Nepal

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/npl-260705-action-eng

I trust these guys because they've called Getmo this century's gulag. These aren't just a bunch of cappies, they exist for non-political reasons.

[h&s]

If these are the methods of the Maoists now, where 'hearts and minds' is key, who knows what they will do once they seize power and install their dictatorship?
Maoists will just deny the allegations against them, and to be fair these facts will be exaggerated.

[More Fire for the People]

I do not wish to make the death of children sound lighthearted as I was a child not some four years ago but I hate to burst your idealistic dream but people do actually die in war, it is sad but the Nepalese Red Army is avoiding civilian deaths. In fact, the whole power of the Maoist resides in the masses so it is illogical for them to wish for the death of the massee.

Now, what is there to oppose about the Nepalese Maoist?
“protracted people’s war”, “new democracy”, “contradictions of society”, or “a people’s cultural revolution”? I find all of these concepts neccessary for socialism.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

Did you even read the fucking article?

* Tens of thousands of children have been abducted from schools by Maoist fighters to attend “political education” sessions. There is increasing evidence that some of the abducted children are recruited for armed activities.
* Many children who might otherwise attend school are kept at home to avoid abduction. In some areas children are getting less than 100 days of schooling a year.
* Hundreds of schools have been shut down or destroyed, or used as barracks Some schools, particularly private schools, have been attacked deliberately by the Maoists.
* Teachers are being tortured and killed, either for not complying with the demands of one side or on suspicion of supporting the other. Many are forced to make “donations” from their salaries to support Maoist activities.

[More Fire for the People]

You do realize that Amnesty International is known for its pro-America and libetarian capitalist bias right?

I am not the local expert on the Nepalese Maoist (Red Heretic is) but I can point you to this:


The Real Truth About the People's War in Nepal, by Li Onesto (http://rwor.org/a/013/truth-nepal-peoples-war.htm)
A Refutation of Harper's Article on the Maoists in Nepal: Telling Lies in Kathmandu (http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm)
Nepal: Children in the War Zone: by Li Onesto (http://rwor.org/a/1274/nepal-children-war-zone.htm)

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

Pro-america? They called Getmo this century's gulag. They have no reports on Venezuala, and have more reports on the USA then all of South America, even Columbia. They are pro-human rights. I would know, as I am a member. The RCP article proves nothing, it is merely a critique of the Royal Army, which I am not a supporter of. Why the fuck should I trust Fascist Bob on this matter?

[More Fire for the People]

Perhaps because Avaikan is not a fascist? Nor are the members and supporters of the RCP who wrote this article.

[refuse_resist]

Amnesty International has been an imperialist mouthpiece for years. It's always good to be weary of the things they say about a particular country or organization.

[Nachie]

Diego Armando, I am confused by your statements. In your sig you're linking to the IWW and Ya Basta!, both well known antiauthoritarian groups who would have nothing to do either with the fascist RCP or the CPN(M). Your Marx quote is also confusing, since it would appear to be a slap in the face to everything Bob Avakian has ever preached.

An incredibly illuminating article, essential reading for anyone who wants to even pretend to have an opinion on the RCP, is Greg Jackson's Mythology of the White-Led "Vanguard": A Critical Look at the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://www.redanarchist.org/pn/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=124)

As for the Maoists in Nepal, we have no reason to believe that they are in any way different (in any way less CAPITALIST) than any other Maoist grouping.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:12 PM
Pro-america? They called Getmo this century's gulag. They have no reports on Venezuala, and have more reports on the USA then all of South America, even Columbia. They are pro-human rights. I would know, as I am a member. The RCP article proves nothing, it is merely a critique of the Royal Army, which I am not a supporter of. Why the fuck should I trust Fascist Bob on this matter?
it might help if you read their paper, there was an article on venezuela. claiming that some employees of some company (forgot what it was) were tortured and one disapeared. blah blah blah, you have to be critical, amnesty seems like a good hearted org like redcross BUT the redcross also made $200,000,000 for "administration purposes" from the katrina campaign :unsure: . you cant trust every word they say

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by refuse_resist+Sep 23 2005, 08:46 PM--> (refuse_resist @ Sep 23 2005, 08:46 PM) Amnesty International has been an imperialist mouthpiece for years. It's always good to be weary of the things they say about a particular country or organization. [/b]
In what way does criticising Gitmo constitute being a "mouthpiece for imperialism?"


