Should the 9 Letters Be Suppressed?

[repeater138]

The following 3 postings appeared on the respected Maoist Revolution (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/maoist_revolution/) email list (Feb. 13). The first of the three is an announcement by our Kasama site about the RCP’s public orientation (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/)toward our 9 Letters to Our Comrades (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/). Within hours, a demand is made to suppress our announcement and any other discussion of the 9 Letters. Its method speaks for itself. And so does the the third email here: a reply from the Maoist Revolution moderators.

* * * * *

1) From Kasama site:

The RCP’s newspaper Revolution carried a public statement of response to the “9 Letters to Our Comrades.”


This reply is entitled: “A Matter of Basic Orientation — a Message from the Revolutionary Communist Party.”


The full text is available here:
http://mikeely. wordpress. com/2008/ 02/11/rcps- public-response- to-9-letters- and-kasama-site/ (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/)


The other authors of the 9 Letters and I will be responding within a few days…. and would be thrilled to hear your suggestions, advice, criticisms and comments from our comrades here on the Maoist Revolution list.


The 9 Letters are available here (for background):
http://mikeely. wordpress. com/9-letters/ (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/)


The RCP’s previous (but unofficial) script of response is here:
http://mikeely. wordpress. com/2007/ 12/31/initial- rcp-response- to-9-letters/ (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters/)


yours in this great adventure of human liberation.


Mike Ely
* * * * *

2) From Borhan Azemi [email protected]

Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:47 am (PST)


I have objection of circulation this non-political and personal attack campaign, waged by Mike Ely and his companions. I have problem with director of Maoist- Revolution Yahoo group to let such a non-revolutionary writings (open the link (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/)that was provided by Mike Ely in his latest e-mail to our yahoo group discussion and read some the comments written by 9’s ) take advantage of our discussion group and opportunistically use us as a mean to attack the RCP. I warn our comrades and director of our Yahoo group to be careful about letting our site to be used in such a unprincipled attacks.


As RCP recently wrote
“But it is quite another thing when what is involved are completely dishonest and unprincipled attacks, including crude distortions of our views, aims, and methods. We recognize that the more we carry forward with our revolutionary work, and the more we make advances on the revolutionary road, the more we will be subjected to such attacks, not only from open reactionaries but also from some others who may call themselves progressive, or in some cases even claim to be ‘communist.’”
I have read some of the criticisms and comments wrote by Ely’s inner circle, yet I have not come across any genuine dialectical approach to RCP views. Rather I have only read same old criticisms that were done/written by US Anarchist group (during 1980s and 90s) to undermined the leadership of Bob Avakian Chairman of RCP and the revolutionary line that this party represents..


I have not seen any dialectical analysis of RCP draft program; rather I just see some writings (mostly apolitical statement with usage of foul languages) in an attempt to undermining the RCP revolutionary line. By reading some of the comments of Ely’s inner circle, I have learned that they are promoting dissolution/ disorganization. They have not had any revolutionary program on their own, yet they enjoy criticism (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/maoists-debate-islamic-fundamentalism/)of RCP’s revolutionary line especially about a very important subject such as two historically outmoded (imperialism and Islamic fundamentalist Jihadism).
* * * * *

3) From Maoist Revolution Moderator [email protected]

Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:31 am (PST)


Dear Comrade Borhan,


I disagree with your criticism though accept it. First read all the 9 letters and you will see (if attempt is made at a dialectical approach) that there is indeed political composition and a concentrated expression of line contradiction.


Of course i will divide Mike Ely’s ‘9 letters’ into 2 and will without doubt have problems with some aspects of them. This is the first e mail approved by Mike Ely after discussion with other Comrades concerning the ‘9 letters’ and generally agreeing that this is a line struggle (both political and ideological) here and certainly not ‘personal attack’, though i do agree there are aspects of it, but not totally. Hence why we ‘divide into 2′.
Also it can be said that the original poster Mike Ely has had the honesty as below to publish on his web site the RCP’s response. A correct method when line struggle is taking place.


Though Borhan i do not agree with your criticism of the group directors, we can not purge those such as Mike Ely for wanting to distribute political and ideological line differences, though political and ideological line struggle as i’m sure we would agree is best carried out within the ranks of the party in order to strengthen the line and make Revolution as opposed to sitting outside the party where change can not take place though may have influence, and as quoting Comrade Mao Tse Tung;
“According to materialist dialectics, changes in nature are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in nature. Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new. “
This line is also relevant to the political and ideological struggle within the party to propel the revolution forward and this is where i disagree with Comrade Mike Ely. So please Comrade Borhan, let us use our list for this purpose, be dialectic and scientific in our overall approach.
Comradely,


M_R Moderator

[Winter]

Wow. That's ridiculous. When the opinions of others are to be suppressed is when you know an organization is a cult. This is total Jehovah Witness shit right here. God Bless our sacred Chairman/prophet Bob Avakian.

[blackstone]

"Solid core and alot of elasticity" huh RCP?

[Dros]

No representative of the RCP has claimed that the 9 Letters should be repressed. There will be another response dealing with the letters in a week or two.

And I agree with that articles assessment. This polemic consistently distorts and misrepresents the RCP's line, represents a dishonest attack in bad faith, and an anti-Leninist break with Democratic Centralism. It does not seek to engage with the RCP and strengthen the Maoist movement in the US, instead, it's aim (almost stated explicitly) is to destroy the RCP.

Edit:

This thread is exactly the same. It is a blatant distortion of the RCP's line on this. NOONE WANTS TO SUPRESS THIS POLEMIC!

[Great Helmsman]

I find it hilarious that the Trotskyists who criticize RCP's McShit line end up sounding more Maoist than Bobby himself.

[repeater138]

No representative of the RCP has claimed that the 9 Letters should be repressed. There will be another response dealing with the letters in a week or two.

And I agree with that articles assessment. This polemic consistently distorts and misrepresents the RCP's line, represents a dishonest attack in bad faith, and an anti-Leninist break with Democratic Centralism. It does not seek to engage with the RCP and strengthen the Maoist movement in the US, instead, it's aim (almost stated explicitly) is to destroy the RCP.

Edit:

This thread is exactly the same. It is a blatant distortion of the RCP's line on this. NOONE WANTS TO SUPRESS THIS POLEMIC!

Drosera,

Clearly Borhan Azemi wants to suppress it. And he is clearly taking his lead from the "A Matter of Basic Orientation" (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/), which he quotes.

As for the actual "Orientation", it is effectively stated that the 9 Letters polemic should be dealt with using "dismissive sarcasm". And it is promised that it will not be engaged in a principled or direct manner. Rather, aspects of it will be cherry-picked in order to "teach by negative example", if there is any response at all.

You are the first person to suggest there will be an actual engagement with the criticisms of the Letters. But I'm not holding my breath as you've proven how little you know about the organization you support when you adamantly denied (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-and-iphones-t66633/index5.html) that the RCP held Avakian's leadership to be a cardinal question.

That you have yet to admit that this is in fact the RCP's line and that you were flat out wrong in accusing us of distorting it, leaves you with little authority in these matters.

On the other hand, if they do respond, even if their response continues to expose themselves through such blatantly anti-scientific and unprincipled methods as the "Orientation" piece, I look forward to it. The actions of the RCP will continue to clarify what the RCP is about and what they believe.

But moreover, I would love to hear specifically what in your mind is distorted and unprincipled about the 9 Letters. Something beyond simply accusations would be going a long way in clearing up exactly what you see as problematic with a criticism of the RCP.

[bootleg42]

Wow talk about dogma. I'm glad I'm a NON-dogmatic Communist. Unfortunately I feel like I'm one of the very few.

[Dros]

Clearly Borhan Azemi wants to suppress it. And he is clearly taking his lead from the "A Matter of Basic Orientation" (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/), which he quotes.

Borhan Azemi does not represent (and to my knowledge is not a member of) the RCP.


As for the actual "Orientation", it is effectively stated that the 9 Letters polemic should be dealt with using "dismissive sarcasm". And it is promised that it will not be engaged in a principled or direct manner. Rather, aspects of it will be cherry-picked in order to "teach by negative example", if there is any response at all.

This is from Azemi or the RCP?


You are the first person to suggest there will be an actual engagement with the criticisms of the Letters.

I have heard from people more in touch with the paper that the polemic will be specifically addressed in a coming issue.


But I'm not holding my breath as you've proven how little you know about the organization you support when you adamantly denied (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-and-iphones-t66633/index5.html) that the RCP held Avakian's leadership to be a cardinal question.

I uphold my position. The way that you/Ely have present the meaning of the phrase "a cardinal question" is a blatant distortion of the line. I have consistently stated that the RCP does not hold Avakian to be the dividing line between Communism and Revisionism AND THEY DO NOT! The line of the RCP is that Avakian's works need to be dealt with by Communists, thus making Avakian a cardinal question for Communists. The idea that they dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that anyone supporting Avakian is not a Communist (the position advanced by Ely and the polemic) is a lie.


On the other hand, if they do respond, even if their response continues to expose themselves through such blatantly anti-scientific and unprincipled methods as the "Orientation" piece, I look forward to it. The actions of the RCP will continue to clarify what the RCP is about and what they believe.

We agree on one thing. The actions of the RCP consistently show what we are all about.


But moreover, I would love to hear specifically what in your mind is distorted and unprincipled about the 9 Letters. Something beyond simply accusations would be going a long way in clearing up exactly what you see as problematic with a criticism of the RCP.

They expect us to take the word of the author on face value.
They are an anti-Leninist breach of Democratic Centralism.
They are not intended to engage the RCP and have a mutually constructive debate about issues of line. They have dismissed, as have the authors on this site, the RCP as an institution. They presume the RCP flawed and refuse to try and make it better. They explicitly state that they are about damaging and moving past (not improving) the RCP. And you and Ely have done this consistently as well in this thread and in the thread in "Practice" where Ely said that even if the RCP changed its line, he would not support them. That is unscientific and in bad faith. You can not expect to be taken seriously if you are a tiny collection of writers trying to demolish the only Maoist orginization in America with a series of distortions and lies.
Beyond that, I think that the content of the letters is naive, idealistic, and anti-Maoist. Ely points out the need to develop a closer connection with the proletariat and establish base areas (which will be true until the day we make it to Communism and the party disbands) but then blames the fact that there hasn't been a revolution (partly) on the RCP despite the fact that there hasn't been a revolutionary situation! The fact that the RCP is small (compared to more mainstream parties) is due more to the fact that there has been more than a century of anti-Communist indoctrination in the US and that there hasn't been a revolutionary situation for a very long time than to any methodological weakness in the RCP. While it is necessary to constantly evaluate whether or not our methodology is working, this polemic is not about evaluating methodology but about ruining a party.

[RNK]

They expect us to take the word of the author on face value.


The author states explicitely that some pieces of information can not be sourced or backed up due to its sensitive nature; he does not ask anyone to take his word for it.


They are an anti-Leninist breach of Democratic Centralism.

They may be.


They are not intended to engage the RCP and have a mutually constructive debate about issues of line. They have dismissed, as have the authors on this site, the RCP as an institution. They presume the RCP flawed and refuse to try and make it better.

I would hardly call 25 years of being an active and important member of the RCP "dismissive" or "refusing to make it better".


They explicitly state that they are about damaging and moving past (not improving) the RCP. And you and Ely have done this consistently as well in this thread and in the thread in "Practice" where Ely said that even if the RCP changed its line, he would not support them. That is unscientific and in bad faith. You can not expect to be taken seriously if you are a tiny collection of writers trying to demolish the only Maoist orginization in America with a series of distortions and lies.

And what would you do if you were an integral part of an organization for a quarter of a century and, in your mind, witnessed that organization gradually degrade to the point that it appears unsalvagable?

I think something you are forgetting is that Mike Ely is not just some activist college student who got with the RCP over the course of a couple summers and then decided it wasn't his thing. Ely lived for that Party for longer than most on this board have been alive; he has witnessed the party grow from its very inception and I respect his opinions on the subject.


but then blames the fact that there hasn't been a revolution (partly) on the RCP despite the fact that there hasn't been a revolutionary situation!

I disagree. I believe a revolutionary situation has existed in the United States for decades and it is only the fault of revolutionary organizations and the bourgeoisie that it hasn't occured. What is naive is the expectation that a revolutionary party can do nothing until some arbitrary and universal declaration of a "revolutionary situation" is declared. Because of Ely's involvement he has come to the very informed conclusion that the RCP has made grievous errors and continues to do so which has negated its revolutionary potential; it is not a matter of the RCP failing because 'the people are not ready' or because 'there is no revolutionary situation' - the point is that he believes the Party and inparticular Avakian's new synthesis and the new direction the party has taken over the past decades is the fault.


While it is necessary to constantly evaluate whether or not our methodology is working, this polemic is not about evaluating methodology but about ruining a party.

It would seem so from your perspective; from mine, it is a completely necessary move which has been brought about by the RCP's own ideological stagnation and unwillingness to actively engage in self-critical analysis. I, for one, agree that serious and wide-spread analysis needs to be taken on the RCP and if the RCP's democratic centralisation has prevented that then it is naturally necessary to make that analysis in spite of it.

[repeater138]

Drosera,

Ely has clearly stated that the RCP's position is that Avakian's synthesis and leadership is a dividing line issue amongst communists. This is true, and there is no distortion. Your claim on the other hand was that the RCP did not hold Avakian's personal leadership to be a dividing line. They do.

The "Orientation" is from the RCP. You can see it on their website or in issue #120 of Revolution.

