On Kasama

[Rawthentic]

I've heard a lot of people say that Kasama is a maoist organization. It is not. It is not a political party. It does not claim to be the vanguard. It is a communist project.


Kasama is a communist project for the forcible overthrow
and transformation of all existing social conditions.We are
open to learning, unafraid to admit our own uncertainties. At
the same time, we will not shrink from what we do know: the
solutions cannot be found within an imperialist world order
or the choices it provides.We are for revolution.We seek to
find the forms of organization and action for the people
most dispossessed by this system to free themselves and all
humanity.

To take this road, we need a fearless, open-eyed debate,
discussion and engagement. We need fresh analyses of the
rapid changes shaping the world around us.We need to sum
up a century of revolutionary strategies and attempts,
victories and defeats – instead of the conventional wisdom
and facile verdicts that paralyze our movements.We need to
re-imagine a radical politics that can take life among people
and move mountains.We need a movement that can listen, as
well as speak.

REVOLUTION: rethinking the unthinkable
We intend to identify those fault lines where radical thought
and action can emerge.We want to go deeply among the
people to prepare minds and organize forces for revolution;
for a global transformation of human life; for the urgent rescue
of the biosphere from capitalist destruction; for the radical
dismantling of the U.S. empire – its military, its nuclear
weapons and torture camps; for the uprooting of intolerable
racial inequalities and the archaic brutalities of male
supremacy; for the final liberation of humanity from the
restless, soulless rule of capitalist profit making!

Come walk with us. Help launch our new organizing and
theoretical projects. Let's reconceive as we regroup for the
coming storm. The end of this world is the beginning of the
new. Everything will change. How it changes is up to us.


Lenin broke with Marx to make revolution, as did Mao with Lenin. We need to do the same. What we have today cannot and will not make revolution. That is why we are not maoist, because we need a "new synthesis" (and not Avakian's) that can account for today's conditions and how we make revolution, and how we can unite on a communist basis to do this.

What do people think?

[trivas7]

Lenin broke with Marx to make revolution, as did Mao with Lenin.
What do you mean by this? How so, exactly? Does Kasama "break" with Mao? :confused:

I'm unclear what a Communist "project" is.

[Asoka89]

Kasama kind of confuses me too, how many people are involved now?

[Dros]

I think it sounds a whole lot like "freedom of criticism"...

Kasama is "spinning" itself as this group for "reconceiving" Communist theory and detaching itself from what's become irrelevant and obsolete (in their view). In reality, it's abandoning Communist theory for a revisionist, Menshevik paradigm of revolutionary action based on tailing the masses.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks for the responses, trivas and asoka.


What do you mean by this? How so, exactly? Does Kasama "break" with Mao? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gifI'm unclear what a Communist "project" is.

Marx had a formulation (and misunderstanding) that a revolution could only occur in the developed, capitalist nations (that consequently had a large majority working class) when the system's contradictions blew up. The Russian Revolution, as we know, is a break from that. Yet, Lenin did not break from Marxism, he continued it by applying it scientifically to Russian conditions. This is where we may diverge in views (and this is not the place to discuss that) but Mao also broke from the Soviet experience in many levels. I only want to list them briefly because I don't want to get off topic: the idea that a socialist revolution could not occur if the workers were not the main force (although the proletariat was always the leading force in line throughout the chinese revolution) and that peasants were to be distrusted; the Soviet Union's rigid and mechanical methods of economy and production.

There are three different things that define the relations of production in a society:

a) the ownership system (i.e. who makes the macro decisions of society and on what basis)

b) the relations IN production (the social relations in carrying out production)

c) relations of distribution (how are goods, wages and social wealth distributed to the people and by what standards)

All three of those (together) make up the relations of production. And all three are involved in creating (and deepening) the socialist relations in a society.

In the soviet union, they thought (wrongly and mechanically) that only the first one mattered.

They thought that if there was state ownership of the land and economy, then you had socialism, and the only other thing to decide was efficiency and motivation. so they nationalized everything, they put everything under state planning -- but the relations of production were not that different from capitalism, and the distribution relations started to widen inequalities (not narrow them) as the 1930 went on.

One of the important lessons we sum up (thanks to Mao and the four) based on theSoviet experience is the importance of working on all three of these aspects of the relation of production.

Because without that the overall relations return to capitalism.

If you have "state ownership" but the intersts of the masses are not really represented by the state -- then how is it socialism?

So this is where mao broke from the soviet experience in many important ways.

First of all, Kasama has only been an official organization since its national convention back in May. We have the beginnings of a theoretical project, but we of course have not broken with Mao, and have not created a new synthesis. We cant do that on our own or with what we have. It will take a lot more comrades, a lot more time and investigation (social as well) and research. So no one has broken with maoism in the sense that we have moved beyond that into a new insight that we need. That is a long, protracted process that does not have a clear beginning (generally, now) or end (theoretical advancement should never end).

When we mean a communist project, we mean in a sense an experiment. Here's a very important quote from the Nine Letters: (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/)

Letter #9:


When Mao’s Red Army abandoned their early base area, they carried with them all the hard-won apparatus of rebel state power: they brought archives, printing presses, factory equipment, rolls of telephone wire, furniture and more. That baggage cost them dearly in lives, when the heavily burdened column faced its first tests of fire. They then simply left off the boxes and machinery of their old apparatus. What they kept was that material that made sense when integrated into their new mode of existence. They were traveling light. They were ready to improvise, live off the land, and fight.
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.



...First, we need to chart the uncharted course, sum up past practice and move to actually fuse revolutionary communism with the deep currents of discontent among the oppressed.

...Second, communist theory needs to deeply comprehend our world today — the new connectedness of production and communications, the global shifts of industry, the mass migrations of people, the changes in class structures, the dynamics of modern warfare, the capitalist transformation of remaining feudal relations, the new interpenetrations and conflicts of imperialist powers, the basis and limitations shaping the unprecedented attempt to establish a global U.S. hegemony, the development of political Islam, and the stark historically-new ways the emancipation of women is posed. These changes (and more) are driving a world process quite different from the one explored in earlier communist analysis. There are related analyses of the U.S. itself that are needed, including deepening understanding of the impact of “de-industrialization” of the working class, and changes in the structures of national oppression (i.e., racist oppression of minority people in the U.S.).

...

...Third, communist theory needs to comprehend the twentieth century — especially what that century revealed about the socialist transition to communism and the wellsprings of capitalist restoration.

...We are in many ways at a fresh start. Let’s re-teach ourselves to think with a critical spirit. Let’s struggle and debate creatively, as comrades. Let’s chart that uncharted course. Let’s actually “prepare minds and organize forces for revolution.” Let’s bring down the beast and move toward the final emancipation of humanity.



Kasama kind of confuses me too, how many people are involved now?
I hope the level of confusion has gone down.

I dont have membership numbers. There are many members, and even more that collaborate with us, and there actually collectives in chicago, atlanta, philly, and nyc. David Pugh is contributor to the project and site (the comrade who was arrested by indian pigs for being involved in the anti-displacement movements there). But, even then, we are still small, and still primitive. This should not deter anyone from working with us. It is the beginning.

[Rawthentic]

One can see the type of ignorance displayed by RCP supporters in Dros' response.

He, clearly has no evidence, and the paragraphs I quoted on the first post here, it is clearly shown we are not reformists or mensheviks.

[Dros]

He, clearly has no evidence, and the paragraphs I quoted on the first post here, it is clearly shown we are not reformists or mensheviks.

Not explicitly. Don't be so linear. No one has ever said that the Kasama site is going to come out and say in their FAQ "We have decided to tail the masses and become revisionists!"

It's in the program and the understanding that Kasama brings to concepts like the mass line, what it means to serve the people, and what the importance of leading the masses really is.

In the Letters there is all kinds of talk about leading the people and the failure of the Communist movement to do so. Firstly, their analysis of why that is is quite idealist in nature in that it places far more emphasis on the subjective efforts of the Communists and almost entirely neglects the role of the material conditions of today's world. But more importantly, their understanding of leading the masses is put foreword as an a priori goal. They lack the understanding that leading the masses in a way that is meaningful can only be accomplished on the basis of a revolutionary line. Two things are important here. Firstly, by negating that fact, Kasama falls into the trap of Menshevism because they are now emphasizing leading as a goal in and of itself and will be forced to tail the masses in their effort to lead. This kind of economism doesn't lead anywhere. Secondly, Kasama will not be able to lead the masses because they do not have the revolutionary program to do it! The Kasama line is not new. It is not revolutionary. It is only superficially Communist. And it can not bring about, or even help to bring about revolutionary change. "Creatively conceived Communst solutions" to this "awful capitalist present" are different in a critical way from actually moving beyond this entire stage in a far more complete and thorough way.


One can see the type of ignorance displayed by RCP supporters in Dros' response.

I guess it's time to rename the "Nine Letters to our Comrades" then, eh?
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Rawthentic]

Not explicitly. Don't be so linear. No one has ever said that the Kasama site is going to come out and say in their FAQ "We have decided to tail the masses and become revisionists!"

It's in the program and the understanding that Kasama brings to concepts like the mass line, what it means to serve the people, and what the importance of leading the masses really is.

In the Letters there is all kinds of talk about leading the people and the failure of the Communist movement to do so. Firstly, their analysis of why that is is quite idealist in nature in that it places far more emphasis on the subjective efforts of the Communists and almost entirely neglects the role of the material conditions of today's world. But more importantly, their understanding of leading the masses is put foreword as an a priori goal. They lack the understanding that leading the masses in a way that is meaningful can only be accomplished on the basis of a revolutionary line. Two things are important here. Firstly, by negating that fact, Kasama falls into the trap of Menshevism because they are now emphasizing leading as a goal in and of itself and will be forced to tail the masses in their effort to lead. This kind of economism doesn't lead anywhere. Secondly, Kasama will not be able to lead the masses because they do not have the revolutionary program to do it! The Kasama line is not new. It is not revolutionary. It is only superficially Communist. And it can not bring about, or even help to bring about revolutionary change. "Creatively conceived Communst solutions" to this "awful capitalist present" are different in a critical way from actually moving beyond this entire stage in a far more complete and thorough way.
Wrong.

Your basic "argument" here is that Kasama believes that the masses should be organized for its own sake, rather than led by a communist line, and that Kasama negates the role of objective conditions. Well, let's take a look if that is correct:

From Letter 2:


How much of this failure of the RCP comes from the difficult objective conditions in the U.S.? How much is rooted in flaws of the RCP’s line and approach?

Clearly both are involved and intertwined.


These have been “awful decades” for communist work here. The plunder of a whole world has nurtured a corrupt political stability. The people are deeply affected by illusions, pulls of passivity and dreams of advancing within this system.


Here is one sign that these objective difficulties are very real: The RCP is hardly the only organized trend to have had trouble. No radical, left or revolutionary forces have gotten durable traction since the ‘70s — not revolutionary Black nationalists, not anarchists, not soft-socialist trade union organizers, not the Greens. Various left trends have also had their moments of influence, but all failed to develop ongoing support for their larger programs. Most have fared far worse than the RCP. Oppositional politics has flowed into loose social and cultural movements that are often organized around pressuring for reforms.


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.


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.

That takes care of that assumption.

Now with the accusation of menshevism, I want to post something that Mike Ely said in a thread in Politics titled "Which Political Party Can Fix and Save the USA?" where drosera and I were debating this very issue, gets to the heart of why Kasama is not revisionist, and where the discussion was cut short because it was far too much for drosera to reply to. It effectively proved him wrong. It also encapsulates what i would say had Mike not made this definitive post.

Mike Ely:

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://www.anonym.to/?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://www.anonym.to/?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://www.anonym.to/?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 capitalist 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 people -- 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://www.anonym.to/?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.

Why dont you respond to this and show us how Kasama is revisionist? Please do so.



Also, "creatively conceived communist solutions to this awful capitalist present" means revolution. Thats what revolution is: a solution to what is an awful capitalist present.

In the RCP's faulty logic, they think that when one opposed them, you are against the concept of a communist vanguard. When you oppose Avakian, you are against leadership, etc., etc. Can anyone else spot the faulty logic?

[Dros]

Most have fared far worse than the RCP.

Yes.


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.

Also true.


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.

In my view, this is the problem. Certainly, we need to do better. We need to do far better. But is there a real basis right now (both in the material and subjective conditions) for us to do so? I don't think so and in that sense, the Nine Letters represent a significant departure from materialist science.


That takes care of that assumption.

Actually, it doesn't. Nothing in that paragraph, even if we take it at face value, negates the fact that Kasama has decided to measure success by the building of a mass movement and the failure of the Communist movement generally but the RCP in particular to build base areas. Base areas? What would that mean in the context of a 21st century super-power? But more importantly, why is that our standard? Why should we be evaluating and measuring the struggle based on the number of recruits we have? This is fundamental to the Kasama ideology and it is a profound rupture with revolutionary Communism.


and where the discussion was cut short because it was far too much for drosera to reply to. It effectively proved him wrong.

