Permanent Revolution: Socialist Equality Party National Secretary Joseph Kishore spreads lies about an Amazon worker and former party member: The worker responds (permanent-revolution.org)

Notes on the Original Document by Batta, Once Again on the Question of the Trade Unions:

“One can safely assume that a revolutionary of the caliber and experience of Trotsky did not hold any illusions about some kind of institutional reform in the case of trade unions, particularly those created by fascism. As the above extract expresses quite clearly, for Trotsky the central question was one of influence over the working class, even under the most difficult conditions.”

When Lenin criticized Plekhanov for his positions on the 1905 revolution, he argued that Plekhanov first supported the arming of the workers mistakenly and then rejected their actions as excessively violent. Marx, in relation to the Paris Commune, first warned the workers that they entered into a desperate folly in their conflict with the state without a revolutionary leadership. He later defended the lynching of generals and the destruction of Parisian architecture once the workers had crossed the red lines and entered into open conflict. This was correct as all these acts arose directly from objective necessity, as he proved. We can see the same error in Trotsky, who advocated a conflict with the Stalinists within their parties and with the trade union bureaucrats within their organizations rather than form the Fourth International many years sooner. Sylvia Pankhurst had come to this conclusion as early as 1921. Trotsky did not organize with her and allowed her group to end in isolation in the 30s before starting his own separate Fourth International.

This lateness should serve as a warning to revolutionaries to take the correct, cautious position first. The last army to enter into battle ends up with the spoils. Those who rush in will find their enemies’ position reinforced with greater numbers or more horrific secret weapons than they ever imagined. More importantly, however, the workers will learn to respect their real leaders through their experiences in failure under leaders who fail them. This cautiousness, which appears to inexperienced revolutionaries as conservatism or a lazy acceptance of slavery, actually proves an asset in the process of removing from the leadership those who would betray them in favor of their bureaucratic self-interest.

To apply this to the trade-union issue, Batta argues that socialists built the trade unions, so therefore they have a historic right to positions in the unions. Slaves have built many buildings that neither they nor their descendants ever had the privilege to occupy, except as concubines. Those buildings would serve the oligarchy and the state as symbols and as a physical defense of their privilege. During revolutions, the temptation would be to occupy such structures, forming a new ruling class to take the place of the old. In fact, the revolution benefits more by destroying or at least emptying or fragmenting the old structures, preserving them like clay statues of ancient tribes. The in-fighting produced by such a situation, revolutionaries gathered around captured thrones, would further give credibility to the arguments of the counter-revolution that their return to their old positions could restabilize society. The destruction of such oppressive institutions would create room for revolutionary designs. The trade-union, organized around the unholy, devilish even, work contract, has every reason to return to dust so that out of that dust can rise the workers’ committees, organized around the work and the full-employment principle.

As for influence over the workers- the story of Germinal by Emile Zola comes to mind. In this story, the communist organizer cannot be with the woman he loves as she is raped and forced into a relationship with one of the backwards workers. The same situation would hold true for the organizer for the revolution among the trade unionists. Influence would be lost. Unity only in death! Rather than invade their territory for what they have, instead work to build an organization that they want to invade. When they invade, we take them prisoners legally and return them at our convenience, in exchange for our captured. Our influence over workers would be greater, since our leaders would be free from prison or from direct harm. They would also have an opportunity to meet with other leaders at congresses and conventions or at least write them letters in support or in disagreement. This is what Lenin had in mind when he built the Bolsheviks and criticized Trotsky for his adventurism.

2. In response to Joe Kishore’s response: As a provisional and then a full member of the SEP, I never received any constitution. One of Democratic Power’s original demands was for a party constitution. This is the first time I have seen it mentioned. Why can’t people access the document on the website? Along with the demand for a constitution, we also demanded a financial report for donors and a syllabus and standardized exam for new members.

3. In response to David North and Joseph Kishore’s letter to Peter Ross:

In an email response to Dan Conway, Bertrand Poster wrote:

“Your opposition to the MeToo movement fits into the middle class attitude represented by Jimmy Dore in his arguments with Jerry White.  White attempted to explain that the working class needs a Left political stance in order to push politically for their interests.  Jimmy Dore answered that all poor people should unite and defend each other regardless of politics.  White’s position more accurately follows from Marxist theory, that the workers must rise in a conscious way, conscious of their class and their common future as the revolutionary class that ends capitalism and builds socialism.  The MeToo movement may include individuals of the upper middle class, but to workers, the political aims of the MeToo movement must outweigh the presence of rich supporters.  The presence of poor people among fascists, likewise, must not force Marxists to reconsider their political goals.”

