Debate? Not Clear on the Concept?

by Mike Ely

Yesterday Blackstone directed everyone to a post by E.G. Smith (whose blog is generally critical of the radical left). The specific essay said that the Bush impeachment group, World Can’t Wait, is placing heavy pressure on supporters to raises funds (including paying dues in order to become “official members”). Smith claimed that everything around WCW feels desperate, and that its funding approach seems to be lifted from the culture of cadre groups.

Within hours, someone naming themselves “Critical Criticisms?” responded sharply:

“So, what, you oppose fundraising on principal? There is little of substance criticizing WCW in that link, and none in your post. Is this website going to just be a repository for internet trash attacking anything the RCP is doing, or are you guys at least going to make some effort to be consistent and principled? It seems more and more like the former, despite the opposite tone set by the 9 Letters themselves.”

E. G. Smith’s comments were not (as CC claimed) without substance. There were details, arguments, criticisms, discussion of experiences and politics here. (Smith’s blog posting criticizing Revolution newspaper’s shrill new condescension makes some points — even if mixed with anti-communism.)

The implication from CC is that we (as moderators of Kasama site) should not allow our blog to be a “repository” for such “internet trash.” When CC asks if we are “at least going to make some effort to be consistent and principled” the implication is that being “principled” means NOT ALLOWING Smith’s comments to be posted by Blackstone.

Concept #1: If you think Smith’s comments are wrong, engage them. Refute them. Don’t demand that this site censor them, and don’t threaten us with charges of “unprincipled” for providing an open forum.

Concept #2: People need to know what is being said about the world — and about various movements within the world. We need to know the false charges as well as the correct charges. We need to know about false self-praise, as well as about justified self-promotion. How are such things sorted out? In part by open discussion and debate. You can’t prejudge and then pre-censor.

Mao warned against trying to raise communists in a sheltered greenhouse. He said: “Learn to swim in stormy weather” and “Toughen your scalp.”

Concept #3: We do NOT endorse or approve everything that appears on our site. This is a forum for promoting critical thinking, for sorting out opposing lines through research and debate. Collectively we need to apply the method of “compare and contrast.” And this site’s moderators will only suppress comments of questionable legality or obvious troll intent.

Concept #4: The RCP’s control freak approach to information and “debate” will not work. And if it did work, it would be a nightmare. “Internet trash” and “Internet shit-talkers” is standard RCP jargon these days — it expresses a palpable fear of debate, unfriendly criticism, uncontrolled information and Internet discussion. RCP members live on a strict information diet. They are told to ignore arguments that sharply criticize their movement — our 9 Letters, for example, are labeled “unprincipled,” “distorted,” “opportunist” etc. to discourage people from “comparing and contrasting.” The hypocrisy exposes all the lipservice to wanting “interrogation from others” and “vibrant debate.”

If you want us to censor Blackstone and E.G. Smith on this forum, CC — what kind of a society would you create if you ever got the harsh ability to to actually censor, suppress and jail?

We need to create a revolutionary political culture where many different provocative ideas are routinely presented and debated — where people learn to think deeply about their own views and those of others. You can’t tell if something is right or wrong on our revolutionary road by just looking up what various “classics” or historic talks by the Main Man say about it. The truths we need are often not “there for the taking.”

Kasama intends publish many diverse pieces, including sometimes commentary coming from a NON-radical place — including the mainstream press. (We have already published both bourgeois and communist commentary on Avakian’s cult of personality — we have even published Avakian on Avakian.)

We don’t intend to always pre-plaster our own verdicts all over everything. We will sometimes just listen and learn. And we assume that the truth of many things is NOT already known.

So don’t expect to be spoon-fed here. Spoon-fed people can’t make revolution.