:lol::lol::lol:

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the thread being pushed off the first page...


Why dont you respond to this and show us how Kasama is revisionist? Please do so.

Now that you've been so kind as to bring this to my attention, I think I will!


* routine and pretty shameless distortion of the facts

Kasama's entire existence is fundamentally grounded in the most shameless distortions imaginable as has been pointed to, literally, dozens of times.


the question of method has been discussed in great detail on the Kasama site 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."

What is our false premise? Our argument is in fact grounded in Marxism-Leninism, especially in WITBD?


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).

That is untrue. Period. That is not the RCP's line. I've personally spoken at length with long time party leaders about this very issue and gotten a very very clear response from them.


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.

That is not the RCP's method at all.


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.

Desperate? I'm sorry. We're not. It's surprisingly easy!


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.

No one has ever stated that Kasama has come out and explicitly defined itself as a revisionist organization or even that its members have consciously made a decision to abandon the Communist road. Oftentimes, during the course of struggle, Communists may seek an easier path or accidently begin to fall into reformism or economism without even realizing it!


We are re-conceiving as we regroup

This reconception is not in fact re-conceiving anything new or exciting or revolutionary. That's the problem.

"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)."

This is exactly the meat of the problem. Here is the most illuminating passage describing the actual practice of what this re-conceived "Communism" will really look like.

Step 1: Integrate yourself into the struggles of the people.
Step 2: Draw them towards Communism.
Step 3: Lead the people.

This formulation has been tried again and again. It can be very attractive after long years of struggle. But it has repeatedly failed. This is the logic of revisionism, of Menshevism, and of Kasama. In reality, these organizations Never get beyond the first step. Instead of leading the masses on the basis of a revolutionary line, they end up tailing the masses in hopes of one day drawing them in. It is a failed ideology.

It is also the logic of the reformism. We do not need "creatively conceived Communist solutions to this aweful capitalist present". We need a radical and total break with it!

"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.

Finding solutions to the capitalist present does not at all sound like a revolutionary slogan. It sounds a whole lot like reformism.


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

It is not a distortion. It is pointing out an important and disturbing trend.


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 here it is again. "Let's go out and make a revolution for real with the real masses!" It sounds great! It sounds Communist! But it's neither. In reality, this call represents a lot of things and none of them are revolutionary. It represents the same economist/menshevik logic I oulined above ("if we integrate ourselves with the "real people" then we can have a revolution!") and the same idealist understanding of the subjective factors we face.


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.

I'll second that invitation.


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

Everything. Mr. Ely has just done a great job laying out what economism is. It is everywhere on Kasama, just as he's explained it and it's really visible if you read between the lines and no what to look for.


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."

This is very untrue.


“Enriched” What Is To Be Done-ism is called that because, in addition to rescuing and reviving all the crucial principles developed by Lenin, Avakian has emphasized the importance of enabling the masses to engage with all spheres of society from the angle of knowing and transforming the whole world, as well as the need to “break down” to the extent possible the barriers to that engagement; and, very critically, he’s emphasized the importance of boldly promoting communism itself and of putting before the masses the biggest questions of the revolution—the questions that we’ve been getting into here.

Enriched What Is To Be Done-ism is a whole ensemble, and is not reducible to one single form of activity—and to get a sense of this, I strongly recommend studying part 2 of Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity. In brief, though, while coming from the orientation of hastening while awaiting a revolutionary situation, it encompasses the pivotal role of the revolutionary newspaper; the need to boldly spread communism in everything we do; the importance of promoting the works of Bob Avakian; the need to organize people around the slogan “Fight the Power, and Transform the People, for Revolution,” to spread revolution and build resistance to the key ways that the system comes down on the masses; recruiting people into the Party; and undertaking political initiatives around societal “fault lines” that concentrate key social contradictions at any given time—like the struggle to drive out the Bush regime.

Emphasis mine.


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)

Another massive distortion...


They went with political programs and projects and organized people.

Here it is again. "To hell with Communist theory, we need to go out and organize the masses around their struggles."


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.

And then they invented it! There's no difference here.


In the RCP's faulty logic, they think that when one opposed them, you are against the concept of a communist vanguard. When you oppose Avakian, you are against leadership, etc., etc. Can anyone else spot the faulty logic?

Everyone can see the fault in that logic. Fortunately, that is not our logic and this is at best an ignorant distortion.

[Rawthentic]

Lenin said:

“Only the fusion of socialism with the working-class movement has in all countries created a durable basis for both. But in every country this combination of socialism and the working-class movement was evolved historically, in unique ways, in accordance with the prevailing conditions of time and place. In Russia, the necessity for combining socialism and the working-class movement was in theory long ago proclaimed, but it is only now being carried into practice. It is a very difficult process and there is, therefore, nothing surprising in the fact that it is accompanied by vacillations and doubts.”
He wants to lead the people in struggle. He must be economist.

Letter 3 said:

So, how is a revolutionary vanguard forged under our conditions?


Seriously attempting this will require something quite different from what we now have. We need a revolutionary current that grows and emerges within the living tissue of today’s wrenching contradictions – as thousands of radical people go through a series of political processes together, under conditions where creative communist politics can seriously contend and transform. There is a necessary process with stages and leaps that you learn more about as they ripen – all as the revolutionary pole works to accumulate and transform organized forces. There are turning points where you either have critical mass and correct methods, or you are not in the game.

For all this, communists need a culture of organizing people to wage sharp struggle over the major questions of society. And we need a deeply creative new sense of how to bring revolutionary understandings to those who want to change the world.

Where is it even IMPLICIT that Kasama wants to lead the people without communist theory? It is a dialectical process. It is not, "theory then practice", dont be so LINEAR. It is dialectical.
Ok, lets get into it. Just to be clear: this will be the last post where I prove (once again) how Kasama is neither revisionist nor menshevik or whatever cute term the RCP likes to use today.


In my view, this is the problem. Certainly, we need to do better. We need to do far better. But is there a real basis right now (both in the material and subjective conditions) for us to do so? I don't think so and in that sense, the Nine Letters represent a significant departure from materialist science.A claim that has never been well-established.


Actually, it doesn't. Nothing in that paragraph, even if we take it at face value, negates the fact that Kasama has decided to measure success by the building of a mass movement and the failure of the Communist movement generally but the RCP in particular to build base areas. Base areas? What would that mean in the context of a 21st century super-power? But more importantly, why is that our standard? Why should we be evaluating and measuring the struggle based on the number of recruits we have? This is fundamental to the Kasama ideology and it is a profound rupture with revolutionary Communism.First off, you get it wrong. Kasama does not use building base areas as some sort of measuring stick in a mechanical, reductionist way like you make it out to be. But, lets look at the facts. A vanguard political party, by definition means an organization that has a conscious following for its politics. It has never had this. Lenin strove for this. Mao strove for this as well. Without base areas, where else can communist politics flourish, grow, and build seeds for the communist movement? Also, political base areas does NOT mean recruits. There is a difference between cadre and the masses. Base areas, whether it be in China 1949 or US 2008, means neighborhoods, villages, cities, parks, etc., where the people consciously support you in a manner where you can mobilize and lead against struggle (using communism as our guide). The RCP has never had this, even in its readership of its paper. Sure, it wins over people in their ones and twos, but we are talking about the masses, not individuals.

This is what the RCP set out to do, what is has sought to do for decades, and has failed (to build support bases)!. And, unlike Mao, there has been no summation and moving beyond that.


What is our false premise? Our argument is in fact grounded in Marxism-Leninism, especially in WITBD?No, it is not. Lenin's major work on the consciousness of the people is NOT based on taking "communism to the masses" in the sense of taking bringing forward this "genius leader" and a newspaper. It is not about working from the contradiction from socialism, and then come backwards. That is not the case, and there is nothing "enriched about that." It has always been about dealing with the contradictions within THIS society, and, based on that, leading the people around the major faultlines in society.

There needs to be a balance between communist work based on agitation and propaganda (the newspaper) and actually leading the masses in faultline struggle (this means those struggles that sharply expose the system). The RCP does not have this. It DOES NOT lead the people in struggle as a party anywhere. The WCW does not count. There is no balance.

Mao said:
In any task, if no general and widespread call is issued, the broad masses cannot be mobilized for action. But if persons in leading positions confine themselves to a general call -- if they do not personally, in some of the organizations, go deeply and concretely into the work called for, make a break-through at some single point, gain experience and use this experience for guiding other units -- then they will have no way of testing the correctness or of enriching the content of their general call, and there is the danger that nothing may come of it.He also said:
We must lead the peasants' struggle for land and distribute the land to them, heighten their labour enthusiasm and increase agricultural production, safeguard the interests of the workers, establish co-operatives, develop trade with outside areas, and solve the problems facing the masses -- food, shelter and clothing, fuel, rice, cooking oil and salt, sickness and hygiene, and marriage. In short, all the practical problems in the masses' everyday life should claim our attention. If we attend to these problems, solve them and satisfy the needs of the masses, we shall really become organizers of the well-being of the masses, and they will truly rally round us and give us their warm support. Comrades, will we then be able to arouse them to take part in the revolutionary war? Yes, indeed we will. I got all this from Marx2Mao. The point here is that mao also led the masses, he strove to do so, he needed to do so. How could he make revolution otherwise? Was he a revisionist as well?


“The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, ‘Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality.’”
Immediate actuality means that socialism and communism are put as real alternatives, they are shown, in practice, that they can work and the people see that communism is alive and IS THE SOLUTION TO THIS AWFUL CAPITALIST PRESENT. Today, Nepal serves that purpose. It proves that communism is not dead, and that it is the solution to their awful present that they have taken up.

Mao Tsetung, 1937
hat is untrue. Period. That is not the RCP's line. I've personally spoken at length with long time party leaders about this very issue and gotten a very very clear response from them.
If that is "untrue" then tell us what these "leaders" said. I'd love to know. Or is that secret as well?


This is exactly the meat of the problem. Here is the most illuminating passage describing the actual practice of what this re-conceived "Communism" will really look like.

Step 1: Integrate yourself into the struggles of the people.
Step 2: Draw them towards Communism.
Step 3: Lead the people.

This formulation has been tried again and again. It can be very attractive after long years of struggle. But it has repeatedly failed. This is the logic of revisionism, of Menshevism, and of Kasama. In reality, these organizations Never get beyond the first step. Instead of leading the masses on the basis of a revolutionary line, they end up tailing the masses in hopes of one day drawing them in. It is a failed ideology.

It is also the logic of the reformism. We do not need "creatively conceived Communist solutions to this aweful capitalist present". We need a radical and total break with it!

"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."First of all, that 1, 2, 3 scheme you got going on is not true and you cannot prove that. Kasama has never said integrate into struggles and then bring communism, Never, and you cannot prove it.

You dont seem to understand that "communist solutions to this awful capitalist present" mean revolution! Kasama does not and will not change its language to suit the needs of a tiny and failing sect! If the RCP cannot clearly see that "communist solutions" means revolution, then I feel quite sorry for them.

Hmm... lets take a look at the flyer I posted in the original post in this thread:

REVOLUTION: rethinking the unthinkable
We intend to identify those fault lines where radical thought
and action can emerge.We want to go deeply among the
people to prepare minds and organize forces for revolution;
for a global transformation of human life; for the urgent rescue
of the biosphere from capitalist destruction; for the radical
dismantling of the U.S. empire – its military, its nuclear
weapons and torture camps; for the uprooting of intolerable
racial inequalities and the archaic brutalities of male
supremacy; for the final liberation of humanity from the
restless, soulless rule of capitalist profit making!

Come walk with us. Help launch our new organizing and
theoretical projects. Let's reconceive as we regroup for the
coming storm. The end of this world is the beginning of the
new. Everything will change. How it changes is up to us.So, here I clearly show how Kasama is NOT revisionist, but, just like the RCP, actually aims to make revolution.


So here it is again. "Let's go out and make a revolution for real with the real masses!" It sounds great! It sounds Communist! But it's neither. In reality, this call represents a lot of things and none of them are revolutionary. It represents the same economist/menshevik logic I oulined above ("if we integrate ourselves with the "real people" then we can have a revolution!") and the same idealist understanding of the subjective factors we face.haha, you see, this is exactly what the RCP used to do particularly in the 80s and 90s. They refined and talked about in strategic terms how a revolutionary party would influence the communities and people where police brutality occurred, gentrification, women's harassment, actually putting out the United Front, etc. Not that Kasama is putting forward the RCP's analysis. No, but that they need to be summed up. Whenever a campaign failed or succeeded, Mao ALWAYS had summation to attempt to understand what line was leading, how it went wrong, and what could be done in the future. Or am I wrong? Did mao not do this?