In this passage, we can see how the membership of the SEP does not arrive at fascist or Stalin-Hitler conclusions accidentally but as part of a process that results from the bureaucratic positions of the SEP themselves. In opposing any unity with “Left” causes for the simple reason that they have rich supporters, the WSWS forces its followers into a fascist trap. Only the unity of the poor working class remains, regardless of political program. As a result, Jimmy Dore resonates with the recruits drawn by the arguments of the WSWS. The WSWS must immediately retract its opposition to BLM and MeToo or risk surrounding themselves with fascists and running back to Steiner and Brennan to break the siege. It is easy to see that the WSWS’s dependence on this Permanent Revolution Group will end in the Permanent Revolution Group negotiating for high positions in exchange for a political rescue. The rescue of the SEP nano-bureaucracy will come at the expense of the working class as a whole, as they fall through Jimmy Dore’s trap door and get Shanghaied into fascist groups.

At a certain point, this document contradicts Joseph Kishore’s letter in Part 2.

“In fact, Batta chose to ignore the decisions of the New York branch on how to conduct an  organized discussion on the political differences that he had announced only a week before.”

“At the same time,  you asked for a party-wide discussion on the positions of Batta, who, in violation of the  discipline of the New York branch of which he was a member, was circulating his criticisms of  party policy throughout the SEP and the ICFI.” 

Kishore and North also spoke of some “established constitutional mechanisms.” Are these written, or how are they established? How can someone see these documents?

Kishore wrote: “Batta announced his opposition to the party’s position on the trade unions on January 18, in  the midst of the intervention of the New York branch in the Hunts Point strike. He then went on a political rampage that blatantly violated the provisions of the party Constitution. Refusing to  discuss his positions within his branch, Batta circulated the document of a former provisional  member throughout the party and online in a manner deliberately intended to mislead the  membership.”

Which one is it? Did he ignore a decision, violate branch discipline, or violate the Party Constitution? We have three different stories about one event. What are the charges? Who is Batta’s defender within the party? Is he entitled to due process and an attorney? Only a week since he announced his disagreement? How long does someone have to wait to discuss disagreements or doubts? This should lead, not to expulsion, but to an internal process leading to the formation of SEP factions capable of carrying out discussions that are not in the interests of the nano-bureaucratic tyranny faction. Since none of these questions have answers, Democratic Power demands a reversal on the expulsion of Batta from the SEP. We demand the creation of a separate New Jersey branch that can act independently of the decisions of the New York branch.

Kishore and North quote the following from the Third Congress of the Communist International: “In order to take part in daily work, each member should, as a rule, belong to a small working group, be it a committee, collective, fraction, or cell. This is the only way that  party work can be properly allocated, led, and carried out.”

On this point, we have to ask, why was Batta, from New Jersey, in the New York cell? Has the New York cell done anything to produce a New Jersey cell? Why can’t they form a separate cell from the New York cell, or the New York nucleus, or a faction that would receive, lead, and carry out organizational work independently? In this way, these members could have appeared on NPR with talking points prepared. Only two months before his appearance on NPR, the SEP cut him off from the working class movement. Excusably bewildered by the sudden collapse in organized support, he decided not to sacrifice himself as a lone ranger up against all the mass media bandits. His weak performance in the interview could only have resulted from the collapse of support within the SEP for a socialist, working for Amazon, who, right or wrong, hoped for an improvement in his conditions resulting from the union organizing drive, that is through a massive act by the workers, however mistaken in its strategic orientation.

The branch structure proclaimed has not functioned for this writer. Bertrand Poster’s membership has been suspended indefinitely, without invitation to return, and without any investigation into the events surrounding the departure, also from the New York Branch. The SEP has not sent any letter, despite Bertrand Poster having been approved past provisional membership to full membership. They have not offered participation in branch meetings. They have forced Bertrand Poster out of online meetings, censored comments, and have not offered any explanation except a short exchange with Dan Conway. Once Bertrand Poster answered that letter, the SEP offered no further reply or indication of what any next step should be. Why can’t the party have a Public Defender to argue about how the Party Constitution should apply to the defendant or a Branch Members’ Representative to hear grievances and discuss what options exist that do not violate policy? Without this basic right, the SEP has merely created a nano-bureaucratic entrapment scam for members. If this fails, the nano-bureaucrat can proceed from entrapment to smears, which Bertrand Poster witnessed and suffered personally with Dan Conway’s character attacks, which he likely passed on from a hidden conspirator. If Democratic Power had a private investigator, he might ask, “Why did you attack me? Who sent you?” with a hand on Conway’s character’s throat.

