think a good name should embody).
Through the Socialist Industrial Union the workers will take hold
and operate the means of production for the workers. Vince says
that is counterposed to the bais logic or vision of socialism?
>>>Actually, there is one other thing. I'm somewhat opposed to the
historical phrase "socialist industrial unionism" because I think
it's too long and unwieldy, I've already said that. But also:
"industrial"...? We're not even in an industrial age anymore, so
it is said. And "union" or "unionism"? Right there you alienate a
lot of people, or find indifference in others.
>>>The whole phrase to me may require an overhaul.
Again---marketing.
We're not in an industrial age anymore?
The word union is a turn-off to you?
The word Socialist needs a "buffer"?
My premise is still that "SIU" should be the stated central focus
of the group as opposed to "DeLeonist." Vince would rather keep
DeLeonist over SIU, but it seems that he would prefer some other
name than DeLeonist.
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 09:05 am Post subject:
I think people understand that there is already a tradition of
using writers' names to label ideas: the model of the solar system
proposed by Copernicus differed from that of Ptolemy ... the
empiricism of Kant differed from the empiricism of Hume ... The
law of gravity according to Einstein isn't the same as the law of
gravity according to Newton ... If we feel apprehensive that the
use of a writer's name is going to generate the misconception that
we practice hero worship or something, that's probably only in us,
because we here are all accustomed to bending over backwards to
demonstrate that we are not vanguardists, etc. I think that no one
except for us would even think about the danger of an
unintentional association between using a writer's name and other
people's subsequent impressions about it.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 09:37 am Post subject:
Socialist industrial unionism (that's 11 syllables -- yuck) is the
technical name for what we want, but it's like calling car
antifreeze "ethylene glycol." Just because it's the most precise
name, that doesn't mean we have to say it.
If we were going to say it, the word "industrial" could go, and we
could say "socialist union". The point that we can't use craft
unionism isn't part of Lesson 1. Maybe it's part of Lesson 10 or
something.
But then, we're not the union itself. We're a group which promotes
discussion about the concept of the union and distribute
literature about that concept. What are we going to have, a name
with thirty words in it?
How about "Foundation for the Promotion of Discussion about
Socialist Unionism" -- FPDSU? I'm only kidding, of course. That
name and those initials would suck.
As of right now, I still vote to use Vince's suggested name IDF,
until someone can suggest a better one.
However, I still think that, once a bunch of people sign up, it
will be a whole new organization, and if the folks want to change
the name a bunch of times they could do it.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 09:49 am Post subject:
PowerKord wrote:
Why pick a name which will only appeal to existing radicals, when
we can pick one which will potentially appeal to everyone? What do
we have to lose?
I don't think we SHOULD pick a name that would appeal only to
radicals, but I think that IF we did, versus if we didn't, there
probably wouldn' t be a difference in the number of human contacts
we make and keep.
If anyone was going to be alienated by words like socialist,
union, revolution, then we could get them to stick around for five
additional minutes by using different words, then they'll
inevitably "turn the page" and find out that we're commies, and in
five minutes they're gone anyway.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 09:59 am Post subject:
PowerKord wrote:
I think member entities should be considered affiliates, not
"members." One would speak in terms of "affiliating" with the IDF,
not joining. This seems congruent with the official definition of
the organization as a federation. It preserves the impression of
the loose organizational tie with the IDF of each affiliate group,
and thus the strong retention of the identity, autonomy,
principles, background, and experiences, of each individual
affiliate group.
I also prefer a word like affiliates. However, their affiliation
has formality since they acquire the right to vote.
Another thing we will have to think about is: we have referred
both to individuals affiliating and organizations affiliating.
This remains vague. I'm picturing one-person one-vote, whether or
not they're NUP or SLP or whatever.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 11:07 am Post subject: Marketing Socialism
Hi,
I want to address one thing, because I consider it extremely
important.
Mike wrote:
>>>If anyone was going to be alienated by words like socialist,
union, revolution, then we could get them to stick around for five
additional minutes by using different words, then they'll
inevitably "turn the page" and find out that we're commies, and in
five minutes they're gone anyway.
No, no, no.
I am NOT a commie--not in the stereotypical, misunderstood way
most people think about that word, anyway. This is important
because it gets to the heart of how socialist literature and
outreach materials might be written--sixth grade vocabulary and
phrasing, non-threatening language, and essentially void of
historically loaded, threatening, turn-off words like socialist,
socialism, etc. Then, in more advanced materials (or later
conversation if it's spoken), the reader can be eased into a
richer and more sophisticated understanding of what we're talking
about. But it involves a nuanced writing process.
If this methodical composition process is done properly, if the
writer is skilled enough to build it deftly into the literature,
people will NOT see us as "commies," in the pejorative way they
have traditionally understood that word, even when they do start
to encounter words like "socialism" in the literature
(conversation, etc.). Then, those people who stuck around for five
extra minutes because we had the organizational naming right, may
just stick around another five minutes, because we have the
presentational approach of our literature right.
If you analyze the compositional and presentational approach I've
taken at messageofhope.com, you'll see this is what I do, there. I
have a series of informational links, each of which leads to
material more advanced than the previous--and the very first link
(What is message of hope?) contains a FAQ which makes literally no
mention whatsoever of socialism, and uses no loaded or
misunderstood words, whatsoever. Because what that initial
document tries to do, as I'm advocating here and in my previous
posts, is initially get across the BASIC IDEA, or BASIC LOGIC of a
cooperative vs. a money-and-profit society. No burdensome details
right off, and certainly no misunderstood, alienating words which
will make the reader/listener quickly and reflexively say, "Ok,
thanks but I really gotta go now..."
This is exactly what I keep trying to argue to a friend of mine
who is a member of the COMMUNIST Party. With a name like that,
those people are so far down the marketing black hole it isn't
funny.
Regards,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Last edited by PowerKord on 08 Feb 2005 07:57 am; edited 1 time in
total
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 12:11 pm Post subject:
Vince:
Regarding words and names -- I think it's unknowable who's right.
After the revolution, people will look back and talk about the mix
of strategies that did it.
I suggest we should also speak for ourselves when in public. That
way, a person can say, for example, "That Lepore kook turns me
off, but the more reasonable PowerKord makes numerous good
points." If we speak for ourselves, I didn't ruin it for you by
reflecting on you.
Your approach includes the use of humanistic words like 'hope' and
'love'. Personally, I wouldn't select words like that. I would
tend to say something like: "It's an inefficient management system
for stockholders to elect the board of directors. I think the
entire staff in each industry should elect the board of
directors." So what socialism means to each of us may not really
be exactly the same.
I am very tolerant of all sorts of variation and deviation. In
fact, I saw De Leon as late as 1913 writing the phrase "the
socialist state."
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 12:34 pm Post subject:
Dear all
Apologies for not having taken part in these discussions for some
time. My net connection was down for a while, and when I came back
online a few days ago, the discussion seemed to have expanded to a
massive degree. I have done my best to work through the posts and
will now attempt to comment.
We are talking about a potential change of name? Well this is
somthing that could probably be ignored for the time being, since
at this stage we are attempting to introduce the idea of a
federation of De Leonists to those who are already De Leonists.
This stage will not last long as I make this project known to
those De Leonists organisations/groups/publications already in
existence. Come to think of it, how many are there?
Once we have introduced the CONCEPT to De Leonists, and I cant
imagine why anyone would have a problem with it, we can go about
propagating our case. I hate to use that term "propagating our
case" since it sounds like a certain party I used to be a member
of, but in the early days that is what we will be doing.
In terms of how we should come across, with our name, propaganda
or anything else, Im in favour of putting them emphasis not so
much on saying "we have the resources to provide for all, lets do
it" but somthing on more understandable lines, such as solidarity,
unionism, and workers power. The sad truth is that when you usualy
go up to sombody and inform them that capitalism is "bad" they
might agree with you, but not know what to do about it, and soon
get bored of the conversation. Then again if you present socialism
within a relevant context, such as the economic struggle all
workers are engaged in, you will usualy get more attention than
you would otherwise.
I intend to present somthing on the IDF to whatever the NUP is
these days. Is this ok with everyone? I will keep records of the
correspondence. I have already done this with the RUSS and will
post relevant results on here, if that is acceptable.
Regards
Dan Read
Interim GA
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 09:19 pm Post subject:
If anyone knows of any potential human contacts, maybe we should
make each other aware?
In a correspondence that was not totally about the business at
hand, but partially a personal dialogue, I parenthetically made
Walter Petrovich aware that this discussion is happening here. For
those who don't know Wally ... after the death of the Industrial
Union Party (IUP) general secretary Sam Brandon in October 1993,
Wally, editor of the IUP periodical, was instrumental in the
transformation of the IUP into a reconstructed organization that
is now called People for a New System (PFANS). He now operates a
De Leonist "blog" web site at http://www.hwforums.com/2141/ , and
his email address is PFANS at aol dot com. Their group has been
developing an interesting philosophy that combines workplace
democracy and community democracy, somewhat different from the
classic "industrial form of government" that we are accustomed to
reading about.
Another possible human contact:
Postal address known good as of 1999 but not recently verified:
Thomas Girard
Daniel De Leon Election Committee
P.O. Box 3744
Grand Rapids, MI 49501 USA
no known email address (?)
Another possible human contact:
Post address known good as of 2001 but not recently verified:
The De Leonist Society of Canada
P.O. Box 944, Station F
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4Y 2N9
no known email address
Question to Dan: In the event that we need to contact anyone by
postal mail instead of email, let me know if you think that
postage would be cheaper if sent from the U.S., which I don't
know, and figure that you have the option of delegating it to me
to mail something.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 07 Feb 2005 09:31 pm Post subject:
Dan sayeth: "Is this ok with everyone?" and "if that is
acceptable".
I would think that there's no need to ask other people before
doing things. If any of us come across a situation which either
pushes the boundaries of ethical behavior, or proposes spending
other people's money, or does anything that is irreversible and
possibly destructive, or things like that, then we will naturally
want to discuss it. For regular stuff that doesn't look
suspicious, I believe that it would be inefficient to have anyone
be micromanaged.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 12:58 am Post subject:
VINCE WROTE
Additionally, isn't it true that the SIU idea and program is most
strongly and closely associated with Daniel De Leon? Is there
another thinker or advocate we're missing here?
DAVE REPLIES
As I said, Eddie Rickenbacker came up with the idea of brakes on
all four wheels of a car. Is there another thinker or advocate
we're missing here? When is the last time you ever hear od Eddie
Rickenbacker in the context of brakes? Whqat is more important the
idea or the concept and it's truth.
VINCE WROTE:
For further context, let me say this: I view the IDF as something
of a "wholesale" organization, ie that which existing De Leonist
groups and individuals would become acquainted with and affiliate
with. I consider those existing De Leonist groups, themselves, as
the "retail" organizations, ie those the general public, the
uninitiated, would become acquainted with and join. Naming might
proceed accordingly.
DAVE REPLIES-
So the IDF is not to be an organization directly advocating
socialism to the workers? Is that's the idea - no thanks. What do
thers think about Vince's statement here. If the goal is to
organize, affiliate - (why not call them associates, like at
Walmart or otherwise see if you can get people who are DeLeonists
under the same heading - as opposed to educating workers - forget
it. I want no part of it. Let me know soon, so I can bail and not
have my name associated with this.
MIKE WROTE:
I think people understand that there is already a tradition of
using writers' names to label ideas: the model of the solar system
proposed by Copernicus differed from that of Ptolemy ... Mike at
what point did people start to refer to the "Copernican" and
"Ptolemeic" systems?
DAVE REPLIES- I have no objection what so ever to tell people,
once they know about SIU that a coot named Daniel DeLeon seems to
be the guy who came up with the idea of organizing workers
according to the tool that they use- right in line with the
materialist conception of history. Now Mike I want to ask you.
When is the last time you heard of a group forming and naming
itself International Copernican Federation? Why not?
MIKE WROTE:
The law of gravity according to Einstein isn't the same as the law
of gravity according to Newton ...
DAVE REPLIES
Quite true. Einstein's system anticipated that the gravity a great
mass would deflect light. Newton's didn't, but do we derive from
this that the group should be named Deleonist rather than SIU
boosters?
MIKE WROTE:
we here are all accustomed to bending over backwards to
demonstrate that we are not vanguardists, etc.
DAVE REPLIES I'll be damned if that's an established truth. But
that's what I like about SIU - it's right out there.
