On J. Gaskie: the May 31st 2009 Post on the FOIC List Serve
JG's
posting below is definitely that which I have been most reluctant to respond to
on this serve. A little background on this would suffice, to put the reason why
in its apt perspective.
Events of the 'Black Wednesday' exactly twenty years ago which signaled both the climax and the crushing of the anti-SAP revolt, led us to some conclusions on organising and organization. Ever since then, we have committed ourselves to building and providing leadership to the socialist platform of May, which today is the Socialist Workers' Movement.
I would have wished to keep my positions on the posting and having the first inkling of the below being JG's thinking, only through that same posting, off this serve. But it would, I believe be a passive, if not active form of political dishonesty and a strand of sectarianism, apart from the fact that it would have been downright unfair, to others whom I have had to engage with on similar views....including leading comrades from other groups and socialist traditions. It is in this light that I am constrained, -as I informed JG yesterday during a lenghty phone conversation- to present a position against the posting below. I have addressed some of what JG presents in my earlier debates, particularly with Otive and Abiola, and might not need to repeat myself. But on the posting below:
The posting starts thus:
First of all, let me begin by publicly withdrawing myself from the committee tasked to do some follow up after the March 21st Conference. This was two months and one week after the Conference. I would have felt that if such a decision were to be taken so long after the Conference, an apology if not an explanation, would have been in order. I must also point out that as far as I understand the task of the committee in question its primary task was one of submitting a Working paper on strategy and perspectives and not 'follow up' par se.
Secondly, l was one of those who in the build up was categorical in arguing against demobilisation and demoralising the momentum towards March. I must say here that nothing in the posting or in our discussions after I called JG, vitiates the fact that there was no new variable that was unknown in the calculus of the March 21 Conference, before the meeting. It strikes me like complaining that a river gets one wet after going into it. So why the de-moralising silence for two months after starting to start the March and then the demobilization after that, which the posting might amount to....even if you do not so intend it to?
My views have not changed so unlike BA i am not tendering any apology to anyone. My dear brother JG, this would suggest that I changed my views...I would only enjoin that you go through not only my response in which the apology to Ladi, Kay and Femi was tendered but as well the posting against sectarianism which I made before the Conference. I have not only not changed my views, I did rest on 'foresight over astonishment' when I made it clear in the later that it was made with the possibilities of nothing eventually happening despite all the grammar of everybody in the build-up to March. But about apologies...
While 'sorry' should not be a word uttered so often and for its one sake to an extent that it loses meaning, I am strongly of the opinion that learning to own up to errors of either the head (judgement) or the heart (passion for a cause), be they on big issues of principles or in seemingly small things of whatever kind, I would say, as time and again I have if you recall, I consider rather necessary for a revolutionary for several reasons. It is for one the most concrete expression of self-criticism, and thus an acceptance of our fallibility. The importance of this to us, can hardly be overemphasized. And the importancce of it to those whom we work with is that it demonstrates quite clearly that we do not see ourselves as being the sole custodians of a divine 'truth' from one secular deity or the other. It is a key element in what Gramsci describes as 'moral and intellectual leadership' necessary for building a new 'historical bloc'. The theoretical and political consequences of your statement which did not address the context of my 'apology', is what I have had to do here as a means of contextualizing it, please.
The fact that an initiative has potential does not mean that the potential is predetermined to automaticall become activated. And the fact that an initiative is no longer capable of realising its initial potential does not mean that it was incorrect or wrong to pursue the objective of trying to realise its potential at that stage. This I would say is as obvious as daylight. The issue I believe might be the missing link is a simple one. How do we relate as subjective revolutionary factors to this activation which of course can not be automatic (then there would be no need for revolutionary groups and politics as we would all be Althusserian zombies) nor is it predetermined (what in this world is predetermined in the struggle for social transformation? What? NOTHING!). Closely linked to it is the question at what point and what are the factors that make 'an initiative...no longer capable of realising its initial potential...'? and what is our role in this drama of realizing or not realizing the potential of the initiative?
What I have repeated time and again is that we surrendered without firing a bullet! It is also in the nature of things for the kind of discussions, forces, etc, that you hinted at to dominate the beginnings of a platform as we seek to build. Let us look at two examples. In response to Marxists who eschewed the economists and legalists (both of whom he more than any of these waged the most ceaseless of ideological wars against), Lenin in What is To Be Done? clearly states that "only people who are not sure of themselves can fear to enter into temporary alliances even with unreliebale people; not a single political party could exist without such alliances" (emphasis, mine). The second example is from our own recent history. When in September 1990, Alao Aka-Bashorun took the gauntlet on behalf of the Nigerian Left t organize a National Conference, two things of note for us here were clear. One, outrightly pro-state members of the elite class where involved as well (the super perm secs of yore). Two, it was clear that the Conference might eventually still not hold (and which it did not as firece looking MOPOL tok over National Theatre, the scheduled venue). But as you migh remember, The papers that were to be presented at the National Conference were compiled as that little blue booklet titled Agenda for Democracy. This was to be the bible that would fourteen months later, lead to the formation of Campaign for Democracy, the organization that would bind us all and be the 'vangaurd' of the early days of the June 12 revolution.