“Functioning in the party as a one-man wrecking operation, you want the “right” to circulate internal documents outside of the party, solicit political support from opponents of  the party, and, if you please, form alliances with opponents against party policy.”

The party provided for only a one-man operation, so their natural inclination would be to wreck. Rather than allow Batta and Ross to form a faction and direct them in their work within their trade union, you accuse them of working ex parte. This decision shuts down discussion of theoretical issues and at the same time limits the scope of the work of the revolutionary party, denying the workers trapped in trade unionism access to revolutionary organization and literature. Lenin and Trotsky stood for a party that argued with the present consciousness of the workers and trained them to think like revolutionaries. This meant hearing and responding to arguments without expelling members or shutting down branches or potential branches. Bogdanov, who Lenin criticized in Empiro-criticism, remained in the party after Lenin published the book and went on to hold a post at a university and perform important scientific research into blood transfusions under the Soviet government. Lenin’s sister even participated in his experiments. His mistakes with regard to Machism gave Lenin the opportunity to correct both Bogdanov and a great many Bolsheviks who had given insufficient thought to epistemological matters. Rather than a one-man wrecking operations, Lenin and Bogdanov proved great contributors to Marxist thought, deepening and strengthening it enough to survive the immense social turbulence that upended even centuries-old bourgeois institutions through economic crises and wars as well as changing social, cultural, and intellectual trends.

“You want the obliteration of any serious party organization, in which middle-class anarchy  prevails. Party decisions would be rendered meaningless, inasmuch as they are not binding on  the membership and would be unenforceable.”

A middle-class anarchy prevails in the party organization? It does seem so. The party renders its own decisions meaningless in that they can only occur entirely bureaucratically, without any appeals process, any due process or right to representation with regard to the party constitution, (existent or not), and without remitting members to like-minded functions that can fulfill a role within the party as a minority faction. Lenin and Trotsky argued for factions and saw them very differently from the SEP. Factions did not form hierarchies, with each branch measured on a ladder of branches, each functioning as a faction different from every other but subordinated to the main branch and those higher than themselves but lower than the main branch. This view would seem absurd to them! Although, one can see how such an order would intice a nano-bureaucrat.

They saw factions as expressions of the economic interests of classes in society expressed within the party. This meant that usually, the various factions could finally reduce themselves to two or three national factions based on their organizational policies and political program. In One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards, Lenin shows how the divide between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks appeared at the Party Congress in repeated votes on a number of issues. This proved that factions existed, organized or not, and that convinced Lenin and the Bolsheviks to recognize the facts and act accordingly by organizing their faction openly. This proved decisive in preparing the Bolshevik organization to put forward revolutionary demands during real workers’ uprisings rather than force them into endless arguments with Mensheviks who saw no value in actually participating with the working class.

The SEP fantasy about the party ignores the reality that the Mensheviks hold on to power within the organization through undemocratic manipulation of discussions, elections, and committee organizations. This approach to party organization has nothing in common with the history of revolutionary movements. They organized congresses based on the idea of mutual respect between all participants. They did not take the shape of a conspiracy against the membership but as an extension of the work of the membership as a whole.

