Chuck Morse and Mike Ely; Kicking Open the Doors of Maoism

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

But the difference between you and Karl is that Karl was a historical materialist, clearly you're not. This matters in terms of your assessment of history.

I am a historical materialist. I just don't follow an orthodox marxist line on it.

[Rawthentic]

The Maoist mass line tactic is the rebranding of a tactic that all revolutionary groups use and have used in the past. Maoists call it the Mass line, we call it dual power, and other groups call it other things. But there’s nothing new or original about the mass line. While the BPP was organizing their plethora of programs, anarchist influenced groups like the Diggers were organizing free stores, free lunches, etc. in San Francisco. Which is actually pretty surprising since anarchism was relatively dormant at that time. In previous eras, anarchists organized a system of free schools, designed in opposition to Sunday schools and today we have things like free markets and food not bombs. If we go further back, we had mutual aid societies run by a community or a labor union that provided similar services to the mass line, often in larger quantity and in greater quality.

You don’t seem to realize this because you’ve become too engrossed in Maoism. Maoism isn’t that special, mass line work has been done over and over again, throughout history; people just called it different things.

No, I beg to differ that all groups use it. How many groups, anarchist or otherwise, investigate and become one with the masses, learn and take their scattered ideas to a new level of systemic theories, translated into political programs? I dont think I am "too engrossed in Maoism", I just happen to agree with it and consider it a valuable guide to liberation.

I also think you misunderstand the mass line (and this shows your comments on it). It is not some form of giving welfare to the people. Mao said, "from the masses, to the masses", and this encapsulates what the mass line is.

Many of the BPP’s problems were associated with Maoism. The veneration of leaders such as Newton and Cleaver made it easy to destroy. The CIA infiltration of the BPP was extremely successful because that structure. All they had to do was set the leaders against one another, and bring trumped up charges against the rest. The Party had to shift its focus towards providing defense support for imprisoned leaders, and picking sides in various faction fights. Eventually it tore itself apart.

Also I think that Maoism has a tendency to poorly address with sexism and heteronormativity. Much like today’s Nepalese Maoists, the BPP was misogynistic and homophobic. Homophobic much like the RCP. Alston talks about this a lot, how Maoism failed the BPP and led it down a class reductionist path. Since he served his time and isn’t under the danger of execution, he doesn’t have much notoriety. It’s not like Jamal is known for his Maoist theory, he’s known for being a political prisoner and a journalist.

If we cannot uphold important rev leaders because the state will inevitably destroy us, then I see that we have no hope. You see, Maoist, trotkyist, whatever, these movements will uphold leaders in movements that are the most committed, experienced, and represent their line the best. What we need to do is find a way (by learning from the past) to avoid such destruction at the hands of the state (as witnessed by the BPP, CPUSA, but also the IWW).

The question here is not if we will uphold leaders, but how will we protect them, the organization, and the well-being of the movement.

I have to agree that Maoism has a sad past of wrong lines on homosexuality (including the Nepali Maoists). This, however, does not change my general stance on that ideology, or my faith in it ( not blind). On the contrary, we need to sum that up, learn from it, accept it, and move beyond it. It is inevitable that in any rev party and organization, wrong lines will come up and maybe even dominate a party. The important part here is to sum this up in a critical manner and learn (as the RCP has NOT done).

The anti gay line can’t be written off so easily. A communist party with a programmatic ban on homosexuals, to the point where reeducation camps were suggested, cannot be a serious communist group. They sat on their haunches while the AIDS epidemic ravaged their communities. I’m sure Debora, and her ACT-UP comrades would have something to say about communists who overlooked that whole period.

I’m not sure about “following.” By their design Leninist vanguard parties are prohibitively small. Anarchism too spent the 70s-90s rehabilitating itself. But I would say that if you’re comparing influence the PLP, ISO, SWP and CPUSA all had comparable heft to the RCP. The IWW also had similar industrial influence at the time.

I mean honestly, this is a party led by chairman spongebob, the son of a republican judge and an all around nutcase. How could the RCP ever been worth a damn? The degeneration of the RCP started from the very beginning, because Spongebob has been there from the very beginning.

The RCP is the culmination of approximately 3-4 splits. The RU mostly came out of RYM II, which was a split from RYM I, which was a split from SDS. Bob and some in his faction split from the Peace and Freedom Party to join the RU as well. Then the RCP matured through a split with the RWHQ, when a third of the party left for Dengism. See what I mean? A split of a split of a split. The whole “New Communist Movement” came about from this plethora of splits, purges and mutual recriminations.

I agree that their line cannot be written off. I DISAGREE with it, and the manner in which they summed it up. There is a tendency within the RCP (not new) to treat people with opposing views as little children that need to be reeducated, "struggled with",and not respect those views. There is nothing wrong in engaging with people with opposing views (as we are now doing), but it is the METHODOLOGY that is used that is critical.

Im talking about the RCP's influence from the BPP on till now. There seriously was nothing at the time that rivaled what the RCP was doing, its many projects in proletarian (and other sections) neighborhoods, etc. From police brutality, to defending china from revisionism, they were a very important party. I dont mean to undermine other parties, but they did not meet up with the RCP (its line or leadership).

the IWW did have a large following (much larger than anything the RCP ever had), I never denied this. I am talking about the RCP, though.

I also find it a bit hard to talk you seriously when you call Avakian "spongebob". We dont need that sort of condescending talk. We need to engage what they have to say in a principled manner. In the past, he has had very important influence, even internationally. The polemics and speeches he made on defending China from the revisionist coup (deng xiaoping and clique) and uphold mao's revolutionary legacy have played an impact on turkish, nepali, and even indian maoists, who, in the time of this crisis between communism and revisionism, found his works to be refreshing and inspiring. Also, in a time when the movement found itself mired in economism, tradeunionism, and workerism, Avakian fought hard to determine the correct line on how to lead the masses in struggle achieve a communist consciousness. These are important things, and should not be overlooked.

The actual formation of the RCP emerged from the RU. I think, at this point, it is irrelevant where the members of the RU came from. The RU was where major line struggles were waged to form what is now the RCP.

Well if the states are so powerful to make these wars endless, shouldn’t they try something else? Guerilla war is a stressful and unhealthy activity for a revolutionary movement to undertake for extended periods of time. Just like any war, it takes its toll. Something new is needed, and it seems like Maoism is unable to take up the task. This is what I mean by “spent ideology.” If it no longer has utility, get rid of the ideology.

I think they fail becuase they don’t have much mass support. The Maoists only received 30 percent of the vote in the constituent assembly elections. This is surprising since the liberated zones under Maoist control should provide near unanimous support. The Naxalites have failed to break out of the forests of northern and eastern India. From a height of 30,000 soldiers, they now are down to 9,000-15,000 soldiers. If they had greater popular support, they should have busted out long ago. They’ve had decades to do so. The NPA suffers from a similar problem. From a peak of 25,000 they now only have 10,000 soldiers. Unlike the Naxalites, they are slowing growing, but they too seem to be spinning their wheels.

So of the three active Maoist movements, not one seems to have the great popular base that you describe. Also it is often hard to gage what is genuine support and what is coercion. Many Peruvian peasants “supported” the Shining Path because they had lots of weapons and a fetish for brutal executions. I often wonder if these other groups do not engage in similar activities. We know for example, that the CPN(M) employed a number of child soldiers, what else did they do in the name of socialism?

Tell me, what would you suggest the comrades waging guerrilla warfare do? Why should they abandon this method? Because it is the correct one (for their conditions). It allows them to attack quickly, disperse, retrieve enemy weapons and needed objects, and survive from the support of the people (which they have).

Why do you insist that there is some major glitch in maoism that makes it irrelevant? How can an ideology be irrelevant when it has the real support of millions of oppressed peoples around the world.

The Maoists ONLY had 30% of the vote? That is a huge margin! Do you know how many parties competed in the CA elections? Too many to count. It is relative, and you do look at this wrong. The fact of the matter is that no party in Nepal shares the support that the Maoists do (and for good reasons: they give the masses hope of a better rev future).

So, the naxals have not "broken from their jungle". Please show us how this is negation of maoism. As far as I am concerned, it is due to the particularities of indian society (and the lines within the indian maoist party). If maoism was at fault for this, then how did the Nepalis break free? How did the chinese break free? Come on now, we need to dig deeper. I dont think this negates guerrilla warfare either, it has a lot more to do with the horrible conditions that they operate under, and need to either develop better methods, or sharpen what they are doing now. In india, there are several deathsquads that are state supported and brutalize the maoists and their support areas. What this means is that, since they are not an official part of the state, they can commit atrocities without legal implications for them (but lethal implications of the indian maoists and their supporters).

I know very little (if anything) about the peruvian maoist movement, so Ill leave it at that. The only thing I want to guard against is believing bourgeois propaganda against them (they are hateful believe it or not).

How are you defining radical? Anarchism has a critique of class and non class oppressions. Anarchism looks at both economic exploitation and social domination. Anarchism has an analysis of hierarchy and authority. How is it less revolutionary? You have something of a Maoist chauvinism that isn’t supported by the evidence. You may think Maoism is the “most revolutionary” but you have failed to back this up.

Radical in that it seeks to break from EVERY form of oppression IN BOTH theory AND practice. China, Nepal, india....communes, collectives, woman guerillas and organizations, etc., etc. Not just in pretty words, but real action.

Well I hate to break it to you, but bourgeois liberalism is a perversion of pre-capitalist liberalism, an anti capitalist, anti state, anti theocratic ideology. Thinkers of the enlightenment did not have much of capitalism to critique yet. But they did have Kings, and in the absolute monarchies of Europe they saw how absolute power corrupts. This dictum applies to all parts of human history including “socialism”. Whenever one group or individual has exclusive control over coercive force, they use it to their benefit. There’s nothing nebulous or idealistic about it. When you make someone a boss of others, there’s a change. They no longer see themselves as equal to their subordinates, and they develop a propensity for violence against them. We see this manifest in examples such as the San Francisco prison experiment, where normal students were arbitrarily divided into prisoners and guards. The guards became abusively violent almost immediately. Clearly, coercive power is a dehumanizing force.

There is a difference between this and accountable influence. Anarchist movements have had “leaders,” but perhaps a better word is “exceptional militant.” While Kropotkin is appreciated for his theoretical contributions, we understand that all people have various kinds of talents, and that no one leader is perfect or even talented in all areas. Thus Kropotkin was never asked about his views on organizing a union, since the man was not a worker. Emma Goldman was a great speaker, but she never had a gaggle of followers, because she also was a bit of a silly hippy. Meanwhile Maoists carry around a little red bible to answer all their political questions. Don’t you see a problem with that?

You need to hate to break anything from me.

When I speak of liberalism, I mean democrats, and the ideology against revolution and rev leaders (they say we cant have socialism because leaders inevitably get corrupted.

I dont know what you are trying to accomplish in your 2nd paragraph. I never implied that marx, lenin, or mao, or any revolutionary leaders are perfect. I just say that they emerge in the heat of class struggle and represent the highest aspirations of the masses (in theory and practice). What accounts for the fact that the chinese people loved and uphold chairman mao? Are they stupid for doing so? Or do they understand that mao and the CCP led them in revolution to overthrow their horrible conditions and lead a new life? We need to be fair here.

Kropotkin had and has followers, thats not the point. And whats wrong with the little red book? It is a political book that holds the most important sayings by Mao. So? Some people can use it in a wrong, religious way, but we need to NOT do that.

What you describe in those forms of leadership, is bourgeois leadership, as opposed to communist leadership. Let me give you an example. I am reading a book called Fanshen by William Hinton. It is about the agrarian revolution in China, centered in a village where the author lives and takes part of this agrarian reform as a member of a work team. At a certain stage of this complex process, the village cadres (leaders of the agrarian movement) began to take on excesses, mistreat the people, and basically, go against the maoist (communist) spirit of 'serve the people'. Some cadres beat those who would not attend meetings, and those who disobeyed them for whatever reasons. Other cadres took liberties with women (many women who did not consent) and robbed things from the people and from warehouses, things that were to be used to distribute amongst the people as a part of the movement. When these problems and excesses became widespread (meaning, around the county and nation), the CCP called upon the villages to form peasant delegations that would bring together their cadres, analyze their past, crimes, and shortcomings, and decide whether they would continue as cadres or not! Think about what this means. It is was a method of mobilizing the masses to stand up against wrong (bourgeois) methods of leadership and demand that the cadres act like true servants of the people. The result was that the cadres experienced a drastic change in their consciousness and practice. Seeing all those peasants together, indicting their cadres made a powerful impact on the cadres themselves, and created a remolding effect. This created a higher degree of unity in the village, within the cadres, and was crucial to defeat the Kuomintang.

Does this make sense? I think it makes a nice distinction between bourgeois leadership and what needs to be rev leadership.

You’re making an awful lot of assertions without a lot of evidence. Has every revolutionary and radical uprising had certain exceptional individuals? Well I don’t recall too many from Hungary 1956, or many from the 68 risings. Did the Commune have an exceptional leader? While revolutionary movements rely on groups of people with higher than average commitment and organizational prowess, these individuals are flawed like anyone else. It was the “theoretically developed” FAI militants who joined the Catalonian government, breaking the basic precepts of their own theory. And it was the PCF officials who handed down the orders to end the 68 strikes.

With this kind of track record, a reliance on these “crucial” leaders is a crucial mistake. Marx did not “develop scientific socialism,” Marx was part of a broad group of philosophers and militants who composed socialist ideas. If Marx were never born, someone else would have formulated something similar. Marx actually got the Labor Theory of Value, the keystone of much of his theory, from Proudhon. A hyper devotion to Marx’s ideas in isolation is obviously flawed in this respect. He had contemporaries of equal prowess. Lenin merely rode a wave of popular revolt into power. Shop committees and peasant organizations were taking power for the working class without the help of leaders. “All Power to the Soviets” was Lenin’s attempt to latch onto that popular sentiment. Sadly, once Lenin had gained control he eliminated the power of the soviets, instituted one man management, brought out taylorism, and unleashed the Cheka. Why do we follow a man with such a shoddy record? Most of the grand leaders you point to are just as mediocre. For example, as a Maoist you uphold the majority of Stalin’s rule. Clearly you don’t feel a bit unsettled about that?

No assertions at all. There is no doubt that leaders emerged in the movements that you named above, if not, there would have been no uprisings in the first place. Someone had to get together to coordinate meetings, spread info, talk about the implications, and overall lead the struggle. This is crucial; we NEED this leadership to emerge.

Marx is the father of scientific socialism. It is not attributable to prodhoun, just like Darwin's theories are not attributable to those he learned from (yes, all philosophers learned from their past colleagues and incorporated that into their theories). Does this not make them original or something?

You see how trivas called you a bourgeois liberal? When you say things like "lenin rode roughshod the revolt" or whatever, you cant deny that he has reason to call you that. Because that is what it is. Btw, the term "all power to the soviets!" was a formulation put forward by the Bolsheviks and Lenin. Had it not been for their leadership, there would have been no soviet movement that had the power to overthrow the Tsar. Their organizing, their main slogan of "peace, land, and bread" encapsulated what the masses in Russia desperately needed and wanted. It brought them together and gave them guidance in their struggle. Even if lenin or the bolsheviks had not existed, another leader (or leaders) would have emerged in the soviet movement, and most likely taken it to a different level (most like parliamentarianism).

The Bolsheviks did implement one-man management. This was not good, but was a response to the extremely adverse material conditions facing the young socialist state (civil war, underdevelopment, huge human losses, etc). This does not change the fundamental proletarian class nature of their state, either. He also implemented the NEP. So? Does this make him a tyrant? Lets just say that Lenin was in touch with the conditions they faced, and these were necessary steps to go forward (one step back, two steps forward).
*****
And, as Ive tried to stress SO many times, socialism EMERGES from capitalism. In the first years, and far after that as well, socialism is a PROCESS to defeat what is left of capitalism in their society. That is precisely WHY all these problems come up during a revolution and under socialism, because of capitalism's BIRTHMARKS that need to be overcome. If, after the revolution, socialism was a perfect society with no remnants from capitalism, none of these problems would come up. In fact, we could have communism without having socialism (and as long as im dreaming id also like to be able to fly)! But it is not possible, and every socialist society with have its people and leadership face a difficult struggle to overcome capitalism in its many forms that emerges in socialism (direct counterrevolution, ideological struggle, imperialist encirclement, etc.)

In terms of stalin, I think he made many mistakes (and mao recognized that and wrote polemics dedicated to this very issue). But this is not what this is about, we can talk about this is another thread. I am a maoist, but I am not dogmatic.

We do live in a capitalist and authoritarian society. And as revolutionaries we must make the change we wish to see. If you have no experience organizing in a directly democratic, anti authoritarian way, there’s no way you can make a proper transition to a direct democracy built on anti authoritarian values. Anarchists understand this and see struggle as a school for communism. By organizing struggle in the way we want to organize the society at large, we are able to deprogram ourselves, and get rid of the cop in our head. Bowing to precepts of “human nature” and instituting one man management is a proscription for failure. A revolution can’t root out authoritarianism, if it is authoritarian.

Capitalism is a brutal and miserable system not just because of exploitation and alienation, but also the domination of bosses. Worker’s control is a primary concern for all true revolutionaries. You may give a boss a new class designation, but if he/she is getting paid more, and/or has the power to discipline workers, he/she will use it to benefit themselves, often at the expense of the worker. I’ve labored in a number of libraries. Libraries have no profit motive, and yet the boss is still a sack of crap. They still seek to exploit me for their benefit and for the benefit of their ego.

The disconnect between the boss system and capitalism was a key failing in Maoist China. While Mao used the excesses of certain leaders to exalt him and his section of “good leaders,” he did nothing to abolish the institution of bosses. He sought to perpetuate the “good king” myth. There is no such thing as a good unaccountable leader. There is no such thing as a good manager. The institution of managers and leaders must be abolished if we are to usher in true human liberation. Even Mao the “good king” showed himself to be a pretty incompetent at times. The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural revolution were collective disasters and yet you exalt him, you even hold up his cultural revolution as an example to be followed by others!

I find it hard to respond to you, many times, because your arguments dont have substance, and in fact, take up CENTRAL ideas of bourgeois anti-communism.

For example, you seem to think that Lenin implemented one-man management in Russia out of the desire to harm his people. The reality is that it was a response to conditions, and to protect overall state interests. Worker control at every level of soviet industry was simply not tenable.

As an another example, in China, a new method of worker control was implemented. It was called the "3 in 1" method. It was the relationship between the worker, manager and party cadre that all took part in management AND productive labor. Look into it.

In terms of "good king" (whatever that means) I refer you once again above to my paragraph on socialism and capitalism. What you say just makes absolutely NO sense. How can one continue building socialism in a semi-feudal nation like China without leaders, or without someone so experienced and loved like Mao? This is whole thing about leadership and bosses has become very silly on your part, it has no bearing on reality AT ALL. What was important was there was a huge struggle to eliminate bureaucracy and wrong methods of leadership, in the cultural revolution. You can call both the GPCR and GLF "disasters", buts thats also the same thing that is said in high school textbooks in the US. You need to be careful with taking up anti-communist theory (because this is what you are doing). The GPCR was NOT a disaster, it was a huge mass struggle to defeat the capitalist-roaders within the party (leaders who were objectively taking up lines that led back to the old society). The red guards were not detachments created by Mao, they were grass roots, student-created movements.

To learn more about the communist, revolutionary view of the GPCR, read this detailed and important article (at least skim it man): http://mlmrsg.com/index.php?option=c...id=12&Itemid=1.

For the GLF: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

Certainly, the state must be abolished, and so must the leadership that goes along with it. But it is a PROCESS that socialist societies (china in the main) have taken up.

They wish to harness the masses to make history. But they clearly do not trust the masses to make history without their leaders. Otherwise they wouldn’t have instituted one man management.

nah. they wish to LEAD the masses to make history. This comes from a correct, materialist point of view that the masses make their history, but, in order to make revolution, leadership will emerge (and is necessary).

Yes and that seems to be the vast majority of your activity, talking about the RCP and talking about the Maoists in South Asia. Your ex comrades talk about Bob Avakian, and talk about third world struggles. And both of you discuss first world “super profits” from the third world. It all revolves around fetishizing third world struggles. Everything ties into the third world.

Of course it all ties into the third world, we live in an imperialist nation! It is an objective fact that a section of the working class (mainly the white, unionized sector) is bought off by the super profits of the imperialist ruling class. This creates divisions between the lower sections (black and latino) and the better off section, that is def (at this point) less revolutionary and more conservative. And it is not just the minority labor aristocracy of skilled workers that has privileges that produce conservative politics. In the U.S., for many historical reasons, the relative privilege and “crumbs” of imperialism have an influence far beyond the labor aristocracy alone. And, in fact, there are many more distinctions and stratifications than just “labor aristocracy.” The summation of “going lower and deeper” was a summation of the political problem of the middle strata of industrial workers (hardly just the much smaller stratum of skilled workers know as “labor aristocrats.”)

We support the communist revolution in south east asia. What is SO wrong with this? lol, are we NOT supposed to support them and learn from them? Is it OUR fault that the majority of mass revolutionary struggles erupt in the impoverished third world countries?

Any google search shows that the RU and RCP were no more or less involved in the “turn to production” than anyone else. And like the SWP and the PLP, it was generally a failure. Why? Well because the RCP didn’t have enough white workers, and only a piddling of people of color. Kasama criticizes the RCP for not having a base and for being run by a well to do white guy. And yet, when I mention it you become defensive.

And don’t get into this super profits nonsense, that’s third wordlist silliness, that’s used as an excuse to write off first world workers. The most exploited are no more or less the most revolutionary. Often better off workers are liable to push militancy. Why? Well they’re better off because of a tradition of struggle and/or a desirable skill. Thus they have more confidence, more self pride, and more free time to contemplate how fucked they are. Therefore the white working class is just as liable to push revolution as working class people of color.

The RCP, has in general been a failure (especially according to its own stated goals). This has been mainly the inability establish roots amongst the people. Ive said this many times.

What you say about the better off workers makes no little sense either. The poorer workers in the US (black and latino) and definitely more revolutionary! What sort of tradition do with the white, better off, and unionized workers have for revolutionary struggle? None. How can a special "skill" make them revolt? Mao said, "where there is oppression, there is resistance", and he is correct. Now, these better off workers ARE oppressed, but we need to look at the objective class structure in the US as well.

You fail to see the problem of encouraging capitalism in the name of socialism. The two ideas are antithetical. Any society at any level of technological development can utilize a communal and democratic form of political economy. Such communities can marshal their resources to develop greater productive forces. The same could occur in Nepal. Instead the Maoists have decided to invite in capitalists to build the infrastructure for them.

Thus it is implicit that capitalism will win out. Capitalism is a world economic system backed by enormous military force. Capitalists are not about to waste their time building up industry only to watch it get nationalized and taken away. They will fight back. This is if Nepal convinces the capitalists to invest. Most should be skittish because the Nepalese are Maoists and Nepal is a tiny, out of the way, country. So the Maoists must go one step further. They must encourage foreign investment. How will they do so? Well they have to do what other third world nations do. They join the race to the bottom. They tell foreign capitalists that they can pay as little as they want, pollute as much as they need, and crush as many unions as they desire. In fact, they’ll use the state controlled unions to break strikes for them. The Maoists have no chance to contend with the capitalists. They must either kowtow, or they won’t get investment.

Now the workers in these sweatshops might be quiet for a little while. But if Bangladesh is any indication, industrial sweatshops are not much better than peasant life. Eventually they will form unions and fight back. At which point the Maoists must choose, either they support worker’s struggles, and end development early, or they must scab on workers, and most likely they’ll scab. That’s what the Nepalese Maoists propose, strike breaking, sweatshops, and pollution. A bright new future indeed!

But I don’t think the Maoists mind. Just as in China, the primary purpose for most Maoists is industrial development. Democracy, worker’s control etc. are all postponed to some later date, unless they’re useful in an intra-party dispute. While you balk at my claim that China was “handed over” to the capitalists. I think it’s pretty clear that, that is what happened. Because socialist development was predicated on the leadership of “socialist” leaders, it only took a single death and a single power struggle to alter Chinese state capitalism into private capitalism. Why? Well because state socialist economies organize and produce along the same lines to capitalists. Making the switch wasn’t such a big deal. While you may dress it up in red flags, and call it socialism, a hierarchical form of production predicated on the control of coercive force by a minority, is a capitalist system. And that’s exactly what Maoists create.

You get it wrong, again.

The maoists encourage capitalist development in their nation, because THEY DONT HAVE IT and they NEED it. The conditions simply are NOT THERE to create socialism (much less maintain it).

Did capitalism win out in china because there was a small, state-capitalist sector along with the larger planned economy? No. This was needed in china, this industrialization was crucial to the development of socialism.

The CPN M has started to devlop communes- numbering 30-40 families, where there is no private property, labor and harvests are shared. The commune's have departments responsiable for health, education, security, culture, and development. The communes are small in number and experimental. Numerically there are many more co-operatives. My understanding of the co-operatives is that land is still owned by the indivdual or family, labor is somewhat shared (meaning the individual works their land with help,and gives help to others). The co-operatives also have eateries, health departments, manufacturing units, schools, and health posts that serve the body of people participating.

If it were possiable to tap into the potential hydropower with these resources on hand, I'm sure the comrades would have already done it. Nepal is dependent on foriegn countries (india) for basic building materials such as concrete. Even with all the revolutionary spirt and collective labor of the masses- at this point- it's just not enough to develop hydropower operations on a large scale.
At this point the CPN M is seeking foriegn resources and investment to carry this out- and they want to do it on terms that are fair where the Nepelese masses are not exploited. Dr. Bhatarai has proposed a plan for investments following the BOOT model. Investors BUILD the hydropower plants, OWN them for a time period, OPERATE them and pay for their upkeep, and then TRANSFER the plants to Nepals ownership. Don't know if there are any takers just yet.

The fact is that the Maoists want to create an atmosphere where capitalist investment can begin and be a part of Nepal. But, we need to understand the Maoist theory of New Democratic Revolution here. The first stage of the revolution is NOT socialist, it is anti-imperialist and anti-feudal. Most of Nepal is NOT EVEN semi-feudal, it is disconnected from cash flow, outside of commodity exchange.

NDR is a process that opens up the road to either socialism or capitalism. The immediate problems lie in completing the new democratic revolution and is so crucial for us and the whole world (anti-monarchical revolution, federal republic, ndr).

Here's what a comrade from kasama wrote on Nepal a while back:

I’d like to turn the question around and ask “what do YOU think can be accomplished in Nepal?” the question I had when reading the NYTimes article was precisely which capitalists Prachanda is talking about. Is he talking about multinational corporations or Nepal’s own presumably quite tiny bourgeoisie which, like it or not, probably concentrates much of the country’s vital economic expertise. If the CPN(M) were to come to power do you think every enterprise that employs a dozen Nepali workers should be socialized immediately? What do you think would be the likely consequences for a country like Nepal if the CPN(M) pursued such a policy? My guess is that the small business people, managers and other people with technical expertise would hustle themselves and as much of the wealth they own out of the country ASAP and that this would set back Nepal’s economic development by years or decades presuming it didn’t produce a complete rout for the revolutionary process. It should also be noted that small businesspeople may have familiy members who are teachers, doctors or other sorts of professionals not directly involved in their businesses who will leave with them. This is not to suggest that local expertise is the only issue or that Nepal can afford to dispense with foreign investment and all the compromises that that is likely to entail, but rather to draw out just one aspect of how genuinely difficult these questions are when confronted in real life. Another aspect of this is the role that the local bourgeoisie can play in the uprooting of feudal and semi-feudal relations. Is it reasonable to expect them to endure the precariousness of the coming years without some assurances that their field of opportunities will be opened up.

lets keep in mind: we make history, but not with the conditions we want to or would like to (this applies to the maoists as well). They have to make revolution according to what they are faced with now.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

No, I beg to differ that all groups use it. How many groups, anarchist or otherwise, investigate and become one with the masses, learn and take their scattered ideas to a new level of systemic theories, translated into political programs? I dont think I am "too engrossed in Maoism", I just happen to agree with it and consider it a valuable guide to liberation.

I also think you misunderstand the mass line (and this shows your comments on it). It is not some form of giving welfare to the people. Mao said, "from the masses, to the masses", and this encapsulates what the mass line is.

Become one with the masses? Huh? I already am part of the masses, I’m working class. Anarchism professes to build a vision of liberation from the organic experiences of working people. Dual power seeks to provide, by and for the working class, everyday needs of working people and to do so in way that emphasizes the ability for working class self organization. That sounds a lot like the mass line to me. We’re the mass and we’re giving to the masses.

And while you may think Maoism is a valuable guide, you would do well to investigate other strains of radical thought. I got a copy of the little red book, I read it, and moved on. You should at least read Kropotkin, or Malatesta or Bakunin or Goldman etc.

If we cannot uphold important rev leaders because the state will inevitably destroy us, then I see that we have no hope. You see, Maoist, trotkyist, whatever, these movements will uphold leaders in movements that are the most committed, experienced, and represent their line the best. What we need to do is find a way (by learning from the past) to avoid such destruction at the hands of the state (as witnessed by the BPP, CPUSA, but also the IWW).

The question here is not if we will uphold leaders, but how will we protect them, the organization, and the well-being of the movement.

I have to agree that Maoism has a sad past of wrong lines on homosexuality (including the Nepali Maoists). This, however, does not change my general stance on that ideology, or my faith in it ( not blind). On the contrary, we need to sum that up, learn from it, accept it, and move beyond it. It is inevitable that in any rev party and organization, wrong lines will come up and maybe even dominate a party. The important part here is to sum this up in a critical manner and learn (as the RCP has NOT done).

We have plenty of hope. The IWW was a powerful movement that was on a trajectory to overthrow American capitalism. It was successful because it was an organization without great leaders, just great militants. No matter how many organizers they lynched or arrested, the IWW kept coming back. In fact the IWW grew in size during and immediately after WWI. It was the added stress of the decentralist/centralist split that mortally wounded the IWW.
Leadership is not necessary to build a strong revolutionary movement; in fact it is a hinderance, as no one leader can truly represent the “best” line. All leaders have flaws, and leadership tends to magnify them. What we need are militants, organizers, and speakers. Common everyday people who commit to the struggle, but who understand that no matter their commitment, they don’t necessarily know better than any revolutionary. The state can kill and jail militants, but they are not irreplaceable. Leaders are.

While you talk of summing up and moving beyond the homophobic and misogynistic views of Maoists, you seem to ignore that these “wrong lines” are vibrant even today. We have to ask why these views persist in Maoist parties. How could the RCP stand against homosexuality for so long? Why did the Quebecois Maoists have such odd puritanical codes for cadres? If we look at Maoists parties across the globe, I think you’ll find that a strain of bourgeois puritanicalism exists in most of the cadre even today. Why is this?

I agree that their line cannot be written off. I DISAGREE with it, and the manner in which they summed it up. There is a tendency within the RCP (not new) to treat people with opposing views as little children that need to be reeducated, "struggled with",and not respect those views. There is nothing wrong in engaging with people with opposing views (as we are now doing), but it is the METHODOLOGY that is used that is critical.

Clearly a methodology so poor as to perpetuate homophobia, cannot bear good news for the rest of a party’s ideological positions. How could they do good work if they could not engage in critical discussion? The anti gay line is just the tip of the RCP iceberg, it signals that there’s a whole host of problems underneath. Methodology so bad to ignore the plight of homosexuals cannot produce anything but crap positions.

Im talking about the RCP's influence from the BPP on till now. There seriously was nothing at the time that rivaled what the RCP was doing, its many projects in proletarian (and other sections) neighborhoods, etc. From police brutality, to defending china from revisionism, they were a very important party. I dont mean to undermine other parties, but they did not meet up with the RCP (its line or leadership).

the IWW did have a large following (much larger than anything the RCP ever had), I never denied this. I am talking about the RCP, though.

I do not agree with this. The RCP has been marginal since its inception. You have not produced any evidence to show that the RCP was ever more or less active than other communist groupings. Where are these “many projects”? Why have I never heard of them? Does the RCP have 25+ year old tenants union like Boston FSRO? Did it place more militants in heavy industry than the SWP or the PLP? Is it’s anti brutality organization any larger than Copwatch? In all the movement histories I have read, the RCP and Avakian are peripheral figures, overshadowed by the other Leninist parties and anarchists. I know the RCP think’s its important, but no one on the far left ever agreed with them. It’s a big myth that the RCP line was ever worth a damn, a myth only those in the RCP orbit care to repeat.

I also find it a bit hard to talk you seriously when you call Avakian "spongebob". We dont need that sort of condescending talk. We need to engage what they have to say in a principled manner. In the past, he has had very important influence, even internationally. The polemics and speeches he made on defending China from the revisionist coup (deng xiaoping and clique) and uphold mao's revolutionary legacy have played an impact on turkish, nepali, and even indian maoists, who, in the time of this crisis between communism and revisionism, found his works to be refreshing and inspiring. Also, in a time when the movement found itself mired in economism, tradeunionism, and workerism, Avakian fought hard to determine the correct line on how to lead the masses in struggle achieve a communist consciousness. These are important things, and should not be overlooked.

The actual formation of the RCP emerged from the RU. I think, at this point, it is irrelevant where the members of the RU came from. The RU was where major line struggles were waged to form what is now the RCP.

Why don’t we call him spongebob? I mean the man is certifiably nuts. He has been in “hiding” for decades for no good reason outside of his total paranoia. Why should we respect a man who has created a deranged cult? Avakian’s writings really aren’t that big a deal. He’s just a guy who writes pretty mediocre theory. I doubt NPA militants, or Nepalese fighters really care too much about what he’s written. I doubt they would have spent the time to translate his works into their languages. For he has no credibility, he’s a total armchair. He’s been living outside the real world since the Deng protest. He’s not involved in any struggle and he doesn’t have an original perspective. No one cares about Bob Avakian. He’s a laughable cult character taken out of a bad movie. Let’s treat him like one.

It matters to understand where the RCP and the RU came from. The foundations of the RCP were laid in the sectarian infighting of SDS. The RCP is a product of multiple splits and faction fights. As a result it bears the marks of sectarianism, and cultism. That’s kind of why it came out with such a shitty methodology and such shitty practice. It’s not some grand party, it’s an amalgamation of various Leninist sectlets duking it out against all the other seclets.

Tell me, what would you suggest the comrades waging guerrilla warfare do? Why should they abandon this method? Because it is the correct one (for their conditions). It allows them to attack quickly, disperse, retrieve enemy weapons and needed objects, and survive from the support of the people (which they have).

Why do you insist that there is some major glitch in maoism that makes it irrelevant? How can an ideology be irrelevant when it has the real support of millions of oppressed peoples around the world.

Well since I am not a guerilla fighter I have limited suggestions. However I would point to the EZLN as something of an alternative. They are guerilla fighters, but they found a way to at least build limited liberated zones without massive state incursion. They also have been able to break out of their jungle bases. The key is for the people in Maoist zones to rethink things. Obviously they can’t fight the war forever. Obviously something is wrong, something is not working. They are spinning their wheels, getting nowhere or declining in power and influence. Obviously they do not hold the people’s imagination anymore, that is if they ever did.

Maoism remains irrelevant as a revolutionary movement for this very reason. While it is a relevant political movement, its ability to make revolution is clearly not there anymore. Guerilla armies have gotten them nowhere, and the Nepalese people’s war has netted them a seat in capitalist government.

The Maoists ONLY had 30% of the vote? That is a huge margin! Do you know how many parties competed in the CA elections? Too many to count. It is relative, and you do look at this wrong. The fact of the matter is that no party in Nepal shares the support that the Maoists do (and for good reasons: they give the masses hope of a better rev future).

So, the naxals have not "broken from their jungle". Please show us how this is negation of maoism. As far as I am concerned, it is due to the particularities of indian society (and the lines within the indian maoist party). If maoism was at fault for this, then how did the Nepalis break free? How did the chinese break free? Come on now, we need to dig deeper. I dont think this negates guerrilla warfare either, it has a lot more to do with the horrible conditions that they operate under, and need to either develop better methods, or sharpen what they are doing now. In india, there are several deathsquads that are state supported and brutalize the maoists and their support areas. What this means is that, since they are not an official part of the state, they can commit atrocities without legal implications for them (but lethal implications of the indian maoists and their supporters).

I know very little (if anything) about the peruvian maoist movement, so Ill leave it at that. The only thing I want to guard against is believing bourgeois propaganda against them (they are hateful believe it or not).

If you look at the election results the Maoists received 30 percent, while the unified Marxist Leninist party received 22 percent and the Nepalese Congress party received 23 percent. These two parties are less than 10 percentage points away from the CPN(M). Clearly there are significant blocks of the population that do not support the Maoists. What you and others forget is that the Maoists never reached the critical mass necessary to overthrow the government. The People’s War was a failure. It took an agreement with the 7 party alliance to push the Royals out of power. It took a multi-partisan general strike to overthrow the monarchy, where previous Maoist general strikes had failed.

The Naxalites have failed in any attempt to break out of the forest. They have had some 30 years to do so, and all they have to show for it is declining influence and declining numbers. While this does not negate Maoism it does not bode well for Maoism either. If the People’s War is failing, and continuing to fail, what use is it? If Maoism cannot reach out to the Indian or Filipino working class, how will they win? There are deathsquads and repression throughout the third world, but that is no excuse for a record of failure. If the people’s war is not working, they must do something else.

You could do well to learn about the Sendero Luminoso campañero. If you plan on organizing the Latino working class to the cause of Maoism, the SL will be foremost in their minds. The problem is the SL was murderous by its own admission. They openly stated their use of terror on civilian populations, including children.

Radical in that it seeks to break from EVERY form of oppression IN BOTH theory AND practice. China, Nepal, india....communes, collectives, woman guerillas and organizations, etc., etc. Not just in pretty words, but real action.

Anarchism has done so in theory and practice. In Spain there were communes, collectives, women guerillas and organizations. This is absurd, Maoism is in no way “more radical” or revolutionary. You cling to this Maoist chauvinism, but you have not proven it any more or less revolutionary than others. In many ways I think it’s less. For example, its support of Stalin is gravely counter revolutionary.

When I speak of liberalism, I mean democrats, and the ideology against revolution and rev leaders (they say we cant have socialism because leaders inevitably get corrupted.

I dont know what you are trying to accomplish in your 2nd paragraph. I never implied that marx, lenin, or mao, or any revolutionary leaders are perfect. I just say that they emerge in the heat of class struggle and represent the highest aspirations of the masses (in theory and practice). What accounts for the fact that the chinese people loved and uphold chairman mao? Are they stupid for doing so? Or do they understand that mao and the CCP led them in revolution to overthrow their horrible conditions and lead a new life? We need to be fair here.

Kropotkin had and has followers, thats not the point. And whats wrong with the little red book? It is a political book that holds the most important sayings by Mao. So? Some people can use it in a wrong, religious way, but we need to NOT do that.

. I clearly am not a democrat or a reformist. I imagine I engage in as much revolutionary activity as you, possibly more. Yet I sound bourgeois? How is it bourgeois to believe in a revolution without venerated cult leaders? If you criticize those who are skeptical of sheep like adherence to political lines, you’ll never become a potent revolutionary force. And that’s what it boils down to. You’re using bourgeois as a cuss word against those who disagree with you.

You never claimed that these leaders were perfect but you implied that they were perfect enough. Perfect enough to be the absolute best on all matters of theory. These people were never that extraordinary. They were successful in grabbing control of the reigns of power, and were thus capable of building popular support through said power, and denigrating their ideological enemies. Cults of personality are built from coercion, usually from the barrel of a gun. You don’t hear much about Mao today for a reason, he’s no longer in power. Mao’s politics haven’t proven better than other Chinese revolutionaries. The man presided over not one but two social disasters precipitated by his own theories. Yet you uphold his contribution as paramount above all others.

While Kropotkin had ideological admirers, he never was the admired leader of a state. He was a nice old man who wrote some good books and was a good scientist. But he never had followers, there are no Kropotkinites around today, and there weren’t any in the past. Meanwhile followers of Mao carried around the red book, treating it like a bible. You don’t find it disturbing that is was essentially required to have a copy? Only societies based on dogmatic allegiance treat a book like that.