This leads me to where we started from; the task of your committee was to present the draft 'road map'. And that not coming out is itself a major element for the dousing of enthusiasm and the de-mobilization after March which the posting below merely (probably..?) seals. I do know the other members of the Committee and hold them in high respect. With where we were coming from and what I know of you as well, I had actually expected you to give leadership to that committee. Even in the worst case scenario (and which from what I know of every one on it) the Committee insists on a Working Paper that is contrary to what we legitimately hold true as being necessary for social transformation (without being sectarianist on this, i.e. trade-offs are always made in any trans-tendential document; but we defend the more fundamentable; flexibility in formulations and utter firmness on principles), nothing would have then stopped you from presenting a minority paper. The working paper and/or minority paper could very well as served as a point of departure for subsequent stirrings as Agenda for Democracy was for Campaing for Democracy. And permit me to point out that there are no roadmaps for this journey any where. What we could have is the compass of theory and history. This is why I have taken the pains to state the foregoing.
I have had to write this for a number of reasons some of which I have stated above. Of course I can not exhaust the debate with JG on this here, nor did I initiate it here, but my conscience is clear that without raising what would be inapropriate organizationally, I have also not treated this platform with disdain by skipping an honest engagement with JG because we are one....
A related reason which I must say is that with this, I am obliged to come off, my insistence on March. This is for two reasons. I am morally obliged to shut up on the matter, whn a leader of my primary organization and who was one of those saddled with the primary task at hand takes the position JG has taken. If the charity of effects of my concern can not reflect at home, how could I look at myself and then tell others that this is my stand on March? This does not mean that JG has stated an organizational position. On the contrary, I daresay he has spoken only for himself, to the extent tha even the organization was never aware of his thinking on this issue...until his public declaration on this serve three days ago. But this brings me to the second reason, which while you might consider political and rightly so, I would rather state as 'practical'. I am far away in Brasil, I can only engage online at the best. Mayists were very active in the structures emerging from March 21 only to abdicate both the responsibilities and the positioning such gave (I have sought to know why through our means...I am far from satisfied from the responses which are little different from the public declaration below). I do not believe in 'my party wrong or right' like Bukharin or Boxer, but practically if I were to call for further action on March 21,l beyond the moral, it would amount to hot air, with regards to any thing forthcoming from my group.
Finally, I will be part of any other stirring too as JG stated but as well any further stirrings stemming from March, even if I can no longer play the role of that process' John the Baptist. I must salute, TA, Chinedum, Cyril, Diego and the few others who have similarly raised their voices for what one would have considered a very simple and logical first step (issuance of Communique and Working Paper!). My special and most heart-felt appreciation and support does however go to Sam Amadi. I referred sometime back to an email titled 'hello and support'...it was from him. And since then we have not only maintained correspondence, he had decided to seize the bull by the horns for their committee to do something after being honest enough on the serve to inform us that it had not met, hitherto. If your conscience and your heart still forges on, on this, do not let things from without such as this make you falter. If there is any task in that light or any other effort, that we could collaborate on off serve as well as on or through the serve, please do not hesitate to send me an email.
Well: there it all is...in a sense I feel lighter even if sadder. But I also feel stronger because I am sure I have just done, what I should do....even if it has been a very painful assignment.
Despite all this and my disappointment at this step by JG, I must state that I do hold him in high respect (which is the more reason all this would have been unfathomable to me). I made a cryptic posting on my Face book profile: wondering aloud why generals could surrender when their army is in ascendancy. I got some brilliant responses (including that from Osita) but that which struck me the most was from Bernard, my flat mate in Germany and that was very symbolic (he was a silent witness to my putting my life at risk when I chose to stay in our apartment at temperatures hovering around -21* Celsius for three days so I could maintain access to the internet for interventions on this serve, when our heating collapsed during the new year festivities...those debates contributed to the context within which March 21 was born). His response was very thought-provoking: "when they forget who ther are and/or what they represent". With all due respects JG, I do think the declaration below represented momentary forgetfulness, particularly of what today is for us.
I hope, comrade, brother and friend that with this, and on this day, 20 years after the 'Black Wednesday', I would have helped to make you remember who you are...and what you represent.