As for the contradiction of Trade-Union dues and Party finances, Kishore and North argue against the workers’ rights to form a union and demand dues in exchange for the defense of higher wages. The existence of unions, they argue, interferes with the formation of workers committees. In this way, they have given up their claim to represent Trotskyism or the revolution. The Party must stand with the workers and defend their gains when they defend their right to organize, form unions, and strike for increases in wages. This progressive advance in economic organization does not hinder the development of socialism but actually brings it closer. In Value, Price, and Profit, Marx answered the Party leadership’s arguments by siding with the workers in their economic struggle to increase wages through union-based strikes. He saw this as the economic struggle. Will unions take us the rest of the way, into socialism? Clearly not. However, defending regressive anarchist arguments about dues only diverts the issue away from the development of a Financial Report for the SEP and ICFI. This public financial report must reach all donors, regardless of party affiliation, since the party leadership has bureaucratized and factionalized the affiliation process. To argue or treat donors as political enemies threatens the entire foundation of the party as well as the entire working class by directing attacks at the advanced workers. To argue that advanced workers cannot participate in the Rank-and-File Committees sabotages their growth from the beginning by attempting to impose the same party bureaucracy onto every Rank-and-File Committee. This process in the Soviet Union led to the growth of the Left Opposition, which Trotsky both supported and led to fight the growing bureaucratic counter-revolution.

Trotsky’s arguments against “chumminess” had this purpose in mind: “Only in this manner can the organization be secured against catastrophic surprises in the future.” The SEP has endured a catastrophic surprise loss by never, in 24 years since its founding, having won even a single local office. The international working class may not have as much power as the bourgeoisie, but with all the suffering townships and hollowed out cities that the US has, a single weak link should have presented itself to the SEP in that time. If it has turned down the opportunity to serve on a city council or even a school board, then the SEP has created a catastrophe for the working class in denying it the right to hold office as socialists. Running illegitimate candidates does not help the SEP’s case. Without beginning a witch-hunt against chumminess, the SEP should begin to ask why it has failed, in the midst of the largest protests in the history of the United States, in the midst of the fall of media giants such as Cosby, Weinstein, R. Kelly, Les Moonves, and others, amidst the fall of Jeffrey Epstein, friend of Trump and Clinton, and amidst a pandemic of the type that hasn’t occured in a hundred years, why hasn’t the SEP managed to pick up a single local office? A serious analysis of this failure will provide the way forward for the SEP, not more bureaucratic efforts to suppress Democratic Power and other manifestations of this failure in the form of membership rebellions. We demand a full membership vote on the rights of members to form national and international, not merely subordinate, local factions, and discuss our disagreements and produce statements that the regular membership could access without accusations of treason against the SEP “Party Constitution.” Without this immediate action, how “can the organization be secured against catastrophic surprises in the future?”

4. In response to Batta’s response to Kishore:

Batta answered Kishore’s conspiratorial smear very well. Kishore should not have said he tailored his comments to the specifications of the AFL-CIO. He should have recognized Batta’s service to the WSWS, nearly 50 articles in 3/4 of a year, more than a majority of active, unsuspended SEP members. This should be recognized by the membership as a gift worth about $15,000-$20,000. If the SEP cannot afford to pay its writers, it should at least recognize the value of their contribution and give them, as members, additional rights rather than trample upon their rights, deny them due process, and smear them.

As for the substance of the criticism, Kishore’s comments amount to red-baiting. The NPR program called him on the air as an Amazon worker in support of unionization. They did not call him on to the show to discuss socialist politics. His decision to stick to the point reflects well on his professionalism. An attack on Bezos for his personal wealth may have served to rally the workers, but it would not reflect the workers’ or his motives for unionization. The SEP program does not call for any limitations on personal political wealth and neither would a union drive. The increased wages of Amazon workers would not break Amazon’s monopoly, secured by a $50 billion deal with the U.S. military. As a result, any increase in wages would lead to an increase in prices and potentially higher profits for the retail monopoly.

On this point, Batta responds by mis-characterizing the WSWS position as “anti-worker” rather than “nano-bureaucratic.” As socialists, we strive to provide a political program for their workers around which to unite. The demands we make will become the demands of the working class as a whole. The science of Marxism has already established what policies we categorize as pro-worker or anti-worker. The failure of the WSWS to defend a socialist program arises not from anti-worker hate but its own interests as a nano-bureaucracy that awaits a worker rebellion so as to steer it in a way that benefits the nano-bureaucracy first and the working class second.

“In union meetings, the once isolated workers would gain the ability to not only connect with one another but also to advance their own demands through the formation of worker committees within the union.”