Also, to be clear: Kasama IS NOT ENDORSING at THIS TIME the building of political bases. The conditions amongst the people are not there for it. There is no consciousness. But, unlike the RCP, Kasama seeks to build it as a part of its project, which means to lead the people in struggle (oh no! struggle!).

lol, in 2000, on the 25th anniversary of the RCP, the Revolutionary Worker wrote:
“We have forged deeper ties with the masses, joining, learning and leading in their struggles: The battle against police brutality and murder; the vicious discrimination that infests this system; the repression and super-exploitation of immigrants; the fight for the liberation of women; the battles against the unjust wars waged by this system… and more.”Oh no! The RCP is economist! Dont see that this nearly exactly what kasama aims to do (and what the RCP now negates and does not do)? Explain this one.


Another massive distortion...Not really. Lets take a look at what Avakian said after the failure of the OCT 6 WCW campaign:


“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…”

"Now, as Maoists, we're not supposed to blame the masses when things don't go well. But goddamnit—I want to blame the masses a little bit! Not strategically. Ultimately it is our responsibility—it is the responsibility of those who do understand the urgent need for massive opposition and political resistance to this whole course that the Bush regime is driving things on. But in line with, and as a part of, that responsibility, terms have to be presented sharply to people."And the RCP is not presenting that to the people. It simply does not do that. Complicity implies that people are CONSCIOUS and AWARE of imperialism, its horrors, and its alternative:communism. Complicity implies that people are aware of a crime, yet refuse to act on it. Now, DO YOU think that the people in the US are conscious of imperialism and the revolutionary alternative? NO! I dont care if you are talking about the middle strata, Mao NEVER blamed the people or the middle peasants for not acting in favor of land reform (this is true). It is wrong both in (maoist) principle and tactic. People cannot and will not be won over with those wrong methods.


Here it is again. "To hell with Communist theory, we need to go out and organize the masses around their struggles."Does kasama negate theory to lead the masses? Once again: no!


“It is extremely important to grapple, theoretically and practically, with the problems of socialism and capitalist restoration. It is extremely important to correctly sum up the experiences of the 20th century and makethose insights known broadly among the people. But there is an idealist air of classic utopian socialism about Avakian’s work on this: as if we can show people how to act now by fleshing out fully (from our current imaginings) details the future society must adopt. On one hand, this involves a wrong understanding of class struggle under socialism. And on the other hand, this approach directs the attention of the party and the masses now aggressively toward issues of “re-envisioned” communism, leaving many questions of this moment’s struggle for socialism unexamined and undiscussed.
Take the theoretical speculation made on the future transition to communism, and compare it to the glaring poverty of theoretical work that has been devoted to many other core problems of the specific revolution we need to take responsibility for…” [Letter 4] (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-4/)Hmmm......


And then they invented it! There's no difference here.the Bolsheviks and Lenin based the new methods of political power, seizure of power, etc., on THEIR CONDITIONS. Avakian does not. There is no serious discussion or insight into HOW to make revolution in the US. Selling a paper will not do it. We need something more than that. That applies to our conditions and can actually build a communist movement.

[Rawthentic]

Drosera, if you are going to reply, I would appreciate it if you could also quote Mao, Lenin, Avakian, and the Nine Letters as a part of your response.

Add some substance.

[Dros]

He wants to lead the people in struggle. He must be economist.

Now your distorting what I said. I don't know why I'm surprised considering this is one of Kasama's primary tactics.

I said that leading the masses is only meaningful when it occurs on a certain basis. Lenin understood that.


Letter 3 said:

Yes...

They say they need a theory. What's your point?


Where is it even IMPLICIT that Kasama wants to lead the people without communist theory?

I've already answered this question. Of course they haven't come out and stated it. They might not even know it themselves! All the paragraph has said is that they want to have dialogue. This is irrelevant to the argument I made in my last post.


It is not, "theory then practice", dont be so LINEAR. It is dialectical.

Of course it is. This is a non sequitur. The RCP and its line is grounded in three decades of Communist practice and the combined experiences of that period. It is a synthesis of all that experience.


Ok, lets get into it. Just to be clear: this will be the last post where I prove (once again) how Kasama is neither revisionist nor menshevik or whatever cute term the RCP likes to use today.

You have a rather enlarged image of your self don't you?


A claim that has never been well-established.

That's a different thread. I think it has. If you want to talk about that part of the RCP's analysis, make a thread and an argument and there will be something to talk about.


First off, you get it wrong. Kasama does not use building base areas as some sort of measuring stick in a mechanical, reductionist way like you make it out to be.

Then why do the Letters spend so much time talking about the RCP's failure to establish base areas?


But, lets look at the facts. A vanguard political party, by definition means an organization that has a conscious following for its politics. It has never had this.

This is untrue.


Lenin strove for this. Mao strove for this as well. Without base areas, where else can communist politics flourish, grow, and build seeds for the communist movement?

I don't think base areas are applicable, at least in the traditional sense, in the twenty first century for a wide variety of reasons. Certainly there needs to be a large segment of society behind the Vanguard party for there to be a revolution and clearly there isn't one. But it's opportunistic and frankly absurd to lay that squarely on the RCP. Obviously practice is imperfect. Obviously, all Communists in this country need to improve their tactics. But there's a huge part of this that is objective and that is largely missed (but given brief lip service) by the authors.


Also, political base areas does NOT mean recruits. There is a difference between cadre and the masses.

This is true. But there is certainly a correlation even though they're not the same thing in a one to one sense. I never meant to imply that.


The RCP has never had this, even in its readership of its paper. Sure, it wins over people in their ones and twos, but we are talking about the masses, not individuals.

This is not true either...


This is what the RCP set out to do, what is has sought to do for decades, and has failed (to build support bases)!.

See above.


And, unlike Mao, there has been no summation and moving beyond that.

You have no idea what you're talking about. My comrades and I sum up our work on a day to day basis and we sum up more prolonged strategies all the time. This is simply false.


No, it is not. Lenin's major work on the consciousness of the people is NOT based on taking "communism to the masses" in the sense of taking bringing forward this "genius leader" and a newspaper.

It is about boldly putting Communism foreword as the solution and taking that understanding out. That is what the RCP does and that is what Kasama's theory is breaking with.


It is not about working from the contradiction from socialism, and then come backwards. That is not the case, and there is nothing "enriched about that." It has always been about dealing with the contradictions within THIS society, and, based on that, leading the people around the major faultlines in society.

And here is the negation of the importance of theory. This is another serious flaw with the Kasama project. There is now a basis for us to sum up and understand what went wrong in the PRC and the USSR. If we don't do that, then we are going to repeat past failures. Understanding historical socialism is absolutely integral to our struggle today.


There needs to be a balance between communist work based on agitation and propaganda (the newspaper) and actually leading the masses in faultline struggle (this means those struggles that sharply expose the system).

Leading the masses can't be a goal! You keep saying it's not and then setting it up as one! Leading the masses can occur only on the correct basis!


The RCP does not have this. It DOES NOT lead the people in struggle as a party anywhere. The WCW does not count.
:lol::lol::lol:

What can ya say to that?:rolleyes:

And again we have the leading of the masses as a measuring stick. You are constantly contradicting yourself.


Mao said: He also said: I got all this from Marx2Mao.

I agree entirely with the first quote. It's also rather irrelevant to this conversation. Again, Mao understood what leading the masses was for.

I suggest that you look up when Mao said the second quote. I disagree with this and I think he would have disagreed as well. Stop trying to site scripture at me. I'm a Communist, not a religious fanatic.


The point here is that mao also led the masses, he strove to do so, he needed to do so. How could he make revolution otherwise? Was he a revisionist as well?

He understood the basis for and the purpose of leading the masses. This is something Kasama has really lost site of.


If that is "untrue" then tell us what these "leaders" said. I'd love to know.

I asked them if you could be a Communist without upholding Avakian. They said yes. Clear?


Or is that secret as well?

What are you talking about?:confused:


First of all, that 1, 2, 3 scheme you got going on is not true and you cannot prove that. Kasama has never said integrate into struggles and then bring communism, Never, and you cannot prove it.

Address the paragraph in the letters and this bizarre misundertanding of leading the masses that Kasama seems to have.


You dont seem to understand that "communist solutions to this awful capitalist present" mean revolution! Kasama does not and will not change its language to suit the needs of a tiny and failing sect! If the RCP cannot clearly see that "communist solutions" means revolution, then I feel quite sorry for them.

:lol: "Kasama" thinks the RCP is tiny... :rolleyes:

There was also that quote you posted above. It's part of a very strange pattern.


Hmm... lets take a look at the flyer I posted in the original post in this thread:

Ermm... that proves nothing. That's a collection of Kasama catch phrases and rhetoric. So what?


So, here I clearly show how Kasama is NOT revisionist, but, just like the RCP, actually aims to make revolution.

Of course they aim to make revolution. They have adopted a completely revisionist way of going about that.


haha, you see, this is exactly what the RCP used to do particularly in the 80s and 90s. They refined and talked about in strategic terms how a revolutionary party would influence the communities and people where police brutality occurred, gentrification, women's harassment, actually putting out the United Front, etc. Not that Kasama is putting forward the RCP's analysis. No, but that they need to be summed up. Whenever a campaign failed or succeeded, Mao ALWAYS had summation to attempt to understand what line was leading, how it went wrong, and what could be done in the future. Or am I wrong? Did mao not do this?

1.) You are massively over simplifying over two decades of Communist practice in incredibly vulgarizing it.
2.) The RCP does summation as well!


Also, to be clear: Kasama IS NOT ENDORSING at THIS TIME the building of political bases. The conditions amongst the people are not there for it.

Wo wo wo. You are attacking the RCP for not establishing material basis while a paragraph or two latter acknowledging my original analysis that it would be impossible? This is either incredibly opportunism or massive short term memory loss...


There is no consciousness. But, unlike the RCP, Kasama seeks to build it as a part of its project, which means to lead the people in struggle (oh no! struggle!).

Again the revisionist logic: "If we get out and lead the people, they'll get our consciousness!"


lol, in 2000, on the 25th anniversary of the RCP, the Revolutionary Worker wrote: Oh no! The RCP is economist! Dont see that this nearly exactly what kasama aims to do (and what the RCP now negates and does not do)? Explain this one.

Forging ties and leading the masses around a revolutionary Communist line is entirely different from attempting to lead the masses and then trying to build ties and introduce Communism. Pretty big difference.


Not really. Lets take a look at what Avakian said after the failure of the OCT 6 WCW campaign:

Yes. That's exactly what you're distorting. He's saying that in the course of struggle it's easy to become discouraged and want to blame the masses but we can't because it's our responsibility! This is one of the most flagrant lies in the whole Kasama project.


And the RCP is not presenting that to the people. It simply does not do that. Complicity implies that people are CONSCIOUS and AWARE of imperialism, its horrors, and its alternative:communism. Complicity implies that people are aware of a crime, yet refuse to act on it.

Much of that analysis is correct.


Now, DO YOU think that the people in the US are conscious of imperialism and the revolutionary alternative? NO! I dont care if you are talking about the middle strata, Mao NEVER blamed the people or the middle peasants for not acting in favor of land reform (this is true). It is wrong both in (maoist) principle and tactic. People cannot and will not be won over with those wrong methods.

What the hell are you talking about. Lot's of people in this country are aware of american imperialism. It's their bread and butter! It's their dinner! It's their SUV and they sure as hell know it! This is a class struggle Rawthink. It is not a group hug. We have enemies and many of them are complicit in the crimes of this system.


the Bolsheviks and Lenin based the new methods of political power, seizure of power, etc., on THEIR CONDITIONS. Avakian does not. There is no serious discussion or insight into HOW to make revolution in the US. Selling a paper will not do it. We need something more than that. That applies to our conditions and can actually build a communist movement.

You haven't been doing much reading of Avakian of late have you? There is an incredibly detailed analysis.


I would appreciate it if you could also quote Mao, Lenin, Avakian, and the Nine Letters as a part of your response.

Add some substance.

Communism is not religion and I'm not going to quote things as if they were scripture. In my last post, I quoted where needed and I addressed your quotes. I see no need to post superfluous passages and that doesn't mean that my arguments are insubstantial.

This is an argumentative fallacy. Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)

[Rawthentic]

Dros, I shall most likely reply sometime this weekend, or latest, tuesday.


note: I think others can start to notice how Dros' post have changed qualitatively and quantitatively.

[Raúl Duke]

Drosera, if you are going to reply, I would appreciate it if you could also quote Mao, Lenin, Avakian, and the Nine Letters as a part of your response.

Add some substance.


Communism is not religion and I'm not going to quote things as if they were scripture. In my last post, I quoted where needed and I addressed your quotes. I see no need to post superfluous passages and that doesn't mean that my arguments are insubstantial.

This is an argumentative fallacy.