What you describe in those forms of leadership, is bourgeois leadership, as opposed to communist leadership. Let me give you an example. I am reading a book called Fanshen by William Hinton. It is about the agrarian revolution in China, centered in a village where the author lives and takes part of this agrarian reform as a member of a work team. At a certain stage of this complex process, the village cadres (leaders of the agrarian movement) began to take on excesses, mistreat the people, and basically, go against the maoist (communist) spirit of 'serve the people'. Some cadres beat those who would not attend meetings, and those who disobeyed them for whatever reasons. Other cadres took liberties with women (many women who did not consent) and robbed things from the people and from warehouses, things that were to be used to distribute amongst the people as a part of the movement. When these problems and excesses became widespread (meaning, around the county and nation), the CCP called upon the villages to form peasant delegations that would bring together their cadres, analyze their past, crimes, and shortcomings, and decide whether they would continue as cadres or not! Think about what this means. It is was a method of mobilizing the masses to stand up against wrong (bourgeois) methods of leadership and demand that the cadres act like true servants of the people. The result was that the cadres experienced a drastic change in their consciousness and practice. Seeing all those peasants together, indicting their cadres made a powerful impact on the cadres themselves, and created a remolding effect. This created a higher degree of unity in the village, within the cadres, and was crucial to defeat the Kuomintang.

Does this make sense? I think it makes a nice distinction between bourgeois leadership and what needs to be rev leadership.

This does not show me much of anything. You have stated that cadres began to be extremely abusive of their power. Another section of the party leadership decided that it wanted to get rid of these guys and mobilized the masses to create new cadre. Does this not sound familiar to you? We call these things elections in America. When a politician becomes grossly corrupt and incompetent, we pick new ones. Then they become corrupt too and we get rid of them. It’s not the individual cadres that are the problem; it’s the creation of said cadre that is the problem. It’s the institution of coercive leadership that creates these problems. You can call this “communist” leadership rather than bourgeois leadership, but it’s still leadership. All you’re doing is perpetuating the good king myth. The myth that we can choose kings who will listen to us and treat us nicely and that when their interests are in conflict with our wellbeing, he/she will certainly never choose to harm us. That was Mao, the good all powerful lord who treated the peasants nicely.

This is an absolute fallacy. All societies throughout human history that based themselves on the extraction of surplus value from one group to enrich another, whether that be serfs, slaves, or workers, has been based on a system of hierarchical coercive violence. Human societies with coercive hierarchies are not equal societies…ever. It simply doesn’t accord with material reality. When you give one group enormous power over another, they will use that power to materially benefit themselves.

No assertions at all. There is no doubt that leaders emerged in the movements that you named above, if not, there would have been no uprisings in the first place. Someone had to get together to coordinate meetings, spread info, talk about the implications, and overall lead the struggle. This is crucial; we NEED this leadership to emerge.

And yet no one has been born out by history as some great shining leader. Do you know why? Because revolution is not driven by leaders but by committed militants. People as common as you and men. The Hungarian revolution had plenty of militants, but not exalted leader, and that’s because they saw no need for one. The collective strength of the activity of the working class was enough to build a mass revolt.

Marx is the father of scientific socialism. It is not attributable to prodhoun, just like Darwin's theories are not attributable to those he learned from (yes, all philosophers learned from their past colleagues and incorporated that into their theories). Does this not make them original or something?

Marx is the father scientific socialism. He also got the majority of his theories from other writers. The two hallmarks of Marxism, alienation and the LTV, are both taken from other theorists. And in the case of LTV it was directly stolen from Proudhon. Given this I don’t believe that Marx is somehow indispensable to history. Class struggle is a natural occurrence, and someone would have synthesized something similar sooner rather than later.

You see how trivas called you a bourgeois liberal? When you say things like "lenin rode roughshod the revolt" or whatever, you cant deny that he has reason to call you that. Because that is what it is. Btw, the term "all power to the soviets!" was a formulation put forward by the Bolsheviks and Lenin. Had it not been for their leadership, there would have been no soviet movement that had the power to overthrow the Tsar. Their organizing, their main slogan of "peace, land, and bread" encapsulated what the masses in Russia desperately needed and wanted. It brought them together and gave them guidance in their struggle. Even if lenin or the bolsheviks had not existed, another leader (or leaders) would have emerged in the soviet movement, and most likely taken it to a different level (most like parliamentarianism).

The Bolsheviks did implement one-man management. This was not good, but was a response to the extremely adverse material conditions facing the young socialist state (civil war, underdevelopment, huge human losses, etc). This does not change the fundamental proletarian class nature of their state, either. He also implemented the NEP. So? Does this make him a tyrant? Lets just say that Lenin was in touch with the conditions they faced, and these were necessary steps to go forward (one step back, two steps forward).

How is calling a spade a spade bourgeois? According to historical fact Lenin was a dude who liked power, took power, and then used violence to enforce his vision of communism on the working class. The Soviet movement was not a Leninist invention but something that appeared all over Russia as part of an outpouring of revolutionary sentiment. The soviets of Ukraine obviously didn’t come from the Leninists. There were hardly any Bolshies living in Ukraine. The Bolsheviks took that revolutionary sentiment and rode it into power. We have no idea what would have happened had Lenin died earlier, but I have no doubt that they couldn’t have done any worse. Look what happened. Purges, mass jailings, secret police, conscription etc it was a big failure.

The implementation of one man management was an open attempt to control the activity of working class and force it in accordance with Bolshevik policy. That’s why they outlawed all other political groups. That’s why democratically self managed factories were told to accept bosses. These workers were well and ready to run things on their own, but it was the Bolshevik line to eliminate shop democracy, to outlaw other voices, and implement taylorism. Taylorism for christ sakes! Lenin had a hard on for one of the most anti working class ideas ever devised, bviously he was never in touch with the condition Russia faced. He certainly never starved like the average Russian. He certainly never worked in a factory. In fact I don’t think he worked for a wage a day in his life.

And, as Ive tried to stress SO many times, socialism EMERGES from capitalism. In the first years, and far after that as well, socialism is a PROCESS to defeat what is left of capitalism in their society. That is precisely WHY all these problems come up during a revolution and under socialism, because of capitalism's BIRTHMARKS that need to be overcome. If, after the revolution, socialism was a perfect society with no remnants from capitalism, none of these problems would come up. In fact, we could have communism without having socialism (and as long as im dreaming id also like to be able to fly)! But it is not possible, and every socialist society with have its people and leadership face a difficult struggle to overcome capitalism in its many forms that emerges in socialism (direct counterrevolution, ideological struggle, imperialist encirclement, etc.)

In terms of stalin, I think he made many mistakes (and mao recognized that and wrote polemics dedicated to this very issue). But this is not what this is about, we can talk about this is another thread. I am a maoist, but I am not dogmatic.

Socialism is a lot of things to a lot of people dude. In the Marxist ideal of revolution socialism is the intervening period between capitalism and communism. Anarchists do not see socialism as a period of state ownership and authoritarian leadership. While there will always be a messy period of revolution, counterrevolution and rebuilding, this does not require state control or authoritarian leadership. In fact, history has demonstrated that this is a recipe for failure. You can’t eliminate capitalism and the state if you organize “socialist” production along capitalist lines, and if you structure “socialist” political power along capitalist lines. State socialism then is just a perpetuation of all other surplus value societies. It has a large class of productive laborers and a small class of organized owners who benefit from the laborers and have the force to discipline them. This has happened in every state socialist society.

Why is it so hard to organize a socialist society via the federation of worker’s and community councils? Why don’t we use worker’s militas under direct control of the workers themselves? These birthmarks can be dealt with prior to the revolution, and those that cannot, must be struggled against in a way that reinforces communist organization and principles, not the other way around.

I’m glad you see Stalin as a horrid guy. However do you still uphold the majority of his rule?

I find it hard to respond to you, many times, because your arguments dont have substance, and in fact, take up CENTRAL ideas of bourgeois anti-communism.

For example, you seem to think that Lenin implemented one-man management in Russia out of the desire to harm his people. The reality is that it was a response to conditions, and to protect overall state interests. Worker control at every level of soviet industry was simply not tenable.

As an another example, in China, a new method of worker control was implemented. It was called the "3 in 1" method. It was the relationship between the worker, manager and party cadre that all took part in management AND productive labor. Look into it.

In terms of "good king" (whatever that means) I refer you once again above to my paragraph on socialism and capitalism. What you say just makes absolutely NO sense. How can one continue building socialism in a semi-feudal nation like China without leaders, or without someone so experienced and loved like Mao? This is whole thing about leadership and bosses has become very silly on your part, it has no bearing on reality AT ALL. What was important was there was a huge struggle to eliminate bureaucracy and wrong methods of leadership, in the cultural revolution. You can call both the GPCR and GLF "disasters", buts thats also the same thing that is said in high school textbooks in the US. You need to be careful with taking up anti-communist theory (because this is what you are doing). The GPCR was NOT a disaster, it was a huge mass struggle to defeat the capitalist-roaders within the party (leaders who were objectively taking up lines that led back to the old society). The red guards were not detachments created by Mao, they were grass roots, student-created movements.

To learn more about the communist, revolutionary view of the GPCR, read this detailed and important article (at least skim it man): http://mlmrsg.com/index.php?option=c...id=12&Itemid=1.

For the GLF: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

Certainly, the state must be abolished, and so must the leadership that goes along with it. But it is a PROCESS that socialist societies (china in the main) have taken up.

My arguments have plenty substance. Point out where this substance is missing. Also point out how I take up central ideas of bourgeois anti communism. Otherwise stop this “no substance, bourgeois liberalism” nonsense. I’m sorry that my arguments are different from what you are used to from other revolutionaries, but I am an anarchist not a Marxist, so I hold both capitalism and state socialism to be equally reprehensible. I criticize things like the Great Leap Forward because they were disasters by any type of analysis, there was a famine, there were back yard steel furnaces, and there was deforestation. This is basic stuff that only Maoist apologists really contend.

Lenin implemented the boss system because he sought to consolidate his grip on power. This is why he forced one man management on areas that were already operating under self management. This is why he supported things like conscription, which clearly shows a lack of popular support for his revolution.

The 3 in 1 method you mention is no different than the “co-management” efforts of various capitalists enterprises. Allowing workers input into how they are exploited does not make for worker’s control. In fact it is usually just another way to mask managerial control and worker exploitation.

My points about leadership and bosses make perfect sense. They accord with reality for any member of the working class. Working for a boss breeds a basic distrust of unjustified authority. Just because Mao preached socialism, doesn’t make him socialist. He still lived off the backs of the workers and peasants of china, as did the rest of the party bureaucrats. They were bosses, and they lost all credibility when they became so.

Now you may characterize the CR as some sort of grand mass struggle. But it was more or less, Mao’s shot at re taking control of the party. Mao had rightly lost most power after the GLF and so he needed to scramble back into position. The CR was a great way to do so. It wasn’t a bottom up struggle but a carefully orchestrated, top down mobilization. Mao is the one who told the kids to go organize. Mao’s the one who told the police and army to let the kids beat the shit out of people. Mao’s the one who told them to all go farm pigs. Come on. This was a power grab.

nah. they wish to LEAD the masses to make history. This comes from a correct, materialist point of view that the masses make their history, but, in order to make revolution, leadership will emerge (and is necessary).

Lead, harness, it all sounds like semantics games to me. The masses are passive participants in a great play where Mao and company are the playwrights. Justify it with whatever “materialist point of view” or whatever Marxist mumbo jumbo you want, but yall aren’t too interested in the people and their wants, just what you think they want.

Of course it all ties into the third world, we live in an imperialist nation! It is an objective fact that a section of the working class (mainly the white, unionized sector) is bought off by the super profits of the imperialist ruling class. This creates divisions between the lower sections (black and latino) and the better off section, that is def (at this point) less revolutionary and more conservative. And it is not just the minority labor aristocracy of skilled workers that has privileges that produce conservative politics. In the U.S., for many historical reasons, the relative privilege and “crumbs” of imperialism have an influence far beyond the labor aristocracy alone. And, in fact, there are many more distinctions and stratifications than just “labor aristocracy.” The summation of “going lower and deeper” was a summation of the political problem of the middle strata of industrial workers (hardly just the much smaller stratum of skilled workers know as “labor aristocrats.”)

We support the communist revolution in south east asia. What is SO wrong with this? lol, are we NOT supposed to support them and learn from them? Is it OUR fault that the majority of mass revolutionary struggles erupt in the impoverished third world countries?

First off, stop using “going lower and deeper” and “rev theory” “labor aristocrat” etc. All the Maoist jargon is very silly, and non Maoists don’t get it. I mean who the fuck is a labor aristocrat? A union pipe fitter? Sounds like an excuse to remain irrelevant to me.

And this is where first world Maoism begins to fall off the deep end of pointless political meandering. If you think that unionized workers are bought off by superprofits you should give up all hope of first world revolution anyway. Unionized workers are paid more because they fight more. Black, white, brown or yellow, doesn’t matter. They get more cause they struggle. This is something basic that you should already understand. It makes perfect sense that the better off workers should prove to be quite militant, because they have a history of struggle and the confidence of past victories. Further it stands to reason that as neoliberalism ravages the wages of better sections of the working class, those sections will fight back with great ferocity, because they feel entitled to those wages. They got degrees, and qualifications and training, and they’re not happy about making shit.

The working poor can be a potent revolutionary force, but just because they have little to lose doesn’t mean that they are more revolutionary than better off workers. Because they have little to lose, they are also liable to fall prey to desperation and defeat. When school bullies beat up a kid over and over and over, sometimes the kid fights back, but most of the time the kid just takes it. He has rationalized his oppression and accepted his fate. The hyper exploited are similar in this respect.

The RCP, has in general been a failure (especially according to its own stated goals). This has been mainly the inability establish roots amongst the people. Ive said this many times.

What you say about the better off workers makes no little sense either. The poorer workers in the US (black and latino) and definitely more revolutionary! What sort of tradition do with the white, better off, and unionized workers have for revolutionary struggle? None. How can a special "skill" make them revolt? Mao said, "where there is oppression, there is resistance", and he is correct. Now, these better off workers ARE oppressed, but we need to look at the objective class structure in the US as well.

Glad to see that you agree. Why are we arguing about the RCP then? If they are a massive and utter failure, who cares about them or what I call their Chairman?

You’re being patently absurd with those sorts of silly assertions. As I stated above, better off workers tend to have a history of victory and struggle, and a greater sense of entitlement. White workers made up the majority of the labor movement in the US. The IWW was multiracial, but white by a large margin. The CIO was mostly white. The Hormel meat packing strike was mostly white. SDS was mostly white. CPUSA was mostly white. The Battle of Blair Mountain, the largest domestic insurrection since the Civil War, was mostly white. White workers and union workers have been plenty militant in the US. Besides, if your argument is told water it should apply to Europe as well, and just about every revolution and revolt was majority white over there.

Conversely worse off workers tend to have a history of defeat and desperation. While the utter deprivation they live in pushes them towards revolt, the history of defeat, and the amount of violence used to crush them can also push them towards quiet acquiescence.

You get it wrong, again.

The maoists encourage capitalist development in their nation, because THEY DONT HAVE IT and they NEED it. The conditions simply are NOT THERE to create socialism (much less maintain it).

Did capitalism win out in china because there was a small, state-capitalist sector along with the larger planned economy? No. This was needed in china, this industrialization was crucial to the development of socialism.

The CPN M has started to devlop communes- numbering 30-40 families, where there is no private property, labor and harvests are shared. The commune's have departments responsiable for health, education, security, culture, and development. The communes are small in number and experimental. Numerically there are many more co-operatives. My understanding of the co-operatives is that land is still owned by the indivdual or family, labor is somewhat shared (meaning the individual works their land with help,and gives help to others). The co-operatives also have eateries, health departments, manufacturing units, schools, and health posts that serve the body of people participating.

If it were possiable to tap into the potential hydropower with these resources on hand, I'm sure the comrades would have already done it. Nepal is dependent on foriegn countries (india) for basic building materials such as concrete. Even with all the revolutionary spirt and collective labor of the masses- at this point- it's just not enough to develop hydropower operations on a large scale.
At this point the CPN M is seeking foriegn resources and investment to carry this out- and they want to do it on terms that are fair where the Nepelese masses are not exploited. Dr. Bhatarai has proposed a plan for investments following the BOOT model. Investors BUILD the hydropower plants, OWN them for a time period, OPERATE them and pay for their upkeep, and then TRANSFER the plants to Nepals ownership. Don't know if there are any takers just yet.

The fact is that the Maoists want to create an atmosphere where capitalist investment can begin and be a part of Nepal. But, we need to understand the Maoist theory of New Democratic Revolution here. The first stage of the revolution is NOT socialist, it is anti-imperialist and anti-feudal. Most of Nepal is NOT EVEN semi-feudal, it is disconnected from cash flow, outside of commodity exchange.

NDR is a process that opens up the road to either socialism or capitalism. The immediate problems lie in completing the new democratic revolution and is so crucial for us and the whole world (anti-monarchical revolution, federal republic, ndr).

First let’s discuss China. China was large enough and had enough soviet support that state capitalism could always keep small scale, tiny private capitalism in check. Small scale capitalism was not the key problem to Maoist China. Unlike Nepal, which has to lie prostrate to gain development capital, China could look to native small scale capitalists. Though my latter critique of “when the workers fight back” still applies. I’m sure Maoists broke plenty of strikes. Anyway, Chinese state socialism failed because it was state capitalism, not socialism. State socialism is organized to produce surplus value for the managerial class, and the managerial class has the ability to discipline workers, workers who are still working in alienated labor, as well exploited labor. Thus the shift to capitalism proper was no bigee, since it was just changing from one type of exploitative planned economy to another kind of exploitative planned economy.

Now onto Nepal

I actually think I get it spot on with Nepal. You just keep skirting around the issue. You keep saying that Nepal needs to develop its infrastructure and that it needs to get hydropower and it needs concrete and it needs this and that and everything else in between. And while that is all well and good you keep forgetting the main problem here. No matter how much you want to develop Nepal with the help of the capitalists, the capitalists aren’t about to let you do it. You want your cake and to eat it too, but you simply can’t.

The Nepalese Maoists have a very simple choice to make. They can open up the country to investment, offer very attractive offers and be happy with a democratic, bourgeois republic OR they can build socialism without capitalist development at all. There’s no middle road here. I know you think there is, but there is not. Nepal is a very small country in between two world powers. It’s a country that is high up in the Himalayas and expensive to transport to. No capitalist in his or her right mind is going to invest capital in Nepal if they think the Maoists are going to nationalize it. They can make plenty of money, and have a whole lot fewer headaches producing things in Vietnam, or India or Bangladesh. Fewer transit costs, and less risk.

The only way the Maoists can avoid this problem is to offer extremely pro business offers to prospective capitalists. They have to provide Export Processing Zones where labor laws, pollution regulations, and common decency don’t apply. They have to provide large subsidies, with money they don’t have, to these corporations so that the transit costs are cheaper and easier. More importantly, they have to ensure labor peace so that these skittish investors don’t get anxious and leave prematurely.

This is where it gets hairy. With no labor regulations, with no pollution standards, and with rampant sexual harassment, will the workers of these plants fight back? I think the answer is obviously yes. Workers will begin to fight back, they will go on strike, they will form unions, and they might even burn down factories. At which the Maoists are faced with another choice. Do they support the workers and end capitalist development, or do they scab on the strikers? This is the key to understanding the problem of Maoist sweatshops. No matter how ideologically diligent these people are, they will be forced to become just as bad as any rapacious boss. If they want to use capitalism to develop Nepal, then they must abandon communism, because it’s not coming.

[Rawthentic]

Become one with the masses? Huh? I already am part of the masses, I’m working class. Anarchism professes to build a vision of liberation from the organic experiences of working people. Dual power seeks to provide, by and for the working class, everyday needs of working people and to do so in way that emphasizes the ability for working class self organization. That sounds a lot like the mass line to me. We’re the mass and we’re giving to the masses.

And while you may think Maoism is a valuable guide, you would do well to investigate other strains of radical thought. I got a copy of the little red book, I read it, and moved on. You should at least read Kropotkin, or Malatesta or Bakunin or Goldman etc.

When I say "become one with the masses", it means to serve them and fight for their interests. You being "working class" has nothing to do with it.

You still don't understand what the mass line is (because you clearly havent read Mao, who formulated this concept as it is known now):

To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become
conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail. . . . There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.

- Mao

that's the mass line, it doesnt mean that you give welfare to the people, and has nothing to do with "dual power."

We have plenty of hope. The IWW was a powerful movement that was on a trajectory to overthrow American capitalism. It was successful because it was an organization without great leaders, just great militants. No matter how many organizers they lynched or arrested, the IWW kept coming back. In fact the IWW grew in size during and immediately after WWI. It was the added stress of the decentralist/centralist split that mortally wounded the IWW.
Leadership is not necessary to build a strong revolutionary movement; in fact it is a hinderance, as no one leader can truly represent the “best” line. All leaders have flaws, and leadership tends to magnify them. What we need are militants, organizers, and speakers. Common everyday people who commit to the struggle, but who understand that no matter their commitment, they don’t necessarily know better than any revolutionary. The state can kill and jail militants, but they are not irreplaceable. Leaders are.

While you talk of summing up and moving beyond the homophobic and misogynistic views of Maoists, you seem to ignore that these “wrong lines” are vibrant even today. We have to ask why these views persist in Maoist parties. How could the RCP stand against homosexuality for so long? Why did the Quebecois Maoists have such odd puritanical codes for cadres? If we look at Maoists parties across the globe, I think you’ll find that a strain of bourgeois puritanicalism exists in most of the cadre even today. Why is this?

god, are you really telling me that the IWW had no leaders? What about Haywood, DeLeon, and Debs!? All you are doing is sounding silly when you say there were no leaders. And I am sure there were committed militants, they are also needed, but just as leaders are as well.

I never said those who represent the line (this means, because you dont know, the policies and theories of an organization or ideology) were perfect. I've always maintained that they are prone to mistakes and are human. This is just a strawman argument on your part, and there is little to add to this. The reason leaders come forward, become respected by the people and their peers, is because of their understanding and experience. I dont mean to put them on an altar as if they were gods, so stop coming up with that. You can keep saying that a rev movement does not need such people, but the reality is that, even in "anti-authoritarian" movements, leaders and groups of leaders will emerge to give guidance to the struggle.

The reason wrong lines on homosexuality have existed in Maoist parties, has everything to do with the conditions they were operating in, and a wrong assessment of those conditions and how they could be overcome. I'm not defending this wrong line, I am correctly saying that we need to drop that, analyze it, sum it up, and create new positions on homosexuality. We cannot let go of Maoism because of this, it would mean the end of hope for millions of people.

Methodology so bad to ignore the plight of homosexuals cannot produce anything but crap positions.

which is why I say, change the incorrect methodology amongst the people and yourselves. Do you know what methodology is? For example, the RCP's is to view the people as complicit in the crimes of US imperialism, thereby negating the role of communists in creating a revolutionary movement and consciousness. it goes against the maoist spirit of "serve the people."

I do not agree with this. The RCP has been marginal since its inception. You have not produced any evidence to show that the RCP was ever more or less active than other communist groupings. Where are these “many projects”? Why have I never heard of them? Does the RCP have 25+ year old tenants union like Boston FSRO? Did it place more militants in heavy industry than the SWP or the PLP? Is it’s anti brutality organization any larger than Copwatch? In all the movement histories I have read, the RCP and Avakian are peripheral figures, overshadowed by the other Leninist parties and anarchists. I know the RCP think’s its important, but no one on the far left ever agreed with them. It’s a big myth that the RCP line was ever worth a damn, a myth only those in the RCP orbit care to repeat.

im not the one to say that they have a following, or are a serious communist organization. They no longer are. I am talking about the past, and the influence they have had nationally (and even internationally). It doesnt matter who put more workers in heavy industry, that doesnt make revolution, and niether does having a tenants union. That does lead to reformism, though, because what it does is it concentrates on the immediate oppression of the people, not the overall systemic picture of oppression and the need for radical change.

Im not here to defend the RCP, so you can just google something about their past and find out yourself.

Why don’t we call him spongebob? I mean the man is certifiably nuts. He has been in “hiding” for decades for no good reason outside of his total paranoia. Why should we respect a man who has created a deranged cult? Avakian’s writings really aren’t that big a deal. He’s just a guy who writes pretty mediocre theory. I doubt NPA militants, or Nepalese fighters really care too much about what he’s written. I doubt they would have spent the time to translate his works into their languages. For he has no credibility, he’s a total armchair. He’s been living outside the real world since the Deng protest. He’s not involved in any struggle and he doesn’t have an original perspective. No one cares about Bob Avakian. He’s a laughable cult character taken out of a bad movie. Let’s treat him like one.

It matters to understand where the RCP and the RU came from. The foundations of the RCP were laid in the sectarian infighting of SDS. The RCP is a product of multiple splits and faction fights. As a result it bears the marks of sectarianism, and cultism. That’s kind of why it came out with such a shitty methodology and such shitty practice. It’s not some grand party, it’s an amalgamation of various Leninist sectlets duking it out against all the other seclets.

It still is hard to take you with any degree of seriousness. But whatever.

The reason (according to the party) he has been in hiding is due to the protests he participated in against Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s ( i believe), where he was indicted on trumped up charges, and had the choice of either serving life in prison or going into exile. So he went into exile. But whatever, thats not the point either, this is a matter of line, and, he has made important contributions. For example, the need to break free from communist theory as it is today, to "chart the uncharted course", the need to overcome workerism, economism, and those incorrect philosophies that ultimately lead to reformism, all in favor of a correct, communist understanding of how the consciousness of the people is transformed. Those are important things.

We cannot be pragmatists (as is typical in americans) and say the RCP is irrelevant and completely worthless because of what it is now. Avakian made important contributions back in the day, mainly associated with defending the communist legacy of Mao against revisionism.

Well since I am not a guerilla fighter I have limited suggestions. However I would point to the EZLN as something of an alternative. They are guerilla fighters, but they found a way to at least build limited liberated zones without massive state incursion. They also have been able to break out of their jungle bases. The key is for the people in Maoist zones to rethink things. Obviously they can’t fight the war forever. Obviously something is wrong, something is not working. They are spinning their wheels, getting nowhere or declining in power and influence. Obviously they do not hold the people’s imagination anymore, that is if they ever did.

Well since I am not a guerilla fighter I have limited suggestions. However I would point to the EZLN as something of an alternative. They are guerilla fighters, but they found a way to at least build limited liberated zones without massive state incursion. They also have been able to break out of their jungle bases. The key is for the people in Maoist zones to rethink things. Obviously they can’t fight the war forever. Obviously something is wrong, something is not working. They are spinning their wheels, getting nowhere or declining in power and influence. Obviously they do not hold the people’s imagination anymore, that is if they ever did.

Maoism remains irrelevant as a revolutionary movement for this very reason. While it is a relevant political movement, its ability to make revolution is clearly not there anymore. Guerilla armies have gotten them nowhere, and the Nepalese people’s war has netted them a seat in capitalist government.

this is wrong on several levels:

the EZLN are not revolutionaries, not the least bit. Their program (or ideology if they have one) is to create liberated zones WITHIN capitalism, never wanting to or deciding the need to overthrow the capitalist state to truly build a liberating society. In short, the Zapatistas will not create revolution, while the Nepalis and Indians are at least in the conscious process of DOING SO.

I dont understand how something "is wrong" with maoism because the guerrilla wars are so protracted. yeah, they are long, difficult, and there are many setbacks, but they should not and will not ditch maoism because of this (once again with the pragmatism). In the third world, in such countries that have a wide gulf between town and country, guerrilla warfare is an effective method to build base areas in the countryside, and then amass forces to encircle the cities (this is what was done in China and Nepal). This is the basic strategy in these countries, with diff particularities within each of those countries.

If guerrilla war is so irrelevant and useless, how did the Maoists take over the countryside and surround Kathmandu lol? There was no other method to make revolution. Urban warfare to the expense of rural guerrilla warfare was not a possibility, due to the size of the countryside and its ability to serve as revolutionary base areas.

The Nepalese peoples war has allowed the Maoists to begin the complex process of new democratic revolution and anti-feudal reform, which opens up the nation to capitalist relations (thats what happens when you defeat feudalism).

If you look at the election results the Maoists received 30 percent, while the unified Marxist Leninist party received 22 percent and the Nepalese Congress party received 23 percent. These two parties are less than 10 percentage points away from the CPN(M). Clearly there are significant blocks of the population that do not support the Maoists. What you and others forget is that the Maoists never reached the critical mass necessary to overthrow the government. The People’s War was a failure. It took an agreement with the 7 party alliance to push the Royals out of power. It took a multi-partisan general strike to overthrow the monarchy, where previous Maoist general strikes had failed.

The Naxalites have failed in any attempt to break out of the forest. They have had some 30 years to do so, and all they have to show for it is declining influence and declining numbers. While this does not negate Maoism it does not bode well for Maoism either. If the People’s War is failing, and continuing to fail, what use is it? If Maoism cannot reach out to the Indian or Filipino working class, how will they win? There are deathsquads and repression throughout the third world, but that is no excuse for a record of failure. If the people’s war is not working, they must do something else.

You could do well to learn about the Sendero Luminoso campañero. If you plan on organizing the Latino working class to the cause of Maoism, the SL will be foremost in their minds. The problem is the SL was murderous by its own admission. They openly stated their use of terror on civilian populations, including children.

Actually, the Maoists had 38% of the vote, and the other countless parties received the rest. Relative to the number of parties there are in Nepal, and the population as well, it is a huge margin, overwhelmingly in support of the Maoists (and lets remember that there are also reactionaries and other strata that oppose the Maoists due to their interests).

The people's war was a failure? How is that even possible? I dont understand how someone can SERIOUSLY say that. If it weren't for the peoples war, there would NEVER have been an election and the monarchy would NEVER have been overthrown. That is an objective fact. It is the movement that pushed forward all the teeming contradictions in Nepal and led to what we are witnessing today. Not to mention the incredible transformation that the Nepalese countryside witnessed. The seven party alliance came because of the war and everything it had done and meant, thats why the monarchy was overthrown. That alliance would have meant nothing without the peoples war.

Your take on the indian revolution is also incorrect. The Maoists hold vast areas in India, have more than 28,000 soldiers (lets remember this is guerrilla war). Here's what G.N. Saibaba from the Revolutionary Democratic Front had to say:

The Maoist movement in India is not confined to the backward areas. It’s a vast movement, and includes the “developed” areas. Maoists work both in the countryside and the cities. The government says that the Maoists are active in 15 out of 28 states. And these include the major states. The Union Home Ministry says that 167 districts out total 600 districts in the country are covered by Maoists. This is a little less than 1/3 of India. The Maoists in India follow the New Democratic Revolutionary method proved successful in China under the leadership of Mao. This method follows that the revolutionary movement must put priority on working in the areas where the state is weak. The Maoists work in the backward regions to smash the local reactionaries’ power and establish people’s power. They build revolutionary mass bases in these backward areas. This doesn’t mean that they don’t also work in the cities. In fact, in the Congress of the CPI (Maoist) held in January/February 2007, they decided to increase their work in the urban areas. They have produced a new document concerning work in the urban areas that analyses the work done in the last thirty years. This document sets out a strategy for developing the work in the urban areas...At the same time the Maoists participate in developing a huge movement in the urban areas among the intelligentsia, students, women and the middle classes. Maoist cadres and leaders who have been working in the urban areas also are arrested, harassed and killed.
Maoists also work among the coal miners in a big way. There are vast coal mines in many regions in India. You can see, the Maoists work in many industrial areas all over the country, though their concentration of work proceeds from the rural areas.
In fact the CPI (Maoist) leads the single largest mass movement in India. The Central and local governments’ response is an indicator to the vastness of the movement. The Central Government has formed a Coordination Centre together with 14 state governments. They are cooperating to mobilise security forces and to gather intelligence about the movements of the Maoists. They have armed a huge military network. They have monthly meetings of this Centre. A large number of military forces are engaged against the Maoist movement. This also indicates the strength of the Maoist movement..."

Thats the reality of the indian maoist movement, far different than what you characterized it as.

btw, the latino working class does not know about the SL. They probably dont care either. Im sure they would care more about our organizing for a better world, and, if this question comes up, we would talk it with them, tell them to study it, and not fall for bourgeois lies against it.

Anarchism has done so in theory and practice. In Spain there were communes, collectives, women guerillas and organizations. This is absurd, Maoism is in no way “more radical” or revolutionary. You cling to this Maoist chauvinism, but you have not proven it any more or less revolutionary than others. In many ways I think it’s less. For example, its support of Stalin is gravely counter revolutionary.

Yes, anarchism had its glory in Spain, but that was about it. There was no seizure of power, no revolutionary society, unlike the chinese, who made the most radical revolution to date. Its achievements in terms of everything are amazing (bring that up, lets get into it).

. I clearly am not a democrat or a reformist. I imagine I engage in as much revolutionary activity as you, possibly more. Yet I sound bourgeois? How is it bourgeois to believe in a revolution without venerated cult leaders? If you criticize those who are skeptical of sheep like adherence to political lines, you’ll never become a potent revolutionary force. And that’s what it boils down to. You’re using bourgeois as a cuss word against those who disagree with you.

You never claimed that these leaders were perfect but you implied that they were perfect enough. Perfect enough to be the absolute best on all matters of theory. These people were never that extraordinary. They were successful in grabbing control of the reigns of power, and were thus capable of building popular support through said power, and denigrating their ideological enemies. Cults of personality are built from coercion, usually from the barrel of a gun. You don’t hear much about Mao today for a reason, he’s no longer in power. Mao’s politics haven’t proven better than other Chinese revolutionaries. The man presided over not one but two social disasters precipitated by his own theories. Yet you uphold his contribution as paramount above all others.

While Kropotkin had ideological admirers, he never was the admired leader of a state. He was a nice old man who wrote some good books and was a good scientist. But he never had followers, there are no Kropotkinites around today, and there weren’t any in the past. Meanwhile followers of Mao carried around the red book, treating it like a bible. You don’t find it disturbing that is was essentially required to have a copy? Only societies based on dogmatic allegiance treat a book like that.

it doesnt matter here how "active" you think you are, we are discussing matters of line here.

I'd appreciate it if you actually looked at what I was writing, before replying with things like "venerated cult leaders", when I (and kasama) are completely against that bourgeois concept. It is one thing to uphold a leader because they have served the people for years and demonstrated their theoretical and practical abilities, and it is another to deify them. The very spirit, the very MAIN TENET of maoism is "its right to rebel", along with "criticism, self criticism," which means we need to rebel at all times against reactionaries, be fearless in our criticisms of comrades, and basically maintain that revolutionary spirit, and that complex tie between leaders and led. In the RCP, this does not exist. Cadres are told to tell the higher cadres how they are thinking and what they are saying! That is the wrong method, the method of unscientific indoctrination, as opposed to the maoist spirit of patient persuasion.

In the chinese revolution, people were profoundly transformed in their consciousness and way of looking at the world. There was a real need for this "revolution in ideas" that corresponds to the other areas of transformation. This would never have been possible had the CCP trained people to be like drones.

The best example of this comes from a book called Prisoners of Liberation. It is about two americans arrested during the revolution for espionage. It shows their process in the revolutionary prison, and how, through study and struggle, became real supporters of the revolution. When they returned to america to get their story out of the chinese revolution, people thought that the chinese had used torture methods to change their way of thinking, and were actually branded as mentally unstable. Such is the amazing process of revolutionary transformation (exemplified by the chinese revolution).

You calling the GLF and GPCR "disasters" is exactly bourgeois politics. I dont use it as a cuss method, it is true. These two "disaster" truly changed the way of life of millions of people, most for the better. Were there real shortcomings? Duh, but this is a revolution, not a dinner party. It would be nice if you read the links I provided in my previous post, so that you can get a communist perspective of what happened (as opposed to a bourgeois one).

Is there something wrong or disastrous when a communist leader calls on the workers, peasants, and students to rise up and defeat the capitalist roaders in the government? If such leaders represented policies that objectively led back to the old society, why is it "disastrous?"

This does not show me much of anything. You have stated that cadres began to be extremely abusive of their power. Another section of the party leadership decided that it wanted to get rid of these guys and mobilized the masses to create new cadre. Does this not sound familiar to you? We call these things elections in America. When a politician becomes grossly corrupt and incompetent, we pick new ones. Then they become corrupt too and we get rid of them. It’s not the individual cadres that are the problem; it’s the creation of said cadre that is the problem. It’s the institution of coercive leadership that creates these problems. You can call this “communist” leadership rather than bourgeois leadership, but it’s still leadership. All you’re doing is perpetuating the good king myth. The myth that we can choose kings who will listen to us and treat us nicely and that when their interests are in conflict with our wellbeing, he/she will certainly never choose to harm us. That was Mao, the good all powerful lord who treated the peasants nicely.

This is an absolute fallacy. All societies throughout human history that based themselves on the extraction of surplus value from one group to enrich another, whether that be serfs, slaves, or workers, has been based on a system of hierarchical coercive violence. Human societies with coercive hierarchies are not equal societies…ever. It simply doesn’t accord with material reality. When you give one group enormous power over another, they will use that power to materially benefit themselves.

No, the cadres were not removed, they were TRANSFORMED in the struggle of the peasants. Look, whether you like or not (and I do), there will be leaders. The question is: whose class interests will they serve? Thats the point here, and you missed it (not surprising). And it isnt the same thing as elections in america (COME ON, YOU KEEP GETTING MORE RIDICULOUS!) because in america, you cannot mobilize the people to elect people that will truly serve their interests. In China, it was possible, and IT WAS done.

haha, you can call Mao a "good king", or whatever, but it is no small reason that he had the enormous support of his people. He led them through 3 DECADES of revolutionary war. He earned their trust, and led them to a better future.

btw, under socialism, there is commodity production and surplus value, but in a different context. You seem to think that when the revolution is over, all the contradictions from capitalism will magically disappear. That isnt possible. Socialism NEEDS TO BE precisely to overcome this and create the necessary conditions for communism.

And yet no one has been born out by history as some great shining leader. Do you know why? Because revolution is not driven by leaders but by committed militants. People as common as you and men. The Hungarian revolution had plenty of militants, but not exalted leader, and that’s because they saw no need for one. The collective strength of the activity of the working class was enough to build a mass revolt.

Dont talk to me as if I dont know what im talking about, ok? Dont patronize me again.

The Hungarian revolt did not lead to another mao or lenin. So? Your point? I never said this had to happen. The point I am making is that there was leadership in this uprising, period.

Class struggle is a natural occurrence, and someone would have synthesized something similar sooner rather than later.

maybe, but thats not what happened. Marx is the father of scientific socialism, who incorporated theories from his past, like every other major philosopher has done. btw, he was the one that put the whole theory together, not prodhoun.

How is calling a spade a spade bourgeois? According to historical fact Lenin was a dude who liked power, took power, and then used violence to enforce his vision of communism on the working class. The Soviet movement was not a Leninist invention but something that appeared all over Russia as part of an outpouring of revolutionary sentiment. The soviets of Ukraine obviously didn’t come from the Leninists. There were hardly any Bolshies living in Ukraine. The Bolsheviks took that revolutionary sentiment and rode it into power. We have no idea what would have happened had Lenin died earlier, but I have no doubt that they couldn’t have done any worse. Look what happened. Purges, mass jailings, secret police, conscription etc it was a big failure.

The implementation of one man management was an open attempt to control the activity of working class and force it in accordance with Bolshevik policy. That’s why they outlawed all other political groups. That’s why democratically self managed factories were told to accept bosses. These workers were well and ready to run things on their own, but it was the Bolshevik line to eliminate shop democracy, to outlaw other voices, and implement taylorism. Taylorism for christ sakes! Lenin had a hard on for one of the most anti working class ideas ever devised, bviously he was never in touch with the condition Russia faced. He certainly never starved like the average Russian. He certainly never worked in a factory. In fact I don’t think he worked for a wage a day in his life.

im not calling a spade bourgeois, thats what im calling you.

if Lenin was so power hungry, why did he devote his life to the revolutionary movement? Do you not think he had the legitimate support of the workers and peasants? He did have this, and that is why he led!

Many times, the Bolsheviks were not a majority in the soviets, they were smaller than some other parties in that respect. But that is not the point. The point is that the Bolsheviks and lenin had the theory and programme to overcome the conditions of the people in Russia, and lead them in the correct direction (as they did). I didnt say the soviets were created by Lenin, but there is a lot of meaning behind "all power to the soviets", basically, to transfer political power to those organs,as opposed to sharing it with the provisional government.

