Kasama Project Rejects RCP Accusation of "Counterrevolutionary"

[IrisBright]

The Kasama Project (http://www.kasamaproject.org), a newly formed communist organization in the U.S., has suddenly been publicly accused of being counter-revolutionary by the
Revolutionary Communist Party. This represents a disturbing escalation in the RCP's hostility toward any communists who express critical evaluations of Bob Avakian's new synthesis, and his claim to represent the next stage of Marxism.

The RCP's accusation "What is Counter-Revolution?" appears here (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/rcp-accuses-kasama-of-being-counter-).

The Kasama Project replied to this in an essay published on their website
(kasamaproject.org). It is entitled "Kasama's Answer: Revolutionaries need
to fearlessly debate and regroup." It appears here (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/kasamas-answer-the-world-needs-revol).

The opening of that Kasama essay follows:

* * * * * *

Kasama's Answer: Revolutionaries Need to Fearlessly Debate and Regroup

The RCP is publicly accusing the Kasama project of being
counter-revolutionaries and of helping police destroy revolutionary
organization. We have posted this new statement by the RCP, entitled: "What is Counter-Revolution? (http://revcom.us/a/146/counter_rev-en.html)"

In keeping with the RCP's current style, they mention no names, but clearly
this is intended to smear people who created our Kasama site, and also smear the many people who post here.

We urge everyone reading this to speak out against the false charge and its disturbing subtexts.

Four questions:

1) What thinking person can look over our Kasama site and believe this is a
launching pad for "vicious attacks" on communists and for police activity?

2) Can we allow this kind of accusation to once-again poison the political
culture among revolutionaries and progressive people?

3) Will the RCP publicly assert that this new charge of "counterrevolutionary" is not intended as a justification for violence against their critics?

4) Will the RCP find some appropriate means of sharing specific evidence of
their unsubstantiated charge that their organization's security is being
harmed?

Points on Substance and Line:

RCP's new statement rests on a self-serving belief: that any serious
critique of the RCP's new synthesis is a "vicious attack" on humanity's best hope. And further that any such attack is objectively "counter-revolutionary." This argument arises from the RCP's defining view that "Avakian is the cardinal question" i.e. that their Chairman Bob Avakian and his theoretical views are the dividing line among communists between revolution and revisionism. Communists who reject (or even question) Avakian's view are viewed as despicable revisionists--
counterrevolutionaries mascarading as communists.

There is a escalating progression in the RCP's accusations over the last few months: Initially they argued that the Kasama project was unprincipled,
revisionist, economist, dishonest, opportunist and so on. Their new charge
of counterrevolution is a leap. The earlier claims of opportunism were
wrong? this new charge is a further radical rupture with reality.
In words the RCP (and this statement) uphold the need for principled
discussion of key line questions among communists. But, their assertion of
this had gotten more and more threadbare. Their leadership wants to command "germanic appreciation" as a precondition of engagement.

Now, there is a disturbingly 1930s character to the RCP's ideological
trajectory. This flavoring is new for them, but old for the communist
movement. The RCP's application of Avakian's theory of "solid core" has led to an approximation of the old Comintern striving for a "monolithic party."

Now, they charge their critics with being counterrevolutionaries and
wreckers. They claim that their critics should be isolated and shunned. All
of this recreates the discredited approaches of the 1930s, where one line of communism tried to enshrine itself as a state religion and treated
criticism as heresy. All of this goes against the well-known methods of the
Maoist movement in analyzing line differences among communists.

This new RCP Statement suggests there is something fundamentally wrong (and suspicious) about any criticism of the RCP that does not simultaneously offer a complete opposing counter synthesis. The problem of this argument should be obvious. Kasama is undertaking a serious project of developing a road to revolution in the U.S. including by summing up the contributions and errors of the RCP. The fact that we aren't freely inventing a counter-synthesis (from the air, from our heads, out of old formulas) is not an indictment. It reflects our criticism of Avakian's superficial
methodology. We hope to forge a communist road forward, and that will take new practice, new ruptures, new thinking and time. The criticism that
communists have not yet "charted the uncharted course" is a criticism that
applies to the RCP as well as to us.