MIKE WROTE:
I think that no one except for us would even think about the
danger of an unintentional association between using a writer's
name and other people's subsequent impressions about it.
DAVE REPLIES
I never said I saw any danger - DeLeon founded the SLP as we knew
it. An electoral political organization. If we call ourselves
DeLeonist does that mean that we favor the creation electoral
political organizations? DeLeon virtually ignored racial
discrimination, especially that discrimination let loose by Plessy
v. Ferguson. True to form, the SLP ignored racial discrimination
and virtually all civil rights movements rights into the
seventies. That was their impression of DeLeonism, and apparently,
it was well supported..
MIKE WROTE:
Socialist industrial unionism (that's 11 syllables -- yuck)
DAVE REPLIES I try to stay away from "isms". Socialist Industrial
Union promoters (or what ever) - 13 sylables. International
DeLeonist Federation - 13 sylables
MIKE WROTE:
it's like calling car antifreeze "ethylene glycol." Just because
it's the most precise name, that doesn't mean we have to say it.
DAVE REPLIES
Back in the age when people also used alcohol as antifreeze you
would have used the term "permanent antifreeze". No one cared
particularly what the chemical name was -but the name they chose
described its physical attribute.
MIKE WROTE:
If we were going to say it, the word "industrial" could go, and we
could say "socialist union". The point that we can't use craft
unionism
DAVE REPLIES The term trade unions is still a very popular usage -
I think "industrial" in the term ought to be kept: "Craft, or
trade, unions represent a single craft or trade. In contrast,
industrial unions represent all workers in a specific industry, or
with a specific employer. Socialist Industrial Unions (SIUs) are
industrial unions, representing entire industries, with the stated
aim of creating a socialist society." From
http://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm-pages/siu.html I think
"industrial" before "union" is a good idea.
If SIU is such an unwieldy and over-technical term why use it at
the very top of the DeLeonist.org homepage: The Socialist
Industrial Union Program of Daniel De Leon
Mike I know that you personally are an advocate of the SIU - I've
known you a long time and I would kick you in the butt if you
didn't - however - I do not know these other people is that what
they advocate up front and on top? How so?
MIKE WROTE:
But then, we're not the union itself.
DAVE REPLIES
Quite true but we're also not Daniel DeLeon either.
MIKE WROTE:
What are we going to have, a name with thirty words in it?
DAVE REPLIES
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop
Quartet Singing in America
No doubt there were people who didn't like those names in the
beginning either, but each of them is a large membership
organization with a name that is almost 100 years old.
VINCE WROTE:
No, no, no.
I am NOT a commie--not in the stereotypical, misunderstood way
most people think about that word, anyway. This is important
because it gets to the heart of how socialist literature and
outreach materials might be written--sixth grade vocabulary and
phrasing, non-threatening language, and essentially void of
historically loaded, threatening, turn-off words like socialist,
socialism, etc.
.
This is exactly what I keep trying to argue to a friend of mine
who is a member of the COMMUNIST Party. With a name like that,
those people are so far down the marketing black hole it isn't
funny.
DAVE REPLIES
Vince, we are what we are. Or as the great philosopher Popeye
tells us to say: I yam what I yam.
But you'd make a fine commie Vince. They are always trying to
marketise what they preach. They marketize it so much they don't
even know what they believe. Because they can't just come out and
say what they mean they forget what they were getting at in the
first place.
I'll give the SLP one thing - you never ever had to dig far as to
the basic belief. As DeLeon said (I believe) - call a spade a
spade and a damned spade a damned spade.
VINCE WROTE
Then, in more advanced materials (or later conversation if it's
spoken), the reader can be eased into a richer and more
sophisticated understanding of what we're talking about. But it
involves a nuanced writing process.
DAVE REPLIES
In plain English - FUCK NUANCE. . The Earth is dying, people are
dying becuse of the continuance of capitalism. If you don't have
the nerve to be able to come right out to people and make a
convincing case for revolution, then what's the point.
Dave
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 07:54 am Post subject: Chill
Hi, Dave,
Dave, two points:
1. Relax, man! We're all friends here!
And I believe we're all working for essentially the same thing.
And respectfully: you might try to moderate your remarks a bit, in
general. For example, most recently, asserting I don't have "the
nerve" to openly make the case for revolution is a rather bold
statement. I respectfully submit that prior to making remarks
readable as insulting, you really know of what you speak. For
example, in this case, did you read all my documents posted here
at this site? All my posts? Did you read through all my Message of
Hope material? Did you acquaint yourself with my background and
history in this movement? If not, you might adopt a more qualified
or measured tone in what you assert or imply.
As I believe I've stated to Mike, I think fragmentation in this
movement (or any movement) probably occurs just as often because
of personal social gaffes and slights, intended or not, as much as
genuine theoretical or other differences.
Don't worry, I'm not taking offense. I think you mean well, and
you're just excited and enthused, which is a good thing.
2. Have you read the draft of the Charter Document?
I think a number of your questions will be answered if you read
it, or re-read it carefully. Questions concerning whether I
subscribe to the SIU concept and program or not, and questions
regarding whether the IDF is intended to appeal directly to
workers or not.
Best,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 11:03 am Post subject:
Dear all
I think it would be better if somebody aside from myself contacted
those US contacts who did not have an e-mail address, since it is
rather awkward for me to get post from here to America, probably a
bit expensive too. Then again I will do it if I have to.
The NUP, or those De Leonists who write and publish the New
Unionist, have been contacted about the IDF. I'm awaiting a reply.
What exactly is the deal with the "argument" here? I don't see the
problem, personally I'm in favour of a name change since people
will either have not have heard of De Leon or, if the SLP has as
bad a reputation as some might claim, but put off. Perhaps
something like the "Socialist Industrial Union Federation" might
be better. All this however can be shelved to a later date when we
have people interested.
Now that I'm here, I would like to talk a little about the
Treatment of Relevant Principles document. If this is to be a
global organisation, I don't think its so helpful to mention
Americas founding fathers, in regards to the use of violence. In
fact, the less said about any country in particular the better,
otherwise people may still get the message that the emphasis is
not on the international scale at all.
I wouldn't actually say there was anything "moral" in the act of
violence. Sometimes its just a means to an end. There is no actual
moral foundation to punching somebody in the face, but the causes
behind violence, and what sparked it, do have a moral foundation
and are what should be examined here. Violence in itself is not
"bad" or "good", since it never occurs without cause anyway. If
socialists have to defend themselves, or in the course of
revolution violence is a viable option to attain a goal, I have
little problem with it as long as it does not compromise our
principles. To be honest I have often said that violence can be
viewed as a means to an end, and nothing more. But yes of course,
we should avoid contact with overly violent organisations, since I
doubt many of these could be described as socialist anyway.
Anarchist would be a better description.
Its better to get this out in the open now but I totally disagree
with the following: "Even injury to the ruling class, unless, and
even if, considered absolutely necessary to the vital interests of
the working class, and people, generally (especially in a
revolutionary period), might be found morally objectionable or
questionable by persons committed to a principle or ethic of love,
such as the concept of "Agape," or brotherly love. "
That does sound like we are even being hazy on how militant we are
as revolutionaries. I also don't know why its really relevant to
mention the "Agape" in our official documents. Any progressive
stride for our class is an injury to the capitalist class, and
should be. We should strive to injure them; we will do in the
process leading up to the revolution and during the revolution
itself. This cannot be helped, and in my case my hatred for
capitalism leaves it desirable to hasten capitalisms destruction
as soon as possible. I don't intend to say I find something
morally objectionable when we are running around at the critical
moment attempting to stop whatever forces of reaction a
increasingly desperate capitalism can throw at us.
Now we come to the section on "illegal" activity. Since this is
supposed to be a international organisation, we cannot issue
blanket declarations on how to react to the law. The laws across
the globe vary to a huge degree, and I fear that we may actually
be attempting to impose a "western" model on those groups who may
emerge in other parts of the world with a wildly differing
cultural and legal background. For example, we have dealt with the
issue of political oppression in some countries that might make it
a greater challenge to organise a workers party. However it does
seem that "the right thing" in the Treatment of Relevant
Principles is the right thing because its been achieved and
struggled for in the west, where as "the right thing" for a
workers party that's emerging in, say, Syria or Egypt will be
radically different and may infringe on whatever moral creed this
document seems to be trying to address. We must not forget to use
a scientific approach when dealing with our fellow workers across
the world, culture shock is more prevalent than some might think.
The law has never been an issue of morality, there is no concrete
tie linking morality and the passing of laws, except for whatever
palpable economic motives the ruling classes dress up in a moral
guise.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 12:33 pm Post subject: Treatment of
Relevant Principles
Hi, Dan,
Welcome back to the Forum!
I am actually, as of this writing, officially requesting of Mike
that he permanently remove from Internet publication the document
entitled "Treatment of Relevant Principles."
I had quickly composed and posted that document partially in
response to some of your early criticisms of the
anti-violence/anti-illegal activity clauses in the draft Charter.
I did this because I found resonance in some of your remarks, and
I felt those topics did deserve longer and more nuanced treatment
than I gave them in the Charter document.
However, your newest remarks confirm for me that these topics can
be complex indeed, deserving of much dialectical discussion, and
interior reflection, and thus my existing treatment may well be
shallow, incomplete, or misleading, in one direction or another.
Accordingly, as an immature document, especially given the
importance of the subject matter, I'm no longer comfortable with
its publication.
On the topic itself, I would like, for now, to officially declare
my strong disagreement with this statement:
"If...in the course of revolution violence is a viable option to
attain a goal, I have little problem with it as long as it does
not compromise our principles."
Depending on what was at stake, I might have agreed with the
following variation of your remark, had you written it:
"If...in the course of revolution violence is the only viable
option to attain a goal, I have little problem with it as long as
it does not compromise our principles."
I also disagree, provisionally in this case, with this statement
regarding the capitalist class:
"We should strive to injure them..."
Sincerely,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 02:22 pm Post subject:
This forum software provides for "categories" composed of
"topics." Opinions wanted -- would the people like me to turn this
topic into a category, so that we can continue with separate
discussion threads for "name of the organization", "charter of the
organization", etc., etc., with a 'new topic' button?
--
Vince: TRP document removed.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 03:02 pm Post subject:
davesearles wrote:
So the IDF is not to be an organization directly advocating
socialism to the workers? Is that's the idea - no thanks. What do
thers think about Vince's statement here. If the goal is to
organize, affiliate - (why not call them associates, like at
Walmart or otherwise see if you can get people who are DeLeonists
under the same heading - as opposed to educating workers - forget
it. I want no part of it. Let me know soon, so I can bail and not
have my name associated with this.
You seem to be worrying that there will be restrictions or
can't-do rules. Of course it's encouraged to educate workers about
socialism, as directly as anyone can. The group might eventually
want to publish literature or have public speakers or anything
else that people might think of. What you're missing is the
picture of the current step in the organization process. If you
wanted to start an astronomy club, and you knew a bunch of
unaffiliated astronomy fans, you might begin by contacting them
with a proposal. Using the name as a verb for a moment, this is
the _activity_ of idf. Maybe it will be a month later that the
group thinks of ways to reach the working class, but at this
moment we are beginning with the _process_ of idf. If a growing
group later decides to change around whatever we have begun with,
more power to them.
I endorse Vince's motion to use of a word other than "members" --
either affiliates or associates would satisfy me -- because the
word "members" now carries a connotation in working class history
that a group might be placing a long list of theoretical demands
on its members. Remember all the times that the words 'dogmatic'
and 'sectarian' have been hurled at us? We want to find possible
bumps and smoothen them out so that we won't have to go around
them later.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 03:31 pm Post subject:
davesearles wrote:
DeLeon founded the SLP as we knew it. An electoral political
organization. If we call ourselves DeLeonist does that mean that
we favor the creation electoral political organizations?
There are a number of takes on this. I myself prefer the version
where the SIU eventually enters electoral politics, not
necessarily endorsing any of the parties that previously supported
building the SIU.
davesearles wrote:
DeLeon virtually ignored racial discrimination, especially that
discrimination let loose by Plessy v. Ferguson. True to form, the
SLP ignored racial discrimination and virtually all civil rights
movements rights into the seventies. That was their impression of
DeLeonism, and apparently, it was well supported.
I'll go even further, and say that some of the things De Leon said
were racist, as Marx was primarily anti-Semitic. If this is the
concern, that using [person's name]+"ism" generates the impression
that we agree with everything that he or she said or did, I think
that's a valid concern. But I think it's somehting that we should
make a point to debate when he grow to about fifty members, and
not at this embryonic stage.
davesearles wrote:
Mike I know that you personally are an advocate of the SIU - I've
known you a long time and I would kick you in the butt if you
didn't - however - I do not know these other people is that what
they advocate up front and on top? How so?