Why do you insist that Lenin had evil intention against the people in implementing one man management? Its so silly. If it was wrong, it was due to the adverse conditions facing russia, not some angry sentiment. And dont get me wrong, socialism should require and needs democracy in the workplace (not the point of fetishism like you do), but we must also remember that socialism is not, and has never been centrally about 'worker democracy.' It is so much more than that, and this narrow philosophy can never make revolution or create socialism.

Socialism is a lot of things to a lot of people dude. In the Marxist ideal of revolution socialism is the intervening period between capitalism and communism. Anarchists do not see socialism as a period of state ownership and authoritarian leadership. While there will always be a messy period of revolution, counterrevolution and rebuilding, this does not require state control or authoritarian leadership. In fact, history has demonstrated that this is a recipe for failure. You can’t eliminate capitalism and the state if you organize “socialist” production along capitalist lines, and if you structure “socialist” political power along capitalist lines. State socialism then is just a perpetuation of all other surplus value societies. It has a large class of productive laborers and a small class of organized owners who benefit from the laborers and have the force to discipline them. This has happened in every state socialist society.

Why is it so hard to organize a socialist society via the federation of worker’s and community councils? Why don’t we use worker’s militas under direct control of the workers themselves? These birthmarks can be dealt with prior to the revolution, and those that cannot, must be struggled against in a way that reinforces communist organization and principles, not the other way around.

I’m glad you see Stalin as a horrid guy. However do you still uphold the majority of his rule?

I dont care what socialism is to others. There is a correct method of viewiing it, and not viewing it. To create communism, there needs to be a period of socialism where the proletariat and other strata hold political power. Without this power, radical reforms in any sphere can never be implemented. Whether you like or not (again), every revolutionary society will have a state (for so many obvious reasons) and leadership. Under socialism, production must be organized using socialist methods, duh, I never said anything against that. In the workplace, there will be managers, whether they be workers, or party cadre, they will exist. The thing here is that managers under socialism and radically different than those under capitalism, as are all other institutions.

Society cannot be run by workers councils and militias. First of all, that is FAR too weak to defend against counterrevolution or invasion. Second of all, this concept negates so many other necessary institutions that a revolutionary society needs in order to maintain itself and press forward, such as courts, jails, revolutionary army, schools, universities, etc. Thirdly, socialism is not simply a "worker society", because there are millions of other oppressed people that have objective interests in making revolution, like peasants, intellectuals, small farmers, and lumpen proletarians.

There is a reason why capitalist "birthmarks" cannot be overcome prior to revolution: first of all because prior to revolution, you are STILL IN CAPITALISM lol. Also, the purpose of revolution is to create the necessary structures and power to overcome these social divisions and advance towards capitalism. If it were possible to do what you say, then there would be little reason to even make revolution and create a new state power.

My arguments have plenty substance. Point out where this substance is missing. Also point out how I take up central ideas of bourgeois anti communism. Otherwise stop this “no substance, bourgeois liberalism” nonsense. I’m sorry that my arguments are different from what you are used to from other revolutionaries, but I am an anarchist not a Marxist, so I hold both capitalism and state socialism to be equally reprehensible. I criticize things like the Great Leap Forward because they were disasters by any type of analysis, there was a famine, there were back yard steel furnaces, and there was deforestation. This is basic stuff that only Maoist apologists really contend.

Lenin implemented the boss system because he sought to consolidate his grip on power. This is why he forced one man management on areas that were already operating under self management. This is why he supported things like conscription, which clearly shows a lack of popular support for his revolution.

The 3 in 1 method you mention is no different than the “co-management” efforts of various capitalists enterprises. Allowing workers input into how they are exploited does not make for worker’s control. In fact it is usually just another way to mask managerial control and worker exploitation.

My points about leadership and bosses make perfect sense. They accord with reality for any member of the working class. Working for a boss breeds a basic distrust of unjustified authority. Just because Mao preached socialism, doesn’t make him socialist. He still lived off the backs of the workers and peasants of china, as did the rest of the party bureaucrats. They were bosses, and they lost all credibility when they became so.

Now you may characterize the CR as some sort of grand mass struggle. But it was more or less, Mao’s shot at re taking control of the party. Mao had rightly lost most power after the GLF and so he needed to scramble back into position. The CR was a great way to do so. It wasn’t a bottom up struggle but a carefully orchestrated, top down mobilization. Mao is the one who told the kids to go organize. Mao’s the one who told the police and army to let the kids beat the shit out of people. Mao’s the one who told them to all go farm pigs. Come on. This was a power grab.

Your elements of bourgeois liberalism include, "the glf and gpcr were disasters", "lenin and mao were power hungry", etc. Shit like that, that is more in accordance with bourgeois theory than anything having to do with revolution.

The cultural revolution has real reasons behind it: under socialism, there is and will be commodity production. Out if this is what arises as a new bourgeois (with their theories and policies) and was exemplified within the different factions of the CCP that held differing views of china's future. Some held that china should follow the route of modernization and become a modern capitalist state. Workers should not be 'heckled' into making production or consciously advancing the revolution, their wages should be made higher, and they should be given material incentives for their work. On the other hand, there was a faction that Mao led, which had the correct view that china needed to maintain the socialist road. Leaders at all levels needed to go down with the workers and peasants, lead their life, learn from them. That is how the bridge between mental and manual labor was in the process of being overcome. In terms of workers, we "need politics in command." When they produce, they need to keep the interests of their class and communism in mind, not narrow self interests that inhibited the socialist process. To build socialism, the people need to be (and are) transformed, into a new worldview. Instead of "get rich", socialism calls for "serve the people." This is just one example, but there were many other policies that led back to capitalism, and leaders withing the CCP were calling for. This had to be stopped.

So, Mao called on the people to resist those who were leading china back to capitalism. It was an amazing mass movement. There were more than 900 newspapers only in Beijing! Red Guard factions were created in almost every high school,middle school, and university. Struggle meetings were held where capitalist roaders were criticized by hundreds of workers, peasants, and students. Thats the reality of it! Read the link I provided!

I wouldnt call Mao "power hungry" when he asked the people to rise up against the CCP leadership! You portray him as a capitalist, but history and reality are far different from that.

And this is where first world Maoism begins to fall off the deep end of pointless political meandering. If you think that unionized workers are bought off by superprofits you should give up all hope of first world revolution anyway. Unionized workers are paid more because they fight more. Black, white, brown or yellow, doesn’t matter. They get more cause they struggle. This is something basic that you should already understand. It makes perfect sense that the better off workers should prove to be quite militant, because they have a history of struggle and the confidence of past victories. Further it stands to reason that as neoliberalism ravages the wages of better sections of the working class, those sections will fight back with great ferocity, because they feel entitled to those wages. They got degrees, and qualifications and training, and they’re not happy about making shit.

The working poor can be a potent revolutionary force, but just because they have little to lose doesn’t mean that they are more revolutionary than better off workers. Because they have little to lose, they are also liable to fall prey to desperation and defeat. When school bullies beat up a kid over and over and over, sometimes the kid fights back, but most of the time the kid just takes it. He has rationalized his oppression and accepted his fate. The hyper exploited are similar in this respect.

Im not giving up revolution the beast, hell no. But my feet are on the ground, and I understand the actual class dynamics in a country like the united states. There is objectively a section of the unionized working class that is bought off with imperialist profits. Why is this so hard to understand? The imperialists have real interests in dividing the working class, btw.

And whats that about white workers struggling more? Thats crap. What, latinos and blacks dont fight back? Of course they do! But they are in an inferior position, in general. It is very ignorant to assume that there is a labor aristocracy (yes, they exist whether you like or not) because they "struggle harder." How can a whole strata of workers be created by this method? not possible, it is completely divorced from what really happens: they get paid better, have better benefits, better unions. They are more conservative politically than their latino, asian, and black brothers and sisters who are more fucked over than the rest. That is why the formulation of "going lower and deeper" exists: the lower, more exploited sections have objectively more revolutionary potential (and have shown it in the past).

*I dont mean to say that the white, better off workers cannot be revolutionary, but it is that much more difficult to do so. It is the reality.

Glad to see that you agree. Why are we arguing about the RCP then? If they are a massive and utter failure, who cares about them or what I call their Chairman?

You’re being patently absurd with those sorts of silly assertions. As I stated above, better off workers tend to have a history of victory and struggle, and a greater sense of entitlement. White workers made up the majority of the labor movement in the US. The IWW was multiracial, but white by a large margin. The CIO was mostly white. The Hormel meat packing strike was mostly white. SDS was mostly white. CPUSA was mostly white. The Battle of Blair Mountain, the largest domestic insurrection since the Civil War, was mostly white. White workers and union workers have been plenty militant in the US. Besides, if your argument is told water it should apply to Europe as well, and just about every revolution and revolt was majority white over there.

Conversely worse off workers tend to have a history of defeat and desperation. While the utter deprivation they live in pushes them towards revolt, the history of defeat, and the amount of violence used to crush them can also push them towards quiet acquiescence.

I care about what you say about the rcp because we need to be objective, and you are wrong.

Dont come and tell me stories about white workers back in the day. I know about that, I have studied that. But there are materialist explanations for that. Not idealist, metaphysical ideas about white workers being more able to struggle. No. In the past, workers from oppressed nationalities could not, and did not want to strike as much as white workers because their situation was desperate. They came from extremely poor nations, and they were happy with what they had and did not want to ruin it. White workers had a different background.

The labor movement in the US is mostly of and for white workers. This ties into how they are bought off by the imperialists. They have the stronger unions.

There is little more to say on this. White workers are not more revolutionary TODAY, they are more conservative than say, black or latino workers (due to conditions). In fact, most white workers dont even KNOW about the history of labor struggle in this country. Most people in general do not, due to our education and how we are trained to think under this system.

First let’s discuss China. China was large enough and had enough soviet support that state capitalism could always keep small scale, tiny private capitalism in check. Small scale capitalism was not the key problem to Maoist China. Unlike Nepal, which has to lie prostrate to gain development capital, China could look to native small scale capitalists. Though my latter critique of “when the workers fight back” still applies. I’m sure Maoists broke plenty of strikes. Anyway, Chinese state socialism failed because it was state capitalism, not socialism. State socialism is organized to produce surplus value for the managerial class, and the managerial class has the ability to discipline workers, workers who are still working in alienated labor, as well exploited labor. Thus the shift to capitalism proper was no bigee, since it was just changing from one type of exploitative planned economy to another kind of exploitative planned economy.

Now onto Nepal

I actually think I get it spot on with Nepal. You just keep skirting around the issue. You keep saying that Nepal needs to develop its infrastructure and that it needs to get hydropower and it needs concrete and it needs this and that and everything else in between. And while that is all well and good you keep forgetting the main problem here. No matter how much you want to develop Nepal with the help of the capitalists, the capitalists aren’t about to let you do it. You want your cake and to eat it too, but you simply can’t.

The Nepalese Maoists have a very simple choice to make. They can open up the country to investment, offer very attractive offers and be happy with a democratic, bourgeois republic OR they can build socialism without capitalist development at all. There’s no middle road here. I know you think there is, but there is not. Nepal is a very small country in between two world powers. It’s a country that is high up in the Himalayas and expensive to transport to. No capitalist in his or her right mind is going to invest capital in Nepal if they think the Maoists are going to nationalize it. They can make plenty of money, and have a whole lot fewer headaches producing things in Vietnam, or India or Bangladesh. Fewer transit costs, and less risk.

The only way the Maoists can avoid this problem is to offer extremely pro business offers to prospective capitalists. They have to provide Export Processing Zones where labor laws, pollution regulations, and common decency don’t apply. They have to provide large subsidies, with money they don’t have, to these corporations so that the transit costs are cheaper and easier. More importantly, they have to ensure labor peace so that these skittish investors don’t get anxious and leave prematurely.

This is where it gets hairy. With no labor regulations, with no pollution standards, and with rampant sexual harassment, will the workers of these plants fight back? I think the answer is obviously yes. Workers will begin to fight back, they will go on strike, they will form unions, and they might even burn down factories. At which the Maoists are faced with another choice. Do they support the workers and end capitalist development, or do they scab on the strikers? This is the key to understanding the problem of Maoist sweatshops. No matter how ideologically diligent these people are, they will be forced to become just as bad as any rapacious boss. If they want to use capitalism to develop Nepal, then they must abandon communism, because it’s not coming.

wrong on China again. It was not state capitalist, it was socialist (and was advancing more in that direction) and socialist property AND production relations were springing up, in the form of rural communes and collectives, as well as new methods of workplace organization. Surplus value was NOT used to enrich capitalists or managers (as under capitalism) but to serve the interests of the people. There is a gulf of difference between capitalist and socialist managers, workers, surplus value, and the state. Face it, it is a radically diff society in many respects.

and please show how China broke strikes (and do it in context).

Nepal has literally had very small capitalist industry. Its resources are so small that it must depend on other countries for their transportation (and will need to do so to progress).

Your main criticism is that there can be no foreign investments because capitalists wont want their property seized afterwards. Look at what Baburam Bhattarai (CPN-M leader) says on the question of economic development:

When we say we want to end feudalism, we don’t mean we want to end private ownership. Our economic development is in our language bourgeoise democratic revolution, in other words, collectivization, socialisation and nationalisation is not our current agenda. All we mean to say is that for a weak and backward economy like ours the state must play a facilitating and regulatory role. Without monetary and tax policies foreign interests may be more dominant, so the state has to protect the domestic private sector and the free market.

The state must REGULATE the economy and its development. It is a process if new democratic revolution, the bourgeois democratic phase. It is important because it then sets the stage for socialism, or the beginning of its construction (which can be arguably said begins with its first development).

comrade Bhattarai again:

We would like to assure everyone that once the Maoists come (into government) the investment climate will be even more favourable. There shouldn’t be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that. The rumours in the press about our intention are wrong, there are reports of capital flight, but this shouldn’t happen. And the other aspect is that once there is political stability, the investment climate will be even better. Our other agenda is economic development and for this we want to mobilise domestic resources and capital, and also welcome private foreign direct investment. The only thing we ask is to be allowed to define our national priorities.
We want to fully assure international investors already in Nepal that we welcome them here, and we will work to make the investment climate even better than it is now. Just watch, the labour-mangement climate will improve in our time in office. What happened in the past two years with the unions happened during a transition phase, but the business sector also hasn’t identified the other factors that are causing them losses.

more from him:

What do you mean by national industrial capitalism?
Local development is important. Every state wants to give priority or protection to its own industry. Otherwise why have a state? When we allow foreign direct investment we will give priority to those who have a local partnership. That way the national entrepreneurial class will also develop and the national economy will benefit.
How about the hydropower deals that have already been agreed on?
The ones that have been signed needn’t have been done in a hush-hush manner, after all we were in an interim period and we could agreed on it collectively. By agreeing to these projects a day before we returned to government has aroused suspicions. But we understand that big hydro projects are not possible without foreign investment. The deals could have been negotiated in a more open manner. If there has been major irregularities, we need to investigate them, correct the decision-making process but we don’t want to discourage investors by shutting down projects.

here's the whole interview: http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/20...ram-bhattarai/.

That about sums up its reality in Nepal.

[Rawthentic]

Become one with the masses? Huh? I already am part of the masses, I’m working class. Anarchism professes to build a vision of liberation from the organic experiences of working people. Dual power seeks to provide, by and for the working class, everyday needs of working people and to do so in way that emphasizes the ability for working class self organization. That sounds a lot like the mass line to me. We’re the mass and we’re giving to the masses.

And while you may think Maoism is a valuable guide, you would do well to investigate other strains of radical thought. I got a copy of the little red book, I read it, and moved on. You should at least read Kropotkin, or Malatesta or Bakunin or Goldman etc.

When I say "become one with the masses", it means to serve them and fight for their interests. You being "working class" has nothing to do with it.

You still don't understand what the mass line is (because you clearly havent read Mao, who formulated this concept as it is known now):

To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become
conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail. . . . There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.

- Mao

that's the mass line, it doesnt mean that you give welfare to the people, and has nothing to do with "dual power."

We have plenty of hope. The IWW was a powerful movement that was on a trajectory to overthrow American capitalism. It was successful because it was an organization without great leaders, just great militants. No matter how many organizers they lynched or arrested, the IWW kept coming back. In fact the IWW grew in size during and immediately after WWI. It was the added stress of the decentralist/centralist split that mortally wounded the IWW.
Leadership is not necessary to build a strong revolutionary movement; in fact it is a hinderance, as no one leader can truly represent the “best” line. All leaders have flaws, and leadership tends to magnify them. What we need are militants, organizers, and speakers. Common everyday people who commit to the struggle, but who understand that no matter their commitment, they don’t necessarily know better than any revolutionary. The state can kill and jail militants, but they are not irreplaceable. Leaders are.

While you talk of summing up and moving beyond the homophobic and misogynistic views of Maoists, you seem to ignore that these “wrong lines” are vibrant even today. We have to ask why these views persist in Maoist parties. How could the RCP stand against homosexuality for so long? Why did the Quebecois Maoists have such odd puritanical codes for cadres? If we look at Maoists parties across the globe, I think you’ll find that a strain of bourgeois puritanicalism exists in most of the cadre even today. Why is this?

god, are you really telling me that the IWW had no leaders? What about Haywood, DeLeon, and Debs!? All you are doing is sounding silly when you say there were no leaders. And I am sure there were committed militants, they are also needed, but just as leaders are as well.

I never said those who represent the line (this means, because you dont know, the policies and theories of an organization or ideology) were perfect. I've always maintained that they are prone to mistakes and are human. This is just a strawman argument on your part, and there is little to add to this. The reason leaders come forward, become respected by the people and their peers, is because of their understanding and experience. I dont mean to put them on an altar as if they were gods, so stop coming up with that. You can keep saying that a rev movement does not need such people, but the reality is that, even in "anti-authoritarian" movements, leaders and groups of leaders will emerge to give guidance to the struggle.

The reason wrong lines on homosexuality have existed in Maoist parties, has everything to do with the conditions they were operating in, and a wrong assessment of those conditions and how they could be overcome. I'm not defending this wrong line, I am correctly saying that we need to drop that, analyze it, sum it up, and create new positions on homosexuality. We cannot let go of Maoism because of this, it would mean the end of hope for millions of people.

Methodology so bad to ignore the plight of homosexuals cannot produce anything but crap positions.

which is why I say, change the incorrect methodology amongst the people and yourselves. Do you know what methodology is? For example, the RCP's is to view the people as complicit in the crimes of US imperialism, thereby negating the role of communists in creating a revolutionary movement and consciousness. it goes against the maoist spirit of "serve the people."

I do not agree with this. The RCP has been marginal since its inception. You have not produced any evidence to show that the RCP was ever more or less active than other communist groupings. Where are these “many projects”? Why have I never heard of them? Does the RCP have 25+ year old tenants union like Boston FSRO? Did it place more militants in heavy industry than the SWP or the PLP? Is it’s anti brutality organization any larger than Copwatch? In all the movement histories I have read, the RCP and Avakian are peripheral figures, overshadowed by the other Leninist parties and anarchists. I know the RCP think’s its important, but no one on the far left ever agreed with them. It’s a big myth that the RCP line was ever worth a damn, a myth only those in the RCP orbit care to repeat.

im not the one to say that they have a following, or are a serious communist organization. They no longer are. I am talking about the past, and the influence they have had nationally (and even internationally). It doesnt matter who put more workers in heavy industry, that doesnt make revolution, and niether does having a tenants union. That does lead to reformism, though, because what it does is it concentrates on the immediate oppression of the people, not the overall systemic picture of oppression and the need for radical change.

Im not here to defend the RCP, so you can just google something about their past and find out yourself.

Why don’t we call him spongebob? I mean the man is certifiably nuts. He has been in “hiding” for decades for no good reason outside of his total paranoia. Why should we respect a man who has created a deranged cult? Avakian’s writings really aren’t that big a deal. He’s just a guy who writes pretty mediocre theory. I doubt NPA militants, or Nepalese fighters really care too much about what he’s written. I doubt they would have spent the time to translate his works into their languages. For he has no credibility, he’s a total armchair. He’s been living outside the real world since the Deng protest. He’s not involved in any struggle and he doesn’t have an original perspective. No one cares about Bob Avakian. He’s a laughable cult character taken out of a bad movie. Let’s treat him like one.

It matters to understand where the RCP and the RU came from. The foundations of the RCP were laid in the sectarian infighting of SDS. The RCP is a product of multiple splits and faction fights. As a result it bears the marks of sectarianism, and cultism. That’s kind of why it came out with such a shitty methodology and such shitty practice. It’s not some grand party, it’s an amalgamation of various Leninist sectlets duking it out against all the other seclets.

It still is hard to take you with any degree of seriousness. But whatever.

The reason (according to the party) he has been in hiding is due to the protests he participated in against Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s ( i believe), where he was indicted on trumped up charges, and had the choice of either serving life in prison or going into exile. So he went into exile. But whatever, thats not the point either, this is a matter of line, and, he has made important contributions. For example, the need to break free from communist theory as it is today, to "chart the uncharted course", the need to overcome workerism, economism, and those incorrect philosophies that ultimately lead to reformism, all in favor of a correct, communist understanding of how the consciousness of the people is transformed. Those are important things.

We cannot be pragmatists (as is typical in americans) and say the RCP is irrelevant and completely worthless because of what it is now. Avakian made important contributions back in the day, mainly associated with defending the communist legacy of Mao against revisionism.

Well since I am not a guerilla fighter I have limited suggestions. However I would point to the EZLN as something of an alternative. They are guerilla fighters, but they found a way to at least build limited liberated zones without massive state incursion. They also have been able to break out of their jungle bases. The key is for the people in Maoist zones to rethink things. Obviously they can’t fight the war forever. Obviously something is wrong, something is not working. They are spinning their wheels, getting nowhere or declining in power and influence. Obviously they do not hold the people’s imagination anymore, that is if they ever did.

Maoism remains irrelevant as a revolutionary movement for this very reason. While it is a relevant political movement, its ability to make revolution is clearly not there anymore. Guerilla armies have gotten them nowhere, and the Nepalese people’s war has netted them a seat in capitalist government.

this is wrong on several levels:

the EZLN are not revolutionaries, not the least bit. Their program (or ideology if they have one) is to create liberated zones WITHIN capitalism, never wanting to or deciding the need to overthrow the capitalist state to truly build a liberating society. In short, the Zapatistas will not create revolution, while the Nepalis and Indians are at least in the conscious process of DOING SO.

I dont understand how something "is wrong" with maoism because the guerrilla wars are so protracted. yeah, they are long, difficult, and there are many setbacks, but they should not and will not ditch maoism because of this (once again with the pragmatism). In the third world, in such countries that have a wide gulf between town and country, guerrilla warfare is an effective method to build base areas in the countryside, and then amass forces to encircle the cities (this is what was done in China and Nepal). This is the basic strategy in these countries, with diff particularities within each of those countries.

If guerrilla war is so irrelevant and useless, how did the Maoists take over the countryside and surround Kathmandu lol? There was no other method to make revolution. Urban warfare to the expense of rural guerrilla warfare was not a possibility, due to the size of the countryside and its ability to serve as revolutionary base areas.

The Nepalese peoples war has allowed the Maoists to begin the complex process of new democratic revolution and anti-feudal reform, which opens up the nation to capitalist relations (thats what happens when you defeat feudalism).

If you look at the election results the Maoists received 30 percent, while the unified Marxist Leninist party received 22 percent and the Nepalese Congress party received 23 percent. These two parties are less than 10 percentage points away from the CPN(M). Clearly there are significant blocks of the population that do not support the Maoists. What you and others forget is that the Maoists never reached the critical mass necessary to overthrow the government. The People’s War was a failure. It took an agreement with the 7 party alliance to push the Royals out of power. It took a multi-partisan general strike to overthrow the monarchy, where previous Maoist general strikes had failed.

The Naxalites have failed in any attempt to break out of the forest. They have had some 30 years to do so, and all they have to show for it is declining influence and declining numbers. While this does not negate Maoism it does not bode well for Maoism either. If the People’s War is failing, and continuing to fail, what use is it? If Maoism cannot reach out to the Indian or Filipino working class, how will they win? There are deathsquads and repression throughout the third world, but that is no excuse for a record of failure. If the people’s war is not working, they must do something else.

You could do well to learn about the Sendero Luminoso campañero. If you plan on organizing the Latino working class to the cause of Maoism, the SL will be foremost in their minds. The problem is the SL was murderous by its own admission. They openly stated their use of terror on civilian populations, including children.

Actually, the Maoists had 38% of the vote, and the other countless parties received the rest. Relative to the number of parties there are in Nepal, and the population as well, it is a huge margin, overwhelmingly in support of the Maoists (and lets remember that there are also reactionaries and other strata that oppose the Maoists due to their interests).

The people's war was a failure? How is that even possible? I dont understand how someone can SERIOUSLY say that. If it weren't for the peoples war, there would NEVER have been an election and the monarchy would NEVER have been overthrown. That is an objective fact. It is the movement that pushed forward all the teeming contradictions in Nepal and led to what we are witnessing today. Not to mention the incredible transformation that the Nepalese countryside witnessed. The seven party alliance came because of the war and everything it had done and meant, thats why the monarchy was overthrown. That alliance would have meant nothing without the peoples war.

Your take on the indian revolution is also incorrect. The Maoists hold vast areas in India, have more than 28,000 soldiers (lets remember this is guerrilla war). Here's what G.N. Saibaba from the Revolutionary Democratic Front had to say:

The Maoist movement in India is not confined to the backward areas. It’s a vast movement, and includes the “developed” areas. Maoists work both in the countryside and the cities. The government says that the Maoists are active in 15 out of 28 states. And these include the major states. The Union Home Ministry says that 167 districts out total 600 districts in the country are covered by Maoists. This is a little less than 1/3 of India. The Maoists in India follow the New Democratic Revolutionary method proved successful in China under the leadership of Mao. This method follows that the revolutionary movement must put priority on working in the areas where the state is weak. The Maoists work in the backward regions to smash the local reactionaries’ power and establish people’s power. They build revolutionary mass bases in these backward areas. This doesn’t mean that they don’t also work in the cities. In fact, in the Congress of the CPI (Maoist) held in January/February 2007, they decided to increase their work in the urban areas. They have produced a new document concerning work in the urban areas that analyses the work done in the last thirty years. This document sets out a strategy for developing the work in the urban areas...At the same time the Maoists participate in developing a huge movement in the urban areas among the intelligentsia, students, women and the middle classes. Maoist cadres and leaders who have been working in the urban areas also are arrested, harassed and killed.
Maoists also work among the coal miners in a big way. There are vast coal mines in many regions in India. You can see, the Maoists work in many industrial areas all over the country, though their concentration of work proceeds from the rural areas.
In fact the CPI (Maoist) leads the single largest mass movement in India. The Central and local governments’ response is an indicator to the vastness of the movement. The Central Government has formed a Coordination Centre together with 14 state governments. They are cooperating to mobilise security forces and to gather intelligence about the movements of the Maoists. They have armed a huge military network. They have monthly meetings of this Centre. A large number of military forces are engaged against the Maoist movement. This also indicates the strength of the Maoist movement..."

Thats the reality of the indian maoist movement, far different than what you characterized it as.

btw, the latino working class does not know about the SL. They probably dont care either. Im sure they would care more about our organizing for a better world, and, if this question comes up, we would talk it with them, tell them to study it, and not fall for bourgeois lies against it.

Anarchism has done so in theory and practice. In Spain there were communes, collectives, women guerillas and organizations. This is absurd, Maoism is in no way “more radical” or revolutionary. You cling to this Maoist chauvinism, but you have not proven it any more or less revolutionary than others. In many ways I think it’s less. For example, its support of Stalin is gravely counter revolutionary.

Yes, anarchism had its glory in Spain, but that was about it. There was no seizure of power, no revolutionary society, unlike the chinese, who made the most radical revolution to date. Its achievements in terms of everything are amazing (bring that up, lets get into it).

. I clearly am not a democrat or a reformist. I imagine I engage in as much revolutionary activity as you, possibly more. Yet I sound bourgeois? How is it bourgeois to believe in a revolution without venerated cult leaders? If you criticize those who are skeptical of sheep like adherence to political lines, you’ll never become a potent revolutionary force. And that’s what it boils down to. You’re using bourgeois as a cuss word against those who disagree with you.

You never claimed that these leaders were perfect but you implied that they were perfect enough. Perfect enough to be the absolute best on all matters of theory. These people were never that extraordinary. They were successful in grabbing control of the reigns of power, and were thus capable of building popular support through said power, and denigrating their ideological enemies. Cults of personality are built from coercion, usually from the barrel of a gun. You don’t hear much about Mao today for a reason, he’s no longer in power. Mao’s politics haven’t proven better than other Chinese revolutionaries. The man presided over not one but two social disasters precipitated by his own theories. Yet you uphold his contribution as paramount above all others.

While Kropotkin had ideological admirers, he never was the admired leader of a state. He was a nice old man who wrote some good books and was a good scientist. But he never had followers, there are no Kropotkinites around today, and there weren’t any in the past. Meanwhile followers of Mao carried around the red book, treating it like a bible. You don’t find it disturbing that is was essentially required to have a copy? Only societies based on dogmatic allegiance treat a book like that.

it doesnt matter here how "active" you think you are, we are discussing matters of line here.

I'd appreciate it if you actually looked at what I was writing, before replying with things like "venerated cult leaders", when I (and kasama) are completely against that bourgeois concept. It is one thing to uphold a leader because they have served the people for years and demonstrated their theoretical and practical abilities, and it is another to deify them. The very spirit, the very MAIN TENET of maoism is "its right to rebel", along with "criticism, self criticism," which means we need to rebel at all times against reactionaries, be fearless in our criticisms of comrades, and basically maintain that revolutionary spirit, and that complex tie between leaders and led. In the RCP, this does not exist. Cadres are told to tell the higher cadres how they are thinking and what they are saying! That is the wrong method, the method of unscientific indoctrination, as opposed to the maoist spirit of patient persuasion.

In the chinese revolution, people were profoundly transformed in their consciousness and way of looking at the world. There was a real need for this "revolution in ideas" that corresponds to the other areas of transformation. This would never have been possible had the CCP trained people to be like drones.

The best example of this comes from a book called Prisoners of Liberation. It is about two americans arrested during the revolution for espionage. It shows their process in the revolutionary prison, and how, through study and struggle, became real supporters of the revolution. When they returned to america to get their story out of the chinese revolution, people thought that the chinese had used torture methods to change their way of thinking, and were actually branded as mentally unstable. Such is the amazing process of revolutionary transformation (exemplified by the chinese revolution).

You calling the GLF and GPCR "disasters" is exactly bourgeois politics. I dont use it as a cuss method, it is true. These two "disaster" truly changed the way of life of millions of people, most for the better. Were there real shortcomings? Duh, but this is a revolution, not a dinner party. It would be nice if you read the links I provided in my previous post, so that you can get a communist perspective of what happened (as opposed to a bourgeois one).

Is there something wrong or disastrous when a communist leader calls on the workers, peasants, and students to rise up and defeat the capitalist roaders in the government? If such leaders represented policies that objectively led back to the old society, why is it "disastrous?"

This does not show me much of anything. You have stated that cadres began to be extremely abusive of their power. Another section of the party leadership decided that it wanted to get rid of these guys and mobilized the masses to create new cadre. Does this not sound familiar to you? We call these things elections in America. When a politician becomes grossly corrupt and incompetent, we pick new ones. Then they become corrupt too and we get rid of them. It’s not the individual cadres that are the problem; it’s the creation of said cadre that is the problem. It’s the institution of coercive leadership that creates these problems. You can call this “communist” leadership rather than bourgeois leadership, but it’s still leadership. All you’re doing is perpetuating the good king myth. The myth that we can choose kings who will listen to us and treat us nicely and that when their interests are in conflict with our wellbeing, he/she will certainly never choose to harm us. That was Mao, the good all powerful lord who treated the peasants nicely.

This is an absolute fallacy. All societies throughout human history that based themselves on the extraction of surplus value from one group to enrich another, whether that be serfs, slaves, or workers, has been based on a system of hierarchical coercive violence. Human societies with coercive hierarchies are not equal societies…ever. It simply doesn’t accord with material reality. When you give one group enormous power over another, they will use that power to materially benefit themselves.

No, the cadres were not removed, they were TRANSFORMED in the struggle of the peasants. Look, whether you like or not (and I do), there will be leaders. The question is: whose class interests will they serve? Thats the point here, and you missed it (not surprising). And it isnt the same thing as elections in america (COME ON, YOU KEEP GETTING MORE RIDICULOUS!) because in america, you cannot mobilize the people to elect people that will truly serve their interests. In China, it was possible, and IT WAS done.

haha, you can call Mao a "good king", or whatever, but it is no small reason that he had the enormous support of his people. He led them through 3 DECADES of revolutionary war. He earned their trust, and led them to a better future.

btw, under socialism, there is commodity production and surplus value, but in a different context. You seem to think that when the revolution is over, all the contradictions from capitalism will magically disappear. That isnt possible. Socialism NEEDS TO BE precisely to overcome this and create the necessary conditions for communism.

And yet no one has been born out by history as some great shining leader. Do you know why? Because revolution is not driven by leaders but by committed militants. People as common as you and men. The Hungarian revolution had plenty of militants, but not exalted leader, and that’s because they saw no need for one. The collective strength of the activity of the working class was enough to build a mass revolt.

Dont talk to me as if I dont know what im talking about, ok? Dont patronize me again.

The Hungarian revolt did not lead to another mao or lenin. So? Your point? I never said this had to happen. The point I am making is that there was leadership in this uprising, period.

Class struggle is a natural occurrence, and someone would have synthesized something similar sooner rather than later.

maybe, but thats not what happened. Marx is the father of scientific socialism, who incorporated theories from his past, like every other major philosopher has done. btw, he was the one that put the whole theory together, not prodhoun.

How is calling a spade a spade bourgeois? According to historical fact Lenin was a dude who liked power, took power, and then used violence to enforce his vision of communism on the working class. The Soviet movement was not a Leninist invention but something that appeared all over Russia as part of an outpouring of revolutionary sentiment. The soviets of Ukraine obviously didn’t come from the Leninists. There were hardly any Bolshies living in Ukraine. The Bolsheviks took that revolutionary sentiment and rode it into power. We have no idea what would have happened had Lenin died earlier, but I have no doubt that they couldn’t have done any worse. Look what happened. Purges, mass jailings, secret police, conscription etc it was a big failure.

The implementation of one man management was an open attempt to control the activity of working class and force it in accordance with Bolshevik policy. That’s why they outlawed all other political groups. That’s why democratically self managed factories were told to accept bosses. These workers were well and ready to run things on their own, but it was the Bolshevik line to eliminate shop democracy, to outlaw other voices, and implement taylorism. Taylorism for christ sakes! Lenin had a hard on for one of the most anti working class ideas ever devised, bviously he was never in touch with the condition Russia faced. He certainly never starved like the average Russian. He certainly never worked in a factory. In fact I don’t think he worked for a wage a day in his life.

im not calling a spade bourgeois, thats what im calling you.

if Lenin was so power hungry, why did he devote his life to the revolutionary movement? Do you not think he had the legitimate support of the workers and peasants? He did have this, and that is why he led!

Many times, the Bolsheviks were not a majority in the soviets, they were smaller than some other parties in that respect. But that is not the point. The point is that the Bolsheviks and lenin had the theory and programme to overcome the conditions of the people in Russia, and lead them in the correct direction (as they did). I didnt say the soviets were created by Lenin, but there is a lot of meaning behind "all power to the soviets", basically, to transfer political power to those organs,as opposed to sharing it with the provisional government.

Why do you insist that Lenin had evil intention against the people in implementing one man management? Its so silly. If it was wrong, it was due to the adverse conditions facing russia, not some angry sentiment. And dont get me wrong, socialism should require and needs democracy in the workplace (not the point of fetishism like you do), but we must also remember that socialism is not, and has never been centrally about 'worker democracy.' It is so much more than that, and this narrow philosophy can never make revolution or create socialism.

Socialism is a lot of things to a lot of people dude. In the Marxist ideal of revolution socialism is the intervening period between capitalism and communism. Anarchists do not see socialism as a period of state ownership and authoritarian leadership. While there will always be a messy period of revolution, counterrevolution and rebuilding, this does not require state control or authoritarian leadership. In fact, history has demonstrated that this is a recipe for failure. You can’t eliminate capitalism and the state if you organize “socialist” production along capitalist lines, and if you structure “socialist” political power along capitalist lines. State socialism then is just a perpetuation of all other surplus value societies. It has a large class of productive laborers and a small class of organized owners who benefit from the laborers and have the force to discipline them. This has happened in every state socialist society.

Why is it so hard to organize a socialist society via the federation of worker’s and community councils? Why don’t we use worker’s militas under direct control of the workers themselves? These birthmarks can be dealt with prior to the revolution, and those that cannot, must be struggled against in a way that reinforces communist organization and principles, not the other way around.

I’m glad you see Stalin as a horrid guy. However do you still uphold the majority of his rule?

I dont care what socialism is to others. There is a correct method of viewiing it, and not viewing it. To create communism, there needs to be a period of socialism where the proletariat and other strata hold political power. Without this power, radical reforms in any sphere can never be implemented. Whether you like or not (again), every revolutionary society will have a state (for so many obvious reasons) and leadership. Under socialism, production must be organized using socialist methods, duh, I never said anything against that. In the workplace, there will be managers, whether they be workers, or party cadre, they will exist. The thing here is that managers under socialism and radically different than those under capitalism, as are all other institutions.

Society cannot be run by workers councils and militias. First of all, that is FAR too weak to defend against counterrevolution or invasion. Second of all, this concept negates so many other necessary institutions that a revolutionary society needs in order to maintain itself and press forward, such as courts, jails, revolutionary army, schools, universities, etc. Thirdly, socialism is not simply a "worker society", because there are millions of other oppressed people that have objective interests in making revolution, like peasants, intellectuals, small farmers, and lumpen proletarians.

There is a reason why capitalist "birthmarks" cannot be overcome prior to revolution: first of all because prior to revolution, you are STILL IN CAPITALISM lol. Also, the purpose of revolution is to create the necessary structures and power to overcome these social divisions and advance towards capitalism. If it were possible to do what you say, then there would be little reason to even make revolution and create a new state power.

My arguments have plenty substance. Point out where this substance is missing. Also point out how I take up central ideas of bourgeois anti communism. Otherwise stop this “no substance, bourgeois liberalism” nonsense. I’m sorry that my arguments are different from what you are used to from other revolutionaries, but I am an anarchist not a Marxist, so I hold both capitalism and state socialism to be equally reprehensible. I criticize things like the Great Leap Forward because they were disasters by any type of analysis, there was a famine, there were back yard steel furnaces, and there was deforestation. This is basic stuff that only Maoist apologists really contend.

Lenin implemented the boss system because he sought to consolidate his grip on power. This is why he forced one man management on areas that were already operating under self management. This is why he supported things like conscription, which clearly shows a lack of popular support for his revolution.

The 3 in 1 method you mention is no different than the “co-management” efforts of various capitalists enterprises. Allowing workers input into how they are exploited does not make for worker’s control. In fact it is usually just another way to mask managerial control and worker exploitation.

My points about leadership and bosses make perfect sense. They accord with reality for any member of the working class. Working for a boss breeds a basic distrust of unjustified authority. Just because Mao preached socialism, doesn’t make him socialist. He still lived off the backs of the workers and peasants of china, as did the rest of the party bureaucrats. They were bosses, and they lost all credibility when they became so.

Now you may characterize the CR as some sort of grand mass struggle. But it was more or less, Mao’s shot at re taking control of the party. Mao had rightly lost most power after the GLF and so he needed to scramble back into position. The CR was a great way to do so. It wasn’t a bottom up struggle but a carefully orchestrated, top down mobilization. Mao is the one who told the kids to go organize. Mao’s the one who told the police and army to let the kids beat the shit out of people. Mao’s the one who told them to all go farm pigs. Come on. This was a power grab.

Your elements of bourgeois liberalism include, "the glf and gpcr were disasters", "lenin and mao were power hungry", etc. Shit like that, that is more in accordance with bourgeois theory than anything having to do with revolution.

