This seem to me like the Sparts, and their quasileninist policy. Splits, splits and one more time splits.
Results 41 to 60 of 91
I'm afraid I haven't been following that situation too closely, but I'd bet that the organization(s) involved have done their best to keep things "under control," and try to prevent people from getting too out-of-(their)hand.
I'm all for groups working together to accomplish things that improve the lives of the under-classes or further the undermining of the present order. Unfortunately most groups, big or small, cooperative or competitive, don't seem to do much of that.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
This seem to me like the Sparts, and their quasileninist policy. Splits, splits and one more time splits.
Except for not at all? We didn't "split" from the CL, we're two seperate organizations.
Too say that too loudly. Upholding the theoretical contributions of el Che, or supporting his legacy in any way is nothing more than fostering a cult of personality... well, in the world of the CL anyway. Of course they had no problem with it before they we ended relations with them.
Who knows, ask Bob Avakian how much time he spends online? What about Barnes? How much of his time is spent enaging in the class struggle? I'm not really sure how spending a few hours on a message boards precludes one from "leading a new revolutionary international."
It's all moot though, since as we've made clear over and over again, there is no central leader in our organization..
Nor does anyone else here, as far as I know... except the sock puppet MLS.
Yeah.. except.. few of our members actually do that. As for me, I'm on house arrest; and before that I was posting in between editing / writing and website updating and while while "working".
But I mean, if you want to ignore all the things we've done.. running 9 candidates in the Solomon Islands, leading major school walkouts, holding dozens of pickets and protests, etc. feel free.. It says more about you than us.
Of course, we're not the great SWP-vanguard; but we've done alot on in our few years of existance.. enough to get the notice of the state. And we continue to grow.
The IWPA was formed by us, the CL, and the International Weekly Group (which we encouraged to join). The IWG is defunct, and we left, leaving only the CL. The DWPA is more certainly a front for the CL (though that was denied in the beginning, it didn't take long to find out the truth).
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
Well, here's a draft of our response to the CL, if anyone gives a fuck (and I'm sure you do). It's due to be edited and included in the next issue of Liberation. I wouldn't have posted it, but since the CL insists on attacking us here, it seems like a reasonable thing to do. We're not going to waste alot of time on this, as it does little to further the class struggle; but we couldn't let such slander go unanswered.
* * * *
A league of their own: The break in relations the Communist League provoked leaves them further isolated from the class struggle
On November 30, the Communist League (CL) released a slanderous and dishonest article critical of the Free People’s Movement, in response to our earlier decision to cut off formal ties with their organization (the reasons for which will be explained below).
Unlike many other organizations that claim to be revolutionary, we are oriented towards our exploited sisters and brothers, not towards other leftists. We focus all of our efforts on political work – including the writing and publication of articles – that furthers, or has the potential to further, the fight of the worlds oppressed majority for liberation from oppression and exploitation. We purposely avoid unnecessary jargon, rigid dogmatism and doctrinairism*, and disputes over irrelevant issues from the past.
Instead, we speak in our everyday language – the language of the oppressed – and work to relate the liberating and living theories originally laid out by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and continued by people like Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and the workers and farmers that carried out revolutions in Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc., to the everyday situations of our co-workers, classmates, family members, friends, acquaintances, and other sisters and brothers that we come in contact with.
We avoid the kind of petty back and forth bickering and sectarianism that many groups (especially those that the CL has its roots in, as we’ll explain below) have taken part in over the years, to avoid the self-imposed isolation from the living class struggle that those same groups have fallen into.
Still, we’ve decided to respond to this particular article in order to refute the lies put forward in it, and to clarify our stance. We do this not with the intention of stirring up the type of bitter feuds that far too many leftist groupings have, and continue to engage in (or more correctly, continuing the feud that the CL has tried to stir up), rather, we do so to put the issue to rest.
* Though it is sometimes correct to be uncompromising on certain issues, in a general sense, it is usually bad policy.
The truth vs. the world of make believe
Even the first line of the CL’s article contains falsehoods, so it seems proper that we begin by addressing it.
The CL says they were notified of our decision to cut ties with them by “the leader of the Free People’s Movement.”
This is complete slander, aimed at making our organization appear “authoritarian” (as they later claim openly) to people not familiar with our internal organization.
The truth is that our organization has no single leader. In the years following our formation, each individual branch carried out its work in accordance with our Manifesto, which was created by our founding members after much discussion and debate, without the direction of any central leadership body.
In early 2005, as we expanded greatly, and on a world scale, the need for a body capable of handling questions on an immediate basis became clear. It was at our International Conference held later that year that we established the International Steering Committee (ISC), a body “made up of one cadre [elected by the FPM members of their country] for every country in which a branch of the FPM exists” (Organizational and Procedural Program of the Free People's Movement). The creation of the ISC was initiated by a proposal originally introduced by the New York Branch, and later approved by all other branches. This is the typical method through which decisions are made. When the ISC does make a decision on an immediate issue, it must later be ratified by the rest of our members. Finally, all members of the ISC are subject to recall at all times.
In the same lead-off sentence that the CL speaks of a mythical “leader of the Free People’s Movement,” they attempt to paint our method of notifying them of our decision to cut ties – and the reasons for the decision – as unscrupulous. As we made clear to the CL at the time, our organization was forced to cut all ties with them as a result of serious security concerns prompted by the actions of one of their members.
These concerns stemmed from the unprovoked and hostile actions of a CL member, who, on a public internet message board, attempted to reveal personal information about an FPM member, in an unprincipled, frustrated outburst. Unable to deal with earlier political criticism of his organization and its individual members, this member attempted to embarrass and defame an FPM comrade, with little regard (or intentional disregard?) for what may have resulted. Even the owner of the internet message board in question was taken aback by the action of the CL member – so much so, he hid the discussion in question from public view, after first allowing our FPM comrade to defend himself (it should be noted that at the same time, several other participants on the message board, unrelated to our organization, defended our comrade against the unprovoked attacks as well).