We might argue about the "finer" theoretical points, like the true
meaning of "dictatorship of the proletariat", or whether socialism
should distribute wealth for free or by means of labor time
vouchers, but it looks like everyone here is in sync with the real
fundamentals of SIUism. Caveat: I'm not sure if we all have the
same view of the issue of industrial unionism versus craft
unionism. I don't remember having discussed it yet.
davesearles wrote:
In plain English - FUCK NUANCE
If we don't know what strategy will eventually make the difference
and awaken the slumbering working class, and there might be some
chaotic [in the mathematical sense] factors at work, don't we need
ALL possible approaches simultaneously? We need writers who use
nuance as well as writers who don't. We need to inject socialism
into everything from art to science. We need to scatter every
possible kind of seed. However, the one area where a limiting
decision has to be made is in the naming of an organization. I
repeat: Let's wait and see, after we have a group of thirty or
fifty, maybe the group will change the name later.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 03:56 pm Post subject:
Magoo wrote:
I think it would be better if somebody aside from myself contacted
those US contacts who did not have an e-mail address, since it is
rather awkward for me to get post from here to America, probably a
bit expensive too. Then again I will do it if I have to.
I will volunteer to print and mail something, but I suggest we
continue to work on producing one concise statement that says what
we're doing.
I'm personally very tardy in responding point-by-point to the any
individual line items in Vince's documents.
Is the Charter as it now stands to be used somewhat as a
newsletter to be printed and sent to anyone in an envelope?
Don't we instead need something that says, "We'd like to tell you
what we're trying to do, and invite you to collaborate with
us...."
Do you already have a format that you prefer? -- otherwise I will
be spontaneous.
This concerns me: It's going to be an organizational nuisance,
both time consuming and expensive, if we have people who don't
have computers to be contacted for the purpose of voting on
motions. If everyone were online, we already have polling software
to automate voting. Even this phpBB2 forum software has a built-in
feature for counting electronic votes. I think we have a
logistical problem deciding how to work with people who aren't
online.
Magoo wrote:
The NUP, or those De Leonists who write and publish the New
Unionist, have been contacted about the IDF. I'm awaiting a reply.
Your expenditure of time and effort is much appreciated.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 04:59 pm Post subject:
I earlier mentioned that this forum a polling (voting) feature. If
you want to see if you like it, look at THIS EXAMPLE - (click me)
However, we can't use this public area to vote on organizational
motions. If people want to use this feature, we can have a private
category where only people who have announced their decision to
affiliate would have access.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 09:59 pm Post subject: Various
Hullo,
1. Dan: it occurs to me that the New Unionist, being a De Leonist
newspaper, is supposed to cover the news, right? And what piece of
news would presumably be of greater relevance for such a paper
than an effort to establish a new De Leonist group, right?
Especially given that the NUP is now gone. What I'm driving at is,
I recommend you contact the NUP again, and explicitly ask them to
do a piece, or at least run a substantial blurb, on the fledgling
IDF.
2. Dan: if you are to be the GA, things would be much more
streamlined and consistent if you handled all inbound and outbound
correspondence, regardless of its intended source or destination,
America or elsewhere, even if that means we send you some money to
do it.
3. Regarding creating separate categories in the Forum: I vote no.
4. Mike wrote:
"If we don't know what strategy will eventually make the
difference and awaken the slumbering working class, and there
might be some chaotic [in the mathematical sense] factors at work,
don't we need ALL possible approaches simultaneously? We need
writers who use nuance as well as writers who don't. We need to
inject socialism into everything from art to science. We need to
scatter every possible kind of seed."
Amen, brother!
I Remain,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 08 Feb 2005 10:15 pm Post subject:
Vince wrote:
I am NOT a commie--not in the stereotypical, misunderstood way
most people think about that word, anyway. This is important
because it gets to the heart of how socialist literature and
outreach materials might be written--sixth grade vocabulary and
phrasing, non-threatening language, and essentially void of
historically loaded, threatening, turn-off words like socialist,
socialism, etc.
Mike quoted Dave:
So the IDF is not to be an organization directly advocating
socialism to the workers? Is that's the idea - no thanks. What do
others think about Vince's statement here. If the goal is to
organize, affiliate - (why not call them associates, like at
Walmart) or otherwise see if you can get people who are DeLeonists
under the same heading - as opposed to educating workers - forget
it. I want no part of it. Let me know soon, so I can bail and not
have my name associated with this.
Mike then stated:
You seem to be worrying that there will be restrictions or
can't-do rules. Of course it's encouraged to educate workers about
socialism, as directly as anyone can. The group might eventually
want to publish literature or have public speakers or anything
else that people might think of. What you're missing is the
picture of the current step in the organization process. If you
wanted to start an astronomy club, and you knew a bunch of
unaffiliated astronomy fans, you might begin by contacting them
with a proposal. Using the name as a verb for a moment, this is
the _activity_ of idf.
DAVE RESPONDS:
It is very important TO ME - that any group that I affiliate with
have it stated as it's primary goal - advocating the SIU to
workers. If in that context we say - "Hey, just for the heck of
it, lets turn over a few stones and see if we can find some people
who might already agree with us - fine. I don't care what stone
you look under.
It's not sufficient for me that the affiliation not restrict
affiliates from propaganda to the workers. If propaganda about the
SIU is not the upfront stated primary objective of the affiliation
- no thanks. Not that the rest of you should not go on your way to
wherever else. I just don't want to go there with you.
Under no circumstances will I affiliate with a group to any degree
that even issues one pamphlet or tract where "historically loaded,
threatening, turn-off words like socialist, socialism, etc." are
kept out, but rather the author attempts to "nuance" the subject
rather than to communicate forthrightly about it. We want workers
to possibly put their lives on the line to build the Socialist
Republic but we can't even respect them enough to be up front from
the very start about it? You've been studying the Amway manual too
long Vince. I have absolutely no respect for any person who has
invited me or my wife out to lunch out of the blue "to discuss
something important" - but then surprise, it's Amaway! Is that
what you mean by "marketing" and "nuance"?
VINCE WROTE:
And respectfully: you might try to moderate your remarks a bit, in
general. For example, most recently, asserting I don't have "the
nerve" to openly make the case for revolution is a rather bold
statement. I respectfully submit that prior to making remarks
readable as insulting, you really know of what you speak. For
example, in this case, did you read all my documents posted here
at this site? All my posts? Did you read through all my Message of
Hope material? Did you acquaint yourself with my background and
history in this movement? If not, you might adopt a more qualified
or measured tone in what you assert or imply.
DAVE REPLIES:
Vince, I was critical of what I saw in front of me and upon what I
saw I judged you. If in the future I see something else in front
of me from you, at that point I may judge you differently.
I definitely will not read anything under the title of "Message of
Hope." I don't read anything from the Jehovah's Witnesses either
so don't take offense.
I am not interested in your "marketing" conceptions for the
packaging of propaganda material. If that's how you like to
operate and you don't want my from the hip crude analysis then
don't press them in a forum where I have the ability to comment.
Dave to all:
I know that my style and tone are quite abrasive, or can be
interpreted as such - WYSIWYG with me all the way. I truly don't
want to stand in the way. If enough of you write privately (or
publicly) to Mike and say "Yank this SOB." I will gladly accept
the verdict. Mike knows me long enough to know that it won't
affect our friendship one iota.
All power to the SIU!
Dave
P.S.
In a prior post Mike brought up the aphorism - the organization
and the principal are one. The Party pushed that every time it
wanted to take someone out, therefore I assume that it may be a
part of DeLeonism. What does it mean?
Also we know that the SIU concept is a part of DeLeonism. What
else is? Can anyone list the components, integral or not, of the
parts of DeLeonism. I really wonder just what it is we are
endorsing to identify ourselves as DeLeonists under the banner of
the proposed affiliation.
DeLeon and the lack of any reference to Plessy v. Ferguson in
1892. Remember DeLeon was a lecturer in constitutional law at
Columbia. In 20 years of his lfe di he every take the opportunity
to write Plessy v. Fergusoon as decided was bad for the working
class? Is ignoring the plight of humanity around you part of
DeLeonism?
Who decides what is DeLeonism and what is not, and when do they
decide it. To me I see the SIU concept. I don't care who developed
it, if it was Daniel DeLeon or Daniel in the Lion's Den - I would
say that it's a damned fine piece of work. If there was some
reason to identify wit with the first person who thought of it -
like as Mike pointed out - to the Copernican or Ptolemaic systems
or the theories of Newton and Einstein - no problem. If you want
to refer to the system advocated by DeLeon - no problem. DeLeonist
apparach to the reorganization of society - no problem. Simply
DeLeonist or DeLeonism. I would say problem because I don't know
what that is.
This appears to be contradictory (and maybe it is) to my opinion
on the use of the terms Marxist or Marxism.
RE: KEEPING "INDUSTRIAL"
Through craft unionism the watchdogs of the capitalist class keep
the treasure a secret for their private gain. By openly
proclaiming the treasure, industrialism renders it public
property. The consequences that flow here from mark the turning
down of an old and the turning up of a new leaf. That leaf is
inscribed "political unity."
.
The Central administrative organ of the Socialist Republic
-exactly the opposite of the central power of capitalism, not
being the organized power of a ruling class for oppression, in
short, not being political, but exclusively administrative of the
producing forces of the land - its constituent bodies must be
exclusively industrial.
Big Dan in Socialist Reconstruction of Society
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 12:00 am Post subject:
I just wrote an opinion -- Click on:
http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=6
Please criticize.
Before I act, please warn me if you think it would be
inappropriate for me to say these words in an email to the SLP
National Secretary or to other people.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 12:50 am Post subject: Reply to Dave
Hello, Dave,
1. >>>It is very important TO ME - that any group that I affiliate
with have it stated as it's primary goal - advocating the SIU to
workers
Bear in mind that the IDF will essentially consist of a group of
independent individuals and other groups, each of whom will have,
as their goal, advocating the SIU to workers. So as a practical
matter I don't see a problem at all; the IDF will, in effect, be
doing such appeal, advocacy, and education.
In fact, the Charter makes explicit the initial sense that the IDF
should be, above all, an educational organization (again,
Dave--are you reading the documents?).
Additionally, however, I see no reason why we can't build in as an
officially stated parallel or subsidiary goal that in addition to
bringing together De Leonist groups for collaboration, the IDF
also has as a goal a direct appeal to workers. Of course, to do
this, one or more affiliate persons or groups will have to decide
to work together on it.
2. Amway? Geez.
You seem to have a problem with the word "marketing," so let me
present it differently: the idea is simply to present socialism in
a manner which increases the chance the greatest number of people
will genuinely consider the idea, and decreases the chance they'll
dismiss it without consideration. Such a task requires thought,
and some informed knowledge or at least speculation about certain
key aspects or characteristics of your target group, such as level
of education, intelligence, social background, income, life
experience, etc.
I would think if the Amway rep was ethical they would bring you to
dinner with some a priori indication to you that the general topic
was to be a better way to clean your home. Then, once at dinner,
they would cleverly and shrewdly introduce you to their
super-duper cleaning solution, in a way which, while truthful, you
could understand and relate to, without scaring you off. If they
knew you hated distillates, for example, they might take pains to
reassure you that their product did not contain them. This sort of
thing is what I mean by "marketing."
. . .
Sigh. Ok, now this is really getting troubling. To wit:
>>>Vince, I was critical of what I saw in front of me and upon
what I saw I judged you. If in the future I see something else in
front of me from you, at that point I may judge you differently.
If you want to work with other human beings, you really can't take
this sort of approach. I repeat, rather than go insulting people,
take some time to acquaint yourself with their larger body of
work. That way you can reality test what you think they mean by a
certain word, statement. or concept. It's not my responsibility to
spoon-feed you more of my material, to make absolutely certain
that you don't misunderstand what I write. And I'll add that in
some quarters I'm considered a reasonable writer so my material is
usually fairly self-explanatory in the first place--if one bothers
to read it.
Not ONCE, Dave, have you begun a criticism or attack by saying
something like "I read in the Charter that...but I still don't get
why..."
>>>I definitely will not read anything under the title of "Message
of Hope." I don't read anything from the Jehovah's Witnesses
either so don't take offense.
