Log in

View Full Version : Carl Miller splits with the RCP(USA)



Brownfist
23rd January 2007, 02:26
This is the statement that has been circulating by Carl Miller on his recent split from the RCP(USA). The only reason that this statement is interesting is that it actually engages with the RCP(USA) line from within, it is not because he is a person of any particular importance. I do not agree with Carl Miller on a number of issues, including his turn to Trotskyism, but I do think that the points that he raises must be engaged with. Not only for the continued development of maoism in North America, but for a better understanding of the nature of communism and the everlasting question of what needs to be done. Also, I guess my interest is piqued because I am currently reading A. Belden Fields, "Trotskyism and Maoism: Theory and Practice in France and the United States".

Why I Split with the RCP, and Why Workers World is Where I am turning
by Carl Miller

#1: They are actual Communists

Repeatedly it has been hinted by RCP supporters that I am not a Communist. The reason why is often related to an Avakianesque point about the struggle to find truth. That is not what being a Communist is about. That is what being an intellectual and a scientist is about. A communist is someone who is a tribune of the people, and actually fights for them and their interests, and organizes the masses in doing so.

Being a Communist isnt about showing up at an Anti-War/Anti-Death Penalty/Pro-Labor rally and selling newspapers and CDs. Being a Communist means you are the ones to organize that rally, and lead your class in fighting back against the system with all your might. Communists are tribunes of the people; they are not parasites who cling to spontaneous resistance as an opportunity to promote a leader.

Workers World Party formed the ANSWER coalition, which led hundreds of thousands of people in the streets to oppose the Iraq War. Workers World is currently leading the struggle to free the Lucasville Five. Workers World played a key part in organizing the movement to free Mumia Abu Jamal. All members of Workers World are very active in their trade unions.

The RCP, while it may support these struggles, clearly is not interested in organizing them, and just sees them as an opportunity to spread the cult of Bob Avakian, and sell newspapers.

#2: Iraqi Freedom Fighters Are Not the Enemy

Imagine if the U.S.A. were invaded by Muslim fundamentalists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are being slaughtered by these Islamic Imperialists, torture chambers are being set up, etc. Imagine then, that a resistance was organized to defeat these invaders, however, many within this resistance were Christian Fundamentalists (Fascists).

The line of the RCP, as they are applying to Iraq, would be that both sides in this conflict are wrong. They are two outmodeds. The resistance fighters, though they are fighting against Imperialism and aggression, are JUST AS BAD as the invaders, simply because they do not hold the same ideology Bob Avakian.

Yes, an Islamic State is not desirable in Iraq, but at the same time, the real enemy of the people of the world is the U.S. Imperialists, and all INTERNATIONALISTS must side with those fighting to free their country.

#3: Worker vs. Proletarian, What the masses are and arent

The RCP has been standing on street corners with Revolution newspaper for the last thirty years, and it still remains a tiny sect. That is because its newspaper does not speak to the masses of people, it speaks to intellectuals, and not even them sometimes.

For example, take the first sentence of the latest Avakian selection in an issue of Revolution:

And this relates to the very real and often acute contradiction between applying the united front under the leadership of the proletariatthe leadership of the proletariat, and not of the petty bourgeoisie, or some other classall the way through the transition to communism on the one hand, and on the other hand, actually forging ahead through that transition and advancing to communism.

WTF!

That might speak to college professors of Philosophy, but not to the interests of the workers. The people in East Cleveland do not know what petty bourgeoisie means. They also do not know what a proletarian is. This is not an insult to their intelligence, it is merely a fact. We have a system which purposely miseducates and under-educates people.

The RCP refuses to acknowledge this. To the RCP, the masses in the ghettos and barrios are all capable of understanding the above passage, or else they should.

This is childish. Millions in this country, especially members of the working class are FUNCTIONING ILLITERATES! Many more are reading on elementary school levels. How in the hell, do you expect them to be digging into six hour Avakian speeches which are not even put in terms they can understand?

But there are terms that workers can understand. Read Workers World newspaper for example. Workers World newspapers exposes the U.S. Imperialists as criminal in simple plain terms. Workers World highlights the events of the workers struggle around the world. Workers World points out that the problems which affect workers in their everyday lives are systemic.

What more, Workers World in the past has had programs on Public Access television. These programs are not videos a bearded man standing at a podium, these are videos of protests, videos of events from around the world, all pointing out the truths about this system.