I think that the above orientation is likely what your friends that are more in touch with the paper were talking about when they said there was going to be a response to the 9 Letters. Can you honestly read that response to the 9 Letters and uphold it? Especially after you yourself recognized that some of the criticisms of the 9 Letters were valid (particularly on the silence around the revolution in Nepal).

Let me make one thing clear, while Ely's position has been that the RCP has taken a road which will lead to liquidation and isolation, and has argued for saving as much of that experience as possible for a new revolutionary project, it can not seriously be said that his intention has been to destroy the RCP.

The RCP is destroying itself. The leadership of that Party has left a path of revolutionary organizing in favor of the sectarian politics of a continuously more isolated promotion of Bob Avakian, whose ideas are transparently not as powerful or correct as is claimed.

A final note on this issue, and something of the proof of the above contention, any revolutionary organization that can be destroyed by public criticism, especially of the principled and truthful kind that Ely has developed, deserves to disappear. That the RCP and its supporters clearly believe that public criticism is so destructive to their project that it cannot be allowed, and that it has to be dealt with by going into lockdown (as the "Orientation" shows) suggests an organization that is so brittle that it could never withstand the real attacks of our enemies.


The idea that they dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that anyone supporting Avakian is not a Communist (the position advanced by Ely and the polemic) is a lie.

They claim that Avakian's synthesis, and his personal leadership, are dividing line questions amongst communists, and that those who do not ultimately uphold that are not communists. This claim runs throughout the non-response that is the "Orientation". As far as the RCP is concerned the people who have brought forward public criticisms of them are not communists.

[RNK]

I'd also just like to point out that I feel this thread is a rather unwarrented and subtle attempt to promote the idea that the RCP feels the 9 Letters should be suppressed. I agree with most of the content of the 9 Letters, however I must question the motivation behind making such a potentially damning type of thread with such a subtle yet explosive accusation. I'm not saying outright that the OP had this in mind when making the thread but certainly the outcome must've been known.

[repeater138]

RNK:

Speaking for myself I would say that the RCP has in fact been subtly promoting the idea that the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/) should be suppressed.

Whether it has been in their whisper campaign (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters/) of vague accusations of unprincipled and sabotaging behavior, or their analysis (http://revcom.us/a/120/you-booed-en.html) that the Letters are not a serious critique and deserve no response.

In fact, as can be seen from their "Matter of Basic Orientation (http://revcom.us/a/120/you-booed-en.html)", they have been orienting people to deal with criticism using "dismissive sarcasm". Beyond that they accuse the authors of the 9 Letters of being "wreckers" and "parasites".

Is it any wonder then, that someone who supports the RCP, someone like Borhan Azemi, might come out and openly call for the suppression of the 9 Letters?

The problem for the RCP is that their first attempt to kill it with public silence, coupled with a disinformation campaign, has not worked. And so now they must continue the same general method and line, but turn up the volume. The Letters are still not worthy of response (ergo their response does not even mention them by name so that their members may see and judge for themselves the character of the criticism), and now they will publicly lay vague charges and accusations against its authors.

Add it up. They don't have to say that they want these Letters suppressed when all of their actions show them trying to suppress them one way or another. Certainly, they have never called officially for the suppression of the 9 Letters, but they also have refused to do what is actually called for, which is to address the criticisms in a principled manner, to clarify their line with regards to and in light of the 9 Letters, and to make a public accounting of what parts of the criticism are correct and which are incorrect.

[Dros]

The author states explicitely that some pieces of information can not be sourced or backed up due to its sensitive nature; he does not ask anyone to take his word for it.

I understand that. But then, he blatantly lies and distorts the RCP's line and method and makes absurd claims about what the party needs to have accomplished. That does some damage to his cred.


They may be.

They are.


I would hardly call 25 years of being an active and important member of the RCP "dismissive" or "refusing to make it better".

I was referring to the letters. The letters assume as a premise that we need to move beyond the RCP instead of engaging with the RCP in an effort to strenghten it. These letters are an attempt to make a split and destroy the party.


And what would you do if you were an integral part of an organization for a quarter of a century and, in your mind, witnessed that organization gradually degrade to the point that it appears unsalvagable?

Do the Leninist and fight for what I felt to be the correct line within the party. The fact that Ely was unable to convince anyone inside the party after 25 years says a lot.


I think something you are forgetting is that Mike Ely is not just some activist college student who got with the RCP over the course of a couple summers and then decided it wasn't his thing. Ely lived for that Party for longer than most on this board have been alive; he has witnessed the party grow from its very inception and I respect his opinions on the subject.

That does have some weight. I am saddened that Ely has grown away from the party and now feels that he must leave. That is exceptable to me and very reasonable. It is, however, entirely different to try and cause a split by writing a distorting and attacking letter.


I disagree. I believe a revolutionary situation has existed in the United States for decades and it is only the fault of revolutionary organizations and the bourgeoisie that it hasn't occured.

Idealistic much? Revolutions occur when the objective conditions for them to occur exist. In the absence of a revolution (for thirty years appearently) it's safe to say that it is not a revolutionary situation.


What is naive is the expectation that a revolutionary party can do nothing until some arbitrary and universal declaration of a "revolutionary situation" is declared.

That's not what I said and that is not the RCP's line. The RCP's line, called enriched what-is-to-be-done-ism explicitly states that the role of the vanguard is to hasten and await the development of a revolutionary situation.

On what material basis do you believe that there is a revolutionary situation in the United States?


Because of Ely's involvement he has come to the very informed conclusion that the RCP has made grievous errors and continues to do so which has negated its revolutionary potential; it is not a matter of the RCP failing because 'the people are not ready' or because 'there is no revolutionary situation' - the point is that he believes the Party and inparticular Avakian's new synthesis and the new direction the party has taken over the past decades is the fault.

He basis this analysis off the fact that the RCP hasn't had a revolution and that they haven't established wide spread areas of political support. Now, we can take the idealistic position that this is because the RCP and every other leftist orginization in the US and in the first world suck or we can come to a scientific understanding that this is reflective of the bourgeois superstructure's influence on the masses and that the current objective reality in the US is not conducive to the development of a mass movement or a revolution.

[Dros]

Drosera,Ely has clearly stated that the RCP's position is that Avakian's synthesis and leadership is a dividing line issue amongst communists. This is true, and there is no distortion. Your claim on the other hand was that the RCP did not hold Avakian's personal leadership to be a dividing line. They do.

Okay. Ely said so. Your right. I reject Avakian and the RCP. I'm going to go join your orginization. Oh right. You don't have one...

Ely has said that the RCP upholds Avakian's synthesis as a cardinal question for Communists. This is true. It is a question that the RCP believes needs to be dealt with by Communists everywhere. That is the RCP's line. I have it from people who were higher up than Ely was.


I think that the above orientation is likely what your friends that are more in touch with the paper were talking about when they said there was going to be a response to the 9 Letters.

The person I was referring to said that there was going to be this Orientation piece and there would be something specifically addressing the Letters later.


Can you honestly read that response to the 9 Letters and uphold it? Especially after you yourself recognized that some of the criticisms of the 9 Letters were valid (particularly on the silence around the revolution in Nepal).

I think the silence in Nepal might be a symptom of not really knowing how to react. Right now, the revolution is going through some troubling changes. Reformist tendencies are subordinating the interests of the Proletariat. It is to early to have a line on Nepal right now. I do think the RCP should publish a more thorough criticism of Prachanda Path.


Let me make one thing clear, while Ely's position has been that the RCP has taken a road which will lead to liquidation and isolation, and has argued for saving as much of that experience as possible for a new revolutionary project, it can not seriously be said that his intention has been to destroy the RCP.

He has said that he would not support the RCP even if it changed his line. The polemic is not about engaging the RCP with a substantive criticism of method, it presumes that the RCP is beyond repair.


The RCP is destroying itself. The leadership of that Party has left a path of revolutionary organizing in favor of the sectarian politics of a continuously more isolated promotion of Bob Avakian, whose ideas are transparently not as powerful or correct as is claimed.

Analysis?


A final note on this issue, and something of the proof of the above contention, any revolutionary organization that can be destroyed by public criticism, especially of the principled and truthful kind that Ely has developed, deserves to disappear.

Firstly, this criticism is neither principled nor truthful as I have pointed out above.
Secondly, the RCP hasn't been destroyed (or even marginally disrupted) by this attack. I said that the intent of the letters was to form a split. It has clearly failed. Ely couldn't convince anyone while he was in the party, he won't be able to now that he's left.


That the RCP and its supporters clearly believe that public criticism is so destructive to their project that it cannot be allowed, and that it has to be dealt with by going into lockdown (as the "Orientation" shows) suggests an organization that is so brittle that it could never withstand the real attacks of our enemies.

The RCP has never said the letters should be suppressed. That is another distortion and an example of the dishonesty that I'm talking about.

[RNK]

Speaking for myself I would say that the RCP has in fact been subtly promoting the idea that the 9 Letters (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/) should be suppressed.


Yes, I'm well aware of the stand-off attitude the RCP has taken to the Letters; however, I feel the choice of wording of this thread and the rhetoric being used only makes the problem worse.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wow. That's ridiculous. When the opinions of others are to be suppressed is when you know an organization is a cult. This is total Jehovah Witness shit right here. God Bless our sacred Chairman/prophet Bob Avakian.

I know that I've been ranting against sectarian splits here and what not, but in this tactical instance ANY sort of NATION-wide Maoist split from the cultish RCP (which, drosera99, does NOT operate under the principle of DEMOCRATIC centralism, let alone "freedom of discussion, unity in action") would be RADICALLY PROGRESSIVE.

[Dros]

I know that I've been ranting against sectarian splits here and what not, but in this tactical instance ANY sort of NATION-wide Maoist split from the cultish RCP (which, drosera99, does NOT operate under the principle of DEMOCRATIC centralism, let alone "freedom of discussion, unity in action") would be RADICALLY PROGRESSIVE.

No offence Jacob, but how could you possibly have any understanding of the inner workings of the RCP?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Maoist cult of Bob Avakian / The Maoist cultism of the RCP is anti-Marxist (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/36cCult.html)

And from the source itself (the RCP): Revolution: Why It's Necessary - Why It's Possible - What It's All About (a film of a talk by Bob Avakian) (http://rwor.org/a/1246/bob_avakian_video_comments.htm)

[Dros]

Yes, I'm well aware of the stand-off attitude the RCP has taken to the Letters; however, I feel the choice of wording of this thread and the rhetoric being used only makes the problem worse.

Are you honestly supprised? What reaction did you expect? The letters are an attack! They are not an effort to build a constructive dialogue.

The reaction is stand-off-ish because the letters represent a (rather feable) attempt to cause a split in the party and are not aimed at bettering or engaging with the party's line.

[Dros]

The Maoist cult of Bob Avakian / The Maoist cultism of the RCP is anti-Marxist (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/36cCult.html)

And from the source itself (the RCP): Revolution: Why It's Necessary - Why It's Possible - What It's All About (a film of a talk by Bob Avakian) (http://rwor.org/a/1246/bob_avakian_video_comments.htm)

The myth that there is an anti-Marxist "cult" around Avakian has been answered numerous times. And really, the fact is that Avakian has consistently been elected Chairman democratically by the Central Commitee. That is no basis for asserting that the RCP does not opperate through D-C.

And what exactly are you trying to draw from the talk? I've seen the talk and Avakian never denies democratic centralism. If you read the memoir (which deals a lot with the way the party is run) you will see that the party does opperate democratically.

[black magick hustla]

democratic centralism and a personality cults dont need to be mutually exclusive.

[bezdomni]

No. They shouldn't be suppressed. That's stupid. It wouldn't even be consistent with the RCP's line.

[RNK]

Are you honestly supprised? What reaction did you expect?

I would expect them to confront the letters from a clear theoretical standpoint rather than publish a small document which offers nothing more than the same bland accusations that everyone uses against everyone else. I would expect them to confront each of the theoretical, practical and materialist points in the 9 Letters.

You say they are working on a more "advanced" reply; this should have been their first, not the shallow attempt to shrug it off as mere oppurtunism.

[Dros]

I would expect them to confront the letters from a clear theoretical standpoint rather than publish a small document which offers nothing more than the same bland accusations that everyone uses against everyone else. I would expect them to confront each of the theoretical, practical and materialist points in the 9 Letters.

You say they are working on a more "advanced" reply; this should have been their first, not the shallow attempt to shrug it off as mere oppurtunism.

This first "reply" is a general view of what the "opposition" represents. It is reflective of the fact that this polemic is an assault and not an invitation for discussion.

There will be a more theoretical reply upcoming.

[repeater138]

Drosera writes:


This first "reply" is a general view of what the "opposition" represents. It is reflective of the fact that this polemic is an assault and not an invitation for discussion.

The person I was referring to said that there was going to be this Orientation piece and there would be something specifically addressing the Letters later.This is exactly what is wrong with the thinking of the RCP. It announces the verdict on what an oppositional critique represents before it makes the analysis.

Drosera writes:


Are you honestly supprised? What reaction did you expect? The letters are an attack! They are not an effort to build a constructive dialogue.The Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/) are an attempt to build a constructive dialog outside of the RCP after years of work within the RCP, in which a hardening line around Avakian's synthesis was finally declared to be unquestionable within that party (and ultimately among communists in general).

The RCP could have surprised everyone in taking the critique seriously and responding with a reasoned defense of its line. Instead it has responded with an unprincipled rumor campaign (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters/) together with an unprincipled and distorting "Orientation" (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/), thus justifying the way in which the Letters were put out. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters/#comment-898) in making a public criticism of a communist party. Only sectarians could view such a thing as in itself an attack.