The cultural revolution has real reasons behind it: under socialism, there is and will be commodity production. Out if this is what arises as a new bourgeois (with their theories and policies) and was exemplified within the different factions of the CCP that held differing views of china's future. Some held that china should follow the route of modernization and become a modern capitalist state. Workers should not be 'heckled' into making production or consciously advancing the revolution, their wages should be made higher, and they should be given material incentives for their work. On the other hand, there was a faction that Mao led, which had the correct view that china needed to maintain the socialist road. Leaders at all levels needed to go down with the workers and peasants, lead their life, learn from them. That is how the bridge between mental and manual labor was in the process of being overcome. In terms of workers, we "need politics in command." When they produce, they need to keep the interests of their class and communism in mind, not narrow self interests that inhibited the socialist process. To build socialism, the people need to be (and are) transformed, into a new worldview. Instead of "get rich", socialism calls for "serve the people." This is just one example, but there were many other policies that led back to capitalism, and leaders withing the CCP were calling for. This had to be stopped.

So, Mao called on the people to resist those who were leading china back to capitalism. It was an amazing mass movement. There were more than 900 newspapers only in Beijing! Red Guard factions were created in almost every high school,middle school, and university. Struggle meetings were held where capitalist roaders were criticized by hundreds of workers, peasants, and students. Thats the reality of it! Read the link I provided!

I wouldnt call Mao "power hungry" when he asked the people to rise up against the CCP leadership! You portray him as a capitalist, but history and reality are far different from that.

And this is where first world Maoism begins to fall off the deep end of pointless political meandering. If you think that unionized workers are bought off by superprofits you should give up all hope of first world revolution anyway. Unionized workers are paid more because they fight more. Black, white, brown or yellow, doesn’t matter. They get more cause they struggle. This is something basic that you should already understand. It makes perfect sense that the better off workers should prove to be quite militant, because they have a history of struggle and the confidence of past victories. Further it stands to reason that as neoliberalism ravages the wages of better sections of the working class, those sections will fight back with great ferocity, because they feel entitled to those wages. They got degrees, and qualifications and training, and they’re not happy about making shit.

The working poor can be a potent revolutionary force, but just because they have little to lose doesn’t mean that they are more revolutionary than better off workers. Because they have little to lose, they are also liable to fall prey to desperation and defeat. When school bullies beat up a kid over and over and over, sometimes the kid fights back, but most of the time the kid just takes it. He has rationalized his oppression and accepted his fate. The hyper exploited are similar in this respect.

Im not giving up revolution the beast, hell no. But my feet are on the ground, and I understand the actual class dynamics in a country like the united states. There is objectively a section of the unionized working class that is bought off with imperialist profits. Why is this so hard to understand? The imperialists have real interests in dividing the working class, btw.

And whats that about white workers struggling more? Thats crap. What, latinos and blacks dont fight back? Of course they do! But they are in an inferior position, in general. It is very ignorant to assume that there is a labor aristocracy (yes, they exist whether you like or not) because they "struggle harder." How can a whole strata of workers be created by this method? not possible, it is completely divorced from what really happens: they get paid better, have better benefits, better unions. They are more conservative politically than their latino, asian, and black brothers and sisters who are more fucked over than the rest. That is why the formulation of "going lower and deeper" exists: the lower, more exploited sections have objectively more revolutionary potential (and have shown it in the past).

*I dont mean to say that the white, better off workers cannot be revolutionary, but it is that much more difficult to do so. It is the reality.

Glad to see that you agree. Why are we arguing about the RCP then? If they are a massive and utter failure, who cares about them or what I call their Chairman?

You’re being patently absurd with those sorts of silly assertions. As I stated above, better off workers tend to have a history of victory and struggle, and a greater sense of entitlement. White workers made up the majority of the labor movement in the US. The IWW was multiracial, but white by a large margin. The CIO was mostly white. The Hormel meat packing strike was mostly white. SDS was mostly white. CPUSA was mostly white. The Battle of Blair Mountain, the largest domestic insurrection since the Civil War, was mostly white. White workers and union workers have been plenty militant in the US. Besides, if your argument is told water it should apply to Europe as well, and just about every revolution and revolt was majority white over there.

Conversely worse off workers tend to have a history of defeat and desperation. While the utter deprivation they live in pushes them towards revolt, the history of defeat, and the amount of violence used to crush them can also push them towards quiet acquiescence.

I care about what you say about the rcp because we need to be objective, and you are wrong.

Dont come and tell me stories about white workers back in the day. I know about that, I have studied that. But there are materialist explanations for that. Not idealist, metaphysical ideas about white workers being more able to struggle. No. In the past, workers from oppressed nationalities could not, and did not want to strike as much as white workers because their situation was desperate. They came from extremely poor nations, and they were happy with what they had and did not want to ruin it. White workers had a different background.

The labor movement in the US is mostly of and for white workers. This ties into how they are bought off by the imperialists. They have the stronger unions.

There is little more to say on this. White workers are not more revolutionary TODAY, they are more conservative than say, black or latino workers (due to conditions). In fact, most white workers dont even KNOW about the history of labor struggle in this country. Most people in general do not, due to our education and how we are trained to think under this system.

First let’s discuss China. China was large enough and had enough soviet support that state capitalism could always keep small scale, tiny private capitalism in check. Small scale capitalism was not the key problem to Maoist China. Unlike Nepal, which has to lie prostrate to gain development capital, China could look to native small scale capitalists. Though my latter critique of “when the workers fight back” still applies. I’m sure Maoists broke plenty of strikes. Anyway, Chinese state socialism failed because it was state capitalism, not socialism. State socialism is organized to produce surplus value for the managerial class, and the managerial class has the ability to discipline workers, workers who are still working in alienated labor, as well exploited labor. Thus the shift to capitalism proper was no bigee, since it was just changing from one type of exploitative planned economy to another kind of exploitative planned economy.

Now onto Nepal

I actually think I get it spot on with Nepal. You just keep skirting around the issue. You keep saying that Nepal needs to develop its infrastructure and that it needs to get hydropower and it needs concrete and it needs this and that and everything else in between. And while that is all well and good you keep forgetting the main problem here. No matter how much you want to develop Nepal with the help of the capitalists, the capitalists aren’t about to let you do it. You want your cake and to eat it too, but you simply can’t.

The Nepalese Maoists have a very simple choice to make. They can open up the country to investment, offer very attractive offers and be happy with a democratic, bourgeois republic OR they can build socialism without capitalist development at all. There’s no middle road here. I know you think there is, but there is not. Nepal is a very small country in between two world powers. It’s a country that is high up in the Himalayas and expensive to transport to. No capitalist in his or her right mind is going to invest capital in Nepal if they think the Maoists are going to nationalize it. They can make plenty of money, and have a whole lot fewer headaches producing things in Vietnam, or India or Bangladesh. Fewer transit costs, and less risk.

The only way the Maoists can avoid this problem is to offer extremely pro business offers to prospective capitalists. They have to provide Export Processing Zones where labor laws, pollution regulations, and common decency don’t apply. They have to provide large subsidies, with money they don’t have, to these corporations so that the transit costs are cheaper and easier. More importantly, they have to ensure labor peace so that these skittish investors don’t get anxious and leave prematurely.

This is where it gets hairy. With no labor regulations, with no pollution standards, and with rampant sexual harassment, will the workers of these plants fight back? I think the answer is obviously yes. Workers will begin to fight back, they will go on strike, they will form unions, and they might even burn down factories. At which the Maoists are faced with another choice. Do they support the workers and end capitalist development, or do they scab on the strikers? This is the key to understanding the problem of Maoist sweatshops. No matter how ideologically diligent these people are, they will be forced to become just as bad as any rapacious boss. If they want to use capitalism to develop Nepal, then they must abandon communism, because it’s not coming.

wrong on China again. It was not state capitalist, it was socialist (and was advancing more in that direction) and socialist property AND production relations were springing up, in the form of rural communes and collectives, as well as new methods of workplace organization. Surplus value was NOT used to enrich capitalists or managers (as under capitalism) but to serve the interests of the people. There is a gulf of difference between capitalist and socialist managers, workers, surplus value, and the state. Face it, it is a radically diff society in many respects.

and please show how China broke strikes (and do it in context).

Nepal has literally had very small capitalist industry. Its resources are so small that it must depend on other countries for their transportation (and will need to do so to progress).

Your main criticism is that there can be no foreign investments because capitalists wont want their property seized afterwards. Look at what Baburam Bhattarai (CPN-M leader) says on the question of economic development:

When we say we want to end feudalism, we don’t mean we want to end private ownership. Our economic development is in our language bourgeoise democratic revolution, in other words, collectivization, socialisation and nationalisation is not our current agenda. All we mean to say is that for a weak and backward economy like ours the state must play a facilitating and regulatory role. Without monetary and tax policies foreign interests may be more dominant, so the state has to protect the domestic private sector and the free market.

The state must REGULATE the economy and its development. It is a process if new democratic revolution, the bourgeois democratic phase. It is important because it then sets the stage for socialism, or the beginning of its construction (which can be arguably said begins with its first development).

comrade Bhattarai again:

We would like to assure everyone that once the Maoists come (into government) the investment climate will be even more favourable. There shouldn’t be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that. The rumours in the press about our intention are wrong, there are reports of capital flight, but this shouldn’t happen. And the other aspect is that once there is political stability, the investment climate will be even better. Our other agenda is economic development and for this we want to mobilise domestic resources and capital, and also welcome private foreign direct investment. The only thing we ask is to be allowed to define our national priorities.
We want to fully assure international investors already in Nepal that we welcome them here, and we will work to make the investment climate even better than it is now. Just watch, the labour-mangement climate will improve in our time in office. What happened in the past two years with the unions happened during a transition phase, but the business sector also hasn’t identified the other factors that are causing them losses.

more from him:

What do you mean by national industrial capitalism?
Local development is important. Every state wants to give priority or protection to its own industry. Otherwise why have a state? When we allow foreign direct investment we will give priority to those who have a local partnership. That way the national entrepreneurial class will also develop and the national economy will benefit.
How about the hydropower deals that have already been agreed on?
The ones that have been signed needn’t have been done in a hush-hush manner, after all we were in an interim period and we could agreed on it collectively. By agreeing to these projects a day before we returned to government has aroused suspicions. But we understand that big hydro projects are not possible without foreign investment. The deals could have been negotiated in a more open manner. If there has been major irregularities, we need to investigate them, correct the decision-making process but we don’t want to discourage investors by shutting down projects.

here's the whole interview: http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/20...ram-bhattarai/.

That about sums up its reality in Nepal.

[Winter]

I have never been part of RCP. Hell, I have never heard of the RCP until 6 months ago even though I've been a Marxist for 2 years. I don't think Avakian is very important anymore. At one time he managed to point the way for committed revolutionaries, but I believe he obviously failed at obtaining renown by the working class; considering I am barely finding out about the guy myself! Stating that, I am not going to be pulled into a debate about the relevence of Avakian, all I can say is that don't be surprised if "Avakianism" never becomes a mass movement.

I am here to defend Maoism, not Avakianism.

As stated above, Maoism is flourishing in Nepal and India. They have taken up arms to fight against oppression, while here in the U.S. and other first-world countries, we have not made any strides to take up arms in order to change the system for the better. All I see is constant bickering. The labor unions and mainstream workers movements here believe Obama and the Democrats are going to change things, yet they fail to see the flaws in the system itself. The fact that reactionary third parties have not even been taken into consideration by the vast majority shows that People in the first-world are very unlikely to get past being decieved by reactionary politics, how do you suspect a leaderless, non-strategic movement will come about without strong leadership of an organization to educate the people? IWW has been around forever, yet we are no closer to over-coming the system. There has been reforms to change certain aspects of the system, but the option of another system entirely is never posed by the common man and woman. Meanwhile, Maoist forces are growing in strength and popularity on a daily basis in the third-world, actual progress is taking place. How can one dismiss Maoism? It is obvious that it's one of the few movements making advancements.

The Mass line is a very reasonable medium between isolated vanguardism and un-organized, leaderless, anarchist movements. It is indeed uniquely Maoist. Below, Mao explains why both leaders and people are important:

We have always maintained that the revolution must rely on the masses of the people, on everybody's taking a hand, and have opposed relying merely on a few persons issuing orders. The mass line, however, is still not being thoroughly carried out in the work of some comrades; they still rely soley on a handful of people working in solitude. One reason is that, whatever they do, they are always reluctant to explain it to the people they lead and that they do not understand why or how to give play to the initiative and creative energy of those they lead. Subjectively, they too want everyone to take a hand in the work, but they do not let other people know what is to be done or how to do it. That being the case, how can everyone be expected to get moving and how can anything be done well? To solve this problem the basic thing is, of course, to carry out ideological education on the mass line, but at the same time we must teach these comrades many concrete methods of work.

Modern third world advances should be important to all revolutionaries in the first world. They are making the steps that are neccessary while first world proletariat are divided amongst themselves, entranced by corporate media and politicians who spout false messages of change. The contradictions between the modern first world worker is in no way being reconciled, while in the third-world, the contradictions which require conflict are being waged. A revolution has to start somewhere. In the mean time, a competant organization must educate the masses in the first-world about the reality of class conflict and exploitation.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Calm down, I’m not attacking you; I’m attacking your views.

When I say "become one with the masses", it means to serve them and fight for their interests. You being "working class" has nothing to do with it.

You still don't understand what the mass line is (because you clearly havent read Mao, who formulated this concept as it is known now):

To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become
conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail. . . . There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.

- Mao

that's the mass line, it doesnt mean that you give welfare to the people, and has nothing to do with "dual power."

So then is the mass line for people who aren’t part of the masses? If you have to merge with the masses, then you’re prolly not part of the masses in the first place, right? Is this some sort of petit bourgeois plan for narodnick types to submerge themselves amongst the people? Is this some program for rich white students to submerge themselves amongst the poor?

To be honest I really could care less how Mao defined the mass line, but how the mass line expressed itself in practice. Words are tricky little devils. They often mean multiple things. Now last time I checked the BPP’s mass line practice came in the form of stuff like the free breakfast program, which was run for the working class, and by the working class. That sounds awfully similar to dual power to me, which is probably why it was successful. Nor does the ten point program sound much different from the “transitional demands” of Trot groups. I mean honestly dude, this ain’t that original.

god, are you really telling me that the IWW had no leaders? What about Haywood, DeLeon, and Debs!? All you are doing is sounding silly when you say there were no leaders. And I am sure there were committed militants, they are also needed, but just as leaders are as well.

I never said those who represent the line (this means, because you dont know, the policies and theories of an organization or ideology) were perfect. I've always maintained that they are prone to mistakes and are human. This is just a strawman argument on your part, and there is little to add to this. The reason leaders come forward, become respected by the people and their peers, is because of their understanding and experience. I dont mean to put them on an altar as if they were gods, so stop coming up with that. You can keep saying that a rev movement does not need such people, but the reality is that, even in "anti-authoritarian" movements, leaders and groups of leaders will emerge to give guidance to the struggle.

The reason wrong lines on homosexuality have existed in Maoist parties, has everything to do with the conditions they were operating in, and a wrong assessment of those conditions and how they could be overcome. I'm not defending this wrong line, I am correctly saying that we need to drop that, analyze it, sum it up, and create new positions on homosexuality. We cannot let go of Maoism because of this, it would mean the end of hope for millions of people.

Well of the 3 “leaders” you listed only one of them was heavily involved in the IWW. DeLeon left the IWW a few years after joining, because the IWW adopted an anti political platform. Debs was always relatively marginal because he spent most of his time on SPUSA stuff. Haywood was a good speaker, organizer, and an imposing man, but he was not a leader. He had no coercive power over the union, and he didn’t generate any major theoretical contributions for the movement. He was just a good militant, that’s it. I know there is this tendency to identify any prominent or influential member of the class struggle as a “leader,” but those kinds of leaders are qualitatively different from what you propose.

The IWW had any number of influential militants without a clear hierarchy amongst them. Flyn, Little, Haywood, my own namesake, none had a faction or a program or anything like that. These were regular people, who had committed to the struggle and had made great contributions, but they weren’t indispensable. There’s a reason why in the “Ballad of Joe Hill” the line “I never died says he,” is so prominent. For all his contributions, Joe Hill was a common worker who understood what was needed for the class struggle. He didn’t see himself as extraordinary but in part of a long line of working class organizers.

And this is where Maoism fails. Anarchist movements and council communist movements had prominent militants who guided the struggle. But none of these people were irreplaceable or were considered theoretical superior to everyone else. We understand that militants can grossly err on a number of topics. That’s why we don’t carry around a book of their views on every political topic under the sun.

This is partially why you generate such bad lines. The BPP was mysogenist and homophobic, the RCP homophobic, the Sendero Luminoso elevated Gonzalo to demi god status so on and so forth. Why does this keep happening? Probably because the veneration of leaders creates conditions ideal for weird out of whack political lines.

which is why I say, change the incorrect methodology amongst the people and yourselves. Do you know what methodology is? For example, the RCP's is to view the people as complicit in the crimes of US imperialism, thereby negating the role of communists in creating a revolutionary movement and consciousness. it goes against the maoist spirit of "serve the people."

Alright, change the methodology. But you can’t change the past methodlogy of the RCP and that’s what’s in contention here. You assert that the RCP was a serious communist force in the US post BPP. But if their methodology is so flawed from the very beginning then the whole party is likely to be pretty worthless.

im not the one to say that they have a following, or are a serious communist organization. They no longer are. I am talking about the past, and the influence they have had nationally (and even internationally). It doesnt matter who put more workers in heavy industry, that doesnt make revolution, and niether does having a tenants union. That does lead to reformism, though, because what it does is it concentrates on the immediate oppression of the people, not the overall systemic picture of oppression and the need for radical change.

Im not here to defend the RCP, so you can just google something about their past and find out yourself.

In the past they were not a serious group with a serious following either. It matters who put more workers into industry, and who started a tenants union, and why x did y. It matters because you contend that the RCP was the best communist group in the US from the BPP on. If you cannot provide qualitative evidence to show their apparent influence and success then they must not of been too successful. Stating that they wrote some nice articles and had influence, doesn’t make it so. If you can’t show evidence for this, then we must accept that it is not true.

If you’re not here to defend the RCP then you shouldn’t be defending them like this. Concede that they were relatively worthless and we can move on.

It still is hard to take you with any degree of seriousness. But whatever.

The reason (according to the party) he has been in hiding is due to the protests he participated in against Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s ( i believe), where he was indicted on trumped up charges, and had the choice of either serving life in prison or going into exile. So he went into exile. But whatever, thats not the point either, this is a matter of line, and, he has made important contributions. For example, the need to break free from communist theory as it is today, to "chart the uncharted course", the need to overcome workerism, economism, and those incorrect philosophies that ultimately lead to reformism, all in favor of a correct, communist understanding of how the consciousness of the people is transformed. Those are important things.

We cannot be pragmatists (as is typical in americans) and say the RCP is irrelevant and completely worthless because of what it is now. Avakian made important contributions back in the day, mainly associated with defending the communist legacy of Mao against revisionism.

Calm down, stop with the insults and the snide remarks.

The official reason is totally wrong. Avakian’s charges were dropped shortly after he fled the country. Remember, this is the son of a federal judge. Avakian has refused to come of hiding for some 25 plus years out of some sort of paranoia that the government is going to arrest him and put him on trial. Yet there is no case against him, in fact, he was never put on trial. This sort of behavior displays serious mental shortcomings. It lays bare Avakian’s nuttiness and justifies why others view him as a dolt. The man either has a hyper inflated sense of importance or he’s is suffering from some form of paranoid schizophrenia. Why else would he be in hiding for no good reason?

His theoretical contributions are no more important than any other. He’s a marginal figure. What is “charting the unchartered course,”? How did he combat economism and workerism? What makes his critiques of those things so much better than the reams written against economism and workerism by other theorists? While you may deride my focus on outcomes as “pragmatist” (which is hilarious since Dewey was something of a socialist), it is a materialist and rational way to analyze the world. Revolutionary groups should be measured on their contributions, past and present, and the RCP fails on both accounts.

this is wrong on several levels:

the EZLN are not revolutionaries, not the least bit. Their program (or ideology if they have one) is to create liberated zones WITHIN capitalism, never wanting to or deciding the need to overthrow the capitalist state to truly build a liberating society. In short, the Zapatistas will not create revolution, while the Nepalis and Indians are at least in the conscious process of DOING SO.

I dont understand how something "is wrong" with maoism because the guerrilla wars are so protracted. yeah, they are long, difficult, and there are many setbacks, but they should not and will not ditch maoism because of this (once again with the pragmatism). In the third world, in such countries that have a wide gulf between town and country, guerrilla warfare is an effective method to build base areas in the countryside, and then amass forces to encircle the cities (this is what was done in China and Nepal). This is the basic strategy in these countries, with diff particularities within each of those countries.

If guerrilla war is so irrelevant and useless, how did the Maoists take over the countryside and surround Kathmandu lol? There was no other method to make revolution. Urban warfare to the expense of rural guerrilla warfare was not a possibility, due to the size of the countryside and its ability to serve as revolutionary base areas.

The Nepalese peoples war has allowed the Maoists to begin the complex process of new democratic revolution and anti-feudal reform, which opens up the nation to capitalist relations (thats what happens when you defeat feudalism).

I’m sure the EZLN would have something to say about that characterization. They’re actually quite revolutionary. For example, the Other Campaign was an attempt to build a national infrastructure of resistance so that they could overthrow the Mexican state. Their 1992 revolt was supposed to do the same thing. Of course unlike the Naxalites, the Zapatistas understood their limitations. They saw that they did not have the capacity to overthrow the state at the time and opted to maintain what they had gained while finding other ways to spread the struggle. If you gave them 30,000 armed guerillas they might change their tune, but for now things remain different.

Something is wrong with the People’s War if the war does not bear any sort of quantitative or qualitative results. The naxalties and the NPA are not building towards a revolution. The latter is stagnating and the former is declining. Something new is needed. A new tactic or a new plan is necessary to build a revolution. The Maoists can’t seem to find it though. For all your talk of “encircling the cities” these movements aren’t anywhere near such a feat. They’re stuck in the same zones fighting the same battles, over and over and over again. Class struggle is hard work, but it is constantly evolving. As capital creates new tools to fight us, we need new tactics. The Maoists are not delivering.

The People’s war in Nepal is obviously more successful. Not surprising because Nepal is less developed, has fewer soldiers and has less foreign assistance. But of course while the people’s war gained control of the countryside, the Katmandu valley remained in control of the Government. This is where the majority of the population and the majority of the wealth of Nepal reside. Such a situation could have gone on indefinitely were it not for the 7 party alliance and the action by the urban masses. Thus the people’s war was a revolutionary failure, it encircled the city, but to no avail.

Actually, the Maoists had 38% of the vote, and the other countless parties received the rest. Relative to the number of parties there are in Nepal, and the population as well, it is a huge margin, overwhelmingly in support of the Maoists (and lets remember that there are also reactionaries and other strata that oppose the Maoists due to their interests).

The people's war was a failure? How is that even possible? I dont understand how someone can SERIOUSLY say that. If it weren't for the peoples war, there would NEVER have been an election and the monarchy would NEVER have been overthrown. That is an objective fact. It is the movement that pushed forward all the teeming contradictions in Nepal and led to what we are witnessing today. Not to mention the incredible transformation that the Nepalese countryside witnessed. The seven party alliance came because of the war and everything it had done and meant, thats why the monarchy was overthrown. That alliance would have meant nothing without the peoples war.

You have misread the numbers my friend. The Maoists have 38 percent of the seats in the assembly. Like any representative system, the seats do not accord with popular support. The vote for the main 3 parties is as follows,

Maoists FPTP 3,145,519 votes 30.52%
Maoists Proportional 3,144,204votes, 29.28%
Congress FPTP 2,348,890 22.79%
Congress Proportional 2,269,883 21.14%
Unified Marxist Leninist
Unified Marxist Leninist
Source

Now that we have cleared away the fog, I think we can both agree that the Maoists have considerable opponents. Congress and the CPN(ML) have support comparable to the Maoists, and can unite to check the Maoists at any turn. Your platitudes about the overwhelming mass support for Maoism do not stand up to scrutiny. Provide new evidence or abandon this position.

The People’s War was a failure in that it did not overthrow the monarchy. The People’s War was successful in encircling Katmandu and eliminating the government in the countryside. However the People’s War then got stuck in the countryside. It was the 7 party alliance that broke the back of the Monarchy and it was the multipartisan general strike which delivered the killing blow. The Maoists did not have the necessary popular support within the Katmandu valley. They couldn’t win alone.

Your take on the indian revolution is also incorrect. The Maoists hold vast areas in India, have more than 28,000 soldiers (lets remember this is guerrilla war). Here's what G.N. Saibaba from the Revolutionary Democratic Front had to say:

Some Naxalite talking

Thats the reality of the indian maoist movement, far different than what you characterized it as.

The problem of reality is that it corresponds to measurable facts. 28,000 soldiers do not accord with any measurements I have seen. Produce a reputable source to back this or abandon it. The same goes for the naxalite soldier account. Why should we take his word as truth? He clearly has a strong bias. Wikipedia cites the height of Naxalite soldiers at around 30,000 back in the 70s and puts current figures around 9-15 thousand. This AP article crossposted on a Naxal sympathetic site also puts their numbers at 10-15 thousand. The same article also points out how the Naxalites have a big problem with finding weapons. While large in scope, the Naxalite movement is obviously stuck in a quagmire. They can’t go outside of their rural strongholds, they don’t have the people or the material.

btw, the latino working class does not know about the SL. They probably dont care either. Im sure they would care more about our organizing for a better world, and, if this question comes up, we would talk it with them, tell them to study it, and not fall for bourgeois lies against it.

The latino working class doesn’t know anything about Maoism either. But when you start talking to people about the need for a maoist revolution they will ask questions. Questions like “What sort of movements came about in Latin America?” And you will answer “the Shining Path” and then they will ask you to decribe them. You’ll say something like “Oh they’re awesome!” Then a week later, the same person will come back and mention the Luacana massacre where 18 of the victims were children. You will then respond with the oft repeated “bourgeois lies!” and then they will ignore you.



.

Yes, anarchism had its glory in Spain, but that was about it. There was no seizure of power, no revolutionary society, unlike the chinese, who made the most radical revolution to date. Its achievements in terms of everything are amazing (bring that up, lets get into it).

You are forgetting Ukraine, a rather large country, which also implemented anarchist organization over long time period. While both Spain and Ukraine which eliminated capitalism, created workers/community councils and created worker’s militias, Maoist China failed in all three categories. And while the Ukraine and Spain were crushed by the combined onslaught of Leninist and fascist armies, China went capitalist because of the communist party. For all its wondrous achievements you have forgotten that Chinese state capitalism was never able to fend off private capitalism, even though it was under no real military pressure to do so. Your precious Communist leaders paved the way for counter revolution.

t doesnt matter here how "active" you think you are, we are discussing matters of line here.

Well actually it does. If I am contributing to the power and confidence of the working class I am clearly not bourgeois. Again, ideas are nice and all, but practice is what matters. You could have a great line and it wouldn’t matter without practice. But if you have great practice your line can suck.

I'd appreciate it if you actually looked at what I was writing, before replying with things like "venerated cult leaders", when I (and kasama) are completely against that bourgeois concept. It is one thing to uphold a leader because they have served the people for years and demonstrated their theoretical and practical abilities, and it is another to deify them. The very spirit, the very MAIN TENET of maoism is "its right to rebel", along with "criticism, self criticism," which means we need to rebel at all times against reactionaries, be fearless in our criticisms of comrades, and basically maintain that revolutionary spirit, and that complex tie between leaders and led. In the RCP, this does not exist. Cadres are told to tell the higher cadres how they are thinking and what they are saying! That is the wrong method, the method of unscientific indoctrination, as opposed to the maoist spirit of patient persuasion.

No matter how many times you say that you’re against cult leaders, the practices of leadership that you uphold are cult-like. For example, “self criticism” is a common practice in all cults. The Maoist practice of struggle sessions, where everyone points out your flaws in a big group, is exactly how cults utilize “self criticism.” All cults also claim that their leaders have taken things to x theoretical height, and have accomplished y feats. They then use these past accomplishments to justify nearly unerring loyalty. This is also similar to Mao. He led a long, bloody, but ultimately successful insurgency. But his time in power led to some big unmitigated disasters. Yet despite a mediocre effort, Mao comes out as some sort of grand exceptional leader.

In the chinese revolution, people were profoundly transformed in their consciousness and way of looking at the world. There was a real need for this "revolution in ideas" that corresponds to the other areas of transformation. This would never have been possible had the CCP trained people to be like drones.

The best example of this comes from a book called Prisoners of Liberation. It is about two americans arrested during the revolution for espionage. It shows their process in the revolutionary prison, and how, through study and struggle, became real supporters of the revolution. When they returned to america to get their story out of the chinese revolution, people thought that the chinese had used torture methods to change their way of thinking, and were actually branded as mentally unstable. Such is the amazing process of revolutionary transformation (exemplified by the chinese revolution).

You calling the GLF and GPCR "disasters" is exactly bourgeois politics. I dont use it as a cuss method, it is true. These two "disaster" truly changed the way of life of millions of people, most for the better. Were there real shortcomings? Duh, but this is a revolution, not a dinner party. It would be nice if you read the links I provided in my previous post, so that you can get a communist perspective of what happened (as opposed to a bourgeois one).

Is there something wrong or disastrous when a communist leader calls on the workers, peasants, and students to rise up and defeat the capitalist roaders in the government? If such leaders represented policies that objectively led back to the old society, why is it "disastrous?"

The Chinese revolution had an impact on the people. But I do not think it had such a profound impact as you like to think. Why else would the people of china so easily take up capitalist market relations? Why has Mao fallen by the wayside so effortlessly? Well I think part of it may be that the CCP did treat the people like drones to some degree. Popular opinion and popular ideas were easy to mold and shift, because the populace was shaped by authoritarianism and conformity.

Again you provide an incredibly biased example. It proves nothing. What you have described could be an example of genuine transformation or it could be Stockholm Syndrome. As I said before, “self criticism sessions” are awfully similar to brain washing, and I’m sure these sessions were a prominent portion of “revolutionary prison” (what a fucking oxymoron there).

Describing the GLF and the CR as disasters is not bourgeois. Bourgeois people may agree with me, but that does not mean the argument itself is bourgeois. Any anarchist on this board would agree with me. Are we all bourgeois? I hope not. Anyway, the GLF precipitated a famine, worthless steel, and a lot of deforestation. How exactly was this a great step forward for the people of China? Are famines a good thing? The CR from any angle looks like a power grab. Mao and his faction of leaders wanted to oust the “capitalist” faction of leaders. Bands of red guards roamed the country and arbitrarily beat down opponents, so much damage was done that Mao had to shuttle them off into the countryside. If the CR was so great why did Mao have to get rid of his revolutionary vanguard? Perhaps because he sought to consolidate power, not bring about a revolution.

No, the cadres were not removed, they were TRANSFORMED in the struggle of the peasants. Look, whether you like or not (and I do), there will be leaders. The question is: whose class interests will they serve? Thats the point here, and you missed it (not surprising). And it isnt the same thing as elections in america (COME ON, YOU KEEP GETTING MORE RIDICULOUS!) because in america, you cannot mobilize the people to elect people that will truly serve their interests. In China, it was possible, and IT WAS done.

haha, you can call Mao a "good king", or whatever, but it is no small reason that he had the enormous support of his people. He led them through 3 DECADES of revolutionary war. He earned their trust, and led them to a better future.

btw, under socialism, there is commodity production and surplus value, but in a different context. You seem to think that when the revolution is over, all the contradictions from capitalism will magically disappear. That isnt possible. Socialism NEEDS TO BE precisely to overcome this and create the necessary conditions for communism.

Ah I see they were “transformed.” So they left rapists in charge? Does this somehow not accord with logic and reality? When someone uses their position of power to sexually abuse others, you don’t give it back to them. So in the situation you describe, either the cadre went back to their old ways eventually, or they were too afraid of a public lynching, and didn’t exploit the people…as much. Because this is what it boils down to. No leader can be transformed, not unless you eliminate the institution of hierarchical leadership.

The kind of cadre leadership you describe should be rotated and shared around, if not eliminated. Because when you let one person control the reigns of power they will eventually begin to accrue undo influence and coercive power. That is what always happens and what will continue happen regardless of what socialist honorific you give it. Those guys did what any leader would do…exploit.

Well Mao is portrayed as a good king for a reason. How else could he have popular support in a revolutionary regime? He needed to be both the great leader and a “a man of the people” at the same time. When you have a huge state apparatus devoted towards perpetuating that myth and shooting those who disagree, support is guaranteed. History is littered with leaders who had enormous popular support. Napoleon had popular support. FDR had popular support. It’s actually pretty easy. All you need are guns and propaganda.

Why does socialism need commodity production and surplus value to build communism? As far as I see, we are perfectly capable of organizing production so that everyone receives an equal share of the industrial commonwealth. While it will take awhile to bring true communism, this does not mean we need to organize production with bosses, unequal wages, and minority control of coercive violence.

Dont talk to me as if I dont know what im talking about, ok? Dont patronize me again.

The Hungarian revolt did not lead to another mao or lenin. So? Your point? I never said this had to happen. The point I am making is that there was leadership in this uprising, period.

Don’t’ accuse me of condescension when you tell me that I’m bourgeois, that my posts have no substance, and that I can’t be taken seriously.

My point about these revolts and revolutions is that they operated without exalted leaders but through the collective efforts of thousands of committed militants. These revolutions did not have and did not need leaders, as they were pushed forward with the collective action of the working class.

maybe, but thats not what happened. Marx is the father of scientific socialism, who incorporated theories from his past, like every other major philosopher has done. btw, he was the one that put the whole theory together, not prodhoun.

Indeed but your claim is that without Marx we would all be woefully in deep shit. I do not believe so. A thinker of comparable ability would formulate something similar. Previous thinkers like Prouhon and Schopenhauer had already laid the keystones; it is likely that someone else would have built the house.

im not calling a spade bourgeois, thats what im calling you.

if Lenin was so power hungry, why did he devote his life to the revolutionary movement? Do you not think he had the legitimate support of the workers and peasants? He did have this, and that is why he led!

Many times, the Bolsheviks were not a majority in the soviets, they were smaller than some other parties in that respect. But that is not the point. The point is that the Bolsheviks and lenin had the theory and programme to overcome the conditions of the people in Russia, and lead them in the correct direction (as they did). I didnt say the soviets were created by Lenin, but there is a lot of meaning behind "all power to the soviets", basically, to transfer political power to those organs,as opposed to sharing it with the provisional government.

Why do you insist that Lenin had evil intention against the people in implementing one man management? Its so silly. If it was wrong, it was due to the adverse conditions facing russia, not some angry sentiment. And dont get me wrong, socialism should require and needs democracy in the workplace (not the point of fetishism like you do), but we must also remember that socialism is not, and has never been centrally about 'worker democracy.' It is so much more than that, and this narrow philosophy can never make revolution or create socialism.

Again with the insults. Calm down already.

Lenin devoted his life to revolution like many power mongers devoted themselves to revolution. Avakian is a bit of a power nut no? Lenin was a pretty middling guy and Russia had a rigid social structure. Only a revolution would have provided him an avenue to power. And while “all power to the soviets” garnered popular support and allowed him to overthrow the horridly incompetent Kerensky. His later policies clearly did not garner popular support. That’s why he outlawed other political parties, had to conscript soldiers, and force feed one man management to workers operating under self management.

You all seem to forget that the Russian revolution was quite mature. The Soviets and factory committees were organic representations of working class power. The Bolsheviks trumpeted these developments only so long as it bolstered their popular support. Once they had taken control of the state and its military apparatuses, they were able to enforce a program to their liking. And no matter how many times you bleat “material conditions of Russia” that doesn’t justify the elimination of self management, the jailing of dissidents and the conscription of soldiers. These actions directly contradict revolutionary theory and practice.

Describing my emphasis on self management and worker’s democracy as a fetish is extremely disconcerting. The worker’s movement is a movement to bring democracy to all facets of society. The system of capitalism must be eliminated because it is a vast private tyranny which dehumanizes and destroys those who work for it. In order to bring about a communist society, we must cultivate communist consciousness and practice. Self management is key in this aspect. When workers manage their own affairs, in a democratic and open way, their consciousness and practice rise up together. Bosses only serve to perpetuate an exploitative economic system. For when you give control and disciplinary power to one person over a whole workforce, that person will always do violence to, and gain a profit from, those workers. And conversely those workers will lose their humanity, as they are forced into alienated labor (as it is not self directed, but boss directed) and lose their confidence. To implement any kind of system of boss rule is thus not just wrong, it is anti communist. To echo a great anarchist “If ain’t self management, it’s not my revolution!”

I dont care what socialism is to others. There is a correct method of viewiing it, and not viewing it. To create communism, there needs to be a period of socialism where the proletariat and other strata hold political power. Without this power, radical reforms in any sphere can never be implemented. Whether you like or not (again), every revolutionary society will have a state (for so many obvious reasons) and leadership. Under socialism, production must be organized using socialist methods, duh, I never said anything against that. In the workplace, there will be managers, whether they be workers, or party cadre, they will exist. The thing here is that managers under socialism and radically different than those under capitalism, as are all other institutions.

Society cannot be run by workers councils and militias. First of all, that is FAR too weak to defend against counterrevolution or invasion. Second of all, this concept negates so many other necessary institutions that a revolutionary society needs in order to maintain itself and press forward, such as courts, jails, revolutionary army, schools, universities, etc. Thirdly, socialism is not simply a "worker society", because there are millions of other oppressed people that have objective interests in making revolution, like peasants, intellectuals, small farmers, and lumpen proletarians.

There is a reason why capitalist "birthmarks" cannot be overcome prior to revolution: first of all because prior to revolution, you are STILL IN CAPITALISM lol. Also, the purpose of revolution is to create the necessary structures and power to overcome these social divisions and advance towards capitalism. If it were possible to do what you say, then there would be little reason to even make revolution and create a new state power.

You should care because you do not own words. You merely use them. I agree that Communism must come through socialism, where the oppressed hold power collectively. But how will we structure this collective power? Well you suggest that we should have bosses, who will boss around their workers. You suggest that we should have political leaders who will tell people how to act and think. And you suggest that we will have jails for those who would like democratic workplaces. This will not bring about communism, because it perpetuates the economic and social relations of the old society. These are not birthmarks, but the same bloody institutions.

Countless mass revolts and revolutions were organized using councils and militias. In all cases these organizations were plenty capable of fighting off counter revolution. The anarchists of Spain only lost when the Stalinists and the fascists ganged up on them. The RIAU of Ukraine fought off the Reds, Whites, and Greens all within a short period of time. All other institutions, such as school, tribunals, etc. will be organized and coordinated by these community and worker’s assemblies. It’s all rather simple

When I say “workers society” I speak of all those working that are oppressed and exploited by capitalism. Let’s not get into petty semantic games.

While we may live under capitalism, we must structure our resistance, and much of lives in a way that actively eliminates capitalist mindsets. We can do this through mass self organized struggle, but also through the construction of alternative institutions such as schools, community gardens, mutual aid societies, etc. This is what anarchists mean when we call to build the “new society in the shell of the old.” The revolution is not some random uprising to create a society of red bureaucrats. The Revolution is a tipping point where these forces of popular residence and popular organization overcome the forces of state repression. Thus there is no need for a state post revolution, there is a need to organize forces against counter revolution, but again this can be done with worker councils and worker’s militias.

Your elements of bourgeois liberalism include, "the glf and gpcr were disasters", "lenin and mao were power hungry", etc. Shit like that, that is more in accordance with bourgeois theory than anything having to do with revolution.

These positions are common class struggle anarchist positions. Nothing bourgeois here.

The cultural revolution has real reasons behind it: under socialism, there is and will be commodity production. Out if this is what arises as a new bourgeois (with their theories and policies) and was exemplified within the different factions of the CCP that held differing views of china's future. Some held that china should follow the route of modernization and become a modern capitalist state. Workers should not be 'heckled' into making production or consciously advancing the revolution, their wages should be made higher, and they should be given material incentives for their work. On the other hand, there was a faction that Mao led, which had the correct view that china needed to maintain the socialist road. Leaders at all levels needed to go down with the workers and peasants, lead their life, learn from them. That is how the bridge between mental and manual labor was in the process of being overcome. In terms of workers, we "need politics in command." When they produce, they need to keep the interests of their class and communism in mind, not narrow self interests that inhibited the socialist process. To build socialism, the people need to be (and are) transformed, into a new worldview. Instead of "get rich", socialism calls for "serve the people." This is just one example, but there were many other policies that led back to capitalism, and leaders withing the CCP were calling for. This had to be stopped.