Our organization has existed for a few years now, and our members have carried out quite a bit of work in several parts of the world. As a result of our continued fight for the liberation of humanity – which can only be accomplished through socialist revolution – we have run into a series of conflicts with the ruling classes, and their representatives, in many of the countries in which we operate. Our comrades have been (and continue to be) harassed, attacked, arrested, jailed and threatened with death, on more than one occasion, and in more than one location. Our comrades accept the repercussions of their actions, but must also take care to defend themselves from them. We cannot go into full detail, but for obvious reasons, it is some times necessary for comrades to keep their identities, locations and activities private. The CL obviously understands this, as it is an entirely clandestine organization itself! It is important to note, however, that our comrades have taken such steps only where absolutely necessary, in response to attacks prompted by their public political work. The CL on the other hand, started out clandestine, as an organizational principle for all members, claiming the need for doing so to prevent oppression from the capitalist state. Leaving aside the fact that comrade Huey Newton of the defunct Black Panther Party correctly argued against this sort of thing (i.e. starting out as a clandestine organization) several years ago, we’d also like to point out that being “clandestine,” especially in the age of the internet, can also be used as an excuse to avoid actually doing anything in the real world, and/or being accountable.
So here it was that a clandestine member of a clandestine group, to which we were affiliated(!, was attempting to publicly “out” the identity and some personal history one of our comrades, who was, and continues to be tied up in situations that require that information to be protected.
To be specific, the FPM comrade in question was Ricardo Santiago, who was arrested and imprisoned in March, after returning from the Dominican Republic, accused of defrauding the U.S. government out of a few thousand dollars (see: “Defend the Free People's Movement and its members!,” The Free Press, Volume 2, Issue 5). Comrade Ricardo’s arrest came as a number of attacks against our organization, including the arrest of another comrade, Francisco Acevedo, in the U.S. In response, we launched a defense campaign, which received the full support of the CL, among others.
Months later, the devious CL member criticized that defense campaign, on the grounds that Comrade Ricardo was not a “political prisoner” (which are words our organization had never used to describe him anyway!
The information (or misinformation, as we’ll explain) this person made public was given by comrade Ricardo to two members of the CL in confidentiality in January of 2006. Having only had established relations with the CL months earlier, we made a conscious decision, as a security precaution, to limit the vital information we shared with them, and even to provide some (non-vital) misinformation. We make no apologies for doing so (and the actions of the CL have justified our decision). In that situation we had to be very careful in our dealings with an organization, which for all we knew at the time, may have been infiltrated or even lead by agents of the state – especially in discussing matters relevant to a comrade wanted by federal law enforcement (as our comrade was)!
Even still, the CL, going on the misinformation we provided (which differed a bit from the actual details of comrade Ricardo’s case), supported the campaign to defend our movement and its members (which included the defense of comrade Ricardo). They published an editorial in their paper, Working People’s Advocate, calling for comrade Ricardo’s defense and immediate release from prison (see: “As we go to press..,” Working People’s Advocate, Volume 2, Number 7), and even held a demonstration as a part of that campaign (see: “Demonstrations in defense of FPM take place across the U.S.,” The Free Press, Volume 2, Issue 7). It was only months later, as certain members of the CL became offended by criticisms our members had raised against them, that the devious CL member attacked comrade Ricardo and our organization (after our defense campaign had drawn to a close!
In his angry tirade, the CL member accused us of dishonesty for describing comrade Ricardo as a political prisoner (which we never actually did). The only time the words “political prisoner” were used in reference to Comrade Ricardo that we can find, other than by the disgruntled CL member himself, was in an unofficial email, circulated on some mailing lists and message boards on the internet by an individual member of the FPM. The intentions of the CL member are made clear by the fact that the description of comrade Ricardo as a political prisoner appears in none of the official literature used in our defense campaign, or on our website, but only on an obscure, unofficial email message that was barely distributed.
None of this means that we did or didn’t consider comrade Ricardo a political prisoner; we are simply pointing out the facts, to refute the CL’s slander. Our outlook on the question of “political prisoners,” which is an important one, will be discussed in a future issue of Liberation.
In their recent article, the CL says that “in the course of this exchange between our member and the leader of the FPM [sic], it came out that this comrade, and the FPM as a whole, was less than forthcoming about the details of the case ... choosing instead to pick and choose which facts to tell us.” It then goes on to claim that “This understandably angered League members, including our comrade who was in the midst of this exchange. The result was that our comrade became very angry with the FPM leader [sic] and let him know it [emphasis added].”
Here we enter the realm of absolute fairy tale and the revision of documented (though fairly unimportant) history.
The CL member began his attacks on comrade Ricardo and our organization before he became aware that he was misinformed on the details of the case! If he “became very angry,” it could only have been because his attempt to discredit and slander comrade Ricardo and our movement blew up in his face like an exploding cigar.
Later in their article, the CL claims comrade Ricardo, again falsely referred to as “the leader of the FPM,” threatened “physical violence against, other members of the League,” for “daring to criticize him.” According to the CL, comrade Ricardo said the CL member who attacked him deserved to be “stabbed in the throat.” More from the world of make believe!
To be exact, in the private conversation between comrade Ricardo and “Miles,” a leader of the CL, in which our decision to cut ties with that organization was announced, Ricardo expressed his serious disappointment with the actions of the CL member that attempted to “out” aspects of his private life that needed to remain private for the time being. After being rebuffed by “Miles,” comrade Ricardo simply reminded him that in many real life situations, folks wouldn’t take kindly to the sort of treacherous actions carried out by the CL member in question. He pointed out that many people, including possibly even himself in the past, would react violently to such a betrayal. No threats of physical violence against any members of the CL were ever made.
Unworthy? No. Traitorous? Yes.
In the next section of the CL’s article claims that “.. the basis upon which the FPM broke relations with the League is personalistic and apolitical. One of our members criticized their leader, and thus we were declared unworthy of working with them. It is as simple as that.”
As we explained above, our decision to cut ties with the CL had nothing to do with “criticism,” and everything to do with security. Although this breach of trust had no real effects on our organization, it could have, and it pointed to the very real possibility of more serious acts of treachery in the future.
We simply could not risk endangering any of our members by remaining connected to such an unprincipled organization that responded to criticism with personal attacks, slander and the publication of information that was meant to be kept private.
A question of leadership, or outright dishonesty?
Next, the CL claims in their article that they had, for a long time, developed “concerns about the relationship within the FPM between its leadership and membership.” Comical, being that in all of the many long conversations between representatives of the two organizations, this issue was not once raised by anyone in the CL. In fact, it was the other way around. A representative of the FPM actually attempted to open a dialogue on whether or not an organization such as the CL should have a Central Committee.