I'm not offended; I just consider this view unfortunate (you
haven't seemed to carefully read the IDF documents; you decide a
priori you won't read Message of Hope...what do you have against
reading?).
You seem to be making an assumption of some sort about the meaning
of the content of my website. This is especially perplexing since
I've already indicated the topic at that site is socialism. The
"message of hope" is: we can all live much better lives, and end
most extraneous suffering, if we trash capitalism and adopt
socialism. It has nothing to do with religion. Is this the sort of
thing you would "not read"?
But you'd have no idea what the content of that site was, if you
were making assumptions all over the place, as you appear to be
doing. It's a respect issue, too. Have the respect for a comrade,
or any human being for that matter, to look at their work before
judging, categorizing, or discounting it.
This is not an issue of me being offended, but of your own
information gathering habits, especially as they intersect with
efforts to work harmoniously with others. Insofar as your, or
mine, or anyone's information gathering habits are poor, the
movement is poorly served.
>>>If enough of you write privately (or publicly) to Mike and say
"Yank this SOB." I will gladly accept the verdict.
Dave, my friend, this is your most troubling remark of all. It's
almost like you're trying to be abrasive and confrontational, and
you want to be ostracized and removed from the group. You're
apparently inviting it.
How sad, how confusing--how counterproductive.
Here's a not-unrelated, and not-unimportant question: how will
socialism itself ever work if this kind of interpersonal posture
is widespread among the citizenry?
Socialism is supposed to be a social order characterized, among
other things, by the most evolved levels of social harmony and
cooperation ever known, is it not? This is not going to happen by
magic. It is going to require, I daresay, at least in some
substantive measure, a deliberate effort by people.
I mean, Dave, I don't even know you, but I've been pleased you're
here...yet you come blasting through the Forum, questioning things
in a kind of abrasive (your word), cantankerous, and/or facetious
manner, instead of doing so with a measure of decorum and respect
for the effort here and the people attempting to make that effort.
And worse, one gets the impression you're making these criticisms
without even having carefully read the documents!
You want to shoot from the hip--fine--but at least know what
you're shooting at!
There's a million other things I could be doing with my life; much
more profitable things, that would probably make me much happier
in practical terms--yet I choose to pour large amounts of my time
into the social question. I don't have "the nerve" to openly
advocate socialist revolution? That's exactly what I've been doing
since 1984, my friend. Even when the technique is nuanced, the
message still comes through--it's still "open." And Message of
Hope, my musical project, which--knowing nothing about it--you
refuse to examine because you liken it to Jehovah's Witnesses, has
as its goal the same thing.
You don't even know me, yet you see fit to insinuate and insult,
or come darn close to it, more than once. Then, you cap the whole
thing off by saying, essentially, "Yeah, that's how I am, and if
you don't like it you can throw me out and that will be fine with
me!"
Well, I got news for ya buddy--I for one will not ask you to
leave. This movement needs every able-bodied and able-minded
person we can get. But I do recommend you take what I would
casually call a more courteous, comradely approach. If you don't,
I'll still work with you; it'll just be less pleasant, and
probably less productive.
Also, let me officially state I will no longer expend (read:
waste) time addressing questions that seem clearly rooted in the
failure to read the documents.
And if you and Mike are such longstanding friends, perhaps he
should weigh in, in good faith, on these behavioral issues.
By the way, I've known Mike many years, also, albeit casually.
Perplexed,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Last edited by PowerKord on 09 Feb 2005 03:41 am; edited 1 time in
total
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 02:29 am Post subject:
Dave, I need you to be real specific, because I don't know what
you mean by "an organization directly advocating socialism to the
workers."
Do you mean intervention into workplace activities? Do you mean
that you would asociate yourself with a group that produces it own
literature, with its own name and address on the top, but you
wouldn't associate yourself with a group that repackages
anthologies of the literature of others? Do you mean that the
group should ratify a detailed written Declaration of Principles
that public speakers can point to? What exactly do you want the
group to do, of which you are apprehensive that it might not do?
Let me give you an example to try to clarify how I envision it.
There's a group of folks like us in New Jersey who don't quite see
eye-to-eye with a group of folks like us in Minneapolis, when it
comes to some of the secondary and theoretical issues. Maybe it
would help you to try visualizing an SLP in which the local
sections are more independent than what we have been used to, and
where the local sections (or virtual cyberspace sections) can , if
they choose, call themselves by different names, start their own
periodicals without anyone else's permission, and describe things
a bit differently, without pressure to conform to a unanimity with
all other local sections. This does NOT in any way imply that the
larger organization or any of its sections is "not to be an
organization directly advocating socialism to the workers."
You pointed out that you didn't agree with certain kinds of
phrases or modes of communication that Vince prefers. So, then,
don't join the section that he's in. Choose to join a different
section instead, or start your own section, or be a section of
one. But, regardless, it's the same working class, so it's the
same top-level umbrella organization.
Do you get the idea now?
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 03:06 am Post subject:
I will just now begin to opine about some of the statements in the
Draft of Charter document.
"IDF decisionmaking is democratic. However, voting cannot be
one-person, one-vote, because then organizations with the most
members will yield unreasonable power over smaller entities. A
preliminary suggested voting distribution, then, is one-entity,
one-vote, such that each group, organization, and individual, gets
one vote."
For overall idf matters (non-local matters), I would prefer a
regular system of one-person one-vote. We can say that a group of
500 people gets one vote, while a single bum like myself also gets
one vote. That's no good, as it would punish people for being in
organizations.
I don't think it's a problem that "organizations with the most
members will yield unreasonable power over smaller entities." I
suggest that it would be better if we aim for persuading the
particular groups to convey to their making individual members the
message that we are, and of the option of dual membership. I don't
anticipate any groups "raiding" this one.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 03:16 am Post subject:
Charter document, list item beginning with "3. There has been a
pernicious and undeniable undercurrent ............." -- I
strongly favor removal of this entire list item.
First of all, this is counter to the goal of promoting a greater
open-mindedness to unification. It's more of the feuding that has
been the very problem.
Secondly, isn't the charter supposed to be a concise
who-we-are-and-what-we-want-to-do document? Feel free to move this
kind of statement to a new viewpoint article which gives your
supporting arguments, but I think it's argumentation doesn't fit
well in a document called "charter."
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 03:47 am Post subject: Re: Reply to Dave
PowerKord wrote:
And if you and Mike are such longstanding friends, perhaps he
should weigh in, in good faith, on these behavioral issues.
I think Dave and Vince, and more than 99 percent of the human
race, and just about everyone else except for me (because I don't
need it because I practice Zen Buddhist meditation :-) should
learn how to prevent other people from yanking their chains and
pushing your buttons.
What I said a few days ago in another forum when some other people
started doing this sort of thing ...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/message/4776
If we need another discussion topic about how we can all play
together nicely in the sandbox, I will start one. But this topic
that we're in now is for saving the world for our offspring.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 03:52 am Post subject:
Charter document: I suggest removal of the "Conception" and
"Founders" parts. It's an unimportant anecdote that this thing
came about due to two guys talking on the phone.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 04:09 am Post subject: To Mike
Hi,
1. Mike, your new statement is great! Touche'! Send to the
SLP...why not?
2. Removal of Conception section of Charter--disagree; most of
that section is substantive. Only portion which seems extraneous
is the first paragraph.
3. Removal of "Founders" section--for myself, disagree. I'm proud
to have founded this project, and I'd like to be noted for it.
There's more to this sort of issue than vanity, by the way.
There's a substantive theoretical question I've written on
previously, regarding "incentive theory" in a socialist society.
If money is no longer the motivator--what is?
I've set forth a list of motivating elements, and pride of, and
satisfaction in, creation, is an important one.
Yours,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 07:24 am Post subject: Further Reply to
Dave re Nature of IDF
Yello,
>>>So the IDF is not to be an organization directly advocating
socialism to the workers?
I would say the organization can be just about anything the
organization wants to be, providing there are affiliates willing
to do it. From the newest Charter update, describing the IDF:
"Should, for now, actually consist in many individualized units
(individuals and/or groups) working to the same goal, but in an
independent manner. Of course, since each unit is independent and
self-directed, they can choose to affiliate and combine with other
units for any purpose or any project, in any manner, for any
period of time."
...and...
"The IDF is decentralized, and possesses no central governing
structure; thus, it can expand or contract easily and dynamically
as interest in De Leonism grows or wanes, and change shape just as
readily as different affiliates choose to combine or collaborate
at this or that time, for this or that project or purpose."
>>>I think we have a logistical problem deciding how to work with
people who aren't online.
That's why the IDF should not be just an online organization. I
recommend having a corresponding print publication of some sort.
Many people, especially older De Leonists who have been in the
movement for years, are commonly NOT online, nor is it likely they
will be.
Hope this helps.
Me Again,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 07:39 am Post subject: Notice Regarding
Review of IDF Documents
Hi,
For those just beginning to analyze or carefully review the
existing IDF documents, please note that I have sent Mike a slew
of changes over the past 24 hours, some based on remarks already
posted here by various persons.
Before further review, I suggest waiting at least until Mike has
all the updates posted. It is 2:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Wednesday morning, February 09, here in the U.S.; I just sent Mike
what I believe are the last of the modified documents.
Mike: please apprise everyone when everything is live.
And again, for all, please note that updated documents still
fundamentally represent draft versions.
Thanks to all.
Sincerely,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 08:10 am Post subject: Apology to Dave
Dear Dave,
This message does not refer to my Wednesday, February 09, post
entitled "Reply to Dave." I feel that post, and all its content,
was warranted, based on some of your recent online remarks and
behavior, which have been discourteous.
However, prior to that post, if I'd done anything to antagonize
you, it was inadvertent, and I apologize.
Sincerely,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 09:08 am Post subject:
Dear all
I vote "yes" for seperate catagories discussing the name of the
organisation, certain aspects of the documents etc, since every
time I come online there is a massive amount of reading to do, and
it would simply be easier if we could tackle one subject at a
time.
I liked the new document, it will be interesting to hear what the
SLP thinks. Have you sent it? I would have thought I would send it
in my capacity as GA. If its easier I will handle all the mail
myself, even stuff heading to the US or somwhere else, thats what
Im here for.
I really dont think it matters if we use the word socialism or
not, although we may have to since the english language is limited
after all. Then again if the capitalist class is going to rubbish
us with false properganda, as they have done many times, there is
really little we can do about it so we might just go ahead and use
the word "socialism" anyway. I notice the New Unionist manages to
churn out pretty decent articles without going too far into
marxist jargon. Jargon is a no go area for a lot of people.
Regards
Dan Read
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 09 Feb 2005 10:31 pm Post subject:
Magoo wrote:
I vote "yes" for seperate catagories discussing the name of the
organisation, certain aspects of the documents etc, since every
time I come online there is a massive amount of reading to do, and
it would simply be easier if we could tackle one subject at a
time.
Then that is what, in parliamentary procedure, is called "2
against 1" :-) ... assuming that Dave Searles can't vote because
he hasn't explicitly announced his decision to affiliate ... so
the tentative plan is for me to create a new forum category which
supports numerous topics.
Magoo wrote:
I liked the new document, it will be interesting to hear what the
SLP thinks. Have you sent it? I would have thought I would send it
in my capacity as GA. If its easier I will handle all the mail
myself, even stuff heading to the US or somwhere else, thats what
Im here for.
I have not sent it. You may feel free to handle it however you
choose.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 10 Feb 2005 12:13 am Post subject: My Contribution
Greetings, All,
As I have stated intermittently, I do not ultimately see my
present role in this movement as that of organization-builder. I
have done significant party work over the years, but for some time
now I have been intensely interested in furthering my
political/musical project Message of Hope (which itself promotes
De Leonist socialism).
Additionally, I want to move further in the book I am writing on
Agape. And last, I'm afraid my horrific financial condition
requires immediate attention, as well.
Accordingly, then, please note that until further notice, my
contributions to the IDF project, and this forum, will be more
sporadic.
I will remain available for telephone (or secondarily, email)
consultation about any aspect of the project. On questions of
particular importance, such consultation is encouraged.
Persons wishing my telephone number should email me, requesting
it.
I commend us all for our work in what may well be a political
project of seminal importance.
Yours in Socialism,
vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Last edited by PowerKord on 10 Feb 2005 05:59 am; edited 1 time in
total
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 10 Feb 2005 07:14 am Post subject:
I MOVED THE LAST 6 POSTS TO A SEPARATE TOPIC CALLED:
"Charter Document -- Debate the Contents"
http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 10 Feb 2005 07:38 am Post subject: Re: Further Reply
to Dave re Nature of IDF
PowerKord wrote:
mikelepore wrote:
I think we have a logistical problem deciding how to work with
people who aren't online.
