How, Why and When to Make or Take Criticism

[benbrucato]

CRITICISM & SELF-CRITICISM:
How, Why and When to Make or Take Criticism

INTRODUCTION

Being involved in a multi-purpose, diverse political movement such as Occupy Albany will never be easy. Ideological and procedural conflicts will complicate and frustrate us, and make difficult organizational and practical concerns. Conflict is an inevitable part of any human endeavor. This conflict is likely to be exacerbated when confronting issues beyond our total control and when we seek the will to overpower those people and institutions that have impaired our autonomy. “It is necessary to debate and discuss issues pertinent to our collective growth and development thoroughly. Our growing ability to do so will qualitatively nurture our organization and help it grow. A disability to do so will only deteriorate our efforts.”
"This kind of methodical evaluation is a concrete manifestation of politics in command. In other words, it stems basically from the philosophical conviction that in all relations between human beings and their environment, human beings must assume conscious responsibility for their actions and not resort to the vulgar materialism of always blaming others or outside conditions and thus seeing themselves as passive victims."
“In contrast, however, it has also become painfully obvious at times, that collective members can involve themselves in and encourage conflicts and debates that are very unimportant and irrelevant to our collective work and growth. Very infrequently does engaging in dialogues such as these become productive.
“Distinguishing between the two is sometimes very difficult. At the same time, trying to be principled and productive while taking part in necessary critical discussions is just as difficult. We're coming out with this piece on criticism to try and help point the organization in a more forward direction - specifically because we have seen how the lack of anything of the kind has at times left some members in a state of confusion and lead to possibly avoidable impasses.”

WHY IS CRITICISM IMPORTANT?

“Criticism” in the positive usage is the examination, analysis and evaluation of the comparative worth of one's acts, practices, policies and/or ideas by others. Self-criticism, is of course, this same principle applied to one's self, but it also refers to the organizational practice of critically examining and reexamining its own policies and/or policies and practices of its members ... Criticism in its positive usage corrects/adjusts mistakes of practice and of thought, and resolves differences among individuals and makes for a smooth running, well functioning organization. Mao Tse Tung in his discourse on criticism put forth the slogan 'Unity-Criticism-Unity' to show how individuals come together and unite under one principle or set of principles, but in the actual working out of these principles, differences arise for various reasons which militate against the accomplishment of declared ends, and against the cohesion of the organization. When these differences arise there must be criticism in which those with differences interpenetrate, modify one another, and form a new and more perfect unity on the basis of having worked out contradictions that were inherent in the old unity.”
“It is crucial and indeed beneficial criticism and self-criticism is, when applied correctly. Or as Mao correctly stated, ‘The only way to settle questions of an ideological nature or controversial issues among the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, and not by the method of coercion or repression.’”

WHEN IS CRITICISM NECESSARY?

“As has been illustrated, criticism is at times crucial to the development of the organization. On the other side of the coin, criticism is also at times abused and can be needlessly directed or used negatively to disrupt. At this point we'll try and define some ways of distinguishing between these two.
“If you are confident that you have observed a breech or contradiction of the common principles we have committed to struggling, it is vitally important for you to bring this to others attention. Failing to do so is both liberal and subjective.”
"Subjectivity assumes many forms, e.g., the protection of one's feelings or those of others; fear of hurting feelings or discouraging people by pointing out their mistakes; attacking those who hurt your feelings by criticism; fear of taking issues with others; not pointing out the person who makes a mistake or not pointing out a mistake at once but waiting until the persons involved are less emotionally caught up in their mistakes and then dealing with the question only as an abstraction and therefore without the sharpness which enables the maximum lessons to be learned by all concerned: hesitating to take issue With or criticism of the leaders; hesitating to criticize themselves for fear of undermining confidence in the organization (emperor protection): ‘selling’ ideas to others rather than discussing and debating issues in such a way that members can make responsible choices; making excuses for oneself or for others when mistakes are made (not enough time, something else came up, conditions beyond our control, etc.), thus being ‘understanding’ and ‘sympathetic’ rather than demanding on oneself and others.
“All these are manifestations of liberalism which is part of the very air we breathe in the U.S. Liberalism or the evasion of responsibility is what most amerikkkans mean by ‘freedom.’ Freedom is the right not to be held responsible or accountable for one's actions. Since this tendency is so powerful in the society, it is inevitable present in the organization. In the past the U.S. has been able to survive liberalism because of the unique historical conditions of this country, particularly the '’wide open space’ which have allowed people to pick up and leave the scene of their mistakes. Finally, however, the chickens are coming home to roost in the country. In a revolutionary cadre organization, they come home much sooner.
“Liberalism leads to the covering up of mistakes and therefore to the weakening of the organization. When mistakes are covered up, they also pile up to the point where it becomes impossible to isolate and correct the specific mistakes, and the organization is in danger of breaking up in demoralization and bitter antagonisms.
“The above list of liberal weaknesses, incomplete as it is, is familiar to everyone who has ever been in any kind of organization. When one realizes how many of these have characterized one's own practices in the past, it is easy to become discouraged, unless you keep in mind at all times the goals and methods to which you are committed and the collective commitment to this goal which will enable the organization to grapple with and overcome these weaknesses one by one, week in and week out, through criticism and self-criticism In the course of the protracted struggle."