Drosera writes:


The reaction is stand-off-ish because the letters represent a (rather feable) attempt to cause a split in the party and are not aimed at bettering or engaging with the party's line.The reaction is unprincipled (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/#comment-1000). It doesn't even refer to the targets of the criticism. In not referring to the 9 Letters the reaction attempts to stifle them. It attempts to orient those who have not heard of them towards ignoring them and not engaging them. It then characterizes them with a series of slanders, not once dealing with the substance of the criticisms. This speaks volumes about the reality of Avakian's "New Synthesis" and particularly of how much one should believe that they are interested in debate, criticism and "wrangling".

Any one can see for themselves that the 9 Letters are a balanced criticism, which does take into account much that the RCP has done that is positive, while laying criticisms of what it has done which was mistaken and particularly of its current path. Well, at least anyone interested could see that if the RCP wasn't so scared of them that they won't even refer to them by name so that others may decide for themselves.

Drosera writes:


Ely has said that the RCP upholds Avakian's synthesis as a cardinal question for Communists. This is true. It is a question that the RCP believes needs to be dealt with by Communists everywhere. That is the RCP's line. I have it from people who were higher up than Ely was.It's amusing how you admit that what we have said is true, while pretending that this is not what we have been saying.

Drosera writes:


I think the silence in Nepal might be a symptom of not really knowing how to react. Right now, the revolution is going through some troubling changes. Reformist tendencies are subordinating the interests of the Proletariat. It is to early to have a line on Nepal right now. I do think the RCP should publish a more thorough criticism of Prachanda Path.So, was it not important to call on the RCP to clarify its line in the matter? Was it simply baseless attacking to demand an end to the silence on the issue of the Nepalese Revolution? Can you at least admit that this particular criticism of the 9 Letters is substantive and important, and that the 9 Letters were the first to broach the subject publicly?

Furthermore, and this is my own conjecture, but this criticism by the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/1-a-time-to-speak-clearly/) was followed (weeks later) by the first reporting on the Indian Revolution (http://www.revcom.us/a/118/awtw-indian-editor-en.html) (only printed online) in the RCP's paper, and just last week by the first publishing of any mention of the Revolution in Nepal (http://revcom.us/a/121/nepal-en.html) in over two years. It is my belief that these acts were partially done in response to the criticisms of the 9 Letters. In this respect the 9 Letters have had a positive impact.

Drosera writes:


He has said that he would not support the RCP even if it changed his line. The polemic is not about engaging the RCP with a substantive criticism of method, it presumes that the RCP is beyond repair.Well, perhaps he misspoke there, but the real issue is will they and can they change their line. I believe that they won't and can't, they have too much invested in the Appreciation, Popularization and Promotion (APP) of Avakian. Their entire organization has been fundamentally rearranged in order to promote Avakian. They can not at this juncture publicly recognize that Avakian's synthesis is not the "most advanced representation of communism" (http://revcom.us/a/115/makingrevolution-p2-03-en.html) without dissolving. In this respect your question of whether we would support them should they change their line is a simple hypothetical, and an unlikely one at that. I am willing to revisit the issue if they change their line, but until then the issue is whether their current line is correct or not. We maintain that it is not, and there are many well reasoned examples of why throughout the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/).

Drosera writes:


That does have some weight. I am saddened that Ely has grown away from the party and now feels that he must leave. That is exceptable to me and very reasonable. It is, however, entirely different to try and cause a split by writing a distorting and attacking letter.So people who leave the RCP over line disputes must end their political life? They must go off in the darkness, they have no right to speak. To give public reason on the questions of line which have led them to make a break? Your line throughout this thread is essentially that it is categorically unprincipled (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters/#comment-898) to publicly criticize the RCP. This is not a revolutionary communist line.

Where are the attacks? Where are the distortions? I ask again because first you claim that in saying that the RCP holds Avakian to be a cardinal question Ely was making a distortion, and then you admit that this is their line. Then you claim that Ely is criticizing the RCP for not having made a revolution in the U.S., and thus ignoring the objective situation. But NOWHERE in the 9 Letters does Ely make this claim. Ely's criticism is that the RCP has made NO PROGRESS (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/) in developing a revolutionary movement in over 30yrs. Furthermore, he gives examples of the very important attempts at making progress and tries to begin the discussion of why it didn't work and what should be done differently, a discussion that is completely missing from the RCP's analysis of itself. Furthermore, this lack of progress is caused by thinking which is deeply embedded in Avakian's synthesis itself.

Drosera writes:


Firstly, this criticism is neither principled nor truthful as I have pointed out above.You certainly have not proven this contention. Why not be more explicit about where the lies are, and why its unprincipled?


Drosera writes:


Beyond that, I think that the content of the letters is naive, idealistic, and anti-Maoist. Ely points out the need to develop a closer connection with the proletariat and establish base areas (which will be true until the day we make it to Communism and the party disbands) but then blames the fact that there hasn't been a revolution (partly) on the RCP despite the fact that there hasn't been a revolutionary situation!Where in the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/) is the RCP (partially or otherwise) blamed for not making a revolution? The criticism here is that the RCP believed that the main way to "hasten while awaiting" was to build bases amongst the oppressed. They failed at doing this over 30yrs. And instead of summing that up and trying again they have "moved on" to a program of popularizing Avakian in order to put communist ideas into the superstructure, and make the discussion of these ideas mainstream.

They believe that this is the best way to "hasten while awaiting", and in doing it they are hyping the content of Avakian's body of work. This will not lead to anything but a setback for communism in the U.S. Mainly because Avakian's synthesis does not actually do any of the things it claims to do. It is a series of assertions about how socialism should be run, and how communism should be conceived, but there is no theoretical or practical invention that could account for something new and revolutionary in our current situation. It is just hype, and the closer you look at it the more obvious it is.

Avakian says:


This new synthesis involves a recasting and recombining of the positive aspects of the experience so far of the communist movement and of socialist society, while learning from the negative aspects of this experience, in the philosophical and ideological as well as the political dimensions, so as to have a more deeply and firmly rooted scientific orientation, method and approach with regard not only to making revolution and seizing power but then, yes, to meeting the material requirements of society and the needs of the masses of people, in an increasingly expanding way, in socialist society—overcoming the deep scars of the past and continuing the revolutionary transformation of society, while at the same time actively supporting the world revolutionary struggle and acting on the recognition that the world arena and the world struggle are most fundamental and important, in an overall sense—together with opening up qualitatively more space to give expression to the intellectual and cultural needs of the people, broadly understood, and enabling a more diverse and rich process of exploration and experimentation in the realms of science, art and culture, and intellectual life overall, with increasing scope for the contention of different ideas and schools of thought and for individual initiative and creativity and protection of individual rights, including space for individuals to interact in “civil society” independently of the state—all within an overall cooperative and collective framework and at the same time as state power is maintained and further developed as a revolutionary state power serving the interests of the proletarian revolution, in the particular country and worldwide, with this state being the leading and central element in the economy and in the overall direction of society, while the state itself is being continually transformed into something radically different from all previous states, as a crucial part of the advance toward the eventual abolition of the state with the achievement of communism on a world scale.When reading Avakian's most recent encapsulation of what the "New Synthesis" (http://revcom.us/a/112/makingrevolution08-en.html) is, why not ask HOW are they doing all these wonderful things that they are talking about. Where is it in practice? Where is it in theory? You will see that it ain't there.

At any rate, far from your assertions that we are not interested in a discussion or a debate, we have been trying to solicit it. It is the RCP which refuses (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/) to engage those who engage them critically. We want nothing more from the RCP than for it to clarify its position in light of the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/)criticism. A discussion of these issues can only be helpful to everyone in moving forward. But only if this discussion is conducted in a principled manner dealing in questions of line, and not in the casting of aspersions on the character of the authors of said line, as the RCP has done in its response, and as you and other RCP supporters continue to do online, and many others continue to do offline.

[Dros]

This is exactly what is wrong with the thinking of the RCP. It announces the verdict on what an oppositional critique represents before it makes the analysis.

As I said, this is a response to the opposition FOR THE PARTY. It is not a response to the argument in the letters.


The Letters are an attempt to build a constructive dialog outside of the RCP after years of work within the RCP, in which a hardening line around Avakian's synthesis was finally declared to be unquestionable within that party (and ultimately among communists in general).

So basically, after decades of trying to convince people, and failing, he left. Democratic centralism exists for a reason.

And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make: the letters are not an honest attemp to generate discourse with the party. They are an attack on the party and an attempt to create a split.


The RCP could have surprised everyone in taking the critique seriously and responding with a reasoned defense of its line. Instead it has responded with an unprincipled rumor campaign

Wonderful. Where is there any real evidence of a rumour capaign.

[Hint: emails from some guy don't count...]


together with an unprincipled and distorting Orientation

What is unprincipled in any way about the Orientation piece? And what is the distortion? (I find it ironic that you talk about distortions...)


thus justifying the way in which the Letters were put out. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong in making a public criticism of a communist party. Only sectarians could view such a thing as in itself an attack.

The fact that there was a public criticism is not what makes it an attack. The fact that the polemic grossly distorts the RCP's line, method, and orginization, that it constitutes a major violation of democratic centralist principles, that it relies on the author's word, and most importantly that it has no intent to engage and strengthen the party but is instead intended to create a split make it an attack.


The reaction is unprincipled. It doesn't even refer to the targets of the criticism. In not referring to the 9 Letters the reaction attempts to stifle them.

When has the RCP tried to/cared enough to stifle this polemic?


It attempts to orient those who have not heard of them towards ignoring them and not engaging them. It then characterizes them with a series of slanders, not once dealing with the substance of the criticisms.

You have slandered yourself.


This speaks volumes about the reality of Avakian's "New Synthesis" and particularly of how much one should believe that they are interested in debate, criticism and "wrangling".

Again, for the millionth time, there will be a response to the content of the letters.


Any one can see for themselves that the 9 Letters are a balanced criticism,

No they're clearly not. It's an attempt at a split. And a failed attempt.


which does take into account much that the RCP has done that is positive, while laying criticisms of what it has done which was mistaken and particularly of its current path.

While condemning them for not having made a revolution in the sole superpower nation during a period of civil repression in a non-revolutionary situation. That's like blaming the Wright brothers for not making a space ship that flies to Mars.


Well, at least anyone interested could see that if the RCP wasn't so scared of them that they won't even refer to them by name so that others may decide for themselves.

You're hillarious.


It's amusing how you admit that what we have said is true, while pretending that this is not what we have been saying.

You asserted that the RCP held Avakian as the line between Communism and Revisionism. I asked you to show me where they said that to which you replied "They hold Avakian to be a Cardinal Question". I asked "Where do they say that he is the line between Communism and revisionism?" You said "That's what is meant when they say 'Cardinal Question.'" Then, I went and asked a party member what is meant by the phrase. And I understood that your position is at best reflective of ignorance and at worst a deliberate and loudly repeated lie.


So, was it not important to call on the RCP to clarify its line in the matter? Was it simply baseless attacking to demand an end to the silence on the issue of the Nepalese Revolution?

I have explained the RCP's silence. And I think that it is justified.


Can you at least admit that this particular criticism of the 9 Letters is substantive and important, and that the 9 Letters were the first to broach the subject publicly?

I have already said that that criticism is substantive but it is still wrong.


Furthermore, and this is my own conjecture, but this criticism by the 9 Letters was followed (weeks later) by the first reporting on the Indian Revolution in the RCP's paper, and just last week by the first publishing of any mention of the Revolution in Nepal (http://revcom.us/a/121/nepal-en.html) in over two years. It is my belief that these acts were partially done in response to the criticisms of the 9 Letters. In this respect the 9 Letters have had a positive impact.

Well I guess the one substantive criticism in the RCP's line has been addressed! Thank you for calling that to our attention!

I think this is a little far fetched.


So people who leave the RCP over line disputes must end their political life? They must go off in the darkness, they have no right to speak. To give public reason on the questions of line which have led them to make a break? Your line throughout this thread is essentially that it is categorically unprincipled to publicly criticize the RCP. This is not a revolutionary communist line.

Where have I ever said that it is "catagorically unprincipled" to "criticize" the RCP's line?

I believe the point I was making is that it is unprincipled to leave an orginization, then claim privlidged knowledge and attack that orginization with a polemic of distortions in an attempt to create a split.


Where are the attacks? Where are the distortions? I ask again because first you claim that in saying that the RCP holds Avakian to be a cardinal question Ely was making a distortion, and then you admit that this is their line. Then you claim that Ely is criticizing the RCP for not having made a revolution in the U.S., and thus ignoring the objective situation. But NOWHERE in the 9 Letters does Ely make this claim. Ely's criticism is that the RCP has made NO PROGRESS in developing a revolutionary movement in over 30yrs.

How many times do I have to say this?

CARDINAL QUESTION =/= DIVISION BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND REVISIONISM!!!!!

As for the numerous other distortions:

The Polemic does fault the RCP for not making a revolution.
The Polemic does fault the RCP for not making progress, which is untrue to anyone who so much as walks around a major US metropolis. The RCP is still the biggest leftist/Maoist/Communist orginization in the country. It has the book stores and has a good showing at protests, rallies, etc.

Obviously more is needed, but the polemic reduces the progress that has been made.


Furthermore, he gives examples of the very important attempts at making progress and tries to begin the discussion of why it didn't work and what should be done differently, a discussion that is completely missing from the RCP's analysis of itself. Furthermore, this lack of progress is caused by thinking which is deeply embedded in Avakian's synthesis itself.

