The Digital Dispatch

From NOEBIE.net

Notes From The Field

The Global Consciousness Project

· ·

RNG UnitWe recently set up a random number generator node in our home as part of an experiment called the Global Consciousness Project 2.0.

The RNG “egg” generates numbers randomly, and sends the data to a repository where it is logged and correlated with that from other nodes all over the planet.

Much of the time, the data is what you might expect – random. On some occasions though, the units seem to sync up and show “coherence.” This seems to happen when there’s something stirring the consciousness of large numbers of people, during crises, times of joy and celebration, times of empathy, times of fear or other strong emotion.

The node just sits there and blinks, but I like to think that when I meditate, it notices.

A Call for Chill on the Left

· ·

I have tried. I really have.

I have tried to remember that Biden has been a creep and Harris has been a mass jailer, and that they are the custodians of the capitalist empire, and that we should expect only disappointment and further deterioration under their rule.

But I think that it’s important to bear in mind that an awful lot of people are justifiably relieved this week that we have at least taken a step back from an overtly hateful, intentionally cruel, shockingly inept, and basely corrupt acceleration toward catastrophe.

I have been as snarky and self-righteous as anyone else at times, but can we please give folks a minute or two to catch their breath?

Leftists who are currently spending every waking moment screaming rapist and cop and empire and war criminal and oppressor and liar and pig and such would be smarter to spend at least some of those moments building their unions and organizing around a positive vision for the world. Nobody is listening to a word you’re saying right now.

There is a line between telling truth that needs to be told, and being a pretentious killjoy.

Inauguration Eve

· ·

Suspicion, fear, 15,000 troops in place, checkpoints, road closures, hastily constructed walls in the capitol. This is what inevitably results from a political economy based on greed, desperately bolstered by ignorance.

I did not want to believe that it would come to this, at least in my lifetime. I still do not want to believe it.

In the Wake of the Siege

· ·

Here are two quick thoughts on a cloudy Monday Morning.

As frightening, unseemly and deadly as the events of last week were, the reason behind them is what has disturbed me most. If you’re going to lay siege to the halls of Congress, do it for universal healthcare, food and decent housing for all, protection of black lives and human rights – not for a spoiled little rich boy’s endless line of bullshit and lies.

Also, it is ludicrous to think that people in our society should have a right to Twitter but not to healthcare and the basic necessities of life.

Happy Monday. 🙂

Election 2020 Post-Mortem

· ·

I don’t have a lot to say yet on the technical or political aspects of this year’s Presidential Election. I think that we will learn a lot once data on Hispanic voters can be parsed.

Like many, I am relieved that we will have someone in power who is more competent, better mannered, less buffoonish, and less overtly racist and sexist.

If someone is expecting a Biden Administration to be anything more than that, though, I am afraid that they may be disappointed.

On National Greatness

· ·

Perhaps it is just my own perception, but I’ve noticed that Veterans Day 2020 seems, at least for some, to be more an occasion to celebrate military might than anything else.

To the extent that America is, or ever has been, great, that greatness has derived from the strength of our ideals, not from our nation’s ability to destroy more things or kill more people more efficiently than other nations.

Among ideologies, nationalism seems to me to be among the most childish and ignorant of all. I am sad to witness so much of it.

Preface notwithstanding, here is a post from nine years ago that still expresses the gist of my own personal observance today.

I wish you peace,

Notes on the Question of the State

· ·

A dear friend and correspondent of mine, Alan Hodge, sent me some food for thought this weekend. It was essentially a criticism of the orthodox Marxist notion of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

As a person with a deeply ingrained anti-authoritarian bent, I have studied this question for quite awhile, and continue to struggle with it. Here are some notes outlining my current reasoning of the matter.

Is the establishment of a workers’ state necessary to the project of human liberation?

First, let’s be clear about what we mean by “the state.” It is essentially an institution which uses force or the threat of force, implicit or explicit, to coerce people into obedience. This sounds inherently evil to a lot of us, and we’ve certainly witnessed real life evil perpetrated by the state throughout history and in our own lifetimes. No wonder that it is tempting to simply dismiss any approach to revolution which advocates seizing and wielding state power as part of the plan.

Here’s why we must not only resist, but reject that temptation. The current ruling class already has these means of coercion at their disposal, and time and again have shown no hesitation to employ them. They will not give up their position voluntarily. They will cling to power down to the last tooth and nail.

Imagine what would have happened if, after the October revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks had said “Okay, we’re all free now. Everybody cooperate with each other. The state no longer exists.” The old ruling class or another aspiring ruling class would have immediately asserted themselves and seized power. In fact, even with the (albeit deformed) workers’ state in place to act as a bulwark, this is precisely what the reactionary forces, Russian and international, set out to do.

It would be nice to believe, as the anarchists do, that we can establish purely voluntary associations, free of any coercion, to govern society, and that once these organizations are established and federated, an ideal socialist society would take root and flourish without the need for a state. It would be nice to believe in the efficacy of any number of other approaches to worker ascendence, be they cooperatives, or plans to vest workers’ pension funds with control of existing companies’ stocks, or whatever. The fact remains that under any such arrangement there will still be a wealthy and powerful ruling class with which to contend all along the way – a ruling class which enjoys their position of privilege, and will do whatever is in their power to keep it.

Whether we like the idea of a coercive state or we don’t, if we’re going to abandon it as part of the quest for liberty and equality, then we have a responsibility to solve the problem of how to otherwise mitigate the forces of reaction. I’ve not seen a feasible alternative solution proposed to this problem, and, frankly, cannot imagine one.

For those of us who believe that the power of a state will be needed, at least temporarily, in order to achieve human liberation, how can we best ensure against the emergence and entrenchment of new ruling elites?