The CL claims that “During the period when this leading member of the FPM [comrade Ricardo] was in jail, the organization nearly collapsed: branches went inactive or defected to other organizations; ‘secondary leadership’ dropped out of politics; other leading members began to make unprincipled public statements.” Wrong on all counts.
The FPM did not come anywhere near collapse while comrade Ricardo was in prison. In fact, as a result of recent efforts in the Dominican Republic, and the defense campaign being waged in the U.S., the organization experienced massive growth during the two months the comrade spent in prison and the time immediately after his release – so much so, that it was almost more than we could handle at the time.
No “branches went inactive or defected to other organizations.” This is little more than another attempt to discredit our organization by revealing internal business that we shared with members of the CL in confidence, as comrades. But they either got confused, or purposely misconstrued what actually happened.
Months before comrade Ricardo was arrested, the delegate of our Tamil Nadu, India Branch split with our organization to join the reformist Communist Party of India (Marxist). Because this member was the main contact for the branch, his departure left the rest of our movement unable to communicate with several comrades in Tamil Nadu. After much work, we were able to reestablish communications and ties with some, but others had joined the branch delegate in his departure. Again, no branches “defected” or “went inactive” during comrade Ricardo’s imprisonment.
Equally, our “‘secondary leadership’” never “dropped out of politics,” mainly because no “secondary leadership exists (as explained earlier). Again, the CL is attempting to use internal, private information we shared with them as comrades to slander us; but again, they come up short. With this statement, we can only guess that the CL is referring to comrade Dee, a former member of our New York Branch. Comrade Dee showed a lot of potential and dedication, and quickly took on a number of responsibilities in our organization, including speaking at a number of events that we were invited to. Unfortunately, she was forced to leave our organization due to a number of personal issues (unlike the CL, we wont publish personal information about former-comrades, but it her reasons for leaving had nothing to do the FPM itself). Comrade Dee left in early April, before comrade Ricardo was arrested. Only in the make believe world of the CL could Dee have known weeks ahead of time that comrade Ricardo would be arrested, and drop out of politics because of it.
Furthermore, the CL’s assertion that “other leading members began to make unprincipled public statements” is laughable to say the least. Revealingly, they provide no such statements. Of course this is very rich coming from a group who’s members have publicly made sexist and anti-Semitic comments in the past (see below).
Delusions of grandeur
As the CL’s article continues, they claim that while comrade Ricardo was in prison, “the FPM was pushing repeatedly for merger discussions with the League. For several months, League members were repeatedly asked to join the FPM, help with their organizational work, assist them in writing, editing and producing issues of their newspaper, The Free Press, etc.”
First the CL claimed that comrade Ricardo was “the leader” of our organization. Next they claimed that while he was in prison, “the organization nearly collapsed.” How could it be that while our leader, whom according to the CL we wholly depend on, was in prison, and as our organization “nearly collapsed,” that we were “pushing repeatedly for merger discussions with the League?”
It is true that we reached out the CL (apparently mistakenly) as comrades to help with the layout of a single issue of The Free Press. Being as we had cooperated with, and were affiliated to the CL, we didn’t know this was a problem. At the time, our entire membership was dedicated to the defense campaign we had launched. One member of the Press Committee, comrade Ricardo, who had normally done the layout of The Free Press, was in prison, and others were deeply involved in the fight to free him. We sent completed articles to “Miles,” the editor of the CL’s publications, and asked him to lay them out as an issue of The Free Press. This was never done, but it seems it was enough of an imposition for the CL to bring it up today. It appears the CL has dug deep into its collective memory to opportunistically dredge up anything and everything they could exaggerate to slander our organization.
The CL also seems to have delusions of grandeur (i.e. a symptom of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness). The FPM, and its publications existed before the CL came to be, and we’ll continue to exist after they implode like their political forebears (which we’ll discuss more below).
Long after the issue that we had asked the CL to assist us with was published, the CL arrogantly submitted its version of what they thought our paper, The Free Press, should look like. The layout was immediately turned down by our Press Committee and membership, which decided to continue with the layout we had been using.
A lack of enthusiasm?
The article by the CL states our response to a proposal for cooperation approved by their Central Committee was “less than enthusiastic.” This is, at least in part, correct – though not in the way the CL means it.
The FPM had been in existence for about two years when we were approached by the newer “Communist League.” What we had seen as a common sense approach to organization (i.e. allowing only working class people, and their allies, voice and vote in a revolutionary communist organization), the CL had elevated – almost religiously – to the highest of principles. They were enthusiastic in finding us, and admittedly, we were glad that they did. In the earliest stages of contact, there were many discussions and proposals that drew great enthusiasm from our membership. We agreed to cooperate and formerly affiliate through the creation of the International Working People’s Association (IWPA). The membership of our youth wing, the Revolutionary Youth also agreed to affiliate. On top of this, we reached out to a contact in a UK-based group that published a newspaper called International Weekly. To this new organization, the CL brought itself and ... itself. To be more clear, the CL and the “Detroit Working People’s Association,” a CL front group (more on this later), signed on to the founding document of the IWPA, “An Open Letter to the Working People of the World” (available on our website, www.fpm-mgl.org). Tellingly, the same outlook and politics that we have today, that have drawn such criticism from the CL since our decision to cut our ties with them, drew zero criticism then.
From the outset we sought to cooperate with the CL on a number of campaigns and actions. We invited the CL to participate in a number of activities that we were carrying out. We sought to find new ways for our organizations to work together. The result? Very little. For every proposal accepted by the CL, ten were rejected, ignored or even worse, “accepted” but never acted upon. Throughout this whole period, members of both the FPM and CL discussed a merger between the two organizations (contrary to the claims by the CL that it was us alone “[pushing ] repeatedly for merger discussions with the League.”). The same goes for the false claim that we “repeatedly asked [CL members] to join the FPM.” Joint membership was something both parties discussed, and that was originally proposed by “Miles!” To be exact, at one point, FPM members were welcomed to join the CL.
Through several discussions, it became obvious that our members didn’t want to “take the plunge” into joint membership or a merger. There were many concerns that we would lose our organizational autonomy (the preservation of which we demanded at the outset of talks with the CL), and that the CL would attempt to pull us away from our correct analysis of Cuba as a socialist (workers) state (among other things).