THE REST OF THIS ESSAY IS FOUND HERE (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/kasamas-answer-the-world-needs-revol).

[IrisBright]

A comment from 'TJ':

In response to the RCP’s article, “What is Counter-Revolution?”
Once again the RCP has me up late at night stunned at the insanely bizarre path they now follow. By writing this article, the RCP has forced responses from those they have cast out or hurt on various levels. The responses they now receive publicly will do nothing but further injure their attempt at becoming a legitimate social and political beacon in society. However, for those who are concerned about the possibility of revolutionary movements, may these responses aide in your understanding of revolutionary theory and strategies for liberation. As requested by the authors of the RCP’s article, I will be as “sharp” and “clear” as possible here. Although I find it strange that they have requested this considering the fact that if anyone were to read the Party’s official responses to Mike Ely’s Nine Letters (which seem pretty freakin clear to me), very few people outside of the RCP could even possibly understand what they are even talking about.
So, what actually is counter-revolution?
Honestly, I have to say I certainly agree with the definition put forward here by the RCP. It is true that “…counter-revolution means active opposition to revolution, with the intent to destroy the revolution, revolutionary group, or individual.” However, I can only say that I agree with this definition OUTSIDE of the context of their article and their purpose for writing it. This article was written not to preserve the movement for revolution, but to save the image of their leader, Bob Avakian.
In the article, the Party has the nerve to state that “[T]hose serious about making revolution must set and insist on standards for the revolutionary movement that favor revolution and oppose all forms of counter-revolution.” So let’s start there.
Standards. Within the secretive, paranoid, and gossipy confounds of the Party, lies a dwindling collective of revolutionaries who have either pledged absolute and unquestioning allegiance to Avakian or still manage to pretend that their loyalty has not wavered. If the RCP is stating that they are attempting to set the standard for revolutionary movements in the US, then I truly fear for the well-being of this movement. BA’s next book should be entitled “Preaching From a Pulpit of Hypocrisy” because he has absolutely lost the ability to practice what he preaches. The MLM movement has no room for the religion of Communism. There is room only for SCIENTIFIC attempts to reach Communism and the quest for truth and understanding of reality which comes easiest when people are free to explore and question everything - including self-proclaimed irreplaceable leaders. So in short, my comrades in the RCP, you’ve let dogmatism run your precious organization into the ground. The standard for revolution will be set by those who spend their life taking action against the ills of our society and building a tolerant community with a real capacity for radical change, rather than focusing only on selling books and videos of a supposedly unique leader who claims to be the “next Mao” (whatever that means). I don’t think any of the Party members mean to harm this movement, although they actually are on many accounts. They have not become counter-revolutionaries in purpose, but have certainly become what I would define as isolationist sunshine revolutionaries, doing nothing real for people and promoting only themselves. Is that the standard you want?
This statement in the article is by far my favorite: “There is a very important distinction that must be made between struggle, even sharp struggle, carried out in a principled way over differences in line and approach as opposed to wrecking activity which is objectively counter-revolutionary.” Excuse my language here, but are you fucking serious? It’s hypocrisy in action folks and I speak as a direct source. I honestly used to think BA meant all that stuff about how struggle and wrangling is healthy for the party and should be welcomed when searching for objective truth in matters. That is an outright lie! Out of respect for the safety of those involved in this example, I will not be very detailed here, but where was the struggle when an entire group of artists working for the Party (for several years) were visited without warning in their homes by Party officials and LAWYERS with cease and desist orders saying that any attempt to participate in party activities will be met with LEGAL action? How about explaining their disappearance to their former comrades by calling the artists government agents? There wasn’t even room for a conversation, never-mind a “struggle!” In fact one member stated, “we will not respond to any comments or questions regarding this matter.” The threats and whirlwind of confusion created by the RCP’s reactionary ways of solving matters of line struggle were both traumatizing and humiliating for many people who honestly meant well and always wished the best for the Party. I could spend all day talking about how struggle is not at all welcome within the RCP. But to summarize - Unless by struggle they mean, “BA’s way or the highway,” there is little to no struggle or wrangling allowed.
Yet another contradicting statement. “…there is real importance to bending every effort to forge the broadest unity on a principled basis as these parties carry out struggle to determine what line, what road, what course of action can lead to freeing the people from the very real shackles this system has trapped them in.” I am trying my damn best not to say something offensive here, but shit. Anyone who works or has worked with the Party and states that the opinions, thoughts, strategies, and ideas of other revolutionary minded organizations are valued within the RCP, or are even taken into account, is either a liar or lives in a complete delusion. There is no such thing as real unity between the RCP and other organizations and when cooperation does actually happen between the Party and other organizations, it comes in the form of demeaning utilitarianism. After all, the RCP is the only party who could ever possibly lead a revolution, so why value the contributions of others, right?
It is pretty obvious, to those who understand the conflict that is happening here (both inside and outside of the RCP), that the RCP has taken aim at any group who dares to criticize the RCP. They have the nerve to call these criticisms lies and yet these so called lies come from direct sources. Do you know who wrote this article, “What is Counter-Revolution?” Very few people do. Criticizing the RCP for their inabilities to create a real movement is not counter-revolutionary. They call it counter-revolutionary because Bob Avakian feels that he is the only living person in the US who could possibly lead people in that kind of situation. If you actually believe this, you are an unthinking fool. I do believe the Party’s contributions are important, but their strategy and current political line will lead to a tragic ending for themselves and others. To incorporate isolationism, elitism, and dogmatism into a revolutionary party line will lead to destruction. And it will take more than selling newspapers, books, and promoting a “leader of special caliber” to win this fight. It is time, brothers and sisters, to be serious and take an objective look at reality.
Thank you to those who wish to participate in this important struggle. I certainly welcome productive and courteous questions or comments on what I’ve said.
-TJ