A great realization of this occurred to me, when I was working on producing a pamphlet with a group of RCP supporters. It was proposed that we include the word Proletarian Revolution. I pointed out that most of the masses do not know what Proletarian means. I was simply told they should.

What kind of intellectual snobbery this is! Rather than trying to appeal to the workers, the workers are expected to become intellectuals on the level of Bob Avakian, and if not fuck them.

This kind of approach to the masses, will not make revolution.

Conclusion:

The Revolutionary Communist Party is a party, not of workers, but on intellectuals. The RCP does not speak to the workers, but to intellectuals. Its propaganda may be taken to the workers, but it does not really respect the workers themselves. Most of the RCPs supporters, interestingly, are not workers, but intellectuals.

And even for intellectuals, it sucks.

Notice that the only theoretical articles in Revolution newspaper are written by Bob Avakian. The RCP promotes a culture of appreciation for Bob Avakian. DVDs are made, which feature one speaker, Bob Avakian.

As far as I am concerned, there is really only one line within the RCP, that is, the line of Bob Avakian.

In the eyes of RCP supporters, Bob Avakian is like Jesus Christ. No jokes can be made about the great Messiah. No disagreement with his line is promoted.

RCP supporters actually admitted to me once that they only read the selections from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao which Avakian reccomends.

During the past year, a discussion came up about What is to be done?. I actually read What is to be done?, but this was a struggle. Originally all I was supposed to do was read Avakians enriched what is to be done.

Lenin led a revolution, overthrew a capitalist state, and built the worlds first socialist government. What does he know in comparison to a man who has lived in France eating waffles for the past twenty years? (See the last sections of memoir for Avakians own admission of this fact.)

The RCP is an obsure Ultraleftist sect. Workers World Party is a group which actually reads and understands Marx and Lenin.

Can the admin. please change the name of the thread from "Carl Miller splits from the RCP(USA)" to "Carl Miller splits with the RCP(USA)"

OneBrickOneVoice
23rd January 2007, 04:00
People from the RCP have already responded to this. So I'll be extremely brief.

#1 RCP is major organizer of the World Can't Wait. How can you be a tribune of the people without fighting for truth?

#2 we side with Freedom fighters who resist US aggression, not terrorists who blow up civilians for religious holy war. We support national liberation but not anti-marxist terrorism. And both are outmodels. Neither are desirable

#3 Revolution paper carries various articles on different levels. That quote is part of a series of theoretical articles. Someone who is interested in the shit we're saying will dig into that. Someone who is just browsing out paper will read other articles which are much easier to understand. Theory is always difficult no matter who you are, to say "workers are too dumb" is just silly.

Worker's World is a reactionary sect which supports reactionaries like milosevic. Bob Avakian is the leader of the RCP because he espoused the RCP line in a very clear cut way. And yes, most RCPers do disagree with Avakian on various issues.

Red Heretic
23rd January 2007, 05:20
This is really long, and I don't have a whole lot of time, so I'm going to be (by my standards) brief.


#1: They are actual Communists


The reason why is often related to an Avakianesque point about the struggle to find truth. That is not what being a Communist is about. That is what being an intellectual and a scientist is about. A communist is someone who is a tribune of the people, and actually fights for them and their interests, and organizes the masses in doing so.

Being a Communist isnt about showing up at an Anti-War/Anti-Death Penalty/Pro-Labor rally and selling newspapers and CDs. Being a Communist means you are the ones to organize that rally, and lead your class in fighting back against the system with all your might. Communists are tribunes of the people; they are not parasites who cling to spontaneous resistance as an opportunity to promote a leader.


All members of Workers World are very active in their trade unions.

Communists aren't:

Trade unionists
Parliamentarians / Bourgeois politicians
(insert other reformist distraction that Workers World is involved in here)

The role of communists is to support these struggles, and synthesize them with a vision and program for revolution. It like the point that Lenin made, the masses are perfectly capable of waging their day to day struggles without communists. What they need the communists for is to have a far sighted vision to make revolution.

Communists are:

Revolutionaries

When RCP members/supporters go out to spontaneous events like union rallies, anti- rallies, etc.; what they are doing is taking out a program for revolution, and showing that to that masses. It's putting forward a vanguard for revolution, and calling on the masses to get behind that revolution.