That's why the IDF should not be just an online organization. I
recommend having a corresponding print publication of some sort.
Many people, especially older De Leonists who have been in the
movement for years, are commonly NOT online, nor is it likely they
will be.
You are right!
Idea: If the IDF supports groups within groups within groups
within groups, maybe we can have the online club within the IDF of
those who are online.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 10 Feb 2005 07:42 am Post subject: In Person Drafting
Meeting Required
Post moved to forum area "Charter Document - Debate the Contents."
Post argues that draft process to compose charter cannot be
properly accomplished remotely (ie via the Internet), but requires
face-to-face discussion and dialogue, and proposes same.
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Last edited by PowerKord on 11 Feb 2005 10:42 pm; edited 3 times
in total
Guest
Posted: 10 Feb 2005 12:40 pm Post subject:
Dear all
Am I appearing as a "guest"? I cant think why that is, anyway you
all know its me so its not a problem.
You want to meet face to face? That could be an obstacle, my cash
flow status is currently whatever the great and wonderful welfare
state can send my way. The Queen upon her golden throne, when she
can find the time to drag herself away from dinner parties and
having homeless peoples hurled from the palace gates, has decreed
that 44 is enough for an unemployed fellow such as me to live on
for a week. How kind.
But perhaps when I do find work, since Im moving from Portsmouth
in a few months to live with my wife-to-be, and there generaly is
more work in the area Im moving into, I might be able to start
thinking about making an appearance in the US, if it would prove
productive.
For now though, I think its a good idea to maintain this level of
debate on the net.
I will hold off contating the SLP with your document, Mike, till
we have perhaps hammered out our position to a more acceptable
degree to all concerned. While it seems we can expect the NUP and
the RUSS to be interested in what we have planned, if there is to
be any hostile gazes drawn, it will probably be from the SLP.
Regards
Dan Read
Lillia (Frantin)
Guest
Posted: 12 Feb 2005 07:40 pm Post subject: Responding to the
previous posts
To begin, I am so very happy to have become introduced to this
(new) effort. I was the child of an SLP/
South Slovenian branch member and so
a "baby socialist" raised & reared in DeLeonism, the IUP,
listening to Eric Haas,etc-aswell as McCarthyism. Along with
friends & family members (one, a 50year active member, my
step-father)our branch was'expelled'
from the SLP in the midst of our successful & innovative
agitational activities-including phone message tapes & my
brother-in-laws congress- ional run...by the NO/NateKarp.
Undeterred,my husband & I & the others are proudly a part,now, of
the NU and PFANS(People for A New System).PFANS (kept going
primarily by W.Petrovich)has contributed what we believe is an
important, but overlooked part of a future vision of a democratic
socialist governance (an updated SIU if you will)& that includes
the Community as the other essential element of human society&
experience.
With this "bi-cameral"representation model, all needs,views &
people become "voting" participants so all,not just "industrial
workers" at their "work site", are fundamentally considered &
involved.(I invite you to go to
http://www.hwforums.com/2141 and
http://peoplefor.blogspot.com.
Your comments are truly wonderful to read... I will only respond
to one at this point:For me,"autonomous membership" in the
proposed federa-tion'is critical,in view of past
(SLP,etc)experience.
At this point in history,agreement on DeLeonism & SIU principles
are absolutely required (with all they imply)but'creative energy &
spontan-eity'within those boundaries is also essential, & trust is
part of that.. I was moved by Vince's sentiments of regarding
love(caring,sensitivity to others,etc) as being at the core of our
values yet too often not practic -ed "on the left"(nor elsewhere
goes without saying).. & deeply agree.I look forward to more
correspondence & wish our movement great success.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 13 Feb 2005 12:11 am Post subject: Re: Responding to
the previous posts
Lillia (Frantin) wrote:
what we believe is an important, but overlooked part of a future
vision of a democratic socialist governance (an updated SIU if you
will)& that includes the Community as the other essential element
of human society&
experience.
To Lillia: ... I was quite impressed when your group developed and
announced that theory. It's great when we retain some old and
basic principles but also have the courage (and freedom from
fanaticism) to continue to work to better adapting those
principles to modern times. I look forward to further learning and
discussion about this!
Your group's diagram depicting "workplace council" and "local
community needs council" can also be found in the centerfold of
the Discussion Bulletin #106 March-April 2001.
If you choose to affiliate yourself with our embryo of a De
Leonist federation, please leave a message to that effect. Then,
when we collectively choose what to do, you can vote with us. I
believe that within just a few days, or hopefully no later than
next week (?), we may write and ratify a very brief statement of
our purpose.
We encourage dual membership or multiple membership, so be assured
that PFANS will retain all of its current independence.
We previously elected Dan Read, forum nickname Magoo, to represent
us as a general administrator.
I welcome you to our forum!!
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 21 Feb 2005 03:06 am Post subject: Greetings to Lillia
/ Importance of Love Ethic
Dear Lillia,
Welcome to our little corner of the world!
I've seen your name over the years (perhaps via the N.U.P.), but
never had the pleasure of meeting you!
You wrote:
"I was moved by Vince's sentiments of regarding
love(caring,sensitivity to others,etc) as being at the core of our
values yet too often not practic -ed "on the left"(nor elsewhere
goes without saying).. & deeply agree."
I'm so pleased to hear this. The "love ethic," which should be
part of the center of our universe, is wholly undervalued in this
movement.
I have just gone "live" with an online document entitled:
"I'm a Socialist Revolutionary...WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?
Socialist Society, the Socialist Movement, and the Love Ethic."
This document is located here:
http://loveethic.org/for_revolutionaries.html
At the end of the document is a link to one of my two web sites,
LoveEthic.org.
Lillia, I'm interested in seeing the diagram depicting the revised
SIU structure you advocate. Can I find it on the Internet?
In closing, Lillia: I encourage you to officially declare yourself
an affiliate of the IDF. You can do that right here in this Forum
area, or preferably, by time you read this Mike may have created a
dedicated forum area for that purpose.
Warmly,
vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Guest
Posted: 21 Feb 2005 07:32 pm Post subject:
For the record - I wish to disassociate myself from the
sentimentalist goop dripping from the 2/21/05 3:06 a.m. post of
Vince de Benedeto.
I think Vince is taking advantage of the forum to push
spirituality instead of socialism.
On the website that he links to, he states:
"Some of the shabbiest treatment this writer has personally
received over the years has come from socialists--persons presumed
to possess something of an elevated moral sensibility."
That's the problem with this spirituality stuff - despite it's
aspersions to the contrary it's always used to criticize others.
He or she did this or that to me becuase he or she didn't have the
same appreciation for brotherly love that I do. Waaaaaaaaaaa!
Waaaaaaaaa!
Vince pushes "agape" (or brotherly love as he terms it) I push
anti-assholism. If people weren't such assholes blah blah blah. It
get's me just as far as Vince - but I don't claim any heightened
consciousness as Vince does.
Dave Searles
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 22 Feb 2005 05:38 am Post subject:
It's okay but not really necessary for you to specify, "For the
record - I wish to disassociate myself from ...." Perhaps you're
too accustomed to another tradition where everyone is assumed to
agree with every remark in the "official organ"
I don't know how others here envision that IDF mission. I'd like
to see a strructure that easily provides for differences of
opinion by incorporating any kinds of committees or subcommittees
that come together according to their own volition. The more
people disagree on certain things, the stronger the federation
concept! Perhaps Vince will work on an agape project, and you
won't. This is exactly the kind of test case we will need as an
initial experiment as we develop our our new cellular network
structure, with independence and federation at the same time.
Lillia's group (I emailed her about this) is interested in
associating themselves in a way that preserves their identity as
the group with a particular viewpoint about participatory
communities in a classless society, the role of local demeocracy.
This is another example to test whether we can be strong enough to
form a network structure. I'm confident that we can do it.
I don't think this is the time to settle these issues. This is the
time to talk about how to structure ourselves in a way that each
difference of viewpoint is a positive contribution to the whole.
We need to search for a type of organization where socialists who
believe in X and Y can cooperate with the socialists who believe
in X and Z when it comes to working together on X, without being
estranged from each other by the debate between Y versus Z.
We're accustomed to viewing disagreements as "disruptions." I
believe this tradition has to go right out the window. I feel that
disagreements are strengths, making us more complete.
Oh, if only the SLP and the IWW could have done this in 1908.
What a boo-boo they made.
The more people disagree about tactics or theory, the more they
need to seek ways to incorporate their enumerated disagreements
into a higher structure of unification.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 22 Feb 2005 12:40 pm Post subject:
Yes I see your point Mike. I don't know if it's so much viewing
different opinions as disruption or just a lifelong revulsion to
people who claim that they have a superior morality or
consciousness.
Yes people should have a right to express their opinions that
others may not share. e.g one poster talked about the need for
community as well as industrial democracy. Personally I can't see
that - HOWEVER - the poster has every right to that viewpoint
without being subjected to any brick bats from the rest of the
group.
The post that I reacted to, I perceived was of another nature.
I look at it this way (and indeed this may be ALL a problem of my
own perception) If Dave Searles were to stumble upon this website
and see a post such as the one that I reacted to - without seeing
someone going ballistic over it - I would conclude that this is a
site of religious assholes and never come back. And it doesn't
stop with religiosity or spirituality it also spills over into
theories about what is acceptable from a public relations and
marketing viewpoint. Read over the old posts and see how often
this guy repeatedly claims superior knowledge of practically
everything non-disprovable.
I heard Pat Robertson on the National Press Club the other day.
Pat Robertson is another who claims superior knowledge. The
religious right, including Robertson is always spouting against
"relativistic morality." I.E. the bible says not to steal.
Therefore stealing is always wrong. It would be wrong to go into a
store and steal something even if the storeowner had stolen
something from you, accordingly. So Robertson was asked about
whether torture was wrong and of course he came up with a
relativistic reply. -Well if you knew that the subject knew where
there was an atomic bomb planted - then torturing the person to
get the information is justified. There is always an excuse.
The term agape comes from ancient Greece. Gee, the concept really
helped the Greeks to become better people, didn't it. The Greeks
held slaves who were considered subhuman - and therefore not
eligible for the brotherly love treatment. Women were of the
status just one iota above slaves and not eligible for the
brotherly love treatment. Deformed infants were killed because
they violated the Greek ideal. Agape my ass.
Then we go to the other side. Are capitalists and workers
brothers? We advocate dispropriating the entire capitalist class
out of brotherhood?
I don't know how this is going to work out because I can't see
letting these posts going unanswered.
What do you suggest?
Fraternally,
Dave Searles
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 22 Feb 2005 03:25 pm Post subject:
"The term agape comes from ancient Greece. Gee, the concept really
helped the Greeks to become better people, didn't it. The Greeks
held slaves who were considered subhuman - and therefore not
eligible for the brotherly love treatment. Women were of the
status just one iota above slaves and not eligible for the
brotherly love treatment. Deformed infants were killed because
they violated the Greek ideal. Agape my ass. "
That does actualy make sense, calling it "brotherly" love works
wonders in excluding women, and "sub human" slaves from the
concept. If it was any other way they would have termed it
"universal love" or "community love" or somthing else.
I too am somwhat uncomfortable with this utopian concept since it
appears to be trying to force a "moral" change before the material
conditions for any change in such matters have been laid, or even
taking heed of such conditions. Why not remove brotherly love and
replace it with simple class solidarity? We are communists, and as
communists the class is what matters, not love for your "fellow
man" whoever he is.
Regards
Dan Read
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 22 Feb 2005 06:25 pm Post subject:
I wouldn't make too much of the fact that the ancient slave-owning
and male-supremacist Greeks were hypocrites about the philosophy
of love.
The ancient Athenians realized that love comes in more than one
type, so they set out to distinguish them with different names.
They used the word "agape" for humanistic love and "eros" for
sexual love.
That distinction is still valid, even if they were enslavers.
(By the way, Thomas Jefferson owned over 200 slaves at the moment
he wrote that "all men are created equal ... unalienable rights
... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...")
Whether or not there is anything to be gained by us actually using
a relatively rare word that is about 24 centuries old, that's
another question. But many socialists like to use the word
"plutocracy", which I would contend is rarer still, and much less
familiar, or less widely understood.
---
Dan
About "moral" change before the material conditions --
Isn't there a causal loop? A changed world brings about new ideas,
and new ideas can change the world.