If that was done with the intent of engaging and improving the RCP it would be one thing. But it isn't. It's an assault.

Care to provide some analysis about that last bit about the New Synthesis?


You certainly have not proven this contention. Why not be more explicit about where the lies are, and why its unprincipled?

See above posts and numerous above sections of this post.


Where in the 9 Letters is the RCP (partially or otherwise) blamed for not making a revolution?

The polemic says this
The objective conditions are the main reason why there has not been either a mass revolutionary movement or the basis for any actual revolutionary attempts.but There have been long-standing problems of method and approach in the RCP’s
work — how it viewed itself, the masses and the revolutionary process — that have all contributed to the overall failure.


The criticism here is that the RCP believed that the main way to "hasten while awaiting" was to build bases amongst the oppressed. They failed at doing this over 30yrs.

We have also succeeded to an extent. Clearly much much more needs to be achieved.


And instead of summing that up and trying again they have "moved on" to a program of popularizing Avakian in order to put communist ideas into the superstructure, and make the discussion of these ideas mainstream.

Which is the same thing as building a partisan base in practice.


They believe that this is the best way to "hasten while awaiting", and in doing it they are hyping the content of Avakian's body of work. This will not lead to anything but a setback for communism in the U.S. Mainly because Avakian's synthesis does not actually do any of the things it claims to do. It is a series of assertions about how socialism should be run, and how communism should be conceived, but there is no theoretical or practical invention that could account for something new and revolutionary in our current situation. It is just hype, and the closer you look at it the more obvious it is.


When reading Avakian's most recent encapsulation of what the "New Synthesis" (http://revcom.us/a/112/makingrevolution08-en.html) is, why not ask HOW are they doing all these wonderful things that they are talking about. Where is it in practice? Where is it in theory? You will see that it ain't there.

I clearly disagree.


At any rate, far from your assertions that we are not interested in a discussion or a debate, we have been trying to solicit it. It is the RCP which refuses (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/) to engage those who engage them critically.

Again, the RCP is generating a response.

This polemic is not interested in generating debate. It is trying to "get past" the RCP. Not a good tactic for generating dialogue.


We want nothing more from the RCP than for it to clarify its position in light of the 9 Letters criticism.

That's bollucks.


A discussion of these issues can only be helpful to everyone in moving forward. But only if this discussion is conducted in a principled manner dealing in questions of line, and not in the casting of aspersions on the character of the authors of said line, as the RCP has done in its response, and as you and other RCP supporters continue to do online, and many others continue to do offline.

You have published an attack on the RCP with the sole intent to "get past" (read: cause a split/destroy) the RCP based on a gross distortion of the RCP's line, method, and history. You are the one who has been unprincipled.

[repeater138]

I asked Drosera:


Where in the 9 Letters is the RCP (partially or otherwise) blamed for not making a revolution?Drosera responds:


The polemic says this

The objective conditions are the main reason why there has not been either a mass revolutionary movement or the basis for any actual revolutionary attempts.but There have been long-standing problems of method and approach in the RCP’s
work — how it viewed itself, the masses and the revolutionary process — that have all contributed to the overall failure.This clearly does not blame the RCP for not having made a revolution. It criticizes them for their inability to move forward in helping to create the basis for a revolution. That is, their inability to "hasten" (in the words of the RCP) by building a "mass revolutionary movement" or creating the necessary and basic ties to the masses that would be reflected in even the most tentative neighborhood bases. Drosera's very clear distortion of the very plain meaning of the two sentences he quotes reflect a larger pattern of distortion, and an inability to deal with the content of the criticisms leveled against the RCP.

The above series of rants by Drosera clearly demonstrate his interest in calling others liars and making other rash accusations and characterizations of critics, without being able to back up his claims.

For those that still have questions about the veracity of Drosera's claims in relation to the 9 Letters, I think there is more than enough evidence, both in Drosera's statements and in the actual text of the 9 Letters, for a good comparison of line. I hope that others will take up that comparison, and not let the juvenile name-calling and attempt to drag down discussion into a "yes it is/no it isn't" contest, distract from the main issues.

[Dros]

This clearly does not blame the RCP for not having made a revolution. It criticizes them for their inability to move forward in helping to create the basis for a revolution. That is, their inability to "hasten" (in the words of the RCP) by building a "mass revolutionary movement" or creating the necessary and basic ties to the masses that would be reflected in even the most tentative neighborhood bases. Drosera's very clear distortion of the very plain meaning of the two sentences he quotes reflect a larger pattern of distortion, and an inability to deal with the content of the criticisms leveled against the RCP.

You are correct. I remembered reading something in the letters that is either not there or I was unable to find it. I conceed that, I am not going to reread the whole letter to see if I can find it again.

Interesting though that you didn't respond to the rest of my post?


The above series of rants by Drosera clearly demonstrate his interest in calling others liars and making other rash accusations and characterizations of critics, without being able to back up his claims.

I wouldn't have to point out the distortions in this polemic and in the very existance of this thread, if they didn't exist!

You said the RCP holds Avakian as the line between Revisionism and Communism. That is a lie.

You said that the RCP doesn't support the CPN(M) because they don't uphold Avakian. That is a lie.

You said that the RCP has not base. That is a lie.

You have implied that the RCP has attempted to supress the letters. That is a lie.

Now whether or not the letters are lying or are just misinterpreting is not for me to decide.


For those that still have questions about the veracity of Drosera's claims in relation to the 9 Letters, I think there is more than enough evidence, both in Drosera's statements and in the actual text of the 9 Letters, for a good comparison of line.

We agree here.


I hope that others will take up that comparison, and not let the juvenile name-calling and attempt to drag down discussion into a "yes it is/no it isn't" contest, distract from the main issues.

:lol::lol::lol:
You're an idiot.

Let's go back and general review this thread, shall we?

Firstly, you posted this dishonest, lying thread implying that the RCP had attempted to suppress these letters. It is clear to everyone with so much as a scrap of sanity that they haven't.

Then, you accused me of misrepresenting the RCP's line with regards to the Cardinal Question issue, which was obviously being misrepresented by you.

Then you reasserted your claim and simply stated "this is true" as your "analysis".

Then lastly, instead of addressing the distortions I raised and showing to me why you believed they are not distortions, you chose to attack me personally.


If you are serious about wanting a real discussion (considering this thread I seriously doubt that you are) you can start by actually replying to my post.

[Louis Pio]

Now am no maoist, far far from, except that my parents were however browsed a bit through the discussion and found a fundamental question for anyone operating with DC.


Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters/#comment-898) in making a public criticism of a communist party. Only sectarians could view such a thing as in itself an attack.

I agree to a point. However if one is a party member the critique is of course always first raised in the party. Now if same party stops the critical people as happened under Stalin and even your great Chairman (not Bobby, but Mao) it is a duty to make the critique public of course. Should be DC ABC

[repeater138]

Drosera writes:

You said the RCP holds Avakian as the line between Revisionism and Communism. That is a lie.Where did I say that?

I didn't say that.

What Kasama-rl said was this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1048829&postcount=131):



A cardinal question is one that is a dividing line among communists (i.e. a dividing line between communism and revisionism, revolution and counterrevolution.)

Once the RCP declared that "Avakian is the cardinal question" (i.e. that upholding him is literally on the level of upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat or the need for a vanguard party) things changed.What you said in response was this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1049111&postcount=136):


That is a misrepresentation of the RCP's line. We've been through this...What I said in response to that, was this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-and-iphones-t66633/index7.html):


No Drosera,

I asked a Party representative at one of their bookstores whether the Party held Avakian's leadership and synthesis to be "the cardinal question on the level of the dictatorship of the proletariat". And they answered, "yes, absolutely".Now you are trying to change the definition of a "cardinal question". According to you it's just "a question that the RCP believes needs to be dealt with by Communists everywhere." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1076560&postcount=14) So then, would it be the case that another cardinal question, such as the question of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is just a "a question that the RCP believes needs to be dealt with by Communists everywhere." Or would it be a question which divides revision from revolution? Could I refuse to uphold the necessity of a vanguard party, or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and still be a communist, let alone be allowed to be a member of the RCP?

Clearly a "cardinal question" is a dividing line issue among communists, which is what we have said. Otherwise they would call it "a question". As I said before when I asked representatives of the Party if they "held Avakian's leadership and synthesis to be the cardinal question on the level of the dictatorship of the proletariat?" They said unequivocally "yes, absolutely". I used exactly those words, which are exactly the same words that the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-6/#text91) uses to characterize the RCP line, and I was told that it is indeed the line of the RCP.

Drosera writes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1079715&postcount=28):


You are correct. I remembered reading something in the letters that is either not there or I was unable to find it. I conceed that, I am not going to reread the whole letter to see if I can find it again.

Interesting though that you didn't respond to the rest of my post?I'm not going to exhaustively go back and forth with someone who clearly distorts the meaning of the documents we are talking about, admits as much, and then demands answers to every single one of his distortions and personal attacks. Especially if you can't find the time to give references for your distortions and accusations.


Drosera writes:

You said that the RCP has not base. That is a lie.All your base are belong to us! :lol:

But seriously, where are these bases? The 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/) talks about attempts to create partisan bases in the projects and in other segments of society. It describes these bases in comparison to things like Raucana (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/#text23), and the Wedding District (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/#text23). Where are the RCP bases like this? Where is there anything even remotely close to this?

Drosera writes:

You have implied that the RCP has attempted to supress the letters. That is a lie.I have said very clearly that I personally believe that the actions of the RCP, which are evident to everyone, amount to a subtle attempt to suppress the 9 Letters. This is my personal belief, and I think it is justified by the evidence. The "Orientation" (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/rcps-public-response-to-9-letters-and-kasama-site/) which was put into print was the same orientation that I received both verbally and in email long before it was ever actually printed. This amounted to a whisper campaign (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters/) of rumor and innuendo, as it explicitly does not deal in any substance, but instead accuses the authors of being unprincipled (without explaining why), and attacks the authors personally as not being communists, not being serious, being parasites, etc. This "Orientation" is an attempt to silence the 9 Letters, to inoculate the minds of RCP supporters against it, to stifle it, and ultimately to suppress the ability of the 9 Letters to get a hearing in and around the RCP. It's pretty obvious. That a supporter of the RCP would follow up on that and actually literally call for the 9 Letters to not be distributed (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1074171&postcount=1) is just as obvious an outcome of the "Orientation".

Drosera writes:

Now whether or not the letters are lying or are just misinterpreting is not for me to decide.Of course, you'll wait for someone else to make the judgment for you. :glare:

Drosera writes:

If you are serious about wanting a real discussion (considering this thread I seriously doubt that you are) you can start by [I]actually replying to my post.I have shown more than enough patience and respect for your posts in my replies. Despite your admitted distortions and personal attacks, I have tried to engage. But you insist on simply turning up the volume on your distortions and personal attacks as the thread has developed. Maybe there is a specific charge that you would like to have addressed? If so let me know, because I simply cannot answer every single one of your accusations as you decide to make them up.

Drosera writes:

Then lastly, instead of addressing the distortions I raised and showing to me why you believed they are not distortions, you chose to attack me personally.I am not the one calling people "idiots".

Drosera wrote:


:lol::lol::lol:
You're an idiot.

[RNK]

Drosera, I am personally disturbed by your behaviour in this thread. In almost every post you've made you've used the words "lies" and "slander" and "attack". Such overemphasis gives off a strong impression that you are being extremely defensive to the point of irrationality; you appear to be defending the RCP more on the basis of loyalty than on any analytical ideological standpoint.

Mike believes the RCP is beyond any hope of salvation and he has come to that conclusion after 25 years of working deep inside the Party. Are you surmising that he should keep quiet about this belief? That he should not let his true opinions be known? Are RCP members expected to take a blood oath to never denounce the RCP for as long as they live?

I do not believe Ely's opinions are slander and I certainly do not believe that his publishing of his opinions is an attack. An attack would be more recognizable as one of the MIM's documents which do nothing more than rattle off accusations that the RCP is this and that, without providing any sort of actual fact, sources or pieces of information. Ely, on the other hand, has written a substantial document detailing each and every one of his reasons for his view on the RCP, and has released it for any and all to read, criticize, discuss and debate.

So far, most of your defense has amounted to simply calling the letters lies and slander. You have spent very little effort in actually confronting the critical points raised by Ely -- infact you've made it clear you're unwilling to read the Letters again in order to do so.

I do not think the RCP directly holds Avakian to be the dividing line for communists. I do, however, feel they place an extreme over-emphasis on his new synthesis, and I strongly disagree with the stance they have taken that Bob Avakian's theories are a cardinal question for communists, and that he has [b]re-envisioned[/i] communist and revolution. The RCPUSA has made much of the fact that Avakian's synthesis amounts to a complete re-write of the "communist book", and that this synthesis and Avakian's "vision of communism" must be shown to everyone.

Another troubling point is the RCPUSA's initial reaction to the 9 Letters. I agree almost entirely with repeater that the nature of this reaction was completely and utterly dismissive, and an attempt to "sweep it under the rug". I do not agree that the RCP is actively trying to suppress the Letters, but their initial reaction is telling enough that they would go so far as to accuse the writers (without even naming them or the Letters) of being oppurtunists, uncommunist, and parasitic. While I understand that most people's initial reaction to harsh criticism is to become extremely defensive and even aggressive, I feel this reaction did more harm to the RCP than good, and I feel that if indeed you do support the RCPUSA and support "working with it" then you have an obligation to voice this fact.