SOME THOUGHTS ON MAKING CRITICISM

“If you believe a contradiction exists that does impede the working unity of the organization, you will need to address this contradiction. Also, because we firmly believe that no one is above being questioned, criticized, or corrected, including ourselves, we would like for everyone to be fully aware that though one may feel that they have observed or discovered a contradiction, the individual making the criticism may be incorrect in doing so and should always be aware of this possibility. As has been stated:
"As long as the revolutionary movement all over the world was dominated by the D-day concept of revolution (which had been borrowed mechanically from the example of the 1917 Russian Revolution), criticism used to take the form chiefly of post-mortem analysis. For example, one group or individual would insist that a particular setback in revolutionary developments in a particular country was the result of a mistaken policy and therefore of the group or individual sponsoring the policy. Simultaneously, the claim would then be made that if those in charge had pursued the policy of the critic instead, then there would have been success rather than failure. This kind of arrogant subjectivism and hypothetical after-thinking is completely foreign to the concept and practice of revolutionary criticism and self-criticism."
“The point being is that we are talking about ideas, and no one person or collective has all the correct ideas. As the Mao has correctly stated, ‘Correct ideas come from one's social practice.’
“When drafting your criticism, it is very important to be as specific, even meticulous and clear about what it is you are raising an objection to. Give concrete examples and back them up with whatever evidence you may have. If you have no evidence or examples to site, it will usually be very difficult for others who are likely coming from a different perspective to understand or agree with you. Try to determine if the contradiction falls within the below three categories of human error and define how they do so clearly and precisely, again, with evidence, examples and/or proof of events.”
“The differences which arise that disrupt unity can generally be found to have their basis in these three categories of human error:

1) Opportunism: opportunism is defined as that tendency for an individual to make a decision or commit an act that is favorable to his/her own self aggrandizement and at the expense of the collective or the movement as a whole. Opportunism stems from selfishness and petty individualism ... When opportunism arises, either in an individual or in an organization, it is to be severely criticized and if necessary the individual or individuals expelled from the organization or ostracized from the movement. (Note: we should always qualify the definition of opportunism as being at the expense of the collective or the movement.)

2) Subjectivism: the second type of error that disrupts unity and impairs revolutionary progress may be found in the general category called 'subjectivism'. Subjectivism can be distinguished from opportunism often only by the merest of hairlines. It generally has to do with personality flaws. One makes a decision or commits an act that is based on one's personal feelings, desires, resentments, jealousies, prejudices etc ... Such subjectivism may possibly stem from any number of sources; childhood trauma, subliminal conditioning, religious superstition, etc ... When such subjectivism pops up to impede the functioning of the individual or the progress of the organization it is imperative that it be dealt with. The consciousness of many must necessarily be stripped of the old pernicious ideas and values inbred by bourgeois culture. Though, again, Mao Tse Tung cautions that those trails and personal idiosyncrasies which are not particularly harmful to the individual or the cause, but are largely a matter of style, should not be needlessly criticized.