Mayist regards,
Events of the 'Black Wednesday' exactly twenty years ago which signaled both the climax and the crushing of the anti-SAP revolt, led us to some conclusions on organising and organization. Ever since then, we have committed ourselves to building and providing leadership to the socialist platform of May, which today is the Socialist Workers' Movement.
I would have wished to keep my positions on the posting and having the first inkling of the below being JG's thinking, only through that same posting, off this serve. But it would, I believe be a passive, if not active form of political dishonesty and a strand of sectarianism, apart from the fact that it would have been downright unfair, to others whom I have had to engage with on similar views....including leading comrades from other groups and socialist traditions. It is in this light that I am constrained, -as I informed JG yesterday during a lenghty phone conversation- to present a position against the posting below. I have addressed some of what JG presents in my earlier debates, particularly with Otive and Abiola, and might not need to repeat myself. But on the posting below:
The posting starts thus:
First of all, let me begin by publicly withdrawing myself from the committee tasked to do some follow up after the March 21st Conference. This was two months and one week after the Conference. I would have felt that if such a decision were to be taken so long after the Conference, an apology if not an explanation, would have been in order. I must also point out that as far as I understand the task of the committee in question its primary task was one of submitting a Working paper on strategy and perspectives and not 'follow up' par se.
Secondly, l was one of those who in the build up was categorical in arguing against demobilisation and demoralising the momentum towards March. I must say here that nothing in the posting or in our discussions after I called JG, vitiates the fact that there was no new variable that was unknown in the calculus of the March 21 Conference, before the meeting. It strikes me like complaining that a river gets one wet after going into it. So why the de-moralising silence for two months after starting to start the March and then the demobilization after that, which the posting might amount to....even if you do not so intend it to?
My views have not changed so unlike BA i am not tendering any apology to anyone. My dear brother JG, this would suggest that I changed my views...I would only enjoin that you go through not only my response in which the apology to Ladi, Kay and Femi was tendered but as well the posting against sectarianism which I made before the Conference. I have not only not changed my views, I did rest on 'foresight over astonishment' when I made it clear in the later that it was made with the possibilities of nothing eventually happening despite all the grammar of everybody in the build-up to March. But about apologies...
While 'sorry' should not be a word uttered so often and for its one sake to an extent that it loses meaning, I am strongly of the opinion that learning to own up to errors of either the head (judgement) or the heart (passion for a cause), be they on big issues of principles or in seemingly small things of whatever kind, I would say, as time and again I have if you recall, I consider rather necessary for a revolutionary for several reasons. It is for one the most concrete expression of self-criticism, and thus an acceptance of our fallibility. The importance of this to us, can hardly be overemphasized. And the importancce of it to those whom we work with is that it demonstrates quite clearly that we do not see ourselves as being the sole custodians of a divine 'truth' from one secular deity or the other. It is a key element in what Gramsci describes as 'moral and intellectual leadership' necessary for building a new 'historical bloc'. The theoretical and political consequences of your statement which did not address the context of my 'apology', is what I have had to do here as a means of contextualizing it, please.
The fact that an initiative has potential does not mean that the potential is predetermined to automaticall become activated. And the fact that an initiative is no longer capable of realising its initial potential does not mean that it was incorrect or wrong to pursue the objective of trying to realise its potential at that stage. This I would say is as obvious as daylight. The issue I believe might be the missing link is a simple one. How do we relate as subjective revolutionary factors to this activation which of course can not be automatic (then there would be no need for revolutionary groups and politics as we would all be Althusserian zombies) nor is it predetermined (what in this world is predetermined in the struggle for social transformation? What? NOTHING!). Closely linked to it is the question at what point and what are the factors that make 'an initiative...no longer capable of realising its initial potential...'? and what is our role in this drama of realizing or not realizing the potential of the initiative?
What I have repeated time and again is that we surrendered without firing a bullet! It is also in the nature of things for the kind of discussions, forces, etc, that you hinted at to dominate the beginnings of a platform as we seek to build. Let us look at two examples. In response to Marxists who eschewed the economists and legalists (both of whom he more than any of these waged the most ceaseless of ideological wars against), Lenin in What is To Be Done? clearly states that "only people who are not sure of themselves can fear to enter into temporary alliances even with unreliebale people; not a single political party could exist without such alliances" (emphasis, mine). The second example is from our own recent history. When in September 1990, Alao Aka-Bashorun took the gauntlet on behalf of the Nigerian Left t organize a National Conference, two things of note for us here were clear. One, outrightly pro-state members of the elite class where involved as well (the super perm secs of yore). Two, it was clear that the Conference might eventually still not hold (and which it did not as firece looking MOPOL tok over National Theatre, the scheduled venue). But as you migh remember, The papers that were to be presented at the National Conference were compiled as that little blue booklet titled Agenda for Democracy. This was to be the bible that would fourteen months later, lead to the formation of Campaign for Democracy, the organization that would bind us all and be the 'vangaurd' of the early days of the June 12 revolution.