In the end, the nail in the coffin may well be the RCPUSA's "official, theoretical" response to the critique. The RCPUSA must realize that this critique is not merely the work of a single deranged person but has been widely circulated, widely discussed, and widely supported. The RCPUSA's next move may well decide their fate. I, for one, am very interested in seeing their response, if and when it comes. I only hope that they remember to adhere to the principles of self-criticism.

Also, Drosera, I do not appreciate your attitude towards me earlier in this thread. I have tried very hard to remain unbiased in this discussion and I do not appreciate your sarcastic attitude.

[Dros]

Drosera, I am personally disturbed by your behaviour in this thread.

I'm sorry. Repeater has been rattling my cage by insulting me and not responding to my actual arguments in a way that I would charecterize as dishonest.


In almost every post you've made you've used the words "lies" and "slander" and "attack".

Care to point out where I've been wrong?


Such overemphasis gives off a strong impression that you are being extremely defensive to the point of irrationality; you appear to be defending the RCP more on the basis of loyalty than on any analytical ideological standpoint.

That is because, as I've already stated, this thread is not about critically engaging the RCP's line. From its very inception, it is based upon the false premise that the RCP is attempting to suppress the letters. It is based upon blatant distortions of the RCP's line. You may not like that I'm emphasizing the fact that these are distortions, but until someone can go back and show that the distortions that I highlighted are in fact not distortions, that remains th most important piece of this conversation.


Mike believes the RCP is beyond any hope of salvation and he has come to that conclusion after 25 years of working deep inside the Party. Are you surmising that he should keep quiet about this belief? That he should not let his true opinions be known? Are RCP members expected to take a blood oath to never denounce the RCP for as long as they live?

I have never stated that. I have stated in this thread that I am saddened that Ely feals he can no longer work with the party. What makes these letters an attack is that they explicitly state that we need to get passed the RCP. There is NO effort at all to engage the RCP on a level playing field. At that point, the intent of the letters, (also stated) is to "regroup" (read: split/destroy the RCP!).


I do not believe Ely's opinions are slander and I certainly do not believe that his publishing of his opinions is an attack.

If they were published in a way that was intended to be actually engaged by the RCP that would be true.


An attack would be more recognizable as one of the MIM's documents which do nothing more than rattle off accusations that the RCP is this and that, without providing any sort of actual fact, sources or pieces of information. Ely, on the other hand, has written a substantial document detailing each and every one of his reasons for his view on the RCP, and has released it for any and all to read, criticize, discuss and debate.

That is not what I have trouble with. That has never been what I have trouble with.


So far, most of your defense has amounted to simply calling the letters lies and slander.

That is untrue. I have shown several times in this thread where there are distortions in the RCP's line.


You have spent very little effort in actually confronting the critical points raised by Ely --

Let's be serious. That was clearly not what this thread was for. I HAVE shown where the premises in Ely's argument are flawed. I'm not going to simply have this argument on your terms and assume that everything the letters say about the RCP's line is a fact.


infact you've made it clear you're unwilling to read the Letters again in order to do so.

Oh come on! Yes! At 1:30 AM I'm not willing to go back and read all 9 of them so I can find one silly little quote to make repeater happy! Is that unreasonable?!



I do not think the RCP directly holds Avakian to be the dividing line for communists.

Good. They don't. But that has been Ely's and Repeater's position and is the position in the 9 letters themselves.


I do, however, feel they place an extreme over-emphasis on his new synthesis, and I strongly disagree with the stance they have taken that Bob Avakian's theories are a cardinal question for communists, and that he has [b]re-envisioned[/i] communist and revolution.

That is a fair, substantive criticism that I would happily discuss with you.

The RCPUSA has made much of the fact that Avakian's synthesis amounts to a complete re-write of the "communist book", and that this synthesis and Avakian's "vision of communism" must be shown to everyone.

Is that bad? If they think Avakian is bringing something forward that can benefit the ICM, is it wrong to say that we think other people should deal with it? I think that is always true! Communists must always reevaluate and deal with theoreticians that can bring forward something new. That doesn't mean that you always agree with what is being said but you should always read and know what is going on and do so in a critical way.


Another troubling point is the RCPUSA's initial reaction to the 9 Letters. I agree almost entirely with repeater that the nature of this reaction was completely and utterly dismissive, and an attempt to "sweep it under the rug".

As I've said before, firstly, there will be another response up-coming. Secondly, the letters are not intended to generate discussion between the authors and the RCP. They are intended to foment a split in the party.


I do not agree that the RCP is actively trying to suppress the Letters, but their initial reaction is telling enough that they would go so far as to accuse the writers (without even naming them or the Letters) of being oppurtunists, uncommunist, and parasitic. While I understand that most people's initial reaction to harsh criticism is to become extremely defensive and even aggressive, I feel this reaction did more harm to the RCP than good, and I feel that if indeed you do support the RCPUSA and support "working with it" then you have an obligation to voice this fact.

I don't necessarily disagree with the Orientation piece. I think the critical point being made there is that this is an attack on the RCP by a group of people that don't have an orginization and don't have any real revolutionary work (that I can see).


In the end, the nail in the coffin may well be the RCPUSA's "official, theoretical" response to the critique. The RCPUSA must realize that this critique is not merely the work of a single deranged person but has been widely circulated, widely discussed, and widely supported. The RCPUSA's next move may well decide their fate. I, for one, am very interested in seeing their response, if and when it comes. I only hope that they remember to adhere to the principles of self-criticism.

I think there response will prove quite interesting. Althought, I question the idea that it will "decide their fate". I don't think these letters have sufficient support to coalesce into a split group. But I guess I could be wrong.


Also, Drosera, I do not appreciate your attitude towards me earlier in this thread. I have tried very hard to remain unbiased in this discussion and I do not appreciate your sarcastic attitude.

When was I rude or sarcastic towards you RNK? I understand that you have remained civil and I have tried to do like wise towards you.

I understand that things went rather sour between Repeater and I (due to the absurd premise of this thread and his rather crude ad hominems) but I have (I thought) remained civil towards you. If I have not in any way I apologize. I would very much like to have an intelligent discussion about these topics but as I've said, that is not the purpose of this thread and Repeaters disruptive behavior (ad hominems, distortions, selectively replying to my posts, etc.) make that difficult. If you wish to have a more cogent discussion about what you've raised, you can PM me.

[repeater138]

Drosera,

To be quite frank, you personally are not the issue, and I have not insulted you or attacked you personally.

I have answered your accusations about the character of this thread and the question of suppression, your accusation about distorting the "cardinal question", your accusations that the 9 Letters blames the RCP for not making a revolution in a non-revolutionary period, and in general your accusation that the 9 Letters are unprincipled. You have failed to respond to any of the reasoning I've given in response to your accusations. Instead you accuse me of not responding.

Why don't you deal with what is actually being said here?

RNK writes:


I do not agree that the RCP is actively trying to suppress the Letters

I would like to point out that I have never accused the RCP of actively suppressing or calling for the suppression of the 9 Letters. What this thread originally posed was a question of whether the Letters should be suppressed in relation to a call for their suppression by Borhan Azemi. What I have said is that I believe that the RCP "Orientation" was the cause of that call for suppression, and that the RCP's behavior in relation to the 9 Letters has been a subtle attempt at suppression (let's say they're are passively suppressing the 9 Letters) without openly calling for such. That is my personal opinion, and is a matter of judgment based upon the facts.

The RCP cannot "actively suppress" the 9 Letters even if they wanted to. They have no power over the people who have written it, and they have no power or legitimacy among outside circles to cause people to turn away from engaging them, particularly as the Letters come in the form of a critical engagement, which the RCP keeps calling for. What they do have the ability to do is to try and lock down those under the discipline of the RCP, to orient them away from engaging the 9 Letters. I can't speak for Mike Ely on how he put out his polemic, but if the insistence that the act of publicly criticizing the RCP is what makes this all unprincipled, look at the RCP's "Orientation" and just think about how "unprincipled" it would have been to distribute this polemic while still under the discipline of the RCP. In fact, once that orientation would have come down, it would've been against discipline to distribute the 9 Letters criticism. So what, I ask Drosera, is the principled way of making this criticism know to the members of the RCP?

[chegitz guevara]

democratic centralism and a personality cults dont need to be mutually exclusive.

A cult of personality cannot be democratic.

[Dros]

To be quite frank, you personally are not the issue,

Thank you very much.


I have answered your accusations about the character of this thread and the question of suppression, your accusation about distorting the "cardinal question", your accusations that the 9 Letters blames the RCP for not making a revolution in a non-revolutionary period, and in general your accusation that the 9 Letters are unprincipled.

Where did you do that?


You have failed to respond to any of the reasoning I've given in response to your accusations. Instead you accuse me of not responding.

Where have you responded?


Why don't you deal with what is actually being said here?

Show me what's being said and I will respond to it!


I would like to point out that I have never accused the RCP of actively suppressing or calling for the suppression of the 9 Letters.

:lol:What is this thread then?


What this thread originally posed was a question of whether the Letters should be suppressed in relation to a call for their suppression by Borhan Azemi.

Come on. Who is Borhan Azemi? He is not a representative of the RCP. Noone cares what he thinks. This thread was clearly set up to frame the debate as if the RCP was trying to supress these letters.


What I have said is that I believe that the RCP "Orientation" was the cause of that call for suppression, and that the RCP's behavior in relation to the 9 Letters has been a subtle attempt at suppression (let's say they're are passively suppressing the 9 Letters) without openly calling for such. That is my personal opinion, and is a matter of judgment based upon the facts.

Okay. I think the orientation is an explanation of the context of which these letters are a part. And I don't see how it is not true.


The RCP cannot "actively suppress" the 9 Letters even if they wanted to. They have no power over the people who have written it, and they have no power or legitimacy among outside circles to cause people to turn away from engaging them, particularly as the Letters come in the form of a critical engagement, which the RCP keeps calling for.

That is true aswell. The RCP can't prevent the letters from being read even if they wanted to which they don't.


What they do have the ability to do is to try and lock down those under the discipline of the RCP, to orient them away from engaging the 9 Letters. I can't speak for Mike Ely on how he put out his polemic, but if the insistence that the act of publicly criticizing the RCP is what makes this all unprincipled, look at the RCP's "Orientation" and just think about how "unprincipled" it would have been to distribute this polemic while still under the discipline of the RCP. In fact, once that orientation would have come down, it would've been against discipline to distribute the 9 Letters criticism.

Noone in the RCP has tried to prevent me from reading or dealing with the letters. The people with whom I'm in contact have stated that we need to have a special session to go through the letters, highlight what we think to be distortions, and deal with the criticism.


So what, I ask Drosera, is the principled way of making this criticism known to the members of the RCP?

The principled way to criticise an orginization is to attempt to generate a dialogue with it. The letters are explicitly not about doing that. The letters explicitly state the need to "[get] past" the RCP. They are not about dealing with the RCP or improving the RCP's line or method.

[repeater138]

Drosera asks:


Where did you do that?In post 30 I clarify how the issue of "the cardinal question" has developed in the discussions on Revleft. I clarify the reasoning as to why a "cardinal question" is a dividing line question.

In post 6, 12 and 33 I respond to your accusations regarding the claim that the RCP is suppressing the 9 Letters. I would note that if this entire thread had been designed to make it "seem" that the RCP was suppressing the 9 Letters, then the poll question would have asked "Should the RCP suppress the 9 Letters?", rather than "Should the 9 Letters be suppressed?"

In post 27 I respond to your accusation that the 9 Letters blames the RCP for not making a revolution.

And throughout my posts I have responded and contested your accusation that the 9 Letters are unprincipled.

Drosera writes:

The principled way to criticise an orginization is to attempt to generate a dialogue with it. The letters are explicitly not about doing that. The letters explicitly state the need to "[get] past" the RCP. They are not about dealing with the RCP or improving the RCP's line or method.As I noted in post 33, this was not possible with the RCP. It had been attempted. As the John Steel memos show (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-rcp-cant-t71307/index.html). I myself sent them criticisms in search of a dialog, there was no response. This has happened with everyone who was involved with the 9 Letters, and many more besides.

The RCP declared that the "dialog" on these issues was over. They declared that "the train has left the station". They declared this internally, meaning that the only way to "create a dialog" was to make your criticisms public. Which they have declared is de facto unprincipled. So you're unprincipled if you criticize them internally, and you are unprincipled if you criticize them externally. It is a classic catch-22 that an unresponsive and unaccountable leadership has developed to defend its leadership position regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

Drosera writes:

Noone in the RCP has tried to prevent me from reading or dealing with the letters. The people with whom I'm in contact have stated that we need to have a special session to go through the letters, highlight what we think to be distortions, and deal with the criticism.The RCP says a lot of things need to be done. You get back to me on this issue after you guys have actually sat down to go through the Letters.

[RNK]

The principled way to criticise an orginization is to attempt to generate a dialogue with it.


The people with whom I'm in contact have stated that we need to have a special session to go through the letters, highlight what we think to be distortions, and deal with the criticism.


It would appear that a dialogue has been generated, then.


The RCPUSA has made much of the fact that Avakian's synthesis amounts to a complete re-write of the "communist book", and that this synthesis and Avakian's "vision of communism" must be shown to everyone.

Is that bad?