Worker committees would not function within the union. The union as a national organization has a fixed structure. Worker committees could only arise in direct opposition to the entire capitalist system, a system that has failed society as a whole by reducing great nations to slavery and cutting their populations, their life expectancy, and their education, health, and free-time. As an Amazon worker that lends his mind to Amazon workers as a whole, Batta must seek to break his isolation by basing himself on the most revolutionary foundations, the worker committees themselves. These foundations would later pay off, as the new organization of the working class at Amazon could now argue for a revolution not only against Amazon corporate headquarters, but against the capital in Washington DC where the heads of the capitalist state reside. Isolation and socialization are organized by the state, and the state has become extremely suspicious and cautious of every unifying movement as a threat to their rule. For this reason they prefer isolation, which extends into the large number of prisoners held in solitary confinement. The only healthy state that favors socialization will come from the establishment of a workers state by a conscious act of the workers themselves.

“While no confidence should be placed in the RWDSU bureaucracy, which deserves much of the blame for this defeat, the rank-and-file workers cannot be equated with the bureaucracy by denouncing the whole of the union. In their efforts to pin the blame for the defeat entirely on the RWDSU, the WSWS actively downplayed the voter intimidation tactics employed by Amazon. By taking this stance, and by unequivocally opposing unionization, the SEP has crossed a class line, siding with Amazon against the workers.”

In the same sense, the rank-and-file workers cannot be equated with the union bureaucracy, they also cannot be equated as Amazon workers with the Amazon executives and billionaire stockholders. Certainly Amazon used intimidation tactics, but the SEP has not crossed class lines, only warning the workers of the futility of trade union struggle as a substitute for class struggle based on a revolutionary program. Amazon does not stand against the workers since Amazon is comprised mostly of workers. The capitalist system under which Amazon must operate forces it to exploit its workers to produce profits for the investors. Under a socialist system, Amazon would provide retail products to workers with unprecedented convenience as well as greater protections for the physical and social health of its workers. The technical feats that Amazon has accomplished reminds one of the utopian system described in Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backwards, a utopian description of a modern socialist government. The technological utopia has become a reality except for the perversion introduced by class relations under capitalism.

In order to remain on the workers’ side, not only with good intentions but through an attuned leadership, strategy, and political program, the SEP must cross class lines in the sense that it must see the workers as the legitimate owners of capital. The accumulated capital needed to finance Amazon all came from profits extracted from workers at the various moments of exchange, going back through history, not during the production process as they see it. When the workers agree to sell their labor, they should argue for the entire product of their labor as their price. The capitalists at Amazon must use the hunger, lack of medicine, housing, and other sources of suffering as a whip to force the slaves to accept a price far lower than what they will give in return. The workers, in order to break these chains, must transfer the entirety of Amazon’s products and accumulated capital into the hands of the workers, allowing them to manage the corporation not through a corporate board elected by stockholders but through committees elected by the workers from among the workers. An alliance of workers’ committees would provide for an exchange between the various industries.

“For example, at its founding in Sept. 2020, the Los Angeles Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee officially had two non-party members, neither of whom participated in drafting the founding statement, yet it purported to speak in the name of an entire committee of Los Angeles teachers! In the six months after its “founding,” the committee had not grown by a single member.”

We could say the same thing about the offices of President and Vice-President. Since President Biden has taken office in January, he has not found a single new Vice President! It’s still just him and Kamala Harris. The workers’ “class instinct” is to elect representatives, which is what the committees are. Their rules should provide the right for any group of workers in the industry to join and effect a change in leadership. The lectures represent the efforts of the revolutionary movement to impart to workers’ representatives the lessons of the entire history of the revolutionary cause. No one can accomplish this in one day even talking non-stop, even speaking all one’s thoughts. The point is to study and discuss regularly so as to prepare for when the workers enter into politics en masse to effect societal change until they are satisfied. The socialist can give their arguments factual backing, historical analogies, and organizational representation.

“If workers come up with new forms of organization, socialists must also be active within them, but the guiding principle must be this: we must go where the workers are!”

Actually, the purpose of the meeting must guide our attitude towards and behavior at the meeting. If we go to a concert, will we call for a vote in favor or against every song? People came to see the entire act as prepared by the musicians. The gathering of workers for a new organizational form, different from the union, has a much higher purpose. The connections built there contain a much higher value for the workers’ as a whole. When the music’s over, the workers return to their impoverished conditions. They must search out again, not for a song to comfort them, but for a political solution to the crisis of the capitalist state. Socialists, organized into committees and party branches, must await them with all their arguments meticulously prepared. The workers can then vote on the proposals and share the results with the unorganized masses. This will eventually prepare a twin state, existing side by side with the capitalist state, that at some point catches the capitalist state in an act of inexcusable criminality on behalf of the profit system. They can then order the necessary arrests and the sacking of the representatives of the old order. The workers must come to this conclusion themselves and cannot be chased around and forced into it by a faction, however well organized or well armed with theory.