So, Mao called on the people to resist those who were leading china back to capitalism. It was an amazing mass movement. There were more than 900 newspapers only in Beijing! Red Guard factions were created in almost every high school,middle school, and university. Struggle meetings were held where capitalist roaders were criticized by hundreds of workers, peasants, and students. Thats the reality of it! Read the link I provided!

I wouldnt call Mao "power hungry" when he asked the people to rise up against the CCP leadership! You portray him as a capitalist, but history and reality are far different from that.

What you have just described is a faction fight between two different sections of state power. One section of the party wanted to move towards private capitalism and Mao wanted to keep bureaucratic state capitalism. Mao was weakened because the GLF failed big, and thus he used the personality cult that had been cultivated since the revolution to mobilize young students to move against the “capitalist roader” faction. Of course once Mao had properly defeated his opponents (after public beatings, lynchings, the destruction of historic artifacts, the halting of all educational and economic activity and some really disturbing “self criticism” sessions) he sent the students into the countryside so they could farm pigs and no longer operate as a political force. I’m sure it was convenient to say that he was building a bridge between mental and Manuel labor, but come on, its pretty obvious, that it was a pretext to get rid of the red guards after he had fully consolidated power.

Your inability to see this in any other frame but “Mao called on the people to rise up and they did!” Is kind of silly. These children were brought up post revolution, in an environment where Mao was venerated as a public hero. His book was basic reading material in almost all schools. When their great father figure told them to rise up…they rose up. Big flipping deal.

m not giving up revolution the beast, hell no. But my feet are on the ground, and I understand the actual class dynamics in a country like the united states. There is objectively a section of the unionized working class that is bought off with imperialist profits. Why is this so hard to understand? The imperialists have real interests in dividing the working class, btw.

And whats that about white workers struggling more? Thats crap. What, latinos and blacks dont fight back? Of course they do! But they are in an inferior position, in general. It is very ignorant to assume that there is a labor aristocracy (yes, they exist whether you like or not) because they "struggle harder." How can a whole strata of workers be created by this method? not possible, it is completely divorced from what really happens: they get paid better, have better benefits, better unions. They are more conservative politically than their latino, asian, and black brothers and sisters who are more fucked over than the rest. That is why the formulation of "going lower and deeper" exists: the lower, more exploited sections have objectively more revolutionary potential (and have shown it in the past).

*I dont mean to say that the white, better off workers cannot be revolutionary, but it is that much more difficult to do so. It is the reality.

You don’t seem to understand the class dynamics of the US. Do you work? Because the comments about bosses makes me skeptical. Anyway, the unionized working class is too small to be some revolutionary buffer. Only 12% of all workers belong to a union. Many of these people are not white, but are people of color. Thus even if they were bought off, they represent a negligible section. However they are not bought off. Unionized workers get paid more because they fight more and they fight collectively. This is basic revolutionary theory, when workers fight back, they get better paid…duh.

Black and Latino workers fight plenty back. But so do white workers. I do not believe that a labor aristocracy exists in the United States. You will have to provide an actual argument to define who belongs to it, and define how it works. Otherwise all I see you talking about are workers who have better wages because they either fight harder or have learnt a desirable skill. Now are these people more conservative? I do not think so. Union workers always vote democrat in high numbers, and tend to hold relatively liberal views. Educated workers also tend to hold liberal views. It is the white working poor that sometimes, but not all the time, holds onto highly conservative views within the working class.

Now black, latino and asian workers can be militant and revolutionary. But as I stated before, a history of defeat and desperation can instill a tradition of acquiescence. The BPP was brutally crushed. Since the BPP the black working class has experienced progressively deleterious conditions. Yet no popular opposition has manifested an organization of comparable size or influence to the BPP. Why is this? Well I think it has something to do with an atmosphere of defeat and desperation. Also we should not forget that racial minorities can hold onto extremely reactionary views. Homosexuals are still not as accepted in the black and latino communities as they are in the white community. Blacks and Latinos also can hold reactionary religious views, including anti abortion, and chauvinistic positions. Black working class people also have a tendency to be virulently anti immigrant. You have idealized America’s racial minorities to be a revolutionary vanguard. Sadly, this is not so.

I care about what you say about the rcp because we need to be objective, and you are wrong.

If you say so it must be true! I am objectively calling them useless, moronic and a waste of time. This is all supported by fact. Avakian truly deserves the title of Chairman Spongebob.

Dont come and tell me stories about white workers back in the day. I know about that, I have studied that. But there are materialist explanations for that. Not idealist, metaphysical ideas about white workers being more able to struggle. No. In the past, workers from oppressed nationalities could not, and did not want to strike as much as white workers because their situation was desperate. They came from extremely poor nations, and they were happy with what they had and did not want to ruin it. White workers had a different background.

The labor movement in the US is mostly of and for white workers. This ties into how they are bought off by the imperialists. They have the stronger unions.

There is little more to say on this. White workers are not more revolutionary TODAY, they are more conservative than say, black or latino workers (due to conditions). In fact, most white workers dont even KNOW about the history of labor struggle in this country. Most people in general do not, due to our education and how we are trained to think under this system.

I have already shown that minority workers are not more conservative than white workers in the above section so I will not deal with that.

I never said better off workers are more likely to engage in revolutionary struggle. I said that they are just as likely, and that many times they are most militant. Your description of workers from oppressed nationalities that “did not want to strike as much because the situon was desperate” applies to today in much the same way. In fact you make my argument for me quite nicely. Workers who are more oppressed tend to be more desperate and thus, are put in a dangerous position. They may be hyper militant or they may be hyper cautious. You again make my point by stating that “They came from extremely poor nations, and they were happy with what they had and did not want to ruin it.” This applies to all immigrant workers today. I should also point out that many of those militant white workers were poor immigrants themselves. White workers did not come from a “different background”, because most of them were immigrants or second generation. Labor struggle helped lift them out of poverty not the color of their skin.

The labor movement is also not made for and by white workers. The largest unions in America, UNITE HERE, SEIU, Teamsters, UFCW, Afscme, and CWA are all either majority non white or have a significant non white minority. For example, Unite is made mostly of Hispanic and black women. This is pretty self evident if you ever go to a union meeting. These unions garner higher wages (not as high as they should be) by using collective power to force the owners to capitulate. Again, this is very basic class struggle stuff.

wrong on China again. It was not state capitalist, it was socialist (and was advancing more in that direction) and socialist property AND production relations were springing up, in the form of rural communes and collectives, as well as new methods of workplace organization. Surplus value was NOT used to enrich capitalists or managers (as under capitalism) but to serve the interests of the people. There is a gulf of difference between capitalist and socialist managers, workers, surplus value, and the state. Face it, it is a radically diff society in many respects.

Well no. There were wages. There were bosses. And there was material inequality. The bureaucratic class used their power over the workers to aid in primitive accumulation (industrialization) and then used the rest to benefit themselves. That is state capitalism. State socialism is an oxymoron. It’s like anarcho capitalism. Of course things differed from full on private capitalism. Workers made less, but there were cradle to the grave benefits. Bureaucrats extracted less, but they had to do so in order to perpetuate the ruling myth that they were somehow “socialist” bosses, rather than regular bosses. But still, it was capitalism, just with red flags.

Nepal has literally had very small capitalist industry. Its resources are so small that it must depend on other countries for their transportation (and will need to do so to progress).

Your main criticism is that there can be no foreign investments because capitalists wont want their property seized afterwards. Look at what Baburam Bhattarai (CPN-M leader) says on the question of economic development:
“When we say we want to end feudalism, we don’t mean we want to end private ownership. Our economic development is in our language bourgeoise democratic revolution, in other words, collectivization, socialisation and nationalisation is not our current agenda. All we mean to say is that for a weak and backward economy like ours the state must play a facilitating and regulatory role. Without monetary and tax policies foreign interests may be more dominant, so the state has to protect the domestic private sector and the free market.”

The state must REGULATE the economy and its development. It is a process if new democratic revolution, the bourgeois democratic phase. It is important because it then sets the stage for socialism, or the beginning of its construction (which can be arguably said begins with its first development).

comrade Bhattarai again:
“We would like to assure everyone that once the Maoists come (into government) the investment climate will be even more favourable. There shouldn’t be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that. The rumours in the press about our intention are wrong, there are reports of capital flight, but this shouldn’t happen. And the other aspect is that once there is political stability, the investment climate will be even better. Our other agenda is economic development and for this we want to mobilise domestic resources and capital, and also welcome private foreign direct investment. The only thing we ask is to be allowed to define our national priorities.
We want to fully assure international investors already in Nepal that we welcome them here, and we will work to make the investment climate even better than it is now. Just watch, the labour-mangement climate will improve in our time in office. What happened in the past two years with the unions happened during a transition phase, but the business sector also hasn’t identified the other factors that are causing them losses.”

more from him:

“What do you mean by national industrial capitalism?
Local development is important. Every state wants to give priority or protection to its own industry. Otherwise why have a state? When we allow foreign direct investment we will give priority to those who have a local partnership. That way the national entrepreneurial class will also develop and the national economy will benefit.
How about the hydropower deals that have already been agreed on?
The ones that have been signed needn’t have been done in a hush-hush manner, after all we were in an interim period and we could agreed on it collectively. By agreeing to these projects a day before we returned to government has aroused suspicions. But we understand that big hydro projects are not possible without foreign investment. The deals could have been negotiated in a more open manner. If there has been major irregularities, we need to investigate them, correct the decision-making process but we don’t want to discourage investors by shutting down projects.”

I’ll reply to each of your quotes as it seems that they represent the 3 parts of your argument. But I will do so out of order since the last quote logically fits in between the two.

You make my argument for me in quote one. This “comrade” openly admits that their job is bringing about bourgeois democratic conditions to Nepal. He foolishly believes that a “tiny and backward” country like Nepal can regulate capital within Nepal. They cannot. As I stated before, no capitalist in his or her right mind wants to invest in Nepal if neap demands heavy regulations. It’s either all or nothing. Nepal is realllllly out of the way. Its reaaaaaly unstalble (Terai separatist movements), and the Maoists are communists. If the Nepalese make it even harder and say “btw you will have heavy labor and environmental regulations” no capitalist will stay for long. It simply isn’t profitable. Small nations can’t regulate capital very well, they don’t have the power.


Now I will skip to quote 3. I don’t really care too much about the hydropower project. I imagine that the Maoists had to offer generous provisions and that the Maoists will meet with force any sort of labor disruption on the project. I am more interested in that “entrepanuerial class” comment. Do you not find it somewhat idiotic to breed a small capitalist class when you are trying to build communism? The Nepalese are actively creating a bulwark against socialism. These are the people that provide the backbone to every far right reactionary movement in history and they are encouraging them to grow!

Finally onto the second quote. When the “comrade” discusses a “favorable investment climate” he doesn’t mean sunny skies and spring showers. He means that the Nepalese government will take proactive steps to ensure that capitalist make profits in Nepal. How do they intend to do this? Well it seems like part of it is bringing stability. That means ensuring that the Terai don’t go apeshit. The Terai control some of the most valuable land in Nepal, and the best access to India. This may prove difficult and could require military action of the not so “revolutionary” variety. What other things will the Maoists do to encourage foreign investment and development? The “comrade” hopes that “the labour-mangement climate will improve in our time in office” and that the recent strikes were just part of a “transition.” In other words this “comrade” has proven me correct. He has openly admitted that the Maoists hope to secure labor peace, to discourage strikes, and most probably scab on striking workers.

In these three quotes you have unequivocally confirmed that the Nepalese Maoists are going to provide large opportunities for investment and bring harm to the worker’s movement. They will draw this investment by cutting wages, eliminating environmental regulations and breaking strikes. And because they are a self admitted “tiny” country, they have no hope to try and properly regulate these capitalists in the first place. Ah Nepal, land of sweatshops and opportunity! What a bright future of strike breaking, pollution and capitalist exploitation!

[Die Neue Zeit]

You all seem to forget that the Russian revolution was quite mature. The Soviets and factory committees were organic representations of working class power. The Bolsheviks trumpeted these developments only so long as it bolstered their popular support. Once they had taken control of the state and its military apparatuses, they were able to enforce a program to their liking. And no matter how many times you bleat “material conditions of Russia” that doesn’t justify the elimination of self management, the jailing of dissidents and the conscription of soldiers. These actions directly contradict revolutionary theory and practice.

JHG, did you get to read CPGB comrade Mike Macnair's article series on "The revolutionary party" (article links reposted in the Theory thread "Kautsky v. Lenin")?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...3&postcount=32

In it, he says that the soviets could never have been face-value organs of workers' power, because contesting within them were parties.

In my "Road to Power" thread (Chapter 6 of my work), I also state the case for the "party" as the organ of revolution and workers' power (with "party" having a different meaning here ).

[Rawthentic]

thanks for the reply Joe, I will probably respond this weekend, or, if not, on monday.

Maybe even later today. But I shall respond.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

thanks for the reply Joe, I will probably respond this weekend, or, if not, on monday.

Maybe even later today. But I shall respond.

No rush, getting intoxicated and making bad decisions you'll regret on monday is more important than the internet. You should never mix the two.

[Rawthentic]

Intoxicated? I dont even drink.

Its just that responding is time consuming and I do research to back up what I say.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Intoxicated? I dont even drink.

Its just that responding is time consuming and I do research to back up what I say.

1. that'll have to change now that you're going into uni
2. surely you do other stuff in its stead?

[Rawthentic]

So then is the mass line for people who aren’t part of the masses? If you have to merge with the masses, then you’re prolly not part of the masses in the first place, right? Is this some sort of petit bourgeois plan for narodnick types to submerge themselves amongst the people? Is this some program for rich white students to submerge themselves amongst the poor?

To be honest I really could care less how Mao defined the mass line, but how the mass line expressed itself in practice. Words are tricky little devils. They often mean multiple things. Now last time I checked the BPP’s mass line practice came in the form of stuff like the free breakfast program, which was run for the working class, and by the working class. That sounds awfully similar to dual power to me, which is probably why it was successful. Nor does the ten point program sound much different from the “transitional demands” of Trot groups. I mean honestly dude, this ain’t that original.

The mass line is a program for communists, to make ties and build roots (and learn!) amongst the people. It doesnt matter if you were born working class or you are some factory worker. That does not mean that one has ties with the masses. It is the method by which communists can thrive, learn from, and lead the people.

What the mass line was in terms of the BPP was that they went out in the poorer black neighborhoods, and basically interview peopled to ask them of their troubles, concerns, desires, etc. Not only that, but they also SAW them themselves. This is one of the methods by which they took scattered and non-systemic ideas from the masses, and in a way converted them in a political program that could lead and guide them to change.

Well of the 3 “leaders” you listed only one of them was heavily involved in the IWW. DeLeon left the IWW a few years after joining, because the IWW adopted an anti political platform. Debs was always relatively marginal because he spent most of his time on SPUSA stuff. Haywood was a good speaker, organizer, and an imposing man, but he was not a leader. He had no coercive power over the union, and he didn’t generate any major theoretical contributions for the movement. He was just a good militant, that’s it. I know there is this tendency to identify any prominent or influential member of the class struggle as a “leader,” but those kinds of leaders are qualitatively different from what you propose.

The IWW had any number of influential militants without a clear hierarchy amongst them. Flyn, Little, Haywood, my own namesake, none had a faction or a program or anything like that. These were regular people, who had committed to the struggle and had made great contributions, but they weren’t indispensable. There’s a reason why in the “Ballad of Joe Hill” the line “I never died says he,” is so prominent. For all his contributions, Joe Hill was a common worker who understood what was needed for the class struggle. He didn’t see himself as extraordinary but in part of a long line of working class organizers.

And this is where Maoism fails. Anarchist movements and council communist movements had prominent militants who guided the struggle. But none of these people were irreplaceable or were considered theoretical superior to everyone else. We understand that militants can grossly err on a number of topics. That’s why we don’t carry around a book of their views on every political topic under the sun.

This is partially why you generate such bad lines. The BPP was mysogenist and homophobic, the RCP homophobic, the Sendero Luminoso elevated Gonzalo to demi god status so on and so forth. Why does this keep happening? Probably because the veneration of leaders creates conditions ideal for weird out of whack political lines.

You seem to think that leaders are by their nature "coercive" and that is not true. Regardless if you want to call them "committed militants", they were leaders of the IWW and of the labor movement. There is no denying this. I have never implied that they were perfect or that they were (or should be) elevated to gods, but leaders they were.

What do you think I "propose"? I havent made any proposals for leaderships, I am just stating an obvious fact: without leaders, orders, a central, cadres, etc., there can never be a revolution. Maybe there will be scattered, spontaneous riots, but never a serious, coherent revolution that had the possibility of seizing power.

You see, without the leaders the IWW had, it would never have lasted. In fact, it would never have been created! I dont care what you want to call them, they were leaders that their other militants looked up to, respected, and expected to give effective leadership. Within the IWW, and within any worthwhile organization, there will be those that have a higher theoretical understanding. Unless you think that everyone is at the same level? I hope not.

In the chinese revolution, people praised Mao as being their "helmsman." Is there something wrong with this? Can a ship get to its correct destination in time if it didnt have a helmsman (or captain)?

Joe Hill is similar to the concept of "jimmy higgins", which is basically a worker that never tires and is always carrying out activity. Yet this runs on a false of premise of "natural class instinct" as if (by instinct) workers could know the fundamental oppression of capitalism and the need for revolution, and underestimates the leaps that people need to make to get to that sort of understanding.

So, you think that maoist parties in the past had wrong lines DUE to "cult leaders?" You dont think it had something to do with the fact that they were incredibly involved in a struggle, embedded in a society that nurtured those wrong lines? I dont defend those wrong lines, or cults, but we need to take a materialist view of where it is they come from. And, when they do arise, we need to criticize them fearlessly because they are wrong, and move beyond them.

Alright, change the methodology. But you can’t change the past methodlogy of the RCP and that’s what’s in contention here. You assert that the RCP was a serious communist force in the US post BPP. But if their methodology is so flawed from the very beginning then the whole party is likely to be pretty worthless

Yes, the RCP cannot "reform" and become a better party. You should look at the discussions we have on Kasama about that.

If you’re not here to defend the RCP then you shouldn’t be defending them like this. Concede that they were relatively worthless and we can move on.

Today, they are (increasingly) irrelevant organization. But, in the past, they were very important. We should be so pragmatic. The reason the RCP was important in the past had a lot to do with line and theory, not so much what they did (although that is important as well).

The official reason is totally wrong. Avakian’s charges were dropped shortly after he fled the country. Remember, this is the son of a federal judge. Avakian has refused to come of hiding for some 25 plus years out of some sort of paranoia that the government is going to arrest him and put him on trial. Yet there is no case against him, in fact, he was never put on trial. This sort of behavior displays serious mental shortcomings. It lays bare Avakian’s nuttiness and justifies why others view him as a dolt. The man either has a hyper inflated sense of importance or he’s is suffering from some form of paranoid schizophrenia. Why else would he be in hiding for no good reason?

His theoretical contributions are no more important than any other. He’s a marginal figure. What is “charting the unchartered course,”? How did he combat economism and workerism? What makes his critiques of those things so much better than the reams written against economism and workerism by other theorists? While you may deride my focus on outcomes as “pragmatist” (which is hilarious since Dewey was something of a socialist), it is a materialist and rational way to analyze the world. Revolutionary groups should be measured on their contributions, past and present, and the RCP fails on both accounts.

he didnt stay in exile because he's a "nut." He did it because it exalts him, gives the sort of altar that Lenin had when he HAD to go into exile. Im not defending him.

"Charting the uncharted course" basically means to break free from the straits of communist theory as it is. To bring forward a new synthesis of communism in light of the drastic changes the world has had since the last socialist bastion, china. He did talk about this, but it never materialized. The RCP has made no breakthroughs. In terms of economism and workerism, you can read his memoir, or just good "avakian on economism", and it will come up. You can see there for yourself. Unless you want to discuss that here, and I dont mind that either.

I’m sure the EZLN would have something to say about that characterization. They’re actually quite revolutionary. For example, the Other Campaign was an attempt to build a national infrastructure of resistance so that they could overthrow the Mexican state. Their 1992 revolt was supposed to do the same thing. Of course unlike the Naxalites, the Zapatistas understood their limitations. They saw that they did not have the capacity to overthrow the state at the time and opted to maintain what they had gained while finding other ways to spread the struggle. If you gave them 30,000 armed guerillas they might change their tune, but for now things remain different.

Something is wrong with the People’s War if the war does not bear any sort of quantitative or qualitative results. The naxalties and the NPA are not building towards a revolution. The latter is stagnating and the former is declining. Something new is needed. A new tactic or a new plan is necessary to build a revolution. The Maoists can’t seem to find it though. For all your talk of “encircling the cities” these movements aren’t anywhere near such a feat. They’re stuck in the same zones fighting the same battles, over and over and over again. Class struggle is hard work, but it is constantly evolving. As capital creates new tools to fight us, we need new tactics. The Maoists are not delivering.

The People’s war in Nepal is obviously more successful. Not surprising because Nepal is less developed, has fewer soldiers and has less foreign assistance. But of course while the people’s war gained control of the countryside, the Katmandu valley remained in control of the Government. This is where the majority of the population and the majority of the wealth of Nepal reside. Such a situation could have gone on indefinitely were it not for the 7 party alliance and the action by the urban masses. Thus the people’s war was a revolutionary failure, it encircled the city, but to no avail.

no, no, I am sorry, the Other Campaign has nothing to do with overthrowing the state. Nothing. Its aim is to build resistance movements, aside from, or within the mexican state (dont know how). The 1992 revolt never had the power to overthrow even the state government, it was NOT EVEN its aim. What it wanted to do (and did well) was to call attention to the NAFTA agreement that that president Salinas de Gortari called into action, that would basically displace the indigenous peoples and other rural sectors. My parents are mexican immigrants, I have some background in this. In fact, in mexico, i've heard people call Marcos "subcomediante marcos", or "subcomedian marcos," and they have good reason to do so.

I strongly discourage you from depending on wikipedia or other nominally bourgeois sources for these stats. They obviously dont want people to know the strength of any communist force (or that the Naxals hold nearly 1/3 of India!).

What sort of results do you expect to see? Why is it that they should all of a sudden mushroom and grow so much? Do you not understand the particulars of india? There is no other correct method to make socialist revolution in india, it is the method built by those who understand their conditions better than you or I. You can say nepal failed, this and that, but it is objective that were it not for that rev war, there would still be a monarchy, and nepal would not be advancing in the direction it is now. You overestimate the strength that the Naxals have, and underestimate that of the state. For example, about a month ago, the Maoists killed 24 policemen. How did the state react? They have opened 6 new counter insurgency schools. If the Maoists were so irrelevant, why would this happen? Why would the Indian PM claim that the Maoists are the main threat to "internal security"? All the time there are reports on the Maoists killing so many officers, blowing shit up, and basically advancing the war, alongside the people. Blowing shit up doesnt in itself mean they are making breakthroughs, but there is a reason they control 1/3 of India, and the Indian reactionaries are scared as fuck.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called these rebel armies “the single greatest security challenge ever faced by our country.”

You have misread the numbers my friend. The Maoists have 38 percent of the seats in the assembly. Like any representative system, the seats do not accord with popular support. The vote for the main 3 parties is as follows,

Maoists FPTP 3,145,519 votes 30.52%
Maoists Proportional 3,144,204votes, 29.28%
Congress FPTP 2,348,890 22.79%
Congress Proportional 2,269,883 21.14%
Unified Marxist Leninist
Unified Marxist Leninist
Source

Now that we have cleared away the fog, I think we can both agree that the Maoists have considerable opponents. Congress and the CPN(ML) have support comparable to the Maoists, and can unite to check the Maoists at any turn. Your platitudes about the overwhelming mass support for Maoism do not stand up to scrutiny. Provide new evidence or abandon this position.

The People’s War was a failure in that it did not overthrow the monarchy. The People’s War was successful in encircling Katmandu and eliminating the government in the countryside. However the People’s War then got stuck in the countryside. It was the 7 party alliance that broke the back of the Monarchy and it was the multipartisan general strike which delivered the killing blow. The Maoists did not have the necessary popular support within the Katmandu valley. They couldn’t win alone.

ah, fair enough. But, regardless, it doesnt change the fact that the maoists do hold considerable and majority support amongst the oppressed of Nepal. That is my point, and that is what matters here. "Overwhelming mass support" lol lol. You want me to abandon the fact that the maoists enjoy more support amongst the people than do the other parties? And that it is definitely more meaningful than the support of the others (we are talking about a communist party)? No.

if it werent for the peoples war, there would never have been a seven party alliance. It was what created the grounds for the anti-monarchical movement and what there is now. Period, there is nothing to discuss here.

The problem of reality is that it corresponds to measurable facts. 28,000 soldiers do not accord with any measurements I have seen. Produce a reputable source to back this or abandon it. The same goes for the naxalite soldier account. Why should we take his word as truth? He clearly has a strong bias. Wikipedia cites the height of Naxalite soldiers at around 30,000 back in the 70s and puts current figures around 9-15 thousand. This AP article crossposted on a Naxal sympathetic site also puts their numbers at 10-15 thousand. The same article also points out how the Naxalites have a big problem with finding weapons. While large in scope, the Naxalite movement is obviously stuck in a quagmire. They can’t go outside of their rural strongholds, they don’t have the people or the material.

It doesnt matter if it doesnt accord with facts youve seen. This comes from a very reliable source, a revolutionary sympathetic to the indian maoists that is IN india! Imagine that. You sound more liberal everyday. Bias? I have a bias, and that is I favor the masses and their revolutionary movements around the world. Yeah.

You have absolutely no evidence that they are in a "quagmire". No matter if they have 30,000 or 15,000, this does not mean they are in a rut or are stagnating. Numbers dont prove this. Youre gonna have to show how they do not operate in the cities (because i already proved they did) and make no advances (there are also retreats, it is part of a revolution) in the countryside.

The latino working class doesn’t know anything about Maoism either. But when you start talking to people about the need for a maoist revolution they will ask questions. Questions like “What sort of movements came about in Latin America?” And you will answer “the Shining Path” and then they will ask you to decribe them. You’ll say something like “Oh they’re awesome!” Then a week later, the same person will come back and mention the Luacana massacre where 18 of the victims were children. You will then respond with the oft repeated “bourgeois lies!” and then they will ignore you.

Of course they dont know. Where did I say they did? When I tell them the need for "maoist revolution", its not as if there is some other type of revolution. When we talk about maoist revolution, it is socialist revolution applied to the conditions of that particular nation. If the SL comes up, I would discuss it objectively, pointing out their importance, and also their shortcomings, but I WONT let them swallow bourgeois propaganda.

You are forgetting Ukraine, a rather large country, which also implemented anarchist organization over long time period. While both Spain and Ukraine which eliminated capitalism, created workers/community councils and created worker’s militias, Maoist China failed in all three categories. And while the Ukraine and Spain were crushed by the combined onslaught of Leninist and fascist armies, China went capitalist because of the communist party. For all its wondrous achievements you have forgotten that Chinese state capitalism was never able to fend off private capitalism, even though it was under no real military pressure to do so. Your precious Communist leaders paved the way for counter revolution.

China went capitalist because of the CCP? China was state capitalist? Prove it. Show how the production and property relations did NOT reflect socialist relations. You can't because state capitalism did not exist dominant to socialism. It existed subordinate to the emerging socialist economy. Stop making assertions about china, and back them up, scientifically. Don't say things like "there were leaders, oh no!", but get into the relations of chinese society at the time.

Well actually it does. If I am contributing to the power and confidence of the working class I am clearly not bourgeois. Again, ideas are nice and all, but practice is what matters. You could have a great line and it wouldn’t matter without practice. But if you have great practice your line can suck.

We are discussing line, not whatever you do. I dont care what you do, I care about your 'theories', and line. This is line struggle.

No matter how many times you say that you’re against cult leaders, the practices of leadership that you uphold are cult-like. For example, “self criticism” is a common practice in all cults. The Maoist practice of struggle sessions, where everyone points out your flaws in a big group, is exactly how cults utilize “self criticism.” All cults also claim that their leaders have taken things to x theoretical height, and have accomplished y feats. They then use these past accomplishments to justify nearly unerring loyalty. This is also similar to Mao. He led a long, bloody, but ultimately successful insurgency. But his time in power led to some big unmitigated disasters. Yet despite a mediocre effort, Mao comes out as some sort of grand exceptional leader.

No cultism. You cant prove that. You dont know what criticism, self criticism is. It is about accepting your past mistakes, and correcting them in order to become a better communist and serve the people better. In the struggle meetings in china, it was a profound time of transformation both for those conducting the struggle and those struggled against. You need to understand that in such amazing upheavals as these, the consciousness and worldview of the people are transformed. Like I said, there were excesses, but this does not change the fact that is was an overwhelmingly positive experience for the masses. When, under capitalism (or anywhere else) do the masses get together and criticize their leaders face to face in order to transform them? Nowhere. It was a phenomenon that became famous in china and around the world. You can call it cult like, but it simply does not accord to the reality they experienced.

The people loved mao. He led one of the greatest and radical revolutions in human history. There is a reason we uphold them, and that people around the world still remember the leadership he provided internationally, very fondly.

The Chinese revolution had an impact on the people. But I do not think it had such a profound impact as you like to think. Why else would the people of china so easily take up capitalist market relations? Why has Mao fallen by the wayside so effortlessly? Well I think part of it may be that the CCP did treat the people like drones to some degree. Popular opinion and popular ideas were easy to mold and shift, because the populace was shaped by authoritarianism and conformity.

Again you provide an incredibly biased example. It proves nothing. What you have described could be an example of genuine transformation or it could be Stockholm Syndrome. As I said before, “self criticism sessions” are awfully similar to brain washing, and I’m sure these sessions were a prominent portion of “revolutionary prison” (what a fucking oxymoron there).

Describing the GLF and the CR as disasters is not bourgeois. Bourgeois people may agree with me, but that does not mean the argument itself is bourgeois. Any anarchist on this board would agree with me. Are we all bourgeois? I hope not. Anyway, the GLF precipitated a famine, worthless steel, and a lot of deforestation. How exactly was this a great step forward for the people of China? Are famines a good thing? The CR from any angle looks like a power grab. Mao and his faction of leaders wanted to oust the “capitalist” faction of leaders. Bands of red guards roamed the country and arbitrarily beat down opponents, so much damage was done that Mao had to shuttle them off into the countryside. If the CR was so great why did Mao have to get rid of his revolutionary vanguard? Perhaps because he sought to consolidate power, not bring about a revolution.

It was more profound than I make it out to be. The people experienced democracy where they never had before. Men could not beat their wives. Drug addiction was abolished. People had jobs, food on their tables, and roofs over their heads. Children from worker and peasant families could go to college now. Work and production took on the character of serving the people and the revolutionary cause. The people had the ability to criticize (publicly!) those leaders they disagreed with. And on, and on, and on... The populace were not treated like drones! You can never prove this! It was against the policy of the CCP to treat people like that, they maintained the correct policy of "patient persuasion" to change people, not beatings or force. Its sick the way you can mischaracterize such a revolution, with so little understanding of its real history.

Ah, geez. So you think those american prisoners were in fact, brain washed? You dont think they could have learned about the Revolution and become partisans of it? In every revolution, the ideas of the people are inevitably transformed as a result in the change in production and property relations. It is a vital part of the overall social transformation. The maoists were known for never using force or coercive methods to change people (unlike the US). What is wrong with a revolutionary prison. Prisons exist under socialism.

I dont mean to say that your class is bourgeois; your class OUTLOOK is. What is wrong with steel furnaces (amongst other industries that rural china took up) when they make the livelihood of the people...better? The lies about the GLF that you perpetuate come from anti-communist scholars. Was there famine yes? Can it be all blamed on Mao? of course not. But, if you take a look at all of the sources that say that it was a mass famine where 30 million people were killed, its no doubt an anti-communist said this. We need to be critical about these kinds of things. For example, Victor Marchetti, a former staff officer in the Office of the Director of the CIA, wrote that the CIA set up the Asia Foundation and subsidized it to the tune of $8 million a year to support the work of “anti-communist academicians in various Asian countries, to disseminate throughout Asia a negative vision of mainland China, North Vietnam and North Korea.”
There was a famine, but not to the proportions that anti-communists make it out to be, and many people benefited from the development it created.

Believe it or not, there was a faction of leaders within the CCP that were taking capitalist lines, and they needed to be combated. I proved this already. Were red guards arbitrarily killing people lol? No. They did make excesses, but their purpose and overall achievements overshadow what you say. Also, lol, they were not sent to the countryside because of this (this reveals your clear misunderstanding of china's revolution), but to unite with the peasants, work with them, lead them, and to lessen the gap between mental and manual labor. Mao did not want to "get rid" of the vanguard. He wanted THE MASSES to rise up and defeat those leaders that went against the socialist tide. Mao did not purge the party, the MASSES were doing it! This was unprecedented in socialism. And, btw, Mao stopped being chairman of the PRC in 1959 and the cultural revolution began in 1966.

When you think about the cultural revolution, think about millions of students, workers, peasants, intellectuals, that have never before experienced the power they had, or the revolutionary spirit and consciousness they had as well. When Mao called on them to defeat capitalist roaders, they took it up mainly because, they respected Mao, they understood the need to continue socialism, and wanted to remake the world.

Ah I see they were “transformed.” So they left rapists in charge? Does this somehow not accord with logic and reality? When someone uses their position of power to sexually abuse others, you don’t give it back to them. So in the situation you describe, either the cadre went back to their old ways eventually, or they were too afraid of a public lynching, and didn’t exploit the people…as much. Because this is what it boils down to. No leader can be transformed, not unless you eliminate the institution of hierarchical leadership.

The kind of cadre leadership you describe should be rotated and shared around, if not eliminated. Because when you let one person control the reigns of power they will eventually begin to accrue undo influence and coercive power. That is what always happens and what will continue happen regardless of what socialist honorific you give it. Those guys did what any leader would do…exploit.

Well Mao is portrayed as a good king for a reason. How else could he have popular support in a revolutionary regime? He needed to be both the great leader and a “a man of the people” at the same time. When you have a huge state apparatus devoted towards perpetuating that myth and shooting those who disagree, support is guaranteed. History is littered with leaders who had enormous popular support. Napoleon had popular support. FDR had popular support. It’s actually pretty easy. All you need are guns and propaganda.

Why does socialism need commodity production and surplus value to build communism? As far as I see, we are perfectly capable of organizing production so that everyone receives an equal share of the industrial commonwealth. While it will take awhile to bring true communism, this does not mean we need to organize production with bosses, unequal wages, and minority control of coercive violence.

No, those cadres that took liberties with women (i never said they were all rapists), were truly transformed and did not commit such things again. Before the mass movement to rectify the party members, it was not illegal for cadres to beat the people when they did not listen. After that movement, it was illegal, and cadres dare not do it for fear of being imprisoned, beaten by the masses, or killed. Leaders could be transformed, and china showed this. They were sincerely transformed in the eyes (and criticisms!) of the people. Prove they did not. I dont understand how eliminating hierarchy will transform them. There needed to be leaders. Without them, there would have been no revolution.

The cadres never exploited the masses, not in the degree you say. Was it wrong for them? is there some inherent, hidden exploitation in having leadership? How so? Many (MOST) leaders were loved and respected by the people because of their selflessness and commitment, but there was a minority that went against this tide.

How (and when?) did Mao call on dissidents to be shot? Can you prove that this happened? Why do you insist on making claims about china that you cannot back up? Mao had popular support because he led a massive, radical, revolution amongst the people. He was their leader and he was respected. How can this be compared to fucking FDR or even worse, Napoleon? Wow. When did those two reactionaries ever lead a revolution? Be careful in comparing communist leaders to fuckers like FDR and Napoleon. They have nothing in common.

In china there was no "minority control." There is commodity production under socialism because it cannot be eliminated outright, it needs to be done during the protracted process of building socialism. Also, under socialism, there are no equal wages either. How can every worker be paid the exact same thing?

My point about these revolts and revolutions is that they operated without exalted leaders but through the collective efforts of thousands of committed militants. These revolutions did not have and did not need leaders, as they were pushed forward with the collective action of the working class.

yeah, they had leaders, even if they werent "exalted" or whatever silly term it is you think that I want to use in terms of leaders. Collective action yes, and leadership as well. There was leadership there, period. I just dont see anything else you can say about this.

Again with the insults. Calm down already.

Lenin devoted his life to revolution like many power mongers devoted themselves to revolution. Avakian is a bit of a power nut no? Lenin was a pretty middling guy and Russia had a rigid social structure. Only a revolution would have provided him an avenue to power. And while “all power to the soviets” garnered popular support and allowed him to overthrow the horridly incompetent Kerensky. His later policies clearly did not garner popular support. That’s why he outlawed other political parties, had to conscript soldiers, and force feed one man management to workers operating under self management.

You all seem to forget that the Russian revolution was quite mature. The Soviets and factory committees were organic representations of working class power. The Bolsheviks trumpeted these developments only so long as it bolstered their popular support. Once they had taken control of the state and its military apparatuses, they were able to enforce a program to their liking. And no matter how many times you bleat “material conditions of Russia” that doesn’t justify the elimination of self management, the jailing of dissidents and the conscription of soldiers. These actions directly contradict revolutionary theory and practice.

Describing my emphasis on self management and worker’s democracy as a fetish is extremely disconcerting. The worker’s movement is a movement to bring democracy to all facets of society. The system of capitalism must be eliminated because it is a vast private tyranny which dehumanizes and destroys those who work for it. In order to bring about a communist society, we must cultivate communist consciousness and practice. Self management is key in this aspect. When workers manage their own affairs, in a democratic and open way, their consciousness and practice rise up together. Bosses only serve to perpetuate an exploitative economic system. For when you give control and disciplinary power to one person over a whole workforce, that person will always do violence to, and gain a profit from, those workers. And conversely those workers will lose their humanity, as they are forced into alienated labor (as it is not self directed, but boss directed) and lose their confidence. To implement any kind of system of boss rule is thus not just wrong, it is anti communist. To echo a great anarchist “If ain’t self management, it’s not my revolution!”

Power monger huh? Ok. And because of this he did evil deeds like one-man management? Your logic is cartoonish. Personally, I dont mind his outlawing political parties in opposition to the Bolsheviks. They were the ones that had the support of the people and led the social revolution. Not only that, but within the Bolsheviks there were warring factions vying for their positions. This wasnt done out of some "power hungry" sentiments. There may have been some wrongs decisions made, but it is a fact that they had a better footing on their material conditions, and those decisions did not change the overall socialist nature of the soviet state. Lenin was a leader, a human who made mistakes and led the worlds first socialist revolution. Of course there were going to be setbacks and adverse conditions. You think that the imperialist and reactionaries were going to allow russia to go on on the path it was pursuing? Of course not.

The Russian revolution was not mature, this is false. The Bolsheviks had the majority support within the soviets, and amongst the majority of workers and peasants. They were the leaders of the soviet state, legitimate in the eyes of the masses, and they made policies and programs that advanced the revolutionary cause. What is your point? Do you think that, looking at the conditions facing russia, workers could self-manage all industry!? No, it was not possible. Never before in their history had they managed a factory, let alone an industry. It was not possible. To do so would have taken many years of preparation and better conditions in which to carry it out.

In a revolutionary society, especially one facing the hardships that russia did, jailing dissidents is not a problem, and is welcomed by the people. One of the purposes of the socialist state is to crush the reactionaries that are a danger to socialism, similar to how the capitalist state crushes rebellion (in a inverted way). A revolution is not a dinner party. There are hot and teeming contradictions that come to the fore. Basically, a new socialist state needs to protect itself, and, if jailing hardcore dissidents works, so be it. Now, I am against the jailing of those who simply voice a concern within socialism, but those who want to overthrow socialism, that is a different question.