This leads me to where we started from; the task of your committee was to present the draft 'road map'. And that not coming out is itself a major element for the dousing of enthusiasm and the de-mobilization after March which the posting below merely (probably..?) seals. I do know the other members of the Committee and hold them in high respect. With where we were coming from and what I know of you as well, I had actually expected you to give leadership to that committee. Even in the worst case scenario (and which from what I know of every one on it) the Committee insists on a Working Paper that is contrary to what we legitimately hold true as being necessary for social transformation (without being sectarianist on this, i.e. trade-offs are always made in any trans-tendential document; but we defend the more fundamentable; flexibility in formulations and utter firmness on principles), nothing would have then stopped you from presenting a minority paper. The working paper and/or minority paper could very well as served as a point of departure for subsequent stirrings as Agenda for Democracy was for Campaing for Democracy. And permit me to point out that there are no roadmaps for this journey any where. What we could have is the compass of theory and history. This is why I have taken the pains to state the foregoing.
I have had to write this for a number of reasons some of which I have stated above. Of course I can not exhaust the debate with JG on this here, nor did I initiate it here, but my conscience is clear that without raising what would be inapropriate organizationally, I have also not treated this platform with disdain by skipping an honest engagement with JG because we are one....
A related reason which I must say is that with this, I am obliged to come off, my insistence on March. This is for two reasons. I am morally obliged to shut up on the matter, whn a leader of my primary organization and who was one of those saddled with the primary task at hand takes the position JG has taken. If the charity of effects of my concern can not reflect at home, how could I look at myself and then tell others that this is my stand on March? This does not mean that JG has stated an organizational position. On the contrary, I daresay he has spoken only for himself, to the extent tha even the organization was never aware of his thinking on this issue...until his public declaration on this serve three days ago. But this brings me to the second reason, which while you might consider political and rightly so, I would rather state as 'practical'. I am far away in Brasil, I can only engage online at the best. Mayists were very active in the structures emerging from March 21 only to abdicate both the responsibilities and the positioning such gave (I have sought to know why through our means...I am far from satisfied from the responses which are little different from the public declaration below). I do not believe in 'my party wrong or right' like Bukharin or Boxer, but practically if I were to call for further action on March 21,l beyond the moral, it would amount to hot air, with regards to any thing forthcoming from my group.
Finally, I will be part of any other stirring too as JG stated but as well any further stirrings stemming from March, even if I can no longer play the role of that process' John the Baptist. I must salute, TA, Chinedum, Cyril, Diego and the few others who have similarly raised their voices for what one would have considered a very simple and logical first step (issuance of Communique and Working Paper!). My special and most heart-felt appreciation and support does however go to Sam Amadi. I referred sometime back to an email titled 'hello and support'...it was from him. And since then we have not only maintained correspondence, he had decided to seize the bull by the horns for their committee to do something after being honest enough on the serve to inform us that it had not met, hitherto. If your conscience and your heart still forges on, on this, do not let things from without such as this make you falter. If there is any task in that light or any other effort, that we could collaborate on off serve as well as on or through the serve, please do not hesitate to send me an email.
Well: there it all is...in a sense I feel lighter even if sadder. But I also feel stronger because I am sure I have just done, what I should do....even if it has been a very painful assignment.
Despite all this and my disappointment at this step by JG, I must state that I do hold him in high respect (which is the more reason all this would have been unfathomable to me). I made a cryptic posting on my Face book profile: wondering aloud why generals could surrender when their army is in ascendancy. I got some brilliant responses (including that from Osita) but that which struck me the most was from Bernard, my flat mate in Germany and that was very symbolic (he was a silent witness to my putting my life at risk when I chose to stay in our apartment at temperatures hovering around -21* Celsius for three days so I could maintain access to the internet for interventions on this serve, when our heating collapsed during the new year festivities...those debates contributed to the context within which March 21 was born). His response was very thought-provoking: "when they forget who ther are and/or what they represent". With all due respects JG, I do think the declaration below represented momentary forgetfulness, particularly of what today is for us.
I hope, comrade, brother and friend that with this, and on this day, 20 years after the 'Black Wednesday', I would have helped to make you remember who you are...and what you represent.
Mayist regards,
Baba Aye
Global Labour University/Instituto de Economia, UniCamp
solidarityandstruggle.blogspot.com
skype name: iron1lion
"An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory." Friedrich Engels
skype name: iron1lion
"An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory." Friedrich Engels
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on
the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton
Comments