I've actually noticed this in a few other threads (while I don't want to sound "sectarian", I've seen this especially between M-Ls) where people act that by quoting so-&-so they have a valid argument (and, I think, I've even seen people, amazingly, defer to those arguments!).

I'm glad that Drosera doesn't fall for that crap.

I don't want to get much into this and I'm not sure if Kasama is tailing the working classes immediate interests/preferences while losing focus of communist principles, etc, but I think it's important not to "tail" so much as to lose communist principles. I mean, as an example, some leftists seem eager to placate the religious which is something I'm against (even if the "majority of the proletariat" is religious does not mean they will stay that way in the future. I read somewhere that disbelief is growing in the 1st world and we should play a part in further discrediting religion whenever it's neccesary, and appropriate, to do so. Especially in the U.S. where fundamentalists are pushing negative religious agenda, like illegalizing abortion, eliminating evolution in schools or spreading creationism in schools, and anti-homosexual policies. All that should be opposed and we should not be afraid to point out that religion {specifically the abrahamic ones} is responsible for that.).

[Rawthentic]

Johnny:

I dont think you understand why I ask for at least some quotes from marx, lenin, mao, or even avakian.

He says that Kasama has broken with communism, but where is the evidence? I am not suggesting we blindly follow any of these leaders, but there needs to be evidence. I have showed how Kasama is not a 'menshevik' organization with quotes from the Nine Letters, and put up quotes by mao and lenin to show is consistency with what they said (but not in a dogmatic way).

[Rawthentic]

In other words, if Kasama represents a fundamental break from marx, lenin, and mao, then he should not have a problem quoting these communists to show how kasama is so different from what they represented.

[Rawthentic]

I said that leading the masses is only meaningful when it occurs on a certain basis. Lenin understood that.And you have done the same with Kasama. You have not proved that there is a difference between what Lenin said, or Mao said, in relation to leading the masses, that is different from Kasama's conception (basic communist one).

I'm sure you shouldnt have a problem quoting the Nine Letters, to show where it is at least IMPLICIT that Kasama is a break from mao and lenin in the sense we are speaking about.


I've already answered this question. Of course they haven't come out and stated it. They might not even know it themselves! All the paragraph has said is that they want to have dialogue. This is irrelevant to the argument I made in my last post.Wow, in other words, you admit you are wrong.

Just wanna have a dialogue huh? Hmm, maybe I didnt post it right. See it
AGAIN:


“It is extremely important to grapple, theoretically and practically, with the problems of socialism and capitalist restoration. It is extremely important to correctly sum up the experiences of the 20th century and makethose insights known broadly among the people. But there is an idealist air of classic utopian socialism about Avakian’s work on this: as if we can show people how to act now by fleshing out fully (from our current imaginings) details the future society must adopt. On one hand, this involves a wrong understanding of class struggle under socialism. And on the other hand, this approach directs the attention of the party and the masses now aggressively toward issues of “re-envisioned” communism, leaving many questions of this moment’s struggle for socialism unexamined and undiscussed.
Take the theoretical speculation made on the future transition to communism, and compare it to the glaring poverty of theoretical work that has been devoted to many other core problems of the specific revolution we need to take responsibility for…” [Letter 4] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-4/)Do you not see what it is putting forward? Hello!? It says that we need to grapple with what occurred in socialist societies, we need to sum that up AND make it know to the people! How is this "just a dialogue"? Are you serious? Admit that you are wrong.


Of course it is. This is a non sequitur. The RCP and its line is grounded in three decades of Communist practice and the combined experiences of that period. It is a synthesis of all that experience.Really lol? Ive never heard of such "synthesis" or summations at all, ever. Where is it? Where has the RCP summed up such experiences in a materialist way in order to move forward and learn from that? I am sure there is some evidence for it.


Then why do the Letters spend so much time talking about the RCP's failure to establish base areas?Because the RCP attempted to do many times in many different neighborhoods, failed, and never had a summation of those experiences - a crucial element that is missing. You think that Mao would have led china to socialism had the CCP not summed up all their failed campaigns and experiences in order to forge a more correct path for the masses? NEVER.


This is untrue.Then you define a political party. Let see.


I don't think base areas are applicable, at least in the traditional sense, in the twenty first century for a wide variety of reasons. Certainly there needs to be a large segment of society behind the Vanguard party for there to be a revolution and clearly there isn't one. But it's opportunistic and frankly absurd to lay that squarely on the RCP. Obviously practice is imperfect. Obviously, all Communists in this country need to improve their tactics. But there's a huge part of this that is objective and that is largely missed (but given brief lip service) by the authors.I did not say in the "traditional sense." If there is no support amongst the people, then communism cannot root amongst the people. Mao said something along the lines that communists are like seeds that grow and flourish amongst the people. But he was an economist. Screw him.

Anyway, there is a dialectical unity between objective conditions and subjective attempts. Obviously, the RCP's methods WITHIN these conditions have been wrong. Mainly because it has failed to live to ITS OWN expectations. Thats why we are talking about the RCP (not 'blaming them.'). They have served as the most serious communist pole for decades. And, since that is clearly not the case anymore, there needs to be a new summation of the RCP, its wrong methods, and an embarkment onto all the questions posed around making REVOLUTION in the belly of the beast.


This is not true either...Dont just it isnt true. Show why. Your arguments have deteriorated to things like this.

Anyways, it is true. The RCP has no mass readership of its newspaper. It doesnt have communities (not just individuals houses here and there) where it can say, "yes, these are our communities, we have support amongst the people here, they buy our paper regularly, give donations, and are supporter of RCP campaigns and calls." That just does not exist.


You have no idea what you're talking about. My comrades and I sum up our work on a day to day basis and we sum up more prolonged strategies all the time. This is simply false.Sure I do. You are not a representative of the RCP. I've heard that comment a lot: "well in our revolution club, we DO do that, so yeah."

Wrong. The Letters speak to the Party, to Avakian, its overall situation in relation to what we are living today. The RCP has not summed up their past practice and failures to become a serious revolutionary force. Like Mao, they havent come out as an organization and officially said that they were wrong, why they were wrong, and how they plan to move forward. There is just campaign after campaign after (failed) campaign, and on and on. It goes in circles and gets nowhere (except backwards).


It is about boldly putting Communism foreword as the solution and taking that understanding out. That is what the RCP does and that is what Kasama's theory is breaking with.Whatever.

When the CCP began campaigns in villages, did they take books by Mao and tell them he was a "genius"? Or did they apply the mass line, make an objective analysis of the situation and proceed to put in practice what they needed to do? There is a world of difference between the two methods.


And here is the negation of the importance of theory. This is another serious flaw with the Kasama project. There is now a basis for us to sum up and understand what went wrong in the PRC and the USSR. If we don't do that, then we are going to repeat past failures. Understanding historical socialism is absolutely integral to our struggle today.I already proved wrong the allegation that kasama is opposed to theory.

Now, as that quote I provided from kasama (about the need to sum up socialism's history) showed how there is a clear IMPORTANCE to do these summations about the history of the communist movement. The RCP and Kasama are both correct in this. BUT, this is not how we lead the people to make revolution and overthrow the "existing social conditions." You see what I am saying? Mao (and i use mao as an example alot because we are maoists and his method is counterposed to that of the RCP's) went out and made revolution, leading the people and struggling with them according to what they were living and suffering, not what happened in the USSR. That is important to sum up, but NOT how we are to make revolution. This is the basis of WITB? Raise the consciousness of the people, and make revolution based on what we are living today, our living conditions. It is its CENTRAL tenet.


Leading the masses can't be a goal! You keep saying it's not and then setting it up as one! Leading the masses can occur only on the correct basis!So, the RCP does not strive to lead the masses? Ok, I suppose thats evident now. When you prove, quoting the nine letters, how kasama is economist in an implicit way, I shall shut up (ie i think ill be doin a lot of talking lol).


I suggest that you look up when Mao said the second quote. I disagree with this and I think he would have disagreed as well. Stop trying to site scripture at me. I'm a Communist, not a religious fanatic.Well, since CLEARLY kasama represents a break from maoism, you should have absolutely no qualms about quoting mao and showing how we are wrong, right? Its not about religion or dogmatically following mao, its about showing how Maoism is consistent with what the Nine Letters are putting forward, as opposed to the RCP's distortion of it. I have no problem proving myself correct with mao's help. Why do you?


He understood the basis for and the purpose of leading the masses. This is something Kasama has really lost site of.Really? Let me quote the Letters again, and, hopefully you dont ignore it this time around.

So, how is a revolutionary vanguard forged under our conditions?



Seriously attempting this will require something quite different from what we now have. We need a revolutionary current that grows and emerges within the living tissue of today’s wrenching contradictions – as thousands of radical people go through a series of political processes together, under conditions where creative communist politics can seriously contend and transform. There is a necessary process with stages and leaps that you learn more about as they ripen – all as the revolutionary pole works to accumulate and transform organized forces. There are turning points where you either have critical mass and correct methods, or you are not in the game.

For all this, communists need a culture of organizing people to wage sharp struggle over the major questions of society. And we need a deeply creative new sense of how to bring revolutionary understandings to those who want to change the world.The point is: if you dont lead the masses in struggle, if you cannot communicate with the masses (as is the case with the RCP) then you cannot struggle over the major questions facing society.

So, where from here do you deduct that kasama negates the role of theory in leading the masses?

Look at what it says in the last sentence: "And we need a deeply creative new sense of how to bring revolutionary understandings to those who want to change the world.".

Take a look at that. How is that a break from the role of theory in leading the masses?


1.) You are massively over simplifying over two decades of Communist practice in incredibly vulgarizing it.
2.) The RCP does summation as well!1. I shall not write a book about the RCP's past. That paragraph I wrote was a little synopsis of what the RCP attempted, and failed, to do. If you think I am wrong, then SHOW WHY AND HOW it is wrong, along with your take of the RCP's past.
2. Prove their is summation or stop arguing this point. Prove it. Prove it.


"Kasama" thinks the RCP is tiny... :rolleyes:the RCP is tiny. Theres no doubt about that.

Kasama does not compare its size with the RCP. the RCP claims to be the vanguard of the american proletariat. Kasama has repeatedly said that it represents the beginning of a much needed project. Hm...


I asked them if you could be a Communist without upholding Avakian. They said yes. Clear?Thats a lie. Haha. And you know it as well, which makes this all so funny.


Of course they aim to make revolution. They have adopted a completely revisionist way of going about that.[/quote]
Ahh geez. You have never proved this alleged "revisionism."

btw, that is from a kasama flyer that was passed out en masse at the SDS convention in NYC.

It says:
REVOLUTION: rethinking the unthinkable
We intend to identify those fault lines where radical thought
and action can emerge.We want to go deeply among the
people to prepare minds and organize forces for revolution;What are such "fault lines that, to prove this point, is also used by the RCP? They are the struggles that can expose and higher the consciousness of the people. These struggles show the nature of the system, and are where communists should be (leading). "Prepare minds and organize forces for revolution." Isnt that an RCP phrase. the RCP must revisionist too.

Anyways, Id love to see you prove the revisionism "inherent" within that comment or the Nine Letters themselves. I keep asking for this, but it never comes.


Wo wo wo. You are attacking the RCP for not establishing material basis while a paragraph or two latter acknowledging my original analysis that it would be impossible? This is either incredibly opportunism or massive short term memory loss...Wrong again.

The RCP has claimed to be the vanguard of the RCP for 30 YEARS! They have tried and tried, time and time again to create support amongst the people and FAILED - and, not that failure is that bad, it happens to communists all the time, it sure did to lenin and mao - but the RCP has never summed up these experiences in a materialist manner. Never. And that is why we critique the RCP.

In terms of kasama, which sees itself as beginning a project to "reconceive as we regroup" this would of course be impossible. It is impossible for the RCP due to its wrong methods, and not possible for kasama due to its size and the fact it doesnt claim to be a communist vanguard - it is the start of a new, needed project.


Forging ties and leading the masses around a revolutionary Communist line is entirely different from attempting to lead the masses and then trying to build ties and introduce Communism. Pretty big difference.PROVE how Kasama endorces the latter. But actually prove, it DONT JUST SAY IT.


Yes. That's exactly what you're distorting. He's saying that in the course of struggle it's easy to become discouraged and want to blame the masses but we can't because it's our responsibility! This is one of the most flagrant lies in the whole Kasama project. Its no lie; he DOES BLAME THE MASSES. What do you think that whole thing about the "House of Tony Soprano" means? Or that by voting for Obama you are being complicit in crimes against humanity? That is blaming the masses for something that is for us to do!

It is the anti-maoist idea held by the RCP that the people within this imperialist nation are complicit for not acting and not answering to the calls of a tiny sect! Where is the mass line? Where? It is our responsibility. If the class struggle is slow, and society is clearly racing towards destruction, the FUCKING work harder! Dont blame the people for what you should be doing! If the masses were aware that a revolutionary alternative existed, you think things would be the same? The people, contrary to how the RCP treats them, are not complicity. It is not the same thing as witnessing a rape and choosing not to act against it.