Workers self-managing an industry does not create a communist consciousness. This underestimates how the people can actually come to this consciousness. Democracy in the workplace is important, but calling it consciousness-raising is incorrect, just like struggling for higher wages will not bring a rev consciousness in the people. You need to learn to differentiate between different types of managers, and within which society it operates in. Under socialism, managers are radically different than those under capitalism. They DO NOT appropriate or own the means of production, and they dont profit form it either. They are simply a part in which labor is structured to make it run smoothly (meet quotas, hours, etc). Without it, there would be no organization in which to carry it out. In the future, there will probably be new forms of workplace organization (like in china there was the 3 in 1 formation). Workers dont lose their humanity if they have managers, there is clearly a need for them. They lose their humanity when their collective, social labor is appropriated in the form of profit by a capitalist. But under socialism, things are radically different. Workers work for the advance of the revolution, and the surplus they create goes to this. Please learn to tell the difference between institutions under capitalism, and what they represent under socialism.

Well you suggest that we should have bosses, who will boss around their workers. You suggest that we should have political leaders who will tell people how to act and think. And you suggest that we will have jails for those who would like democratic workplaces. This will not bring about communism, because it perpetuates the economic and social relations of the old society. These are not birthmarks, but the same bloody institutions.

Countless mass revolts and revolutions were organized using councils and militias. In all cases these organizations were plenty capable of fighting off counter revolution. The anarchists of Spain only lost when the Stalinists and the fascists ganged up on them. The RIAU of Ukraine fought off the Reds, Whites, and Greens all within a short period of time. All other institutions, such as school, tribunals, etc. will be organized and coordinated by these community and worker’s assemblies. It’s all rather simple

When I say “workers society” I speak of all those working that are oppressed and exploited by capitalism. Let’s not get into petty semantic games.

While we may live under capitalism, we must structure our resistance, and much of lives in a way that actively eliminates capitalist mindsets. We can do this through mass self organized struggle, but also through the construction of alternative institutions such as schools, community gardens, mutual aid societies, etc. This is what anarchists mean when we call to build the “new society in the shell of the old.” The revolution is not some random uprising to create a society of red bureaucrats. The Revolution is a tipping point where these forces of popular residence and popular organization overcome the forces of state repression. Thus there is no need for a state post revolution, there is a need to organize forces against counter revolution, but again this can be done with worker councils and worker’s militias.

I suggest that we have bosses? Where did I say that? There is a difference between leaders under socialism, who are there to serve the people, and those under capitalism, who exploit them (this is what i mean when i say differentiate between capitalism and socialism dude). Leaders under socialism should never be arbitrary and tell people how to think or act. That def goes against the spirit of what socialism is all about! When people disagree with something, the leaders will have to go out and try and explain to the people why it is important they they take it up or accept it. But beating them defeats it. For example, in china, during the agrarian revolution, mant peasants decided that they no longer wanted to go to meetings, participate in mutual aid societies, etc. What was there to do? Should the cadres beat the peasants? Nah, what they did was explained, peasant by peasant, the need for this, and many came to understand it and take it up. By doing this, they appreciated the ability of the peasants to understand, the latter took it up voluntarily.

Like I said, socialism has the similar institutions than capitalism, but with completely DIFFERENT class interests. Have you grasped this concept yet? There are prisons, courts, police, army, militias, schools, and other organs of state power (mass organization, workers councils, etc.) It is not perpetuating the birthmarks of the old society. Also, dont come here and say that the revolution will be made by workers councils. It is a dogmatic following of the past, not a real, scientific analysis of the new conditions in todays world. That is an old formulation, get with today. How can workers councils meet revolutionary needs in such a complex society like the US (with all its dynamic class contradictions, nationalities, etc.)?

When you say "workers society" it is still wrong and narrow, I dont care if its semantic on my part, it is a wrong formulation. As far as Im concerned, "workers" does not mean peasants, lumpen, small farmers, or intellectuals. It means workers.

We should build the foundations of a new society "in the shell of the old". This is what the chinese revolution did in building its base areas in Northern China, what the Nepali Maoists did, and what the Indian Maoists are doing (although at a less advanced stage).

These positions are common class struggle anarchist positions. Nothing bourgeois here.

You dont think it is bourgeois when you repeat the exact same things that the rich anti-communists do? Saying that lenin and mao were "power mongers" sounds so liberal and bourgeois that its funny. Ask anyone, they will say the samething.

Also, if this is the position of anarchists (and i dont think you speak for them here), then anarchists must also be bourgeois liberals (like the democrats).

What you have just described is a faction fight between two different sections of state power. One section of the party wanted to move towards private capitalism and Mao wanted to keep bureaucratic state capitalism. Mao was weakened because the GLF failed big, and thus he used the personality cult that had been cultivated since the revolution to mobilize young students to move against the “capitalist roader” faction. Of course once Mao had properly defeated his opponents (after public beatings, lynchings, the destruction of historic artifacts, the halting of all educational and economic activity and some really disturbing “self criticism” sessions) he sent the students into the countryside so they could farm pigs and no longer operate as a political force. I’m sure it was convenient to say that he was building a bridge between mental and Manuel labor, but come on, its pretty obvious, that it was a pretext to get rid of the red guards after he had fully consolidated power.

Your inability to see this in any other frame but “Mao called on the people to rise up and they did!” Is kind of silly. These children were brought up post revolution, in an environment where Mao was venerated as a public hero. His book was basic reading material in almost all schools. When their great father figure told them to rise up…they rose up. Big flipping deal.

Wrong again.

China, under mao, was not a primarily state capitalist economy. It did exist, but subordinate to the socialist planned economy. When you prove that socialist relations did not exist, then we can talk about this again (and saying there were leaders does not prove a thing).

You make china and the leadership of Mao seem like some sort of dystopian "big brother" nightmare. Come on. There were those within the CCP that wanted to create a personality cult of chairman mao, but Mao himself opposed it, correctly arguing that it does not reflect a scientific understanding of leaders and leadership. He said:

“You should study the article written by Lenin on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Eugene Pottier. Learn to sing ‘The Internationale’ and ‘The Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention’. Let them not only be sung but also explained and acted upon. ‘The Internationale’ and Lenin’s article express throughout a Marxist standpoint and outlook. What they say is that slaves should arise and struggle for truth. There never has been any supreme saviour, nor can we rely on gods or emperors. We rely entirely on ourselves for our salvation. Who has created the world of human beings? We the laboring masses. During the Lushan Conference I wrote a 700-word article which raised the question of who created history, the heroes or the slaves.”

Those things you name (beatings and all) were a product of the way the masses reacted to the capitalist roaders and their influence. So? What is your point. You think Mao told them to do that? Or they did it of their own accord? People that lived through the Revolution were pofoundly transformed, as were students and young people. They had a different outlook than the youth in america or elsewhere, this is obvious:they were products of socialist society, and you make it seem like Mao brainwashed them into thinking he was some sort of super deity. btw, there were no lynchings. Dont compare it to the South.

Remember, after 1959, Mao had no real power! So, why would he send the red guards to the countryside so that he could consolidate something that he did not have? This makes no sense, and reveals the liberal strain of thought you have (mao was power hungry!). The youth and red guards were sent to the rural areas to serve the peasants in the struggle. How else could the bridge between town and country and mental vs manual labor ever be overcome? The intellectuals had to go too. They had the mental part, but not the manual part. THAT was why so many people were sent. After all, who asked the peasants if they wanted to live in the countryside?

Under capitalism, we read of the "greatness" of the Founding Fathers. Why was it so wrong for youth under socialism in china to learn Mao's theories and teachings? Chinese education existed to instill a socialist spirit to serve the people. If it didnt, why would it be there. Socialism was the ruling ideology, and thus people learned it and took it up.

"great father"? Wow. Wow. Wow. They respected Mao legitimately because of what he had done for the people! How hard is this to understand? You are the one that makes the chinese people sound like drones. You dont think there were intelligent enough to understand the contradictions in socialism and mobilize themselves to overcome them?

You don’t seem to understand the class dynamics of the US. Do you work? Because the comments about bosses makes me skeptical. Anyway, the unionized working class is too small to be some revolutionary buffer. Only 12% of all workers belong to a union. Many of these people are not white, but are people of color. Thus even if they were bought off, they represent a negligible section. However they are not bought off. Unionized workers get paid more because they fight more and they fight collectively. This is basic revolutionary theory, when workers fight back, they get better paid…duh.

Black and Latino workers fight plenty back. But so do white workers. I do not believe that a labor aristocracy exists in the United States. You will have to provide an actual argument to define who belongs to it, and define how it works. Otherwise all I see you talking about are workers who have better wages because they either fight harder or have learnt a desirable skill. Now are these people more conservative? I do not think so. Union workers always vote democrat in high numbers, and tend to hold relatively liberal views. Educated workers also tend to hold liberal views. It is the white working poor that sometimes, but not all the time, holds onto highly conservative views within the working class.

Now black, latino and asian workers can be militant and revolutionary. But as I stated before, a history of defeat and desperation can instill a tradition of acquiescence. The BPP was brutally crushed. Since the BPP the black working class has experienced progressively deleterious conditions. Yet no popular opposition has manifested an organization of comparable size or influence to the BPP. Why is this? Well I think it has something to do with an atmosphere of defeat and desperation. Also we should not forget that racial minorities can hold onto extremely reactionary views. Homosexuals are still not as accepted in the black and latino communities as they are in the white community. Blacks and Latinos also can hold reactionary religious views, including anti abortion, and chauvinistic positions. Black working class people also have a tendency to be virulently anti immigrant. You have idealized America’s racial minorities to be a revolutionary vanguard. Sadly, this is not so.

I do understand class dynamics here. I am the one that has provided the real argument that there is a labor aristocracy in the united states, while you have said that they are better off because they strike more often. You see, the imperialists have interests in creating divisions between sections of the proletariat. They do not want to see us united. They consciously drop a "few more crumbs" (so to speak) to that section of the proletariat in order to have it be less inclined to revolt. When I say they are more conservative, i say it terms of CLASS (overall) and relative to revolution. That is, relative to a revolutionary cause, they are conservative, more so than the superexploited blacks and latinos. Do they struggle more? Yeah. So? They have the unions. They dont work 10-12 hour days in the field or in construction like immigrants do, trying to scrape off some more dollars to feed their families.

This is the way in which that aristocracy was created. They gave a (tiny) piece of the pie to them. You see, during the New Deal, there was a great deal of unrest in the workers movement. What New Deal policies did is created this different section of the proletariat. Is this section exploited? yes, they are, but it is the reasons I outlined above as to why they would be less receptive to communism (at a time like this). In India, the indian state is consciously giving some form of welfare to different villages under Maoist support (or near there) for the purpose of "buying them off" so that they can be partisan to the state, not the maoists. Same concept.

I think you have a point as to the spirit of defeat amongst the lower, more oppressed sectors. Yet, material conditions cause these sections to be more inclined to rev politics. While the better off workers are definitely more complacent, these (mostly) black and latino proletarians must struggle much harder for less wages, face prison, shitty schools, and police brutality.

All these workers, white, and black, and latino, hold VERY backwards views in what you named, that I agree. But in terms of struggle, I see they are more inclined to do so, with the surface understanding that they are more fucked over than others. I think there is a great potential in the immigrant workers movement for this reason. They have "come out of the shadows" and shown they can act politically in their interests.

This applies to all immigrant workers today. I should also point out that many of those militant white workers were poor immigrants themselves. White workers did not come from a “different background”, because most of them were immigrants or second generation. Labor struggle helped lift them out of poverty not the color of their skin.

The labor movement is also not made for and by white workers. The largest unions in America, UNITE HERE, SEIU, Teamsters, UFCW, Afscme, and CWA are all either majority non white or have a significant non white minority. For example, Unite is made mostly of Hispanic and black women. This is pretty self evident if you ever go to a union meeting. These unions garner higher wages (not as high as they should be) by using collective power to force the owners to capitulate. Again, this is very basic class struggle stuff.

It doesnt matter what those workers were. It matters what they are now. I never said blacks or latinos didnt have unions, but not the degree that white workers have. And, nevertheless, does not change the fact that the black and latino proletariat is the backbone (of the proletariat in the US).

Well no. There were wages. There were bosses. And there was material inequality. The bureaucratic class used their power over the workers to aid in primitive accumulation (industrialization) and then used the rest to benefit themselves. That is state capitalism. State socialism is an oxymoron. It’s like anarcho capitalism. Of course things differed from full on private capitalism. Workers made less, but there were cradle to the grave benefits. Bureaucrats extracted less, but they had to do so in order to perpetuate the ruling myth that they were somehow “socialist” bosses, rather than regular bosses. But still, it was capitalism, just with red flags.

There were wages, there was bureaucracy, there were managers and leaders. Yeah, it is socialism. How were workers NOT going to be paid wages? Under socialism there are wages, and surplus value. But that surplus value goes to the creation of socialism and the bettering of the lives of the people, not the private accumulation of a capitalist (boss as you call it).

You can call it capitalism all you want, but, as ive said before, youll need to show how there werent socialist property and production relations in China, in every sphere of society. There were manangers, wages, surplus value, commodity production, state capitalism UNDER socialist china. But, this is socialism, not communism. If it were possible to make revolution without having to have and overcome all these things, id be the first one to sign up for it. But isnt possible. The people make history, but not in the conditions they want to. We have to deal with socialism as it arises out the capitalism and the problems that brings.

If capitalism existed in china, then a capitalist line would have lead that era, workers would be exploited under capitalists, education, healthcare, jobs, would not be guaranteed, and the people would not be able to rise up to voice their opinions and criticize their leaders. Peasants would be landless and dirt poor. There would be no communes or collectives. Face up, and show how china was capitalist (scientifically).

Carl Dix said:

Child labor was abolished. The working day went from 12-16 hours a day to eight. Wages went up two or three times in the first several years. Because they knew their labor was going to free China and help make it a bastion of world revolution, workers now had an interest in production and for the first time were encouraged to reorganize it to make it increasingly efficient. All the workers who had never been more than a pair of hands were free to take part in the transformation of the country's social, cultural and political life. They were encouraged to join the Communist Party. They formed unions and other associations of all the workers that began to take part in the administration of the workplaces. Factories built new housing, nurseries, cafeterias and other facilities previously unknown in China. China's million prostitutes were now organized into groups led by the Party. Previously they had often been sold or kidnapped; many had been kept prisoners for many years. These new groups helped the women understand the reasons for their oppression and also fought any tendency by other people to look down on them. The former prostitutes could train for jobs or return to the countryside.
Within a short time, the streets and country roads of the country, which had been among the most violent and dangerous in the world, had become relatively safe. Reactionaries like to argue that the way to end crime is more government repression. China proved the opposite, that when the conditions that gave rise to crime were changed, the crime rate dropped dramatically. Further, when the people, especially the poor people, were free and began to rule society themselves, they could bring their own collective strength to bear against crime. Today the reactionary rulers of countries where hundreds of thousands and even millions of people are behind bars, like to claim that socialism is one big lock-up. The truth is that socialist China kept only a few thousand people in prison, and freed the people to go anywhere at any hour without fear.

None of this would have been possible had it not been for socialist transformation!

I’ll reply to each of your quotes as it seems that they represent the 3 parts of your argument. But I will do so out of order since the last quote logically fits in between the two.

You make my argument for me in quote one. This “comrade” openly admits that their job is bringing about bourgeois democratic conditions to Nepal. He foolishly believes that a “tiny and backward” country like Nepal can regulate capital within Nepal. They cannot. As I stated before, no capitalist in his or her right mind wants to invest in Nepal if neap demands heavy regulations. It’s either all or nothing. Nepal is realllllly out of the way. Its reaaaaaly unstalble (Terai separatist movements), and the Maoists are communists. If the Nepalese make it even harder and say “btw you will have heavy labor and environmental regulations” no capitalist will stay for long. It simply isn’t profitable. Small nations can’t regulate capital very well, they don’t have the power.


Now I will skip to quote 3. I don’t really care too much about the hydropower project. I imagine that the Maoists had to offer generous provisions and that the Maoists will meet with force any sort of labor disruption on the project. I am more interested in that “entrepanuerial class” comment. Do you not find it somewhat idiotic to breed a small capitalist class when you are trying to build communism? The Nepalese are actively creating a bulwark against socialism. These are the people that provide the backbone to every far right reactionary movement in history and they are encouraging them to grow!

Finally onto the second quote. When the “comrade” discusses a “favorable investment climate” he doesn’t mean sunny skies and spring showers. He means that the Nepalese government will take proactive steps to ensure that capitalist make profits in Nepal. How do they intend to do this? Well it seems like part of it is bringing stability. That means ensuring that the Terai don’t go apeshit. The Terai control some of the most valuable land in Nepal, and the best access to India. This may prove difficult and could require military action of the not so “revolutionary” variety. What other things will the Maoists do to encourage foreign investment and development? The “comrade” hopes that “the labour-mangement climate will improve in our time in office” and that the recent strikes were just part of a “transition.” In other words this “comrade” has proven me correct. He has openly admitted that the Maoists hope to secure labor peace, to discourage strikes, and most probably scab on striking workers.

lol, you think you know more than Bhattarrai, a Nepali himself? Do you think that the Maoists are so stupid as to push forward their plans for capitalist development if they knew it was not possible. Im not going to discuss this particular issue, because it is useless. Of course there will be foreign investment in nepal when it is needed, there is no question about that.

About your misunderstanding on the "entrepreneurial class": the New Democratic Revolution in Nepal is (basically ) split into two areas. One, the one that is in the process of now, is uprooting feudalism, and nurturing much needed capitalist development in Nepal that can better the infrastructure and better the conditions of the people. I mean, capitalist development at this stage is progressive when compared to the semi feudal conditions that the people lived in before. As a part of this first area of the NDR, is the creating a federal democratic republic (and Prachanda was just elected PM today!), achievement of peace (or autonomy) for the various nationalities, and fair treaties with other nations (namely, India). The second aspect of the NDR, after the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution, is the road to building socialism (and that calls for a whole other thread). At this point, there needs to be an alliance of all democratic classes opposed to imperialism (proletariat, peasantry, petty-bourgeois, national bourgeois). This is much needed, all of these classes are needed in their participation in the NDR.

Nepal, at this point in time, needs to build an independent national economy. It has never been able to sustain capitalist development. Only until Nepal can overcome all the political and economic chains that strangle it can it consider moving forward to socialism.

In terms of the workers, they will enjoy higher wages, more democratic rights (thats the whole point of overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a republic!) and overall enjoy a better living. Not right out but through several years I suppose (and even better conditions under socialism). Also, the future is not written, we do not know what is going to happen, or how the maoists will respond. But, the road is the correct one, and theory is too.

[Rawthentic]

So then is the mass line for people who aren’t part of the masses? If you have to merge with the masses, then you’re prolly not part of the masses in the first place, right? Is this some sort of petit bourgeois plan for narodnick types to submerge themselves amongst the people? Is this some program for rich white students to submerge themselves amongst the poor?

To be honest I really could care less how Mao defined the mass line, but how the mass line expressed itself in practice. Words are tricky little devils. They often mean multiple things. Now last time I checked the BPP’s mass line practice came in the form of stuff like the free breakfast program, which was run for the working class, and by the working class. That sounds awfully similar to dual power to me, which is probably why it was successful. Nor does the ten point program sound much different from the “transitional demands” of Trot groups. I mean honestly dude, this ain’t that original.

The mass line is a program for communists, to make ties and build roots (and learn!) amongst the people. It doesnt matter if you were born working class or you are some factory worker. That does not mean that one has ties with the masses. It is the method by which communists can thrive, learn from, and lead the people.

What the mass line was in terms of the BPP was that they went out in the poorer black neighborhoods, and basically interview peopled to ask them of their troubles, concerns, desires, etc. Not only that, but they also SAW them themselves. This is one of the methods by which they took scattered and non-systemic ideas from the masses, and in a way converted them in a political program that could lead and guide them to change.

Well of the 3 “leaders” you listed only one of them was heavily involved in the IWW. DeLeon left the IWW a few years after joining, because the IWW adopted an anti political platform. Debs was always relatively marginal because he spent most of his time on SPUSA stuff. Haywood was a good speaker, organizer, and an imposing man, but he was not a leader. He had no coercive power over the union, and he didn’t generate any major theoretical contributions for the movement. He was just a good militant, that’s it. I know there is this tendency to identify any prominent or influential member of the class struggle as a “leader,” but those kinds of leaders are qualitatively different from what you propose.

The IWW had any number of influential militants without a clear hierarchy amongst them. Flyn, Little, Haywood, my own namesake, none had a faction or a program or anything like that. These were regular people, who had committed to the struggle and had made great contributions, but they weren’t indispensable. There’s a reason why in the “Ballad of Joe Hill” the line “I never died says he,” is so prominent. For all his contributions, Joe Hill was a common worker who understood what was needed for the class struggle. He didn’t see himself as extraordinary but in part of a long line of working class organizers.

And this is where Maoism fails. Anarchist movements and council communist movements had prominent militants who guided the struggle. But none of these people were irreplaceable or were considered theoretical superior to everyone else. We understand that militants can grossly err on a number of topics. That’s why we don’t carry around a book of their views on every political topic under the sun.

This is partially why you generate such bad lines. The BPP was mysogenist and homophobic, the RCP homophobic, the Sendero Luminoso elevated Gonzalo to demi god status so on and so forth. Why does this keep happening? Probably because the veneration of leaders creates conditions ideal for weird out of whack political lines.

You seem to think that leaders are by their nature "coercive" and that is not true. Regardless if you want to call them "committed militants", they were leaders of the IWW and of the labor movement. There is no denying this. I have never implied that they were perfect or that they were (or should be) elevated to gods, but leaders they were.

What do you think I "propose"? I havent made any proposals for leaderships, I am just stating an obvious fact: without leaders, orders, a central, cadres, etc., there can never be a revolution. Maybe there will be scattered, spontaneous riots, but never a serious, coherent revolution that had the possibility of seizing power.

You see, without the leaders the IWW had, it would never have lasted. In fact, it would never have been created! I dont care what you want to call them, they were leaders that their other militants looked up to, respected, and expected to give effective leadership. Within the IWW, and within any worthwhile organization, there will be those that have a higher theoretical understanding. Unless you think that everyone is at the same level? I hope not.

In the chinese revolution, people praised Mao as being their "helmsman." Is there something wrong with this? Can a ship get to its correct destination in time if it didnt have a helmsman (or captain)?

Joe Hill is similar to the concept of "jimmy higgins", which is basically a worker that never tires and is always carrying out activity. Yet this runs on a false of premise of "natural class instinct" as if (by instinct) workers could know the fundamental oppression of capitalism and the need for revolution, and underestimates the leaps that people need to make to get to that sort of understanding.

So, you think that maoist parties in the past had wrong lines DUE to "cult leaders?" You dont think it had something to do with the fact that they were incredibly involved in a struggle, embedded in a society that nurtured those wrong lines? I dont defend those wrong lines, or cults, but we need to take a materialist view of where it is they come from. And, when they do arise, we need to criticize them fearlessly because they are wrong, and move beyond them.

Alright, change the methodology. But you can’t change the past methodlogy of the RCP and that’s what’s in contention here. You assert that the RCP was a serious communist force in the US post BPP. But if their methodology is so flawed from the very beginning then the whole party is likely to be pretty worthless

Yes, the RCP cannot "reform" and become a better party. You should look at the discussions we have on Kasama about that.

If you’re not here to defend the RCP then you shouldn’t be defending them like this. Concede that they were relatively worthless and we can move on.

Today, they are (increasingly) irrelevant organization. But, in the past, they were very important. We should be so pragmatic. The reason the RCP was important in the past had a lot to do with line and theory, not so much what they did (although that is important as well).

The official reason is totally wrong. Avakian’s charges were dropped shortly after he fled the country. Remember, this is the son of a federal judge. Avakian has refused to come of hiding for some 25 plus years out of some sort of paranoia that the government is going to arrest him and put him on trial. Yet there is no case against him, in fact, he was never put on trial. This sort of behavior displays serious mental shortcomings. It lays bare Avakian’s nuttiness and justifies why others view him as a dolt. The man either has a hyper inflated sense of importance or he’s is suffering from some form of paranoid schizophrenia. Why else would he be in hiding for no good reason?

His theoretical contributions are no more important than any other. He’s a marginal figure. What is “charting the unchartered course,”? How did he combat economism and workerism? What makes his critiques of those things so much better than the reams written against economism and workerism by other theorists? While you may deride my focus on outcomes as “pragmatist” (which is hilarious since Dewey was something of a socialist), it is a materialist and rational way to analyze the world. Revolutionary groups should be measured on their contributions, past and present, and the RCP fails on both accounts.

he didnt stay in exile because he's a "nut." He did it because it exalts him, gives the sort of altar that Lenin had when he HAD to go into exile. Im not defending him.

"Charting the uncharted course" basically means to break free from the straits of communist theory as it is. To bring forward a new synthesis of communism in light of the drastic changes the world has had since the last socialist bastion, china. He did talk about this, but it never materialized. The RCP has made no breakthroughs. In terms of economism and workerism, you can read his memoir, or just good "avakian on economism", and it will come up. You can see there for yourself. Unless you want to discuss that here, and I dont mind that either.

I’m sure the EZLN would have something to say about that characterization. They’re actually quite revolutionary. For example, the Other Campaign was an attempt to build a national infrastructure of resistance so that they could overthrow the Mexican state. Their 1992 revolt was supposed to do the same thing. Of course unlike the Naxalites, the Zapatistas understood their limitations. They saw that they did not have the capacity to overthrow the state at the time and opted to maintain what they had gained while finding other ways to spread the struggle. If you gave them 30,000 armed guerillas they might change their tune, but for now things remain different.

Something is wrong with the People’s War if the war does not bear any sort of quantitative or qualitative results. The naxalties and the NPA are not building towards a revolution. The latter is stagnating and the former is declining. Something new is needed. A new tactic or a new plan is necessary to build a revolution. The Maoists can’t seem to find it though. For all your talk of “encircling the cities” these movements aren’t anywhere near such a feat. They’re stuck in the same zones fighting the same battles, over and over and over again. Class struggle is hard work, but it is constantly evolving. As capital creates new tools to fight us, we need new tactics. The Maoists are not delivering.

The People’s war in Nepal is obviously more successful. Not surprising because Nepal is less developed, has fewer soldiers and has less foreign assistance. But of course while the people’s war gained control of the countryside, the Katmandu valley remained in control of the Government. This is where the majority of the population and the majority of the wealth of Nepal reside. Such a situation could have gone on indefinitely were it not for the 7 party alliance and the action by the urban masses. Thus the people’s war was a revolutionary failure, it encircled the city, but to no avail.

no, no, I am sorry, the Other Campaign has nothing to do with overthrowing the state. Nothing. Its aim is to build resistance movements, aside from, or within the mexican state (dont know how). The 1992 revolt never had the power to overthrow even the state government, it was NOT EVEN its aim. What it wanted to do (and did well) was to call attention to the NAFTA agreement that that president Salinas de Gortari called into action, that would basically displace the indigenous peoples and other rural sectors. My parents are mexican immigrants, I have some background in this. In fact, in mexico, i've heard people call Marcos "subcomediante marcos", or "subcomedian marcos," and they have good reason to do so.

I strongly discourage you from depending on wikipedia or other nominally bourgeois sources for these stats. They obviously dont want people to know the strength of any communist force (or that the Naxals hold nearly 1/3 of India!).

What sort of results do you expect to see? Why is it that they should all of a sudden mushroom and grow so much? Do you not understand the particulars of india? There is no other correct method to make socialist revolution in india, it is the method built by those who understand their conditions better than you or I. You can say nepal failed, this and that, but it is objective that were it not for that rev war, there would still be a monarchy, and nepal would not be advancing in the direction it is now.

You overestimate the strength that the Naxals have, and underestimate that of the state. For example, about a month ago, the Maoists killed 24 policemen. How did the state react? They have opened 6 new counter insurgency schools. If the Maoists were so irrelevant, why would this happen? Why would the Indian PM claim that the Maoists are the main threat to "internal security"? All the time there are reports on the Maoists killing so many officers, blowing shit up, and basically advancing the war, alongside the people. Blowing shit up doesnt in itself mean they are making breakthroughs, but there is a reason they control 1/3 of India, and the Indian reactionaries are scared as fuck. I think your overall estimate is correct; there are about 10,000 Naxal soldiers, but this shows that even with their small size, they are still going strong . Not only that, but the CPI(Maoist) has 40,000 cadres at their disposal. So much for stagnating.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called these rebel armies “the single greatest security challenge ever faced by our country.”

You have misread the numbers my friend. The Maoists have 38 percent of the seats in the assembly. Like any representative system, the seats do not accord with popular support. The vote for the main 3 parties is as follows,

Maoists FPTP 3,145,519 votes 30.52%
Maoists Proportional 3,144,204votes, 29.28%
Congress FPTP 2,348,890 22.79%
Congress Proportional 2,269,883 21.14%
Unified Marxist Leninist
Unified Marxist Leninist
Source

Now that we have cleared away the fog, I think we can both agree that the Maoists have considerable opponents. Congress and the CPN(ML) have support comparable to the Maoists, and can unite to check the Maoists at any turn. Your platitudes about the overwhelming mass support for Maoism do not stand up to scrutiny. Provide new evidence or abandon this position.

The People’s War was a failure in that it did not overthrow the monarchy. The People’s War was successful in encircling Katmandu and eliminating the government in the countryside. However the People’s War then got stuck in the countryside. It was the 7 party alliance that broke the back of the Monarchy and it was the multipartisan general strike which delivered the killing blow. The Maoists did not have the necessary popular support within the Katmandu valley. They couldn’t win alone.

ah, fair enough. But, regardless, it doesnt change the fact that the maoists do hold considerable and majority support amongst the oppressed of Nepal. That is my point, and that is what matters here. "Overwhelming mass support" lol lol. You want me to abandon the fact that the maoists enjoy more support amongst the people than do the other parties? And that it is definitely more meaningful than the support of the others (we are talking about a communist party)? No.

if it werent for the peoples war, there would never have been a seven party alliance. It was what created the grounds for the anti-monarchical movement and what there is now. Period, there is nothing else to discuss here.

The problem of reality is that it corresponds to measurable facts. 28,000 soldiers do not accord with any measurements I have seen. Produce a reputable source to back this or abandon it. The same goes for the naxalite soldier account. Why should we take his word as truth? He clearly has a strong bias. Wikipedia cites the height of Naxalite soldiers at around 30,000 back in the 70s and puts current figures around 9-15 thousand. This AP article crossposted on a Naxal sympathetic site also puts their numbers at 10-15 thousand. The same article also points out how the Naxalites have a big problem with finding weapons. While large in scope, the Naxalite movement is obviously stuck in a quagmire. They can’t go outside of their rural strongholds, they don’t have the people or the material.

It doesnt matter if it doesnt accord with facts youve seen. This comes from a very reliable source, a revolutionary sympathetic to the indian maoists that is IN india! Imagine that. You sound more liberal everyday. Bias? I have a bias, and that is I favor the masses and their revolutionary movements around the world. Yeah.

You have absolutely no evidence that they are in a "quagmire". No matter if they have 30,000 or 15,000, this does not mean they are in a rut or are stagnating. Numbers dont prove this. Youre gonna have to show how they do not operate in the cities (because i already proved they did) and make no advances (there are also retreats, it is part of a revolution) in the countryside.

The latino working class doesn’t know anything about Maoism either. But when you start talking to people about the need for a maoist revolution they will ask questions. Questions like “What sort of movements came about in Latin America?” And you will answer “the Shining Path” and then they will ask you to decribe them. You’ll say something like “Oh they’re awesome!” Then a week later, the same person will come back and mention the Luacana massacre where 18 of the victims were children. You will then respond with the oft repeated “bourgeois lies!” and then they will ignore you.

Of course they dont know. Where did I say they did? When I tell them the need for "maoist revolution", its not as if there is some other type of revolution. When we talk about maoist revolution, it is socialist revolution applied to the conditions of that particular nation. If the SL comes up, I would discuss it objectively, pointing out their importance, and also their shortcomings, but I WONT let them swallow bourgeois propaganda.

You are forgetting Ukraine, a rather large country, which also implemented anarchist organization over long time period. While both Spain and Ukraine which eliminated capitalism, created workers/community councils and created worker’s militias, Maoist China failed in all three categories. And while the Ukraine and Spain were crushed by the combined onslaught of Leninist and fascist armies, China went capitalist because of the communist party. For all its wondrous achievements you have forgotten that Chinese state capitalism was never able to fend off private capitalism, even though it was under no real military pressure to do so. Your precious Communist leaders paved the way for counter revolution.

China went capitalist because of the CCP? China was state capitalist? Prove it. Show how the production and property relations did NOT reflect socialist relations. You can't because state capitalism did not exist dominant to socialism. It existed subordinate to the emerging socialist economy. Stop making assertions about china, and back them up, scientifically. Don't say things like "there were leaders, oh no!", but get into the relations of chinese society at the time.

Well actually it does. If I am contributing to the power and confidence of the working class I am clearly not bourgeois. Again, ideas are nice and all, but practice is what matters. You could have a great line and it wouldn’t matter without practice. But if you have great practice your line can suck.

We are discussing line, not whatever you do. I dont care what you do, I care about your 'theories', and line. This is line struggle.

No matter how many times you say that you’re against cult leaders, the practices of leadership that you uphold are cult-like. For example, “self criticism” is a common practice in all cults. The Maoist practice of struggle sessions, where everyone points out your flaws in a big group, is exactly how cults utilize “self criticism.” All cults also claim that their leaders have taken things to x theoretical height, and have accomplished y feats. They then use these past accomplishments to justify nearly unerring loyalty. This is also similar to Mao. He led a long, bloody, but ultimately successful insurgency. But his time in power led to some big unmitigated disasters. Yet despite a mediocre effort, Mao comes out as some sort of grand exceptional leader.

No cultism. You cant prove that. You dont know what criticism, self criticism is. It is about accepting your past mistakes, and correcting them in order to become a better communist and serve the people better. In the struggle meetings in china, it was a profound time of transformation both for those conducting the struggle and those struggled against. You need to understand that in such amazing upheavals as these, the consciousness and worldview of the people are transformed. Like I said, there were excesses, but this does not change the fact that is was an overwhelmingly positive experience for the masses. When, under capitalism (or anywhere else) do the masses get together and criticize their leaders face to face in order to transform them? Nowhere. It was a phenomenon that became famous in china and around the world. You can call it cult like, but it simply does not accord to the reality they experienced.

The people loved mao. He led one of the greatest and radical revolutions in human history. There is a reason we uphold them, and that people around the world still remember the leadership he provided internationally, very fondly.

The Chinese revolution had an impact on the people. But I do not think it had such a profound impact as you like to think. Why else would the people of china so easily take up capitalist market relations? Why has Mao fallen by the wayside so effortlessly? Well I think part of it may be that the CCP did treat the people like drones to some degree. Popular opinion and popular ideas were easy to mold and shift, because the populace was shaped by authoritarianism and conformity.

Again you provide an incredibly biased example. It proves nothing. What you have described could be an example of genuine transformation or it could be Stockholm Syndrome. As I said before, “self criticism sessions” are awfully similar to brain washing, and I’m sure these sessions were a prominent portion of “revolutionary prison” (what a fucking oxymoron there).

Describing the GLF and the CR as disasters is not bourgeois. Bourgeois people may agree with me, but that does not mean the argument itself is bourgeois. Any anarchist on this board would agree with me. Are we all bourgeois? I hope not. Anyway, the GLF precipitated a famine, worthless steel, and a lot of deforestation. How exactly was this a great step forward for the people of China? Are famines a good thing? The CR from any angle looks like a power grab. Mao and his faction of leaders wanted to oust the “capitalist” faction of leaders. Bands of red guards roamed the country and arbitrarily beat down opponents, so much damage was done that Mao had to shuttle them off into the countryside. If the CR was so great why did Mao have to get rid of his revolutionary vanguard? Perhaps because he sought to consolidate power, not bring about a revolution.

It was more profound than I make it out to be. The people experienced democracy where they never had before. Men could not beat their wives. Drug addiction was abolished. People had jobs, food on their tables, and roofs over their heads. Children from worker and peasant families could go to college now. Work and production took on the character of serving the people and the revolutionary cause. The people had the ability to criticize (publicly!) those leaders they disagreed with. And on, and on, and on... The populace were not treated like drones! You can never prove this! It was against the policy of the CCP to treat people like that, they maintained the correct policy of "patient persuasion" to change people, not beatings or force. Its sick the way you can mischaracterize such a revolution, with so little understanding of its real history.

Ah, geez. So you think those american prisoners were in fact, brain washed? You dont think they could have learned about the Revolution and become partisans of it? In every revolution, the ideas of the people are inevitably transformed as a result in the change in production and property relations. It is a vital part of the overall social transformation. The maoists were known for never using force or coercive methods to change people (unlike the US). What is wrong with a revolutionary prison. Prisons exist under socialism.

I dont mean to say that your class is bourgeois; your class OUTLOOK is. What is wrong with steel furnaces (amongst other industries that rural china took up) when they make the livelihood of the people...better? The lies about the GLF that you perpetuate come from anti-communist scholars. Was there famine yes? Can it be all blamed on Mao? of course not. But, if you take a look at all of the sources that say that it was a mass famine where 30 million people were killed, its no doubt an anti-communist said this. We need to be critical about these kinds of things. For example, Victor Marchetti, a former staff officer in the Office of the Director of the CIA, wrote that the CIA set up the Asia Foundation and subsidized it to the tune of $8 million a year to support the work of “anti-communist academicians in various Asian countries, to disseminate throughout Asia a negative vision of mainland China, North Vietnam and North Korea.”
There was a famine, but not to the proportions that anti-communists make it out to be, and many people benefited from the development it created.

Believe it or not, there was a faction of leaders within the CCP that were taking capitalist lines, and they needed to be combated. I proved this already. Were red guards arbitrarily killing people lol? No. They did make excesses, but their purpose and overall achievements overshadow what you say. Also, lol, they were not sent to the countryside because of this (this reveals your clear misunderstanding of china's revolution), but to unite with the peasants, work with them, lead them, and to lessen the gap between mental and manual labor. Mao did not want to "get rid" of the vanguard. He wanted THE MASSES to rise up and defeat those leaders that went against the socialist tide. Mao did not purge the party, the MASSES were doing it! This was unprecedented in socialism. And, btw, Mao stopped being chairman of the PRC in 1959 and the cultural revolution began in 1966.

When you think about the cultural revolution, think about millions of students, workers, peasants, intellectuals, that have never before experienced the power they had, or the revolutionary spirit and consciousness they had as well. When Mao called on them to defeat capitalist roaders, they took it up mainly because, they respected Mao, they understood the need to continue socialism, and wanted to remake the world.

The people themselves did NOT take up market reforms, the capitalist roaders in the CCP were the ones that did that! Mao has not fallen to the wayside, his influence is still strong (nepal, india, NPA, Peru, and every social uprising in the world).

Ah I see they were “transformed.” So they left rapists in charge? Does this somehow not accord with logic and reality? When someone uses their position of power to sexually abuse others, you don’t give it back to them. So in the situation you describe, either the cadre went back to their old ways eventually, or they were too afraid of a public lynching, and didn’t exploit the people…as much. Because this is what it boils down to. No leader can be transformed, not unless you eliminate the institution of hierarchical leadership.

The kind of cadre leadership you describe should be rotated and shared around, if not eliminated. Because when you let one person control the reigns of power they will eventually begin to accrue undo influence and coercive power. That is what always happens and what will continue happen regardless of what socialist honorific you give it. Those guys did what any leader would do…exploit.

Well Mao is portrayed as a good king for a reason. How else could he have popular support in a revolutionary regime? He needed to be both the great leader and a “a man of the people” at the same time. When you have a huge state apparatus devoted towards perpetuating that myth and shooting those who disagree, support is guaranteed. History is littered with leaders who had enormous popular support. Napoleon had popular support. FDR had popular support. It’s actually pretty easy. All you need are guns and propaganda.

Why does socialism need commodity production and surplus value to build communism? As far as I see, we are perfectly capable of organizing production so that everyone receives an equal share of the industrial commonwealth. While it will take awhile to bring true communism, this does not mean we need to organize production with bosses, unequal wages, and minority control of coercive violence.

No, those cadres that took liberties with women (i never said they were all rapists), were truly transformed and did not commit such things again. Before the mass movement to rectify the party members, it was not illegal for cadres to beat the people when they did not listen. After that movement, it was illegal, and cadres dared not do it for fear of being imprisoned, beaten by the masses, or killed. Leaders could be transformed, and china showed this. They were sincerely transformed in the eyes (and criticisms!) of the people. Prove they did not. I dont understand how eliminating hierarchy will transform them. There needed to be leaders. Without them, there would have been no revolution.