I have read much of Avakian's work (not a simple task, as it usually requires purchasing something or other), have read the programme of the RCP, and have read the Revolution newspaper. Nothing I have as yet encountered in any of those sources has led me to believe that Avakian has created anything overwhelmingly groundbreaking. Avakian is an impressive speaker with great oratory and literary skills who has shown he is able to speak about issues with a lot of clarity. But from everything I've seen the scope of his "new synthesis" amounts to little more than creating the premise that a new synthesis is needed. This much is said in the 9 Letters.


If they think Avakian is bringing something forward that can benefit the ICM, is it wrong to say that we think other people should deal with it?

It is one thing to say "we feel our programme contains essential guidelines that should be discussed internationally". It is entirely another to say "Bob Avakian's new synthesis is the cardinal question for communists and his message must be spread to the entire world[/b].


That doesn't mean that you always agree with what is being said but you should always read and know what is going on and do so in a critical way.

As I said, I have informed myself, and this information has led me to conclude that the way in which Avakian is presented is not only unwarrented but borderline dishonest and, to say the least, disturbing.


As I've said before, firstly, there will be another response up-coming.

There should be no "second coming".


A cult of personality cannot be democratic.

Unless, of course, the majority of the party supports the cult of personality. In which case, stfu and gtfo.


When was I rude or sarcastic towards you RNK?

"Idealist much?" in response to my assertion that the lack of widespread revolutionary sentiment is due to the left's failure in capitalising on an oppurtunity and the right's substantive counter-revolutionary ambitions; ie, that the material conditions for revolution exist now and have existed for some time and it is only the lack of class consciencee to its forceful suppression by the ruling class, and the fractal nature of those who are class conscious). That's another debate, though, but sufficed to say I did not appreciate your remark.


Care to point out where I've been wrong?

As you are the one making the accusation it is your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it. In any case, having read the 9 Letters, I recognize that they take a very harsh and very critical position towards the RCP and, yes, have denounced it. This much is clear. I do not believe, however, that the way in which they came to this conclusion involved anything untruthful, any lies or distortions, and I do not view the Letters as a malicious attack (using the definition of malicious as attempting to do unjust harm). I do believe that Ely has raised some very, very important points about the theory and practice of the RCPUSA and although I do not, at the moment, agree with the end result (the belief that the RCPUSA is without hope and should be abolished), I do feel that it deserves much more respect than accusations of distortion.

[repeater138]

RNK writes:

In which case, stfu and gtfo.

This is uncalled for.


I do not, at the moment, agree with the end result (the belief that the RCPUSA is without hope and should be abolished)

The 9 Letters does not call for the abolition of the RCP. It calls for those who recognize the need to regroup to do so in something that is better than the RCP. This is a constructive project as much as it is a negation of the RCP and its current line.

[RNK]

This is uncalled for.

On the contrary. His comment had little if anything to do with our discussion, and it was also uninformed.


The 9 Letters does not call for the abolition of the RCP.

Of course it doesn't. But that is the obvious, or atleast desired, outcome, and we both know it; there's no need to beat around the bush and try to be polite about it.

[repeater138]

RNK writes:

Of course it doesn't. But that is the obvious, or atleast desired, outcome, and we both know it; there's no need to beat around the bush and try to be polite ab

No I disagree. I personally do not see the abolition of the RCP as a relevant political goal. And the 9 Letters clearly expects that the RCP will continue to exist in one form or another. For instance, when it says this (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-6/):


Avakian is alive and engaged. We can expect new amendments and developments for his synthesis to be announced regularly, for years to come — and new initiatives into practice as well. Some things criticized here, in these letters, may yet be modified with new layers of caveat and nuance. And some of his insights may be proven correct by future practice.

More fundamentally the goals of the 9 Letters are explicitly stated as creating the basis for a better revolutionary organization. In other words, as is stated in the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-9/):


We don’t need a remake of the RCP, but better.

[RNK]

So what you are saying is, this "better revolutionary organization" may be the RCP itself, if it evolves in such a way as to become... "better"?

[repeater138]

No, what I am saying is that the trajectory that the RCP is on today cannot lead to a revolution. That is not to say that points here and there that the RCP has brought up in the past or may bring up in the future could not be proven to be right. But overall their conception of what it means to be a party and what revolutionary work should be in the U.S. will lead them into more isolation and more irrelevance, not less.

If on the other hand the RCP fundamentally reevaluated its line, and its practices in pursuit of that line, their may be a possibility that they could transform. But they have so wedded themselves to Avakian's personal leadership and they have so exaggerated the claims about that leadership, that it will be extremely difficult for them to reverse course without losing the whole thing. There is always some possibility, even if it be an absurd long shot. I think that the RCP is increasingly showing what a long shot that would be in their case.

A third possibility is that the RCP actually begins to do some of the things they keep saying needs to be done, rather than propagandizing about how great they are for knowing that they need to be done. This would be a significant change for the RCP, and could denote some positive possibilities.

But in terms of what we can see today, we need something different and better. It is highly unlikely that the RCP can be a vehicle for that "something better". Those that are interested in making something better, in ditching the narrow sectarian view, in dropping the fallacious thinking of political sects, and instead attempting to develop a revolutionary movement for the overthrow of capitalism (and its most concentrated centers of power) which takes a sober look at our conditions, but firmly believes in the desirability and possibility of revolution in our times... Anyone who's into this, should abandon the RCP and other political sects and come to the table to create something new (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/differences-let%e2%80%99s-get-into-it/).

[Dros]

In post 30 I clarify how the issue of "the cardinal question" has developed in the discussions on Revleft. I clarify the reasoning as to why a "cardinal question" is a dividing line question.

You said you talked to someone at Revolution books. I doubt that they are a party representative. There are very few actual representatives of the party.

I asked a party member (not a rep. officially though) and he said that the idea that Avakian is a Cardinal Question means that the party holds that what Avakian is bringing out is something that everyone who is a Communist needs to engage. The phrase "cardinal question" simply doesn't mean what you/the letters say it means.

How about the rest of what I raised?


In post 27 I respond to your accusation that the 9 Letters blames the RCP for not making a revolution.

And throughout my posts I have responded and contested your accusation that the 9 Letters are unprincipled.

Yes. I am in the process of trying to find what I read. It maybe that I misrecalled in which case I apologize.

Where exactly have you responded to the allegations that they are unprincipaled?


As I noted in post 33, this was not possible with the RCP. It had been attempted. As the John Steel memos show. I myself sent them criticisms in search of a dialog, there was no response. This has happened with everyone who was involved with the 9 Letters, and many more besides.

I didn't say you couldn't make criticism publicly. Why didn't you write a polemic like the letters but simply with the intent to engage the party instead of trying to "get passed" them and foment a split that could only harm the Maoist movement in the US.


The RCP declared that the "dialog" on these issues was over. They declared that "the train has left the station". They declared this internally, meaning that the only way to "create a dialog" was to make your criticisms public. Which they have declared is de facto unprincipled. So you're unprincipled if you criticize them internally, and you are unprincipled if you criticize them externally. It is a classic catch-22 that an unresponsive and unaccountable leadership has developed to defend its leadership position regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

The party opperates through democratic centralism so I see no way in which the first part could be true. The party FOSTERS public criticism. This is a core part of its line.


It would appear that a dialogue has been generated, then.

Not on terms aimed at strengthening the RCP and the Maoist movement in the US.


It is one thing to say "we feel our programme contains essential guidelines that should be discussed internationally". It is entirely another to say "Bob Avakian's new synthesis is the cardinal question for communists and his message must be spread to the entire world[/b].

I don't think that is true and I don't see the difference. In fact, in terms of the RCP's line, I don't think there really is one.


Unless, of course, the majority of the party supports the cult of personality. In which case, stfu and gtfo.

Is that directed at the little trot or at me?


"Idealist much?" in response to my assertion that the lack of widespread revolutionary sentiment is due to the left's failure in capitalising on an oppurtunity and the right's substantive counter-revolutionary ambitions; ie, that the material conditions for revolution exist now and have existed for some time and it is only the lack of class consciencee to its forceful suppression by the ruling class, and the fractal nature of those who are class conscious). That's another debate, though, but sufficed to say I did not appreciate your remark.

I apologize for offending you. However, I do disagree with your analysis. We can discuss this in another thread if you'd like.


As you are the one making the accusation it is your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it.

I have presented my criticisms very specifically throughout this thread.


In any case, having read the 9 Letters, I recognize that they take a very harsh and very critical position towards the RCP and, yes, have denounced it. This much is clear.

Yes it is.


I do not believe, however, that the way in which they came to this conclusion involved anything untruthful, any lies or distortions, and I do not view the Letters as a malicious attack (using the definition of malicious as attempting to do unjust harm).

Then you consider the destruction or split of the RCP just?


I do believe that Ely has raised some very, very important points about the theory and practice of the RCPUSA and although I do not, at the moment, agree with the end result (the belief that the RCPUSA is without hope and should be abolished), I do feel that it deserves much more respect than accusations of distortion.

It is impossible to engage with a document about line when it has not been clearly established between all discusants what the lines being discussed are.


So what you are saying is, this "better revolutionary organization" may be the RCP itself, if it evolves in such a way as to become... "better"?

It is explicitly stated in the letters and by Ely in the "Practice" thread that this is not the case.

[Dros]

No, what I am saying is that the trajectory that the RCP is on today cannot lead to a revolution. That is not to say that points here and there that the RCP has brought up in the past or may bring up in the future could not be proven to be right. But overall their conception of what it means to be a party and what revolutionary work should be in the U.S. will lead them into more isolation and more irrelevance, not less.

If on the other hand the RCP fundamentally reevaluated its line, and its practices in pursuit of that line, their may be a possibility that they could transform. But they have so wedded themselves to Avakian's personal leadership and they have so exaggerated the claims about that leadership, that it will be extremely difficult for them to reverse course without losing the whole thing. There is always some possibility, even if it be an absurd long shot. I think that the RCP is increasingly showing what a long shot that would be in their case.

A third possibility is that the RCP actually begins to do some of the things they keep saying needs to be done, rather than propagandizing about how great they are for knowing that they need to be done. This would be a significant change for the RCP, and could denote some positive possibilities.

But in terms of what we can see today, we need something different and better. It is highly unlikely that the RCP can be a vehicle for that "something better". Those that are interested in making something better, in ditching the narrow sectarian view, in dropping the fallacious thinking of political sects, and instead attempting to develop a revolutionary movement for the overthrow of capitalism (and its most concentrated centers of power) which takes a sober look at our conditions, but firmly believes in the desirability and possibility of revolution in our times... Anyone who's into this, should abandon the RCP and other political sects and come to the table to create something new.

So you do want to split the RCP. Which is what RNK and I have already said.

[repeater138]

drosera writes:


I didn't say you couldn't make criticism publicly. Why didn't you write a polemic like the letters but simply with the intent to engage the party instead of trying to "get passed" them and foment a split that could only harm the Maoist movement in the US.

I personally have already (http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2006/02/the_party_line_.html#comment-80788943) gone through that process. I put a lot of time and energy into taking the RCP and Avakian very seriously, and I made my thoughts on that known to them, and I made them public (http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2007/01/the_same_old_re.html#comment-28150494). There was NEVER any response. Nothing. Certainly they don't have to respond to every criticism of them which gets thrown about, but my criticisms were not of a specious nature. They grappled directly with the themes of the New Synthesis. And despite the declared desire for criticism, I didn't get so much as a negative or positive response. In other words, the RCP does not want to "wrangle". Frankly, they don't have the time for it. They're too busy doing what they have always done, which is formulating rash analysis of the situation, and bone-headed answers wrapped in useless slogans. And then taking this out and brow-beating and guilt-tripping those who don't immediately see the light of their "vision".

The greater harm to the Maoist movement is to bet it all on the hyping of Avakian's synthesis, which fails to answer the most pressing issues of our revolution.

drosera writes:

So you do want to split the RCP. Which is what RNK and I have already said.

1) Splitting isn't the same thing as abolishing or destroying. 2) The RCP has already gone through multiple splits in its history, and as the maoist slogan "one into two" suggests, division is a revolutionary process. 3) When you and RNK suggest that the goal of the 9 Letters is to destroy or abolish the RCP through a split you are mischaracterizing the position of the 9 Letters.

[Dros]

I personally have gone through that process. I put a lot of time and energy into taking the RCP and Avakian very seriously, and I made my thoughts on that known to them, and I made them public. There was NEVER any response. Nothing. Certainly they don't have to respond to every criticism of them which gets thrown about, but my criticisms were not of a specious nature. They grappled directly with the themes of the New Synthesis. And despite the declared desire for criticism, I didn't get so much as a negative or positive response.

Perhaps you should have made them public-er, if you know what I mean. I heard about the 9 letters almost as soon as the party did. I never heard about your project. Publicity is important. They probably wouldn't have responded specifically to your letter but they might have to a more public and distributed criticism.

Which post was yours on that blog?


In other words, the RCP does not want to "wrangle". Frankly, they don't have the time for it.

As I work closely with the RCP and wrangle all of the time, I'm quite confident that that is not true.


They're too busy doing what they have always done, which is formulating rash analysis of the situation, and bone-headed answers wrapped in useless slogans. And then taking this out and brow-beating and guilt-tripping those who don't immediately see the light of their "vision".

Is that what Ely spent 25 years doing? Cause damn that sounds like a waste of time...

And that is pretty clearly not what the RCP does.


The greater harm to the Maoist movement is to bet it all on the hyping of Avakian's synthesis, which fails to answer the most pressing issues of our revolution.

Which questions?


1) Splitting isn't the same thing as abolishing or destroying.

Fine. Let's assume I agree with that for a moment. The letters were intended to split the RCP. That still makes them unprincipled on the level that they are not aimed at engaging and improving the party.