You imagine a worker responding to the SEP: “I have connections to my fellow co-workers because of the union.”

In response to this imaginary worker, I say: The connections the union builds among workers are chauvinist and the connections between the workers and management class collaborationist. This starvation for human connection that you describe comes from an unhealthy place. You may want to see a psychologist or go to a church and let the minister attend to your spirit or seek communion with the mass in the form of the sacraments. Engage in sports or a chess club. You may feel the need for a more united social order, and you may find that in a union. Those are only your personal needs however. Once you have healed that emptiness inside you, the task remains for the working class to form revolutionary organizations with the explicit purpose of making a revolution. Whatever isolation results from such an intellectual or political position, we need to see as purely circumstantial. When the workers enter into the movement on a large scale, crime will be balanced by crime until the law returns in the form of agents of the workers’ state that legally trap and punish the crimes of the rich against the revolutionary movement.

“Who are you to tell me to throw away my weapon, the union, for this fantasy rank-and-file committee which has accomplished nothing concrete whatsoever?“

Your weapon against your employer occupies your hands while the weapon you need as a revolutionary to defend against the greater danger, the state, remains stored out of reach in the critical moment. Your best defense against the repression of the state will come from the workers organized on the principle that the state must fall and the workers themselves must replace it. Workers organized on that principle alone can defend you as a revolutionary. The trade union struggle creates casualties among the workers, the rank-and-file organizers, and even among elected union officials. These casualties in the class war will always prove indecisive, since the workers can suffer casualties at the rate of a hundred to each one on the capitalist side and still win. They can also suffer no casualties at all and lose, since the union and management offer them a raw deal, deny them the right to strike, and suppress through silence any rebellion in the ranks against the bureaucratic officials that control the union. The decisive factor, the revolutionary party’s presence and active participation, will determine the outcome, even if through an intangible but extremely powerful force, like electric energy changing the nature of a simple metal wire.

In Trotskyism vs. Sectarianism:

Batta has accurately represented Trotsky’s views expressed in the Transitional Program. To apply the term Sectarian, however, requires a fuller view of the positions of the revolutionary party.

In Left Wing Communism, Lenin writes:

“At the present moment in history, however, it is the Russian model that reveals to all countries something—and something highly significant—of their near and inevitable future. Advanced workers in all lands have long realised this; more often than not, they have grasped it with their revolutionary class instinct rather than realised it. Herein lies the international ‘significance’ (in the narrow sense of the word) of Soviet power, and of the fundamentals of Bolshevik theory and tactics. The ‘revolutionary’ leaders of the Second International, such as Kautsky in Germany and Otto Bauer and Friedrich Adler in Austria, have failed to understand this, which is why they have proved to be reactionaries and advocates of the worst kind of opportunism and social treachery. Incidentally, the anonymous pamphlet entitled The World Revolution (Weltrevolution), which appeared in Vienna in 1919 (Sozialistische Bücherei, Heft 11; Ignaz Brand), very clearly reveals their entire thinking and their entire range of ideas, or, rather, the full extent of their stupidity, pedantry, baseness and betrayal of working-class interests—and that, moreover, under the guise of ‘defending’ the idea of ‘world revolution’.”

He made this point as a rejoinder against the various left factions within the Bolshevik Party and within the various parties who had joined the Comintern. These factions, like you, merely defend the idea of world revolution, as we have always known it. What the “Russian model” of the revolution tells us, however, reveals something new to “all countries.” The Soviet power, the government formed out of the workers’ committees changed everything for the Marxist view of the revolution. From that point forward, the Second International and its ‘revolutionary’ leaders, “proved to be reactionaries and advocates of the worst kind of opportunism and social treachery.” This, because of their one central crime, the denial of the centrality of Soviets, workers’ committees, in the success of the Russian Revolution. They opposed Lenin’s demand, “All Power to the Soviets”, and substituted for it “an agreement between the trade unions and the bourgeois republic.” In this way, you can see, you do not need a completely new assessment of the world economy to conclude that reliance on trade unions and reformism have now shifted to the domain of “opportunism”, “social treachery”, or class collaborationism.