#2: Iraqi Freedom Fighters Are Not the Enemy

Imagine if the U.S.A. were invaded by Muslim fundamentalists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are being slaughtered by these Islamic Imperialists, torture chambers are being set up, etc. Imagine then, that a resistance was organized to defeat these invaders, however, many within this resistance were Christian Fundamentalists (Fascists).

The line of the RCP, as they are applying to Iraq, would be that both sides in this conflict are wrong. They are two outmodeds. The resistance fighters, though they are fighting against Imperialism and aggression, are JUST AS BAD as the invaders, simply because they do not hold the same ideology Bob Avakian.

Yes, an Islamic State is not desirable in Iraq, but at the same time, the real enemy of the people of the world is the U.S. Imperialists, and all INTERNATIONALISTS must side with those fighting to free their country.


No, they aren't "just as bad because they don't agree with Bob Avakian." They are just as bad because they are outmoded reactionary classes. Groups like the Taliban and the various different reactionary groupings have historically been back by US imperialism, and are not fighting to overthrow imperialism, but rather, for a better deal with it.



#3: Worker vs. Proletarian, What the masses are and arent

The RCP has been standing on street corners with Revolution newspaper for the last thirty years, and it still remains a tiny sect. That is because its newspaper does not speak to the masses of people, it speaks to intellectuals, and not even them sometimes.

For example, take the first sentence of the latest Avakian selection in an issue of Revolution:

And this relates to the very real and often acute contradiction between applying the united front under the leadership of the proletariatthe leadership of the proletariat, and not of the petty bourgeoisie, or some other classall the way through the transition to communism on the one hand, and on the other hand, actually forging ahead through that transition and advancing to communism.

WTF!

That might speak to college professors of Philosophy, but not to the interests of the workers. The people in East Cleveland do not know what petty bourgeoisie means. They also do not know what a proletarian is. This is not an insult to their intelligence, it is merely a fact. We have a system which purposely miseducates and under-educates people.

The RCP refuses to acknowledge this. To the RCP, the masses in the ghettos and barrios are all capable of understanding the above passage, or else they should.

This is childish. Millions in this country, especially members of the working class are FUNCTIONING ILLITERATES! Many more are reading on elementary school levels. How in the hell, do you expect them to be digging into six hour Avakian speeches which are not even put in terms they can understand?

But there are terms that workers can understand. Read Workers World newspaper for example. Workers World newspapers exposes the U.S. Imperialists as criminal in simple plain terms. Workers World highlights the events of the workers struggle around the world. Workers World points out that the problems which affect workers in their everyday lives are systemic.

What more, Workers World in the past has had programs on Public Access television. These programs are not videos a bearded man standing at a podium, these are videos of protests, videos of events from around the world, all pointing out the truths about this system.

A great realization of this occurred to me, when I was working on producing a pamphlet with a group of RCP supporters. It was proposed that we include the word Proletarian Revolution. I pointed out that most of the masses do not know what Proletarian means. I was simply told they should.

What kind of intellectual snobbery this is! Rather than trying to appeal to the workers, the workers are expected to become intellectuals on the level of Bob Avakian, and if not fuck them.

This kind of approach to the masses, will not make revolution.

He was very dishonest in his approach here. "They should?" No. If you listen to the way Avakian speaks, he uses the method of saying a "big word," and then immediately defining and explaining that in a way that the masses can understand. Instead of dumbing/watering down the content (which is really insulting to proletarians), the RCP works to raise the consciousness of the masses.


to a man who has lived in France eating waffles

OH NO! :o

BOB AVAKIAN EATS WAFFLES?! I had no idea! Maybe he can't be a leader of the proletariat after all!

Red Heretic
23rd January 2007, 05:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:00 am
Worker's World is a reactionary sect which supports reactionaries like milosevic.
Well, they do support reactionaries (like Khruschev and Deng Xaioping as well, who both led the capitalist coups in China and the USSR), but I don't think that makes them reactionaries. It makes them backward.

A reactionary is someone who is in the camp of the enemy. Workers World, regardless of how backward their line is, aren't the enemy.

Nothing Human Is Alien
23rd January 2007, 05:29
Can the admin. please change the name of the thread from "Carl Miller splits from the RCP(USA)" to "Carl Miller splits with the RCP(USA)"

Done.

OneBrickOneVoice
23rd January 2007, 05:42
Originally posted by Red Heretic+January 23, 2007 05:27 am--> (Red Heretic @ January 23, 2007 05:27 am)
[email protected]nuary 23, 2007 04:00 am
Worker's World is a reactionary sect which supports reactionaries like milosevic.
Well, they do support reactionaries (like Khruschev and Deng Xaioping as well, who both led the capitalist coups in China and the USSR), but I don't think that makes them reactionaries. It makes them backward.

