Welcome, and glad you’ve found your way here. As we say under the About tab, this is a space dedicated to theoretical explorations aiming toward an emancipatory politics.
We welcome submissions of essays, reviews, notice of interesting items from elsewhere, and all comments which fall within the range and purpose of the site. We look forward to hearing from you.
Related posts:
John Steele on What could the end of capitalism look like?
Nick Paretsky on Transnational capitalist linkages and class formationJohn Steele on Why the push for austerity?
Politics & Evil Part 3: Engaging Bill Martin’s Ethical Marxism « Kasama on Marxism, politics, and evil, part 3Politics & Evil Part 2: Engaging Bill Martin’s Ethical Marxism « Kasama on Marxism, politics, and evil, part 2John Steele on Financialisation, empire, crisis: how to get out?
Don Hamerquist on Financialisation, empire, crisis: how to get out?
worker antagonism on Marxism, Politics, and Evil, part 1Nick Paretsky on The crisis of the capitalist state and the crisis of the left
David Ranney on Why the push for austerity?
At a Fork in the Road"
Post our link on your webpage:
We need less bullshit
Incomprehensible jargon is
the enemy of understandable ideas
and clear purpose in our actions
I am sure I am not the first person who has noticed this–but there is a big problem with the way the Khukuri theoretical site is run. Most of the articles are saturated with incomprehensible jargon. What appears to be lacking are clear and easy-to-understand descriptions of either the _questions_ or the _answers_ that are decisive for the revolutionary movement.
It is good, of course, that the Kasama project has set up this site to deal with important theoretical questions. Our movement has been _paralyzed_ for decades by a “crisis of theory” that has left even the most dedicated, militant and theoretically inclined comrades unable to understand, in a realistic way, the most most fundamental principles concerning how society will function when it is run by the working class.
“Truth is always concrete”
– Lenin
It is disappointing, however, to find here so much confusion and so little clarity. Many of the articles here are essentially _unreadable_ because they are saturated with invented language and feature the worst kind of academic method of piling abstraction on top of abstraction until the poor reader is left with no clue as to what is being talked about.
I looked at a few articles.
Want to know what I found?
There was an article on “marxism” which appears (as near as I can figure out) to assert that there are many alternate (and equally valid) interpretations of Marx’s conclusions. Put into ordinary words, in the english language, this means we can safely toss Marx in the trash. (I know my comments may upset a few people here–but I am going to get this out.)
I read and commented on a nine thousand word essay by a guy named Stephen D’Arcy on “What is Leninism?” which (essentially) told readers that the revolutionary movement must be dependent on a strata of trade union bureaucrats and poverty pimps.
There are several articles (and numerous comments) on a french philospher named Badiou. I looked at one or two of these artcles and was left with absolutely no fucking idea what principles Badiou is known for–because everything I have seen (so far) about him appears (to me) to be meaningless hype.
Yes, we need new ideas (of course) in the revolutionary movement. But there is a difference between new ideas and _obscurantism_ (ie: incomprehensible jargon presented as something profound).
Ok, if John Steele or others here are inspired by Badiou–good for them. We are in a period of theoretical crisis and comrades do well to find inspiration anywhere they can get it. But at a certain point this search resembles (to me) the quest of a hungry man to find a half-rotten turnip in a pile of refuse.
If Badiou is so inspiring and profound–then why can’t anybody _explain_ what he is saying in clear and simple language?
Yes, I could be mistaken (it would hardly be the first time). Maybe there is something elemental and profound seemingly hidden in all these big, multi-syllable academic words. But (if this is so) I would expect some fan of Badiou to translate this hidden profundity into words that are understandable to readers (like me) who have contempt for the silly and self-absorbed “meta-jargon” methods of post-modern academics.
Until this happens, until some fan of Badiou or Zizek, etc can translate these profundaties into ordinary language that can be understood by ordinary people–count me as a skeptic.
What we need (by way of modest suggestion) is a theoretical site organized around the search for answers to the decisive questions.
These decisive questions (at least in my list) include:
1. What is the goal of the revolutionary movement?
2. Is it the overthrow of the system of bourgeois rule?
3. Is it the replacement of bourgeois rule
with the rule of the working class?
4. Is it (after the above) the development
of a classless society?