How could we ever be sure about the intensity of the feedback
branch?
--
Dave,
I think your expression "people who claim that they have a
superior morality or consciousness" is unfair. Everyone in the act
of giving an opinion is saying what they think is right, while the
contrary opinion is held to be wrong. That's what it means to have
an opinion and to express it. It's always the other guy who
appears to feign superiority. It's always that when "I" give my
opinion that "I'm just saying what's on my mind" or "telling it
how i see it", while, when the other guy gives the contrary
opinion, the other guy is said to be "claiming infallability" or
"refusing to admit that he could ever be wrong." Haven't you even
noticed that? This is something that we can notice in others in an
instant, and never notice it in ourselves.
Your use of the phrase "religious assholes" is also unfair.
Religion may include a lot of things, but if someone was going to
borrow a few ideas from the history of religion, or hold an
occasional viewpoint that they may have in common with religion,
they could sure do a lot worse than to extract the concept of
love.
You want to see a claim for the revolutionary potential of the
idea of love? See the writings of the 26-year-old Marx:
"If we assume man to be man, and his relation to the world to be a
human one, then love can be exchanged only for love, trust for
trust, and so on. If you wish to enjoy art, you must be an
artistically educated person; if you wish to exercise influence on
other men, you must be the sort of person who has a truly
stimulating and encouraging effect on others. Each one of your
relations to man -- and to nature -- must be a particular
expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real
individual life. If you love unrequitedly -- i.e., if your love as
love does not call forth love in return, if, through the vital
expression of yourself as a loving person, you fail to become a
loved person -- then your love is impotent, it is a misfortune."
-- Marx, manuscripts of 1944, the ending paragraph of section 12
Then you write, "Are capitalists and workers brothers? We advocate
dispropriating the entire capitalist class out of brotherhood?"
What do you think Marx meant by "The condition for the
emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every
class...." ? (from 'The Poverty of Philosophy') It has been
pointed out by many people that socialists aren't socialists
because of anger toward or hatred for the rulers, but because a
world without unnecessary antagonism and conflict would be an
improved world.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 22 Feb 2005 09:00 pm Post subject:
davesearles wrote:
I don't know how this is going to work out because I can't see
letting these posts going unanswered. What do you suggest?
What do I suggest about what? What needs fixing? I guess if you
don't want a statement that you disagree with to go unanswered,
because a reader might assume that it reflects on you, then go
ahead and answer it. In that case, do we have any further problem
that still needs fixing? Would it be better if a moved those posts
to a new forum topic called "debate theory here"? What outcome
needs a new suggestion? Is philosophical agreement a desired
outcome? Would philosophical agreement be a desired outcome for
all of the working class of six billion people?
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 22 Feb 2005 09:23 pm Post subject:
"About "moral" change before the material conditions --
Isn't there a causal loop? A changed world brings about new ideas,
and new ideas can change the world.
How could we ever be sure about the intensity of the feedback
branch? "
Of course, but the concept of love is hardley new. What disturbs
me though is talk of socialism being linked to some form of
morality that can bring about change by us treating people better.
It wont. Class solidarity, and with that, the growing conclusion
amoung the class that it is a class to start with, will lead to
the extension of working class sentiment, and thus the taking of
power by the workers. I wont get anywhere by walking up to a bloke
down the local job center and informing him that I love him,
unless I want a broken nose, but I probably would by engaging him
in conversation about the sorry state me and him are in as we seek
a way to escape from poverty.
Regards
D R
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 22 Feb 2005 10:11 pm Post subject:
Dan, perhaps my experiences are atypical, almost entirely
involving users of computer networks of various kinds, but when
people ask me questions about building socialism, one of the most
frequent questions is whether the former capitalists, and
conservative workers who didn't join the socialist movment, are
going to be shot or whether they will merely be imprisoned. People
figure that it would have to one or the other. So instead of
asking a question about the abolition of poverty, or the meaning
of class solidarity, they want to know if they're going to be
rounded up and shot. If we have such a miserable and undeserved
reputation, and I think that we do, would it hurt us to see just a
little bit more association in the popular mind between
revolutionaries and preachers of compassion?
But I agree with your statement that the big change won't come
about by treating people better. If that stereotype is still
floating around, that has to attended to also.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 23 Feb 2005 08:55 pm Post subject:
Mike wrote:
"one of the most frequent questions is whether the former
capitalists, and conservative workers who didn't join the
socialist movment, are going to be shot or whether they will
merely be imprisoned. People figure that it would have to one or
the other. So instead of asking a question about the abolition of
poverty, or the meaning of class solidarity, they want to know if
they're going to be rounded up and shot. If we have such a
miserable and undeserved reputation, and I think that we do, would
it hurt us to see just a little bit more association in the
popular mind between revolutionaries and preachers of compassion?"
Dave replies:
Preachers?
I have never advocated that anyone be shot or locked up. I don't
know anyone who has. I believe that I am compassionate. (Doesn't
everyone think that they are compassionate?) If we are
compassionate it is becuase we should be compassionate regardless
of who thinks what. Preach that becuase of the contradictions of
capitalism, that it can not last and that if we want to survive we
have to be ready to take hold and operate the industries. We have
to do it or cizilization will end. Survival ethic.
Lincoln said in his 2nd Inaugural:
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each
invokes His aid against the other. "
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 24 Feb 2005 09:06 am Post subject:
A couple of thoughts ...
(1) Different socialists have different reasons for having become
socialists in the first place. Some because they especially
dislike militarism, some because they especially dislike air
pollution, some because they especially dislike economic
inefficiency, etc. If some people become socialists in the first
place because they think the world that we live in doesn't
practice enough love and compassion, I think that's another
perfectly valid reason. Any reason is a good one. So Vince making
a socialist web site about the subject of love is just as valid as
if he were to make a socialist web site that analyzes the problem
of air pollution or education underfunding or any other social
issue.
(2) It's not yet widely understood, but modern scientists believe
that social compassion is believed to has a biological basis. The
field of study is called sociobiology. The study has uncovered the
fact that cooperation within each species is as important as the
competition for "survival of the fittest" that occurs among
different species. Some chemical mechanisms in the human body that
are related to love have been discovered, for example, the
secretion of oxytocin in the human female as a trigger that
activates emotional bonding with a mate and a baby. It is possible
that our biology is also related to the worldwide cohesiveness
that we wish to develop in the working class. Therefore I would
conclude the organization of a subculture of the working class
around the concept of love, if it is found to be workable, which
can only be known by someone attempting it, should be recognized
(or "tolerated", if one happens to dislike it) as one of the
numerous valid forms of socialist agitation.
(3) Let's remember that Vince did NOT say that "all you need is
love" and then everything in society will be fixed. He clearly and
openly supports the SIU aprogram as absolutely necessary.
(4) I don't believe that the IDF should formally adopt Vince's
agape method, but I believe that the IDF should be an "umbrella
organization" (your term) that provides for various personal
favorite projects to to be networked together. Perhaps you will
soon think of starting a few favorite agitational projects of your
own, and then we'll have to say the same thing in your case, that
we don't all adopt all of the ideas or phrases that you use, but
we can see some kind of productive interface between what you like
and the rest of the movement.
Human beings are not like ants. Each individual is different.
Around that fact we will have to find ways to organize.
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 24 Feb 2005 09:50 am Post subject:
New forum member Richard has contributed some criticism of Vince's
love ethic web site:
http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 04 Mar 2005 09:22 pm Post subject:
Dear all
I have absolutly no idea what is taking anyone so long to reply to
my intorductory moves for the IDF. I have not had a single reply,
not even from the NUP who I expect would reply in short order. I
not only contacted the SLP national office, but a couple of
sections too, who have ignored me utterly. I do not understand
this, maybe Im being paranoid but could the SLP national office
have ordered all sections to ignore us? This would make sense
since Robert Bills has gone utterly silent on me.
Perhaps I should try again since Im at a loss for what to do.
Regards
Dan Read
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 05 Mar 2005 11:21 pm Post subject: Brief Responses to
Recent Posts
Greetings, Everyone,
I hope all are well.
Dave wrote of his:
>>>...lifelong revulsion to people who claim that they have a
superior morality or consciousness.
In fact, in advocating a cooperative approach to the economy and
social system, that is exactly what we are doing, and any number
of socialist writings embody it.
Dan wrote:
>>>I too am somwhat uncomfortable with this utopian concept since
it appears to be trying to force a "moral" change before the
material conditions for any change in such matters have been laid,
or even taking heed of such conditions.
Not necessarily before. After, or concomitant with. If it happens
before, helping to create a revolutionary consciousness, great.
And:
>>>Why not remove brotherly love and replace it with simple class
solidarity?
Because they are two different concepts, each important in its
way.
And:
>>>What disturbs me though is talk of socialism being linked to
some form of morality that can bring about change by us treating
people better.
Dan, might I clarify?
Change can be brought about, potentially, this way: people begin
to adhere to the love ethic. Then, through experience and
education, they begin to realize that the love ethic brought to
its logical and fullest conclusion must include a revolutionary
change, since capitalism stifles the practice of love at every
turn.
Capitalism is flawed and deficient on many levels, and in many
ways. It makes eminent sense to me to buttress the arguments for
socialism with the full range of justifications. Attack capitalism
using a Marxist analysis? Fine with me. Attack it from a Christian
standpoint because it is incompatible with the teachings of
Christ? Fine with me. Attack it from a nonsectarian standpoint
because it stifles the human ability to fully love one another?
Fine with me.
What's the difference how we attack it? The point is--let's get
rid of capitalism. Anyone who agrees with that goal, especially
from democratic means-and-ends perspective, is my ally.
Prior to today, I would have respectfully submitted that persons
remarking here actually READ some of, or more of, the material at
LoveEthic.org. All these issues are laid out there, in at least
introductory detail.
However, since I'm trying to collate all that material for a book,
I have decided, finally, to remove most of the theoretical
material from the site, and have done so. Having said that, if
someone does want to examine the material, let me know and I'll
email it to you.
Last, I must say that Mike's remarks on these issues in this
thread have been praiseworthy: he remains, for the most part,
unusually informed, analytical, insightful, open-minded, and
collected.
>>>Let's remember that Vince did NOT say that "all you need is
love" and then everything in society will be fixed. He clearly and
openly supports the SIU aprogram as absolutely necessary.
Bingo on both points. Thank you.
Dan wrote:
>>>I have absolutly no idea what is taking anyone so long to reply
to my intorductory moves for the IDF.
Dan, reread my previous remarks on the present character of the
SLP (and the personnel of the former NUP). No surprise here.
Richard: thanks for your remarks about the Agape project. More
later.
Warmly,
vince
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 06 Mar 2005 06:48 am Post subject:
Dan, this shouldn't all be on you. It's not like you need the
pressure of trying to face resistance and inertia. I think we
should try to write some more press releases, etc., using various
writing angles, and then more people can take turns distributing
them.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 06 Mar 2005 10:28 pm Post subject:
Vince cited a post of mine:
Dave wrote of his:
>>>...lifelong revulsion to people who claim that they have a
superior morality or consciousness.
Vince responded:
In fact, in advocating a cooperative approach to the economy and
social system, that is exactly what we are doing, and any number
of socialist writings embody it.
Dave responds:
I beg to differ Vince - I do not think that which you are stating
is a fact. I think it is an opinion. Although I respect your
opinion on this, I do not share that opinion. For myself - I do
not advocate SIU out of a superior morality or consciousness. I
must confess I am wholly deficient in these areas. It's survival
that motivates me.
I will note that stating opinion as fact seems to run throughout
your posts.
I also note that you have once again returned to what seems to me
to be an anti-slp rut:
Vince cited Dan:
>>>I have absolutely no idea what is taking anyone so long to
reply to my introductory moves for the IDF.
Vince answered Dan:
Dan, reread my previous remarks on the present character of the
SLP (and the personnel of the former NUP). No surprise here.
Dave responds:
Vince, for someone who claims such high motivation you seem to me
to actually be motivated by trying to somehow get back at the SLP
for some perceived wrong done to you in the past. Whatever it is I
am asking you to consider dropping it. What is done is done. We
need to move forward. If the SLP hasn't answered it's probably got
to do with the fact that affiliating with other organizations is
not something the SLP has done too often in past. Give it time.
Dan, why don't you send Bills a snail mail. Who knows, maybe his
computer is down. Maybe he went on vacation. But Vince, if we want
something positive to come from all of this I would think that
patience rather than harping on your perception that the SLP is of
bad character would better serve the movement. IMHO.