Lenin, Chap traced the well-known discipline of Bolshevism to its historical context in Russia:

“For about half a century—approximately from the forties to the nineties of the last century—progressive thought in Russia, oppressed by a most brutal and reactionary tsarism, sought eagerly for a correct revolutionary theory, and followed with the utmost diligence and thoroughness each and every “last word” in this sphere in Europe and America.”

In other words, the brutality of the Russian regime forced revolutionaries out of universities, trade unions, and almost every other form of public life. As a result, revolutionary theory developed in private circles but conversely with extra diligence with regard to moral argumentation. In order to drive the point home, Lenin once again repeated, emphasizing the peculiarity of the Russian situation:

“In no other country has there been concentrated, in so brief a period, such a wealth of forms, shades, and methods of struggle of all classes of modern society, a struggle which, owing to the backwardness of the country and the severity of the tsarist yoke, matured with exceptional rapidity, and assimilated most eagerly and successfully the appropriate “last word” of American and European political experience.”

In the American and European experience, a different trend holds. The lack of discipline in their movements led to “phrasemongering and clowning” that paralyzed the leadership. The experience of the financial collapse of 2008, the betrayed promises of the Obama presidency, and the pandemic have altered the situation. The phrase-mongering of Kishore and the clowning of Batta will try the patience of the working class to no end. The impossibility of unity does not mean that no progress can come of the situation. The futility of Batta’s approach appears almost comical. How will Permanent Revolution behave any differently than they have in the past? An attempt to break up the SEP creates a comically disproportionate response. The phrase-mongering of Kishore serves to mask the catastrophic negligence of the SEP with regard to the organizational work of the party. Only Democratic Power’s response, the demand for an end to factional tyranny and the enumeration of the rights of members and factions within the publicly accessible constitution of the party, will put the pettiness of the bureaucracy to rest so that the workers can find a party that’s actually worth approaching.

“The learned fools and the old women of the Second International, who had arrogantly and contemptuously turned up their noses at the abundance of ‘factions’ in the Russian socialist movement and at the bitter struggle they were waging among themselves, were unable—when the war deprived them of their vaunted ‘legality’ in all the advanced countries— to organise anything even approximating such a free (illegal) interchange of views and such a free (illegal) evolution of correct views as the Russian revolutionaries did in Switzerland and in a number of other countries. That was why both the avowed social-patriots and the ‘Kautskyites’ of all countries proved to be the worst traitors to the proletariat. One of the principal reasons why Bolshevism was able to achieve victory in 1917–20 was that, since the end of 1914, it has been ruthlessly exposing the baseness and vileness of social-chauvinism and ‘Kautskyism.’”

The decision by the SEP nano-bureaucrats to turn up their noses to Democratic Power tells us that they have, like the social chauvinists in Lenin’s day, ceased to function under the conditions of illegality that Democratic Power has become accustomed to. For this reason, the SEP nano-bureaucracy cannot respond in a reasonable manner to the appeal of the their expulsion of Batta. Their attempts to accuse the capitalist media and the capitalist state of a conspiracy has probed the lowest depth of caricature. The nano-bureaucrats themselves conspire and will not cease unless thoroughly exposed.

A final quote from Left Wing Communism shall suffice to completely refute any attempts at a rationalization for Batta’s clowning:

“If the heroes of the Second International have all gone bankrupt and have disgraced themselves over the question of the significance and role of the Soviets and Soviet rule; if the leaders of the three very important parties which have now left the Second International… have disgraced themselves and become entangled in this question in a most “telling” fashion; if they have all shown themselves slaves to the prejudices of petty-bourgeois democracy (fully in the spirit of the petty-bourgeois of 1848 who called themselves “Social-Democrats”)—then we can only say that we have already witnessed all this in the instance of the Mensheviks. As history would have it, the Soviets came into being in Russia in 1905; from February to October 1917 they were turned to a false use by the Mensheviks, who went bankrupt because of their inability to understand the role and significance of the Soviets; today the idea of Soviet power has emerged throughout the world and is spreading among the proletariat of all countries with extraordinary speed. Like our Mensheviks, the old heroes of the Second International are everywhere going bankrupt, because they are incapable of understanding the role and significance of the Soviets. Experience has proved that, on certain very important questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done.”