5. How will the revolutionary movement accomplish this goal?
6. Do we need a revolutionary mass organization?
7. What would a revolutionary mass organization be like?
How would it work?
8. How will we bring such an organization into existence?
9. What material conditions need to exist in order for
such an organization to emerge?
10. Can we start to create this organization today?
11. What are the principles that will guide the working class
when it runs society?
12. Will people in such a society have the democratic rights
of speech and organization? Or will such a society need
to be organized like a police state? And will it
be run by a single party or organization?
13. How will the economy of such a society function?
How will it be more productive than capitalist society?
14. Will there be a need for money, wages or prices?
15. Will there be a need for a central authority that
can tell everybody what they have to do?
I have (full disclosure) done work on these questions. I write using language as simple as possible for an audience that sometimes includes bright 14 year-olds. Some readers like my conclusions (and writing style). Other readers are pissed off and strongly disagree with my conclusion. But most readers understand (or at least think they understand) what I am saying.
A good part of the crowd here at this site represents refugees from the Avakian cult. As such, there is an understandable aversion to simplified and “dumbed-down” conclusions and formulas. Avakian was good at manufacturing this kind of pablum–but most of his formulas turned out to be bullshit. Now activists here are left to pick up the pieces and sort out the fundamental questions.
Comrades must feel free to investigate and discuss any approach they believe to be worthwhile. But _somewhere_ in the back of their minds I hope that they keep in mind that truth is always concrete.
Our movement, sooner or later, must discover and popularize the basic (and understandable) principles that will, once again, allow a revolutionary movement to emerge which is deserving of the attention, respect and devotion of the working class.
Ben Seattle
(http, etc) struggle.net/ben/
Ben -
If you want some introductory essays on Badiou and the relevance of his thought to the revolutionary project, you can read the two of mine listed under Featured Essays (‘When Everything Seems to Change’ and ‘Revolutionary Faithfulness and the Radically New’), as well as the essay by Bill Martin (‘Dear Professor Badiou….’), and many others, books and essays which have been published, not to mention the writings of Badiou, many of which are quite approachable.
But this is not really the point.
This site exists for theoretical exploration; it is not a site for debate on its value, or for the very dreary and unproductive complaint that theoretical exploration is too academic, involves unfamiliar terms or concepts, or does not have clear or immediate relation to practice.
Your comments above express these sorts of general and formulaic complaints, without any sort of detail, substantiation, citation, or real engagement with the essays or writers which you mention. This is disrespectful and unproductive.
I am very familiar with your point of view and general program as well as with your comments on the Kasama site, where you have been repeatedly cautioned for your strong tendencies to unproductive comments and debate. If you want to comment on the basis of the founding presuppositions of this site as well as engagement with the writer involved, you are welcome here. But further comments along the lines of the above will be removed.
Hi John,
> I am very familiar with your point of view and general
> program as well as with your comments on the Kasama site,
> where you have been repeatedly cautioned for your strong
> tendencies to unproductive comments and debate.
My (supposedly) unproductive post (above) listed (as a modest suggestion) 15 important theoretical questions to which I believe it would be useful to give attention.
A number of Kasama readers consider my posts to be thoughtful and did not understand why I was put on moderation. They wanted to see an _example_ of one of my posts that was considered unproductive. In the future I will point them to this thread.
> This site exists for theoretical exploration; it is
> not a site for debate on its value, or for the very
> dreary and unproductive complaint that theoretical
> exploration is too academic, involves unfamiliar terms
> or concepts, or does not have clear or immediate
> relation to practice.
Theoretical exploration is (of course) necessary. One of the problems with an overly academic approach to theory (ie: saturated with made-up words and impossible for many readers to understand) is that many activists who are new to theory (and not confident in their abilities) will see the kinds of articles posted at this site and conclude that theory is “over their heads” and give up on the idea of understanding the important theoretical questions. However the simple truth is that there are important (ie: decisive) questions which desperately need their attention.
I criticize your approach, not because I oppose theoretical investigation–but rather the opposite: I have come to the conclusion that we need the mass of activists to become involved in resolving the “crisis of theory” that has paralyzed the revolutionary movement and brought it to its knees.
Revolutionary theory is not a proprietary plaything for the comfort and enjoyment of experts unable to understand its connection with life.