Despite this, we never took the option off the table, and we continued to push for closer unity in action, and cooperation. The more we pushed for this however, the less the CL was willing to do. Many times responses to our messages and proposals would be greatly delayed, or would not come at all. So yes, after months and months of this, many of our members became turned off to the CL, and began to see their “clandestine” organization as an excuse for inactivity and armchair socialism. Enthusiasm waned; and for good reason.
It has been our experience, as an organization in which “white” comrades are a minority* (even in the U.S., where the left is made up almost entirely of white males), that leftist groups and individuals seeking some sort of “credibility” have a tendency to try to associate with us. Of course, we are not against association and concrete unity, but we obviously must avoid such unprincipled “comrades.” We are not saying that CL fits this description, but we also aren’t entirely ruling it out. More than a few comrades have expressed concern from the beginning that the CL was another group seeking to affiliate with us in search of credibility. To be honest, there’s no real way to know for sure, though this sentiment likely contributed to a draining of enthusiasm as well.
* To be clear, this is not a result of some sort of policy aimed at limiting white members. Rather, it seems to be a reflection of our organizational methods and our appeal to the most exploited sections of the working class.
Speaking of cults...
The CL’s article continues by claimed that our organization has a “trend ... toward the cult of personality.” They base this ridiculous assertion on our support for the revolutionary government of socialist Cuba and the fact that we uphold the theoretical contributions of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara. Further, they again slander our organization by claiming our “leader ... is above criticism ... internally or externally.”
Again, we have no single leader. But we’ll humor the CL, knowing that they are again referring to comrade Ricardo. The CL has absolutely no basis for its assertion that comrade Ricardo is “above criticism” from other members of the FPM. This is illustrated by their lack of even anecdotal evidence to support their claim. As for the claim that comrade Ricardo is “above ... external criticism,” we can only be reminded of the old saying about people who live in glass houses. As we’ve shown, the CL’s “criticisms” of our organization coincidentally came pouring out only after we cut off ties with them. Likewise, the CL member’s attempt to discredit comrade Ricardo came after criticisms were raised against the actions of their individual members.
As for our support of the revolutionary Cuban government and el Che, we make no apologies. Comrade Che made a number of (often ignored) contributions to revolutionary working class theory. Like Comrade Fidel, he played a major part in leading one of the most significant revolutions in world history. Further, he sacrificed his very life in the international workers’ struggle.
The CL’s claims that we see comrades Che and Fidel as “larger-than-life figures, seemingly standing above both social and human development,” are unfounded. Certainly, the CL didn’t feel this way (or at least didn’t admit it) when one of their leading members said an article by the Revolutionary Youth on Che Guevara “[gave] life and meaning to what has become a ‘radical chic’ icon in capitalist society” (“From the editor,” Workers Unity, No. 2, Winter 2005).
The CL goes on to make more baseless claims about our supposed “cult of personality” based around comrades Che and Fidel – again, without even the slightest evidence to back up their claims.
The CL too again slanders our organization by claiming that comrade Ricardo is “treated as something of an icon (and martyr, after his most recent time in prison).” This is as baseless as the other allegations. Again, zero proof is presented to back the claim. Apparently, readers of the CL’s article are supposed to take the word of its author/s at face value.
The CL’s only “evidence” of the supposed “cult of personality” around comrade Ricardo is that ... a series of essays written by him once appeared on our website. Most of those essays no longer appear on the site, as the CL admits. Apparently, the “cult of personality” temporarily disappeared (as most of the essays were removed from the website), but returned later as ... Ricardo recently wrote a book, which was made available freely on our website. The CL is really grasping at straws here. Laughably, a number of writings by “Miles,” authored under a number of pseudonyms (or lack thereof), appear on the website of the CL.
Of course, there is no problem with a member of a revolutionary organization contributing to the organization’s publications, website or other media. The CL is again attempting to opportunistically use everything it can think of against our organization, even if they have to “invent” facts, exaggerate and/or make something out of nothing. The CL claims to have a problem with the appearance of articles by comrade Ricardo on our website – as a sign of a “cult of personality” – but by their own admission, these articles appeared before they contacted us about cooperation!
And how rich it is for the CL to claim our organization fosters a “cult of personality,” when it’s leaders come directly from actual cults like the Revolutionary Workers’ League and the International Bolshevik Tendency!
That’s right, the political origins of the founders and leaders of the Communist League lie in groups like the obscure RWL. The few people who have heard of the RWL know that it was a fringe group that engaged more in disrupting the activities of other leftist organizations than carrying out any actual work of value. It is also known by some for the odd relationships that went on within it (including certain members complete control over every aspect of other members’ lives, forced orgies, etc.). None of this has anything to do with genuine organizations and individuals fighting for the liberation of humanity, but that didn’t stop the founders of the CL from joining!
But it doesn’t end there. Unable to work with well with others for any extended period of time, the key leadership of the CL has made its way through a myriad of organizations over the years, including the reformist Communist Party, the ultra-sectarian and cultish Spartacist League (which is also known for disrupting the activities of other leftists), the International Bolshevik Tendency (a cultish split from the Spartacist League, like the RWL), the reformist International Socialist Organization, the reformist Socialist Party, and a host of insignificant groups (which they often played a part in creating) like the “Marxist Workers’ Group” and “Workers’ Voice.”
Although we could, we will not stoop to the level of the CL by revealing the names of the founding members to which we refer. On the other hand, we have no problem revealing the cultish backgrounds of “comrades” who slander us with accusations of a “cult of personality.”
We have no doubts the founders of the CL will be angered by this, and will respond with lies aimed at covering up their history. But the facts are publically available to all who care to do a little work finding them (though honestly, we doubt many do).
Very classy
The CL claims the “root issue” behind our decision to cut ties with their organization is class – the very issue that united us a little more than a year ago!
According to the CL, we “back[ed] away from a strong stance on class.” As proof, they offer the claim that “Increasingly, articles in The Free Press and other FPM literature began to speak of a vague ‘working class and its allies.’”