[Sprinkles]

The Kasama Project (http://www.kasamaproject.org/), a newly formed communist organization in the U.S., has suddenly been publicly accused of being counter-revolutionary by the Revolutionary Communist Party.

Isn't being denounced as counter-revolutionary a rite of passage in the communist movement?

Anyway, even though the discussion doesn't really involve me, I think by being critical you're doing the right thing. If they don't approve then fuck them.

So good luck with the project.

[IrisBright]

Thanks.

The thing is it shouldn't be a rite of passage. I mean, flinging 'opportunist' and 'revisionist' in place of debate is one thing, and it is wrong. But it is a whole new level of wrong to lump communists in with state agents, and fringe fanatics like the KKK and Minutemen, with no evidence. And doing so--identifying comrades as the enemy, as actively subverting revolutionary activity and putting the lives of comrades in danger, without any proof or basis--should be condemned widely by the left for several reasons.

It injects poisonous distrust into debate, and shuts down healthy, much needed polemicizing in the US rev left. Note that they call for shunning.

It objectively justifies 'self defense'--violence. Tone is even threatening--'revolution is not something to play at'. Well, I agree.

It is a smear on a good project offered with no proof or evidence. Our name isn't even mentioned in their un-authored statement, but it is clear who they are speaking about, and to. If any RCP supporters out there think the Kasama Project/9 Letters has revealed details, whereabouts, lies or distortions, or encouraged speculation about such things, come out and say it. No one can give me a solid example, aside from mysterious innuendo.

It actually compromises security and is incredibly irresponsible. The War At Home says that much police interference could have been interrupted had activists in the sixties just picked up the phone and called one another. Openness, trust, comradely struggle and up front questions are key to our safety! This kind of shady antagonism is a COINTELPRO dream.

We are asking leftists, in the spirit of building a real revolutionary movement in the US, comment on the statement made by the RCP.