What the hell are you talking about. Lot's of people in this country are aware of american imperialism. It's their bread and butter! It's their dinner! It's their SUV and they sure as hell know it! This is a class struggle Rawthink. It is not a group hug. We have enemies and many of them are complicit in the crimes of this system.
Let me make two points clear here: you yourself are distorting the RCP's line, and I am talking about the broad masses of people, not individuals.

When people have SUVs, or whatever gimmick, they ARE NOT AWARE that this product was the result of a long and complex chain in the imperialist system, and how this leads to the stratification that exists between imperialist and oppressed nations and their peoples.

The RCP's line is that the people, the broad masses of people, not enemy individuals, who vote for the Dems, or buy an iPhone while the WCW calls a march, are complicit in imperialism's crimes. Geez, now you even distort your own line.


You haven't been doing much reading of Avakian of late have you? There is an incredibly detailed analysis.Dont ask me for an incredibly detailed analysis of the new contradictions and changes within US society. I dont claim to be a part of the vanguard party of the US.

I am the one that is saying that an appraisal and concrete investigation of new conditions does not exist, for the most part at least. Thats where the Kasama PROJECT comes in.

Please respond to my posts in substance. Dont leave things out that make it convenient for you.

This is line struggle.

[Dros]

I don't have time to respond at the moment but I assure you I will respond as soon as I can.

In the mean time, I think it's becoming increasingly apparent, especially in Raw's latest post, that Kasama has decided that mass following is the yardstick for revolutionary theory. This is the hear of Kasama's revisionism and this dialogue can serve no other purpose except to highlight that fact.

[Rawthentic]

In the mean time, I think it's becoming increasingly apparent, especially in Raw's latest post, that Kasama has decided that mass following is the yardstick for revolutionary theory. This is the hear of Kasama's revisionism and this dialogue can serve no other purpose except to highlight that fact.
No, it is not.

What is the "yardstick" of revolutionary theory? Sure, Lenin is correct, a vanguard is not about if it is leading, but with what line and theories it is doing so. Notice how he still says that a vanguard needs to lead, yet with correct theory. I have never seen Dros show how Kasama breaks from this in ANY way.

Also, have you ever read Mao's "On Practice"? What IS the yardstick for revolutionary theory, if not testing its validity in practice?

[Dros]

And you have done the same with Kasama. You have not proved that there is a difference between what Lenin said, or Mao said, in relation to leading the masses, that is different from Kasama's conception (basic communist one).

I'm sure you shouldnt have a problem quoting the Nine Letters, to show where it is at least IMPLICIT that Kasama is a break from mao and lenin in the sense we are speaking about.

I did that in my first post! Kasama has consistently shown that "leading the masses" is the basis for theory not vice versa. Everytime I see this manifested in this post I will post a series of exclamation points to show where and how often you are doing this.


Wow, in other words, you admit you are wrong.

Ermm..... No.


Just wanna have a dialogue huh? Hmm, maybe I didnt post it right. See it AGAIN:

So what? Again, I fail to see the relevance of this quote. Instead of repeatedly quoting this, perhaps you can be so kind as to spell out the argument you think you're making?


Do you not see what it is putting forward? Hello!? It says that we need to grapple with what occurred in socialist societies, we need to sum that up AND make it know to the people! How is this "just a dialogue"? Are you serious? Admit that you are wrong.

Right. They want to have a dialogue on these issues! Exactly what I said! They are pointing out the need for this! The RCP has done and is continuing to do this all of the time. The problem is, Kasama's paradigm of organization doesn't understand that this and this alone is the basis on which Communists can lead the masses.


Really lol? Ive never heard of such "synthesis" or summations at all, ever. Where is it? Where has the RCP summed up such experiences in a materialist way in order to move forward and learn from that? I am sure there is some evidence for it.

If you had ever actually worked with the party, you would have been a part of these summations and experienced them first hand.


Because the RCP attempted to do many times in many different neighborhoods, failed, and never had a summation of those experiences - a crucial element that is missing. You think that Mao would have led china to socialism had the CCP not summed up all their failed campaigns and experiences in order to forge a more correct path for the masses? NEVER.

!!!!!!!!!

And again, we do do summations. You're repeating yourself while missing the point entirely.


Then you define a political party. Let see.

The RCP does have a conscious following, albeit a small one.


I did not say in the "traditional sense." If there is no support amongst the people, then communism cannot root amongst the people.

You've got to be kidding me.

You said:


Base areas, whether it be in China 1949 or US 2008, means neighborhoods, villages, cities, parks, etc., where the people consciously support you in a manner where you can mobilize and lead against struggle (using communism as our guide). The RCP has never had this, even in its readership of its paper. Sure, it wins over people in their ones and twos, but we are talking about the masses, not individuals.

!!!!!!!

"Whether it be in China 1949 or US 2008"? What do you mean you weren't talking about them in the traditonal sense? You criticized the RCP for not doing something that you now admit was impossible. Can you not see how opportunistic that is?


Mao said something along the lines that communists are like seeds that grow and flourish amongst the people. But he was an economist. Screw him.

And he was right. He was not an economist. You are.


Anyway, there is a dialectical unity between objective conditions and subjective attempts. Obviously, the RCP's methods WITHIN these conditions have been wrong. Mainly because it has failed to live to ITS OWN expectations. Thats why we are talking about the RCP (not 'blaming them.'). They have served as the most serious communist pole for decades. And, since that is clearly not the case anymore, there needs to be a new summation of the RCP, its wrong methods, and an embarkment onto all the questions posed around making REVOLUTION in the belly of the beast.
Dont just it isnt true. Show why. Your arguments have deteriorated to things like this.

:lol::lol::lol:

Show why the RCP is still the most serious Communist pole? Just look around! The RCP isn't revisionist. Kasama is. CPUSA is. Both FRSOs are. Single spark is. MIM et all is nuts. We are the only Communist pole! We do sum up our parties failures. The fact that you can't read those summations on the internet doesn't mean they don't exist!


Anyways, it is true. The RCP has no mass readership of its newspaper.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It doesnt have communities (not just individuals houses here and there) where it can say, "yes, these are our communities, we have support amongst the people here, they buy our paper regularly, give donations, and are supporter of RCP campaigns and calls." That just does not exist.

!!!!!!!!!!

I can't even believe this. You keep going back and forward on this! Are base areas plausible or aren't they? You say they aren't! Then you criticize the RCP for not having them!

You keep saying this:


Kasama does not use building base areas as some sort of measuring stick in a mechanical, reductionist way like you make it out to be.


Also, to be clear: Kasama IS NOT ENDORSING at THIS TIME the building of political bases. The conditions amongst the people are not there for it. There is no consciousness. But, unlike the RCP, Kasama seeks to build it as a part of its project, which means to lead the people in struggle (oh no! struggle!).

You are so inconsistent! You criticize the RCP for not building base areas and then say that Communists can't build base areas then say we shouldn't even be using base areas as a standard and then you go and say we need base areas! Economism and opportunism rolled into one little sandwich of revisionism.


Sure I do. You are not a representative of the RCP. I've heard that comment a lot: "well in our revolution club, we DO do that, so yeah."


That's true. I'm not a representative of the RCP. I do however work directly with the RCP, not with a revolution club.


Wrong. The Letters speak to the Party, to Avakian, its overall situation in relation to what we are living today. The RCP has not summed up their past practice and failures to become a serious revolutionary force. Like Mao, they havent come out as an organization and officially said that they were wrong, why they were wrong, and how they plan to move forward. There is just campaign after campaign after (failed) campaign, and on and on. It goes in circles and gets nowhere (except backwards).

This argument that you repeatatively make is grounded in the logically fallacious assumption that anything you have not been made part of doesn't exist.


When the CCP began campaigns in villages, did they take books by Mao and tell them he was a "genius"? Or did they apply the mass line, make an objective analysis of the situation and proceed to put in practice what they needed to do? There is a world of difference between the two methods.

They tried to educate the masses. You have a very strange (revisionist) understanding of the mass line. Remember the mass line is "learn from the masses, then teach them." You are very interested in "learning from the masses" but not so much in teaching them. This is economism. All you can do with this is follow the masses which is what Kasama's whole package is about.


I already proved wrong the allegation that kasama is opposed to theory.

Then why did you say something like:


It is not about working from the contradiction from socialism, and then come backwards. That is not the case, and there is nothing "enriched about that." It has always been about dealing with the contradictions within THIS society, and, based on that, leading the people around the major faultlines in society.

emphasis mine


Now, as that quote I provided from kasama (about the need to sum up socialism's history) showed how there is a clear IMPORTANCE to do these summations about the history of the communist movement. The RCP and Kasama are both correct in this. BUT, this is not how we lead the people to make revolution and overthrow the "existing social conditions."

Yes it is!


You see what I am saying? Mao (and i use mao as an example alot because we are maoists and his method is counterposed to that of the RCP's) went out and made revolution, leading the people and struggling with them according to what they were living and suffering, not what happened in the USSR.

Mao grounded his practice in the objective conditions of China while understanding, analyzing, and summing up the experience in Russia! That was key to the further success of the Chinese Revolution!


That is important to sum up, but NOT how we are to make revolution. This is the basis of WITB? Raise the consciousness of the people, and make revolution based on what we are living today, our living conditions. It is its CENTRAL tenet.

This is a non-contested point. I agree. Revolutionary tactics must be grounded in the objective conditions of your country. But, you must also undertand and thoroughly sum up the past experiences if you are going to make a successful revolution!


So, the RCP does not strive to lead the masses? Ok, I suppose thats evident now.

Sure we do. But we're going to lead the masses on the basis of a revolutionary methodology.


When you prove, quoting the nine letters, how kasama is economist in an implicit way, I shall shut up (ie i think ill be doin a lot of talking lol).

See all of my posts.


Well, since CLEARLY kasama represents a break from maoism, you should have absolutely no qualms about quoting mao and showing how we are wrong, right? Its not about religion or dogmatically following mao, its about showing how Maoism is consistent with what the Nine Letters are putting forward, as opposed to the RCP's distortion of it. I have no problem proving myself correct with mao's help. Why do you?

The issue is not what Mao said. We both agree with Mao! The issue is that you think Kasama is correctly applying Mao and I disagree. If I quote Mao, you'll just say that that's what you're doing and I'll say it's not and the debate will turn into a debate about interpreting Mao which is not something I'm really interested in doing in this thread. It's much more productive to talk about Kasama in more direct terms.


So, how is a revolutionary vanguard forged under our conditions?

Not like this!:


communists need a culture of organizing people to wage sharp struggle over the major questions of society.

!!!!!!!!!!!!

More economism!


The point is: if you dont lead the masses in struggle, if you cannot communicate with the masses (as is the case with the RCP) then you cannot struggle over the major questions facing society.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is EXACTLY what I've been saying you're saying! We lead the masses and then we communicate Communism in the course of struggle! This is precisely the revisionism I've been pointing out! You just explicitly said it! This is the heart of Menshevism!


So, where from here do you deduct that kasama negates the role of theory in leading the masses?

I'll repeat you:



It is not about working from the contradiction from socialism, and then come backwards. That is not the case, and there is nothing "enriched about that." It has always been about dealing with the contradictions within THIS society, and, based on that, leading the people around the major faultlines in society.

emphasis mine


Look at what it says in the last sentence: "And we need a deeply creative new sense of how to bring revolutionary understandings to those who want to change the world.".

The "deeply new sense" that Kasama has come to is an old and profoundly revisionist one as you have demonstrated not a paragraph above.


1. I shall not write a book about the RCP's past. That paragraph I wrote was a little synopsis of what the RCP attempted, and failed, to do. If you think I am wrong, then SHOW WHY AND HOW it is wrong, along with your take of the RCP's past.

You are overly emphasizing subjective factors and ignoring the objective conditions of the 70's and 80's. You are ignoring the RCP's successes in becoming more national. You are overplaying the fact that the RCP did not have the degree of success it would have liked and you are asserting that there was no summation, something which you could not possibly know about.


2. Prove their is summation or stop arguing this point. Prove it. Prove it.

You sound like Rosa asking for statistical data on the mass line. I've done these summations with RCP comrades. The fact that you haven't been there or seen them speaks more to your level of involvement then it does to the RCP.


the RCP is tiny. Theres no doubt about that.

Compared to what? Compared to other Communist organizations, it is not.


Thats a lie. Haha. And you know it as well, which makes this all so funny.

Ermm..... No. It's really not. I see no reason to continue this conversation if the only way you can defend your assertions is by accusing me of lying. You don't know who I am! How could you possibly know if I had had this conversation. I'm very up front with the RCP's line and see no reason to hide any part of it.


Ahh geez. You have never proved this alleged "revisionism."