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 07 Mar 2005 01:18 am Post subject:
Additional ways to contact the SLP ... if these are still valid
... according to my records, the last time this information was
given out publicly was in "The People" of September 2001 ...
address "Letters to the People" (the newspaper's
letters-to-the-editor column) to: thepeople@igc.apc.org or fax
(650) 938-8392 .
richard
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 16
Posted: 16 Mar 2005 10:26 pm Post subject:
VINCE
Hi. Yes I would like to read your theoretical stuff. Could you
email it to me at rcpglasgow@hotmail.com
BTW, the post I made seems to overemphasise Stirner. I should let
you know I also have great 'love' for Feuerbach, and have just
finished the Essence for the second time. I just think that
Feuerbach asn't completely right, but neither was Stirner.
Richard
"In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here
lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him
repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all
discordant elements"
Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 17 Mar 2005 05:18 pm Post subject:
Richard quotes:
"In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here
lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him
repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all
discordant elements"
Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98
Dave quotes:
"The only thing that seperates man from the animals is mindless
superstition and pointless ceremony."
This was spoken by Christopher Lloyd in Taxi when he played the
minister marrying Lodka and his girlfriend. I heard it once many
years ago and I never forgot it.
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 18 Mar 2005 09:47 am Post subject:
Richard, if you have the time, please write a lot more about these
guys like Feuerbach and Stirner and your other favorites. You
probably know a lot more more about them than anyone else here.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 18 Mar 2005 03:09 pm Post subject:
Mike writes:
Richard, if you have the time, please write a lot more about these
guys like Feuerbach and Stirner and your other favorites. You
probably know a lot more more about them than anyone else here.
Dave asks:
You're just doing this to torture me, aren't you Mike?
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 19 Mar 2005 01:44 am Post subject:
Dave, maybe you could relate easier if you know that Marx and
Stirner used to hang out in Bohemian pubs in Berlin and drink beer
and talk about philosophy ;-)
(That would be around 1836.)
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 21 Mar 2005 10:04 pm Post subject:
Most philosphy or what passes for it, kills me. If it could all be
down at earthling level I wouldn't object so much. I look at what
Big Fred wrote at the beginning of Anti-Duhring. The few brain
cells that I have can process this. Most of what else I see just
trips my circuit breakers:
Logical schemata can only relate to forms of thought; but what we
are dealing with here is solely forms of being, of the external
world, and these forms can never be created and derived by thought
out of itself, but only from the external world. But with this the
whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the
starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they
are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from
them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these
principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they
are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only
materialist conception of the matter, and Herr Dhring's contrary
conception is idealistic, makes things stand completely on their
heads, and fashions the real world out of ideas, out of schemata,
schemes or categories existing somewhere before the world, from
eternity - just like a Hegel.
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 22 Mar 2005 07:17 am Post subject:
> the principles are only valid in so far as they are in
> conformity with nature and history
Yes, but realizing that doesn't mean that no longer benefit from
"the love of wisdom", a phrase for which the Greek work is
"philosophy". It means that we look to different sources to derive
wisdom, compared to the sources used by our ancestors.
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 22 Mar 2005 06:28 pm Post subject:
Look anywhere you want but according to Engles and dielectical
materialism, validity of result (as opposed to the validity of
searching) rests upon this standard.
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 22 Mar 2005 09:25 pm Post subject:
As soon as the time travel machine is invented, we ought to make
it a point to judge philosophical ideas by their results. Until
then, the results are unknowable.
richard
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 16
Posted: 22 Mar 2005 09:25 pm Post subject: FEUERBACH
Comrades
Yes I will try to write more about Feuerbach and Stirner. I am
sorry if I have not said enough about them.
With regards to Feuerbach, yesterday I wrote a reply to the
Spartacist League on their erroneous basic interpretation of it.
Here is the relevant part. I will try to write something up
explaining his general theory.
BTw I don't know how well versed I am in the two thinkers. It was
just before I turned 18 that I got into Stirner, thanks to an
SPGBer, and I only started reading Feuerbach a few months later
(after I had read Stirner) back in December, wanting to learn more
about his critique. They are both good thinkers and I would
encourage everyone to read them.
"A major error in your interpretation of Feuerbach is your
statement in 2 that Feuerbach took a crude materialist viewpoint
on the essence of man, claiming it was biologically determined.
You claim that Feuerbach once said that `man is what he eats'.
This is true, but if taken out of context it does suggest quite
clearly that Feuerbach was a biological determinist. However,
Feuerbach was reacting against the idealist view that man was
determined by ideas and mental attitudes alone. According to
Kamenka, he was "a confused interactionist all the way through
[his life]" (p112). Feuerbach's statement that man is what he eats
is in a review of a book called The Science of Foodstuffs by
Moleschott. He wrote "if you want to improve the people then give
it, in place of exhortations against sin, better food. Man is what
he eats". However, he also said, and this brings it into context,
that "the brain cannot be formed without phosphorus-bearing
fat.Without phosphorus, no thought". What he was doing was saying
that thought itself is dependent upon nourishment. But he is not
really saying, that the essence of man, in the way we understand
it, is determined biologically.
He perhaps went too far in his 1850 review, and his work is
probably better expressed in the Essence of Christianity (1841).
You claim that Feuerbach said the essential nature of man was
determined biologically. This is untrue. Feuerbach was very clear
that the essence of man was a social product. He says "humanity is
only an abstraction" (p153). There is no corporeal being called
humanity. I am a man, as are you, but we are not man. Man is the
sum total of men in their social relations. He says of the
individual that "his self consciousness is essentially united to
his consciousness of another than himself" (p157), that the I,
develops through relations with the Thou. This is particularly
important, for Feuerbach claims that the inability of the I to
really relate to the though is what gives rise to religion,
because we come to know ourselves through `God'. Religion is a
dream of man: "in God I make my future into a present" (p174).
The relation of God to man is the relation of man to the
individual. The statement that God is unlimited, is simply
expressing that man is unlimited. "The personality of God is the
personality of man freed from the conditions and limitations of
nature" (p107). "God is the idea of the species as an
individual.as the totality of all perfections, of all attributes
or realities, freed from all the limits which exist in the
consciousness and feeling of the individual" (p153). What
Feuerbach is stressing is that man puts himself into his concept
of God: that God is a representation of the species of man
presented as an individual.
To suggest that men and their conceptions are, in Feuerbach's
view, determined biologically and not socially is completely
absurd. Feuerbach always related religion to the society which
produced it. He said "the progressive development of religion.is
identical with the progressive development of human culture"
(p20), and on the same page said that primitive Gods were a
natural force simply because man was in a `state of nature'.
This also sheds light upon the claim in 1 that Feuerbach claimed
that man is naturally good. Feuerbach is at times inconsistent I
have found: I have found that at certain points in the Essence, he
is willing to state that the predicates of God (man) are
predicates of God because they are divine in themselves (p21).
However, in other places, and these instances are more numerous,
he states that the predicates of God/man are divine because they
are the predicates of man. He says that we cannot move from our
own position in the universe as humans, and so cannot conceive of
anything being more divine than the human. Man is not naturally
`good', for our own conceptions of what is `good' is determined by
the society (or "culture") in which we live, is a statement I
think Feuerbach would generally agree with.
You criticise Feuerbach for saying that man is unlimited. In 2,
you say recognition of the illusory nature of religion "does not
imbue man with latent powers of which he was previously unaware".
Feuerbach was one of the most important philosophers of the 19th
century, and one who heavily influenced Marx. Are you seriously
saying that this man thought we would all become, as individuals,
`perfect', that we would all develop `superpowers'? What he was
saying is that in community there is absolutely nothing that we
cannot do: that the establishment of real human community meant
that we recognised ourselves as being the highest power.
You also mention Feuerbach rejection of the dialectic, and do not
mention the fact that Feuerbach took much of his method from
Hegel. The fact that the individual cannot exist by himself and
develops only in human community is one point developed in a very
elegant manner in Thoughts on Death and Immortality (1830), which
argues that we are always imparting ourselves to others and
absorbing others as part of ourselves, and that `mortal death' is
the ultimate act of imparting ourselves to others, as it means we
exist, not corporeally, but only in the memories of those who knew
us. Another point: it is true that Feuerbach rejected the idealist
dialectic of Hegel, but in the Principles of the Philosophy of the
Future (1844), he said that it was the progress of time and not
the idealist Hegelian dialectic which served to resolve
contradiction, which suggests that he may not have rejected it
outright.
The most absurd point of all however, I read in 1, where it states
that Feuerbach's general outlook of that of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
That was in fact the most surprising statement of the whole
pamphlet. Feuerbach did not advocate a city-state republic run by
the petty-bourgeoisie (the only group counted as being part of the
people according to Rousseau). Feuerbach did not advocate the
exclusion of the poor and women from decision making in society.
In fact, with regards to women, despite Feuerbach saying in the
Essence that men thought and women had emotions (which is of
course absurd, because men have emotions too, and women think
too), he seems to have advocated sexual equality, and according to
Marx had much support among those of the `fairer sex' (a term Marx
used, not I). Why would Marx's wife sympathise with Feuerbach if
he was anti-women?
Most importantly, in relation to Rousseau: Feuerbach argued for
the abolition of private property, and he called himself a
communist. At the beginning, I am led to believe this was an
`idealist' communism, simply meaning the human community of love
and friendship, but he came to advocate the actual abolition of
private property (according to Stirner, who I will return to, and
Kamenka). Feuerbach even joined the First International in 1870,
and for many of his final years he was financially supported by
the German communist movement. I just cannot agree that the
petty-bourgeois property system of Rousseau is `most like' the
communist property system of Feuerbach.
A final point though; which I feel I must comment on, is your
claim that Feuerbach argued that his work was written to destroy
the idea of God (an illusion). No it was not: he considered the
idea of God was successfully attacked by the 19th century
philosophers of the Enlightenment. His task, he argued, was to
explain what religion really was about, and how it corresponded to
a particular need of man at a particular stage of his development.
This was his genetico-critical method, and according to Kamenka's
book on Feuerbach, "the Marxist conception of history, indeed, is
an application to society of the Feuerbachian genetico-critical
method of explaining religion" (p160). Kant and Hegel were
teleological theorists (I note you have very little to say about
Kant, which is odd), but Feuerbach dissolved this, saying that the
nature of something lies in its origin."
"In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here
lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him
repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all
discordant elements"
Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 23 Mar 2005 12:58 am Post subject:
Richard, throughout your article you appear to be answering
someone such as:
A major error in YOUR interpretation of Feuerbach is your
statement in 2 that Feuerbach took a crude materialist viewpoint
on the essence of man...
Can you be more clear as to who you are answering?
Thanks
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 23 Mar 2005 02:05 am Post subject:
I read somewhere that Feuerbach's phrase "Der Mensch ist was er
isst" (Man is what he eats) was partially a pun, since the words
"ist" and "isst" sound similar. Sometimes people choose the
combination of words that sounds like a good slogan. Sometimes
this means a small sacrifice in precision. It might have allowed
the danger of misinterpreting the phrase as a call for mechanistic
materialism. However, in general, it was an early time when
thinkers were beginning to focus on the effects of the environment
on the human mind. Some mechanistic tentencies were to be
expected.
I just noticed something very interesting!
The increments of single centuries in these publication dates:
1641, Descartes, Meditations
1740, Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
1841, Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity
In other words, rationalism ... empiricism ... materialism
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 23 Mar 2005 02:19 am Post subject:
If I recall correctly, Feuerbach contributed the observation that
religion is where we abstract the ideal qualities for humans and
then assign that set of qualities to a god, in other words,
religion as a loss of ourselves, an estrangment or alienation (in
German, I think, Entfremdung or Verfremdung) . But to me, as a
modern, it seems like a logical extension to what Xenophanes had
observed around 500 BC, "Oxen, lions and horses, if they had hands
with which to grave images, would fashion gods after their own
shapes, and give them bodies like their own."
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 23 Mar 2005 01:11 pm Post subject:
You know how much I hate these discussions (unless there is a bone
being passed around) but these two views are not contradictory -
in god(s) we acknowledge the ancestors, to whom we attribute of
course the best qualities of our species.
Could you please roll another one?
Dave
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 23 Mar 2005 02:11 pm Post subject:
Our ancestors were a bunch of cannibals. Hmm, that reminds me, I'm
getting the munchies.
richard
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 16
Posted: 23 Mar 2005 04:21 pm Post subject:
Hello
I thought I said: I was answering the Spartacist League, a group
of Trotzkyite 'declassed intellectuals'.