The cadres never exploited the masses, not in the degree you say. Was it wrong for them? is there some inherent, hidden exploitation in having leadership? How so? Many (MOST) leaders were loved and respected by the people because of their selflessness and commitment, but there was a minority that went against this tide.

How (and when?) did Mao call on dissidents to be shot? Can you prove that this happened? Why do you insist on making claims about china that you cannot back up? Mao had popular support because he led a massive, radical, revolution amongst the people. He was their leader and he was respected. How can this be compared to fucking FDR or even worse, Napoleon? Wow. When did those two reactionaries ever lead a revolution? Be careful in comparing communist leaders to fuckers like FDR and Napoleon. They have nothing in common.

In china there was no "minority control." There is commodity production under socialism because it cannot be eliminated outright, it needs to be done during the protracted process of building socialism. Also, under socialism, there are no equal wages either. How can every worker be paid the exact same thing?

My point about these revolts and revolutions is that they operated without exalted leaders but through the collective efforts of thousands of committed militants. These revolutions did not have and did not need leaders, as they were pushed forward with the collective action of the working class.

yeah, they had leaders, even if they werent "exalted" or whatever silly term it is you think that I want to use in terms of leaders. Collective action yes, and leadership as well. There was leadership there, period. I just dont see anything else you can say about this.

Again with the insults. Calm down already.

Lenin devoted his life to revolution like many power mongers devoted themselves to revolution. Avakian is a bit of a power nut no? Lenin was a pretty middling guy and Russia had a rigid social structure. Only a revolution would have provided him an avenue to power. And while “all power to the soviets” garnered popular support and allowed him to overthrow the horridly incompetent Kerensky. His later policies clearly did not garner popular support. That’s why he outlawed other political parties, had to conscript soldiers, and force feed one man management to workers operating under self management.

You all seem to forget that the Russian revolution was quite mature. The Soviets and factory committees were organic representations of working class power. The Bolsheviks trumpeted these developments only so long as it bolstered their popular support. Once they had taken control of the state and its military apparatuses, they were able to enforce a program to their liking. And no matter how many times you bleat “material conditions of Russia” that doesn’t justify the elimination of self management, the jailing of dissidents and the conscription of soldiers. These actions directly contradict revolutionary theory and practice.

Describing my emphasis on self management and worker’s democracy as a fetish is extremely disconcerting. The worker’s movement is a movement to bring democracy to all facets of society. The system of capitalism must be eliminated because it is a vast private tyranny which dehumanizes and destroys those who work for it. In order to bring about a communist society, we must cultivate communist consciousness and practice. Self management is key in this aspect. When workers manage their own affairs, in a democratic and open way, their consciousness and practice rise up together. Bosses only serve to perpetuate an exploitative economic system. For when you give control and disciplinary power to one person over a whole workforce, that person will always do violence to, and gain a profit from, those workers. And conversely those workers will lose their humanity, as they are forced into alienated labor (as it is not self directed, but boss directed) and lose their confidence. To implement any kind of system of boss rule is thus not just wrong, it is anti communist. To echo a great anarchist “If ain’t self management, it’s not my revolution!”

Power monger huh? Ok. And because of this he did evil deeds like one-man management? Your logic is cartoonish. Personally, I dont mind his outlawing political parties in opposition to the Bolsheviks. They were the ones that had the support of the people and led the social revolution. Not only that, but within the Bolsheviks there were warring factions vying for their positions. This wasnt done out of some "power hungry" sentiments. There may have been some wrongs decisions made, but it is a fact that they had a better footing on their material conditions, and those decisions did not change the overall socialist nature of the soviet state. Lenin was a leader, a human who made mistakes and led the worlds first socialist revolution. Of course there were going to be setbacks and adverse conditions. You think that the imperialist and reactionaries were going to allow russia to go on on the path it was pursuing? Of course not.

The Russian revolution was not mature, this is false. The Bolsheviks had the majority support within the soviets, and amongst the majority of workers and peasants. They were the leaders of the soviet state, legitimate in the eyes of the masses, and they made policies and programs that advanced the revolutionary cause. What is your point? Do you think that, looking at the conditions facing russia, workers could self-manage all industry!? No, it was not possible. Never before in their history had they managed a factory, let alone an industry. It was not possible. To do so would have taken many years of preparation and better conditions in which to carry it out.

In a revolutionary society, especially one facing the hardships that russia did, jailing dissidents is not a problem, and is welcomed by the people. One of the purposes of the socialist state is to crush the reactionaries that are a danger to socialism, similar to how the capitalist state crushes rebellion (in a inverted way). A revolution is not a dinner party. There are hot and teeming contradictions that come to the fore. Basically, a new socialist state needs to protect itself, and, if jailing hardcore dissidents works, so be it. Now, I am against the jailing of those who simply voice a concern within socialism, but those who want to overthrow socialism, that is a different question.

Workers self-managing an industry does not create a communist consciousness. This underestimates how the people can actually come to this consciousness. Democracy in the workplace is important, but calling it consciousness-raising is incorrect, just like struggling for higher wages will not bring a rev consciousness in the people. You need to learn to differentiate between different types of managers, and within which society it operates in. Under socialism, managers are radically different than those under capitalism. They DO NOT appropriate or own the means of production, and they dont profit form it either. They are simply a part in which labor is structured to make it run smoothly (meet quotas, hours, etc). Without it, there would be no organization in which to carry it out. In the future, there will probably be new forms of workplace organization (like in china there was the 3 in 1 formation). Workers dont lose their humanity if they have managers, there is clearly a need for them. They lose their humanity when their collective, social labor is appropriated in the form of profit by a capitalist. But under socialism, things are radically different. Workers work for the advance of the revolution, and the surplus they create goes to this. Please learn to tell the difference between institutions under capitalism, and what they represent under socialism.

Well you suggest that we should have bosses, who will boss around their workers. You suggest that we should have political leaders who will tell people how to act and think. And you suggest that we will have jails for those who would like democratic workplaces. This will not bring about communism, because it perpetuates the economic and social relations of the old society. These are not birthmarks, but the same bloody institutions.

Countless mass revolts and revolutions were organized using councils and militias. In all cases these organizations were plenty capable of fighting off counter revolution. The anarchists of Spain only lost when the Stalinists and the fascists ganged up on them. The RIAU of Ukraine fought off the Reds, Whites, and Greens all within a short period of time. All other institutions, such as school, tribunals, etc. will be organized and coordinated by these community and worker’s assemblies. It’s all rather simple

When I say “workers society” I speak of all those working that are oppressed and exploited by capitalism. Let’s not get into petty semantic games.

While we may live under capitalism, we must structure our resistance, and much of lives in a way that actively eliminates capitalist mindsets. We can do this through mass self organized struggle, but also through the construction of alternative institutions such as schools, community gardens, mutual aid societies, etc. This is what anarchists mean when we call to build the “new society in the shell of the old.” The revolution is not some random uprising to create a society of red bureaucrats. The Revolution is a tipping point where these forces of popular residence and popular organization overcome the forces of state repression. Thus there is no need for a state post revolution, there is a need to organize forces against counter revolution, but again this can be done with worker councils and worker’s militias.

I suggest that we have bosses? Where did I say that? There is a difference between leaders under socialism, who are there to serve the people, and those under capitalism, who exploit them (this is what i mean when i say differentiate between capitalism and socialism dude). Leaders under socialism should never be arbitrary and tell people how to think or act. That def goes against the spirit of what socialism is all about! When people disagree with something, the leaders will have to go out and try and explain to the people why it is important they they take it up or accept it. But beating them defeats it. For example, in china, during the agrarian revolution, mant peasants decided that they no longer wanted to go to meetings, participate in mutual aid societies, etc. What was there to do? Should the cadres beat the peasants? Nah, what they did was explained, peasant by peasant, the need for this, and many came to understand it and take it up. By doing this, they appreciated the ability of the peasants to understand, the latter took it up voluntarily.

Like I said, socialism has the similar institutions than capitalism, but with completely DIFFERENT class interests. Have you grasped this concept yet? There are prisons, courts, police, army, militias, schools, and other organs of state power (mass organization, workers councils, etc.) It is not perpetuating the birthmarks of the old society. Also, dont come here and say that the revolution will be made by workers councils. It is a dogmatic following of the past, not a real, scientific analysis of the new conditions in todays world. That is an old formulation, get with today. How can workers councils meet revolutionary needs in such a complex society like the US (with all its dynamic class contradictions, nationalities, etc.)?

When you say "workers society" it is still wrong and narrow, I dont care if its semantic on my part, it is a wrong formulation. As far as Im concerned, "workers" does not mean peasants, lumpen, small farmers, or intellectuals. It means workers.

We should build the foundations of a new society "in the shell of the old". This is what the chinese revolution did in building its base areas in Northern China, what the Nepali Maoists did, and what the Indian Maoists are doing (although at a less advanced stage).

These positions are common class struggle anarchist positions. Nothing bourgeois here.

You dont think it is bourgeois when you repeat the exact same things that the rich anti-communists do? Saying that lenin and mao were "power mongers" sounds so liberal and bourgeois that its funny. Ask anyone, they will say the samething.

Also, if this is the position of anarchists (and i dont think you speak for them here), then anarchists must also be bourgeois liberals (like the democrats).

What you have just described is a faction fight between two different sections of state power. One section of the party wanted to move towards private capitalism and Mao wanted to keep bureaucratic state capitalism. Mao was weakened because the GLF failed big, and thus he used the personality cult that had been cultivated since the revolution to mobilize young students to move against the “capitalist roader” faction. Of course once Mao had properly defeated his opponents (after public beatings, lynchings, the destruction of historic artifacts, the halting of all educational and economic activity and some really disturbing “self criticism” sessions) he sent the students into the countryside so they could farm pigs and no longer operate as a political force. I’m sure it was convenient to say that he was building a bridge between mental and Manuel labor, but come on, its pretty obvious, that it was a pretext to get rid of the red guards after he had fully consolidated power.

Your inability to see this in any other frame but “Mao called on the people to rise up and they did!” Is kind of silly. These children were brought up post revolution, in an environment where Mao was venerated as a public hero. His book was basic reading material in almost all schools. When their great father figure told them to rise up…they rose up. Big flipping deal.

Wrong again.

China, under mao, was not a primarily state capitalist economy. It did exist, but subordinate to the socialist planned economy. When you prove that socialist relations did not exist, then we can talk about this again (and saying there were leaders does not prove a thing).

You make china and the leadership of Mao seem like some sort of dystopian "big brother" nightmare. Come on. There were those within the CCP that wanted to create a personality cult of chairman mao, but Mao himself opposed it, correctly arguing that it does not reflect a scientific understanding of leaders and leadership. He said:

“You should study the article written by Lenin on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Eugene Pottier. Learn to sing ‘The Internationale’ and ‘The Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention’. Let them not only be sung but also explained and acted upon. ‘The Internationale’ and Lenin’s article express throughout a Marxist standpoint and outlook. What they say is that slaves should arise and struggle for truth. There never has been any supreme saviour, nor can we rely on gods or emperors. We rely entirely on ourselves for our salvation. Who has created the world of human beings? We the laboring masses. During the Lushan Conference I wrote a 700-word article which raised the question of who created history, the heroes or the slaves.”

Those things you name (beatings and all) were a product of the way the masses reacted to the capitalist roaders and their influence. So? What is your point. You think Mao told them to do that? Or they did it of their own accord? People that lived through the Revolution were pofoundly transformed, as were students and young people. They had a different outlook than the youth in america or elsewhere, this is obvious:they were products of socialist society, and you make it seem like Mao brainwashed them into thinking he was some sort of super deity. btw, there were no lynchings. Dont compare it to the South.

Remember, after 1959, Mao had no real power! So, why would he send the red guards to the countryside so that he could consolidate something that he did not have? This makes no sense, and reveals the liberal strain of thought you have (mao was power hungry!). The youth and red guards were sent to the rural areas to serve the peasants in the struggle. How else could the bridge between town and country and mental vs manual labor ever be overcome? The intellectuals had to go too. They had the mental part, but not the manual part. THAT was why so many people were sent. After all, who asked the peasants if they wanted to live in the countryside?

Under capitalism, we read of the "greatness" of the Founding Fathers. Why was it so wrong for youth under socialism in china to learn Mao's theories and teachings? Chinese education existed to instill a socialist spirit to serve the people. If it didnt, why would it be there. Socialism was the ruling ideology, and thus people learned it and took it up.

"great father"? Wow. Wow. Wow. They respected Mao legitimately because of what he had done for the people! How hard is this to understand? You are the one that makes the chinese people sound like drones. You dont think there were intelligent enough to understand the contradictions in socialism and mobilize themselves to overcome them?

You don’t seem to understand the class dynamics of the US. Do you work? Because the comments about bosses makes me skeptical. Anyway, the unionized working class is too small to be some revolutionary buffer. Only 12% of all workers belong to a union. Many of these people are not white, but are people of color. Thus even if they were bought off, they represent a negligible section. However they are not bought off. Unionized workers get paid more because they fight more and they fight collectively. This is basic revolutionary theory, when workers fight back, they get better paid…duh.

Black and Latino workers fight plenty back. But so do white workers. I do not believe that a labor aristocracy exists in the United States. You will have to provide an actual argument to define who belongs to it, and define how it works. Otherwise all I see you talking about are workers who have better wages because they either fight harder or have learnt a desirable skill. Now are these people more conservative? I do not think so. Union workers always vote democrat in high numbers, and tend to hold relatively liberal views. Educated workers also tend to hold liberal views. It is the white working poor that sometimes, but not all the time, holds onto highly conservative views within the working class.

Now black, latino and asian workers can be militant and revolutionary. But as I stated before, a history of defeat and desperation can instill a tradition of acquiescence. The BPP was brutally crushed. Since the BPP the black working class has experienced progressively deleterious conditions. Yet no popular opposition has manifested an organization of comparable size or influence to the BPP. Why is this? Well I think it has something to do with an atmosphere of defeat and desperation. Also we should not forget that racial minorities can hold onto extremely reactionary views. Homosexuals are still not as accepted in the black and latino communities as they are in the white community. Blacks and Latinos also can hold reactionary religious views, including anti abortion, and chauvinistic positions. Black working class people also have a tendency to be virulently anti immigrant. You have idealized America’s racial minorities to be a revolutionary vanguard. Sadly, this is not so.

I do understand class dynamics here. I am the one that has provided the real argument that there is a labor aristocracy in the united states, while you have said that they are better off because they strike more often. You see, the imperialists have interests in creating divisions between sections of the proletariat. They do not want to see us united. They consciously drop a "few more crumbs" (so to speak) to that section of the proletariat in order to have it be less inclined to revolt. When I say they are more conservative, i say it terms of CLASS (overall) and relative to revolution. That is, relative to a revolutionary cause, they are conservative, more so than the superexploited blacks and latinos. Do they struggle more? Yeah. So? They have the unions. They dont work 10-12 hour days in the field or in construction like immigrants do, trying to scrape off some more dollars to feed their families.

This is the way in which that aristocracy was created. They gave a (tiny) piece of the pie to them. You see, during the New Deal, there was a great deal of unrest in the workers movement. What New Deal policies did is created this different section of the proletariat. Is this section exploited? yes, they are, but it is the reasons I outlined above as to why they would be less receptive to communism (at a time like this). In India, the indian state is consciously giving some form of welfare to different villages under Maoist support (or near there) for the purpose of "buying them off" so that they can be partisan to the state, not the maoists. Same concept.

I think you have a point as to the spirit of defeat amongst the lower, more oppressed sectors. Yet, material conditions cause these sections to be more inclined to rev politics. While the better off workers are definitely more complacent, these (mostly) black and latino proletarians must struggle much harder for less wages, face prison, shitty schools, and police brutality.

All these workers, white, and black, and latino, hold VERY backwards views in what you named, that I agree. But in terms of struggle, I see they are more inclined to do so, with the surface understanding that they are more fucked over than others. I think there is a great potential in the immigrant workers movement for this reason. They have "come out of the shadows" and shown they can act politically in their interests.

This applies to all immigrant workers today. I should also point out that many of those militant white workers were poor immigrants themselves. White workers did not come from a “different background”, because most of them were immigrants or second generation. Labor struggle helped lift them out of poverty not the color of their skin.

The labor movement is also not made for and by white workers. The largest unions in America, UNITE HERE, SEIU, Teamsters, UFCW, Afscme, and CWA are all either majority non white or have a significant non white minority. For example, Unite is made mostly of Hispanic and black women. This is pretty self evident if you ever go to a union meeting. These unions garner higher wages (not as high as they should be) by using collective power to force the owners to capitulate. Again, this is very basic class struggle stuff.

It doesnt matter what those workers were. It matters what they are now. I never said blacks or latinos didnt have unions, but not the degree that white workers have. And, nevertheless, does not change the fact that the black and latino proletariat is the backbone (of the proletariat in the US).

Well no. There were wages. There were bosses. And there was material inequality. The bureaucratic class used their power over the workers to aid in primitive accumulation (industrialization) and then used the rest to benefit themselves. That is state capitalism. State socialism is an oxymoron. It’s like anarcho capitalism. Of course things differed from full on private capitalism. Workers made less, but there were cradle to the grave benefits. Bureaucrats extracted less, but they had to do so in order to perpetuate the ruling myth that they were somehow “socialist” bosses, rather than regular bosses. But still, it was capitalism, just with red flags.

There were wages, there was bureaucracy, there were managers and leaders. Yeah, it is socialism. How were workers NOT going to be paid wages? Under socialism there are wages, and surplus value. But that surplus value goes to the creation of socialism and the bettering of the lives of the people, not the private accumulation of a capitalist (boss as you call it).

You can call it capitalism all you want, but, as ive said before, youll need to show how there werent socialist property and production relations in China, in every sphere of society. There were manangers, wages, surplus value, commodity production, state capitalism UNDER socialist china. But, this is socialism, not communism. If it were possible to make revolution without having to have and overcome all these things, id be the first one to sign up for it. But isnt possible. The people make history, but not in the conditions they want to. We have to deal with socialism as it arises out the capitalism and the problems that brings.

If capitalism existed in china, then a capitalist line would have lead that era, workers would be exploited under capitalists, education, healthcare, jobs, would not be guaranteed, and the people would not be able to rise up to voice their opinions and criticize their leaders. Peasants would be landless and dirt poor. There would be no communes or collectives. Face up, and show how china was capitalist (scientifically).

Carl Dix said:

Child labor was abolished. The working day went from 12-16 hours a day to eight. Wages went up two or three times in the first several years. Because they knew their labor was going to free China and help make it a bastion of world revolution, workers now had an interest in production and for the first time were encouraged to reorganize it to make it increasingly efficient. All the workers who had never been more than a pair of hands were free to take part in the transformation of the country's social, cultural and political life. They were encouraged to join the Communist Party. They formed unions and other associations of all the workers that began to take part in the administration of the workplaces. Factories built new housing, nurseries, cafeterias and other facilities previously unknown in China. China's million prostitutes were now organized into groups led by the Party. Previously they had often been sold or kidnapped; many had been kept prisoners for many years. These new groups helped the women understand the reasons for their oppression and also fought any tendency by other people to look down on them. The former prostitutes could train for jobs or return to the countryside.
Within a short time, the streets and country roads of the country, which had been among the most violent and dangerous in the world, had become relatively safe. Reactionaries like to argue that the way to end crime is more government repression. China proved the opposite, that when the conditions that gave rise to crime were changed, the crime rate dropped dramatically. Further, when the people, especially the poor people, were free and began to rule society themselves, they could bring their own collective strength to bear against crime. Today the reactionary rulers of countries where hundreds of thousands and even millions of people are behind bars, like to claim that socialism is one big lock-up. The truth is that socialist China kept only a few thousand people in prison, and freed the people to go anywhere at any hour without fear.

None of this would have been possible had it not been for socialist transformation!

I’ll reply to each of your quotes as it seems that they represent the 3 parts of your argument. But I will do so out of order since the last quote logically fits in between the two.

You make my argument for me in quote one. This “comrade” openly admits that their job is bringing about bourgeois democratic conditions to Nepal. He foolishly believes that a “tiny and backward” country like Nepal can regulate capital within Nepal. They cannot. As I stated before, no capitalist in his or her right mind wants to invest in Nepal if neap demands heavy regulations. It’s either all or nothing. Nepal is realllllly out of the way. Its reaaaaaly unstalble (Terai separatist movements), and the Maoists are communists. If the Nepalese make it even harder and say “btw you will have heavy labor and environmental regulations” no capitalist will stay for long. It simply isn’t profitable. Small nations can’t regulate capital very well, they don’t have the power.


Now I will skip to quote 3. I don’t really care too much about the hydropower project. I imagine that the Maoists had to offer generous provisions and that the Maoists will meet with force any sort of labor disruption on the project. I am more interested in that “entrepanuerial class” comment. Do you not find it somewhat idiotic to breed a small capitalist class when you are trying to build communism? The Nepalese are actively creating a bulwark against socialism. These are the people that provide the backbone to every far right reactionary movement in history and they are encouraging them to grow!

Finally onto the second quote. When the “comrade” discusses a “favorable investment climate” he doesn’t mean sunny skies and spring showers. He means that the Nepalese government will take proactive steps to ensure that capitalist make profits in Nepal. How do they intend to do this? Well it seems like part of it is bringing stability. That means ensuring that the Terai don’t go apeshit. The Terai control some of the most valuable land in Nepal, and the best access to India. This may prove difficult and could require military action of the not so “revolutionary” variety. What other things will the Maoists do to encourage foreign investment and development? The “comrade” hopes that “the labour-mangement climate will improve in our time in office” and that the recent strikes were just part of a “transition.” In other words this “comrade” has proven me correct. He has openly admitted that the Maoists hope to secure labor peace, to discourage strikes, and most probably scab on striking workers.

lol, you think you know more than Bhattarrai, a Nepali himself? Do you think that the Maoists are so stupid as to push forward their plans for capitalist development if they knew it was not possible. Im not going to discuss this particular issue, because it is useless. Of course there will be foreign investment in nepal when it is needed, there is no question about that.

About your misunderstanding on the "entrepreneurial class": the New Democratic Revolution in Nepal is (basically ) split into two areas. One, the one that is in the process of now, is uprooting feudalism, and nurturing much needed capitalist development in Nepal that can better the infrastructure and better the conditions of the people. I mean, capitalist development at this stage is progressive when compared to the semi feudal conditions that the people lived in before. As a part of this first area of the NDR, is the creating a federal democratic republic (and Prachanda was just elected PM today!), achievement of peace (or autonomy) for the various nationalities, and fair treaties with other nations (namely, India). The second aspect of the NDR, after the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution, is the road to building socialism (and that calls for a whole other thread). At this point, there needs to be an alliance of all democratic classes opposed to imperialism (proletariat, peasantry, petty-bourgeois, national bourgeois). This is much needed, all of these classes are needed in their participation in the NDR.

Nepal, at this point in time, needs to build an independent national economy. It has never been able to sustain capitalist development. Only until Nepal can overcome all the political and economic chains that strangle it can it consider moving forward to socialism.

In terms of the workers, they will enjoy higher wages, more democratic rights (thats the whole point of overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a republic!) and overall enjoy a better living. Not right out but through several years I suppose (and even better conditions under socialism). Also, the future is not written, we do not know what is going to happen, or how the maoists will respond. But, the road is the correct one, and theory is too.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The mass line is a program for communists, to make ties and build roots (and learn!) amongst the people. It doesnt matter if you were born working class or you are some factory worker. That does not mean that one has ties with the masses. It is the method by which communists can thrive, learn from, and lead the people.

What the mass line was in terms of the BPP was that they went out in the poorer black neighborhoods, and basically interview peopled to ask them of their troubles, concerns, desires, etc. Not only that, but they also SAW them themselves. This is one of the methods by which they took scattered and non-systemic ideas from the masses, and in a way converted them in a political program that could lead and guide them to change.

It does matter if you are a member of the working class. Members of the petit bourgeois and bourgeois do not belong in leadership positions. They can make good theorists once in and a while (Kropotkin, Bakunin) but, they are few and far between. Without the visceral understanding that one gets from being an actual worker, you truly will never understand the communist project. It remains some sort of fancy dream. This is why Maoism gets so odd often times. Yall recruit a lot cadre that aren’t working class.

What you have just described is exactly what any competent revolutionary group can and should do. You go out into the community, ask people what their problems are and then draw up a program to address them, while infusing a revolutionary consciousness. Saul Alinsky did it 40 years earlier during the great depression; anarchists and socialists did it earlier still. Come on and jump off that high horse. This isn’t something new that Mao “discovered.”

You seem to think that leaders are by their nature "coercive" and that is not true. Regardless if you want to call them "committed militants", they were leaders of the IWW and of the labor movement. There is no denying this. I have never implied that they were perfect or that they were (or should be) elevated to gods, but leaders they were.

What do you think I "propose"? I havent made any proposals for leaderships, I am just stating an obvious fact: without leaders, orders, a central, cadres, etc., there can never be a revolution. Maybe there will be scattered, spontaneous riots, but never a serious, coherent revolution that had the possibility of seizing power.

You see, without the leaders the IWW had, it would never have lasted. In fact, it would never have been created! I dont care what you want to call them, they were leaders that their other militants looked up to, respected, and expected to give effective leadership. Within the IWW, and within any worthwhile organization, there will be those that have a higher theoretical understanding. Unless you think that everyone is at the same level? I hope not.[quote]

Your leaders are coercive. They engage in faction fights to control institutions of coercion and they use disciplinary violence on those below them.

There were coercive leaders in the labor movement, but these rarely existed in the IWW. Like I said before, the IWW had no “great helmsman”, no head honcho, no hierarchy of command. There were scores of prominent militants, none of whom had a faction, or utilized disciplinary power. All of these militants were also relatively equal in stature. Frank Little and Big Bill Haywood had the same influence, as well as Elizabeth Gurney Flyn, or Vincent St John, or Father Haggerty, or Carlo Tresca. There was no leader with the proper line. There were thousands of committed militants, many of whom never gained the same notoriety because they didn’t travel as much, or write the best songs, or present impassioned speeches.

The IWW did not have cadres, it did not have orders, it was a decentralized and locally autonomous organization that was built on the activity of working people. It didn’t require a centralized party bureaucracy. It moved on the local initiative of working people. The IWW went through scores of GEB members, and it never mattered, because the IWW wasn’t about the central office it was about the workers themselves.
It was not created out of cadres, but from a vast assemblage of all kinds of radicals and militants. And had those radicals and militants never existed, another batch of similar folk would have taken their place. These people came out of conditions created by capitalism; there was nothing too exceptional about them.

n the chinese revolution, people praised Mao as being their "helmsman." Is there something wrong with this? Can a ship get to its correct destination in time if it didnt have a helmsman (or captain)?

Joe Hill is similar to the concept of "jimmy higgins", which is basically a worker that never tires and is always carrying out activity. Yet this runs on a false of premise of "natural class instinct" as if (by instinct) workers could know the fundamental oppression of capitalism and the need for revolution, and underestimates the leaps that people need to make to get to that sort of understanding.

.

There is something incredibly wrong with a “helmsman” because it assumes that a man like Mao knew better than all of the militants in China. What you don’t understand is that no one person can see the revolution better than a whole population. Revolution is a mass act and an understanding of what to do and how to do it is rooted in immediate conditions. While Mao might have wrote more books on revolution, and had a good idea on how to run an insurgency, he was just one man, and he was separated from the realities on the ground in so many different areas. Revolutions don’t need a helmsman; they need thousands of helmsmen on thousands of ships.

Joe Hill isn’t a myth; he was a man, a man who is emblematic of the IWW, in that he was a common worker who became a committed militant through the education of struggle and the realities of capitalism. Not because he read books, but because class struggle is a natural, organic function of capitalism. People make leaps and bounds in understanding from a few weeks of intense struggle. Workers know in their bones that this system is wrong and struggle clears away the ideological fog.

So, you think that maoist parties in the past had wrong lines DUE to "cult leaders?" You dont think it had something to do with the fact that they were incredibly involved in a struggle, embedded in a society that nurtured those wrong lines? I dont defend those wrong lines, or cults, but we need to take a materialist view of where it is they come from. And, when they do arise, we need to criticize them fearlessly because they are wrong, and move beyond them

Well yeah. I’ve never met a Maoist party that didn’t have a great leader that they didn’t venerate in a creepy way. I think it’s intrinsic to how Maoism structures itself. You’re involved in a seemingly endless fight, a fight that takes it toll everyday. But you’re told that there is a party leader who knows better than all and can guide us towards revolution. It’s only natural that you give in to the stress and surrender most of your critical faculties to the party chair.

Yes, the RCP cannot "reform" and become a better party. You should look at the discussions we have on Kasama about that.

Well yeah because it was never any good in the first place. I don’t need to read Kasama to know this.

Today, they are (increasingly) irrelevant organization. But, in the past, they were very important. We should be so pragmatic. The reason the RCP was important in the past had a lot to do with line and theory, not so much what they did (although that is important as well).

They were never important. How can you keep saying this? They were a tiny organization that never rivaled the influence of any of the other marginalized vanguard parties. Its line and theory were never much better. Besides, you cannot write good theory if you never put your ideas into practice. By its definition radical theory must be practiced, it must have a material consequence in order to prove worthwhile. For all your Marxist insults of “idealism” you Maoists lapse into it more than anyone.

he didnt stay in exile because he's a "nut." He did it because it exalts him, gives the sort of altar that Lenin had when he HAD to go into exile. Im not defending him.

"Charting the uncharted course" basically means to break free from the straits of communist theory as it is. To bring forward a new synthesis of communism in light of the drastic changes the world has had since the last socialist bastion, china. He did talk about this, but it never materialized. The RCP has made no breakthroughs. In terms of economism and workerism, you can read his memoir, or just good "avakian on economism", and it will come up. You can see there for yourself. Unless you want to discuss that here, and I dont mind that either.

So then he’s an egotistical prick, and has been an egotistical prick since the 70s. Why can’t we call him spongebob then? Sounds like someone who needs a good ass whooping.

So basically “charting the unchartered course” means absolutely nothing at all. It’s a bunch of idealistic adjectives strung together made to sound important. If Avakian could not generate any kind of practice, clearly he chartered a shitty course. And how does denouncing “workerism” separate him from all the others who denounced workerism just as well? Face it, Avakian is a nobody and always was a nobody.

no, no, I am sorry, the Other Campaign has nothing to do with overthrowing the state. Nothing. Its aim is to build resistance movements, aside from, or within the mexican state (dont know how). The 1992 revolt never had the power to overthrow even the state government, it was NOT EVEN its aim. What it wanted to do (and did well) was to call attention to the NAFTA agreement that that president Salinas de Gortari called into action, that would basically displace the indigenous peoples and other rural sectors. My parents are mexican immigrants, I have some background in this. In fact, in mexico, i've heard people call Marcos "subcomediante marcos", or "subcomedian marcos," and they have good reason to do so.

Your racial background doesn’t give you an inside track to the Zapatistas. My girlfriend is from amnestied undocumented Mexican immigrants. She knew very little about the Zapatistas before we met. I also speak and read Spanish. So I feel like I have a good grasp on the EZLN.

The Other Campaign was about overthrowing the state and writing a new constitution, ostensibly a socialist constitution. You are also mistaken about the 1992 revolt, they wanted to overthrow Salinas, not just call attention to Nafta.

First: Advance to the capital of the country, overcoming the Mexican federal army, protecting in our advance the civilian population and permitting the people in the liberated area the right to freely and democratically elect their own administrative authorities.

This was not an attempt to call attention to NAFTA. It was an out and out revolt. In fact, the EZLN command wanted to wait until later to ensure a higher chance of success. But the communities democratically forced them to move up the date because NAFTA was a death sentence, and they couldn’t wait to rise later.

I strongly discourage you from depending on wikipedia or other nominally bourgeois sources for these stats. They obviously dont want people to know the strength of any communist force (or that the Naxals hold nearly 1/3 of India!).

What sort of results do you expect to see? Why is it that they should all of a sudden mushroom and grow so much? Do you not understand the particulars of india? There is no other correct method to make socialist revolution in india, it is the method built by those who understand their conditions better than you or I. You can say nepal failed, this and that, but it is objective that were it not for that rev war, there would still be a monarchy, and nepal would not be advancing in the direction it is now.

You overestimate the strength that the Naxals have, and underestimate that of the state. For example, about a month ago, the Maoists killed 24 policemen. How did the state react? They have opened 6 new counter insurgency schools. If the Maoists were so irrelevant, why would this happen? Why would the Indian PM claim that the Maoists are the main threat to "internal security"? All the time there are reports on the Maoists killing so many officers, blowing shit up, and basically advancing the war, alongside the people. Blowing shit up doesnt in itself mean they are making breakthroughs, but there is a reason they control 1/3 of India, and the Indian reactionaries are scared as fuck. I think your overall estimate is correct; there are about 10,000 Naxal soldiers, but this shows that even with their small size, they are still going strong . Not only that, but the CPI(Maoist) has 40,000 cadres at their disposal. So much for stagnating.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called these rebel armies “the single greatest security challenge ever faced by our country.”

First the Naxals do not control a third of the country. You need to read your sources carefully. The Naxals are active in about 160 districts. According to this article, while bourgeois does not try to downplay the Naxalites at all, Naxals only have a strong presence in 51 districts. In other words, the Naxalites only control about 8% of India, and that is in areas where the state has had almost no penetration…jungles and such. Also, the Naxalites should not have 40,000 cadres, but only 10,000 soldiers. Soldiers require a smaller degree of political commitment. Usually cadres command the soldiers. why would cadre outnumber soldiers 4-1?

Your argument seems to rest on the foolish assumption that the Naxalites won’t be biased in their own public estimations of strength, which is absurd, because of course they will produce false statistics, just like protest organizers always inflate their turnout numbers. It’s rather idealistic of you to take these people at their word. Wikipedia and those nominally bourgeois sources were pretty even handed in their treatment of the Naxals that AP article was even posted on a Naxalite blog. So apparently it must be close to correct.

There must be another method to make revolution in India. You are foolish to assume that a 30 year long insurgency is the best and only way to make revolution. Are you mortgaging all your mental faculties or something? Clearly new tactics are needed, because the Naxalites are not going anywhere.

The Indian state sees the Naxals as a nuisance, but not as a real threat. Much like the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, the Indian state has penned the naxalites into a manageable area. Meanwhile naxalite activity gives the state a great excuse to militarize areas with very little state presence. The government can displace pesky villagers who are sitting on useful natural resources, herd them into camps, and prepare them for a life of wage labor. That’s why they treat it so seriously, because its convenient for them, and dangerous enough to merit containment.

ah, fair enough. But, regardless, it doesnt change the fact that the maoists do hold considerable and majority support amongst the oppressed of Nepal. That is my point, and that is what matters here. "Overwhelming mass support" lol lol. You want me to abandon the fact that the maoists enjoy more support amongst the people than do the other parties? And that it is definitely more meaningful than the support of the others (we are talking about a communist party)? No.

if it werent for the peoples war, there would never have been a seven party alliance. It was what created the grounds for the anti-monarchical movement and what there is now. Period, there is nothing else to discuss here.

How does this logically follow? The Maoists only received 30 percent of the vote. Is only 60% percent of Nepal oppressed? Or is math bourgeois? Since Nepal is so impoverished I would think that only 5-10 percent of the public qualifies as “not oppressed.” So then the Maoists clearly do not hold majority support amongst the oppressed of Nepal. They may hold a plurality, but a majority of the oppressed are not Maoist supporters. So I ask again, provide evidence to the contrary or abandon your position that the Maoists are the tribunes of people. They are only a faction.

The Seven Party Alliance was composed of parties in Parliament; they had nothing to do with the Maoist insurgency. Without them the Maoists would never had overthrown the monarchy. This isn’t very difficult to understand. The Maoists failed in overthrowing the state, they needed the support of the Seven Party Alliance to overthrow the monarchy.

It doesnt matter if it doesnt accord with facts youve seen. This comes from a very reliable source, a revolutionary sympathetic to the indian maoists that is IN india! Imagine that. You sound more liberal everyday. Bias? I have a bias, and that is I favor the masses and their revolutionary movements around the world. Yeah.

You have absolutely no evidence that they are in a "quagmire". No matter if they have 30,000 or 15,000, this does not mean they are in a rut or are stagnating. Numbers dont prove this. Youre gonna have to show how they do not operate in the cities (because i already proved they did) and make no advances (there are also retreats, it is part of a revolution) in the countryside.

You don’t seem to understand the underlying materialist principles of skeptical inquiry. Calling skepticism bourgeois is exactly the sort of idealism that you attack me for. A Maoist in India is not going to be a reliable source on the limitations and size of the movement. It will be a cheerleading source designed to bolster the Maoist’s image.

Of course numbers demonstrate a movement’s health. If they had a height of 30,000 soldiers in 1980, when the population was 700 million, and now only have 10,000 soldiers and a population of 1 billion, it is logical and material to assume that the movement is stagnating. Its strength is 1/3 of its peak, while the population expanded by one half. Furthermore, the Naxals only have control over rural and forested regions of India, which make up only 8 percent of the country. No reports show any significant Naxalite control of the cities, only intermittent assassinations, bombings and assorted attacks. These statistics paint a very grim picture for the long term success of any naxalite revolution in India

Of course they dont know. Where did I say they did? When I tell them the need for "maoist revolution", its not as if there is some other type of revolution. When we talk about maoist revolution, it is socialist revolution applied to the conditions of that particular nation. If the SL comes up, I would discuss it objectively, pointing out their importance, and also their shortcomings, but I WONT let them swallow bourgeois propaganda

Well you are a Maoist, so I assume you will try to propagate MLM when talking of a socialist revolution. The SL will most certainly “come up” in conversation at some point. If you’re a Latino you’re gonna want to know about Maoism in Latin America, its sorta natural Of course discussing it objectively would mean admitting that the SL was rather deluded. The SL admits culpability in the Lucanamarca massacre, a massacre that killed 18 children.

In the face of reactionary military actions... we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn't imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth.

http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/docs_en/interv.htm

China went capitalist because of the CCP? China was state capitalist? Prove it. Show how the production and property relations did NOT reflect socialist relations. You can't because state capitalism did not exist dominant to socialism. It existed subordinate to the emerging socialist economy. Stop making assertions about china, and back them up, scientifically. Don't say things like "there were leaders, oh no!", but get into the relations of chinese society at the time.

You don’t seem to understand that “state capitalism” is a term that anarchists and some trots use to describe state socialist societies. We call it state capitalist because state socialism operated in much the same way capitalism existed in the west.
Bosses controlled workers. Workers were paid unequal wages. Party leaders essentially had control of the economy and control of the use of mass coercive force. Sounds like capitalism to me.

We are discussing line, not whatever you do. I dont care what you do, I care about your 'theories', and line. This is line struggle.

Line struggle is a made up Maoist word. This is what we call an argument. Struggle is something that actually matters, with real consequences of good and bad. This is just armchair acrobatics. I do it because I don’t have anything revolutionary to do until I’m back at work and uni. Real struggle takes place in the real world. Maoists place faaaaar to much emphasis on ideas rather than action. This is quite idealistic since actions are grounded in material reality, while line struggle is not.

No cultism. You cant prove that. You dont know what criticism, self criticism is. It is about accepting your past mistakes, and correcting them in order to become a better communist and serve the people better. In the struggle meetings in china, it was a profound time of transformation both for those conducting the struggle and those struggled against. You need to understand that in such amazing upheavals as these, the consciousness and worldview of the people are transformed. Like I said, there were excesses, but this does not change the fact that is was an overwhelmingly positive experience for the masses. When, under capitalism (or anywhere else) do the masses get together and criticize their leaders face to face in order to transform them? Nowhere. It was a phenomenon that became famous in china and around the world. You can call it cult like, but it simply does not accord to the reality they experienced.

The people loved mao. He led one of the greatest and radical revolutions in human history. There is a reason we uphold them, and that people around the world still remember the leadership he provided internationally, very fondly.