Theory is a life and death matter–absolutely necessary for the emergence of a revolutionary movement deserving of the respect of workers.
> Your comments above express these sorts of general
> and formulaic complaints, without any sort of detail,
> substantiation, citation, or real engagement with
> the essays or writers which you mention. This is
> disrespectful and unproductive.
You want engagement?
I made two substantive posts to the nine thousand word article you posted on “What is Leninism” at:
(http, etc) http://www.khukuritheory.net/revolutionary-strategy/what-is-leninism/
I noted (accurately) that:
(1) the article is so full of jargon that it is hardly readable, and
(2) the article ends with a conclusion that would be understood by many (more likely: most) readers as saying that “Leninism” would have us subordinate the revolutionary movement to an “alliance” in which a strata of corrupt trade union bureaucrats and poverty pimps would have veto power.
Such a conclusion, of course, is the _exact opposite_ of the principles for which Lenin fought his entire political life.
Lenin consistently fought for a working class movement that would be _independent_ and capable of resisting the immense influence exerted by such a stratum of misleaders (ie: whose jobs and social existence flow from their loyalty to their bourgeois masters).
Your response to my effort to engage you–was to ignore me.
Well, at least I got your attention with my post above. I have seen your essays in Kasama for some time and always wanted to have a better idea of where you were coming from.
Now I know.
> further comments along the lines of the above
> will be removed.
Hey, guess what? There is nothing I need to add to what I have already posted.
Ben Seattle
(http, etc) struggle.net/ben/
Ben,
I actually agree with much of what you are saying regarding obscurantist theory, which is why I began writing a piece that tries to explain the importance of Badiou to revolutionaries in a way that is understandable and deals with some of the major issues in theory and practice that revolutionaries face today.
However, I don’t think the way to go about making your points is to attack the current nature of khukuri. I appreciate the fact that John and others have made this site available to us and will use it to develop my own knowledge and debate with others on important issues facing revolutionaries. I understand that those who started this site want some control over it, which I think is natural and almost unavoidable despite the obvious problems associated with this.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your comment. Feedback is always valuable.
> I began writing a piece that tries to explain
> the importance of Badiou to revolutionaries
> in a way that is understandable and deals with
> some of the major issues in theory and practice
> that revolutionaries face today.
I am feeling a bit burned by Badiou at this time. That is how I look at it: all this talk of his importance strikes me as being like a BAD I.O.U. (ie: a promisary note that will never be redeemed). I invest time in looking at this stuff–and I get no return on my investment. Instead I see people living in a bubble. I am not attempting to insult anyone involved with this stuff–I just think it best to put everything on the table. I have no intention of indulging anyone’s silly fantasies. I have, so to speak, seen the needle and the damage done: demoralization and passivity and a conviction that we are powerless to change the world.
The opposite is true.
On the other hand if you (or anyone) can sum up why someone like Badiou is important in one or two hundred words (without using pretentious and silly invented language) then I would certainly look at it.
In particular: what do you consider to be the major issues in theory and practice that revolutionaries face today?
I have made clear what I consider the major issues in my post above (ie: such as the 15 questions I listed).
On the other hand, I am still waiting to hear from you in response to my reply to you on the thread that (supposedly) is about Leninism. Are you thinking in terms of replying? Is your desire to create a revolutionary mass organization a theoretical kind of desire? Or do you consider this to be the most important thing in the world?
> I don’t think the way to go about making your points
> is to attack the current nature of khukuri.
Attack?
I guess that is one way to look at it.
But the sober truth is that I am simply the messenger delivering news from the world outside the bubble.
I did my best to put together a criticism that was accurate, understandable and concise. Heck, some readers would probably also consider it entertaining.
I am not interested in walking on eggshells. We cannot be serious about changing the world if we think this way.
If John is so sensitive that he wants to get in a huff (and threaten to delete my posts)–because I accurately and concisely lay out what this site needs to do if it takes its mission seriously–then it is really not my problem.
I put my energy where I can connect with others who have made up their minds that they, like me, are on this earth to organize the working class for the overthrow of bourgeois rule.
> I understand that those who started this site
> want some control over it, which I think is natural
> and almost unavoidable despite the obvious problems
> associated with this.
If that control requires that _real_ criticism is not allowed–then this site will go nowhere.
All the best,
Ben