The notion that Stalin was inevitable has been a part of ruling class ideology and propaganda for three-quarters of a century or more. It is important to reject the inevitability of Stalinism, while at the same time recognizing the danger of Stalinism. The challenge involved in creating deeply democratic structures of power and governance which prevent a new ruling class from putting down roots is daunting. But it begins with how we configure our own organizations of resistance and struggle today. We mustn’t fetishize the models of the Paris Commune or the Russian workers’ councils (“soviets”), but I do think that we can look to them for inspiration. We also need to continue to look at the lessons of history, examine where revolutionaries went wrong in the past, and do our best to create not only structures but cultures of democracy right from the beginning.

Marx believed that it was through the revolutionary struggle itself that the working class would become fit to rule. This may well be the case. It’s not a question to which we yet have a fully satisfactory answer. But unlike the question of the need for a state, there remain, at least, possibilities.

On The Party We Need

· ·

Each year at the annual Socialism Conference in Chicago, a sort of personal theme seems to develop early on for me. This year, questions around the topic of “the party” bubbled up on the first night. Paul D’Amato spoke about developing “infrastructures of dissent” in a session titled What kind of party do we need?

I posted this comment the next morning on Facebook.

It seems to me that once you say the word “party” people in the United States immediately think “ballot line.” I’m still not clear in my own mind what “party” would mean in real world practice apart from that. Will be looking for some resources on that question while I’m here.

There was an excellent session the next morning called Prelude to Revolution: May of ’68 in France. Sherry Wolf said that the happenings of that May exposed “the limitations of spontaneity and political eclecticism.” The message is that a party of the workers will be needed to lead from radicalization to revolution. I tried to better envision that party. What does it look like? What does it do? Does it participate in elections? If so, how does an organization committed to revolution, not reform, compete within the framework of a system that is reformist (at best) by its very nature? What is the role of the party right here and now? What should be its organizing principles?

I was able to catch up with D’Amato that afternoon and bend his ear for a bit on the topic. As he described the party as he saw it, I asked if it would compete in elections. He didn’t hesitate. “Absolutely!”

He recommended this article on Marxists and Elections from nearly twenty years ago, and I did find a lot of it helpful. Still, there was one question that nagged me. If the electoral activities of the independent party of the working class would be mainly aimed at raising working class demands, challenging and exposing the current government and political economy, and winning over workers to the need for revolution – how is that posed to constituents when seeking office? “We want your vote so we can become part of this system of government, because this system of government is so fundamentally corrupt that it has to be dismantled.” It seemed to me sort of like speaking to a mechanic who wants your business, and the mechanic saying “This car is really irreparable. You need a new car. It can’t be fixed. But you should bring it in to me anyway.”

If the end goal of the party is revolution, and that’s not being hidden, why should a worker who is not yet convinced of the need for revolution support the candidate of such a party? What would that party pledge to do once in office?

Todd Chretien’s Saturday session on the Vanguard Party, Democratic Centralism and Workers’ Revolution was a helpful review of theory and history, and the discussion that followed highlighted the distinction between the more or less orthodox Marxist view (as described in Todd’s talk and Paul’s article linked above) and the view of socialists (including many in DSA) who take a more flexible approach when it comes to the question of how to participate in elections.

I continued to read and ponder after returning home from the conference. Eric Blanc’s article about the Minnesota Farmer Labor Party was intriguing. The history he outlined is being cited by many who oppose (or who are rethinking) the need for a “clean break” from the Democrats. This essay from Joe Allen presented some helpful perspective, as did the entire series at Socialist Worker discussing and debating the relationship of socialists to the Democratic Party in the wake of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory in New York.

So I read and thought, and asked friends for their ideas, but really couldn’t come up with a satisfactory answer to the Catch-22 outlined above – until it finally came to me during a meeting of local activists from Connect Kankakee as they were planning a rally to end ICE expansion in our county. A lot of the organizing effort was aimed at encouraging turnout for the event. It occurred to me that we don’t simply work for large numbers at events like this because we enjoy the company of a crowd. It’s a demonstration of power, represented in numbers. The size of the gathering is a representation to office holders in our county that our goals are priorities for the community. It’s also a message of comfort and confidence to those who are endangered by ICE, and to those of us who are organizing resistance.

One can look at elections in the same way. They are an opportunity to measure the proportion of strength for socialist ideas, and, as Engels put it, to “gauge of the maturity of the working class.” This seems to me a purpose that even those who have not yet been won to revolutionary consciousness could support. “We want your vote in order to stand up fearlessly to the powers that be, and to bring your voice, loud and clear, to the very halls of government.”

If you’ve read thus far and are now thinking “duhr,” please accept my apology. This seems like an obvious point in the present moment, but it truly did confound me until recently.

We’ll be discussing this issue at some length on the night of August 15th at our monthly Jacobin Reading Group meeting. Come join us!

Quick Thoughts on the “Dirty Break”

· ·

The historical precedent for this strategy presumes that there must first be an independent organization of the working class. One that is cohesive, disciplined, powerful, and ready to guard its independence with ferocity. If such an organization were to exist today, then perhaps that organization could use a major party ballot line to further build power and momentum for a few years prior to a pre-planned break.

It is silly, in my view, to try to shoehorn any of the current crop of folks who are using the Democratic Party ballot line, into a strategy which requires conditions that don’t currently exist.

In other words, if you’re citing the prospect of an eventual break from the Dems as part of your justification for supporting a candidate with a D beside their name, thinking that power will be built first within the two-party system and then lopped-off in a way that it will accrue to an independent party of the working class, I think that you have it precisely backwards.