3) Errors from objective causes: thirdly there is the type of error that stems from objective causes. For example, one may have lacked certain objective information, or may have placed too heavy an emphasis on certain elements of a situation rather than more correct elements. And/or the environmental conditions themselves may have been such as to limit the formulating of a more correct idea or policy. This last type of error is the type that a cell or collective will inevitably find itself dealing with again and again. That is to say, most persons coming into a collective can be expected to more or less quickly grasp the rules against opportunism and subjectivism (though time to time these problems too must necessarily be dealt with) and subscribed to a ... outlook which in its concreteness, means analyzing a situation with the objective facts of the situation uppermost in mind. But the objective factors of a situation are continually undergoing change as the old elements and factors fade and diminish, and new elements appear. Hence policy and practice must be reexamined periodically, and/or new policy to into account the changes in the situation.”

“Once you have defined, documented and supported your position, we offer the below guidelines that may help you determine the best way in which to forward a criticism or begin a critical discussion:”

How to conduct a Criticism Session:

“In conducting a criticism session, we find that these few broad rules apply.

“Criticism not before the collective: Mannerisms of a subjective nature which are minor, and inconsistent with the organizational rules and principles may be dealt with privately by one rade pointing out the error and inconsistency to the other. The criticism should be acknowledged by the recipient and resolved at this point.

“Criticism before the collective:

A) “Opportunism is a major departure from revolutionary principle and must be brought before the collective.
B) “Subjective errors that persist after criticism is brought in private should be brought before the collective.
C) “All objective propositions that have to do with the organizational policy and practice, or that affect [the movement] as a whole should be brought before the collective. Each criticism should be dealt with on its own merits; that is, do not bring up a criticism of another individual in order to divert attention from ones' self (unless there is a direct connection between the two). Only after the original criticism has been resolved should another criticism be broached.

“No attack upon personalities or unprincipled criticism [see later].

A) “No name-calling;
B) “No disparaging remarks about an individual (but only about acts of an individual).”

In addition to these guidelines, those below are paraphrased from Mao Tse Tung, removing language that is only relevant to party communism and that which is explicitly authoritarian. He asked “In the political life of our people, how should right be distinguished from wrong in one's words and actions?

1) “Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people of our various nationalities.”
2) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to our revolutionary struggle.
3) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, our commitment to direct democratic organization and the ability for our methods to prefigure the new society.

“Lastly, an overriding principle that we should ever be mindful of, ‘To criticize the people's shortcomings is necessary, ... but in doing so we must truly take the stand of the people and speak out of wholehearted eagerness to protect and educate them. To treat comrades like enemies is to go over to the stand of the enemy.’”

NEGATIVE OR INCORRECT CRITICISM

“Possibly as often as criticism is used to build, it is used just to destroy and divide, at times even under the guise of building. How can we differentiate between the two? There are several ways in which we can attempt to do so. Though, this is undoubtedly an incomplete guide to make distinctions, when viewing criticisms in an overall perspective, the following may be helpful.”
“Perhaps another way to get an indication of the value of positive criticism is to compare it with the bourgeois use of criticism, or negative criticism.
“At the base of the difference between the bourgeois use of criticism and the [correct] use, lies the false ideological emphasis on the individual, rather than on the collective. As a result, for the bourgeois with their emphasis on individualism, criticism inevitably is negative. It is [not] used to build, but rather to destroy. It ceases to be a tool by which to correct and adjust mistakes, or resolve differences and repair breaches in unity, but rather it becomes a weapon of assault of one personality upon another. It is divisive and destructive; it is faultfinding, nit picking and slanderous; an attack upon the intrinsic worth of an individual.”

In the Irish Republican Army "any volunteer who attempts to lower the morals or undermine the confidence of other” members and “any volunteer taking part in a campaign of slander and denigration against another volunteer,” was to be cast out “with ignomy.”