Kishore’s conspiratorial approach and inability to defend the primacy of workers’ committees in Marxist theory has put him in the the same camp as the social-chauvinists, and Batta’s opposition to workers’ committees puts him in the very same camp. Lenin would summarize their dispute as squabbling between the phrase-monger and the clown. Neither can defend Marxism against the attempts against it by opportunism, social chauvinism, and the reaction.

The section, “Without internal democracy and debate there is no revolutionary party”:

“Any organization that engages in suppression of internal debate and expels members who dare to question the party leadership has no right to call itself a revolutionary party.”

This argument, Batta makes correctly. Lenin, in fact, fought opportunism within the leadership of the Second International, not among provisional members. He would see this episode as a clear abuse of power by a clearly social-chauvinist leadership.

“This truly bizarre spectacle, amounting to a kind of watered-down show trial, can only be interpreted as an attempt to ostracize and intimidate anyone with an oppositional view.”

Bizarre spectacles abound in politics, regardless of the political stripes. Everything normal implies that it is at peace with its environment. Conflict generates every bizarro trait imaginable in its attempts to mark both sides or illuminate every hidden or supposedly hidden secret. The struggle for normalcy, psychological comfort, a unity between the object and its environment, will often times breed new bizarre specimens which, in fact, may prove useful. The IYSSE event is less of a show trial, and more of a phrase-monger’s response to Batta’s clowning. The phrase-mongers will have their clients, those who enjoy the dreary repetition of the sophistry they paid so dearly for.

The description of the 2020 elections deserves attention. As I said before, such committee-stacking will only lead to a committee-sacking. The exposure of such tactics gives great reason for hope. Batta’s taking issue with these bureaucratic conspirators will lead to a deepening of the anger and resentment of the working class, set off by the economic situation and cut off from politics by the crisis in leadership of the SEP. The revelations of the WSWS as for-profit and Mehring Book’s $1 million per year revenue, without even taking into account membership contributions, show that the undemocratic tactics stem primarily from the bureaucracy’s fear of losing control over that significant amount of income.

For this reason, Democratic Power must take a strong position on the redistribution of party funds. This must include financial penalties for harassment, verbal abuse, character assassination, slander, perjury, plagiarism, fraud, and other acts punishable under civil law. This redistribution must be paid to Democratic Power to use as an offer to victimized “former” members to return to the party as active members of the Democratic Power Faction. If the SEP bureaucracy does not submit to a case by case assessment of their dues owed to Democratic Power, the entire organization must temporarily shut down, with the exception of the news website and its paid staff, which must report on the shut-down, until a formal, binding agreement between Democratic Power and the Nano-bureaucracy settles the matter. Such a move would create a great following within the working class as they worked together to distribute justice without allowing fascists to take advantage of the division to shut down the party for good. The total payment should be one year of annual profits, that is income after expenses, not counting costs spent on online advertisement. This would certainly seem bizarre to them, to lose that money, but it would lead the workers by example, forcing the leadership to “open the books”, a traditional socialist demand. A great rejoinder to the “diluted show trial.”

Demands 2 and 4, then, must come only with the actual demand of the victims for real financial remuneration. Without this very real incentive, such demands would never find any force to bring them about. We cannot simply repudiate these acts; we must also own the debt to the victims and make sure it gets paid as if the responsibility is our own.

On the Comments in response to Batta’s Letter:

The level of discussion arrives in two poles. One favors the SEP and repeats its slanders of Batta without offering any proof that he had received payment or job offers from the unions. The other favors Batta, but does not criticize his position on the workers’ committees. A legitimate criticism of Batta on the workers’ committees would expose the dangers posed by the nano-bureaucracy as they impose their factional tyranny on the advanced workers, eliminating Democratic Power from participation by hacker methods. It would give the committees power to commission and oversee an investigation of SEP finances.

Throughout this discussion, I have seen no mention of deceased Workers’ League National Committee Member, elected union official, and as yet most successful Presidential Candidate Edward Winn. Where are the documents related to his positions on unions? Did anyone investigate the circumstances of his death? Has he left behind any writing on the issue? Has the SEP responded? If the SEP nano-bureaucrats formed their opinions out of fear of reactionary terror, the membership must know. Democratic Power demands a discussion on the writing of and presidential campaigns of union official Edward Winn. How was the change in program contradicting Edward Winn’s program effected without the functioning of factions? Did anyone remain in Winn’s camp after his death?