But in reality, you wanted the largest number of people to leave the party as possible. It really is an attempt to cripple and/or destroy the party.


2) The RCP has already gone through multiple splits in its history, and as the maoist slogan "one into two" suggests, division is a revolutionary process.

I see nothing revolutionary about recking revolutionary parties. I'd call that counter revolutionary.


3) When you and RNK suggest that the goal of the 9 Letters is to destroy or abolish the RCP through a split you are mischaracterizing the position of the 9 Letters.

What is there goal then? To peacably engage and improve the RCP? Or to create another orginization to run alongside the RCP but be "better"?

Come on. This is patantly obvious when reading the letters.

[RNK]

That still makes them unprincipled on the level that they are not aimed at engaging and improving the party.

But it can be argued that they are aimed at engaging and improving the movement...


When you and RNK suggest that the goal of the 9 Letters is to destroy or abolish the RCP through a split you are mischaracterizing the position of the 9 Letters.

I am beginning to understand the thinking behind this, but it'd be a stretch to say I really believe it to it's core. For all the posturing, the overwhelming rhetoric coming out of the Ely camp has been one of non-sectarian co-operation, the building of a broader, stronger, more capable movement; this does, technically, fall in line with "we do not seek to destroy the RCP, but to remove ourselves from it and offer a new idea for communists to digest on the road to revolution", and that sort of thing.

In principle, I agree. I've come to the conclusion over the past few months that one massively debilitating aspect of the revolutionary left has been its gross sectarian and fractal nature (a point of view I'd really like to discuss with you, repeater, as you seem to share a similar opinion). Necessarily I'd like to see an honest attempt to get on with it (though we've heard this so many times, it should be understandable why it can be a difficult line to swallow). If my perceptions of the Ely camp are clear, this "fresh start" or whatever you want to call it is more an attempt to take from what progress the RCP has made (and I consider it to be substantive progress as I hold the RCP to be the most advanced revolutionary organization in the United States today, despite its shortcomings) and build it into a more capable and determined and undogmatic kinetic force, without denouncing the RCP in an absolute way but recognizing the need for "more" and without counting out the possibility that the RCP may still have a role to play.

It's a very risky stance to take, and I understand the RCP's reluctance to face-off against it. Doing so may require some amount of humility on their part, which often does not come easily, particularly when the leadership (and thus the direction) of the party is so highly praised -- it would fundamentally weaken the stance the RCP has worked so long to build if they were suddenly to turn around and say "okay, Avakian may have been wrong on a few things".

One thing is for sure; self-criticism, from both sides, needs to play a large part in whatever happens next.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And there's me thinking that only Trotskyists split; nice to see the gods of dialectics have struck you dialectical Maoists, too.

[bezdomni]

And there's me thinking that only Trotskyists split; nice to see the gods of dialectics have struck you dialectical Maoists, too.
Nobody's split. Mike Ely isn't a member of the RCP,USA anymore and has put up some criticisms on his website.

That's about it.

[chegitz guevara]

And there's me thinking that only Trotskyists split; nice to see the gods of dialectics have struck you dialectical Maoists, too.

Dialectics has nothing to do with it. Your understanding of the role of dialectics in the movement is entirely idealistic. It is not bad ideas that have ripped the Marxist movement to shreds, but bad circumstances and bad forces.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And inflexible organizational structures and practices (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-vs-t70106/index.html), to top it off :p

[chegitz guevara]

^^^ And inflexible organizational structures and practices, to top it off

I'm not allowed to look at that page. Classist!

[Dros]

But it can be argued that they are aimed at engaging and improving the movement...

Perhaps this is just me but I can't understand how trying to destroy (or "get past" or split or how ever you choose to phrase it) the only Maoist orgization in the country and the largest Communist party in the country can strengthen the movement.


I am beginning to understand the thinking behind this, but it'd be a stretch to say I really believe it to it's core. For all the posturing, the overwhelming rhetoric coming out of the Ely camp has been one of non-sectarian co-operation, the building of a broader, stronger, more capable movement; this does, technically, fall in line with "we do not seek to destroy the RCP, but to remove ourselves from it and offer a new idea for communists to digest on the road to revolution", and that sort of thing.

The letters express the need to "get passed" the RCP and create a new orginization. They call for all revolutionary Communists to join them in this. Do they hope that a large section of the people in the RCP will disagree? I think it is exceedingly obvious that this is the intent of the letters.


In principle, I agree. I've come to the conclusion over the past few months that one massively debilitating aspect of the revolutionary left has been its gross sectarian and fractal nature (a point of view I'd really like to discuss with you, repeater, as you seem to share a similar opinion). Necessarily I'd like to see an honest attempt to get on with it (though we've heard this so many times, it should be understandable why it can be a difficult line to swallow). If my perceptions of the Ely camp are clear, this "fresh start" or whatever you want to call it is more an attempt to take from what progress the RCP has made (and I consider it to be substantive progress as I hold the RCP to be the most advanced revolutionary organization in the United States today, despite its shortcomings) and build it into a more capable and determined and undogmatic kinetic force, without denouncing the RCP in an absolute way but recognizing the need for "more" and without counting out the possibility that the RCP may still have a role to play.

But they have explicitly stated that the RCP can't play that role. And they are not trying to improve the RCP. They are explicitly arguing under the premise that it is impossible to discuss with the RCP.


It's a very risky stance to take, and I understand the RCP's reluctance to face-off against it. Doing so may require some amount of humility on their part, which often does not come easily, particularly when the leadership (and thus the direction) of the party is so highly praised -- it would fundamentally weaken the stance the RCP has worked so long to build if they were suddenly to turn around and say "okay, Avakian may have been wrong on a few things".

1.) The party has never held Avakian to be right at everything. We have attempted to foster honest, political dialogue around issues of line.
2.) The reason for the "orientation" piece is very clear here: there is no attempt by this group to improve the RCP. That is fundementally not what this is about.


One thing is for sure; self-criticism, from both sides, needs to play a large part in whatever happens next.

Understanding what mistakes have been made is a prerequisite. And in order of that to happen, real debate on honest and principled terms, centered around issues of line needs to occur.

===========

I am saddened that so many revolutionary Communists have been driven away from the RCP. I think the party needs to address the sterility that they have brought up, although that sterility has been patchy (ie: not present in most of the party I have interacted with). I would love to see an honest and mutually constructive dialogue centered on what the RCP actually says occur. And I hope that that could strengthen our party and the movement in this country.

[RNK]

The letters express the need to "get passed" the RCP and create a new orginization. They call for all revolutionary Communists to join them in this. Do they hope that a large section of the people in the RCP will disagree? I think it is exceedingly obvious that this is the intent of the letters.

Yes, I agree; my point is trying to figure out why, figure out the implications and motivations behind this, to see if there is actually a tangible problem that needs to be faced. I have a somewhat outsider's look on the matter. I don't particularly want to take sides. I've been watching the RCP-USA for quite some time, ever since I became involved with the RCP-PCR, and the main reason I am so open to Mike Ely's polemic and the polemics coming out of his camp is because independant of him I have had growing concerns over the RCP, over the nature and role of the Avakian personality culture, and over questions of strategy and tactics.

To be honest, I'm divided by the issue. I understand the need to work with something that is already there and tangible; I recognize that the Ely camp is, off the bat, in worse straights and will have a hard time being successful in their endeavour. However I also understand that there are serious issues, atleast on the outside, that need to be addressed about the RCP-USA, and I understand that sometimes in order to deal with issues in a Party one must go outside of it. There is a reason, afterall, that Ely feels that its necessary to do this -- I seriously do not believe that he has done this because of the accusations thrown upon him in the RCP-USA's initial Orientation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not allowed to look at that page. Classist!

Huh? I thought our user group is open for viewing by the public! :scared:

I'll have this addressed ASAP.

[Xiao Banfa]

Only a maoist would ask such a stupid question.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Wow talk about dogma. I'm glad I'm a NON-dogmatic Communist. Unfortunately I feel like I'm one of the very few.
Yeah I feel the same way when I look at some of the stuff that is said here. What's with all the fake long winded mumbo jumbo? It all means shit in the end. RCP isn't shit and they won't do shit and that other fucker isn't gonna do shit either. But overall Bob Avakian is a loony on a very high horse.

I don't understand why anyone feeds into this shit or heroification in any form. I think the biggest problem with communism is that everyones head is up someone's ass whether it is Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Castro, Bob Avakian, Bakuni, Marx whatever. Just let them go, they're dead and worthless now. Think for yourself and do what makes you feel good whether it be a communist action or not. Shit start a business and pay the workers shit. :rolleyes:

[Dros]

Yeah I feel the same way when I look at some of the stuff that is said here. What's with all the fake long winded mumbo jumbo? It all means shit in the end. RCP isn't shit and they won't do shit and that other fucker isn't gonna do shit either. But overall Bob Avakian is a loony on a very high horse.

I don't understand why anyone feeds into this shit or heroification in any form. I think the biggest problem with communism is that everyones head is up someone's ass whether it is Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Castro, Bob Avakian, Bakuni, Marx whatever. Just let them go, they're dead and worthless now. Think for yourself and do what makes you feel good whether it be a communist action or not. Shit start a business and pay the workers shit. :rolleyes:

Go post your anarchist ignorant bullshit somewhere else... where people care what a thirteen year old with 0 understanding of history, politics, or theory thinks about Communism 'cause I know noone here gives a flying fuck about your ignorant opinions.

[Dros]

Yes, I agree; my point is trying to figure out why, figure out the implications and motivations behind this, to see if there is actually a tangible problem that needs to be faced.

In order for that to happen, there needs to be a dialogue surrounding issues of line that engages the RCP's actual line from a standpoint that is mutually constructive. The letters don't fullfill this role.


I have a somewhat outsider's look on the matter. I don't particularly want to take sides. I've been watching the RCP-USA for quite some time, ever since I became involved with the RCP-PCR, and the main reason I am so open to Mike Ely's polemic and the polemics coming out of his camp is because independant of him I have had growing concerns over the RCP, over the nature and role of the Avakian personality culture, and over questions of strategy and tactics.

I'm glad. I'm always happy to discuss line and tactics with people from other parties.

[chegitz guevara]

Perhaps this is just me but I can't understand how trying to destroy (or "get past" or split or how ever you choose to phrase it) the only Maoist orgization in the country and the largest Communist party in the country can strengthen the movement.

Maybe because both of your assertions are false.

[Dros]

Can everybody who is not willing to say something intelligent about or contribute to the conversation we are having please GTFO.

[Dros]

I am not the one calling people "idiots".

Come on. That was clearly intended to be ironic. Did you not see the laughing faces?


You have no sense of humour...

[chegitz guevara]

Can everybody who is not willing to say something intelligent about or contribute to the conversation we are having please GTFO.

Who are we going to argue with when you're gone?

[Brownfist]

Comrades,
I request that people refrain from cussing out one another because it doesn't seem to be getting anyone anywhere. I am not saying that one should generally refrain from swearing, but I do think that due to the medium that we are currently employing that it is especially un-useful. I really think that we should show one another some respect regardless of political tendency. I think that we can draw different kinds of lessons from one another's experiences.

As for Drosera's question about how could a split be beneficial. A split can be useful in the long-term, as compared to the short-term (which seems to be what you are concerned with, however, I could be wrong), to actually correct line and/or practice of the earlier organization within the newly formed organization. A split should not be taken lightly and should only result when a faction within a party feels that the party line and practice has deviated too much from correct line and practice, and that there is insufficient space within the previous organization to correct these errors. Whether, the RCP(USA) is the largest Maoist party in the USA does not mean that a split may not be desirable by a section of the membership/leadership if they feel that the party has deviated too much from a correct M-L-M line and practice. A split may also be beneficial for the original party because it forces them to politically engage (both theoretically and practically) with the newly formed organization, and through such a dialectical practice could even merge once again in the future.

[Dros]

Comrades,
I request that people refrain from cussing out one another because it doesn't seem to be getting anyone anywhere. I am not saying that one should generally refrain from swearing, but I do think that due to the medium that we are currently employing that it is especially un-useful. I really think that we should show one another some respect regardless of political tendency. I think that we can draw different kinds of lessons from one another's experiences.

I am not cussing out individuals. I think that the people who are here making useless posts are essentially trolling.

I disagree with the substance of your argument. I don't have time now but I will reply later.

[chegitz guevara]

Prove your assertions that the RCP is the only Maoist organization and that it is the largest Communist Party.

[kasama-rl]

There are many reasons that splits become necessary -- all boiling down to the fact that two roads have emerged (in theory and practice) and different forces within a single party have chosen to walk different roads.

Obviously, such a parting of the ways should not happen frivilously, or as an excuse for leaving political life, or until great efforts have been made to resolve contradictions by other means. but just as clearly (and this is especially clear for Maoists who believe in dialectics) "One divides into two" -- and that is inevitable given the nature of politics, class struggle, the struggle over line and the class nature of human society.

* * * * *

In the case of the RCP, a major change in its line was imposed -- organized around the notion that "Apprciation of bob Avakian is a cardinal question for communists" -- and that (in fact) you can't understand the OTHER cardinal questions correctly unless you are seeing THEM TOO through the prism of Avakian's new synthesis. (That is why it was said that he is THE cardinal question of this moment among communists).

this change had a long and intense list of implications -- for strategy, tactics, forms of communist work, for the way the party was demoted to a mere instrument of its leader, in the way the masses of people are views, and the historical process of change is conceptualized.