"nate"
it might help if you read their paper, there was an article on venezuela. claiming that some employees of some company (forgot what it was) were tortured and one disapeared. blah blah blah, you have to be critical, amnesty seems like a good hearted org like redcross BUT the redcross also made $200,000,000 for "administration purposes" from the katrina campaign :unsure: . you cant trust every word they say

A link to the Amnesty International article in question would be useful.

I just find it hard to believe that either the Maoists in Nepal or those who work for Chavez can be perfect angels.

[More Fire for the People]

Diego Armando, I am confused by your statements.


In your sig you're linking to the IWW and Ya Basta!, both well known antiauthoritarian groups who would have nothing to do either with the fascist RCP or the CPN(M).
For a time, I was a left-communist until I realised the childness of such a position. I do support the IWW within the capitalist system as the most socialist-oriented mass union and Ya Basta is the name of my blog. I do not view the RCP as fascist, but a little misguided and I'm an ardent supporter of CPN(M) -- even when I was a left-communist.


Your Marx quote is also confusing, since it would appear to be a slap in the face to everything Bob Avakian has ever preached.
I put this quote in as a left-communist, but I did not really understand it. What is meant by it is that we cannot enter into a parliament and suddenly start building socialism from the top (or bourgeois state) down. We must however form a Party of the socialist workers to educate and empower the apathetic masses while building socialism.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

"it might help if you read their paper, there was an article on venezuela. claiming that some employees of some company (forgot what it was) were tortured and one disapeared. blah blah blah, you have to be critical, amnesty seems like a good hearted org like redcross BUT the redcross also made $200,000,000 for "administration purposes" from the katrina campaign unsure.gif . you cant trust every word they say"

i went on their website and searched their articles back for years. it goes usa, usa, usa, usa, mexico, usa, usa, usa, usa, columbia

and of course Maoists aren't fascists. They just like to act like them, but its all for the good of the people they slaughter.

[Nachie]

For a time, I was a left-communist until I realised the childness of such a position.
Childishness? Left communism seems to me an extremely nuanced position, based as it is in the autonomy of the working class and the conception of communism as an ongoing historical process encompassing within itself various contradictions, unique developments, and disagreements. This position implies an extreme complexity. Compare that, say, to the false duality of "revolutionary" (CPN-M) vs. "reactionary" (Monarchy) which I think is overly simplified and thus quite childish. By the way I do not seek to offend anyone who still considers themselves a child, I'm merely assuming the terms given to me.

On the topic of Nepal: We would all do well to read the International Nepal Solidarity Network website, http://www.insn.org/ as it has been providing reliable news and opinion on the situation there for years, without political bias and always in the interest of truth. Even you pro-Maoists cannot deny that it has been banned in Nepal and therefore has to at least be doing something right.

[Severian]

Past thread with all the info you could wish for on Nepal (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=0&#entry1291864457)

"Fascist" is imprecise for both the RCP and the Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist). Though one can certainly see where it's coming from with the anti-worker and even anti-peasant violence of the latter.

Both are reactionary petty-bourgeois movements which use anticapitalist rhetoric. But a fascist movement at its height is financed by the capitalist class to smash the workers' organizations with violence and terror and drive the working class out of politics. The Nepalese guerillas are attempting to do the same for free....and Nepalese capitalists probably won't enjoy the process either.

'Scuse if this seems like a nitpick, but precision and clarity in politics are important.....and "fascist" is an especially overused word. IMO "crying wolf" makes it harder to warn of the real fascist dangers present in many countries today; from Patrick Buchanan in the U.S. to LePen in France.