Well you could call it “profound transformation” or you could call it cultish brainwashing. Both adjectives fit. Brainwashing does include profound transformation. Anyway, these struggle sessions, where self criticism took place; well they’re rather notorious as deranged and humiliating procedures. Just like in a cult, you were verbally abused by everyone around you until you broke down, admitted your mistakes and promised to follow the new line. Sometimes at struggle sessions it deteriorated into a public beating or even public execution. Under capitalism we call this sort of behavior mob behavior. People gang up on someone they dislike and harm them. Sometimes it’s a bastard, other times it’s an unfortunate victim. I’m sure that in the thousands of struggle sessions in the Anti Rightist Movement, many of these people were not leaders but those who had simply spoken out. Or perhaps we should look at the Maoist Weathermen, who also had struggle/self criticism sessions where people would tear down a cadre member until they had broke them.

The people loved Mao because they had been taught to love Mao. They were told he did this, and led that, and was primarily responsible for all the great things in their lives. Without the force of violence and propaganda behind it, the Chinese people no longer uphold Mao like they used to, nor do many people outside of China. This is not a big surprise, because Mao was not an extraordinarily good person.

It was more profound than I make it out to be. The people experienced democracy where they never had before. Men could not beat their wives. Drug addiction was abolished. People had jobs, food on their tables, and roofs over their heads. Children from worker and peasant families could go to college now. Work and production took on the character of serving the people and the revolutionary cause. The people had the ability to criticize (publicly!) those leaders they disagreed with. And on, and on, and on... The populace were not treated like drones! You can never prove this! It was against the policy of the CCP to treat people like that, they maintained the correct policy of "patient persuasion" to change people, not beatings or force. Its sick the way you can mischaracterize such a revolution, with so little understanding of its real history.

They experience democracy to vote for the CCP candidate, the CCP candidate and the CCP candidate. Men couldn’t beat their wives, but somehow cadre could still take advantage of women. Drug addiction was ‘abolished” just as homosexuality was “abolished” in Iran (come on you can’t abolish drug addiction) People had jobs, food and homes, when there wasn’t a famine that killed millions of people. Children from worker and peasant families could go to college, and then be used in faction fights between party leaders. Work and production took on the character of serving their new revolutionary managers and politicians rather than their old counter revolutionary bosses and politicians. The people had the ability to criticize leaders when it suited a faction of the CCP, and were denounced as reactionaries when it did not. It goes on and on and on!

Ah, geez. So you think those american prisoners were in fact, brain washed? You dont think they could have learned about the Revolution and become partisans of it? In every revolution, the ideas of the people are inevitably transformed as a result in the change in production and property relations. It is a vital part of the overall social transformation. The maoists were known for never using force or coercive methods to change people (unlike the US). What is wrong with a revolutionary prison. Prisons exist under socialism.

I think it is just as likely that they were experiencing Stockholm syndrome. All I have to go on are the accounts of struggle sessions where people were beaten or killed. These were not liberating scenes but, designed to humiliate and break down the target. The Maoists used enormous amounts of force throughout their rule. The half a million people who were persecuted under the “anti rightist” campaign were not bourgeois fools, they were honest citizens looking to speak their mind. Guess they spouted too many “bourgeois lies.”

Prisons are fundamentally dehumanizing to all concerned. As I pointed out before, the San Francisco prison experiment demonstrated that when you put non prisoners and non guards into a prisoner/guard dynamic, the brutality comes out anyway. The institution of the prison is structured to break down the prisoner, dehumanize him/her, while forcing the guard into a violent disciplinary role. You should know this, because prison abolition is an important part of the American left.

I dont mean to say that your class is bourgeois; your class OUTLOOK is. What is wrong with steel furnaces (amongst other industries that rural china took up) when they make the livelihood of the people...better? The lies about the GLF that you perpetuate come from anti-communist scholars. Was there famine yes? Can it be all blamed on Mao? of course not. But, if you take a look at all of the sources that say that it was a mass famine where 30 million people were killed, its no doubt an anti-communist said this. We need to be critical about these kinds of things. For example, Victor Marchetti, a former staff officer in the Office of the Director of the CIA, wrote that the CIA set up the Asia Foundation and subsidized it to the tune of $8 million a year to support the work of “anti-communist academicians in various Asian countries, to disseminate throughout Asia a negative vision of mainland China, North Vietnam and North Korea.”
There was a famine, but not to the proportions that anti-communists make it out to be, and many people benefited from the development it created.

My class outlook is revolutionary leftist. I want to overthrow capitalism and the state to bring about libertarian socialism. I am a hated enemy of the bourgeois class. You don’t understand this because you use bourgeois as a pejorative to denounce revolutionaries that don’t fit into your box.

Now if we look at the famine numbers from the GLF. I think it is safe to assume that even if the estimates of 30 million are over stated, official CCP statements put it at 14 million others put it anywhere from 20-43 million. That’s an enormous amount of deaths by any count and certainly not justifiable by any measure. Those steel furnaces created pig iron, which was pretty useless; peasants deforested huge swaths of land to feed those furnaces and neglected their crops to tend to steel production. It directly contributed to the famine, and was an ecological disaster in its own right. And then of course there was the Sparrow campaign where Mao, not an ecologist, decided to wipe out the Sparrow population. Unbeknownst to him, sparrows kept locusts in check, and thus a massive locust swarm plagued the fields, setting off the famine conditions in the GLF.

Obviously the GLF was not Mao’s complete fault; the rest of the state was complicit. But it was his ideas, poor planning and the authoritarian nature of his state that made the GLF such a failure. The lack of a free press, and basic civil rights meant that the state never knew the extent of the famine, out of fear of failure officials reported good harvests and took accordingly and thus perpetuated and exacerbated the famine. With a more open atmosphere with adversarial political groups, the government would have been forced to react much faster, but the totalitarian nature of Maoist china created conditions perfect for starvation.

Believe it or not, there was a faction of leaders within the CCP that were taking capitalist lines, and they needed to be combated. I proved this already. Were red guards arbitrarily killing people lol? No. They did make excesses, but their purpose and overall achievements overshadow what you say. Also, lol, they were not sent to the countryside because of this (this reveals your clear misunderstanding of china's revolution), but to unite with the peasants, work with them, lead them, and to lessen the gap between mental and manual labor. Mao did not want to "get rid" of the vanguard. He wanted THE MASSES to rise up and defeat those leaders that went against the socialist tide. Mao did not purge the party, the MASSES were doing it! This was unprecedented in socialism. And, btw, Mao stopped being chairman of the PRC in 1959 and the cultural revolution began in 1966.

When you think about the cultural revolution, think about millions of students, workers, peasants, intellectuals, that have never before experienced the power they had, or the revolutionary spirit and consciousness they had as well. When Mao called on them to defeat capitalist roaders, they took it up mainly because, they respected Mao, they understood the need to continue socialism, and wanted to remake the world.

The people themselves did NOT take up market reforms, the capitalist roaders in the CCP were the ones that did that! Mao has not fallen to the wayside, his influence is still strong (nepal, india, NPA, Peru, and every social uprising in the world).

Of course there was a private capitalist faction within the CCP. And Mao wanted to keep state capitalism. Your point? Mao wanted to take back the party from the private capitalists and mobilized sufficient forces to do so. Children brought up in the Mao era had been told since birth that Mao was their great socialist leader. Even post GLF, Mao was retained as a symbolic and ceremonial leader. Mao used that symbolic inculcation to mobilize those children at his command. With the help of lin bao and the military Mao was able to neutralize his opponents. This is basic stuff.

By 1969 Mao had purged the party of opponents, Liu Shaoqi was ousted from office and Lin Bao became Mao’s successor. Then, Lin Bao got a bit uppity and Mao planed to move against him too. Once Mao had consolidated his grip on power and ousted his enemies, he conveniently dismantled the Red Guards and dispersed them into the countryside. Of course you can paint this as bridging mental and manual labor. I would call it dispersing a politically potent force. It’s not like the Red guards came back after that. People even call them the “lost generation” for a reason.

Of course the people did not push market reforms, as the people did not control the party. But when market reforms came, the Chinese did not object too much. There was no second cultural revolution for socialism. If I recall correctly, peasants really liked Deng, because living standards went up with his market policies.

No, those cadres that took liberties with women (i never said they were all rapists), were truly transformed and did not commit such things again. Before the mass movement to rectify the party members, it was not illegal for cadres to beat the people when they did not listen. After that movement, it was illegal, and cadres dared not do it for fear of being imprisoned, beaten by the masses, or killed. Leaders could be transformed, and china showed this. They were sincerely transformed in the eyes (and criticisms!) of the people. Prove they did not. I dont understand how eliminating hierarchy will transform them. There needed to be leaders. Without them, there would have been no revolution.

The cadres never exploited the masses, not in the degree you say. Was it wrong for them? is there some inherent, hidden exploitation in having leadership? How so? Many (MOST) leaders were loved and respected by the people because of their selflessness and commitment, but there was a minority that went against this tide.

It’s hard to empirically discuss these cadres because the only evidence that they exist resides in a book that I don’t own and that you have only described to me. Which movement was this? When was it? Where was it? All you have are assertions, but even taken at face value, I remain incredulous. Anyone in their right mind would have picked new cadres. If the masses were so empowered they should have at least done that. But no, they kept the “transformed” cadre. Sounds like just another public relations makeover to me. The State was too extreme in the use of force, and so they had to constrain themselves in order to seem more legitimate to the people.

Those who hold leadership positions with coercive power inevitably use that power to help themselves and harm those under them. It’s a function of human behavior. Of course if these cadres had no real power, and were just glorified accountants, I don’t really care about them. But you have not described their responsibilities and powers in any detail. So it is hard to know whether there are hierarchical leaders, or just stooges. And again, I don’t care if they were loved, people have loved all kinds of leaders throughout history, many of them scum.

How (and when?) did Mao call on dissidents to be shot? Can you prove that this happened? Why do you insist on making claims about china that you cannot back up? Mao had popular support because he led a massive, radical, revolution amongst the people. He was their leader and he was respected. How can this be compared to fucking FDR or even worse, Napoleon? Wow. When did those two reactionaries ever lead a revolution? Be careful in comparing communist leaders to fuckers like FDR and Napoleon. They have nothing in common.

In china there was no "minority control." There is commodity production under socialism because it cannot be eliminated outright, it needs to be done during the protracted process of building socialism. Also, under socialism, there are no equal wages either. How can every worker be paid the exact same thing?

Let’s see. Mao admits that during the years of 1949-1953 there were 700,000 executions. Quite a hefty number of dead people if you ask me. Now of course you will claim that they were all evil landlords and such. But I remain skeptical as 700k is a huge number and I have no doubt that not all of them were deserving victims. He also sent some 1.5 million to labor camps. Then of course there was the 100 flowers campaign, where Mao encouraged people to speak out about his rule and what problems there were. Then he persecuted the lot of them afterwards in the Anti Rightist movement a good spot of them were executed, others sentenced to hard labor (execution in its own right)

My point is not to say FDR was a revolutionary, but merely to point out that popular support for a leader does not necessarily mean anything positive. Both Napoleon and FDR were populists who had strong base support. They were not revolutionary; in fact they were great exploiters. However, they still had enormous popular support, just like Mao.

There was minority control, what do you call one man management then? You had a small minority of the population controlling the means of production. Then you add in wage differentials and you’ve got something of a class system. While workers can work different hours or work dangerous jobs, there’s no excuse for the wide ranging income inequalities that existed. Some were definitely more equal than others.

yeah, they had leaders, even if they werent "exalted" or whatever silly term it is you think that I want to use in terms of leaders. Collective action yes, and leadership as well. There was leadership there, period. I just dont see anything else you can say about this.

And yet you cannot find any. Tell me; do you subscribe to the Rumsfled doctrine of evidence? Are these leaders “known unknowns” or something? Come on. Every account states that there were militants, there was commitment, but not a defined hierarchy of leaders. You can keep repeating unfounded assertions of course, but you should admit that there’s no evidence for them.

Power monger huh? Ok. And because of this he did evil deeds like one-man management? Your logic is cartoonish. Personally, I dont mind his outlawing political parties in opposition to the Bolsheviks. They were the ones that had the support of the people and led the social revolution. Not only that, but within the Bolsheviks there were warring factions vying for their positions. This wasnt done out of some "power hungry" sentiments. There may have been some wrongs decisions made, but it is a fact that they had a better footing on their material conditions, and those decisions did not change the overall socialist nature of the soviet state. Lenin was a leader, a human who made mistakes and led the worlds first socialist revolution. Of course there were going to be setbacks and adverse conditions. You think that the imperialist and reactionaries were going to allow russia to go on on the path it was pursuing? Of course not.

The Russian revolution was not mature, this is false. The Bolsheviks had the majority support within the soviets, and amongst the majority of workers and peasants. They were the leaders of the soviet state, legitimate in the eyes of the masses, and they made policies and programs that advanced the revolutionary cause. What is your point? Do you think that, looking at the conditions facing russia, workers could self-manage all industry!? No, it was not possible. Never before in their history had they managed a factory, let alone an industry. It was not possible. To do so would have taken many years of preparation and better conditions in which to carry it out.

In a revolutionary society, especially one facing the hardships that russia did, jailing dissidents is not a problem, and is welcomed by the people. One of the purposes of the socialist state is to crush the reactionaries that are a danger to socialism, similar to how the capitalist state crushes rebellion (in a inverted way). A revolution is not a dinner party. There are hot and teeming contradictions that come to the fore. Basically, a new socialist state needs to protect itself, and, if jailing hardcore dissidents works, so be it. Now, I am against the jailing of those who simply voice a concern within socialism, but those who want to overthrow socialism, that is a different question.

No matter how many times you justify it because of “material conditions’ you repeatedly ignore those very material conditions. Lenin committed crimes against the working class because it suited his political aims. Regardless of his motives he had a political vision for Russia and whatever did not fit within it, he mercilessly attacked. Outlawing groups like the Left Srs and Anarchists is a clear example of this. No real revolution has the right to outlaw other revolutionary ideas just because one section has a fleetingly larger base than the other. Revolutions are plural in their nature; you cannot force the Bolshevik vision on all workers. Nor do I think that most workers agreed with the Bolsheviks in the first place. I doubt any of them saw the need to jail anarchist militants, fellow workers that had struggled with them for years.

The Bolsheviks MAY have had majority support at one time or another (I’d like to see evidence for this, real evidence, not the account of a Bolshevik). They used that ONE majority to take away the role of revolutionary from the people and their soviets and took that mantel upon themselves. They destroyed the autonomy and power of the soviets, subordinating them to party rule. They jailed non Bolshevik militants. They conscripted soldiers for god’s sake! They conscripted people into a revolutionary army! How revolutionary can your cause be if that many people don’t want to join the fight? But their worst crime was the imposition of one man management. Not just on factories without active committees, but factories that were ALREADY practicing self management. He forcibly eliminated self management where it existed, FORCIBLY destroyed workplace democracy in favor of a system of bosses, even when self management was already working.

This is what you fail to understand, the Bolsheviks unleashed state terror against many genuine revolutionaries. They crushed Kronstadt, a stronghold of revolutionary sentiment. They force fed management to workers who had already democratized the workplace. And they sent out the Cheka to commit countless atrocities and violence against anyone who disagreed. Your tolerance of this totalitarian behavior is disturbing. Revolution isn’t a dinner party, but it’s not a slaughterhouse either.

Workers self-managing an industry does not create a communist consciousness. This underestimates how the people can actually come to this consciousness. Democracy in the workplace is important, but calling it consciousness-raising is incorrect, just like struggling for higher wages will not bring a rev consciousness in the people. You need to learn to differentiate between different types of managers, and within which society it operates in. Under socialism, managers are radically different than those under capitalism. They DO NOT appropriate or own the means of production, and they dont profit form it either. They are simply a part in which labor is structured to make it run smoothly (meet quotas, hours, etc). Without it, there would be no organization in which to carry it out. In the future, there will probably be new forms of workplace organization (like in china there was the 3 in 1 formation). Workers dont lose their humanity if they have managers, there is clearly a need for them. They lose their humanity when their collective, social labor is appropriated in the form of profit by a capitalist. But under socialism, things are radically different. Workers work for the advance of the revolution, and the surplus they create goes to this. Please learn to tell the difference between institutions under capitalism, and what they represent under socialism.

Have you ever been involved in class struggle? Have you not seen how people are transformed by collective struggle? Democracy in the workplace is incredible for consciousness raising. It takes the worker from a mindless cog without any agency, to a confident, proud human being who has control over his/her life. Communism is about people taking control of their lives in an individual and collective fashion. Implementing mangers and authoritarian political relations won’t bring this out, self management does. It puts workers in the driver’s seat.

This is the sort of activity that we should be striving for. Revolutionary consciousness comes out organically in struggle. Of course revolutionaries should always infuse our ideas into the struggle, but the struggle is the prime catalyst of change amongst the working class. It brings everything into focus. The miners at the Battle of Blair Mountain thought they were as American apple pie, but their actions put them at the head of a revolutionary movement. Why? Well a change in action precedes a change in ideas. The material conditions forced these miners into struggle, and their ideas took time to catch up.

No matter how many times you say that these people are “working for socialism” all the workers see is that they are too stupid to run THEIR industry and must take orders from on high by some “socialist” boss. They no longer have control over their work, and over their lives, they are once again worthless cogs, there to produce “social” surplus value, rather than private surplus value as before.

Workers understand and operate their industry better than anyone else. Even under capitalism, worker run enterprises are far more efficient than boss run enterprises. A stratum of bureaucratic managers does not assist in meeting new production quotas or moving things along. The self organization of the workplace is something that is both desirable politically and also economically. The only reason that anyone would force managers on a revolutionary working class would be to control them and to quash their revolutionary sentiment. The workers know their jobs, they know how to produce, and now more than ever, we have the technology to assist in the democratic planning and administration of production. If you cannot see this then I do not see you as a comrade, but an enemy of working people worldwide.

suggest that we have bosses? Where did I say that? There is a difference between leaders under socialism, who are there to serve the people, and those under capitalism, who exploit them (this is what i mean when i say differentiate between capitalism and socialism dude). Leaders under socialism should never be arbitrary and tell people how to think or act. That def goes against the spirit of what socialism is all about! When people disagree with something, the leaders will have to go out and try and explain to the people why it is important they they take it up or accept it. But beating them defeats it. For example, in china, during the agrarian revolution, mant peasants decided that they no longer wanted to go to meetings, participate in mutual aid societies, etc. What was there to do? Should the cadres beat the peasants? Nah, what they did was explained, peasant by peasant, the need for this, and many came to understand it and take it up. By doing this, they appreciated the ability of the peasants to understand, the latter took it up voluntarily.

Like I said, socialism has the similar institutions than capitalism, but with completely DIFFERENT class interests. Have you grasped this concept yet? There are prisons, courts, police, army, militias, schools, and other organs of state power (mass organization, workers councils, etc.) It is not perpetuating the birthmarks of the old society. Also, dont come here and say that the revolution will be made by workers councils. It is a dogmatic following of the past, not a real, scientific analysis of the new conditions in todays world. That is an old formulation, get with today. How can workers councils meet revolutionary needs in such a complex society like the US (with all its dynamic class contradictions, nationalities, etc.)?

Bosses, managers it’s all the same time me. You Leninists are very apt to change the name of things but leave their character intact. You say that these are new revolutionary leaders. Yet they have labor camps, persecute those who speak out against the regime, and precipitate famines. You may assert that the leaders “patiently explained” to the people over and over again. But the victims of those who fell out of favor litter the countryside of China. You know this, I know this, let’s not pretend.

The fatal flaw is that you think that bourgeois institutions with new socialist mangers can somehow be socialist. This is not the case. These institutions were engineered by the bourgeois for a purpose. And this purpose was to oppress the working class. When you switch out the directors of these institutions, the social character of these institutions does not change. These institutions are not neutral, but designed for control and discipline. And that is what the CCP used them for. They used them for “socialist” control and discipline so that they could “guide” the people on the “proper” revolutionary path. Of course this meant that the workers toiled for the bureaucrats, while the bureaucrats held a monopoly on coercive power and a monopoly on the benefits of this toil. Obviously this perpetuates the birthmarks of the old society.

There is nothing dogmatic about worker’s councils and community assemblies (A Maoist accusing me of dogmatism is hilarious btw). These organs of working class organization have proven to be the most useful, and libratory ways to organize working people’s power. In Spain they organized a highly complex industrial society. In hungry they coordinated defense against the largest army on the globe. And today with advances in communications technology and computing, there is no question that we can democratically and plan and administrate production through these organs. They are also an expression of how we wish to build the new society. They are equal, democratic, semi autonomous, and forged in the spirit of cooperation and solidarity. Your dislike of them is endemic to the Maoist distaste for democracy, plurality and free thinking.

When you say "workers society" it is still wrong and narrow, I dont care if its semantic on my part, it is a wrong formulation. As far as Im concerned, "workers" does not mean peasants, lumpen, small farmers, or intellectuals. It means workers.

We should build the foundations of a new society "in the shell of the old". This is what the chinese revolution did in building its base areas in Northern China, what the Nepali Maoists did, and what the Indian Maoists are doing (although at a less advanced stage).

Peasants are usually agricultural workers, and those remaining peasants are quickly being proletarianized. In another 30 years there won’t be many peasants left. Lumpen are workers, just chronically unemployed and forced into crime, small farmers=peasants, and intellectuals are not an economic category, they are a sociological category.

But your liberated zones are hardly liberated. They perpetuate all the problems of Maoism that I have mentioned before. Your struggle is not a representation of what you want to build. It is the opposite quite often. If your struggle is not consciousness raising, then you have already accepted defeat.

You dont think it is bourgeois when you repeat the exact same things that the rich anti-communists do? Saying that lenin and mao were "power mongers" sounds so liberal and bourgeois that its funny. Ask anyone, they will say the samething.

Also, if this is the position of anarchists (and i dont think you speak for them here), then anarchists must also be bourgeois liberals (like the democrats).

No I am stating common anarchist positions. Ask any anarchist on this board and they will agree. If you like, I could start a poll for you in the anarchist group. So then in your eyes, the largest group on revleft is composed of bourgeois liberals. Well I’m sure we won’t have anything to do with Maoists any time soon.

You make china and the leadership of Mao seem like some sort of dystopian "big brother" nightmare. Come on. There were those within the CCP that wanted to create a personality cult of chairman mao, but Mao himself opposed it, correctly arguing that it does not reflect a scientific understanding of leaders and leadership. He said:

“You should study the article written by Lenin on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Eugene Pottier. Learn to sing ‘The Internationale’ and ‘The Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention’. Let them not only be sung but also explained and acted upon. ‘The Internationale’ and Lenin’s article express throughout a Marxist standpoint and outlook. What they say is that slaves should arise and struggle for truth. There never has been any supreme saviour, nor can we rely on gods or emperors. We rely entirely on ourselves for our salvation. Who has created the world of human beings? We the laboring masses. During the Lushan Conference I wrote a 700-word article which raised the question of who created history, the heroes or the slaves.”

Words are great aren’t they? They cost nothing to say and you can say whatever you wish. While Mao claims there is no supreme savior, he certainly didn’t mind acting awfully close to that. He was Paramount leader after all. There was a personality cult and its pretty obvious. People carried around his book like it was a bible. Seriously, this isn’t hard stuff. What Mao says here is not that he dislikes cults, but that he dislikes absolute cults. He wants something like the Roman principate. He’s still a demi god, but not emperor. He’s first among equals, which is awfully helpful for him as he keeps his power and the appearance of a revolutionary.

Those things you name (beatings and all) were a product of the way the masses reacted to the capitalist roaders and their influence. So? What is your point. You think Mao told them to do that? Or they did it of their own accord? People that lived through the Revolution were pofoundly transformed, as were students and young people. They had a different outlook than the youth in america or elsewhere, this is obvious:they were products of socialist society, and you make it seem like Mao brainwashed them into thinking he was some sort of super deity. btw, there were no lynchings. Dont compare it to the South.

Mao certainly didn’t mind! Remember the idea is plausible deniability here. Mao mobilized the red guards, told them to get rid of the “capitalists” and then told the army to step back. That was the beauty of the plan. He barely had to do anything! He could keep his hands clean; he could remain the great revolutionary father while the red guards did all the nasty stuff. Now I know you would like to white wash this with the typical Marxist excuse of “excess.” But this is absurd. Priceless cultural treasures were obliterated en mass, anyone accused of being a capitalist, party functionary or common worker, was denounced and then persecuted. They might be publicly humiliated in a “Struggle session” or maybe beaten to death. It was all up to the red gaurds! The kids of course did this in the name of Chairman Mao, the chairman they were taught to love and regard since they learned to talk.

Remember, after 1959, Mao had no real power! So, why would he send the red guards to the countryside so that he could consolidate something that he did not have? This makes no sense, and reveals the liberal strain of thought you have (mao was power hungry!). The youth and red guards were sent to the rural areas to serve the peasants in the struggle. How else could the bridge between town and country and mental vs manual labor ever be overcome? The intellectuals had to go too. They had the mental part, but not the manual part. THAT was why so many people were sent. After all, who asked the peasants if they wanted to live in the countryside?

Under capitalism, we read of the "greatness" of the Founding Fathers. Why was it so wrong for youth under socialism in china to learn Mao's theories and teachings? Chinese education existed to instill a socialist spirit to serve the people. If it didnt, why would it be there. Socialism was the ruling ideology, and thus people learned it and took it up.

"great father"? Wow. Wow. Wow. They respected Mao legitimately because of what he had done for the people! How hard is this to understand? You are the one that makes the chinese people sound like drones. You dont think there were intelligent enough to understand the contradictions in socialism and mobilize themselves to overcome them?

Yup Mao had no real power post GLF. He was retained as symbolic and ceremonial figure, which he used to full effect! He was never brought down from his symbolic height as great leader, so when he called on the children of the revolution to rise up, they rose up! With Lin holding back the military, Mao had a monopoly on the only armed bands willing to commit violence. Once Mao had regained influence within the party, and eliminated his opponents he sent the Red Guards out to the countryside. This is all very simple.

People are taught the greatness of the founding fathers because it provides a useful propaganda myth. Why would you support such behavior for children in a revolutionary society? Education should serve to instill critical thinking and skepticism above all else, without which a revolutionary society would be doomed. The CCP did not allow this, they perpetuated the myth of Mao’s awe inspiring greatness, and thus diminished the critical faculties of the post revolutionary children.

You keep stating that Mao was loved. I don’t care. Mao had an unrivaled propaganda apparatus, and a whole lot of guns. Of course the people learned to love him. The CCP controlled the flow of information. The CCP ran education. The CCP denounced dissidents as “rightists.” There was no competing vision; there was Mao the great leader and Mao the great leader.

I do understand class dynamics here. I am the one that has provided the real argument that there is a labor aristocracy in the united states, while you have said that they are better off because they strike more often. You see, the imperialists have interests in creating divisions between sections of the proletariat. They do not want to see us united. They consciously drop a "few more crumbs" (so to speak) to that section of the proletariat in order to have it be less inclined to revolt. When I say they are more conservative, i say it terms of CLASS (overall) and relative to revolution. That is, relative to a revolutionary cause, they are conservative, more so than the superexploited blacks and latinos. Do they struggle more? Yeah. So? They have the unions. They dont work 10-12 hour days in the field or in construction like immigrants do, trying to scrape off some more dollars to feed their families.

This is the way in which that aristocracy was created. They gave a (tiny) piece of the pie to them. You see, during the New Deal, there was a great deal of unrest in the workers movement. What New Deal policies did is created this different section of the proletariat. Is this section exploited? yes, they are, but it is the reasons I outlined above as to why they would be less receptive to communism (at a time like this). In India, the indian state is consciously giving some form of welfare to different villages under Maoist support (or near there) for the purpose of "buying them off" so that they can be partisan to the state, not the maoists. Same concept.

First of all, only undocumented immigrants work those sorts of hours, and they are a small section of the working class.

you admit that the black and latino working class are not socially progressive in comparison to the white working class. Interesting. See, now I would say that the most conservative section of the white working class is usually the poorest sections, southern “white trash,” “rednecks” etc. Why is it that? Well I think their reactionary views are partially to blame. They are unable to unite with other sections of the working class; their conservative views keep them divided and unable to struggle properly. Union workers on the other hand tend to have left liberal views, these views push them towards stronger class struggle positions, they remain united and see others as workers rather than black, female or gay.

Thus workers that are better off, that tend to be white, usually can be very militant. Their socially progressive views coupled with their history of victory and higher self confidence allows them to link and struggle pretty effectively. They hold views that unite working people. They aren’t bought off; they’re paid more because they fight back. But nowadays much of that is disappearing. Unions only represent 12 percent of the workforce and historically better off workers are sinking down. Why? Well they stopped fighting. Working class militancy has been on the downturn while the unions have become more bureaucratized and more class collaborationist. It all started with the the New Deal. It was designed not for superprofits but to constrain militant labor within the confines of economic bargaining and legal procedures. Militancy reached its highest levels in those years and the state needed to cut it out. Of course material benefits only went so far. Workers are oftened embolded by those sorts of victories. It was the legal codification of contractualism and labor bargaining that finally contained militancy and revolutionary potential.


Superprofits never had anything to do with it. Hell the best time for American labor ended with Taft Hartley back in the mid 50s. If the imperialists were serious about superprofits, you’d think they’d be doing it at a time of unprecedented American power. American power has generally increased with each passing year and yet no extra super profits. Instead, working people have experienced a decline in conditions ever since the 70s. The USSR imploded and there was barely an uptick for most workers. So you see, your superprofits are utter nonsense. They don’t exist. You’ve made them up as a Maoist excuse to not take action in the first world. As an intellectual crutch it’s really useful. You don’t have to talk to a majority of the working class, but if you’re serious about revolution well, you’ll need to forget about superprofits.

I think you have a point as to the spirit of defeat amongst the lower, more oppressed sectors. Yet, material conditions cause these sections to be more inclined to rev politics. While the better off workers are definitely more complacent, these (mostly) black and latino proletarians must struggle much harder for less wages, face prison, shitty schools, and police brutality.

All these workers, white, and black, and latino, hold VERY backwards views in what you named, that I agree. But in terms of struggle, I see they are more inclined to do so, with the surface understanding that they are more fucked over than others. I think there is a great potential in the immigrant workers movement for this reason. They have "come out of the shadows" and shown they can act politically in their interests.

It makes them inclined to revolutionary (spell the whole fucking word, you’re using mao speak again) politics, but also desperation and quiet. It’s a double edged sword. Better off workers can be fat and happy or they can be confident and militant. It all depends really. And that’s what you gotta understand, poor workers are more desperate but that does not mean revolt. Better off workers are more comfortable, but that does not necessarily mean complacency.

Holding backwards views is extremely bad for class solidarity. If you’re a social reactionary, it’s hard to unite and fight together. You’re much more liable to fall apart due to internal differences. This includes immigrant workers who hold some extremely backward views (though again they are a very small portion of the working class). While better off workers may be more comfortable, they tend to hold more socially progressive ideas, which are easily transferred to the class struggle. If you already believe racism, sexism and homophobia to be wrong, and it’s in your class interest to struggle, the only obstacle is the relative comfort factor. Oppressed minority proletarians may live in far worse conditions, but they are segmented and divided, thus producing many more obstacles to struggle.

It doesnt matter what those workers were. It matters what they are now. I never said blacks or latinos didnt have unions, but not the degree that white workers have. And, nevertheless, does not change the fact that the black and latino proletariat is the backbone (of the proletariat in the US).

Yes it does matter. Because you believe that white workers were never very militant. All of the examples I listed occurred during America’s time as an imperial nation, and all of them involved white workers. Thus proving their capacity for militant action.

Blacks and Latinos are a HUGE part of the American labor movement. The largest and the fastest growing unions are focused on the working poor, aka a lot people of color. The ILWU, one of the most militant unions in America, where workers make large salaries and get great benefits, is mostly black and latino. The NYC TWU, which illegally struck the NY transit system, was majority people of color. You don’t know this because again I don’t think you’ve ever been involved with the labor movement. You’ve forsaken unions as havens for labor aristocrats when really these are just smart workers. They struggled and made a better wage, and you don’t want anything to do with it. Workplace struggle is somehow beneath the Maoist, because it doesn’t build “rev conciousness.”

There were wages, there was bureaucracy, there were managers and leaders. Yeah, it is socialism. How were workers NOT going to be paid wages? Under socialism there are wages, and surplus value. But that surplus value goes to the creation of socialism and the bettering of the lives of the people, not the private accumulation of a capitalist (boss as you call it).

You can call it capitalism all you want, but, as ive said before, youll need to show how there werent socialist property and production relations in China, in every sphere of society. There were manangers, wages, surplus value, commodity production, state capitalism UNDER socialist china. But, this is socialism, not communism. If it were possible to make revolution without having to have and overcome all these things, id be the first one to sign up for it. But isnt possible. The people make history, but not in the conditions they want to. We have to deal with socialism as it arises out the capitalism and the problems that brings.

If capitalism existed in china, then a capitalist line would have lead that era, workers would be exploited under capitalists, education, healthcare, jobs, would not be guaranteed, and the people would not be able to rise up to voice their opinions and criticize their leaders. Peasants would be landless and dirt poor. There would be no communes or collectives. Face up, and show how china was capitalist (scientifically).

I will be ignoring your Carl Dix quote. He’s is stupid enough to follow Avakian so I doubt his ability to produce anything reliable. Only a few thousand in prison? What about the millions in labor camps?

In anarchist Spain there was a system of rationing as opposed to wages. That worked relatively well. I am personally against wages of any kind as they encourage market relations, but the wages could have at least been equal. Equal pay scales could have gone a long way. Instead party leaders and managers made more, lived better, and had prestige respect and deference. I know you like to pretend that this surplus value was for building socialism, but really it was about industrializing. That is the purpose of Maoism, to industrialize a semi feudal society so that the meritocratic elites can properly run things. That’s why Mao liked the “national bourgeois,” and why Maoist cadre heavily recruit from third world universities.

Socialism as you view it is a Marxist fiction. Socialism need not take so long. Socialism need not be more than a decade or so. The problem is when you have unequal wages, alienated labor, managers, party bureaucrats and a strong centralized state, well that socialism never goes away. It’s simply too convenient for those in power, and eventually they decide to go to private capitalism and make a real killing.

A private capitalist line did not dominate the CCP until Deng because State capitalism was a useful ideology for control and development. You’ll notice that Leninist leaders tend to be petit bourgeois types whose career opportunities are stifled by the backwards conditions in their nation. Leninism by and large is a tool for industrial development that harnesses popular support to do so. It’s sort of like “national liberation” it’s a cross class alliance to throw off the “oppressor” to substitute it for another oppressor. In this deal peasants and workers expect to get a decent slice of the pie, and they do to a point. Though sometimes there are famines that kill millions of people, and the products available aren’t too nice or numerous, but hey, it beats crushing poverty. Though just as is the case today, eventually the development is over and private capitalism asserts itself.

lol, you think you know more than Bhattarrai, a Nepali himself? Do you think that the Maoists are so stupid as to push forward their plans for capitalist development if they knew it was not possible. Im not going to discuss this particular issue, because it is useless. Of course there will be foreign investment in nepal when it is needed, there is no question about that.

About your misunderstanding on the "entrepreneurial class": the New Democratic Revolution in Nepal is (basically ) split into two areas. One, the one that is in the process of now, is uprooting feudalism, and nurturing much needed capitalist development in Nepal that can better the infrastructure and better the conditions of the people. I mean, capitalist development at this stage is progressive when compared to the semi feudal conditions that the people lived in before. As a part of this first area of the NDR, is the creating a federal democratic republic (and Prachanda was just elected PM today!), achievement of peace (or autonomy) for the various nationalities, and fair treaties with other nations (namely, India). The second aspect of the NDR, after the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution, is the road to building socialism (and that calls for a whole other thread). At this point, there needs to be an alliance of all democratic classes opposed to imperialism (proletariat, peasantry, petty-bourgeois, national bourgeois). This is much needed, all of these classes are needed in their participation in the NDR.

Nepal, at this point in time, needs to build an independent national economy. It has never been able to sustain capitalist development. Only until Nepal can overcome all the political and economic chains that strangle it can it consider moving forward to socialism.

In terms of the workers, they will enjoy higher wages, more democratic rights (thats the whole point of overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a republic!) and overall enjoy a better living. Not right out but through several years I suppose (and even better conditions under socialism). Also, the future is not written, we do not know what is going to happen, or how the maoists will respond. But, the road is the correct one, and theory is too.

I think it’s obvious that the Maoists either fully understand that they are about to usher in capitalism or they have mistaken their own strength and think they can harness capital. It does not change the fact that the state is too weak and too tiny to ever properly regulate capital in Nepal. If there is no question about the need for foreign capital they must be able to get that capital. They cannot elicit investment without 0 labor regulations, 0 environmental regulations, and 0 unions. Nepal isn’t that enticing an opportunity without these incentives. It has high transit costs, high infrastructure costs, and a communist government. If you cannot address this conundrum then you should abandon your position and admit defeat here.

Your description of the NDR does not change the problem of building a petit bourgeois capitalist class. I don’t think it matters if they are against big nation imperialism. If you want to build socialism you’re going to have an awfully difficult time with a strong and entrenched class of small holding businessmen. These types are the fuel of the far right. NDR’s inability to understand this inherent contradiction is just another example of why NDR is a bunch of moronic bull crap.

Nepal cannot build an independent national economy, as Nepal is a tiny nation without resources. They cannot stay afloat in the sea of capital. No nation outside of a few juggernauts has an independent national economy. Small nations at all levels of development are not independent but dependant on the whims of capital. Nepal will be no different.

That’s why when the workers in Maoist sweatshops fight back; Nepali Maoists will be forced to break strikes, lest they induce massive capital flight. This is what “good labor-management” relations mean. It has always been a code word for squashing class struggle and worker’s revolt. How do you not get this? Workers are not going to be all happy and sunny laboring in sweatshops, just like they have in every sweatshop and every EPZ ever built, they will stand up, fight back and go on strike. Nepal is an expensive place to manufacture, and those capitalists are not about to pay good wages or provide decent conditions. The moment those workers start striking, the Maoists will have to make their choice and that choice will be capitalism. How does this not make sense? Prove to me that the Nepalese won’t strike. Because if they do, you’re fucked.

[trivas7]

I am a historical materialist. I just don't follow an orthodox marxist line on it.

What's the heterodox line of historical materialism? I'm not familiar with it.

[RHIZOMES]

Yes Maoism is a spent ideology. It doesn't hold relevance for those living in a first world nation. Part of the big reason why the 60s went so sour, was that Maoism became an important part of the struggle. It's propensity for leader worship, fetishization of third world struggles, and inability to connect to the white working class led to the demise of the movement. Hell just take SDS. Things were going fine, and then Avakian, the Weathermen and the PLP tore it into a million pieces. Or look at the the BPP, the state systematically attacked the leadership, and the party fell apart. Or look at Maoism today. Where has it succeeded? Nepal. And what has it done? Well now they're going to build EPZs to "develop infrastructure."

So the BPP fell apart because of their embrace of Maoism? So if the BPP was anarchist, it wouldn't have fallen apart because of government oppression and harrassment?

I'll have what you're smoking.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

So the BPP fell apart because of their embrace of Maoism? So if the BPP was anarchist, it wouldn't have fallen apart because of government oppression and harrassment?

I'll have what you're smoking.

Says the stalinist....yeah I'm clearly the crazy one.

Anyway, the BPP would never have been the BPP if it wasn't maoist. I have no idea what would have happened. Something totally different no doubt.

[Bilan]

So the BPP fell apart because of their embrace of Maoism? So if the BPP was anarchist, it wouldn't have fallen apart because of government oppression and harrassment?

You missed the point. The point that needs to be understood is quoted here clearly,

look at the the BPP, the state systematically attacked the leadership, and the party fell apart.

That shows, evidently, that the strength of the party was largely in its leadership, and that it was prone to destruction from outside forces (like the state).
It's lack of power and militancy, and organization from the bottom, made the organization vulnerable; and left the black working class vulnerable too.

What needs to be stressed is that the power of an organization needs to be from below for it to be able to shake off and over come attacks and systematic repression by the state.
The strength of an organization is in its size; the power of an organization needs to be exercised through this, to maintain itself, and continue and further the struggle against the odds facing it.

The existence of a rigid hierarchical leadership can only make this difficult, and indeed, leave the party vulnerable.

[Rawthentic]

Joe, I wont be responding for a while, because I have a lot of shit going on, and it is very time consuming.

haha, but dont take this as Im giving you the benefit of the doubt, because your arguments are still (for the most part) incorrect and fundamentally liberal in outlook.

but a reply awaits.