This is more of the same dishonesty from the CL. The Manifesto of the Free People’s Movement, which was written at our formation, a year before the CL came into existence, spoke of the working class and its allies. The CL admits its “members spent a great deal of time reading through the materials available through [our] website,” which can only lead us to the conclusion that here they are again being purposely dishonest.
The CL claims that because we recognize that the working class has allies, we are capitulating to the petty bourgeoisie. Nothing could be further from the truth. As our manifesto states, “due to its role in society the working class (the exploited majority which creates all wealth) is the only class capable of leading a successful revolution.” The CL knows this, because it quotes this very passage later in its article!
The CL admits that we identify the allies of the working class as (small) farmers and in some cases sections of the lumpenproletariat; but it claims that we “qualify” our words by saying these are only “some of” our allies. Again, no sources of proof of any sort are given (and as a quick search of our website, which contains almost all of the literature we have published over the years that we have never used these “qualifiers”). The fact is that the allies of the working class are not static. At different times, and in different situations, these allies may change. Certain classes, such as the bourgeoisie, will always be the enemies of workers; but in imperialist-oppressed countries for example, small artisans, street vendors, and members of the “little” or poor peasantry (who make up the lower end of the petty bourgeoisie) can, in certain situations, be won over to the cause of socialism, and thus become allies. None of this changes the fact that it is the working class which much lead if a revolution is to be successful. Nor does it change the fact that we do not allow bosses, or their agents or protectors, into our organization (which was the primary basis for our unity with the CL to begin with).
The CL has nerve claiming we ignore or “back away” from the class question, while it runs candidates in the small-time capitalist Green Party! Of course, it doesn’t publicize these campaigns in its press (more “clandestine” activity?), and likewise, the websites and literature of its Green Party campaigns make no mention of communism (at least one of its candidates went as far as supporting thinly-veiled calls for protectionism U.S. in a candidates’ survery!
Yes Virginia, proletarianization does exist!
The CL claims to take issue with the assertion by one of our members, again on an internet message board, that comrade Fidel left behind his petty-bourgeois class background and became proletarianized.
The CL chose to ignore of explanation of how, and when, this process occurred, to make way for their claim that we somehow think comrade Fidel’s “‘good deeds’ outweigh his class background and ‘social being’.”
Comrade Marx explained the process of proletarianization many years ago. He pointed out the fact that some members of the petty bourgeois would be forced down into the working class by the very nature of capitalism, while some others would leave their class backgrounds behind and voluntarily join the proletarian side in open class conflict. The CL clearly recognizes this, as it shares our view that comrade Marx himself became proletarianized. They also claim comrade Engels was proletarianized, something we have not yet taken a formal stance on.
In another baseless attack, the CL claims we judge class on one’s income, as if we were some liberal idealists! We fully understand class as explained by comrades Marx and Engels so many years ago, and it shows in our work and outlook.
Again, the CL bitterly brings up an issue now, after we cut ties from their organization. In the earliest days of contact, and indeed again later, members of our organization clearly explained that comrades Che and Fidel had become proletarianized through the course of their lives. Then, it was apparently not an issue, for whatever reason (we have some ideas). Now, we are severely criticized because of it (though our actual explanation is not).
Sectarianism as an excuse for abstentionism
The CL goes on to criticize our cooperation with a committee struggling to build a day to shut down the way machine in the U.S. – a campaign which they once seemed enthusiastic about – on purely sectarian grounds.
They claim the day, with the stated goal of “literally bring[ing] the war machine, which relies on all of us to function, to a screeching halt,” is some how comparable to the Revolutionary Communist Party’s “World Can’t Wait” campaign, which seeks to “drive Bush from office.”
Of course the two have nothing in common. We are fighting, along side several other groups and individuals, to launch a one-day general strike, during which there will be no working, no school, and no shopping, to shut down the imperialist juggernaut from inside. This has nothing to do with the “World Can’t Wait” campaign, which panders to liberals looking to get a Democrat into the presidential position
(The RCP seems think just the act of Bush being “driven from office” would create a revolutionary situation. We disagree. We participated in “World Can’t Wait” events in the past, under our own slogan: “Drive out the Bush Regime and the capitalist system it represents!”)
The CL even claims that the campaign for a general strike against the war is somehow less principled than the RCP’s tailing of radical liberals! The base this absurd claim on the fact that the committee calling for the general strike has welcomed “union officials, artists, musicians and other interested individuals” to endorse their call, and participate in the strike. Leaving aside the fact that some artists, musicians and union officials belong the working class, we must point out one thing: it’s a one time action. The basis for the strike, and the principles on which its based, have already been laid down, by members of the working class. We have no problem with a well known musician supporting and publicizing the strike if it will help us mobilize the working class to shut down the war machine! Likewise, we have no problem with a petty bourgeois student putting up posters and stickers at their campus to promote a one day general strike!
Despite our decision to cut ties from the CL for security reasons (and with an underlying political basis), we invited them to endorse the call for a general strike, and to participate in building for, and promoting it. They refused to even respond. Of course they use political rhetoric to explain away their abstentionism, but a glimpse beneath the surface shows that it’s based on nothing more than petty sectarianism, of the sort elevated to principle by some of the groups the CL’s founders belonged to not so long ago.
Authentic communist organizations take any and all actions they can that are in the interest of the working class. A general strike in the bastion of world imperialism is definitely in the interests of working people everywhere. The CL refuses to participate in building for a general strike, but explains its participation in the liberal World Can’t Wait campaign by saying it had the “capacity to draw small but militant sections of working people to its events,” while according to them, the campaign to Shut Down The War Machine, which appeals directly to working people to utilize their united power to stop the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, does not.
Again, it’s rich for the CL to criticize us for taking part in a “front,” which we openly admit, while they continue to pretend that the Detroit Working People’s Association is an organization separate from their own, and that the IWPA continues to exist (still more on this later).
Don’t mourn, organize!
As the CL admits, a major reason it became critical of our organization was out of anger at the creation of the Young Soldiers for Change (YSFC), an anti-capitalist “action group.”
The CL falsely claims the YSFC was formed directly by our organization; and incorrectly claims it is “some sort of paramilitary organization.”
As we explained to the CL in previous correspondence, we, as an organization, had very little to do with the formation of the YSFC. Some members of the FPM and Revolutionary Youth gave advice and guidance on the formation of such an organization to a number of youths who sought it out; but there was no “official action” on the part of the FPM or RY as a whole.