A reactionary is someone who is in the camp of the enemy. Workers World, regardless of how backward their line is, aren't the enemy. [/b]
If they support the line of reactionaries like Deng Xioping, that definately affects their line, but yeah I see your point but its just semantics.

SPK
23rd January 2007, 08:34
Originally posted by January 22+ 2007 09:26 pm--> (January 22 @ 2007 09:26 pm)Imagine if the U.S.A. were invaded by Muslim fundamentalists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are being slaughtered by these Islamic Imperialists, torture chambers are being set up, etc. Imagine then, that a resistance was organized to defeat these invaders, however, many within this resistance were Christian Fundamentalists (Fascists).

The line of the RCP, as they are applying to Iraq, would be that both sides in this conflict are wrong. They are two outmodeds. The resistance fighters, though they are fighting against Imperialism and aggression, are JUST AS BAD as the invaders, simply because they do not hold the same ideology Bob Avakian.[/b]
This little imaginary scenario is quite problematic, in so many ways one hardly knows where to begin. I had not, up until this point, heard anyone on the left in the usa say, so unmistakably and so unambiguously, that the ultrareactionary Christian fundamentalist tendencies here could in any way play a "progressive" role. Not good.

As a former member of the Workers World Party :blush:, I must say that it is one of the stupidest organizations on the amerikan left. When I was in it, many members -- including some who had been around for a while -- had never read Marx or Lenin. :lol: When they had, it was usually just the basics, like the Communist Manifesto or State and Revolution. I abhorred the simplemindedness of the newspaper, which never delved into political questions deeply enough to get at any of the difficult contradictions (the RCP does try to do that). Mr. Miller seems to view this as a virtue. I think he will enjoy his stay in the WWP.


[email protected] 22, 2007 09:26 pm
I guess my interest is piqued because I am currently reading A. Belden Fields, "Trotskyism and Maoism: Theory and Practice in France and the United States".
The Fields book was one of the first I found on Trotskyist and Maoist groupings in the usa, but it is quite old by this point I think it is from 1988. There are now many books that address the development of at least Maoism during the New Communist movement of the seventies. Max Elbaums Revolution in the Air is well-known and probably the best of the bunch. Legacy to Liberation Politics and Culture of Revolutionary Asian Pacific America, edited by Fred Ho, extensively discusses these questions in the context of the API struggles. Black, Brown, Yellow, and Left Radical Activism in Los Angeles, by Laura Pulido, examines in detail three groups that were active in LA communities of color and which played key roles in building Maoism during that period. There are others, as well.

(edited for readability)

Brownfist
23rd January 2007, 16:10
SPK thank you for the recommendations. I have already read the Max Elbaum book. I guess I was kind of interested in the A. Belden Fields book more because of the emphasis on Marxist movements in France, especially during May '68. I will definitely check out the Fred Ho and Laura Pulido books.



QUOTE (LeftyHenry @ January 23, 2007 04:00 am)
Worker's World is a reactionary sect which supports reactionaries like milosevic.

Well, they do support reactionaries (like Khruschev and Deng Xaioping as well, who both led the capitalist coups in China and the USSR), but I don't think that makes them reactionaries. It makes them backward.


I get very uncomfortable with the use of the work "backward". Largely because of the racial undertones that word has carried for almost a century. I think that we should not be calling them "backward", but calling them "revisionists" or "reactionaries".

Severian
24th January 2007, 08:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:26 pm
For example, take the first sentence of the latest Avakian selection in an issue of Revolution:

And this relates to the very real and often acute contradiction between applying the united front under the leadership of the proletariatthe leadership of the proletariat, and not of the petty bourgeoisie, or some other classall the way through the transition to communism on the one hand, and on the other hand, actually forging ahead through that transition and advancing to communism.

WTF!

That might speak to college professors of Philosophy, but not to the interests of the workers. The people in East Cleveland do not know what petty bourgeoisie means. They also do not know what a proletarian is. This is not an insult to their intelligence, it is merely a fact. We have a system which purposely miseducates and under-educates people.
I gotta say this is a real concern (and not just about the RCP).

I don't think it's mostly about how much schooling someone's had. The jargon is very specialized; you could have a Ph.D. and not understand it. Or understand it to mean something else.....