Even if we assume this is true (it isn't true as I've proved this point over and over and over) you still would have proved the revisionism for me just just a few paragraphs above this comment.


"Prepare minds and organize forces for revolution." Isnt that an RCP phrase. the RCP must revisionist too.

Ummm... How? The RCP seeks to bring Revolutionary Communist theory to the masses (prepare minds) and lead them to make a revolution (make revolution). This is the proper Communist method.


the time, it sure did to lenin and mao - but the RCP has never summed up these experiences in a materialist manner. Never. And that is why we critique the RCP.

This is UNTRUE! The RCP does sum up its experiences! You keep repeating yourself. How about you add some substance to this point?!


PROVE how Kasama endorces the latter. But actually prove, it DONT JUST SAY IT.

See above.


Its no lie; he DOES BLAME THE MASSES. What do you think that whole thing about the "House of Tony Soprano" means? Or that by voting for Obama you are being complicit in crimes against humanity? That is blaming the masses for something that is for us to do!

1.) If you live in the US, you are materially benefiting from mass exploitation in the third world. This is an objective and undeniable fact. If you are aware of that fact (in a conscious way), are capable of action, and choose not to act then you are complecit. There are some people who are the enemies of Communists and we should be upfront about who these people are.
2.) That is not blaming the masses. Millions of proletarians in the US aren't class conscious


It is our responsibility. If the class struggle is slow, and society is clearly racing towards destruction, the FUCKING work harder!

And here it is again. This completely unscientific, uncommunist, anti-theory notion that when things don't go well, it's because we weren't working hard enough. This is so false I don't even think Kasama believes this.


Dont blame the people for what you should be doing! If the masses were aware that a revolutionary alternative existed, you think things would be the same? The people, contrary to how the RCP treats them, are not complicity. It is not the same thing as witnessing a rape and choosing not to act against it.

It is if you are really aware of what's going on. Many aren't. You are manipulating this example in a way that reflect either your ignorance of the RCP's line or deep seeded opportunism.


Let me make two points clear here: you yourself are distorting the RCP's line,

No I'm not.


and I am talking about the broad masses of people, not individuals.

There are different sections of people out there and some of them do not want a Communist world because it's not in there best interests! Those aren't individuals. That is a section of society that constitutes a class enemy.


When people have SUVs, or whatever gimmick, they ARE NOT AWARE that this product was the result of a long and complex chain in the imperialist system, and how this leads to the stratification that exists between imperialist and oppressed nations and their peoples.

Some of them are! There are people in the United States who know that perfectly well! Everyone is not a friend of Communism. There are people who are our enemies. They should be recognized.


The RCP's line is that the people, the broad masses of people, not enemy individuals, who vote for the Dems, or buy an iPhone while the WCW calls a march, are complicit in imperialism's crimes. Geez, now you even distort your own line.

That is and always has been a complete lie. Please provide evidence for your anti-Communist libel or stop spewing it.


Dont ask me for an incredibly detailed analysis of the new contradictions and changes within US society. I dont claim to be a part of the vanguard party of the US.

I'm saying the RCP has one.


I am the one that is saying that an appraisal and concrete investigation of new conditions does not exist, for the most part at least. Thats where the Kasama PROJECT comes in.

Right. And I'm saying it does.


Please respond to my posts in substance. Dont leave things out that make it convenient for you.

Please provide one example in this conversation where I've left something important out of my response? Are you kidding me?

[Rawthentic]

Right. They want to have a dialogue on these issues! Exactly what I said! They are pointing out the need for this! The RCP has done and is continuing to do this all of the time. The problem is, Kasama's paradigm of organization doesn't understand that this and this alone is the basis on which Communists can lead the masses.
"That alone" huh? So, you have just agreed that the basis for leading the masses needs to be the summations of past socialist societies, not actual, existing conditions? Very well.


If you had ever actually worked with the party, you would have been a part of these summations and experienced them first hand.
I dont care what you do, to be honest. You are not a party member, you dont represent the RCP. The RCP does not have official summations of any of their failed mass campaigns, whether that be Mumia, cabrini green, or the RC4 Tour. No summations of the failures that can lead to better strategies.


The RCP does have a conscious following, albeit a small one.
No, it does not. It doesnt have support from any section of the masses. Individuals here and there dont count.


"Whether it be in China 1949 or US 2008"? What do you mean you weren't talking about them in the traditonal sense? You criticized the RCP for not doing something that you now admit was impossible. Can you not see how opportunistic that is?
Im saying that base areas are still applicable, whether it be in China back then or USA today. of course it would be under different conditions. Dont play this game with me, its obvious the RCP has no support amongst the masses, which means it would have base areas. It does not. It doesnt have neighborhoods, blocks, communities, or anything like that that could be called a section of conscious support for the party.

And I didnt say it was impossible for the RCP. I am judging the RCP based ON THEIR OWN FAILED EXPECTATIONS to build roots amongst the masses. So your excuse of this being "impossible" does not work. The RCP tried, tried hard, and failed, and now there are no summations, no explanations for what went wrong and how to mend that.


Show why the RCP is still the most serious Communist pole? Just look around! The RCP isn't revisionist. Kasama is. CPUSA is. Both FRSOs are. Single spark is. MIM et all is nuts. We are the only Communist pole! We do sum up our parties failures. The fact that you can't read those summations on the internet doesn't mean they don't exist!
Showing the RCP was a communist pole would mean that it actually had masses that attracted to that pole. the RCP is not a pole, it is a withering sect. There have never been official summations of failures (and thats A LOT of summations lol). I dont care if they are in the internet or on the newspaper. They have never existed, and you cannot prove that. Btw, Mao published BOOKS that explained the failures of the past and summed it up in order to move on.


You are so inconsistent! You criticize the RCP for not building base areas and then say that Communists can't build base areas then say we shouldn't even be using base areas as a standard and then you go and say we need base areas! Economism and opportunism rolled into one little sandwich of revisionism.
It isnt my fault you have a hard time understanding basic concepts.

Lets see if this time you get it.

The RCP's OWN EXPECTATIONS were to build base areas, and they tried in many different neighborhoods, and FAILED. I am not "blaming" the RCP in the sense that I could go and speak of another failed "vanguard party" in the US. The RCP failed according to its own expectations, get it? And, thats not a bad things on its own (though it does expose the RCP's wrong methods) but the fact that there are no official summations is the bad part. You and your friends selling newspapers on the street and then summing that rich experience up does not mean the RCP does official summations.

Kasama does not claim to be a vanguard party. We dont wrongly claim we have base areas. We arent even a party, more of a PROJECT an organizations whose strategic goal is "reconceive as we regroup" to make revolution.

When did I say we shouldnt use base areas a standard? I said we shouldnt use it an reductionist manner, BUT that when party like the RCP has spent decades attempting to build this support and clearly failed, there is something wrong AND there are no summations.


This argument that you repeatatively make is grounded in the logically fallacious assumption that anything you have not been made part of doesn't exist.
So, are they SECRET summations? I dont get it. You have never seen these official summations, even if they did exist. Which they dont. Mao wasnt afraid to own up.


They tried to educate the masses. You have a very strange (revisionist) understanding of the mass line. Remember the mass line is "learn from the masses, then teach them." You are very interested in "learning from the masses" but not so much in teaching them. This is economism. All you can do with this is follow the masses which is what Kasama's whole package is about.
Yeah, they tried to educate the masses, but not based on some false "genuis leader" basis, but by applying the mass line and learning the objective conditions and leading on that basis.

when you prove that kasama is not interests in "teaching" I wont post on RL anymore in my life. But you havent.


Mao grounded his practice in the objective conditions of China while understanding, analyzing, and summing up the experience in Russia! That was key to the further success of the Chinese Revolution!
That wasnt the basis for his leadership and you know that (maybe you dont). You think that if he would have put Russia's experience as primary (as the RCP incorrectly does) they would have made revolution? No.


This is a non-contested point. I agree. Revolutionary tactics must be grounded in the objective conditions of your country. But, you must also undertand and thoroughly sum up the past experiences if you are going to make a successful revolution!
I agree. So does Kasama.


More economism!
How is it economism to say that we need a culture of organizing people to wage struggle over major questions in society!? How are we going to teach the masses and wage these struggles if we dont lead them? You understand, that for all the RCP's rhetoric about kasama being economist, the RCP does NOT wage these struggles with the masses? They dont, no matter how much they say they do. Why? Because they dont lead the people. Mao said, "the people learn best in struggle" and hes right. They dont learn better iin street corners getting a newspaper hawked at.


This is EXACTLY what I've been saying you're saying! We lead the masses and then we communicate Communism in the course of struggle! This is precisely the revisionism I've been pointing out! You just explicitly said it! This is the heart of Menshevism!
Wrong.

Where does it say that we need to communicate with the masses AND THEN take communism to them? Where is it even implicit that it is an A and then B thing? Nowhere.

It is a dialectica process, a back and forth process. Its called the mass line, something the RCP no longer uses.


You are overly emphasizing subjective factors and ignoring the objective conditions of the 70's and 80's. You are ignoring the RCP's successes in becoming more national. You are overplaying the fact that the RCP did not have the degree of success it would have liked and you are asserting that there was no summation, something which you could not possibly know about.
No, ive clearly maintained that objective conditions have played a role. But, that is NOT what I am discussing. Within these conditions, no matter how harsh they may be, communists need to be active, need to to strive to put communism back on the table. Well, the RCP, to these standards, and its own, has completely failed. Its methods within these objective conditions have been wrong, and there has been no summation. How do I know? Because they dont exist.


You sound like Rosa asking for statistical data on the mass line. I've done these summations with RCP comrades. The fact that you haven't been there or seen them speaks more to your level of involvement then it does to the RCP.
Nobody cares what youve done.

You are not the RCP. The summations dont exist, not even in secret. Stop getting desperate to a point you cant defend (actually that would mean for you to give up responding here, so nvm).


Compared to what? Compared to other Communist organizations, it is not.
I dont care about other organizations, stop saying that, it just shows how desperate you are to attempt to show that the RCP is not a tiny sect.


Ermm..... No. It's really not. I see no reason to continue this conversation if the only way you can defend your assertions is by accusing me of lying. You don't know who I am! How could you possibly know if I had had this conversation. I'm very up front with the RCP's line and see no reason to hide any part of it.
Thats not the only way. I have provided quotes from kasama, mao, lenin, and even avakian. Very substantial, as opposed to yours (rEviSionIsM!) with little evidence.

If it is true that the RCP does not hold avakian to be a cardinal question, then that means that he is not on the level of a lenin or mao, as the RCP holds him to be. Very well.


Even if we assume this is true (it isn't true as I've proved this point over and over and over) you still would have proved the revisionism for me just just a few paragraphs above this comment.
No, youve never proved this. All you say have are unsubstantiated claims about kasama wanting to lead the masses without theory, and you just say it, you dont prove it. If it was so easy, quoting the nine letters to prove your point wouldnt be so hard.


Ummm... How? The RCP seeks to bring Revolutionary Communist theory to the masses (prepare minds) and lead them to make a revolution (make revolution). This is the proper Communist method.
And its exactly the same thing Kasama uses. Oh, and that phrase is no longer used by the RCP. And, the RCP does neither prepare minds or lead people to make revolution.


1.) If you live in the US, you are materially benefiting from mass exploitation in the third world. This is an objective and undeniable fact. If you are aware of that fact (in a conscious way), are capable of action, and choose not to act then you are complecit. There are some people who are the enemies of Communists and we should be upfront about who these people are.
2.) That is not blaming the masses. Millions of proletarians in the US aren't class conscious
Wrong.

Avakian is clearly referring to the masses of people, not individuals who are conscious of imperialism's crimes and refuse to act:

“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…”


"Now, as Maoists, we're not supposed to blame the masses when things don't go well. But goddamnit—I want to blame the masses a little bit! Not strategically. Ultimately it is our responsibility—it is the responsibility of those who do understand the urgent need for massive opposition and political resistance to this whole course that the Bush regime is driving things on. But in line with, and as a part of, that responsibility, terms have to be presented sharply to people."

Notice how he means "the masses" and "people". He is not referriing to enemy individuals, but to the masses. You yourself distort your sect's line.

He refers to the masses of people who dont answer calls to a WCW march, the masses who vote for obama, etc. He is not talking about the enemy at all.


That is and always has been a complete lie. Please provide evidence for your anti-Communist libel or stop spewing it.
Not a lie at all:


"Not all, but still too many, Americans—especially within the middle strata, although not only there—are in a real sense falling into acting like children, easily distracted with toys. 'Here at midnight tonight—the new i-Phone!' People will line up, and fight each other to get in line, to get the new i-Phone, but they can’t bring themselves to mobilize against the torture and the wars and everything else that is being done by their government, in their name and right before their eyes—this is not even really being hidden."
In other words, the people are complicit in the crimes of imperialism because they want to buy iphones instead of mobilize themselves!