As we also explained to the CL previously (though comrades in the YSFC may have been able to do a better, or at least more detailed job), the YSFC is an action group, not a “paramilitary group.” One can only guess the CL’s motivation in calling it that.
The CL’s problem with the creation of the YSFC has less to do with the creation of the actual organization itself (and even less to do with class), than it does with their opposition to our organizational autonomy. From the beginning it seems the CL has seen our organization more as potential recruiting grounds, than an ally in struggle. Apparently they thought they could drag us away from our communist principles and into their sectarian den.
This is made clear in the way they arrogantly feign their disappointment that they were unable to show us the correct path (as determined by them, though their superior intellect and grasp of the class struggle).
In this case, they insisted that our agreement to work together on forming Workers’ Self-Defense Corps (which was a joint proposal, not something they came up alone, as they claim in their article) meant that our members could not belong to, or help organize the YSFC. We made it clear to the CL that the YSFC and Workers Self-Defense Corps (WSDC) had little in common, and expressed our desire to move forward with the creation of the WSDC.
The CL claims that “military manuals” are posted on the website of the YSFC; and they point to this as evidence that we lied to them about the YSFC not being a self-defense organization. We searched the website of the YSFC thoroughly, and even contacted the people in charge of it, and guess what? There are no such manuals. Again the CL’s fake ideological cover for their sectarianism falls short.
Stubbornly, the CL continues to levels criticisms against the YSFC and its class content as if it were one in the same with the FPM, even after we explained several times that it’s not. They try their hardest to discredit us, but over and over again they fail.
The CL also continues their attempt to make our internal organization, discussions and plans public in a completely unprincipled manner, for their own narrow goals. Again, they show that our decision to limit, and even slightly modify, the private information we shared with them, was completely justified.
Cuba is a socialist country
As this article has already drawn on much longer than the subject deserves, we won’t go to far into detail on the question of Cuba. We have done so in the past in our publications (see back issues of The Free Press and Rebel Yell!), and plan to do so more in the future.
The CL calls our support for Cuba, the only socialist country in the world today, “uncritical cheerleading.” They do this because we refuse to take the side of the imperialists against a socialist society!
The CL knows very well, from correspondence between individuals in our organizations, that we have been critical of certain actions of the Cuban government in the past. But in our view, none of these issues have been series enough to criticize in our publications. Our publications are aimed at working people, most of whom have never been exposed to revolutionary theory before. It is therefor much more important to publicize the immense accomplishments of socialist Cuba and defend it against imperialist slander than it is to criticize much less significant policies or actions that we may disagree with. Working people around the world here enough critical words about Cuba (most of which are based on lies), it’s our job to offer them the truth about a country in which illiteracy, homelessness and starvation have been eliminated; in which imperialist domination has been thrown off; and in which working people have taken power.
The CL claims that we don’t talk about what makes Cuba socialist, ignoring the content of articles they go on to quote!
Furthermore, we have described socialism in several publications, including our Manifesto and the book by Ricardo Santiago that the CL seems to be so obsessed with. And, as the CL says, we assert that Cuba is socialist. It doesn’t take a genius to put the two together.
The CL criticizes our assertion that the leadership of the Cuban revolution has always been honest with the Cuban people. They base this criticism not on any proof to the contrary, but on lies, slander, and in one case (the treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people decades ago) a serious mistake – that the revolutionary leadership has publicly admitted, in a completely honest fashion.
Next the CL will dig up some lies from “Reporters Without Borders” to slander the politics of organizations that cut off relations with it.
Once again, we want to point out that our position on Cuba is the same position we held before the CL reached out to us for cooperation.
If you can’t recognize socialism in the real world...
The CL goes on to criticize us because we don’t have “a theor[y] of our own for the assertion that [Cuba] is a ‘socialist society.’”
They’re right, having no need for “a theory of our own,” we’ve stuck with communist theory, as it has been developed through the successes and failures of the working class over the last few hundred years.
It is this theory that defines socialism, and it is through the application of this theory that we recognize Cuba for what it is, a socialist state.
The CL knows very well that we understand Cuba to be socialist as a result of serious study. They understood this well when they came to us for answers to their questions on Cuba (which they admit in their article), ostensibly asked so they could make up their own minds.
So, apparently, we know enough about Cuba to help them make a decision as to whether or not it is socialist; but we’re two “idealistic” to decide for ourselves, based on those same facts!
The CL criticizes a proposal by our Oregon Branch, made in October, to break off relations with the CL on their refusal to recognize Cuba as socialist (among other things). While this proposal did not pass, it brought up some good points.
There’s a saying among communists that goes something like “If one can’t recognize a socialist (workers’) revolution in another part of the world, it’s very likely they won’t be able to recognize, or correctly fight for one in their own country.”
The CL claims that we demand that all organizations seeking to work with us share our understanding of Cuba as socialist. This is a complete falsehood, as they well know.
As we pointed out to the CL in a letter dated September 26, 2006, “When we first agreed on cooperation ... we made it very clear that we wanted to maintain our organizational autonomy. ... The difference between our organization and yours on the question of Cuba ... among other
things, has shown that this was the correct position to take.
“We do have similar outlooks on many questions however, and this has facilitated the close and fraternal relationship between us, and allowed for us to come together in the formation of the International Working People's Association (IWPA).”
This is more proof of the dishonesty on the part of the CL in their drive to attack us by any means.
The CL claims now, after we cut off ties with them, that we have “abandon[ed] most (if not all) of the theoretical foundations [we] had that initially brought our two organizations closer.” What a pathetic attempt to save face! It wasn’t until the October proposal by our Oregon Branch to break with the CL was leaked by a sympathizer that they brought up any criticisms of our organization at all (publicly or in private communications with us)!
Up the Oaxaca Commune!
As their rant begins to draw to a close, the CL brings up an issue on which they couldn’t be more incorrect.
The issue is most important to the CL for the sort of personal reasons they accuse us of acting on.
To put it simply, our organizations had two different views on the recent events in Oaxaca, Mexico (see: “ Victory to the Oaxaca Commune! 140+ days of real democracy in Southern Mexico!,” The Free Press, Volume 2, Issue 10 & “Oaxaca under attack! A revolutionary response is necessary!,” TFP, Volume 2, Issue 11). Our organization took the correct position: complete defense of the workers and farmers of Oaxaca and fighting to strengthen and extend and their struggle. Theirs took the wrong one: ultra-left posturing and unproductive hostility and criticism.
