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

[Rawthentic]

Morse & Ely: Kicking Open the Doors of Maoism



Posted by Mike E on August 9, 2008




The following exchange emerges from the discussion of Akil Bomani’s post on the RC4 tour.

Chuck Morse writes:

Though I suspect that RCP critics here are mainly trying to protect themselves from claims of RCP bashing, I must take exception to the recurrent assertion that the RCP and Avakian have done great things in the past.


For instance, Akil says that

“Avakian has certainly made very valuable contributions to the field of Marxism.”

And Zerohour says:

“This is not to say that RCP has not done great work, nor that they are mainly responsible for the failure for revolutionary politics to take hold - just the opposite. They have done some remarkable work, esp. around Mumia and in the post-9/11 period.”

These assertions are simply not accurate. Avakian has not made a single contribution to the field of Marxism and the RCP has not done great work (including around Mumia and the post-9/11 period). The RCP has been a complete and utter failure according to its own stated goals (and others, too, of course.). This fact, which is probably painful for many of you to acknowledge, needs to be a premise of any serious discussion of the RCP.
Karla indirectly points toward some of the reasons for this failure when she states that the “lack of connection and base among the black masses is [not] for any lack of trying.” Of course, her statement is universally applicable: the RCP does not have–and has never had–popular support anywhere and this, as she suggests, is not for a “lack of trying.” Indeed, the RCP has been trying–very, very hard–for more than three decades.
So, why has it failed then? This is not primarily because of Avakian. It failed principally for doctrinal reasons: that is, it is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization and, as such, embraces ideas about history and society that have no bearing on the world that we live in. Sorry, but the RCP would have failed even if it didn’t have such a nutty leader.
It would be good if this site promoted critical discussions of these doctrinal issues or, minimally, direct people to the critical dialogues that have been taking place for the last eighty years or so.


* * * * *
Mike Ely Responds:

I think there are a number of things that need to be said:

First, I think we can say that major revolutions in the last century were led by Marxist, Leninist and Maoist ideology (which I see as developments of each other). Summing these events up will be an ongoing process — as our perspective on the past informs our view of the present, but our experiences in the present also inform our summation of the past.
And further, i think that if you scour our beautiful blue planet for revolutionary developments and courageous attempts at uprisings you (over and over) find Maoists in the mix — because that ideology and political movement combines dreams of the most radical revolution with a real determination to carry out those dreams in practice (and because, i believe, MLM is an extremely valuable basis on which to start a revolutionary project.)

Second, I think there have been times when Maoism has been highly attractive among the people. In the sixties, it emerged (unmistakably) as the most revolutionary ideology in the most revolutionary period of U.S. history — and that was (as you know ) a world wide phenomenon (for many, very good reasons).

Third: I think the failures of the RCP to get traction among the people is a complex thing to unravel — and it is important to unravel it because (whatever else) the RCP deserves to be seen as one of the most important, persistent, diverse and lofty efforts to generate revolutionary movement in U.S. history.

Fourth: Chuck writes:

“I must take exception to the recurrent assertion that the RCP and Avakian have done great things in the past.”


You are welcome to take exception, and defend it. But I largely agree with Akil when he says

“Avakian has certainly made very valuable contributions to the field of Marxism.”


And I agree with, Zerohour when he says:

“This is not to say that RCP has not done great work, nor that they are mainly responsible for the failure for revolutionary politics to take hold - just the opposite. They have done some remarkable work, esp. around Mumia and in the post-9/11 period.”


You say:

“These assertions are simply not accurate. Avakian has not made a single contribution to the field of Marxism and the RCP has not done great work (including around Mumia and the post-9/11 period).”


Obviously, this is not a short discussion.


But (leaving aside the discussion of the RCP’s “great work”) I would like to list some of the contributions of Avakian within the framework of Marxism and the existing international communist movement.

a) Avakian started a process of “charting the uncharted course” that (i believe correctly) criticized and broke with a whole rightist legacy that dominated the left (and the communists) through U.S. history. It is a legacy soaked in the worship of american patriotism, bourgeois democracy, tradeunionism, and all the sacred cows of mainstream liberalism. This was not his achievement alone (it was a huge component of the 60s generally, of SDS, of the Panthers, and more) but he did fight for this and seek to push it forward.

b) Avakian fought for a view that started “from the whole world first” — and argued (and still argues) that successful revolution in any part of the world has to be seen as a base area for the world revolution (rather than subordinating revolution everywhere to the defense of existing socialist countries and their foreign policies.) this too is not his view alone — but he has raised this in important ways (within the framework of communism, and breaking with the framework of both stalin-era communism and third world nationalism of various kinds). and I believe he has correctly unraveled many of the implications of this (in ways no one else has done). I say this while having some critical things to say about his conclusions, and having ALREADY SAID some sharply critical things about Avakian’s own current retreat from internatinalism.

c) I think Avakian made a huge contribution to modern Marxism by fighting for a view of Marxism-as-a-developing-synthesis.
This has been a huge break with religiousity among communists (that has its most influential roots, again, in the Stalin era.) and it was a beginning effort to reaffirm (recapture) the dynamic, critical and experimental nature of marxist inquiry. We have much farther to go, and (unfortunately) Avakian’s forces have now (ironically) reclaimed a religiousity of their own (once it was decided by BA that his own tentative, fragmented, flawed synthesis was *THE* new synthesis needed for our times). but this does not change the fact that his fight for the very concept of synthesis has been important (overall) as a starting point (for the very process he is now, in some important way, obstructing.)
There are more things to mention, but these are raised off the top of my head.

