To the Members of the A.O. staff:

We offer these comments and the following proposals because we are concerned about the direction of the Alternative Orange. We understand S. Thompson’s letter (“Dear Majority of the A.O. Staff,” October 8, 1993) as a reaction to real problems and contradictions within the A.O. but we fundamentally disagree with the pluralism he espouses.

In his letter, S. Thompson expresses that he is “beginning to feel excluded and even oppressed as a newcomer” to the staff because of the “formal tactics” used by staff members in meetings—meetings he found to be “profoundly disturbing, emotionally.” In short, S. Thompson finds these tactics “emotionally disturbing” because they are “the same formal tactics of the KKK”, i.e. there is “a pedagogy of indoctrination” at work. We read Thompson’s letter as presenting two related problems: 1. staff members have different levels of theoretical knowledges; and 2. these different levels of theoretical knowledges result in a silencing of other potential (non-“majority”) “lexicons”. Ultimately, S. Thompson argues for a form of “pluralism” in which there is an “open compromise on principled differences.” In other words, as we understand it, S. Thompson is arguing that we should acknowledge our theoretical differences and work together because we ultimately have the same goal—world liberation.

The recently adopted “Statement of Principles” for the Alternative Orange reflects the A.O.’s current move away from “liberal pluralism” and the “broad left”. The new Statement states that “the ‘broad left’… needs to be contested precisely because it now produces the most up-to-date, subtle, and refined (‘liberalized’) modes of packaging the defense and management of the existing order as ‘resistance’.” But what does it mean to “contest” the “broad left”?

M. Wood has interpreted the A.O.’s move away from a “pluralist mode of representation and organization” as a “supercession” in order for the paper to “produce an oppositional political discourse and make an effective political intervention against, perhaps above all else, the ‘peaceful co-existence’ of antagonistic political positions sanctioned by the liberal pluralist (multicultural) ideology of the late capitalist academy” (On Self-Critique and the Enterprising Subject, October 7, 1993, this issue). The project, then, is to “supersede” the contradictions “between ruthless criticism and non-critical representation” by removing the “contradictory” elements—those elements that don’t fit the currently “dominant” “lexicon” of the A.O. The aim is for a theoretically pure space in which these contradictions have been “superseded”. M. Jensen was correct to point out in her letter (October 7, 1993) that “underlying [the] claim [that the A.O. could become a ‘theoretical pure’ space] is a profound idealism.” Despite how it is organized, the Alternative Orange necessarily remains confined to be “situated by the liberal pluralist ideology of the multicultural academy as one more ‘voice’ or set of ‘voices’” because it is this contradiction that allows for its existence. As long as capitalism exists it will be impossible for us to “supersede” this contradiction. What we must do is press the limits of this contradiction as much as we can. Of course, the ultimate goal is the supercession of capitalism (and its contradictions) with socialism, but we must understand this as a global project in which a socialist revolution will be “born out” of the contradictions inherent to capitalist society. This means that our “contestation” with the “broad left” must not be a formal refutation or supercession, but must rather take the form of a critical relationship with the “broad left”. This means, of course, that critique is our primary mode of engagement.

Critique must necessarily look at both the progressive and conservative aspects of its object. It would be idealist and ultra-leftist to simply ignore or dismiss the “broad left” and political movements based on “race,” “gender,” “sexual orientation,” “peace,” and “anti-imperialism.” Indeed we must critically engage these movements. At the core of this debate over the A.O.’s mode of operation is the question of the role and effectivity of “critique” as an oppositional practice. In On Self-Critique and the Enterprising Subject (this issue) M. Wood consistently equates the term “oppositional” with “critique-al.” This clearly demonstrates the tendency of radical intellectuals, who necessarily take up a contradictory space, to privilege the “ideological” over the “economic.” Ideological struggle is important and necessary for oppositional struggles, but it is not the only form of oppositional struggles nor is it adequate in-and-of-itself. The A.O. needs to situate its practice within a broader global context.

As part of the contestation over the A.O.’s mode of operation, B. Ganter has made a proposal to implement a “Leninist theory of democratic centralism.” According to this proposal, “[p]roposals that formulate a problematic immanent either to this space or otherwise should be recognized as ones that both through the appropriation of the meeting time or through the more explicitly liberal pluralist dialogical methodologies (e.g. rhetorical questioning, roundtable discussion, etc.) infringe counterproductively upon these collective political ends” (Minutes of September 30, 1993, this issue). We see this as a dangerous direction for the A.O. because it would work to further exclude debate and mystify the contradictory space that all radical intellectuals work within. The proposal can be read as saying that any proposal that problematizes current A.O. practices is disruptive and counter-productive, and must be Silenced. Ernest Mandel has argued for democratic centralism, but he also warns that “the right not to be thrown out of the party, if you create a faction, is a lesser evil than being thrown out and stifling the internal life of a party through excessive forbidding of internal debate.” Even though the Alternative Orange is not a Party (although B. Ganter seems to confuse it with one by quoting V.I. Lenin on Party democracy without commenting on how it relates to a small organization of radical intellectuals), the point Mandel raises is valid for an organization such as the A.O. Where do we draw the line? What is “excessive forbidding of internal debate,” and what isn’t? As we see it, the current “critique-al” practices of “the Majority of the A.O. Staff” are often used as exclusionary anti-democratic tactics which results in the “excessive forbidding of internal debate” necessary for the development of critical-oppositional subjects. The goal of current A.O. critique-al practices have been to draw rigid lines between “good” and “bad” marxists in an effort not show why some are “good” and others are not so “good”. This leaves no room for pedagogical development.

Sincerely,

    Alex Lindgren

    Michelle Jensen

October 13, 1993

[Proposals appended to text:]

1. In recognition of that fact that people are at different theoretical/intellectual levels we propose the formation of an Alternative Orange study group. This study group will allow dedicated staff members to develop intellectually, theoretically, and politically by reading and discussing A.O. and related texts, and will allow for more productive meetings of the editorial “collective” (the regular meetings). Furthermore, we propose that staff writers, as part of their pedagogical responsibility to others on the staff, meet upon request with the study group to answer questions/critiques of their texts.

2. We propose that we do not follow a “democratic centralist” mode of organization as proposed by B. Ganter.

3. We propose that we have a “pedagogical” section in each issue like we did with the “disorientation” issue (e.g. “Marx Behind the Myths”). This section could contain a few introductory articles which could either be reprints from publications such as Bulletin In Defense of Marxism and Socialist Worker, or texts we solicit from staff members.