We suspect that many of their supporters and sympathizers let them know, as we received a large quantity of correspondence – including from self-described members of the CL – that recognized our position as the correct one.
Beyond this, while the CL phrasemongered from the sidelines, we successfully organized a Oaxaca Defense Committee in New York City that lead a picket of the Mexican Consulate (that drew the support of a number of anarchist and communist organizations, as well as the NY General Membership Branch of the IWW) to defend the Commune – long before the protests of the same location prompted by the murder of a U.S. citizen who was covering the events for IndyMedia. Our comrades in Mexico and Southern California distributed thousands of copies of our statement on the Commune, and worked with fellow workers to organize for its defense.
It didn’t the CL long to crank out a statements “clarifying” their position (actually bending a bit as a result of criticism, while attempting to justify and uphold their original position).
It seems that they still haven’t gotten over it.
The CL claims that “In successive articles, the FPM refers to the supporters of the APPO as “communards” [sic] and has whitewashed the treacherous role of the petty bourgeoisie in this struggle.” In actuality, we have done no such thing, as a quick glance at the articles in question shows.
Not only did we present the revolutionary outlook in the face of the treacherous actions of sections of the APPO leadership (while still defending the Oaxaca Commune), we clearly stated that for the liberation of the Oaxaqueños to be carried out, “it will be necessary to combat the “mis”leaders, who make up a part of CEAPPO, that promote ‘nonviolence’ – in the face of violent state sponsored attacks! – and oppose truly revolutionary action. As we pointed out in earlier coverage of the Commune, these policies can, and indeed have, only lead to the defeat and slaughter of the exploited masses Oaxaca [emphasis added].”
A last ditch effort
Next, in a section titled “Petty-Bourgeois Socialism,” the CL digs up quotes from The Communist Manifesto, in an attempt to justify their baseless criticisms of our organization. Once again, they are unsuccessful.
They go on to make a few more false claims (about our supposed “love” of “the Guevaraist method of guerrillaism”) again without a shred of evidence to back them up.
Also, the again reveal the ridiculousness of their own arguments when they describe “many of the leading members of the FPM.” What happened to the one-man leadership of comrade Ricardo, and the “cult of personality?” Now, from thin air, leading members, appear (the reasons for which we’ll explain below).
A clear case of revisionism
The CL has said publicly that the entire contents of their article, from the third section to the end were written before we cut our ties with them. This explains why the those parts of the article speak of “leading members” (plural) and “leadership” of the FPM, as opposed to the one-man leadership, “cult of personality” that supposedly exists.
For the CL, facts are something to be invented as needed to attain a goal – in this case, slandering our organization.
Just as the CL had no problem working with us (if you can call it that) before we cut off ties with them, and just as they had no problem participating in our defense campaign before we criticized the actions of some of their members, there was no “cult of personality” in our organization prior to October 31. It magically appeared, not unlike the CL’s new found criticisms of our organization, after we announced our decision to cut our ties with them.
Why do they hate us?
Earlier in this article, we mentioned criticisms we raised against individual members of the CL; and pointed out that it seemed this was what provoked the attack on comrade Ricardo, and attempted “outing” of information that was meant to remain private. We want to explain exactly what we’re referring to.
It seems that more than a few members of the CL, at least among those who participate in political discussions and debates on the internet, have a tendency to make sexist and/or anti-Semitic comments (we base this on the fact that such things occurred more than a few times). It is the policy of the owners and moderators of most internet discussion boards to either warn persons who make such comments, or in some cases, revoke their ability to participate entirely. In a few of the cases in which members of the CL made sexist and/or anti-Semitic comments, members of our organization have publicly criticized them.
Apparently, this seriously offended several members of the CL who, in a letter dated October 18, 2006, accused “certain comrades of the FPM” of “contribut[ing] to ... a campaign of provocation and baiting that has sought to turn contradictions in method into entrenched positions ... [making] the educational and corrective process
more difficult.”
No, we’re not making this up.
A league of their own
The CL has, by its own actions, isolated itself not only from our organization, but from the class struggle itself.
It appears that the leadership realizes this, but is unable, or unwilling to do anything about it. With the political history of the CL’s founders, it wouldn’t surprise us if it was the latter.
We’ve already described the “clandestine” nature of the CL, which is one way it has isolated itself (and our experience in working with the CL suggests that the decision to be “clandestine” has more to do with hiding the political history of their founders from other workers and leftists than it does defending itself from attacks by the state) . There are of course, many others.
One is the CL’s abuse of class definitions. It is normal practice for members of the CL to refer to any and all political opponents as petty bourgeois, regardless of their actual class background. We have personally witnessed this several times. Someone would raise a political criticism of the CL or the actions of one of its members only to be written off as petty bourgeois – even when the person calling them so had absolutely no idea what their relation to the means of production was! A fellow worker of one of our comrades, who has experience with certain leaders of the CL recently warned us about “a distinct track record on the left with splits (something we were well aware of),” adding “If one is to toss out the term petit-bourgeois as liberally as [they do, they] might want to look to the Socialist Party [which they very recently belonged].”
The fact that so much of the CL’s work, and even its very existence, are so tied in with “cyberspace,” further demonstrates just how isolated from the class struggle they are. We are not opposed to utilizing the internet as an effective means of communication, but the CL seems to carry out internet work as an alternative to work in the “real world” (when they’re not busy using it to slander and publicize the person information their comrades). Of course, they could claim otherwise, but due to their “clandestine” nature, there would be no way to verify it.
Furthermore, despite the CL’s claims to the contrary, the Detroit Working People’s Association (DWPA) is nothing more than a front group. It is not “independent of the CL,” nor does it have “its own leadership.” It is the political legacy of the group that lead the opposition within a split, from a split, from a split, from a split, from a split (no, we’re not exaggerating).
Also contrary to the CL’s claims, there is no more “IWPA.” After the departure of the FPM and Revolutionary Youth from the International, and the previous Disintegration of the International Weekly Group, the only group left is the CL/DWPA. It doesn’t take a genius to realize this an international does not make.