The assignment of the 'ideal' qualities to God is slightly
different to what you suggest, according to the big F (or the
Fiery Brook). These are actually qualities we have: not as
individuals, but as a whole considered in the sum total of our
social relations. Religion is the positing our our own collective
social nature as the nature of a subjective being (God). They are
not the 'ideal' qualities: they actually exist. According to
Feuerbach, in the totality of social relations, man is perfect,
but the individual isn't. God is a reflection of society.
With regards to Xenophanes, Epicurus said the same thing.
With regards to ancestor worship, Dave has a point. In his the
Evolution of the Idea of God, Grant Allen, provides anthropolgical
evidence to show that religion originated in ancestor worship. I
think Allen's practical anthropology supports Feuerbach's
theoretical anthropology.
Richard
"In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here
lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him
repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all
discordant elements"
Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 23 Mar 2005 05:50 pm Post subject:
Dear all
I regret to say that even now I have not recieved any messages
from any of the De Leonist groups I originaly contacted. Also, I
feel that I must resign as IDF Genderal Administrator, since my
political views have somwhat changed from advocated the SIU as a
"program" and have certainly moved away from parlimentary
politics. Im not so sure where I stand now but its somthing akin
to left communism.
This is not to say I am hostile to De Leonism in any way and I
still maintain the discussion forum on myspace, I think what is
important now is to discuss how the SIU may facilitate the
development of class sentiment within the working class, as
somthing the workers may do themselves as one of may possible
modes of workers organisation instead of it being advocated upon
them as a set program. However I am most perplexed by the actions
of the existing De Leonist parties, if they cannot even speak to
us, then they certainly wont speak to each other, or really to the
workers. In fact they seem to belive they have a monoply on
socialism, somthing which is sectarian in the extreme.
Regards
Dan Read
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 23 Mar 2005 06:55 pm Post subject:
Dan, I share your perplexity about the lack of responses.
As for resigning the GA office, as Shakespeare wrote, "To thine
own self be true." At this time, this group is still small enough
to be anarchic in daily practice. I hope you stay with us.
Eventually we will have a growth spurt.
PowerKord
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 59
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 08 Apr 2005 02:09 am Post subject: TO DAN READ
Dear Dan,
I hope all is well.
I am sorry to hear of your resignation as Interim General
Administrator for the fledgling International DeLeonist
Federation, the IDF. Thanks so very much for your interest and
effort.
You wrote:
>>>I think what is important now is to discuss how the SIU may
facilitate the development of class sentiment within the working
class, as somthing the workers may do themselves as one of may
possible modes of workers organisation instead of it being
advocated upon them as a set program.
I'm afraid I remain unacquainted with any other mode of worker
organization which fulfills the bottom-up model of worker control
which constitutes Socialism. And does so in a manner that
officially calls for a peaceful route to that goal (wherever a
meaningful democratic mechanism exists, of course, as you have
rightly pointed out).
You also wrote:
>>>I regret to say that even now I have not recieved any messages
from any of the De Leonist groups I originaly contacted.
And:
>>>However I am most perplexed by the actions of the existing De
Leonist parties, if they cannot even speak to us, then they
certainly wont speak to each other, or really to the workers.
You see, Dan, and everyone, this is the larger problem, and I've
been talking about it for a while now. Fragmentation is the soup
de jour' of the De Leonist movement. Some scoff at the idea of the
love ethic I'm working on, but in fact, if even some of the most
superficial principles of that ethic were at work here, such as
basic courtesy, you would have at least gotten some kind of
response from the organizations and individuals you contacted,
even if brief or perfunctory.
In fact, and unfortunately, the most recent fragmentation in this
movement has occurred between Mike Lepore and me; he has
completely ignored a few issues I've repeatedly raised in several
recent emails, and has now forbade me from calling him on the
telephone--and he refuses to tell me why. We have spoken on the
phone a number of times in the past, to excellent effect.
So there ya go. Until some civility is interjected into this
movement, fragmentation, inefficiency, and counterproductivity
will remain the order of the day, with a consequent predictable
result for the working class and the socialist movement.
My remarks here: http://www.loveethic.org/for_revolutionaries.html
address this problem, in brief.
Regarding the lack of response you have experienced, Dan, I might
be able to shed a bit of light here. First, the SLP. It probably
has not responded because:
A.) It does not collaborate with other groups, and does not
recognize any other De Leonist entities.
B.) Seeing that I am one of the founders of this project may have
turned them off even more, if that is possible, since I have been
critical of them in print here on the Internet.
C.) They are simply discourteous. If they weren't, they'd at least
proffer some sort of response.
D.) Some combination of the above.
E.) It is always possible a technical glitch impeded their receipt
of your message, or vice-versa. You might want to resend, if you
have not done so already.
The leaders of the former NUP have probably not responded because:
A.)They may consider my involvement awkward for them, in view of
the fact that for about a year now they have been completely
ignoring my telephone calls. In other words, were they to involve
themselves with the IDF, they'd have to involve themselves with
me, and since they've declared me, for reasons unknown, persona
non grata, they really can't do that.
(Of course, they could do it, if they were willing to apologize
and reconcile with me, which they may not be inclined to do. Which
brings me logically to another plug for the love ethic: if their
actions were informed by that ethic, they'd have no problem at all
apologizing and reconciling.)
B.) They may simply be too "burned out" emotionally and/or
physically, from all their years of involvement (for example, Jeff
Miller told me a while back that he was tapping out the contents
of the paper with splints on both hands.)
C.) They are simply discourteous. If they weren't, they'd at least
proffer some sort of response. In my experience, unfortunately,
they have, indeed, been discourteous.
D.) Some combination of the above.
E.) It is always possible a technical glitch impeded their receipt
of your message, or vice-versa. You might want to resend, if you
have not done so already.
You further wrote:
>>>In fact they seem to belive they have a monoply on socialism,
somthing which is sectarian in the extreme.
The SLP is the organization which is (in)famous for this mindset.
I believe they ground their belief in the De Leonist declaration
that "The organization and the principle are one."
By the way, to Dave Searles: Dave, how are ya? I hope all is well.
Regarding your criticism that I spend too much time criticizing
the SLP here in the Forum: I don't make a career out of it, but
when relevant to remark on, I will. Just as I have been critical
in this post, today, of the former NUP leaders. Someone has to
acknowledge that the emperor(s) have no clothes, or we're not
going to get anywhere.
(And as always, I sincerely invite the SLP, the former NUP
leaders, Mike Lepore, or anyone else, to discuss said conflicts or
issues in good faith, with an eye toward resolution. And I
acknowledge, as always, that I am not perfect, either.)
My best to all.
Warmly,
vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org
Last edited by PowerKord on 14 Apr 2005 02:33 am; edited 1 time in
total
Magoo
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posted: 12 Apr 2005 11:23 am Post subject:
Dear all
"I'm afraid I remain unacquainted with any other mode of worker
organization which fulfills the bottom-up model of worker control
which constitutes Socialism. And does so in a manner that
officially calls for a peaceful route to that goal (wherever a
meaningful democratic mechanism exists, of course, as you have
rightly pointed out). "
What I ment is that the workers have in the past formed
organisations, such as workers councils/soviets as a natural mode
of defence against the capitalist class. They will do this, and
its the role of the party to provide support for this, but what I
ment is that advocating a set program may prove inflexible. This
is not to say the SIU may not have a role in the future though.
The SIU program was forumulated in an epoch of Union formation,
the workeres were flocking to the unions in one form or another.
Now they are not. The classical union organisation appears to be
impotent in the face of the global economic crisis of market
stagnation and war, so what often happens is that workers will
either not join or form strike committees outside of the union
structure. Perhaps the Unions have had their day in ther many
forms, but whats needed now is an effective vehicle for the
working class taking political power.
My resignation is not a "goodbye" to De Leonism, its just now I am
simply a communist and am coming to "left" communist conclusions.
I am certainly not hostile to the notion of the SIU. I am though
most angered by the absurd actions of the existing De Leonist
parties, notably the SLP, who now deem to not even reply to my
e-mails over somthing as minor as my subscription to the people,
they prefered to speak to their contact in the UK and just ignore
me. The contact in the UK also ignores me, me and him have an
unpleasant history, mainly based on him ignoring or pouring scorn
on everything I do. Therefore all I recieved over this biz over
the subscription was a copy of correspondence between the UK
contact and the SLP talking about me, but both of them prefer not
to address me directly, perhaps I am unclean or somthing?
Your right, there is a need to be polite, it makes things a lot
easier. Its a shame a lot of people who hold themselves up to be
these "great" socialists indulge in the most petty things, such as
ignoring even a simple e-mail about a subscription to a paper. Its
a shame these groups can see nothing outside of thier own
membership, its a most un marxist way to look at things, but they
appear to be committed to it.
Anyway, I have waffled on enough.
Regards
Dan Read
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 12 Apr 2005 02:16 pm Post subject:
Richard wrote:
These are actually qualities we have: not as individuals, but as a
whole considered in the sum total of our social relations.
Religion is the positing our our own collective social nature as
the nature of a subjective being (God). They are not the 'ideal'
qualities: they actually exist. According to Feuerbach, in the
totality of social relations, man is perfect, but the individual
isn't. God is a reflection of society.
Dave writes:
In other words, God was created in the image of man.
Tom Waits sang:
There ain't no devil, it's just god when he's drunk.
As to Dan:
I've been at this a long time - as Arlo Guthrie stated in Alice's
Restaraunt - I'm not tired ....... or proud.
In the final anaysis its what you do - not what the working class
does or the SLP or any other group or individual does. Advocate
anything that you believe - but only because you believe it .
mikelepore
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Posted: 12 Apr 2005 08:07 pm Post subject:
Magoo wrote:
My resignation is not a "goodbye" to De Leonism, its just now I am
simply a communist and am coming to "left" communist conclusions.
I am certainly not hostile to the notion of the SIU.
Merely resigning as administrator, or do you choose to leave this
new group we are trying to form?
The group we have been trying to build is, by design, flexible
enough that there's a relevant place for you. You're the person
who has realized the need to borrow concepts from the Left
Communism groups and inject them into people who were previously
influenced by De Leonism. That's a reason for inlcusion, not
exclusion. People can only learn from others that they are
different from, so diversity is strength. You might want to write
about your comparisons between Left Communism and De Leonism, and
be like a teacher.
Magoo wrote:
I am though most angered by the absurd actions of the existing De
Leonist
Of course you're right, and the only reason I don't show anger is
because the result, the lack of responsiveness, is the one I had
largely expected, since I've already seen it in past decades. Then
let it be so, and we will somehow find the many non-membership
people, the "sympathizers", and we will concentrate more on them.
Likewise, as people resign from existing organizations, we will
somehow find them, or they will find us. By adopting an improved
philosophy of inclusion, in ten years from today we will be the
larger than the group that today think they have the option of
ingoring us. We may have changed our group's name or something,
reorganized it a few times, and perhaps merged with others, etc.,
but it will be growing out of the same root.
richard
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 16
Posted: 20 Apr 2005 03:46 pm Post subject:
Dave
F did indeed say that God as created by man, in his image. Engels
summed up Feuerbach's idea when he said simply that "God is the
abstract man".
With regards to MIKE
I don't know if Dan is still around this forum. I will let him
know you made a post. I think he was probably actually leaving the
group, but it is best to ask him directly.
Richard
"In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here
lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him
repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all
discordant elements"
Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 435
Location: Vermont
Posted: 21 Apr 2005 12:28 am Post subject:
Richard wrote:
F did indeed say that God as created by man, in his image. Engels
summed up Feuerbach's idea when he said simply that "God is the
abstract man".
Dave writes - That's why I used the Tom Waits line.
It's sort of like when I heard an analyst say that in a dream
every character in it is yourself.
Or another time when I heard someone describing or was I reading
where someone described that in reincarnation people travel in
groups, that you meet the same people over and over again in
different lives.
This is exactly why I stopped going out to bars to drink. No
matter where I went I would always meet the same people.
Dave
richard
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 16
Posted: 06 May 2005 08:29 pm Post subject:
Hi
In fact apparently Feuerbach's theory of religion influenced
Freud's theory of dreams, which centres around the emotional needs
of the individual.
"In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here
lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him
repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all
discordant elements"
Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98
| deleonism.org | >> | All Archived Forum Messages Federation Proposal |
>> | Archived Forum Messages about the Federation Proposal |