Clearly there was a divergences within the RCP over road. Now it did not come to a split. No opposing "headquarters" emerged in the RCP willing to pose a revolutionary pole to the Avakian's idealist rectification. It was a rather sad failure of the rest of the party's leadership -- who opposed avakian's synthesis only so long and then folded.

So there has in fact not been a split in that Party -- but rather a growth in the steady stream of people leaving the party. the RCP is an organization that had its biggest membership on the day it was founded in 1975, and that has generally dwindled (sometimes in leaps, sometimes through linear attrition) ever since. With the consolidation of avakian's cult of personality (and all its attendant madness) that attrition has accelerated.

but in fact, the RCP is moribund, and it will not (i believe) go anywhere good. Even if something unexpected happened, and the RCP started to grow (unlikely but possible) it would not be able to lead a revooutoin -- because of its views of politics, ideology, itself and the revolutionary process. And these are views now embedded in the very basic operations of this party and in how it trains people. In short, "the party is over" -- one way or another it is time to turn out the lights, turn off the music, clean up a little, and move on.

What is needed is a process of "reconception and regrouping" among revolutionary forces -- drawing in forces from the RCP but hardly limited to that. The RCP itself is now barely a national force any longer -- and fractions of that party can hardly (alone) form the basis of a new revolutionary trend.

But it is necessary to "reconceive as we regroup." That doesn't involve a permanent "war on the RCP" -- it requires a clear and principled criticism of that party's line, and then moving beyond to reconstitute a revolutonary movement on a new (and real!) basis.

Check us out at kasama (http://mikeely.wordpress.com).

[Dros]

Prove your assertions that the RCP is the only Maoist organization and that it is the largest Communist Party.

MIM was never Maoist and it is has degenerated.
IRTR has degenerated.
MSH is not Maoist and is totally negligible.

Ray O. Light (Lite?) is very small and not Maoist (don't uphold GPCR).

CPUSA exists almost soley in Manhattan and has very very limited membership. And they aren't Communists anymore.

Any I've forgotten?

Kasama:

With regard to the majority of your post, I dispute your charecterization of the RCP and would thus clearly dispute your conclusion. I've already raised my concerns on that level.


What is needed is a process of "reconception and regrouping" among revolutionary forces -- drawing in forces from the RCP but hardly limited to that. The RCP itself is now barely a national force any longer -- and fractions of that party can hardly (alone) form the basis of a new revolutionary trend.

I don't see on what basis you claim that the RCP is no longer a national force. I see branches of the bookstore and RCP presence in most major cities around the U.S.


But it is necessary to "reconceive as we regroup." That doesn't involve a permanent "war on the RCP" -- it requires a clear and principled criticism of that party's line, and then moving beyond to reconstitute a revolutonary movement on a new (and real!) basis.

What has happened now that makes it possible for us to "regroup"? It seems to me that now is a time when we need to be coming out in force, not performing a tactical retreat.

[black magick hustla]

What are you talking about, CPUSA is pretty big.

[chegitz guevara]

MIM was never Maoist and it is has degenerated.
IRTR has degenerated.
MSH is not Maoist and is totally negligible.

Ray O. Light (Lite?) is very small and not Maoist (don't uphold GPCR).

CPUSA exists almost soley in Manhattan and has very very limited membership. And they aren't Communists anymore.

Any I've forgotten?

As far as Maoism goes, I'm not like the Evangelical Christians who declare themselves the only Christians. If a group calls itself Maoist, it's Maoist.

MIM is Maoist, its their freakin' name
MSH is Maoist, it just doesn't appear to be an organization
You have forgotten Freedom Road Socialist Organization (both of them)
In Chicago there's a group called Prairie Fire Organizing Committee
Most Third World oriented groups are Maoist, such as the African People's Socialist Party
Workers World and Party of Socialism and Liberation both have Maoist tendencies.
There are a few Maoist sectlets here and there.

As for larger groups, the Communist Party USA is without a doubt, the largest Communist Party in the country, even if in name only. ;) BTW, the exist everywhere, not just in Manhattan. Their membership is in the multiple thousands.

The largest revolutionary socialist, i.e., communist, group in the country is the ISO. You may disagree with their politics, I certainly do, but you can't deny their growth.

[kasama-rl]

I don't see on what basis you claim that the RCP is no longer a national force. I see branches of the bookstore and RCP presence in most major cities around the U.S.

Of course, I didn't claim "the RCP is no longer a national force."

I said it is barely a national force: meaning that it still has a national presence, but has shrunk to the point where that is a fragile situation.

I was reading the newspaper of the RCYB from the early 1980s the other day (yes, the Brigade used to have its own newspaper and a bit of real political life). And they were listed in 38 cities and campuses.

Now think to yourself: how many chapters of the RCP's youth organization now exist? On how many campuses? Who wants to discuss the decline of the RCP's youth strength from the days of the Mumia campaign until today? And why so many people have moved on?

The RCP has declined steadily over many years (decades really), with a brief burst of growth between the 1992 LA rebellion and 9/11. Those days are now considered to be completely characterized by "the revisionist package."

there has been a recent exodus of people on a national level -- triggered by many things, but often by the switch to a singleminded promotion of Avakian's cult of personality (which rubs many progressive people the wrong way, both inside and outside the RCP itself). This party is now barely present in the south any longer. (there was once a party presence in Birmingham, Miami, Greensboro, DC and other places). Now there is a fragile presence in Atlanta, and where else?

I won't go region by region, but you get the point.

It doesn't take "inside information" to see this, you just have to see the cities listed in their paper. and look at what is covered/reported in their press.

As for the bookstores... three of them are "real" (LA, Berkeley and NYC) the rest are "outlets" or "vanity projects" with very little traffic or sales -- and are mainly maintained by taxing supporters. The chain of revolution books are one sign of a "presence" -- and a close look at them gives you a sign of the health of that presence too.

There has also been a change in the content and style of these stores -- making them centers of Avakian promotion. any guess how that will work out?

I'm thinking that as the RCP further declines, efforts should be made to save the New York store in particular... so that this valuable revolutionary resource doesn't disappear.

[Dros]

As far as Maoism goes, I'm not like the Evangelical Christians who declare themselves the only Christians. If a group calls itself Maoist, it's Maoist.

So, do you uphold all governments calling themselves socialist as socialist?


MIM is Maoist, its their freakin' name

Is the Communist Party of China Communist? No.
Is MIM Maoist? No.


MSH is Maoist, it just doesn't appear to be an organization

No they aren't Maoist. And they very clearly aren't a real orginization.


You have forgotten Freedom Road Socialist Organization (both of them)

Yes I have, haven't I? From what I've been able to find, they strike me as smaller than the RCP and considering I see RCPers at protests (ones I don't know) and on the streets in New York and SF, I think that is a justifiable, although unverifiable conclusion.


In Chicago there's a group called Prairie Fire Organizing Committee

That's true. I forgot them. Smaller than the RCP.


Most Third World oriented groups are Maoist, such as the African People's Socialist Party

Never heard of it which probably means it's not to large.


Workers World and Party of Socialism and Liberation both have Maoist tendencies.

A tendency is not a party. And I doubt that those tendencies are larger than the RCP.


There are a few Maoist sectlets here and there.

most of which are tiny and Maoist in name only


As for larger groups, the Communist Party USA is without a doubt, the largest Communist Party in the country, even if in name only. ;) BTW, the exist everywhere, not just in Manhattan. Their membership is in the multiple thousands.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-party-usa-t66092/index.html

And, they are so obviously not communists.:(



The largest revolutionary socialist, i.e., communist, group in the country is the ISO. You may disagree with their politics, I certainly do, but you can't deny their growth.

Revolutionary socialist =/= Communist. :(

[kasama-rl]

I'm not going to debate how we define "communist party" or "Maoist Party" -- or argue over which is the biggest.

Here is the basic facts: We don't have a vanguard party in the U.S. We don't have a revolutionary organization with deep roots among the people -- and with a strategy and method of work that is capable of congealing and leading a revolutionary movement.

We don't have it. the RCP was a major ATTEMPT at forming a revolutionary communist party... but at this point it is a propaganda and agitation group whose main focus is marketing and promotion for their top leader.

In the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/) we say:
"The RCP tried to take up the responsibilities of a vanguard force. But it has never succeeded in becoming a “party” — in the sense of actually leading a section of people that consciously supports its cause."

and that is the basic truth. speculation about relative numbers between various sterile grouplets on the U.S. kinda misses the point.

Here is a summation worth grappling with:

"A painful place to start: The RCP has not developed, ever, a mass partisan political base for revolutionary communist politics anywhere, among any section of the people.


"This political current has won recruits, in ones and twos, from people whose life and study gave them a inclination toward communism. But the language and banners of this movement have never connected. Revolutionary communists have never found the ways to fuse revolutionary politics with the aspirations of the masses. They have not created the thousands of “organized ties” or the “political base areas” that they worked for decades to build. The RCP never succeeded in transforming its racial or class composition — it has not trained or recruited significant numbers of new communists from the proletariat and oppressed nationalities despite all the efforts in that direction."


It is an experience and a situation that needs to be summed up and understood: how did we get here? How do we get out of here? What should we now do differently?

Some people say "the rcp is all we have." No it isn't, because in having it we don't "have" anything real. It doesn't have a strategy for revolution, and it is squandering the organized forces it has managed to keep around itself.

some people say "There isn't any other Maoist party in the U.S." This is true. And it is also true that the RCP is far from being a maoist communist party in any real or serious sense.

A serious organization needs to be built -- and the first step toward building one is seeing clearly the weaknesses, flaws and failures of our previous attempts.

[chegitz guevara]

So, do you uphold all governments calling themselves socialist as socialist?

Is the Communist Party of China Communist? No.
Is MIM Maoist? No.

No they aren't Maoist. And they very clearly aren't a real orginization.

Yes I have, haven't I? From what I've been able to find, they strike me as smaller than the RCP and considering I see RCPers at protests (ones I don't know) and on the streets in New York and SF, I think that is a justifiable, although unverifiable conclusion.

That's true. I forgot them. Smaller than the RCP.

Never heard of it which probably means it's not to large.

A tendency is not a party. And I doubt that those tendencies are larger than the RCP.

most of which are tiny and Maoist in name only

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-party-usa-t66092/index.html

And, they are so obviously not communists.:(

Revolutionary socialist =/= Communist. :(

You're changing the terms of the debate. You said the RCP was only Maoist group and largest communist group in the US.

As for the rest, I'd rather not argue about definitions. The ISO may have issues with the word communist, but they are a vanguardist, Marxist-Leninist organization. They clearly fit the definition of communist, regardless of what they call themselves.

Of course, Mike is correct, this is a silly and pointless discussion. Sometimes, though, silly and pointless is good.

[kasama-rl]

Of course, Mike is correct, this is a silly and pointless discussion. Sometimes, though, silly and pointless is good.

Heh. The fact is that the RCP creates an info diet for its supporters: They really come to think they are the most significant and influential radical group. And that they have a shot at making revolution in the near term, etc. And that their leadership "knows the way out."

And that comes out rather clearly in this thread (and in so many other places.)

In fact, inside that small and shrinking bubble, the music and the lights are being turned up -- and people are being hyped for more of the recent "get rich quick schemes." I expect that announcements are about to be made about new ways to promote Avakian as THE alternative to Obama/McCain -- in an attempt to make this a three way contest in the realm of public opinion.

[RNK]

They really come to think they are the most significant and influential radical group. And that they have a shot at making revolution in the near term, etc. And that their leadership "knows the way out."


In their defense, most organizations, and specifically, most members of organizations, believe this. Though at the same time, they're almost always wrong, and somewhat delluded by their own cycle of self-targetting propaganda.

While I understand having this discussion in a realm where everyone and anyone can comment, have you thought of joining the MLM forum group, Mike? There is a lot of regular discussion there about the RCP-USA 'conundrum' that is being discussed, particularly on the RCP-USA's specific political lines and so on and so forth.

[Guerrilla22]

CPUSA exists almost soley in Manhattan and has very very limited membership. And they aren't Communists anymore.

They have a fairly large presence in Detroit as well. I won't contend your point that they are not really communist though.

[RNK]

Again, I believe Drosera's actual statement was that the RCP-USA is the largest Maoist party, not Communist party, in the United States (or, a play on words, the largest Revolutionary communist party, which is still largely true, to a simplistic degree)

[chegitz guevara]

No, he said they were the only Maoist organizations and largest Communist Party. I, being the smart ass I am, couldn't let that go. Sometimes silliness is good, and self-puffery can always stand to be taken down a notch.

[RNK]

So he did. I was looking at another post.


Sometimes silliness is good

You seem to say this quite a lot.

[chegitz guevara]

Twice really. But I think silliness and play is an important aspect of activism we often over look. Our work too often has us dealing with the harsh, grim, horrible aspects of humanity. That's no way to spend a life, especially one dedicated to creating a world where the best aspect of human life are celebrated and made the point of life. Grim revolutionaries make a grim revolution.

Mike E told me, about ten years ago, how the Chinese revolution took the prostitutes of Shanghai off some place so they could just spend a month playing, so they could reconnect with that part of their humanity, regain a childhood, as so many had been prostitutes since being children. I thought why wait for the revolution, and resolved to make play and humor as much a part of my politics as I could.

[RNK]

I didn't ask for a fucking autobiography, but thanks.

[kasama-rl]

chegitz:

it was actually in Vietnam after the U.S. occupation/invasion, as they were re-integrating hundreds of thousands of prostitutes into the new social life. (But the point is the same, right?)

cheers.
mike e