In yet another attempt to slander us, the CL has claimed that we “seized the website of the IWPA and locked all others out of it, including the Association’s Corresponding Secretary and website coordinator, and has since closed it down. The IWPA website was also the host for the websites of the Detroit Working People’s Association and the Albert Currlin Institute. In fact, the DWPA and ACI did not know that the FPM had done this until our C.C. notified them.”
In reality, we haven’t “seized” or “closed down” anything. When the IWPA was formed, we agreed to pay to host the International’s website, as long as the league would maintain it. There was never a discussion about the DWPA or ACI hosting “their” websites in the same space. Since our departure from the IWPA effectively meant it no longer existed, there was no reason for us to waste any of our limited resources on hosting its website. We simply stopped paying the bill, and the hosting company shut down the website. As for the DWPA and ACI being unaware until a later ... we’ll refer our earlier assertion, with a slight modification, “Despite the CL’s claims to the contrary, the Detroit Working People’s Association [and “Albert Currlin Institute” are] nothing more than front groups.
At this point, the CL better hope that its numerous fronts can keep it company in its self-imposed, sectarian and “clandestine” isolation.
The end of a ... chapter
We would be lying if we said we didn’t regret the way things have turned out between our organization and the CL. In the earliest stages of correspondence, we say a genuine opportunity to advance the class struggle through cooperation and unity in action. Unfortunately, for the reasons stated above, the situation degenerated to the point where we had no choice but to cut our ties with the CL.
But we do not despair or fall into petty squabbles. We recognize that the CL contains a number of good, and dedicated comrades. We can only hope they are not turned off to politics forever by the treacherous acts of other members, and the bitter sectarianism of their leaders (who are famous for exactly that); or, possibly even worse, go down the dead end road of reformism, as a result of the CL’s collaboration with bourgeois political parties like the Greens.
We are the International Working People’s Association!
When the creation of the IWPA, a comrade in our organization made a point which rings true today. She said, “International Working People’s Association? We are an international working people’s association!”
She’s correct. Over the last few years, we have expanded from our original existence in the Dominican Republic, a few cities in the U.S. and one city in UK, to every continent on earth. We have seen massive levels of growth, leading to the establishment of branches across North America, in Africa, in South East Asia and in the South Pacific.
Our decision to end relations with the CL has had no negative effect on our work, and in fact has freed up some important resources that can now by used elsewhere.
So, with the same dedication and fervor that we’ve had since our formation, if not more, we continue our fight, all around the world, for freedom, justice and equality!
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
That was exactly what I expected of you. I actually can't believe you wasted your time writing that whole thing.
Weren't you a FPMer ten minutes ago?
"Love Other Human Beings like you would Yourself"
-- Ho Chi Minh
"We Don't Care who gets elected, because whoever it is will be Overthrown"
-- Subcomandante Marcos
...
1. It's a response to a slanderous article by your organization.
2. I didn't write it (but I did clean it up a bit).
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
It's not slanderous at all. As Miles has already explained, our article was originally an article that was intended to start debate between member of the League and members of the FPM based on our political differences. The part on you breaking the FPM with the League was only added after you did it, after you couldn't handle a little criticism.
Yeah ... except for all the slander and unfounded nonsense (which we refuted in our statement).
This nonsense is clearly refuted in our statement as well.
.. as Miles says "never let a little truth get in the way of a Big Lie."
Maybe you all should take your own advide.
Have fun you bitter little reptile.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
I am an FPMer. What are you trying to do?
Kasama Project- We Are the Ones
South Asia Revolution - Information Project
Kasama Threads
"Settle your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are dying who could be saved, that generations more will live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act. Do what must be done, discover your humanity and your love in revolution." - George Jackson
What am I trying to do? I'm trying to figure out why you have a CL avatar.
"Love Other Human Beings like you would Yourself"
-- Ho Chi Minh
"We Don't Care who gets elected, because whoever it is will be Overthrown"
-- Subcomandante Marcos
And this is actually what I didn't want to happen-- silly squabbling on revleft.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]"We can do anything by working with eachother!"[/FONT]
Breaking FPM and CL apart. Oh, wait.
What's the matter Lagerboy, afraid you might taste something?
So you're an FPMer, a Leaguer, and an autonomous marxist?
Sounds like you're confused :wacko:
Forced orgies? W. T. F. OK, this ultra-sectarianism shit obviously drives people to some insane realms.
<span style=\'color:red\'>"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past."
-Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852)</span>
<span style=\'color:blue\'>"When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created."
-Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto</span>
Industrial Workers of the World | Radio Rebelde!
It's not surprising that the FPM would resort to slander when confronted with political criticism. Just shows that we can bring this full circle and say that, not only do they see personal issues as political, but that they also see political criticism as personal criticism. Not a single League member was a member of the RWL.
Yeah, the RWL was pretty fucked up.. though they weren't the only group that did that sort of thing (not always forced, but often coerced), for example, the Weather Underground.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
I was expecting this event to happen for sometime, and I believe that it should have happened, regardless of it being unfortunate.
I personally believe that all of this could have been avoided if the Communist League could have effectively moved from the "world" of the internet to the world that is our actual reality - and if they would have made an effort to analyze the environment of our actual reality, this would have allowed them to draw the right kind of ideas and conclusions. But, this was not the case.
I also happen to agree with the statement of the Free People's Movement (FPM) in that the Communist League is entirely based on the internet (this becomes obvious when one looks at the activities that they have been engaging in lately), and because of that, in addition to their theoretical limitations, they have been drawing the wrong conclusions and have been for the most part ineffective in making any kind of meaningful contribution to the development of any real revolutionary situations that could bring us closer to the goal of achieving a real Communist society within our lifetime.
:angry:
What a waste of potential. (!
Ok, fuck all of this. I am no longer an FPM or League member. What I thought of both as good organizations, responsible, turned out to be nothing of the sort. I am in accord with Communist Firefox on all this, and I regret spending so much time and energy in this bickering.
Kasama Project- We Are the Ones
South Asia Revolution - Information Project
Kasama Threads
"Settle your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are dying who could be saved, that generations more will live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act. Do what must be done, discover your humanity and your love in revolution." - George Jackson
The irony is that you're the one who started this thread in the first place. Still sorry that I won't get a chance to work with you anymore though.