REACTION TO CRITICISM

“Upon receiving a criticism from another, it is important to keep your cool. Don't respond right away; give yourself some time to think it over. Responding to criticism, be it positive or negative, takes a lot of political maturity. Important also is the fact that something can be learned from both good and bad criticism. Because of this, it is crucial to remain calm and principled in your response and reaction to criticism. If not, we may never be able to discover what was at the root of the criticism.
“Try to view each criticism objectively. Do not take them as personal attacks, or a criticism of one's person or personality. If a criticism has been made correctly and with consideration, it has been made of an act, or an idea of an individual (or collective), not of the individual. As mentioned earlier, ‘No disparaging remarks about an individual (but only about acts of an individual).’ It is important to repeat, we criticize the act, or the idea - not the individual.
“Also, if you are to be in an organization, you will be dealing and working with the broad array of individuals who make up that organization. We come from many different places and have grown to who we are in different ways. We therefore deal with things as differently as the individuals we are. This is part of collective struggle. Therefore you will have to deal with everyone's different personalities. Some people will make criticisms that are direct, blunt and to the point, seeming almost unmerciful. Others will seem more generous and forgiving … [We] do not foresee a time in the near or distant future when we will all approach one another about critical discussion in a way in which all of us will be satisfied. Therefore we believe that it does not necessarily have to be written in a style in which one likes or believes would be more beneficial to the individual. [We] should be considerate and understanding not only with each other, but in all of our dealings. However, so long as it generally conforms to ‘Some thoughts on making criticisms,’ and does not fall within the category of ‘Negative Criticism’ the format or style shall remain subjective.”
“All things considered, when taking into account the competitive environment in which we live, still, we realize just how difficult it can be to make or take criticism. In the amerikkkan social and political environment at all levels, it is very difficult to make this kind of objective criticism/self-criticism a real part of daily life and practice. This again is for the very deep historical reasons already referred to, especially the tendency of amerikkkans to look upon problems as nuisances and headaches, to be gotten rid of by some external means (e.g., pills), rather than as challenges from which one can learn. Therefore, the tendency is to cover up mistakes rather than to admit or grapple with them. Amerikkkans are also very preoccupied with their own personalities or individualities and inclined to develop guilt feelings about their own mistakes or as a result of hurling other peoples feelings, by pointing out mistakes. For example, an individual may apologize for making a mistake because he feels guilty, thinking that he or she is criticizing himself or herself when S/he is really just expressing subjective or personal feelings. Often what is put forward as self-criticism is simply self-protection, e.g., when an individual rushes to admit a mistake to avoid criticism or further examination of the mistake by others."
“When responding to either positive or negative criticism, remain principled and try to remember what has been said earlier about making your own criticisms or responses. We've previously attempted to clearly illustrate how and why criticism is crucial to development of the organization. It is tedious and difficult and is precisely why we lead this passage by saying being in [this organization] is difficult. We have seen members quit the organization or avoid participating in critical discussion. This is bad and we must be aware from the moment we make the decision to join [this organization] that participation on nearly any front of a struggle will require some level of protracted commitment and patience…”
“All this may seem very elementary and common-sensical, but it is far from being obvious, either in the general overall political atmosphere of this country, or in the particular atmosphere of the 'movement's' helter skelter, on-the-go politics. Amerikkkans generally tend to have a technical approach to every project, to try to overpower those whom they are seeking to influence or to defeat, by the sheer weight of their know-how and equipment. Or they have a 'new frontier' approach: if something doesn't work out so well, or things go bad, just abandon the project, or the place or the people involved in it, and go on to something or somewhere or somebody else. They are always running off to a new beginning."
In the end, we must recognize that "an organization like ours, which seeks political objectives based upon the principles of justice and freedom, must ensure that these principles are applied internally and in our dealings with each other."
“Finally, it is clear that several different sources have been used and cited in this piece, many of them having origin in other than anarchist movements. However we feel that the merit of what is said is the principle point here, and believe that such merits are not constricted to the specific time place and individuals that produced them. In general, what is said is objectively of more value than whatever individual etc. may have said it.”


[Since the citations from this are missing, and for easier reading, I have attached a PDF that is laid out nicely. This is a barely modified version of "Criticism and Self Criticism within the ABCF." This is a very elusive document for those who aren't in the organization. Only minor wording changes have been added to update and make relevant to our current organizational structure and commitments. Some language has been altered to reflect our processes, and sections have been entirely removed. Even though this was put together by an anarchist organization, you'll see that they drew on some MLM and Maoist sources. This document was heavily influenced by the PP/POWs that ABCF worked with, including former members of the BLA. I don't think anything about this document is irrelevant to us because of its political leanings. It has some degree of authoritarianism in it. However, I would argue that it's possible for that to be minimized with consensus processes, and any collective democratic activity will impede some upon individual liberty and autonomy. I hope you find this useful. I would like to see if we could get consensus on some modified version of this being adopted and utilized by the Radical Caucus. When practiced, we could offer material aid to the occupation to mediate and facilitate criticism more broadly. It's very clear already that it is gravely needed. It seems to me that the issue of principled behavior, especially during conflict, will have a greater impact on the sustainability of this occupation than the winter weather will.]

Attachments: