Which Political Party could fix and save USA?

[nanovapor]

Which political party would fix and save USA?


please visit my new blogspot. and vote in my poll to see which party would fix and save USA from capitalism:

http://socialism-only-solution-for-usa.blogspot.com/ (http://socialism-only-solution-for-usa.blogspot.com/)


Which political party would fix and save USA?

Green Party

Socialist Party USA

Socialist Equality Party

Revolutionary Communist Party USA

Communist Party USA

Democratic Socialist Party USA

[RHIZOMES]

RCPUSA for me. They may have a bit of an Avakian cult going on but they're the most agreeable.

Greens are capitalists. Socialist Party are reformists. Socialist Equality Party are the most fucking sectarian trots I've ever seen. Communist Party are reformists and revisionists. Democratic Soicalist Party are reformists.

[mykittyhasaboner]

no party can "save" the USA, but if i had to pick it'd be the Communist Party.

[F9]

none.I have no trust to partys anymore.I made the mistake few monts ago to trust one party but i really regred it.

Fuserg9:star:

[Zurdito]

only a revolutionary communsit party can save the USA. but none of the current "parties" can, rather the best they can do is form the basis of a new party, which is actually a party and not just a propaganda group.

[nanovapor]

RCPUSA is too sectarian too, they don't support the Bolivarian Revolution

nanovapor



RCPUSA for me. They may have a bit of an Avakian cult going on but they're the most agreeable.

Greens are capitalists. Socialist Party are reformists. Socialist Equality Party are the most fucking sectarian trots I've ever seen. Communist Party are reformists and revisionists. Democratic Soicalist Party are reformists.

[Colonello Buendia]

no party can change the system, if they try it will collapse and worsen conditions, then there will be full blown war between faction I reckon, let's start a revolution, the sure way to fix a country

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'm still in the process of researching some American Communist parties. So far I suppose I'd go with the RCPUSA..CPUSA seems reformist, even though to be honest I started out with some Trotskyist sympathies. Anarcho-Communism's had some convincing points too though..Not to bash my Stalinist/Maoist/Hoxhaist or any other comrades..
I just saw a YouTube video of a speech by Carl Dix (RCPUSA spokesperson) and was actually quite impressed. Sure he's radical..but I'm convinced that as a Communist in this day and age of Capitalist imperialism it's tough not to make a seemingly radical call for revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

None of them.

[Dystisis]

Not that I am an expert on the US of A, but all of those would probably be favorable compared to the shit that's running the show at the moment.

True change will come in the form of technological development and mass awareness, though.

[PRC-UTE]

If one of those parties had a strong connection to the working class, it would be very beneficial to have such a party in power bringing about greater regulations that could our class in further organising. However I don't know that any of them could do that, based on my limited knowledge.

What of the SWP?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, why do you think that parliamentarianism as a tactic is still good? :confused:


What of the SWP?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-workers-party-t62636/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Barnes#Criticism

That Trot group (to which the Trotsky-ite Severian belongs) is actually better known as the Cult of Jack Barnes, just like the RCP is better known as the Cult of Bob Avakian.

[PRC-UTE]

^^^ Comrade, why do you think that parliamentarianism as a tactic is still good? :confused:

At the moment the workers' movement is weak in the States, and part of that can be attributed to the nonexistent or unenforced laws for protecting the class, which have made it harder to organise- such as "right to work" States. I would also like to see a workers' party in the elected chambers causing disruption and chaos as much as possible.

I'm a Connollyist, and as such I uphold James Connolly, Ta Power, Séamus Costello and other republican socialists who argued that.

Watch this, don't be put off by it being as Gaeilge, Costello speaks in English and there's subtitles in English as well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dOY3Vmr-XM)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, I just watched the video, but don't you think Costello was a few decades too late in pronouncing his parliamentary tactic?

You should provide a critique of the material in my RevMarx thread on parliamentarianism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/parliamentarism-why-bolshevik-t72977/index.html), and especially of the "United Social Labour" chapter-section submission (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html). Both are dedicated to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

[PRC-UTE]

^^^ Comrade, I just watched the video, but don't you think Costello was a few decades too late in pronouncing his parliamentary policy?

Achieving a few TD's and MP's? No, I think he was right. Keep in mind, he didn't argue that this in itself would achieve socialism, in fact the IRSP uses the slogan 'there is no parliamentary road to socialism'.



You should provide a critique of the material in my RevMarx thread on parliamentarianism, and of the "United Social Labour" chapter-section submission.

Sure, comrade.

[bootleg42]

"No revolution can be made by a party, but By a Nation"

-Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ bootleg42, if you're trying to inject an anti-vanguardist "cheap shot," I suggest you read this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-workers-attain-t70267/index3.html


Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? in Context (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)


As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing.

Ultimately, the vanguard outlook derives from the key Marxist assumption that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be the work of the working classes themselves.' Sometimes this dictum is viewed as the opposite of the vanguard outlook, but, in actually, it makes vanguardism almost inevitable. If the proletariat is the only agent capable of introducing socialism, then it must go through some process that will prepare it to carry out that great deed.

[Zurdito]

That is a fair point, however I took bootleg's comment to mean that it isn't a party which will "fix and save the USA", but the US working class, which will do so through a party. the framing of the question in the OP sounds kind of as if the masses will jsut sit back and watch or passively supprot a party which will implement enlightened policies. This is the opposite of a revolution, a revolution requires mass popular participation, through a party, yes, but not a "party" in the sense of any of those mentioned in the poll, rather, a genuine proletarian movement.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Political parties don't "save" anything beyond their own hides. Despite the Green Party's capitalist platform, the Green constituency includes many socialists and radical-minded individuals who would probably work openly with a perceived "libertarian" socialist.

Consolidating all these parties would be productive. Their combined force would surpass the Libertarian Party and bring together a third party voter pool of about 2-3 million. I imagine most Leftists are either disenfranchised completely from the process, or vote for Democrats out of fear for a reactionary conservative government.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like I asked comrade PRC-UTE, why are you in favour of parliamentary tactics? I have two links above detailing key problems.

However, in terms of consolidation, what about this?

Radical or revolutionary social democracy: bring it back??? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/radical-revolutionary-social-t76431/index.html)



Is there a possibility of bringing back at least "radical" social democracy in terms of labelling the pre-revolutionary mass organization or a platform within? Some North American eyebrows might be raised at reading the abbreviation RSDLP/RSDWP (Radical Social-Democratic Labour/Workers' Party/Platform) in referring to the pre-revolutionary mass organization or platform within, and the words "social" and "labour" are there ("united" not being necessary because of the word "radical"):

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/716/whatsort.html
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/648/russia.htm

From the latter (written by THE Boris Kagarlitsky):


The next question is whether this should be a reformist socialist project or a revolutionary one. My view is that one cannot overcome capitalism in one country. This is impossible. What is possible is a programme which involves social and economic transitional measures going beyond the current capitalist system. That would allow other countries to start their own revolutionary changes, so that these processes interact and feed on each other. The world is composed of different units which have different levels of development, different political configurations, etc. So it is not possible to attempt everything at once.

The important thing is that the socialist goal should be inseparable from democratic goals and that the programme adopted should be not BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRATIC, but, to use a phrase, SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC in character.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

why are you in favour of parliamentary tactics?

Legislative and presidential tactics would be a better phrase since America does not operate based on a parliamentary system.

I favor whatever method will achieve socialism, so long as it is backed by popular support and does not violate core principles I hold (according to a materialist guideline): like avoiding all unnecessary acts of violence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Are you some sort of left-Kautskyist, then? If so, what are your opinions on the RSDLP/RSDWP proposal of mine (since you posted on "social democracy" in the Theory forum)?

[RHIZOMES]

RCPUSA is too sectarian too, they don't support the Bolivarian Revolution

nanovapor

Nowhere near as sectarian as the SEP. I've had some experience with their NZ branch, jesus fucking christ they piss me off.

[black magick hustla]

The revolutionary marxist leninist maoist marmotist party is the enlightened path towards the freedom of the american proletariat/peasantry.

[BIG BROTHER]

I think the question should be more like: Which party can bring a revolution that can enmancipate the proleriat in the USA?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I think the question should be more like: Which party can bring a revolution that can emancipate the proletariat in the USA?

The proletariat themselves :)

[wes]

Why would you want to save the USA.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

- None of the above

[Luís Henrique]

The USA shouldn't be fixed and saved, they should be abolished.

That's something no party can do of itself. Only a proletarian revolution can. If it matters, I don't think any of the parties listed will have any important role in a proletarian revolution.

But this is strategy. Tactically, the single greates obstacle to radical politics in the USA is the duopoly of the State parties, Democratic and Republican. Any of the "parties" listed should be supported, if they had the slightest chance to help breaking such duopoly. Unhappily, I think only the Green party had once a shot at this, and it seems to also be over.

Luís Henrique

[nanovapor]

Hello, hehehehe, you are right indeed !! The Socialist Equality Party seems to me too egocentrically oriented, too selfish, too "for themselves", which is the opposite of what socialism should be about. We socialists have to love everybody, even capitalists, i don't mean accept their ideology, but understand capitalists, work with them in order to open their minds, to show them that socialism is the next stage after capitalism. But the socialist equality party, with their egocentrism and their unfriendlyness scare people away from socialism.

Lots of leftists in this world are sectarianists, and that is no good for the world left. Even the Bolivarian Socialists are sectarian and selfish, there is a lot of greed, and self centered behaviour. The other day i was in a Bolivarian Forum www.aporrealos.org (http://www.aporrealos.org) and with their statist, bourgeois-reformist world view, they bashed me after i critisized FARC rebels as not being authentic revolutionary-marxists

nanovapor




Nowhere near as sectarian as the SEP. I've had some experience with their NZ branch, jesus fucking christ they piss me off.

[More Fire for the People]

No existing political party can, only the masses organized into a movement.

[nanovapor]

Yeah indeed, i even go to www.bobavakian.net (http://www.bobavakian.net) to listen to his speeches. Even though I believe in God, because i am christian and he is atheist, i do like his speeches. he is against domination theology, like me, i am against elitist religion. Bob Avakian is real smart, i don't know why some people dont like his views

nanovapor



The revolutionary marxist leninist maoist marmotist party is the enlightened path towards the freedom of the american proletariat/peasantry.

[#FF0000]

None of'em. They wouldn't even be remotely effective because every last one of them is so isolated from the working class that they're totally irrelevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Worse news:

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.gif

[#FF0000]

Worse news:

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.gif

I'm going to assume that this is going from more authoritarian to less going up.

Also, the Maoist Internationalist Movement had 100 members? wtf?

[Pawn Power]

save us from what?

[Faux Real]

save us from what?Bingo

[Die Neue Zeit]

The revolutionary marxist leninist maoist marmotist party is the enlightened path towards the freedom of the american proletariat/peasantry.

So you're gonna dump your flirtation with the ICC? :laugh:


I think the question should be more like: Which party can bring a revolution that can emancipate the proletariat in the USA?

None of the above, but only a mass Social-Proletocratic Party armed with revolutionary Marxism.

[BIG BROTHER]

Quote:
Originally Posted by josefrancisco http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1128567#post1128567)
I think the question should be more like: Which party can bring a revolution that can emancipate the proletariat in the USA?


None of the above, but only a mass Social-Proletocratic Party armed with revolutionary Marxism.

Or maybe just the masses themselves?

[Luís Henrique]

Worse news:

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.gif

Solidarity are Schachtmanite? I think this is a slander.

Luís Henrique

[Guerrilla22]

Only the workers are capable of this. Political parties themselves can only accomplish as much as the system they are operating in allows for.

[Martin Blank]

Of the parties listed, none of the above. Of those parties that exist, none of the above ... including my own. Proletarian revolution is not made by a party (though the party might be the one to "pull the trigger" and get the ball rolling), it is made by the proletariat itself. And, yes, there is no point in "saving" the United States as it is. As someone once said: The point is to change it.

[Random Precision]

Worse news:

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.gif

Wow, I'm a Left-Shachtmanite. :lol:

MIM has 100 cadres... even more hilarious. I would not trust that graphic too much, Jacob. It appears to have been made six years ago, much has changed since then.

[Herman]

I favor whatever method will achieve socialism, so long as it is backed by popular support and does not violate core principles I hold (according to a materialist guideline): like avoiding all unnecessary acts of violence.

This is my opinion as well.

[S.O.I]

http://socialism-only-solution-for-usa.blogspot.com/2008/04/beware-of-httpwwwrevleftcom-it-is-not.html

LOOOL

[Red Equation]

It's communism, people have even started considering taxes where taxation is correlated to your pay and wealth, and then evenly distributed among the poor, which was something they almost did during the Great Depression.. All we need now is a modern day Huey Long who doesn't get killed.

[Martin Blank]

Wow, I'm a Left-Shachtmanite. :lol:

MIM has 100 cadres... even more hilarious. I would not trust that graphic too much, Jacob. It appears to have been made six years ago, much has changed since then.

This chart has always been a problem. It was incorrect when it was first published, and is still incorrect. MIM never had more than 50 cadre, if that. And calling the ISO "left-Shachtmanite" is simply false. However, it is true that Solidarity is partially Shachtmanite, since they did derive from a left split out of the International Socialist League. But it would be more accurate to call them Draperite, since they ended up taking more from him than Shachtman, in the final analysis.

[RedAnarchist]

I voted for all of them because I believe they all have the same chance as each other. Half of them are either bourgois parties (Green Party) or support the Democrats (CPUSA) or are far too small to ever really bring change to their country.

[Comrade Rage]

Which political party would fix and save USA?

Green Party

Socialist Party USA

Socialist Equality Party

Revolutionary Communist Party USA

Communist Party USA

Democratic Socialist Party USA
NONE OF THE ABOVE

[Dros]

Rcp,usa

Ftw!!!

[Rollo]

Of the parties listed, none of the above. Of those parties that exist, none of the above ... including my own. Proletarian revolution is not made by a party (though the party might be the one to "pull the trigger" and get the ball rolling), it is made by the proletariat itself. And, yes, there is no point in "saving" the United States as it is. As someone once said: The point is to change it.

I agree 100% with this, you only have to look at the meaning of the word Revolution to understand it's about taking it in a new direction and not re-shaping it, such an answer is only to be expected here.

[chegitz guevara]

I reject the premise of the question, since we aren't trying to fix and save the USA, but overthrow it and replace it with something else. I write that as a member of the Socialist Party USA.

That said, I voted for all of them because I wanted to see the results.

[Cheung Mo]

Of all of these parties, the Greens are the most right-wing..They take money from prominent GOP donors and they have prominent members with ties to right-wing Latin American tyrants.

[sovereign]

none of those.

[Harrycombs]

By looking at my sig, you can probably guess which one I voted for;)

None of them will do much. They will never win. A revolution will be neccessary.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

“No socialist need predict that there will be a bloody revolution in Russia, Germany, Austria, and possibly Italy if the Italians keep on in the policy they are now pursuing. The deeds of the French Revolution may be enacted again in those countries. That is apparent to any political student. But those revolutions will be made by the majority. No revolution can be made by a party, but By a Nation”. Marx. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm)

[chegitz guevara]

Of all of these parties, the Greens are the most right-wing..They take money from prominent GOP donors and they have prominent members with ties to right-wing Latin American tyrants.

Taking money from the GOP isn't a big deal. If the GOP wanted to give me $10K to get on the ballot against a Democrat as an open socialist, I'd take it. As Lenin wrote, the capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them. Better to take their money than use money from socialists.

[redSHARP]

CPUSA is moderate but i still like them. but the IWW is still my favorite group.

[Saorsa]

As Lenin wrote, the capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them.Actually it was Joseph Stalin that said that.

http://eefy.editme.com/IosifStalin

I just got that website off google, but I'll bet you a zillion dollars that Stalin said that and not Lenin.

@ Jacob Richter: That map of members and cadres is hopelessly innacurate, and I doubt it has any relation to the actual strength of these groups. MIM has half as many members as the RCP USA? Puh-leeze. And what's all this crap about the WWP being less internally democratic than the SWP? The SWP is, like most other Trotskyist organisations that get hugely worked up about how evil Stalinism was, extremely undemocratic in it's own internal culture. It condemns Stalin's purges, but it purges it's own members left, right and centre!

http://www.indopedia.org/Socialist_Workers_Party_(USA).html (http://www.indopedia.org/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28USA%29.html)


One opposition group gathered around the Weinsteins on the West Coast, (with supporters elsewhere too), while a second group gathered around George Breitman (http://www.indopedia.org/index.php?title=George_Breitman&action=edit) and Frank Lovell (http://www.indopedia.org/index.php?title=Frank_Lovell&action=edit). Together they formed an opposition bloc on the SWP's National Committee but in 1983 the Barnes-led leadership purged anyone not pledging support of the leadership. Those purged included almost every member of the SWP older than Barnes himself and has therefore been called the Age Purge. This act led to the loss of a third of the SWP membership.same source vvvvv


In the late 1980s, the SWP's supporters internationally reconstituted themselves in each country as under the name of the Communist League after either taking over national sections of the USFI and purging Trotskyists or splitting from USFI sections.Can't be bothered searching for more quotes and links, but the purges and tightly controlled, smothering internal culture continues to this day. I have nothing inherently against purges, and the groups expelled from the SWP were factionalising. But it puts the lie to this particular bunch of Trots claim's that they are noble, pure Marxists, unlike those evil baby eating Stalinists.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand - the question of which of those groups to support, and the debate that has emerged around this over whether revolutionaries should take part in elections and even participate in bourgeois parliaments.

Of those groups mentioned, I'd support the RCP USA. For one thing, they are by far the most revolutionary of the groups. For another, they are Maoists, and thus have their heads screwed on straight. While I oppose the cult of personality around Avakian, I recognise that the RCP does get up to some good work and Avakian is an excellent theorist, philosopher, writer and orator.

He is NOT, however, anywhere near the level of a Lenin or a Mao, and his works do NOT represent a "radical rupture" from the past of the ICM and any kind of "new synthesis".

To the question of taking part in parliamentary elections. It's an ultra-revolutionary delusion that participation in bourgeois elections somehow implies SUPPORT for bourgeois parliamentary democracy, and is some kind of sell out. As Lenin said;

any army which does not train to use all the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare that the enemy possesses, or may possess, is behaving in an unwise or even criminal manner. This applies to politics even more than it does to the art of war.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch10.htm) (1920)

The capitalist class has given us an excellent weapon in the form of elections. Once every few years, working class people who generally take little interest in politics (this is especially true in a time of protracted downturn in class struggle, such as we are experiencing currently here in New Zealand) prick their ears up and read up on who's running for their local seat, and the party list vote.

The elections may be the only time every three years that wide sections of workers develop a heightened level of interest in politics, in how their country is run and where it's going, and it would be pointless, stupid and self-defeating for us to let this opportunity pass by. We almost certainly won't win. We are unlikely to inspire any kind of quick upsurge in struggle through running in the election. We may not even recruit a single new member throughout the entire campaign!

But at the very least, running in the election gives us media coverage we would not otherwise get, including funding to put out TV and radio ads, interviews with radio stations and newspapers (the Workers Party's mayoral candidate here in Dunedin got a two page spread during the local body elections for him to put out revolutionary ideas, as well as a smaller article announcing his candidacy and some of the platforms he was running on).

Basically, participation in bourgeois elections gives is a platform to put out revolutionary ideas to workers, as well as broader sections of the people as a whole. It gets us publicity for our organisation and our ideas, and allows to reach a wider audience than we are normally capable of doing. And even a tiny First World CP like the Workers Party doesn't always do too badly - in the last local body elections, the WP candidate for Mayor of Waitakere recieved 2101 votes, 4.46% of the total. She ran on an openly Marxist platform too, nothing like those of RESPECT or the SWP's "Left List".

I think that Jacob Richter and others on this forum are confused between running in elections on an openly revolutionary Marxist platform, with the goal of using the elections to promote you're organisation and it's ideas, not to win seats; and running on a moderate, reformist greenie-liberal platform in order to try and attract a larger vote. the first method sees elections as a means to an end, while the second sees them as an end in itself. The first is a revolutionary approach - the second is a reformist.

Obviously it is not ALWAYS correct to run in elections ALL the time EVERYWHERE. It depends on the objective situation. For example, in Peru in the 1980s, when there was a People's War raging and the very foundations of bourgeois democracy and the capitalist system were being shaken, it was correct for the PCP to call for a boycott, and anyone who took part in the election when Lima was blacked out every second night due to Sendero bomb attacks was a coutner-revolutionary, explicitly supporting and endorsing bourgeois-democracy over the revolution that was being waged outside their door.

But in New Zealand today, and in many other countries similar to it such as Australia, the UK, France, Germany and the US, there is not a revolution being fought. There is no fighting in the countryside or in the streets. On the whole, we do not even represent PARTIES in the Marxist sense of the word, as we have no real mass support base amongst the working class. We are propaganda groups, and as such we should utilise any opportunities we have to put out our propaganda. Elections are a very important opportunity to do this, and one we should not waste.

Revolutionary parties should work in as many different theatres as they can - in universities, in unions, in community struggles, and in elections. All of these represent ways for us to advance our politics to the people's were trying to reach, and ways for us to build a reputation amongst them as people who fight tirelessly for their interests. We should not let any opportunity to do this pass us by.




Here's the WP's analysis of the last elections;



Workers Party mayoral campaign reviewed

The Workers Party stood 4 mayoral candidates in this year's local body elections. Nationally we received 4,705 votes. Below is a breakdown of the results for each candidate:

Waitakere City: Rebecca Broad 2,101 votes (4.46%)

Wellington: Nick Kelly 988 votes (1.43%)

Christchurch: Byron Clark 720 votes (0.69%)

Dunedin: Tim Bowron 896 votes (2.23%)

The decision of the Auckland branch to only stand in Waitakere City was opposed by some people within the Workers Party who argued that the Auckland City mayoral race would have got more media publicity. However the decision of the branch to concentrate on Waitakere bore considerable results. Rebecca Broad's 2101 vote count was by far the most impressive number of votes a Workers' Party candidate has received in an election. The campaign has also had other positive results, such as Rebecca being offered a regular column in the local paper. Generally this campaign helped put forward socialist politics and drew a number of people, including organised workers, closer to the Workers' Party.

In Wellington Nick Kelly received 988 votes in the 2007 mayoral election. This is slightly down on the vote that WP's forerunner the Anti Capitalist Alliance received in 2004. This was because of lower voter turnout, a bigger selection of candidates and because the party put forward a harder left message than it did in the 2004 election in Wellington City. The result also reflects that the fact that the Wellington left including the WP is weaker than in 2004 (some key WP members in Wellington have moved to other branches for example). Another consequence of this weakened position was that the WP did not stand in Upper Hutt or Porirua as it did in 2004. However, despite this, the 2007 campaign was successful, in terms of party building and gaining public presence.

In Christchurch Byron Clark ran a strong campaign and slightly increased the vote number achieved by our party at the last election, gaining 720 votes. The Workers Party also managed to get more votes than Kyle Chapman, who is the former far-right National Front leader. In 2004 Chapman got more than double the vote count of the WP.

In Dunedin Tim Bowron stood as the joint Workers' Party and International Socialist Organisation candidate. This was the first time that either organisation had contested the mayoralty in Dunedin. This campaign was part of ongoing cooperative work between the two socialist organisations in Dunedin. Tim's vote was also a good result for Dunedin and an encouraging sign for building of the socialist left in that city.

Nationally, Workers Party votes totaled 4,705. This is about the same vote the party achieved in 2004 when we got 4,700 votes. In 2004 we stood in Auckland City, Manakau, Upper Hutt, Porirua, Wellington and Christchurch. So in 2007 we got about the same vote count from a smaller number of voters.

The Workers' Party doesn't stand in elections just to catch votes, and during a downturn in class struggle a strong left vote is usually unlikely. The campaign's main goal was to put working class politics onto the agenda and argue that to really stop local government serving business at the expense of workers what is needed is a working class party in power. This was raised at all candidates meetings that the Workers Party attended, as well as at union meetings and to workers at Spark sales and campaign stalls throughout the country. The campaign helped get some twenty people signed up as part of the WP campaign to get over 500 members so we can stand as a party in the 2008 general election.

The key message the Workers Party has put forward in this campaign is that to bring about real change in local body politics what's needed isn't just a change of mayor or councilors, but rather a fundamental change to the way in which society is run. Currently local government serves the interests of the capitalist class at the expense of working people. What is needed is a workers movement and workers party capable of fundamentally changing this injustice.

[Saorsa]

Keep in mind too that Lenin and the Bolsheviks participated in bourgeois elections at times.

[chegitz guevara]

Actually it was Joseph Stalin that said that.

I suggest you google "the capitalist will sell us the rope" :)

[Saorsa]

I did and it said Stalin. It's part of Drosera's sig!

[Renewed Revolution]

None of them. Parties are useless bourgeoisie tools.

[chegitz guevara]

I did and it said Stalin. It's part of Drosera's sig!

When I did, it was Lenin as far as the eye could see.

[Dros]

When I did, it was Lenin as far as the eye could see.

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Google "when we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope". It's Stalin.

[ChairmanArt]

RCP USA, hands down. I agree with Comrade Alastair that the RCP USA is the most revolutionary of all these parties. And despite widespread criticism of the cult of personality that has developed around him amongst his followers (which is really typical of Maoist parties, in examination of the examples of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Shinning Path Party of Peru) Bob Avakian's examination of the historic experience of the proletarian revolution and the socialist republics it brought into being, and his outline for a future revolution that will eliminate capitalism and complete the socialist transition to communism on a world scale has been a major contribution to the international communist movement.

Plainly put, they've just got the right idea.

[Renewed Revolution]

RCP USA, hands down. I agree with Comrade Alastair that the RCP USA is the most revolutionary of all these parties. And despite widespread criticism of the cult of personality that has developed around him amongst his followers (which is really typical of Maoist parties, in examination of the examples of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Shinning Path Party of Peru) Bob Avakian's examination of the historic experience of the proletarian revolution and the socialist republics it brought into being, and his outline for a future revolution that will eliminate capitalism and complete the socialist transition to communism on a world scale has been a major contribution to the international communist movement.

Plainly put, they've just got the right idea.

Yes, we really need another cult of personality obsessed party in the world that takes power by taking advantage of the proletariat by filling their hands with authoritarian propaganda. Although, you have to give the Shining Path credit for not being a bunch of Avakian obsessed Mao worshippers.

That was my rant.

[ChairmanArt]

I'm not approving of the cult of personality, only the mass line that Chairman Avakian has proposed. I just think that before we discredit something completely based on one thing we should look at all its aspects. Maybe the cult is too much for you but I can deal with it...

[Dros]

Yes, we really need another cult of personality obsessed party in the world that takes power by taking advantage of the proletariat by filling their hands with authoritarian propaganda. Although, you have to give the Shining Path credit for not being a bunch of Avakian obsessed Mao worshippers.

That was my rant.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/01/save_the_planet_kill_yourself.jpg


Make a real argument or stfu.

You clearly have absolutely NO understanding of a.) the culture of appreciation, b.) the RCP's line AT ALL, c.) Marxism, d.) history, or e.) politics. Your position on SL and pretty much all real revolutionary movements should land you in OI. But such is life...

(Just in case you didn't know, the SL is MAOIST and are way more devoted to their Chairman than is the RCP is to Avakian. Actually, the RCP has criticized them in the past for their religious attitude towards Comrade Gonzalo.)

[BIG BROTHER]

Yes, we really need another cult of personality obsessed party in the world that takes power by taking advantage of the proletariat by filling their hands with authoritarian propaganda. Although, you have to give the Shining Path credit for not being a bunch of Avakian obsessed Mao worshippers.

That was my rant.

With all due respect to you comrade, and to the shinning path, they weren't worshipers of Avakian or anyone else, because their cult of personality was based around Presidente Gonzalo(Abimael Guzman)

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not approving of the cult of personality, only the mass line that Chairman Avakian has proposed. I just think that before we discredit something completely based on one thing we should look at all its aspects. Maybe the cult is too much for you but I can deal with it...

Chairman Bob is the mass line Chairman Bob has put forward.

Kasama (http://mikeely.wordpress.com)

[chegitz guevara]

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Google "when we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope". It's Stalin.

Now that I've put a modicum of research into it, neither one of them said it. It was, however, originally supposed to have been said by Lenin to Zinoviev.

From They Never Said it: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions (http://books.google.com/books?id=NCOEYJ0q-DUC&pg=PA64&vq=sell+us+the+rope&dq=lenin+rope+capitalists&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1&sig=wmhRlBB-EIWIyly48RXoYiaX1QQ)

[chegitz guevara]

I wonder what the fact that the RCP is only just beating the SP says about perceptions about both our organizations.

[Thíazì]

The Libertarian Party, being the third largest party (debatable; it could be the Green Party), I would have to say that they'd be the best at reducing the size and scope of government, though they're seen by some as conservative (and I suppose they are, in trying to stick to the principles enumerated in the Constitution).

[Saorsa]

The Libertarian Party, being the third largest party (debatable; it could be the Green Party), I would have to say that they'd be the best at reducing the size and scope of government, though they're seen by some as conservative (and I suppose they are, in trying to stick to the principles enumerated in the Constitution).


Are you fucking insane?!!?

From the wikipedia page on the Lib Party:



Adoption of laissez-faire principles which would reduce the state's role in the economy. This would include, among other things, markedly reduced taxation, privatization of Social Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29) and welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_%28financial_aid%29) (for individuals, as well as elimination of "corporate welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare)"), markedly reduced regulation of business, rollbacks of labor regulations, and reduction of government interference in foreign trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade).
Protection of property rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights).

Hmm, ok. Privatisation of welfare, reduced business regulation, and protection of property rights? They sure sound socialist!



Opposition to regulations on how businesses should run themselves (e.g., smoking)


Fantastic. They've got my vote. Who needs health and safety regulations?



Abolition of all forms of taxpayer-funded assistance (welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_%28financial_aid%29), food stamps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_stamps), public housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing), etc.)


Well I've always been opposed to state housing for the poor. Vote Libertarians!

You are a complete idiot. Just because they're a "third party" DOES NOT MAKE THEM PROGRESSIVE, let alone revolutionary.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm going to start my own Party. It's called The Puppies Are Cute Party (PACP)

I will lead the PACP to victory advocating for equal redistribution of puppies so everyone has a puppy to pet and hug.

As for people who have a fear of dogs...

...Off to the gulags with them!!!

[Thíazì]

Are you fucking insane?!!?

From the wikipedia page on the Lib Party:


Hmm, ok. Privatisation of welfare, reduced business regulation, and protection of property rights? They sure sound socialist!



Fantastic. They've got my vote. Who needs health and safety regulations?



Well I've always been opposed to state housing for the poor. Vote Libertarians!

You are a complete idiot. Just because they're a "third party" DOES NOT MAKE THEM PROGRESSIVE, let alone revolutionary.

When did I say they were socialists? I'm not a socialist either. I said they'd be best at reducing the size of government, which they would be by eliminating government bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security. I know they're conservative economically and I'm sure you'd oppose that, but as far as reducing governmental power they would do best, and that's the point that you've totally ignored.

[Pawn Power]

this poll is a farce.

[chegitz guevara]

Reducing the power of the government without abolishing capitalism will only mean more power in the hands of the capitalists. However you may feel about the state, I suggest the direct, naked rule of the capitalist class would be worse.

[Dros]

Reducing the power of the government without abolishing capitalism will only mean more power in the hands of the capitalists. However you may feel about the state, I suggest the direct, naked rule of the capitalist class would be worse.

Don't be deluded. We already have the direct, naked rule of the capitalist class.

[Sam_b]

this poll is a farce.

This^

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

None of them. They all validate an illegitimate system that should be torn down.

[Dros]

None of them. They all validate an illegitimate system that should be torn down.

How does the RCP do this? We don't vote, we don't acknowledge the legitimacy of this system. It is a revolutionary party that opposes the bourgeois state.

[hekmatista]

Or interpreting the poll as really meaning "which of these tendencies could conceivably become a major influence some day and have a positive role in leading the working class to smash the bourgeois state." (Yeah, I know that's not what the poll said). This is not to say I'm an Avakian fan, just that given the choices...

[nvm]

none.I have no trust to partys anymore.I made the mistake few monts ago to trust one party but i really regred it.

Fuserg9:star:

hahahahaah
you voted for christofias?
:P

[NoArch]

Only the people can save their own land. Parties are attempting to work within a system designed against them. The State is entirely designed to oppressive the people and ensure the existence and power of said State.

If the people want freedom, they have to create it. This can only be done by gradual revolution, taking back their living space town by town, city by city. Give up on parties, instead, get out their and start making a difference in your own community!

[Svante]

None of them. They all validate an illegitimate system that should be torn down.

j e consens que vous dites, but the people there vote for this system.they elect Bush fo r president and Harper for PM.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How does the RCP do this? We don't vote, we don't acknowledge the legitimacy of this system. It is a revolutionary party that opposes the bourgeois state.

So how come your party basically says to vote Democrat? :rolleyes:

The least you Avakianites can do is orchestrate a MASS SPOILAGE campaign (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html).

[Prairie Fire]

I throw my hat in with the American Party of Labour (not featured in the poll.). I don't believe that they will "Save the USA", or "rescue" their prol's, but I think they are probably closer to the tactics needed for mass mobilization than anyone else.

On this thread I see a few trends....

1. People supporting the RCP-USA, because they are the best of the worst (until now).

2. A lot of comrades making comments along the lines of " The United States doesn't need a party; it needs an organization to form a mass movement towards revolution" , no irony intended:rolleyes:.

For those who support the RCP-USA, I sympathize. I have read some Avakian, and sure, they certainly have been the best the USA has to offer for many decades. Too man y comrades have been seduced into supporting the Avakianites, because there is no alternative, no revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party.

For those people who take issue with the RCP line, but can't see anything better in the US, PM me.

For those people who make me smile by saying the masses don't need a vanguard, than proceeding to give the definition of a vanguard party as what they really need, I wish you could see the irony and humour.

Also, just a persynal observation of mine: Why are the greens in the poll? We have greens in Canada, and they are reactionary petty-bourgois fuck heads, as they most likely are in every country.

If you're going to include the greens, you might as well include the Naderites, and fucking Ron Paul :rolleyes:.

[BIG BROTHER]

I was checking out socialist party USA and they didn't seem that bad, or at least they don't seem as revisionist as the cpusa.

[Dros]

So how come your party basically says to vote Democrat? :rolleyes:

The least you Avakianites can do is orchestrate a MASS SPOILAGE campaign (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html).

Err....

We don't!!!!

The RCP does not endorce voting in Bourgeois elections!!!

I have no idea where you got that BS Jacob, but that's not the RCP's line.

Actually, a lot of the party press has been focused on attacking Obama and the democrats.

[chegitz guevara]

I was checking out socialist party USA and they didn't seem that bad, or at least they don't seem as revisionist as the cpusa.

The SPUSA is anything you want it to be. We're a multi-tendency organization, so we have people ranging from anarchists to social democrats, and everything in between. Even overt Leninists like me are welcome, even with my slight Maoist tendencies.

The CPUSA is garbage, but it's attracting a lot of revolutionary minded youth. It's not doing them any favors though, as the ones I interact with online are invariably uneducated about Marxism, communist theory, or socialist history.


Err....

We don't!!!!

The RCP does not endorce voting in Bourgeois elections!!!

I have no idea where you got that BS Jacob, but that's not the RCP's line.

Actually, a lot of the party press has been focused on attacking Obama and the democrats.

I think the World Can't Wait campaign with the slogan, "Drive Out the Bush Regime" may have had a lot to do with that image of your organization. I have to admit, when I ran into the RCP at the WCW Oct., 27, 2006 Demo, I was shocked at how reformist the slogans were. It smacked of support for Democrats.

[Dros]

I think the World Can't Wait campaign with the slogan, "Drive Out the Bush Regime" may have had a lot to do with that image of your organization. I have to admit, when I ran into the RCP at the WCW Oct., 27, 2006 Demo, I was shocked at how reformist the slogans were. It smacked of support for Democrats.

First of all, the WCW is not an RCP organization. It is a broad movement that the RCP is involved in and it includes a lot (perhaps a majority) of left democrats or greens or social democrat type reformists.

The RCP, USA does not advocate voting in elections at all. They used to run Carl Dix as an anti-candidate, what Richter terms "mass spoilage" but I think that is a bad tactic and it has fallen out of use with the RCP.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't think you get the idea behind "mass spoilage." :glare:

Contrasted with abstention (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html) (a RevLeft Politics thread of mine), the point is to encourage workers to go to the polling booths - then LITERALLY spoil their ballots and express contempt for the electoral process.

[Sorry, Comrade chegitz guevara, but even with this comradely disagreement between the two of us on this issue, at least you know exactly what I'm talking about.]

[Dros]

^^^ I don't think you get the idea behind "mass spoilage." :glare:

Contrasted with abstention (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html) (a RevLeft Politics thread of mine), the point is to encourage workers to go to the polling booths - then LITERALLY spoil their ballots and express contempt for the electoral process.

[Sorry, Comrade chegitz guevara, but even with this comradely disagreement between the two of us on this issue, at least you know exactly what I'm talking about.]

No one cares if you spoil ballots. Why bother?

And what is this business about the RCP endorsing democrats? Did you just pull that out of your ass?:confused:;):ohmy:

[3A CCCP]

None of them. They all validate an illegitimate system that should be torn down.

Exactly! That's why I don't vote in bourgeois U.S. elections. Never have, never will.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Die Neue Zeit]

No one cares if you spoil ballots. Why bother?

And if even 10% of eligible voters cast spoiled ballots, what then? :rolleyes:

[Voice_of_Reason]

I say democratic or green party, the world isn't ready for the revolution yet first we need a depression. So I'm guessing that the democratic or green party would start the depression the fastest. Go Hillary (F*** things up so people revolt.)

[redSHARP]

some of my friends in my crew said that the RCP-USA are all right, but have cultish feel. some of the other anarchists in the crew think they are fucking crazy; i have yet to see why. the CPUSA is a dinosaur that has yet to realize it needs to become a bit more radical, however, it has done great work in organizing the communities all over NYC and for presenting a friendly face to communism to the US; more than half of politics is PR and marketing.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

No one party can "save" the U.S. It would take a joint effort to do so, and I don't believe in parties anyway. I vote for the best candidate as an individual.

I believe you need several parties (and indies) in power, of differing views, in order to establish a just government. Not just one. Not just two.

I doubt, however, that in my lifetime that the U.S. will cease to be a two party system. The two parties in power will prevent it. What the U.S. (and every other nation) really needs is a fresh start. A new constitution limiting the power of political parties so a few parties cannot dominate over the others and over independents.

What would "save" the U.S. is a constitution that limited the number of representatives from any political party in the system. Even if it starts out as branches of the big two, these branches would evolve into rather different entities, in addition to allowing several third parties representation.

I am a firm believer that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is warped and unjust. I am also a firm believer that everybody has a right to live and let live. While I admit such a system would allow sickos into the government, if well set up, decent, intelligent people would be allowed into the government, too.

To answer the original question: which party could save the U.S.? I say why not let all of them have the chance?

[chegitz guevara]

First of all, the WCW is not an RCP organization. It is a broad movement that the RCP is involved in and it includes a lot (perhaps a majority) of left democrats or greens or social democrat type reformists.

Just like ANSWER isn't a PSL organization. Even if I accepted your statement as true, that wouldn't excuse RCP comrades for holding reformist signs.

[Svante]

would Barack Obama's politique put USA in direction of socialisme. i read his webpage and many plans llike health,économie,and ending war in Irak will put USA in direction of socialisme.what do you think? i s he Democrate Socialist.

Barack Obama webpage::confused:

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

[BIG BROTHER]

would Barack Obama's politique put USA in direction of socialisme. i read his webpage and many plans llike health,économie,and ending war in Irak will put USA in direction of socialisme.what do you think? i s he Democrate Socialist.

Barack Obama webpage::confused:

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

he's not, he is a capitalist.

[Mariner's Revenge]

would Barack Obama's politique put USA in direction of socialisme. i read his webpage and many plans llike health,économie,and ending war in Irak will put USA in direction of socialisme.what do you think? i s he Democrate Socialist.
Barack Obama is an neo-liberal. Anyone can talk about making change but I will be really surprised if change actually happens. Barack is much closer to a neoconservative than a Democratic Socialist.

[Dros]

Just like ANSWER isn't a PSL organization. Even if I accepted your statement as true, that wouldn't excuse RCP comrades for holding reformist signs.

They held signs!!!?!?!?!!!

Are you really going to attack my organization for reformism?! You live in a reformist party!!! People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Especially a stone as light and rediculous as sign-holding.

[Malakangga]

none,and i don't care about that

[chegitz guevara]

They held signs!!!?!?!?!!!

Are you really going to attack my organization for reformism?! You live in a reformist party!!! People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Especially a stone as light and rediculous as sign-holding.

So I wouldn't be shocked if my comrades were holding up reformist signs.

The principle difference between the two of us, Drosera, is I am aware of my party's failings. You still have complete faith in yours.

[Dros]

The principle difference between the two of us, Drosera, is I am aware of my party's failings. You still have complete faith in yours.

I'm aware of the shortcomings in the RCP. I criticize my party internally because I'm a Leninist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I have problems with both "democratic centralism" (rigid Trot and M-L caricatures) and democratic centralism (flexibility in allowing PUBLIC post-decision criticisms one moment and gagging them the next) as a means to achieve discussive unity in the 21st century. :(

[Dros]

^^^ I have problems with both "democratic centralism" (rigid Trot and M-L caricatures) and democratic centralism (flexibility in allowing PUBLIC post-decision criticisms one moment and gagging them the next) as a means to achieve discussive unity in the 21st century. :(

Democratic centralism (there is only one) is not a means for discussive unity. It is a tool for a.) running a cohesive party and b.) reaching the most correct line possible.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oh, boy:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-action-freedom-t74836/index.html

[Taboo Tongue]

There was no "none" so I had to go with the Socialist Party at least for their "Direct Action Tendency."
Truly no party, only the working class itself. I would say possibly the Black Panthers could educate agitate and organize the people into saving the nation if I could go with any historical US party.

[Rawthentic]

I'm aware of the shortcomings in the RCP. I criticize my party internally because I'm a Leninist.
You can't criticize "internally" because you are not in that Party.

You seem to think that because of the many people that say that the RCP is an irrelevant organization and we criticize its theories that we are not Leninist. What can be more Leninist than ideological two-line struggle? Not only has the RCP violated their own standards and "Orientation..", but the Kasama Project has always stayed on the high plane of that ideological struggle.

Democratic centralism is not going to "fix" the RCP, as if that were possible. The very problem with that Party, as discussed in the Nine Letters, is its ideology and methodology towards the people (like blaming and cursing them!) not to mention the cult around Avakian.

[kotahitanga whenua]

only a true bolshevik revolution could destroy americas deeo routed capitolist system

[Dros]

You can't criticize "internally" because you are not in that Party.

You have absolutely no knowledge about my relationship with the RCP.


You seem to think that because of the many people that say that the RCP is an irrelevant organization and we criticize its theories that we are not Leninist.

No. I said that Chegitz is not a Leninist because he is a Menshevik. I have no idea if you are a Leninist or not.


What can be more Leninist than ideological two-line struggle?

Nothing, certainly.


Not only has the RCP violated their own standards and "Orientation..", but the Kasama Project has always stayed on the high plane of that ideological struggle.

The Kasama project is deeply rooted in and born out of Mike Ely's opportunism in his dealings with the party.


Democratic centralism is not going to "fix" the RCP, as if that were possible.

There's no need to fix the RCP. It simply ain't broke.


The very problem with that Party, as discussed in the Nine Letters, is its ideology and methodology towards the people (like blaming and cursing them!) not to mention the cult around Avakian.

The 9 Letters have been totally trashed and exposed repeatedly, over and over and over again both here, at Kasama, and by the RCP directly.

[Saorsa]

The 9 Letters have been totally trashed and exposed repeatedly, over and over and over again both here, at Kasama, and by the RCP directly.

The RCP's response to the letters was pretty weak, imho. Very heavy on the "this is an attack!"s and the "Mike Ely is not behaving in a comradely manner according to the methods of democratic centralism!"s, but not that heavy on actual responses to his criticisms.

[Dros]

The RCP's response to the letters was pretty weak, imho. Very heavy on the "this is an attack!"s and the "Mike Ely is not behaving in a comradely manner according to the methods of democratic centralism!"s, but not that heavy on actual responses to his criticisms.

Really?!

It's roughly 40 pages of very specific analysis of the letters. What theoretical issues weren't addressed to your satisfaction?

[Rawthentic]

You have absolutely no knowledge about my relationship with the RCP.
I know that you are not a member. "Those know, don't tell, and those who tell, don't know." - Carl Dix. So no, you do not criticize the RCP internally. Maybe you internally criticize within your circle of fellow newspaper sellers, but that is it.


No. I said that Chegitz is not a Leninist because he is a Menshevik. I have no idea if you are a Leninist or not.
Actually, I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. "MLM" for short.


The Kasama project is deeply rooted in and born out of Mike Ely's opportunism in his dealings with the party.

Can you show us how this is true? I really encourage all comrades to compare both the Nine Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/) with the RCP's Response and the discussion around it (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/rcp-response-v-40-promise-of-teaching-by-negative-example/).

One can see by looking at the discussions on Kasama around this and the threads here on the 9 Letters and RCP, that what Drosera says is false. The Nine Letters have neither been "trashed" here, nor there. But I strongly encourage all to see for themselves.


There's no need to fix the RCP. It simply ain't broke.
There's nothing wrong with this irrelevant sect?

How about that it blames and curses the masses of people for not resisting and being "complicit" all the while calling themselves "Maoists"?

Or a party that believes that lines emerge from leaders of a "special caliber" instead of a collective process? Did Mao generate his theoretical contributions brainstorming in exile or was it through the living example of socialist revolution and the masses he led in struggle?


How about that in its three decades, the RCP has no real mass base to lead struggles, or to test its theories? The "New Synthesis" won't solve that. If anything, it is a cause of the RCP's degeneration (which began decades ago, this is not new).

If you don't think that the RCP has problems, and that the Nine Letters are distortions, please, tell us how the Letters are wrong so that we "wrangle".

I also want to add that the Nine Letters were the product of decades of experience of revolutionaries within the RCP and broadly as well. It was the product of several minds. On the other hand, all of the RCP's lines are "made" by Avakian, and then handed down to the cadre (I'll be damned if this isnt true). There is no collective process, no ideological struggle (well there is but those who dont agree dont count).

So please, all of those who read this, take a look at the links, search the threads here (type in "Kasama", "Nine Letters", "Mike Ely, or "RCP" and you should get hits) and see for yourselves if Drosera is correct.

And let's discuss Drosera. Bring up how Ely is opportunist and how the Letters are wrong.

[Dros]

I know that you are not a member. "Those know, don't tell, and those who tell, don't know." - Carl Dix. So no, you do not criticize the RCP internally. Maybe you internally criticize within your circle of fellow newspaper sellers, but that is it.

Don't embarrass yourself. You were at no point a member of the RCP. You don't even know who I am. Just stop talking about what you don't know. Even if you did have any knowledge of these things, this would not be the appropriate forum.

I'm not continuing this part of the conversation with further.


Actually, I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. "MLM" for short.

That remains to be seen.


One can see by looking at the discussions on Kasama around this and the threads here on the 9 Letters and RCP, that what Drosera says is false. The Nine Letters have neither been "trashed" here, nor there. But I strongly encourage all to see for themselves.

What response has Kasama offered to the RCP's theoretical response?

By the way, the full response can be found here. (http://www.rwor.org/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf)


There's nothing wrong with this irrelevant sect?

There are certainly problems with the party. There will always be issues that the vanguard party needs to address within itself.

By the way, isn't it true that you were a defender of this "irrelevant sect" only a few months ago?:lol::lol::lol:


How about that it blames and curses the masses of people for not resisting and being "complicit"

Kasama Project 101: Lie about the line of the RCP. Come on LFTP. You know this shit isn't true.


all the while calling themselves "Maoists"?

We are Maoists. Kasama doesn't even call itself Maoist anymore. It's a mixture of all kinds of revisionism from Trotskyists to whatever-ists.


Or a party that believes that lines emerge from leaders of a "special caliber" instead of a collective process? Did Mao generate his theoretical contributions brainstorming in exile or was it through the living example of socialist revolution and the masses he led in struggle?

The RCP takes a scientific view of human behavior that recognizes that different behaviors and qualities exist in humanity on a bell curve and that occasionally there are people who fall at the upper end of the curve on certain key skills.


How about that in its three decades, the RCP has no real mass base to lead struggles, or to test its theories?

And the economism begins.

This anti-materialist position represents a complete negation of any kind of scientific way of looking at the world. I don't really even believe Mike Ely could believe this shit argument. It's pure opportunism! The RCP has not managed to develop a mass movement in the first world during a lengthy period of the most counter revolutionary conditions. What a shock!

What Ely fails to mention is that the RCP is perhaps the largest real Communist party in the US and that it has a significant enough support base to continue nation wide activities and to run roughly a dozen bookstores across the country.

This critique also rests on the incredibly flawed assumption that we need to be focusing on developing a mass base, which is what most of Ely's "polemic" does. Basically, Ely presents the same old worn out economism that the movement's been struggling against since Engels. Apparently, Ely forgot about that. Mass movements must be created on the basis of REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNISM, not on the basis of this kind of old opportunism.


The "New Synthesis" won't solve that. If anything, it is a cause of the RCP's degeneration (which began decades ago, this is not new).

What in the New Synthesis do you object to?


If you don't think that the RCP has problems, and that the Nine Letters are distortions, please, tell us how the Letters are wrong so that we "wrangle".

Again, the critique (http://www.rwor.org/a/131/MEObservations-en.html) has put my thoughts into words much better than I could ever do in this post.


I also want to add that the Nine Letters were the product of decades of experience of revolutionaries within the RCP and broadly as well. It was the product of several minds.

They call it the Revisionist Brain Trust!:lol:


On the other hand, all of the RCP's lines are "made" by Avakian, and then handed down to the cadre (I'll be damned if this isnt true).

Please stop pretending you have any idea what you're talking about! You were never a member of the RCP and you certainly weren't a member of the Central Committee. It's opportunist when Ely makes these claims, it's just silly when you do.


There is no collective process, no ideological struggle (well there is but those who dont agree dont count).

You've never actually worked with the RCP have you?


So please, all of those who read this, take a look at the links, search the threads here (type in "Kasama", "Nine Letters", "Mike Ely, or "RCP" and you should get hits) and see for yourselves if Drosera is correct.

Read the RCP's critic. Don't read the threads on RevLeft. It's not the standard of intellectual brilliance everyone makes it out to be.:rolleyes:


And let's discuss Drosera. Bring up how Ely is opportunist

He has repeatedly lied about RCP positions. Repeatedly.
He has misrepresented the history of the movement in opportunistic terms (especially surrounding the issue of mass base, and membership).
He has repeatedly claimed special knowledge of RCP organization but has always maintained that he's "too principled" to actually discuss these. Basically what this means is, that he can claim whatever he wants about the RCP and we are just supposed to believe him while the only way for the RCP to actually refute these claims would be to expose the party apparatus, which would be a disaster.
This is a very VERY incomplete list.

[Rawthentic]

What response has Kasama offered to the RCP's theoretical response?Uh, the RCP Response is to the Nine Letters. It remains to be seen whether it is correct or not. This is what I am arguing.


By the way, isn't it true that you were a defender of this "irrelevant sect" only a few months ago?yes, I was, unfortunately.


Kasama Project 101: Lie about the line of the RCP. Come on LFTP. You know this shit isn't true.Oh no?


(Avakian)“I want to say, just for the record, that at times I myself have been acutely disappointed by — and, yes, have cursed in graphic terms — the people in this society who are sitting by and doing nothing in the face of atrocities and horrors committed by their government and in their name…”
"Attention White People! What is your Problem??" -http://revcom.us/a/111/white-people-en.html

What kind of Maoist blames the people????

It is true that there is complicity in this imperialist nation but blaming and cursing the masses is wrong no matter what way it is seen.


We are Maoists. Kasama doesn't even call itself Maoist anymore. It's a mixture of all kinds of revisionism from Trotskyists to whatever-ists.Kasama never has called itself Maoist before, although the main people are Maoists. This isn't some organization that is created with ready set verdicts for people to just adopt. It is a theoretical and practical project to bring rev minded people together for a reconception. Because it is desperately needed. You dont even know who is a core part of the Project. You just see those who post on the forums or the site.


The RCP takes a scientific view of human behavior that recognizes that different behaviors and qualities exist in humanity on a bell curve and that occasionally there are people who fall at the upper end of the curve on certain key skills.From letter 6:

Revolutionary communist leaders are fundamentally a product of the struggle of the broad masses of people, especially (but not solely) of movements they actually lead. It is not the “emergence” of “rare and special” people that “repolarizes” the political alignments of society in ways that make revolutionary change possible. The objective emergence of deep social fissures and the collective struggles of the people to make fundamental change have more to do with the “emergence” of great leaders than the other way around. [97] (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-6/#note97)
One comrade wrote:

“Lenin and Mao became Lenin and Mao through the process of gaining and giving leadership in the world-historic Russian and Chinese revolutions. Not: that’s how they attained the stature in the eyes of the world that they would have (should have) had anyway by right, but rather, it’s only in this way that their theories were forged. Bob Avakian’s contributions are exploratory and unfinished. He is often not able to fully or correctly answer the important questions in revolutionary theory he raises. This is not a criticism, and in fact I don’t think these questions, which are crucial questions of revolutionary theory, are resolvable by one person reflecting and struggling with them, or one person with the resources of this party (certainly not as it stands).” [98] (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-6/#note98)
Mao did not declare himself an historic person. He actually made history. As opposed to Bob who claims to be historic and "irreplaceable" but has done nothing to even validate those claims. You don't get it with brainstorming new ideas.

This "special caliber" theory represents more what Chen Boda and Lin Biao said:
“A genius like Chairman Mao emerges only once in several hundred years in the world and in several thousand years in China.”And Mao replied:
“The question of genius is a theoretical question. Their theory was idealist apriorism. Someone has said that to oppose genius is to oppose me. But I am no genius. I read Confucian books for six years and capitalist books for seven. I did not read Marxist-Leninist books until 1918, so how can I be a genius?…To be a genius is to be a bit more intelligent. But genius does not depend on one person or a few people. It depends on a party, the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat. Genius is dependent on the mass line, on collective wisdom… I spoke to Comrade Lin Biao and some of the things he said were not very accurate. For example he said that a genius only appears in the world once in a few centuries and in China once in a few millennia. This just doesn’t fit the facts. You can say how "special people" emerge every once in a while, but there is nothing to prove it or anything materialist about it.


And the economism begins.

This anti-materialist position represents a complete negation of any kind of scientific way of looking at the world. I don't really even believe Mike Ely could believe this shit argument. It's pure opportunism! The RCP has not managed to develop a mass movement in the first world during a lengthy period of the most counter revolutionary conditions. What a shock!

What Ely fails to mention is that the RCP is perhaps the largest real Communist party in the US and that it has a significant enough support base to continue nation wide activities and to run roughly a dozen bookstores across the country.

This critique also rests on the incredibly flawed assumption that we need to be focusing on developing a mass base, which is what most of Ely's "polemic" does. Basically, Ely presents the same old worn out economism that the movement's been struggling against since Engels. Apparently, Ely forgot about that. Mass movements must be created on the basis of REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNISM, not on the basis of this kind of old opportunism.The Nine Letters understand very well how material conditions have played a role in the lack of a partisan base:
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. And these conditions have acted back on the subjective factor (the lines within the party itself) exacerbating now one or another “pull” — sometimes toward non-revolutionary tailing of the mass movements, sometimes toward a sectified acceptance of “puny thinking,” and now increasingly toward rampant wishful thinking.But you don't think that it has anything to do with the fact that the RCP sees promoting Avakian as its main form of work? Even more than paper hawking?


These are errors made by sincere and dedicated revolutionaries operating under frustrating political conditions — but they are errors nonetheless. While the RCP tried to “wrench” all it could out of each moment — practice has fallen very far short of their hopes, and also — I believe — short of what could have been done with different methods and plans.The RCP has never developed the ties amongst people where they can continue their work in a continuous manner. They do not win people over in numbers, but they do in ones and twos. And this is a product of their corner preaching. 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.

a Kasama comrade paraphrases this well:
Where rcp fell short is the failure to do thorough summations and develop better strategies on that basis; instead they just went from one thing to another without any clarity on what they've learned from past failures


And btw, there are only two three real bookstores, that of LA, New York, and the Bay Area. The rest are outlets. This proves nothing. McDonalds has thousands of branches and I don't see them with a mass following of conscious followers.

No one understands better that we need to create a mass base on the basis of revolutionary communist politics. This is strawman.

Here:
The analogy to our theoretical moment: We need to discard ruthlessly, but cunningly, in order to fight under difficult conditions. We will be traveling light, without baggage and clutter from earlier modes of existence. We need to preserve precisely those implements that serve the advance, against fierce opposition, toward our end goal. We need to integrate them into a vibrant new communist coherency — as we thrive on the run

"Communist coherency" basically means a "new synthesis", but that it needs to be integrated into the struggles of the people to make revolution (key faultline struggles, not economic struggles).

Pay attention particularly to the bold. "Serve the advanced" means creating a revolutionary pole for the advanced strata - to win over the intermediate.

This idea that Ely says that we need a base for the sake of it is false. Taking a look at the letters refute this.


Please stop pretending you have any idea what you're talking about! You were never a member of the RCP and you certainly weren't a member of the Central Committee. It's opportunist when Ely makes these claims, it's just silly when you do.You're telling me that Avakian does not make the lines? And that they are not then handed down to the masses and cadre to "take up"?

Who makes the lines then? Who made the "New Synthesis"?


You've never actually worked with the RCP have you?I have proof. Both because for months, I ordered stacks of Revolutions newspaper copies to sell, and because I have proof of meeting and working with Bay Area comrades. PM me.

Either way, this has nothing to do with it. This is about line struggle, not personal experiences. If you can prove what I said otherwise, so be it.

There is nothing new to what you are saying.

In fact, please prove to me HOW Kasama wants a base but ignores communist politics must lead that base. It seems that this is your biggest criticism.

And, if you think that the Mike Ely lies about the Party's line, just ask them if they think that upholding Avakian is a cardinal question. Just ask them. I can guarantee they will either not know (because yes, many cadre themselves have a hard time explaining their leader's line) or they will say that it is.

[Charliesoo]

Third parties have never fully succeeded in the United States. Something that Werner Sombart spoke of often in his works. If my memory is right he stated that third parties have acted as a catalyst in American politics. Never being elected and never recieving many votes. They have been a symbol for change though. With some (and I stress SOME) aspects of Socialism being adopted by the Democratic Party. Particularly the struggle for the rights of workers as well as healthcare. Though they have not been changes that would satisfy everyone. They have been changes that made things "more tolerable". With the way things are going with the Republican Party becoming increasingly more "Fascistic" in the individuals associated with them (Coulter, etc) .. who can say.

[tedster]

No party can fix it. I believe in federations, but not parties.

[Rawthentic]

I have taken the liberty to post some threads related to the Kasama - RCP debate:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=70627&highlight=Kasama (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?t=70627&highlight=Kasama)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-rcp-cant-t71307/index.html?t=71307&highlight=Kasama (I recommend reading the first piece by John Steele, very good) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../why-rcp-cant-t71307/index.html?t=71307&highlight=Kasama)

with this next one, keep in mind that I am an ex-RCP supporter: http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-39-ve-t64847/index.html?highlight=Kasama

and the most thorough one: http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-and-iphones-t66633/index.html?highlight=Kasama (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../maoists-and-iphones-t66633/index.html?highlight=Kasama)

Here are the discussions on Kasama around the RCP and particularly their response to the Nine Letters:

Becoming Living Vanguard: Protracted Fusion or Last-Minute Telescoping (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/becoming-living-vanguard-protracted-fusion-or-last-minute-telescoping/)

Mike Ely’s ‘Flat Earth’ Approach to Revolution (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/mike-ely%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98flat-earth%e2%80%99-approach-to-revolution/)


Zerohour on RCP Response: Both Ahead of Itself & Behind The Curve (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/zerohour-on-the-rcp-response-getting-ahead-of-itself-behind-the-curve/)


John Steele on RCP Response: The Broken Spiral of Summation (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/john-steele-on-rcp-response-the-broken-spiral-of-summation/)


Sam S on RCP Response: The Inventing of a Strawman (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/sam-s-the-strawman-within-the-rcp-response/)

[Nosotros]

I see I can't vote for none.

[zelda]

I wouldn't pick any certain party.

[( R )evolution]

None. Political parties within the bourgeoise system do not have the ability to achieve such radical and revolutionary change. Hence why we are revolutionaries not social democrats. There are so many limitations along with blockades against real true change that only a revolutionary party formed within the masses can achieve true change.

[zelda]

The people's voice and rational thinking, brainstorming, and unity.:D

[Dros]

None. Political parties within the bourgeoise system do not have the ability to achieve such radical and revolutionary change. Hence why we are revolutionaries not social democrats. There are so many limitations along with blockades against real true change that only a revolutionary party formed within the masses can achieve true change.

That would be the RCP. We do not run in elections or work in the bourgeois democratic system. We are "a revolutionary party formed within the masses".

www.rwor.org

[zelda]

How about this:

http://hypocrisy.com/2008/06/13/political-euphemisms/

We cut out the crap and get to the truth behind our leadership.

[Rawthentic]

That would be the RCP. We do not run in elections or work in the bourgeois democratic system. We are "a revolutionary party formed within the masses"."Within the masses"?

I don't think even you believe this.

The party was formed out of the anti-war struggles and Black liberation struggles of the 60 and 70s, but today (and throughout its history) they don't have any roots within the masses or partisan bases where they can lead the people in their campaigns or anything like that. In other words, they don't win the people over in their masses. They do win them in their ones and twos, here and there, though. And it does not serve as an argument to say that because the Party has 12 bookstores (only three of which are actual stores) that it has a base, because first of all, looking at the conditions of the stores says a lot, and, secondly, seeing how they increasingly become instruments (as the Party itself) for Avakian's popularization, its sad the rut they continue on. It is a moribund party. They don't need anyone's help to bring themselves down. Its been going down ever since it started.

We do need a revolutionary party, but it must have the correct theory and methodology, within the objective conditions, to form partisan bases (and yes, partisan bases led by rev communist ideology)!

[Dros]

"Within the masses"?

That's right.


I don't think even you believe this.

Why not? It's true!


The party was formed out of the anti-war struggles and Black liberation struggles of the 60 and 70s, but today (and throughout its history) they don't have any roots within the masses or partisan bases where they can lead the people in their campaigns or anything like that.

Again, you're pointing out things in a complete opportunistic way. Yes! The Communist movement in the first world isn't very deep! Congratulations! But there are REAL MATERIAL REASONS for those failures.


In other words, they don't win the people over in their masses. They do win them in their ones and twos, here and there, though. And it does not serve as an argument to say that because the Party has 12 bookstores (only three of which are actual stores) that it has a base, because first of all, looking at the conditions of the stores says a lot, and, secondly, seeing how they increasingly become instruments (as the Party itself) for Avakian's popularization, its sad the rut they continue on.

The existence of the bookstores, all of which are bookstores btw, does show that the party has a nation wide base and that the party is able to effectively carry out activity on a larger scale across the country.

Secondly, the fact that the bookstores are one of the ways in which Avakian's work is distributed is obvious and innate to the tactic of getting people to engage with the New Synthesis, something that is, in my view, a corner stone of Communist work in the US, and more broadly.


It is a moribund party. They don't need anyone's help to bring themselves down. Its been going down ever since it started.

:lol::lol::lol:

We do need a revolutionary party, but it must have the correct theory and methodology, within the objective conditions,[/QUOTE]

Sounds kinda like the RCP to me.


to form partisan bases (and yes, partisan bases led by rev communist ideology)!

That's true. However, you have to understand scientifically why partisan bases don't exist. While the RCP must always strive to be more effective, it is doing so within the limits of the objective and subjective realities of society which strongly limit and curtail Communist ideology.

Kasama's emphasis on building a mass movement accompanied with its disturbing unwillingness to carry out real criticism on a principled basis will draw that group into revisionism assuming it ever even manages to organize into a real entity.

[Rawthentic]

The existence of the bookstores, all of which are bookstores btw, does show that the party has a nation wide base and that the party is able to effectively carry out activity on a larger scale across the country.

Secondly, the fact that the bookstores are one of the ways in which Avakian's work is distributed is obvious and innate to the tactic of getting people to engage with the New Synthesis, something that is, in my view, a corner stone of Communist work in the US, and more broadly.
I don't understand what you mean here. How does having bookstores around the country prove that the RCP is actually a vanguard party (in the sense of actually leading a MASS of people that consciously support its cause)?

A few years before, the bookstores did not focus on creating a cult of personality around Avakian as much. Now, its like...almost scary. I've been to the Bay Area and Chicago branches. This does not prove that they engage in anything. Yes, there are meetings every week, but its not like the masses are burning to go to these. In fact, the RCP gets very excited when they bring a black or latino proletarian to one of their events or meetings. They report it in Revolution, and frankly, it shows the dire position the party is in, to become so excited over one proletarian.


Sounds kinda like the RCP to me.
Yes, you keep saying this. You can keep saying it.


That's true. However, you have to understand scientifically why partisan bases don't exist. While the RCP must always strive to be more effective, it is doing so within the limits of the objective and subjective realities of society which strongly limit and curtail Communist ideology.

Kasama's emphasis on building a mass movement accompanied with its disturbing unwillingness to carry out real criticism on a principled basis will draw that group into revisionism assuming it ever even manages to organize into a real entity.
It is absolutely true that objective conditions are the main reason why no communist party has ever had a mass base. But, to ignore the RCP's incorrect methodology is unscientific. There is a dialectical relation between the conditions and the RCP's incorrect method of political work (when its done) that create the RCP's isolation. So, yes, it has a lot to day with parasitism, etc., etc., but a lot to do with how Avakian views himself, the masses, and the Party.

How does Kasama want to build mass bases without principled criticism? What do you think the Nine Letters are? Principled criticism. It's not about creating bases for their own sake. I replied to this in that lengthy post two posts ago, which you have not replied to. The Nine Letters are very clear that not only do we need a new summation, or new synthesis to break out of the current theoretical framework (as Avakian does as well but incorrectly) but that we also need to learn how to make revolution in such a complex nation (and you won't do it if you can't lead the masses!)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Both of you need to distinguish between absolute mass and relative mass. Mass organizations need not encompass the whole working class, contrary to the aims of the original SPD.

[Dros]

I don't understand what you mean here. How does having bookstores around the country prove that the RCP is actually a vanguard party (in the sense of actually leading a MASS of people that consciously support its cause)?

If a group is irrelevant, out of touch, sterile, and "moribund" then we are talking about MIM or some such. For a Communist organization, having a dozen bookstores and the support basis to run them makes you a BIG ORGANIZATION considering the backwards nature of politics in the US.


A few years before, the bookstores did not focus on creating a cult of personality around Avakian as much. Now, its like...almost scary.

The culture of appreciation has become a more important tactic.


I've been to the Bay Area and Chicago branches. This does not prove that they engage in anything. Yes, there are meetings every week, but its not like the masses are burning to go to these.

It's one major way that the party does engage with people.

And yes. Again, the masses aren't nearly as involved as they need to be and we need to do as much as possible to change that. But fundamentally, it's because of the conditions that exist in our society.


In fact, the RCP gets very excited when they bring a black or latino proletarian to one of their events or meetings. They report it in Revolution,

Oh come on! I'd say 40% of the people who go to the meetings where I live are black people. And they don't report it in the newspaper. Stop being absurd.


and frankly, it shows the dire position the party is in, to become so excited over one proletarian.

What exactly are you talking about?


It is absolutely true that objective conditions are the main reason why no communist party has ever had a mass base.

Yes, thank you that's pretty obvious. Stop opportunistically criticizing the RCP for doing what is really impossible right now.


But, to ignore the RCP's incorrect methodology is unscientific. There is a dialectical relation between the conditions and the RCP's incorrect method of political work (when its done) that create the RCP's isolation.

Which methods? And where are the masses at Kasama? Talk about a lonely bunch!


but a lot to do with how Avakian views himself, the masses, and the Party.

Could I have a side order of argument with that rhetoric please?


How does Kasama want to build mass bases without principled criticism? What do you think the Nine Letters are? Principled criticism.

:lol::lol::lol:

There is absolutely nothing principled about the 9 Letters. I point you to "Matters of Basic Orientation".

Secondly, I was referring to the whole CPN(M) debate and Kasama's rather pathetic view that we can't criticize them because we're not there.


It's not about creating bases for their own sake.

Sounds a lot like Bernstein!


The Nine Letters are very clear that not only do we need a new summation,

The "synthesis" that Ely is beginning to put forward is not new, it's not a synthesis, and it has nothing to do with revolutionary Communism.


but that we also need to learn how to make revolution in such a complex nation (and you won't do it if you can't lead the masses!)

All this rhetoric in front of the same old worn out revisionism.


Uh, the RCP Response is to the Nine Letters. It remains to be seen whether it is correct or not. This is what I am arguing.

So the answer to my question would be... nothing.


It is true that there is complicity in this imperialist nation but blaming and cursing the masses is wrong no matter what way it is seen.

And now we see a repeat of Kasama Tactic 101: lie about the RCP's line.

The oft made assertion that these quotes imply that the RCP blames the masses is absurd especially when Avakian says, right after the above, that it is wrong to blame the masses! It is not wrong to feel frustrated. In fact, that's going to be something a revolutionary Communist feels often.

As for the statement, about white people waking up, there is in fact a very pressing need for white people, who are in their daily lives often completely oblivious to the fact of racism, to really come to grips with the realities of our society in terms of race relations. That was an acute way of phrasing that. It does NOT imply any kind of blaming the masses.


Kasama never has called itself Maoist before, although the main people are Maoists. This isn't some organization that is created with ready set verdicts for people to just adopt. It is a theoretical and practical project to bring rev minded people together for a reconception. Because it is desperately needed.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is Mike Ely's way point on the road to totally degenerating into social democracy.


You dont even know who is a core part of the Project. You just see those who post on the forums or the site.

So... what?


Mao did not declare himself an historic person. He actually made history.

This is totally irrelevant.


This "special caliber" theory represents more what Chen Boda and Lin Biao said:

Lin and Chen took an anti-scientific position that was completely religious and totally unrelated to the scientific view that I just put forward and you still haven't addressed. The Mao quote is a total stawman because he's addressing an argument or tendency that neither I nor the RCP has exhibited.


You can say how "special people" emerge every once in a while, but there is nothing to prove it or anything materialist about it.

I'll try again. This time, try refuting the argument instead of just asserting your position again and again.

1.) In human behavior, individuals display certain gradations in certain qualities.
2.) If you were somehow to plot these on a chart, you would find that for any given trait/behavior, you see a bell curve with most people being average and a minority being at the high or low ends of the curve.
3.) There are certain traits that are necessary in a revolutionary leader or theoretician (certain kinds of intelligence, leadership ability, etc).
4.) When one individual displays these specific characteristics at the high end of the bell curve, it means they are more likely to be good at leading a Communist party.


But you don't think that it has anything to do with the fact that the RCP sees promoting Avakian as its main form of work? Even more than paper hawking?

We're not promoting Avakian, we're promoting the revolutionary Communist ideology of the New Synthesis. Promoting and advancing Communist ideology and consciousness amongst the people is the most important think for revolutionary Communists.


And btw, there are only two three real bookstores, that of LA, New York, and the Bay Area. The rest are outlets.

What the hell are you talking about? I work at one of these "outlets". It's not as big as those mentioned but it's a real bookstore!

And it proves that the RCP has a large enough group of people to run and maintain an nation wide organization. Which is more than can be said for most "Communist" organizations in this country.


McDonalds has thousands of branches and I don't see them with a mass following of conscious followers.

What planet do you live on?:lol::lol::lol:


No one understands better that we need to create a mass base on the basis of revolutionary communist politics. This is strawman.

Not at all. Ely takes the economist position of trying to develop a mass base and then turn it Communist rather then organizing people around a really revolutionary Communist ideology.


Who makes the lines then?

Read, What is to Be Done?


Either way, this has nothing to do with it. This is about line struggle, not personal experiences. If you can prove what I said otherwise, so be it.

Anyone who's ever worked with the RCP (which you haven't, ordering the paper does not constitute working with the party) would know that the RCP is passionately dedicated to ideological struggle and scientific, rational, and principled discussion.

[Rawthentic]

If a group is irrelevant, out of touch, sterile, and "moribund" then we are talking about MIM or some such. For a Communist organization, having a dozen bookstores and the support basis to run them makes you a BIG ORGANIZATION considering the backwards nature of politics in the US.Please explain the correlation between having a partisan base and having bookstores. One does not imply the other no matter how much you repeat it.


The culture of appreciation has become a more important tactic.
Obviously.


And yes. Again, the masses aren't nearly as involved as they need to be and we need to do as much as possible to change that. But fundamentally, it's because of the conditions that exist in our society.What about the responsibility of communists to work and "hasten while awaitening" for the objective conditions? Now you use the "objective conditions" argument for the RCP's sterility.

You don't understand the relationship between the subjective conditions and the objective ones? Hell, even Avakian understand this.

Subjective conditions are basically the tries and tries of communists, what we create through our struggle that is influenced by the objective. But there is a real, dialectical relation between the two, and they influence each other. This is the case for the RCP.

Look at what Avakian said in 1982:
“…if, owing to objective and subjective conditions, this party exists and carries on for 40 or 50 years like the CPUSA before it and never leads a revolution, what’s so great about that? Really why would it be so terrible if somebody got together and formed another party and tried to learn from the positive and negative and went ahead and tried to make revolution?”
Oh come on! I'd say 40% of the people who go to the meetings where I live are black people. And they don't report it in the newspaper. Stop being absurd.
It isn't absurd. In particular, there is one article that came out a few months ago about how some Revolution sellers went to Jena with two Black youth. It was obviously very exciting for them? Why does this matter? The Party's entire history has been about recruiting minority youth, mainly Black youth. Have they succeeded? No.


Yes, thank you that's pretty obvious. Stop opportunistically criticizing the RCP for doing what is really impossible right now.It is not impossible. Well...with the RCP it nearly is.


Which methods? And where are the masses at Kasama? Talk about a lonely bunch!Which methods? Blaming and cursing the people and the "fire your ideas, hire mine" method of that Party. I've seen and been with cadre when we went out to corners and churches to sell the paper. They go out and talk to people passionately about Avakian and Revolution and getting subscriptions, and this and that. But there never is actually application of the mass line. Its more like, "here's the truth people, take it or leave it!" In a nutshell, that is the methodology of the RCP.

Kasama does not claim to be a vanguard party. There is no vanguard party in this country. But it is a communist project with the necessity in mind of actually learning how to make revolution in a country like this, and how to relate to the masses. The truth is, as Mao understood it, that the masses learn in struggle. They don't learn by preaching.


Could I have a side order of argument with that rhetoric please?Sure.

Avakian now views himself as being "irreplaceable", "historic", and the Party has now become an instrument (well, it has been for a while) for Avakian's cult of personality.

I have already explained how it views the masses, how it blames and curses them for what are actually shortcomings on the side of communists.



There is absolutely nothing principled about the 9 Letters. I point you to "Matters of Basic Orientation".

Secondly, I was referring to the whole CPN(M) debate and Kasama's rather pathetic view that we can't criticize them because we're not there.Well, can you prove, using quotes from the Letters, how they are not principled?

And that is not Kasama's view, or mine. I don't where you got that from.


The "synthesis" that Ely is beginning to put forward is not new, it's not a synthesis, and it has nothing to do with revolutionary Communism.
Ely is not bringing forward a "new synthesis", he, unlike Avakian, understands that it is a revolutionary and collective process.

From Letter 1:
These letters can’t (and won’t) offer a tidy counter-synthesis to Avakian’s synthesis. That is because we are at the beginning, not the end, of our “very presumptuous work.” However woven into these letters will be thoughts about a different path that I believe serious revolutionaries need to take.Plus, there is nothing "new" to Avakian's "New Synthesis."


All this rhetoric in front of the same old worn out revisionism.Can you point out how it is revisionist to want to learn how to make revolution in the belly of the beast?

Or how it is revisionist to understand that we need to lead the masses to do this?


And now we see a repeat of Kasama Tactic 101: lie about the RCP's line.

The oft made assertion that these quotes imply that the RCP blames the masses is absurd especially when Avakian says, right after the above, that it is wrong to blame the masses! It is not wrong to feel frustrated. In fact, that's going to be something a revolutionary Communist feels often.

As for the statement, about white people waking up, there is in fact a very pressing need for white people, who are in their daily lives often completely oblivious to the fact of racism, to really come to grips with the realities of our society in terms of race relations. That was an acute way of phrasing that. It does NOT imply any kind of blaming the masses.Listen: I don't give a motherfuck how frustrated Avakian feels, a communist, a real one at least, never blames the masses. It does not matter how acute things are, it is never done. I get back to Mao's point about respecting the people and how we are often the childish ones when the people are the intelligent ones. It is wrong in principle and in strategy. You will never win people over with this mentality, much less make revolution.

Do you really think that white people are going to "come to grips" with racism through that ridiculous poster? How is the consciousness of the people going to change using that methodology! It won't!


This is totally irrelevant.It is to the RCP, obviously.

But, as I said, Mao is historic because he actually made history. His theories have been proven correct because he verified them through the course of revolutionary struggle.

On the other hand, Avakian claims that his brainstormed "new synthesis" is correct, when, in fact, Avakian has never led a mass movement or held state power!

This is completely relevant.


Lin and Chen took an anti-scientific position that was completely religious and totally unrelated to the scientific view that I just put forward and you still haven't addressed. The Mao quote is a total stawman because he's addressing an argument or tendency that neither I nor the RCP has exhibited.Lin and Chen use arguments remarkably similar to that of the RCP.

Here's how:
Lin says:

“A genius like Chairman Mao emerges only once in several hundred years in the world and in several thousand years in China.”And the RCP says how Bob is “unique, rare, special, and irreplaceable” and how leaders of this "caliber" emerge every once in a while. I believe this comes out on that Leadership Revolution issue, but I can easily get a link if you wish.

The point is that there are striking similarities between Lin and Chen's view of Mao and the RCP's view of Avakian (and his views on himself). To deny it is to deny the obvious.

You've stated your position. Instead, try to refute the argument. Show the ACUTE differences between these two wrong theories concerning leadership.


1.) In human behavior, individuals display certain gradations in certain qualities.
2.) If you were somehow to plot these on a chart, you would find that for any given trait/behavior, you see a bell curve with most people being average and a minority being at the high or low ends of the curve.
3.) There are certain traits that are necessary in a revolutionary leader or theoretician (certain kinds of intelligence, leadership ability, etc).
4.) When one individual displays these specific characteristics at the high end of the bell curve, it means they are more likely to be good at leading a Communist party.There is nothing to reply to here. I've never seen this scientifically proven. Even so, it is wrong and anti-Maoist to believe that, as Lin and Chen did (and Mao opposed) that there are genius leaders that emerge every number of years. You cannot prove Lin and Chen correct.


We're not promoting Avakian, we're promoting the revolutionary Communist ideology of the New Synthesis. Promoting and advancing Communist ideology and consciousness amongst the people is the most important think for revolutionary Communists.Exactly, how do you think that people IN THEIR MASSES are going to be won over by selling papers on the street. I've done this before, I know. You can sell papers to people here and there. But what makes you think this is going to change them? How does this create lasting ties with the masses so that next time they will look for you party, look for your leadership?

Plus, it is plain false to say that the Party does not popularize Avakian. I don't even have to link anyone to Revolution here. It is so obvious.


And it proves that the RCP has a large enough group of people to run and maintain an nation wide organization. Which is more than can be said for most "Communist" organizations in this country.So...it proves you have enough supporters to run bookstores. Woopeee.


Not at all. Ely takes the economist position of trying to develop a mass base and then turn it Communist rather then organizing people around a really revolutionary Communist ideology.Prove it. Quote the Letters. Show us how.

I can show how you are wrong, from Letter 9:
The analogy to our theoretical moment: We need to discard ruthlessly, but cunningly, in order to fight under difficult conditions. We will be traveling light, without baggage and clutter from earlier modes of existence. We need to preserve precisely those implements that serve the advance, against fierce opposition, toward our end goal. We need to integrate them into a vibrant new communist coherency — as we thrive on the run.In other words, we need a new summation, a new synthesis that can break through what we have today. We need a vibrant communist coherency (in other words, communist theory) that can integrate and lead the advanced (the advanced strata of the masses, as opposed to the intermediate or backward). This here shows how Kasama understands and will work towards this new reconception. How we need a new synthesis, but that this needs to be really "taken to the masses" and lead the advance in struggle so that they can learn, because that is how the masses learn.

The problem is that the RCP does not have a base, but they have tried. Yet, the crucial thing here is that there has been no summation. For decades, the Party has tried builiding partisan areas in ghettoes, barrios, universities, etc., but failed. From union work, to Mumia, to Peru, LA riots, etc. Now it is repolarizing society around leader of a "special caliber" and voluntarist fantasy.

There needs to be a summation of all those failures, why they failed, how to do better. But this has never happened, and I suspect never will. This is why the Party begins campaigns, but can sharply and quickly let them go without any summation. It is no longer about roots within the masses, but about "get rich quick fantasies" or in the case of the Party, to get a following through their 'campaigns.'

[Dros]

[SIZE=2]Please explain the correlation between having a partisan base and having bookstores. One does not imply the other no matter how much you repeat it.

Okay. I will explain it to you. Again.

If the party is as disconnected and irrelevant as you claim it is, it would not have the support base, the resources, the mandate, or the ability to maintain a nationwide infrastructure. Can the CPUSA do that? No. Either one of the FRSOs? No. Kasama?! Don't make me laugh...


Obviously.

Don't just state patently obvious facts and pretend it's an argument.


What about the responsibility of communists to work and "hasten while awaitening" for the objective conditions? Now you use the "objective conditions" argument for the RCP's sterility.

I understand that the RCP can and must hasten the development of an objectively revolutionary situation. However, it is incredibly opportunist and anti-materialist of you to say that because the RCP hasn't developed a large enough base (there is a base) in the worlds only superpower and one of the most anti-Communist country in the world, that the party has failed.


You don't understand the relationship between the subjective conditions and the objective ones?

Yes. I do. I'm not the one blaming the party for not having created a mass base.

This argument is just drenched in economism and opportunism.


Hell, even Avakian understand this.

Yes he does.


Look at what Avakian said in 1982:

I agree with that. I have not claimed that the RCP has been successful. And, if some other group of Maoists started a party and had success in bringing the proletarian vanguard into that party on a truly revolutionary basis, then the RCP would probably join them.

But that is not what Kasama is. Kasama is a project born out of opportunism and founded squarely on the shoulders of economism. And there is no chance that it can produce a vanguard party.


It isn't absurd. In particular, there is one article that came out a few months ago about how some Revolution sellers went to Jena with two Black youth. It was obviously very exciting for them? Why does this matter?

I found the article you referenced. It is not about the party bringing a black kid to a meeting.

It's about the experience of certain cadre in dealing with the contradictions that emerge during the struggle in Jena and also in New Orleans.

This is another brutal mischaracterization, the kind Kasama keeps on doing.


It is not impossible. Well...with the RCP it nearly is.

Your argument lacks materialism. The RCP and every other "Communist" organization in the US has failed at bringing Communist politics to the mainstream because... why? Not because of the anti-Communism? Because...

Your argument is entirely bereft of substance.


Which methods? Blaming and cursing the people and the "fire your ideas, hire mine" method of that Party.

I've already demonstrated that the party does not blame the masses. This is opportunism of the lowest order. You knew the answer to these questions and saw how silly and opportunistic these allegations were five months ago.


I've seen and been with cadre when we went out to corners and churches to sell the paper. They go out and talk to people passionately about Avakian and Revolution and getting subscriptions, and this and that. But there never is actually application of the mass line.

I strongly suspect that your understanding of "mass line" is a revisionist/economist one.


Its more like, "here's the truth people, take it or leave it!" In a nutshell, that is the methodology of the RCP.

That's entirely opposed to the methods of the RCP which focus on bringing our line out to the masses and engaging in real struggle with people ideologically.


There is no vanguard party in this country.

www.rwor.org


The truth is, as Mao understood it, that the masses learn in struggle. They don't learn by preaching.

Economism...


Avakian now views himself as being "irreplaceable", "historic", and the Party has now become an instrument (well, it has been for a while) for Avakian's cult of personality.

Again... using a culture of appreciation surrounding Avakian's work is a way of putting revolutionary Communism out to the masses.


I have already explained how it views the masses, how it blames and curses them for what are actually shortcomings on the side of communists.

All of which are based on extraordinarily narrow, blatantly misinterpreted, and decontexualized quotes.


Well, can you prove, using quotes from the Letters, how they are not principled?

The first page:


Principled Restraint:

These letters attempt a critical excavation of political and ideological substance. However, they carefully avoid direct reference to internal events, documents, organizational structures and internal activities of specific personalities. This restraint means that potential documentation of some arguments remains submerged.

Allow me to transate:

I am now going to make a bunch of claims about the internal operations of a Communist organization. However, I refuse to substantiate these claims with anything more then the fact that I worked with the party for a period of time. Thus, I expect you to believe everything I say without any evidence or argument.

That and the NUMEROUS LIES AND DISTORTIONS MADE ABOUT THE RCP'S LINE several of which you have sadly repeated here.


And that is not Kasama's view, or mine. I don't where you got that from.

Come on. That's what everyone at Kasama always says even though they're very careful to say that's not what they're saying. It's so superficial.


Ely is not bringing forward a "new synthesis", he, unlike Avakian, understands that it is a revolutionary and collective process.

Very well. The line that Ely and the others at Kasama who have been putting out the "9 Letters" has become revisionist to an increasingly obvious degree.


From Letter 1:

Fair enough. Perhaps I'll use the term "package of Menshevik/revisionist/economist drivel" form now on when referring to the line of the 9 Letters.


Plus, there is nothing "new" to Avakian's "New Synthesis."

*Yawn.* I tire of your unsubstantiated proclamations.


Can you point out how it is revisionist to want to learn how to make revolution in the belly of the beast?

That's not revisionist. That's also not what's going on.


Or how it is revisionist to understand that we need to lead the masses to do this?

Kasama is trying to lead the masses. Not make a revolution. That's why it's revisionist.


Listen: I don't give a motherfuck how frustrated Avakian feels, a communist, a real one at least, never blames the masses.

I don't care either. I didn't bring up the quote. And for the last fucking time, everyone know that Avakian is not blaming the masses! I've explained this already and now you're not only distorting Avakian's position but mine also.

What Avakian is saying here is that in the course of struggle, when people get frustrated, there is sometimes a desire to blame but that we must not!

You're just blatantly lying!


Do you really think that white people are going to "come to grips" with racism through that ridiculous poster? How is the consciousness of the people going to change using that methodology! It won't!

Do I think that that single poster will cause white people everywhere to gain that level of consciousness? Don't be absurd!

Do I think that these questions need to be posed in acute and sharp ways? Yes!

This is another facet of the economism of Kasama, a disdain for real struggle or posing things as they are in the interest of coming to lead a mass base.


But, as I said, Mao is historic because he actually made history.

And as I said, that is totally irrelevant to the line struggle and has no significance to the claim that New Synthesis is of great importance.


On the other hand, Avakian claims that his brainstormed "new synthesis" is correct, when, in fact, Avakian has never led a mass movement or held state power!

Neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin when he wrote most of his work, nor Mao when he wrote much of his had held state power.

This argument is epistemologically off on so many levels.


This is completely relevant.

What are you referring to?

If it is to your argument above, then I must indeed agree.


Lin and Chen use arguments remarkably similar to that of the RCP.

Not at all. They were very very religious about Mao.


And the RCP says how Bob is “unique, rare, special, and irreplaceable” and how leaders of this "caliber" emerge every once in a while. I believe this comes out on that Leadership Revolution issue, but I can easily get a link if you wish.

I've read it. I know the line of my own party.

Again, refute my argument. I've shown how this is a materialist position.


The point is that there are striking similarities between Lin and Chen's view of Mao and the RCP's view of Avakian (and his views on himself). To deny it is to deny the obvious.

I deny it. You haven't shown it to be obvious at all.


You've stated your position. Instead, try to refute the argument. Show the ACUTE differences between these two wrong theories concerning leadership.

I have. I've shown my position. The position of Chen and Lin was that Mao was a demi-God and that "one sentence from Chairman Mao is worth ten thousand of ours" (paraphrasing Lin) and on and on. It wasn't at all grounded in materialism. It was a cult of the individual. What exists in the RCP is an appreciation for a revolutionary line.


Exactly, how do you think that people IN THEIR MASSES are going to be won over by selling papers on the street. I've done this before, I know. You can sell papers to people here and there. But what makes you think this is going to change them? How does this create lasting ties with the masses so that next time they will look for you party, look for your leadership?

Those are important questions and one that we must always try and improve our answer to. The RCP has it's answer in the slogan "fight the power, transform the people for revolution." Kasama's answer is economism.


Plus, it is plain false to say that the Party does not popularize Avakian. I don't even have to link anyone to Revolution here. It is so obvious.

We don't talk about Avakian for the sake of his person. We talk about a line.


So...it proves you have enough supporters to run bookstores. Woopeee.

That's far more than can be said for most any other Communist organization in the country.


Prove it. Quote the Letters. Show us how.

See the RCP's response, which has been unanswered.


I can show how you are wrong, from Letter 9:

That doesn't show anything. And even in this converstation, it's become more and more obvious what's really going on at Kasama and how it's becoming more and more economist then it originally was. Even in your posts its become painfully obvious.


In other words, we need a new summation, a new synthesis that can break through what we have today.

Got it.


We need a vibrant communist coherency (in other words, communist theory) that can integrate and lead the advanced (the advanced strata of the masses, as opposed to the intermediate or backward).

Economism. We must lead the masses and we need an ideology that will allow us to do so! Thus, we're going to shed some of this revolutionary Communist "baggage" so that we can get tight with people.


This here shows how Kasama understands and will work towards this new reconception. How we need a new synthesis, but that this needs to be really "taken to the masses" and lead the advance in struggle so that they can learn, because that is how the masses learn.

Thee is nothing new or revolutionary about this worn out economism.


The problem is that the RCP does not have a base, but they have tried.

Again, the economism.


Yet, the crucial thing here is that there has been no summation.

There's absolutely no way for you to know that.

[Rawthentic]

Drosera, I'm not going to respond to this anymore.

Almost every one of your arguments are one-liners with no substance. Furthermore, you keep that shit up about "economist! revisionist! menshevik! opportunist!" And I call no names or engage in petty shit like that.

Also, it is very difficult to argue like this on RL. I'd love to do it on AIM, so download it, it isnt hard, and is much better to debate then this.

You might take it that I have nothing to say, but buddy, you are mistaken if you do.

Until then, peace.

[Justin CF]

So how come your party basically says to vote Democrat? :rolleyes:I don't know what they did in the past, but the RCP has recently been putting out some articles that are extremely critical of Obama.

[Dros]

Almost every one of your arguments are one-liners with no substance.

I think anyone who cares to read this thread sees that that's not true. I've shown clearly how the Kasama sites logic is grounded in opportunism and Menshevism, how their entire movement is grounded in unsubstantiated lies and distortions about the RCP's line, method, and internal workings and I have tried to show that Kasama has nothing to offer Revolutionary Leftists, for all its rhetoric.


Furthermore, you keep that shit up about "economist! revisionist! menshevik! opportunist!" And I call no names or engage in petty shit like that.

I'm not calling you names. I'm pointing out the incredible amount of opportunism and revisionism that Kasama spews and how it is really not anything like what it claims to be. It is neither new nor revolutionary and it is exactly what the left does not need.

I apologize if I've offended you, but I think any critical examination of the Ely polemic and the Kasama project will reveal the truth here, and history will bear me out on this.

[Dros]

I don't know what they did in the past, but the RCP has recently been putting out some articles that are extremely critical of Obama.

They have never advocated voting Democrat. Richter has confused the RCP with the WCW campaign's opposition to the Bush Regime.

[Rawthentic]

There has been no critical examination about Kasama here, its all been slander, you know it.

I'd invite any comrade here to see if Drosera is telling the truth. Hell, I'd even start a poll.

By the way, one can see by my posts that I do not use your name-calling method, my posts are longer, I quote Mao, Avakian, the RCP, and Kasama, in other words - more substance.

But, like I said, I won't be debated this anymore here, at least not with you.

[Dros]

There has been no critical examination about Kasama here, its all been slander, you know it.

Not so. I've shown that the Ely critique is grounded in opportunism in multiple ways. I've shown that Kasama distorts and lies about the line and history of the RCP. I've also tried to show that Kasama's line is grounded in revisionism and economism.


I'd invite any comrade here to see if Drosera is telling the truth. Hell, I'd even start a poll.

Since we've started this little conversation the number of votes for the RCP has gone from 28 to 35 while all of the others have remained essentially static. Not that it matters. It's just an interesting bit of trivia while speaking of polls and such.



By the way, one can see by my posts that I do not use your name-calling method, my posts are longer, I quote Mao, Avakian, the RCP, and Kasama, in other words - more substance.

You quote. That does not mean more substance. I've posted analysis where necessary and pointed out where your line is reflective of economist logic. Anyone here who knows what revisionism looks like can just look over my posts and see that I've highlighted it. Nothing more nothing less.

I'm sorry, but I'm really not concerned with debating who's a better debater with you. Perhaps, someday we'll meet and we can lock fangs in person.

[Rawthentic]

I'm not concerned about whos a better debater either.

But I won't continue with your unsubstantiated claims. You make claims, never support them with quotes or anything, really.

I'm done. Good luck with the RCP.

[kasama-rl]

Hi. I am Mike ely. And I have been reading this thread with interest.

Let me dig into these issues a bit:

There are three problems with the arguments of the RCP supporters (and I don't just mean their arguments around the kasama project).

Those problems are:
* dogmatic method of circular reasoning
* routine and pretty shameless distortion of the facts
* most important a problem of line (in service of which both of the above two are mobilized).

the question of method has been discussed in great detail on the Kasama site (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/) itself, so I don't think we need to reproduce it here. But that method is (repeatedly) asserting a false premise, and then (with clear and energetic formal logic) building a whole edifice of verdicts on that false premise. Part of what is in operation here is the RCP's assumptions of what is "economism and revisionism."

The key and defining principle of the RCP today (the key criterion for membership for example) is that appreciation of Bob Avakian is the dividing line between marxism and revisionism (which means it is the dividing line between revolution and counterrevolution AMONG COMMUNISTS). If you start there (with that assumption and verdict) then any communist who criticizes Avakian's synthesis (especially in a sweeping and allsided way) is, by simple logic, a revisionist (since he is on the wrong side of the dividing line). So then you go sift through various discussions and works to find "proof" of all this.

The problem with such logic is (as i'm sure all can see) that if your premise is wrong, then the rest doesn't follow.

On the facts: Desperate to show that the 9 Letters to our comrades is revisionist (when in fact it is not) they ended up tearing quotes out of context and distorting what they mean.

For example: their theory is that I (ie Mike Ely) and the 9 Letters have abandoned the struggle for socialism and communism and are seeking solutions inside of capitalism.

But, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in the 9 letters that even vaguely suggests that.... since this is not the line of the 9 Letters or Kasama project.

Kasama defines itself with the following words (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/about/):

"Kasama: a communist project that, in theory and practice, fights for the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. We are re-conceiving as we regroup — engaging in in “a very presumptuous work (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/1-a-time-to-speak-clearly/)” to create a new revolutionary trend that (in more than words) is rooted in the dreams and political aspirations of real people. We are a starting a process of intense theoretical work and initial practical work."

How is that revisionist, reformist or counterrevolutionary? It is obviously not.

but the headline of the RCP's response is:

STUCK IN THE “AWFUL CAPITALIST PRESENT” OR
FORGING A PATH TO THE COMMUNIST FUTURE?

Notice they put quotes around "awful caitalist present" as if to imply that getting stuck there is Kasama's plan, while only they (the RCP) are about "forging a path" to communism.

Well where is that quote taken from?

In the 9 Letters to our comrades, we wrote:

"A revolutionary organization has to be integrated into struggles of the people — directly in its own name while connecting with (or initiating) a variety of other organizations. And it has to draw the thinking and activity of people toward creatively-conceived communist solutions to this awful capitalist present – a task which can only be accomplished with methods that are bold yet sophisticated (not hackneyed or infantile)."

In other words, this quote is from a paragraph about connecting the "thinking and activity" of people with "creatively conceived communist solutions" to capitalism. This is about revolution carried out by millions of peole -- and making that a reality.

And this was being discussed because the RCP preaches hollow and hackneyed phrases at people -- and stands isolated and falling apart as a result.

But the RCP claims that this paragraph is proof of revisionism and economism, and claim that it wants to seek solutions WITHIN the "awful capitalist present."

responding to our paragraph they write:

"This is exactly and completely wrong! The task of a revolutionary communist vanguard, the entire raison d’être of communists at this time in history, is precisely the opposite: to lead the masses in making communist revolution and getting rid of this entire capitalist system – not to find solutions within it, creatively-conceived or not, communist in name or not."

In other words, to find "proof" of revisionism in Mike's work, they had to distort a rather clear and revolutionary paragraph. when he talks of "communist solutions to the awful capitalist present" they insist this must mean reformust solutions WITHIN CAPITALISM.

It is an obvious distortion (one of many) -- and it is done because they want to prove a reformism that doesn't exist.

The 9 Letters is a revolutionary document about how to break with windy dogmatism and the tiresome grandiousity of the RCP and its long string of failures -- and make a revolution for real (with real people)!

so that is the question of facts: and I invite anyone to just read the documents (especially the RCP's response) and compare their charges to what is actually said.

Let's finish with a brief discussion of economism:

What is economism?

Economism is a view (among communists) that the best way to build political consciousness is to organize themselves around their own oppression. And it assumes that if you get close to people by serving their own immediate perceived needs, that out of that struggle they will learn about the world, and about politics, and become supporters of revolutionary change.

So communists who are influenced by economism go among the people and focus on those issues that are most immediate FOR THEM, and focus on mobilizing them against their own immediate oppressors (their employer, or feudal landlord, or the local cop, or whatever). And they expect that out of increasingly militant struggle (the police come and beat people on picket lines, or the newspapers attack a just struggle) the workers and oppressed will "see" that there is a larger system, and that it is the obstable to their dreams of a better life.

The problem with economism (as Lenin pointed out in What is to be done?) is that it is based on a false view of how people become conscious. And it ignores the fact that struggles people wage over their own most immediate oppression have a built in tendency to get drawn into BOURGEOIS politics (elections, deal making, fighting for a slice of the pie, reaching agreements with the employer etc.)

Lenin argues, correctly, that revolutionary consciousness of a communist kind can only come to people from OUTSIDE the realm of their own immediate experience. To become class conscious (in a revolutionary way) you need information that only comes from studying history, and economics, and world affairs, and the larger events of society.

And so, Lenin argues, the task of communists is to systematically bring such information and analysis to people. Instead of focusing people's attention ON THEMSELVES (AND HOW THEY ARE FUCKED OVER) a communist work strains to bring into focus ALL the forces in society, what their position is, their politics, their programs.

After all the masses don't just want to push back on their own oppression, they want to be prepared (politically) to make alliances, to set up a government, to invent new laws, to design a new production system.... and you will never get there if you are focused just on your own low wages, or just on the shitty conditions on your block.

So, what does ecnomism have to do with the 9 Letters to Our Comrades?

Nothing.

the 9 letters are not economist -- they are precisely revolutionary in the sense that Lenin advocated. And the paragraph that the RCP singles out is precisely an expression of that.

So how can the RCP claim that the 9 letters is economist?

Because they have changed the definition of this term. They claim to have "enriched" lenin -- they have invented "enriched what is to be donism" -- and anything else, they say, is economism.

What is this "enriched what is to be donism"? It is a negation of Lenin's line. It is preaching to people in a way that stresses theory not actual events. It is the promotion of a particular view of "what communism will be like" -- and instead of focusing on how to make revolution and change in this society, it is a method that is all about starting with communism and "working back to the present."

and so, when the 9 Letters (and Kasama project) talk about orgainizing political struggle (of real poeple) around key dividing lines and faultlines in society -- and connecting that with communist work of exposure and analysis...... all THAT to them becomes wrong and revisionist.

but it is a slight of hand. It is not economist, it is communism brought into our present. The 9 Letters criticizes the RCP for abandoning its mass work among the people, for dissing the people when they don't rally to the RCP's latest scheme. (See Letter 3 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-3/))

But look at a century and more of revolution? did anyone go to the people and say "we have the leader for you, follow him because he is a unique, rare, irreplacable, beloved and special person who knows the way out?"

No. They went with political programs and projects and organized people.

"Prepare minds and organize people for revolution."

Lenin's party had the "three whales" they used to organize the revolutionary movement: an end to the Tsar and founding a republic, the eight hour day solution to the misery of working class lives, and land for the peasant. And these three demands were only reachable (in Russia at that time) through struggle and revolutionary means.

and while they organized around such key fault lines, and judged allies on that basis, they conducted revolutionary political work (winning the advanced to a far sighted sense of "what it would take", and to the process of creatively inventing the paths to revolution.) Unlike the RCP they never claimed "it is all there for the taking" -- because it wasn't. The paths to seizure of power, the forms of new political power, the method and approaches ALL HAD TO BE CREATIVELY invented, as the moments approach and the real conditions became clear.

[Die Neue Zeit]

All this time, the Avakianites have not bothered to respond...

[KurtFF8]

I agree that none could "save" the US, at least not in the way that you think I would imagine. Granted it would be much nicer to have any of those parties in power than the current two.

[Nosotros]

Which political party would fix and save USA?


please visit my new blogspot. and vote in my poll to see which party would fix and save USA from capitalism:

http://socialism-only-solution-for-usa.blogspot.com/ (http://socialism-only-solution-for-usa.blogspot.com/)


Which political party would fix and save USA?

Green Party

Socialist Party USA

Socialist Equality Party

Revolutionary Communist Party USA

Communist Party USA

Democratic Socialist Party USA
None

[Pogue]

Only when all these parties are one big party can the USA be 'fixed' and 'saved'.

[Winter]

I agree with many of you that none of these parties can "save" us.

Although I was reading the above debate between RCP and Kasama and must say Kasama is doing a service to our movement by pointing out the flaws of RCP in an effort to weed out the problems.

If we, as Communists cannot self-criticize ourselves then we will never find a way to improve. I really don't see it as two seperate groups clashing with one another, but one group of like-minded individuals wishing to make improvements within the movement itself.

So long as we see things through the eyes of partisanship we will never go anywhere ( Trotskyists have shown this to be true! ) RCP and Kasama are complimentary and I believe Kasama is the next stage. We must capture the minds of the masses and inform them of how class-conflict and contradictions work. We must show them how history validates this and point out how the system as a whole will never satisfactory help them.

[PigmerikanMao]

RCPUSA is the closest on the list, although I disagree with many of their politics. :rolleyes:

[Goose]

I'm sorry - do the RCP still exist?

[Goose]

Oh, hold on - I guess this is an american website, phew. Thus the fact that the RCP in the UK revealed themselves to be a proto-fascist, pro-thatcher, anti-semitic (yes, semitic, not Zionist) party who denied the minor issues Karadzic had in the former Yugoslavia, claimed AIDS was a a punishment from god etc etc presumably doesn't apply to your own RCP? At least I hope so as you're all voting for it!

[apathy maybe]

Oh, hold on - I guess this is an american website, phew. Thus the fact that the RCP in the UK revealed themselves to be a proto-fascist, pro-thatcher, anti-semitic (yes, semitic, not Zionist) party who denied the minor issues Karadzic had in the former Yugoslavia, claimed AIDS was a a punishment from god etc etc presumably doesn't apply to your own RCP? At least I hope so as you're all voting for it!

Not actually an "American" website. But the fact is that many people on the site are from the USA, and some don't notice that people outside the USA exist. But hey.

And to a mod, 'cause this is so old, can it be closed?