The Greg Jackson article which Nachie linked is, IMO, an unprincipled criticism. Race-baiting, the use of unfounded accusations of racism as a substitute for a principled political critique, should be condemned no matter who the target is; it's poison to real political discussion and understanding.

There was a past thread on that article which went into that in more detail, but I'd have to do a search.

[Nachie]

"Fascist" is indeed an overused term (I wouldn't instantly apply it to GWB, for instance) but given the policies of the RCP and the historical/present movements that they support, I feel like it's only fair to use it so as to not be guilty of understating the problem. Henry Ford's support of Hitler made him a fascist, Bob Avakian's support of Mao makes him one, too. I'm not interested in what these regimes are calling themselves, just what their actual content is. In this sense if the CPN-M isn't fascist, what is it? "Petty-bourgeois" doesn't sound quite as urgent. Cause, you know, people are being killed. I'll compromise on "reactionary" but in terms of capital's self-defense through assuming different forms, "leftist" state-capitalism is serving the exact same purpose as "rightist" state-capitalism.

As for the Greg Jackson article: A principled political critique is not necessary Vs. the RCP because they are Maoists. Anything and everything we could ever want to say against them has already been written and experienced and if we have to keep starting from square one every time somebody forms a new front organization for this ludicrous ideology, well... we'd never get off Internet forums, would we? More importantly, his essay is a history of action, not so much ideology, which is in my opinion far more useful in exposing the actualities of any group.

As for "race-baiting", I don't believe that Mr. Jackson would use race as his primary concern in all situations. The fact of the matter, though, is that the RCP makes a huge deal of its organizing ability/relevance amongst people of color, and like many Maoist groups THEY are the ones pushing the race issue. The RCP has chosen that realm and therefore it is wholly appropriate for Jacksons' response to assume those terms.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:12 AM
Pro-america? They called Getmo this century's gulag. They have no reports on Venezuala, and have more reports on the USA then all of South America, even Columbia. They are pro-human rights. I would know, as I am a member. The RCP article proves nothing, it is merely a critique of the Royal Army, which I am not a supporter of. Why the fuck should I trust Fascist Bob on this matter?
AI has been more critical of the US, but that's a recent development. Historically, they've frequently fallen for western propaganda. They fell for the whole "Iraqis are murdering Kuwaiti babies" scam during the Gulf War, for example. Whether their critical stance towards the US will continue I don't know, they could revert back to old habits any day. Also keep in mind that opposing US human rights abuses is not the same has opposing capitalism or imperialism in general. One can condemn the US but still be a mouthpiece for some other country's ruling class.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:15 AM
Henry Ford's support of Hitler made him a fascist, Bob Avakian's support of Mao makes him one, too.
The PRC under Mao was farther from a fascist regime; its economic and class basis was fundamentaly different. If you insist on labeling it "state-capitalist"....capitalism starts looking remarkably revolutionary in its ability to take on semifeudal rubbish and imperialist domination in a thoroughgoing agrarian and nationalist revolution.


In this sense if the CPN-M isn't fascist, what is it?

"Khmer Rouge-like?"


but in terms of capital's self-defense through assuming different forms, "leftist" state-capitalism is serving the exact same purpose as "rightist" state-capitalism.

Capital's self-defense? Capitalism may well persist but the existing capitalists is unlikely to survive a CPN(M) takeover either as individuals or as a class. They're busily trying to defend themselves against the CPN(M) at present.

As I said, this is the difference from fascism.


As for the Greg Jackson article: A principled political critique is not necessary Vs. the RCP because they are Maoists. Anything and everything we could ever want to say against them has already been written and experienced

Fine if you don't want to repeat what's already been said....but whatever you do say has to be principled, no matter who it's directed against.


More importantly, his essay is a history of action, not so much ideology, which is in my opinion far more useful in exposing the actualities of any group.

And how do you know that history's accurate? He doesn't really inspire me with confidence....


As for "race-baiting", I don't believe that Mr. Jackson would use race as his primary concern in all situations. The fact of the matter, though, is that the RCP makes a huge deal of its organizing ability/relevance amongst people of color, and like many Maoist groups THEY are the ones pushing the race issue. The RCP has chosen that realm and therefore it is wholly appropriate for Jacksons' response to assume those terms.

What? Because the RCP claims to organize among people of color, therefore it's OK to say: you're a mostly-white organization, get out of the fight against racism? By it's nature that kind of thing isn't just an attack on the RCP, but on the concept of a multi-national party. An attempt to confine the left into squabbling identity-politics ghettos.

OK, here's the past thread on it. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35240&hl=mythology&st=0)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:13 PM
AI has been more critical of the US, but that's a recent development.
Uh...no. It isn't. They've been pillorying U.S. client regimes since the 1980s at least.


Historically, they've frequently fallen for western propaganda.

That may be, in cases. Or it may be that some people are upset that the picture of their favorite regime is insufficiently rose-colored.

In any case, AI's overall picture of the world has never been Washington's. They've never gone along with the more exaggerated charges against Cuba, for example.


Also keep in mind that opposing US human rights abuses is not the same has opposing capitalism or imperialism in general. One can condemn the US but still be a mouthpiece for some other country's ruling class.

Or sections of the U.S. ruling class, for that matter, who have policy disagreements with the politically dominant sections.

Yes, AI is a bourgeois organization. No, that does not mean everything they publish is a lie. On the contrary, they're usually more-or-less factually accurate.

[Nachie]

The PRC under Mao was farther from a fascist regime; its economic and class basis was fundamentaly different. If you insist on labeling it "state-capitalist"....capitalism starts looking remarkably revolutionary in its ability to take on semifeudal rubbish and imperialist domination in a thoroughgoing agrarian and nationalist revolution.
We'll just agree to disagree there, since it seems you have some sort of affinity for Mao. All Leninist revolutions distinguish themselves in that while they may perhaps have done a good job at modernizing/industrializing certain societies, (genocide notwithstanding!) but they all become extremely oppressive when the impetus of the revolution makes it time to actually progress past a class system. Then they all claim to be "slowly building" towards communism. Not to mention, if the benefits of Maoism are particular to an anti-feudal national-democratic development in the country's history, then it's damn sure not communism, it's just China catching up.


"Khmer Rouge-like?"
Uhhhhhh.... and if THAT'S not fascist, what is it? Revolutionary content = Zero. If it helps I'll use the loaded anarchist term "Red Fascism" instead?


Capital's self-defense? Capitalism may well persist but the existing capitalists is unlikely to survive a CPN(M) takeover either as individuals or as a class. They're busily trying to defend themselves against the CPN(M) at present.
Which makes the CPN(M) - guess what? - the new capitalists! Yaaaay meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


As I said, this is the difference from fascism.
How? You're tying fascism to the violent and repressive attempts of a particular group of capitalists to survive, and I'm tying it to the violent and repressive attempts of capitalism itself to survive. This is why it always pops up when capitalism is in danger, even where national capitalists are too weak to enforce it themselves. Therefore Mussolini is no different from Lenin in terms of end game because both were just unique defenders of capital in their own specific situations. If the methods of repression are exactly the same, who cares what color the flag is? Lenin had more work cut out for him because he had to undo one of the most thorough-going revolutions in history, but nothing works better than pretending you're one of the revolutionaries!


And how do you know that history's accurate? He doesn't really inspire me with confidence....
Why not? The majority of what he writes are well known facts that can be backed up by looking at more dense "activist histories" and even the RCP's own analysis - the collapse of SDS, change from RU to RCP, the "No Business As Usual" campaign, etc. I suppose you might say confidence in what he has to say is subjective, but I suspect you have ulterior motives for not trusting him on the basic history, to say nothing of his opinions on white-vanguard psychology.


What? Because the RCP claims to organize among people of color, therefore it's OK to say: you're a mostly-white organization, get out of the fight against racism? By it's nature that kind of thing isn't just an attack on the RCP, but on the concept of a multi-national party. An attempt to confine the left into squabbling identity-politics ghettos.
No, but it does expose the complete failure of applying "vanguardism" to the race question when most of your damn vanguard is white. The way the RCP operates isn't "ok, let's organize something" but "ok, we're going to organize something". The imperialism in their politics is undeniable, even when they operate in non-POC neighborhoods! There are countless examples of successful multiracial alliances, even revolutionary ones in class and Marxist politics. The RCP's failure provides a poignant example not of why white people are bad, but of why Maoists are insane motherfuckers who destroy people's actual hard work because it doesn't fit in their little predefined box.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:19 AM
We'll just agree to disagree there, since it seems you have some sort of affinity for Mao.
Heh. No. Besides Mao, there were a few hundred million other people in the PRC, y'know. For a Marxist, evaluation of a society can't be reduced to its political regime.


All Leninist revolutions distinguish themselves in that while they may perhaps have done a good job at modernizing/industrializing certain societies, (genocide notwithstanding!) but they all become extremely oppressive when the impetus of the revolution makes it time to actually progress past a class system. Then they all claim to be "slowly building" towards communism. Not to mention, if the benefits of Maoism are particular to an anti-feudal national-democratic development in the country's history, then it's damn sure not communism, it's just China catching up.

Yeah, the standard thing Redstar's said a million times. And like Redstar, you're not thinking through the implications and self-contradictions of your own position.

1. If you're calling that fascism, then fascism apparently has some progressive content. No thanks, the above doesn't describe fascist Italy or Nazi Germany.

2. Even if you just call it state capitalism...as I said, that implies capitalism hasn't exhausted its revolutionary mission against feudalism and imperialism. That it's still a progressive system in some sense.

Well, Redstar has thought through that to a degree, and takes the Menshevik/Stalinist two-stage approach, saying those countries aren't ready for socialism anyway, bourgeois-led revolutions are the way to go. But from your statement that at some point "the revolution makes it time to actually progress past a class system." apparently you don't think that.

Also, 'cause you don't support the CPN(M) like Redstar does. It's logical enough from the overall approach: they'll modernize capitalism like Lenin, Mao, etc., he hopes. If you impute that modernization to capital rather than to a revolution made by working people....why couldn't it happen again?




"Khmer Rouge-like?"
Uhhhhhh.... and if THAT'S not fascist, what is it? Revolutionary content = Zero. If it helps I'll use the loaded anarchist term "Red Fascism" instead?

"Revolutionary content = Zero." Sure. But I explained the difference from fascism in my first post.

"Red Fascism" - if you like oxymorons.


Which makes the CPN(M) - guess what? - the new capitalists! Yaaaay meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
....
How? You're tying fascism to the violent and repressive attempts of a particular group of capitalists to survive, and I'm tying it to the violent and repressive attempts of capitalism itself to survive.

Which is your error, you're reifying the abstraction "capitalism". Abstractions don't do anything, people do.

Krupp and others financed Hitler. Hitler didn't take Krupp or most other German capitalists out and shoot them and create a new capitalist class. It was "meet the old boss."


Therefore Mussolini is no different from Lenin in terms of end game because both were just unique defenders of capital in their own specific situations.

Really? Even accepting your claim that there was no socialist content whatsoever to the early Soviet government, it thoroughly did away with all remnants of feudalism. Did Mussolini do that? Has any capitalist regime since the beginning of the 20th century done that? Heck, did even the French Revolution do it so thoroughly?


Why not? The majority of what he writes are well known facts that can be backed up by looking at more dense "activist histories" and even the RCP's own analysis - the collapse of SDS, change from RU to RCP, the "No Business As Usual" campaign, etc.

*Shrugs* I haven't read all of that. The collapse of SDS is well known, true enough. And Jackson's account of it is kinda misleading at best, really.


I suppose you might say confidence in what he has to say is subjective, but I suspect you have ulterior motives for not trusting him on the basic history, to say nothing of his opinions on white-vanguard psychology.

"Ulterior motives"? Like the completely unprincipled nature of his criticisms? If he's not honest about the stuff I know about, I'm not going to take his word for things I don't know about.


There are countless examples of successful multiracial alliances, even revolutionary ones in class and Marxist politics.

Like, say, the Bolshevik Party and the October Revolution?


The RCP's failure provides a poignant example not of why white people are bad, but of why Maoists are insane motherfuckers who destroy people's actual hard work because it doesn't fit in their little predefined box.

But that's not Jackson's argument. From his first paragraph: "And like their other white counterparts on the Left, they still continue to view the white working class as “heroes”, themselves as a “vanguard”, and us as ignorant savages who must be tamed and molded into their likeness; much in the same way their Christian ancestors believed."

If that's not calling the RCP, and all mostly-white organizations on the Left, racist...what is? And IMO racist attitudes are probably the one fault the RCP doesn't have. It's not the kind of thing that finds fertile ground on the far-left generally. Race-baiting, on the other hand, often does.

Eh, see the other thread on Jackson's article. There's not much new to say, really.

[Nachie]

Heh. No. Besides Mao, there were a few hundred million other people in the PRC, y'know. For a Marxist, evaluation of a society can't be reduced to its political regime.
Hey I'm not evaluating the whole society, I'm evaluating that political regime. Which was and continues to be, fascist.


1. If you're calling that fascism, then fascism apparently has some progressive content. No thanks, the above doesn't describe fascist Italy or Nazi Germany.
All progressive content was to be found in the Soviets and other expressions of proletarian self-activity prior to the Bolshevik (fascist) coup. In the context of Russia there were certain things that had to change, just like in China, but it didn't make the new government revolutionary, especially not when compared to who they killed in order to cement their power.


2. Even if you just call it state capitalism...as I said, that implies capitalism hasn't exhausted its revolutionary mission against feudalism and imperialism. That it's still a progressive system in some sense.
No, it implies that capitalism is a wily bastard that will happily take up the mantle of "socialism" if it means preserving its mode of production under a different class, even a bureaucratic rather than propertied one. This finegaling when real class conflict gets ready to explode is exactly what fascism is all about.


Well, Redstar has thought through that to a degree, and takes the Menshevik/Stalinist two-stage approach, saying those countries aren't ready for socialism anyway, bourgeois-led revolutions are the way to go. But from your statement that at some point "the revolution makes it time to actually progress past a class system." apparently you don't think that.
There are enough examples of real communism or at least real workers' self-organization in what became the USSR throughout the revolution that it makes no sense to think of things in a rigid "two stage" system. All I'm concerned with is the fact that the Bolsheviks murdered millions of people in order to centralize their control over the economy. I might add that the machinations of the Cominterm did more to destroy communism on a world scale than commonly-recognized fascism ever did or ever will.


Also, 'cause you don't support the CPN(M) like Redstar does. It's logical enough from the overall approach: they'll modernize capitalism like Lenin, Mao, etc., he hopes. If you impute that modernization to capital rather than to a revolution made by working people....why couldn't it happen again?
It could happen again, but I'm interested in supporting autonomous class struggle, not forced attempts at modernization under capitalism. Modernization implies a continuing need for a for-profit economy.


"Revolutionary content = Zero." Sure. But I explained the difference from fascism in my first post.

"Red Fascism" - if you like oxymorons.
And I explained my disagreement. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

As for oxymorons, as I said it's not a term I made up, but in this discussion it might be useful if you're so vested in keeping fascism only for Italy and Germany. Also it's not really an oxymoron. If there's a "brown" fascism on the right side of the capitalist political scale and then an identical fascism on the left side, that just claims to be different and flies a red flag, well then why not "red" fascism?


Which is your error, you're reifying the abstraction "capitalism". Abstractions don't do anything, people do.
Capitalism is an abstraction? Exploitation of labor power doesn't exist? Private property is theoretical? For-profit production is hard to define? If so, then I'm not interested in the people, I'm interested in the abstraction. If you switch the bosses around or not doesn't matter, the "boss" could even be a workers' council that maintains the present mode of production! As long as capitalism remains, nothing has changed.


Really? Even accepting your claim that there was no socialist content whatsoever to the early Soviet government, it thoroughly did away with all remnants of feudalism. Did Mussolini do that? Has any capitalist regime since the beginning of the 20th century done that? Heck, did even the French Revolution do it so thoroughly?
The "Soviet government" didn't do shit. Every gain in that civil (class) war was taken via the dictatorship of the proletariat by proles who rose up, usually without political leadership, in order to redefine their own conditions. In this sense the Soviets accomplished no more than Mussolini or the Jacobins or anybody else, but the Russian workers WERE accomplishing the same things as those who fought in France, Italy, or anywhere else.


*Shrugs* I haven't read all of that. The collapse of SDS is well known, true enough. And Jackson's account of it is kinda misleading at best, really.
That's not my impression, but I wasn't there.


"Ulterior motives"? Like the completely unprincipled nature of his criticisms? If he's not honest about the stuff I know about, I'm not going to take his word for things I don't know about.
I was suggesting something more like a sympathy for the Maoist tradition.


Like, say, the Bolshevik Party and the October Revolution?
If you want, but I'd rather use examples that didn't lead to fascist dictatorship.


But that's not Jackson's argument. From his first paragraph: ...

If that's not calling the RCP, and all mostly-white organizations on the Left, racist...what is? And IMO racist attitudes are probably the one fault the RCP doesn't have. It's not the kind of thing that finds fertile ground on the far-left generally. Race-baiting, on the other hand, often does.
Actually that's not his first paragraph, it's a quote from much further down that just got stuck in the beginning by way of introduction by APOC, who originally published the essay.

It is fantastical to say that the RCP and its members are racists as individuals, but insofar as white privilege remains unchallenged in their haughty attempts to organize POC, it's not a far cry to say that their approach itself is racist. You know during the Cincinnati riots, they once again got chased out of a black neighborhood they had entered to "save"?

I'm not making these accusations because I hate the RCP (though I do; they're Maoists) but because as a gringo I'm interested in productive ways of organizing alongside POC, which includes not infringing on the autonomy of their own communities - something Avakian's little cult has proven incapable of doing.

[h&s]

(Sorry for butting in Severian)

Hey I'm not evaluating the whole society, I'm evaluating that political regime. Which was and continues to be, fascist....
...prior to the Bolshevik (fascist) coup

For fuck's sake do you even know what fascism is? Fascism uses state oppression, which is central to its purpose, but that doesn't make any oppressive state fascsist.
It all depends on the class nature of the ruling class.
Fascism is a governing system that exists solely to maintain the rule of the capitalist class and to maintain their profit. This is done by attacking all forms of worker's organisations and any benefits and rights they get that infringes on profits - fascsim is the least progressive modern governing system.
Stalinism however, is an oppressive regime that just serves to maintain the rule of a caste of beureaucrats in a deformed worker's state. These regimes are progressive in that they give worker's massive increase in quality of life with education, healthcare, welfare at work, etc. (but China today is no longer that, it is probably more like state-capitalist).
To say that Stalinism is fascism shows a complete lack of class understanding.


All I'm concerned with is the fact that the Bolsheviks murdered millions of people in order to centralize their control over the economy
That should read that Stalin murdered/exiled all the original Bolsheviks and millions of others to centralise the beureaucrats hold on the economy.

[Severian]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 26 2005, 09:42 AM
(Sorry for butting in Severian)

Hey I'm not evaluating the whole society, I'm evaluating that political regime. Which was and continues to be, fascist....
...prior to the Bolshevik (fascist) coup

For fuck's sake do you even know what fascism is? Fascism uses state oppression, which is central to its purpose, but that doesn't make any oppressive state fascsist.
It all depends on the class nature of the ruling class.
Yeah, exactly.

I think Nachie could use a little ABC of Marxism. Historical materialism, all that.

Also: "‘People make their own history, but not just as they please. They do not choose the circumstances for themselves, but have to work upon circumstances as they find them, have to fashion the material handed down by the past." As Marx accurately pointed out.

People, not abstractions, make history. (Abstraction does not equal nonexistent. But it does mean vague, an idea somewhat removed from concrete material reality.)