It's about learning to speak beyond an in-group. Which is not always easy.

I don't think Miller's really dealing with the major political questions, or not that well. He's just wrong on the "Iraqi resistance" - as if there were only 2 sides there, or as if the "resistance" wasn't killing a lot more Shi'a than U.S. soldiers.

On mass work vs just propaganda, that's important - and difficult - but there's more to building mass movements than setting up front groups. Sure, WW's front groups are more successful than the RCP's, but the truth is front groups are actually destructive to unity and the biggest and strongest possible actions. As can be seen by the numerous splits in coalitions and mass actions precipitated by WW. The recently posted Stan Goff article is actually better on this. Communists "have no interests separate and apart from those of the working class as a whole" - we don't subordinate the interests of the broader movements to some shortcut to organizational control.

On the class character of the RCP - and WW - there's more to it than just the writing style of Revolution newspaper. There's the whole political orientation. WW's orientation in the unions is to "progressive" bureaucrats, not the rank and file. Their politics, like the RCP's, are class-collaborationist.

I read part of Fields' book. On the plus side, it's honest and without a special axe to grind. But I don't think Fields really understands any of the political issues involved.

***

BTW, anyone who calls Workers' World "Trotskyist" is using the term as a mere curseword with no actual meaning in terms of definite political ideas.

bcbm
24th January 2007, 19:37
What this really makes me think is... what kind of self-important, pompous asshole feels the need to write a long and pointless essay justifying his decision to hang out with a different crowd?

Nothing Human Is Alien
24th January 2007, 20:09
What this really makes me think is... what kind of self-important, pompous asshole feels the need to write a long and pointless essay justifying his decision to hang out with a different crowd?

One who wants to win others over to his or her position?

Joseph Ball
24th January 2007, 20:48
Why is Carl Miller splitting with Maoism because he thinks Maoists don't support national resistance?

Mao was quite clear that communists should form a united front with all those in oppressed nations resisting imperialism-including reactionaries. He states this in 'On Contradiction'-as I pointed out on another thread.

In Ch18 of 'The Little Red Book' Mao states '...all countries subjected to US aggression, control, intervention or bullying should unite and so form the broadest united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war...'.

I appreciate not all comrades have time for academic study and may prefer action to theory for reasons of temperament. I would advise such comrades to study 'The Little Red Book' as it gives a very good grounding in revolutionary thought without requiring long study.

The idea that the Iraqi resistance is just sectarian warfare is western propaganda.

According to a poll conducted by the University of Maryland 61% Iraqis support the resistance.

see http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...nt=250&lb=hmpg2 (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg2)

According to the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 26% of all Iraqis who have died due to the invasion have definately died at the hands of the coalition. This amounts to about half of all the deaths where the identity of the killer is known. Therefore the real figure is likely to be substantially higher than 26%.

see http://www.jhsph.edu/se/util/display_mod.c...yleSheet=321110 (http://www.jhsph.edu/se/util/display_mod.cfm?MODULE=/SEV35/mod/modules/semod_printpage/mod_default.cfm&PageURL=/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html&VersionObject=619263&Template=199655&PageStyleSheet=321110)

Of course the sectarianism is also real and it's wrong. The involvement of allies of those who attacked the US in September 2001 in the conflict (if stories about this are true) is also very incorrect and should be struggled against. It's for reasons like this that Iraqis need a communist party to unite different factions into a united front.

However, without resistance no liberation is possible. The US and the British are currently forcing the puppet Iraqi government to sign into law proposals which will give western oil companies up to 75% of oil profits on newly drilled oilwells (see UK newspaper 'Independent on Sunday'-07.01.07). Given 70% of Iraq's economy is accounted for by oil this will condemn Iraqis to long term poverty and desperation of the type familiar to Palestinians in Gaza-with no hope of a better future. Support for the resistance is necessary for the survival of the nation. Certainly a terrible cost is being paid. The Soviets paid a terrible cost for the defeat of Hitler but there was no choice there either.

I don't think Carl will get very far by swapping a line that he doesn't engage with for the eclecticism (holding a number of very different ideological positions simultaneously) of the party he has joined. You can't win by just being pro-everyone. You have to have a solid ideology to guide your alliances with others and make sure you are using your time and resources in a worthwhile way.

By the way, if Carl has joined a party where the members do not have some basic respect for their leader, I doubt that it is a party that functions in an especially healthy way.