Dont you see the anti-maoism here? Where is the mass line!? If the people were aware of imperalism's crimes, middle strata or black proletarians, things would not be the same. If people were aware, and refused to act, then there is complicity. So, avakian gets it wrong. He acts as if the people are aware of imperialism and still prefer to stand in line to buy an iPhone!

In fact, these are fucking cheap shots by the party, especially at a time of its irrelevance and falling apart. Couldnt it be then said that the RCP is complicit in the crimes of imperialism, since it does not create revolutionary alternatives for the people? I think both of these arguments are wrong, but i made the latter to show a point: the masses, the broad masses of people avakian writes about (not enemy strata or individuals) are not aware of imperialism and thus not complicit; it is the responsibility of communists to do this, to raise consciousness.

There is a dichotomy. We can either base politics on morality, or morality on politics. The former is the RCP's wrong method, the latter the marxist one. In other words, we can find a way to morally stamp the masses when they passive, as avakian does, or we can understand the social basis of that passivity and develop political methods to win them over to our side. And saying they are complicit will not win people over. Ever.

[Dros]

I'll respond shortly.

[Dros]

"That alone" huh? So, you have just agreed that the basis for leading the masses needs to be the summations of past socialist societies, not actual, existing conditions? Very well.

The basis of leading the masses to make revolution in the US is a revolutionary Communist theory that must necessarily be synthesized out of the socialist experiences in China and Russia. Yes.


The RCP does not have official summations

This is simply untrue! You have no evidence for this at all! And even if it was, there's no way you could possibly know it! It's just absurd. You discredit yourself by repeatedly saying things that you couldn't possibly know about.


No, it does not. It doesnt have support from any section of the masses. Individuals here and there dont count.

More economism. More using popular support as a measuring stick.

And again, the RCP is far bigger than most any other authenticly Communist organization in the country which should cue you into some of the material conditions around this rather then your idealistic over subjectification of the situation.


Im saying that base areas are still applicable, whether it be in China back then or USA today. of course it would be under different conditions. Dont play this game with me, its obvious the RCP has no support amongst the masses, which means it would have base areas. It does not. It doesnt have neighborhoods, blocks, communities, or anything like that that could be called a section of conscious support for the party.

And you just said that that would be impossible. The idea of base areas in the way that you are referring to them is completely anachronistic to modern day Communist politics. We should not be striving to have base areas in this sense! We should be striving to broadly increase the consciousness of the masses broadly. This kind of tactic was applicable in 1917 and 1949 but this isn't a backward country. This kind of strategy is arcane.


And I didnt say it was impossible for the RCP. I am judging the RCP based ON THEIR OWN FAILED EXPECTATIONS to build roots amongst the masses. So your excuse of this being "impossible" does not work. The RCP tried, tried hard, and failed, and now there are no summations, no explanations for what went wrong and how to mend that.

The RCP attempted to increase the class consciousness of the masses and, in comparison to all the other groups of its time, it succeeded. That does not negate the fact that there needs to be far more connectedness but this whole argument just highlights how opportunistic Kasama's line is. The '70's and '80's were incredibly counterrevolutionary times and most of the Communist organizations in the country died out. The fact that the RCP even exists today is testimony to the fact that they have built a considerably larger conscious base than most any other Communist organization in the country.

And again, there are summations. The idea that you could possibly even pretend to know if there were or weren't is like claiming to know my address.


There have never been official summations of failures (and thats A LOT of summations lol). I dont care if they are in the internet or on the newspaper. They have never existed, and you cannot prove that. Btw, Mao published BOOKS that explained the failures of the past and summed it up in order to move on.

Yes that right. Mao lived in a time when China lacked a significantly powerful state to oppose him. This meant that Mao could openly publish the summations of the party. In a first world developed nation with a repressive and highly adaptive state apparatus, that is the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

It's time to crawl out of the 1950's and pull ourselves into the 21st century and all of the changes in strategies and tactics that entails even if that means not publishing the summations for a while or not building base areas in this rigidly traditional sense.

Also, why the emphasis on "official"? Summation is a process not a piece of paper and a stamp. It occurs at all levels of the party apparatus at all times! It's not some task that the committees do later. It's constantly unfolding.


You and your friends selling newspapers on the street and then summing that rich experience up does not mean the RCP does official summations.

First of all, you have absolutely no idea who I am and what my activity consists of or what my relationship or lack there of with the party is. To claim otherwise is just patently dishonest so I wouldn't.

Secondly, you have a very limited understanding of what "summation" is and what its role is in the whole process. You seem to act as if summation is something that only the central committee can do and only at a specific meeting and then they have to right up position papers and vote on it and publish it. This is a very poor view of summation. Summing up is again something that is done at all levels of party work from cadre right on up to the chairman. And it happens all of the time on a day to day basis. If you ever worked with the party, you would no this.


When did I say we shouldnt use base areas a standard?

So we should use it as a standard? So the ability to garner popular support is the standard by which we evaluate theory? So Kasama is revisionist? Glad we clarified that point.


So, are they SECRET summations? I dont get it. You have never seen these official summations, even if they did exist. Which they dont. Mao wasnt afraid to own up.

Mao also didn't have to worry about a large, effective, and repressive bourgeois state apparatus.


Yeah, they tried to educate the masses, but not based on some false "genuis leader" basis, but by applying the mass line and learning the objective conditions and leading on that basis.

Again, your understanding of what the mass line is, is a revisionist one! Throughout, you talk about the mass line as if it's some sort of thing you just do and you get mass support. Leading on the basis of mass line. This is called populism. Mass line isn't populism. Mass line is learning from the masses and then synthesizing that into a revolutionary theory and taking that back to them. That is the basis for Communist leadership.


That wasnt the basis for his leadership and you know that (maybe you dont). You think that if he would have put Russia's experience as primary (as the RCP incorrectly does) they would have made revolution? No.

No. The basis for his leadership was his new synthesis of Marxism-Leninism which relied on the experience of the USSR. Similarly, Avakian's new synthesis sums up both the PRC and the USSR and takes those experiences and synthesizes a revolutionary new Communist understanding for making revolution.


How is it economism to say that we need a culture of organizing people to wage struggle over major questions in society!? How are we going to teach the masses and wage these struggles if we dont lead them?

So we lead them and then we teach them. Again, you've got the order confused. We need to be taking revolutionary Communism out to the masses and leading them in these struggles on that basis, not the other way around!

The whole notion of a culture of leading the masses is precisely the revisionism I've been trying to point out.


You understand, that for all the RCP's rhetoric about kasama being economist, the RCP does NOT wage these struggles with the masses?

:lol:

Yes we do.


They dont, no matter how much they say they do. Why? Because they dont lead the people. Mao said, "the people learn best in struggle" and hes right. They dont learn better iin street corners getting a newspaper hawked at.

Those are the same thing.


Wrong.

:rolleyes: You just said it yourself! Not me!


Where does it say that we need to communicate with the masses AND THEN take communism to them? Where is it even implicit that it is an A and then B thing? Nowhere.

Right here:


The point is: if you dont lead the masses in struggle, if you cannot communicate with the masses (as is the case with the RCP) then you cannot struggle over the major questions facing society.

emphasis mine

You lead the masses, and then you struggle "over the major questions facing society" by which I assume you mean capitalism. Lead the masses first, Communism latter. It's RIGHT THERE!


Its called the mass line, something the RCP no longer uses.

That has nothing to do with the mass line. That's called economism.


No, ive clearly maintained that objective conditions have played a role. But, that is NOT what I am discussing. Within these conditions, no matter how harsh they may be, communists need to be active, need to to strive to put communism back on the table. Well, the RCP, to these standards, and its own, has completely failed.

That's simply untrue. The RCP has had far more success if you look at the margin then other similar parties. This means that either every "Communist" in the country has been wrong for the past forty years and no one but you and Mike have the right method or that you're opportunisitically emphasizing the subjective factors.


Its methods within these objective conditions have been wrong, and there has been no summation. How do I know? Because they dont exist.

"I know there are no summations because there aren't any." Can anyone else see the problem with this reasoning?


I dont care about other organizations, stop saying that, it just shows how desperate you are to attempt to show that the RCP is not a tiny sect.

What?

Yes. The RCP is small. But the fact that it exists where others have completely died and the fact that it has a nation wide network of activists who are consciously behind the party to the extent that it can run a dozen bookstore across the US shows that it is hardly tiny relatively speaking.


Thats not the only way. I have provided quotes from kasama, mao, lenin, and even avakian. Very substantial, as opposed to yours (rEviSionIsM!) with little evidence.

See my post. The fact that you quote people is entirely irrelevant to the substance of your argument. The fact that I don't quote as often is irrelevant to the quality of my argument. I have also been doing far more than just "(rEviSionIsM!)" I've gone through the letters and your posts and systematically demonstrated the economism latent in both your line and the letters.


If it is true that the RCP does not hold avakian to be a cardinal question, then that means that he is not on the level of a lenin or mao, as the RCP holds him to be. Very well.

The RCP does hold him to be a cardinal question. You misunderstand what that means.


No, youve never proved this. All you say have are unsubstantiated claims about kasama wanting to lead the masses without theory, and you just say it, you dont prove it. If it was so easy, quoting the nine letters to prove your point wouldnt be so hard.

I did that in post 9 of this very thread. And I've done it consistently with your representation of their line.


And its exactly the same thing Kasama uses. Oh, and that phrase is no longer used by the RCP. And, the RCP does neither prepare minds or lead people to make revolution.

Ermm... yes it is and yes it does. Look, this kind of thing is juvenile. I'm not here to yell back and foreword with you about what the RCP is or is not. If you're going to engage substantively, fine. If you're going to parade around and yell "sect" and just say stuff like that then you are an opportunist and you're doing yourself and Kasama no favors at all by behaving this way.


Avakian is clearly referring to the masses of people, not individuals who are conscious of imperialism's crimes and refuse to act:

“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…”



Notice how he means "the masses" and "people". He is not referriing to enemy individuals, but to the masses. You yourself distort your sect's line.

He does not say "the masses", he says "the people in this society who". So clearly, he's referring to a section of people. I never said he was referring to individuals in fact quite the opposite. He's referring to our class enemies! They're real! They exist! There are sections of people, not individuals, sections that are counterrevolutionary! I don't understand how someone who holds class struggle politics can't understand the fact that there's a class struggle going on!


He refers to the masses of people who dont answer calls to a WCW march, the masses who vote for obama, etc. He is not talking about the enemy at all.

That's an assertion that you can't support.


In other words, the people are complicit in the crimes of imperialism because they want to buy iphones instead of mobilize themselves!

Not at all. I think that's really referring to a problem in consciousness.


Dont you see the anti-maoism here? Where is the mass line!? If the people were aware of imperalism's crimes, middle strata or black proletarians, things would not be the same. If people were aware, and refused to act, then there is complicity.

Again, I'll say this even though I'm sure you'll just ignore it: He's referring to the people that are aware! He's talking about people who understand the reality of imperialism and decide that they LIKE IT THIS WAY! They exist! They're out there!


I think both of these arguments are wrong, but i made the latter to show a point: the masses, the broad masses of people avakian writes about (not enemy strata or individuals) are not aware of imperialism and thus not complicit; it is the responsibility of communists to do this, to raise consciousness.

I think that point is perfectly correct and completely irrelevant to the quote from Avakian.


There is a dichotomy. We can either base politics on morality, or morality on politics. The former is the RCP's wrong method, the latter the marxist one. In other words, we can find a way to morally stamp the masses when they passive, as avakian does, or we can understand the social basis of that passivity and develop political methods to win them over to our side. And saying they are complicit will not win people over. Ever.

I'm going to ask you a question. Are there people in this country who are complecit? Is there a section of people in this country who are objectively counterrevolutionary? And lastly, is American imperialism real?

-=-=-=-

I'm not sure how much more we're going to get out of this conversation. If you want to continue, then we need to see a higher level of discourse that transcends name calling like "sect" and baseless claims like the oft repeated "wrong" and such. Otherwise, it's just not worth the time.

[Rawthentic]

I'm not sure how much more we're going to get out of this conversation. If you want to continue, then we need to see a higher level of discourse that transcends name calling like "sect" and baseless claims like the oft repeated "wrong" and such. Otherwise, it's just not worth the time.
Im discussing all the points as much as you.

I mean, me calling the RCP a "sect" can be equated with you calling Kasama "revisionist."

[Rawthentic]

This is simply untrue! You have no evidence for this at all! And even if it was, there's no way you could possibly know it! It's just absurd. You discredit yourself by repeatedly saying things that you couldn't possibly know about.Can you prove that they exist? And, since you are so adamant that they do exist, why are they secret? Why would a supposed vanguard party make their summations of past failures, a party secret? What is there to hide? The only person being discredited is yourself and the RCP.

I also dont think that the state apparatus is any excuse for not making summations. Not making summations is like calling oneself a maoist and not applying the mass line (ie the RCP). It is an integral part of maoism, and of "criticism, self-criticism." You dont think mao faced a repressive state apparatus? I mean, they were fighting a huge and exponentially overnumbered enemy that was being paid, funded, and supplied by american imperialism. How many "encircle and defeat" campaigns were there where the nationalists attempted to strangehold the communists into defeat? This is simply an excuse that you came up with, faced with the fact that the RCP has no summations of its past campaigns. Lets also be clear that avakian has never had to face assassination plots, never been a peasant army general, faced a huge,imperialist backed army, or lived under such adverse conditions in general. Either way, this is not the point, the lack of summations are. And the fact that you cant show us they exist is even more problematic (because then it poses questions of why a party would not want to make them public).

Now, I never said that an official summation had to be stamped and shit, or that it should not be at all levels of the PARTY. But lets be clear here: you are not a party member, you are a party supporter. There a few things I do know comrade, coming from my experience with the RCP. Now, if you make summations of your experiences, that is awesome, I am glad. But, you are not a representative or member of the RCP, and what you do, or what any other supporter does, is not reflective on the overall party's situation. Is this clear?

Now, i didnt say that the RCP comrades did not do summations after a day's political work. When I met with the bay area comrades, we would sell the paper in stores, street corner, churches, parks, etc., and we would all gather together, get the money, and talk about what we learned, etc. That is fantastic. Amazing. But, when kasama speaks of summations, we refer to the RCP's many failed campaigns, aimed at popularizing avakian or creating some support.

For example, let take a look at some of the RCP's campaigns over the last few years, designed to leap the party to a new stage:

-repolarize politics between revolution and Christian fascism. Where is that at? Where is "repolarization for revolution?" Is CF really a stage manager for revolution, should we copy the bolsheviks because that is what worked for them (ie the finland station served as the october revolution's stage manager).

- Develop the Engage project to rather heavy public intellectuals around Bob Avakian as a historic thinker. (This project is clearly stillborn, and the plans to take it into a public arena were abandoned. Is there a single non-party activist among the public intellectuals for this project? No.)

- Develop a defense of science under the party’s leadership (nowhere. stillborn.)

-Use the “mass initiatives” like NION and WCW to repolarize society and act as a mainstream force contending for power and influence. (WCW has gone from mass demonstrations to small guerilla theater involving orange jumpsuits, and is scrambling for its existance outside the backbone of party forces.)

- Promote the newspaper in a radically elevated way (did the party really make the 500k mark? are thousands more people really reading Revolution?).

-Create the RC4 tour as a way to develop leaps in inroads for Avakian and his views within the Black community (stillborn, disasterous and abandoned.)

- Promote the RCP as a radical defender of evolution and science using the publication of their Evolution book (book published, little notice taken.)
*******

Now, if you can provide evidence to the contrary of the above campaigns, awesome. But the problem lies in that there are no real, official summations of what has happened in these campaigns. Why would the RCP be afraid of making summations (due to the state's repression) of these events if they carried out these events in the first place? In other words, if there are more chances of facing repression by practicing these events, why not make summations from what happened, and actually learn something and move on?

And: how can the line of a vanguard party be correct if there arent collective summations of what occurred? You understand that had mao and the ccp not summed all their failures up, their line could never have been synthesized out of the experiences.


More economism. More using popular support as a measuring stick.

And again, the RCP is far bigger than most any other authenticly Communist organization in the country which should cue you into some of the material conditions around this rather then your idealistic over subjectification of the situation.No, I think you get it wrong.

Let me ask you a question, how can a revolutionary theory or line be correct if it is not validated in practice?

Mao had his revolutionary base areas in which this happened. Mao didnt make claims of being "world historic", HE ACTUALLY MADE HISTORY. His theories, ALL OF THEM, were the product of decades of revolutionary political struggle. How does the RCP have the balls to say they are correct, when the dont lead the masses in struggle and their theories are not a process of collective struggle and revolutionary practice?

This is clearly a break from basic marxist (and maoist) epistemology. Look at what mao said in his famous work, "On Practice" :


Marxists hold that man's social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man's knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice. After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects his ideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and can thus turn failure into success; this is what is meant by "failure is the mother of success" and "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit". The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, "Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality."Lets take a look at this. Is mao wrong or correct?

In other words, is revolutionary practice (ie leading the masses and carrying out the mass line) the method in which theory is validated or not?

Also, look at where chairman mao says, "After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects his ideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and can thus turn failure into success; this is what is meant by "failure is the mother of success" and "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit"."

This is what summation precisely is, and he is completely correct! This is what the rcp does not do, and has not done.


No. The basis for his leadership was his new synthesis of Marxism-Leninism which relied on the experience of the USSR. Similarly, Avakian's new synthesis sums up both the PRC and the USSR and takes those experiences and synthesizes a revolutionary new Communist understanding for making revolution.Im sorry, but this is just factually incorrect. A large part on making the chinese revolution and breaking with the soviet model was based on his understandings and summations of what occurred, but this was not the basis by which he led the masses to make that revolution. Like I said, mao applied the mass line, this is evident in all the campaigns they made: learned from the masses and their objective conditions, explained to the masses the need for revolution and what X campaign in particular meant, and lead on that basis. What other primary basis can there be?

Summation of past socialist states is necessary, and should be taken to the masses to struggle with (as part of the mass line), but it is not (well for the rcp it is) the basis for communist leadership. Objective, living conditions are. "Concrete analysis of concrete conditions" -Mao (and he said this to this 'marxists' who thought that revolutions were to be copied, rather than scientifically applied, and what should be the basis for making revolution).


And you just said that that would be impossible. The idea of base areas in the way that you are referring to them is completely anachronistic to modern day Communist politics. We should not be striving to have base areas in this sense! We should be striving to broadly increase the consciousness of the masses broadly. This kind of tactic was applicable in 1917 and 1949 but this isn't a backward country. This kind of strategy is arcane.How am I referring to them?

So, now it is "anarchronistic" to think that a 'vanguard party' should create support areas? What? Explain this. What do base areas look like in today's world? Do you realize that the RCP has strived to create base areas, but failed? (ie: "“We have forged deeper ties with the masses, joining, learning and leading in their struggles: The battle against police brutality and murder; the vicious discrimination that infests this system; the repression and super-exploitation of immigrants; the fight for the liberation of women; the battles against the unjust wars waged by this system… and more.”).

What do you think "ties with the masses" means, other than creating pockets of support for the party (whether that be in universities, the army, or neighorhoods)?

How can the masses' consciousness be raised if not in struggle? "The people learn best in struggle" - Mao. This is exactly what kasama holds to be correct, the dialectical unity between theory and practice, or theoretical struggle and practical struggle. If there is not a balance between both of them, revolution cannot be made.


The RCP attempted to increase the class consciousness of the masses and, in comparison to all the other groups of its time, it succeeded. That does not negate the fact that there needs to be far more connectedness but this whole argument just highlights how opportunistic Kasama's line is. The '70's and '80's were incredibly counterrevolutionary times and most of the Communist organizations in the country died out. The fact that the RCP even exists today is testimony to the fact that they have built a considerably larger conscious base than most any other Communist organization in the country.

And again, there are summations. The idea that you could possibly even pretend to know if there were or weren't is like claiming to know my address.If it has a "larger conscious base", where is it? I dont see it anywhere, and neither does anyone else?

"A larger conscious base." Wouldnt this mean that the rcp has bases of support? Didnt you just say that they were anarchronistic and outdated? I mean, if they did have such a base, dont you think more people would show up to WCW marches, "new synthesis" events, or anything else like that?

Where can you provide proof that these people do exist, apart from small groups and individuals here and there? I mean, if this base did exist, it would be obvious to everyone.

note: summations are not personal information. Mao didnt give us his address, but he did give us his summations, despite facing assassination plots (with $ over his head), living in incredibly harsh material conditions, and facing a huge army, all things the RCP and avakian dont face.


So we lead them and then we teach them. Again, you've got the order confused. We need to be taking revolutionary Communism out to the masses and leading them in these struggles on that basis, not the other way around!

The whole notion of a culture of leading the masses is precisely the revisionism I've been trying to point out.I think ive explained this quite well above, using mao's quote from "on practice."

It is dialectical, a back and forth process, "from the masses, to the masses", called the mass line. It isnt, lead the masses, then educate them. It is educate the people through struggle, because that is how they learn best.

Take a look at the immigrants struggle in the US. This is what is called a "fault line" struggle (that the rcp talks about) in the sense that it poses an issue for the ruling class that it cannot solve, and exposes the nature of the capitalist system, besides bringing out questions of racism and imperialism.

Now, taking this from above, should communists not lead it? Should communists not understand, as mao did, that we take communism to the masses in struggle, because that is where they learn the best?

Where does the rcp lead the masses?

Lets not talk about "other organizations" or parties. I dont care about them. Dont use that as a copt out for this issue.

Also, it is quite irrelevant how many bookstores there are, stop using this irrelevant argument. This proves nothing, much less that it has any mass base. It proves that they sell books, videos, t-shirts, CDs, etc., mostly about avakian. And that they get this money from donors and selling the paper.


He does not say "the masses", he says "the people in this society who". So clearly, he's referring to a section of people. I never said he was referring to individuals in fact quite the opposite. He's referring to our class enemies! They're real! They exist! There are sections of people, not individuals, sections that are counterrevolutionary! I don't understand how someone who holds class struggle politics can't understand the fact that there's a class struggle going on!lol, you still think that he speaks about "class enemies"?

Actually you brought up a good point. Avakian is talking about BOTH those who are aware of whats going on, and those who are not.

Lets get into those who are aware. Do you think that condescending those people that do not go out to WCW marches is EVER going to impel them to go out to a march ever? Why should they listen to a small party that they probably never heard about before, especially with such an attitude? In other words, we need to understand why these people are not acting, and come up with creative methods in order to win them over.

Listen, this question of passivity is not anything new. Take for example, the beginning of the agrarian revolution in china. There were many poor and middle peasants who were of course aware of the oppression that they faced and of the revolutionary war that was going on. The communists had just begun taking over such villages from chiang kai shek and the japanese, and converting them into base areas. Now, alot of these peasants, after a long time, refused to act. They refused to participate in the peasant associations (beside material needs), call out and struggle against landlords, rich peasants, and "dogs legs", etc because they thought that the japanese would return and slaughter all those who participated in the anti-japanese movement or in land reform, and thus had a genuine basis to be afraid and passive. BUT, how did the communists react? Did they blame the masses, even though they were aware of what was happening? No! They won them over! Had they developed methods that the rcp used, they would never have won them over, and probably would have sent them to the enemy side.

Now, on those who are not aware. The RCP uses the formulation,
“If you try to make the Democrats be what they are not and never will be, you will end up being more like what the Democrats actually are.”Now, lets see this here. The RCP is clearly referring to those who vote for obama and the democrats, which means, THE MASSES OF PEOPLE. People who want change, and who have (incorrectly) placed their hope on obama. But that is not the crux of the issue here, but the method in which it is handled. Clearly, people do want the democrats to become something that they are not but: are the people aware of this? Are the people aware the the democrats are agents of imperialism around the world and hence cannot make the needed changes in this society? Of course they are not! We have discussed this before already!

And then it leads to "you will end up being more like what the Democrats actually are." Wow, is this serious? This is so...wrong, for a lack of harsher words. In other words, since the people vote for the democrats, they are becoming like them (ie they are facilitating imperialism and its horrors around the world)! You dont see something wrong with this?

Is it as simple as saying that since the people vote for obama they are nurturing imperialist oppression here and around the world? This is wrong, principally because they people are not aware (as we agree) and hence not complicit. Our job is to do this. Maoists dont blame the people, but avakian clearly does.

the RCP also likes to quote Lenin every time they write an article on obama and the election that goes:
“People always were and always will be the foolish victims of deceit and self-deceit in politics until they learn to discover the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. The supporters of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realize that every old institution, however barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is maintained by the forces of some ruling classes.”Yes, Lenin is correct. But, he refers to social leaders of movements that put emphasis on reformism, etc. we know that. But, lenin is not speaking of, as the rcp and avakian are, the broad masses of people. Lenin is not calling the masses fools that are to be blamed, as avakian does.


Again, I'll say this even though I'm sure you'll just ignore it: He's referring to the people that are aware! He's talking about people who understand the reality of imperialism and decide that they LIKE IT THIS WAY! They exist! They're out there!I got into this above, but im replying here so you dont think i ignore you.

Anyways, avakian is not talking about counterrevolutionary people. He talks about those who dont act in the face of WCW marches or whatever. I got into this already, reply to that. And, id also appreciate it if you provided evidence as to where avakian deems the people that aware as, counterrevoutionary.

looking forward to your reply.

[Dros]

Will reply soon.