Fifth: I think we need to make this assessment of Avakian, even while pointing out that he has hardly been alone (in the Maoist movement internatinally, or among revolutionaries generally) in making contributions. and while also pointing out that there is much to learn from others (internationally) who have beenthinking about these problems and taking the road of revolution in the real world. And unfortunately the “info diet” approach adopted by the RCP (more and more) has left many communists and revolutionaries with a startlingly impoverished knowledge (or even acquaintance) with revolutionary thinking and experiences around the world.

Sixth: I think it is important, even as we make very sharp and systematic criticism of Avakian’s synthesis to identify ways that he “opened the door” for the process that we need (even if he often didn’t dare to come through those door.
And further: it is rather cheezy (and untrue) to suggest as Chuck does,
“that RCP critics here are mainly trying to protect themselves from claims of RCP bashing.”
And I’m sure you (Chuck) will acknowlege that when step back and look at the situation: The ex-RCP forces posting here are hardly on the defensive, or flinching from the implications of our own analysis. And everyone knows that nothing will “protect” us from claims of “RCP-bashing” — because ANY serious criticism of the RCP produces an intense and hostile response.
No, we raise the question of the RCP’s contributions and Avakian’s contributions because they exist — and because that kind of a materialist and accurate assessment helps us accurately identify what the REAL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS are. And if (in the final analysis) you and I don’t ultimately agree on what those problems and those solutions are (for the revolutionary movement) then at least our discussion of these things (including here) contributes to the clarity of the issues.

Seventh: chuck writes:
“The RCP has been a complete and utter failure according to its own stated goals (and others, too, of course.). This fact, which is probably painful for many of you to acknowledge, needs to be a premise of any serious discussion of the RCP.”


I think this is overdrawn — and one sided. the experience of the RCP is far more complex (in ways indicated in the 9 Letters, and in ways I won’t elaborate here.)


But you then go from “one-sided” to simply false when you say:

“So, why has it failed then? This is not primarily because of Avakian. It failed principally for doctrinal reasons: that is, it is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization and, as such, embraces ideas about history and society that have no bearing on the world that we live in.”

In fact the undeniable weakness and persistent impotence of the RCP has happened even while Maoism internationally has rebounded from the huge setback suffered in China 1976, and while (rather obviously) you can’t possibly argue that Maoism (generally and internationally) has been simply a failure (not after Peru, India, Nepal, May 1968 in France, the Panthers, the Philippines, the Cultural Revolution etc.)




In closing Chuck writes:

“It would be good if this site promoted critical discussions of these doctrinal issues or, minimally, direct people to the critical dialogues that have been taking place for the last eighty years or so.”

Ok, GREEN LIGHT, lets do it.


* * * * * *
Excerpts from the 9 Letters to Our Comrades

finally, I’d like to add a few excerpts from the 9 Letters to Our Comrades as an initial contribution to an assessment of Maoism:
From Letter 1 “A time to speak clearly”:

Without overstating an analogy, revolutionary communists need to undertake a “very presumptuous work.” It requires working through problems, not treating them as dark secrets. We too have reasons for caution. Our disputes take place within reach of a ruthless enemy. Yet, we need to deal with difficult truths about our movement, experiences and beliefs.
A very presumptuous work.

Even the most revolutionary forces have been lagging seriously. In the thirty years since Mao’s death, there has not been another communist revolution, and a whole generation has grown up without revolutionary societies. Communism is not contending within the deep channels of the world’s politics, culture or thought. International efforts to regroup communist forces have not overcome long-standing fractures. As rapid changes rework this planet, there have rarely been parallel innovations in communist understanding and work.
The experience of the last century has convinced many that communist revolution has been a failed dream. And yet, rising from every corner of life, weighing on the brain like a living nightmare, there it is: the horrifying suffering of people and the mounting crimes of this system.
Faced with these challenges, revolutionary communism is dividing into two around us. Or to be more precise: Events are revealing how much this movement already exists as two, three, many Maoisms. Several distinct conceptions now contend among Maoists. [4] There is sharp struggle over how to make the breakthroughs we need in both communist theory and revolutionary practice.

From Letter 4: Truth, Practice and a Confession of Poverty:

There is real glory and continuing value to Maoism, as a body of thought and as a movement for liberation. As a distinct international trend, it was born during the 1960s in raging opposition to both the global rampages of the U.S. and the suffocating gray norms of the Soviet Union. Maoism proclaimed “It is right to rebel against reactionaries,” and gave new life to the revolutionary dream. It said “Serve the People,” and promised that no one (not even the communist vanguard) would be above the interrogations of the people. A loose global current congealed from many eclectic streams, and it included many of the world’s most serious revolutionaries. There have been important and heroic attempts at power — in Turkey, Iran, India, the Philippines, Peru, Nepal and more. There were important revolutionary movements of 1968 that included Maoists in France, Germany, Italy and more. There was real ferment around the Black Panther Party, the Young Lords, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, and then at times around the RCP in the U.S.
But since Mao died in 1976, this Maoist movement has not been a fertile nursery of daring analyses and concepts. A mud streak has run through it. Even its best forces often cling to legitimizing orthodoxies, icons, and formulations. The popularization of largely-correct verdicts often replaces the high road of scientific theory — allowing Marxism itself to appear pat, simple and complete. Dogmatic thinking nurtures both self-delusion and triumphalism. In the name of taking established truths to the people, revolutionary communists have often cut themselves off from the new facts and creative thinking of our times.

Letter 9: Traveling Light, Coming from Within

Mao said there is no need to inoculate ourselves from ideas. We must dare to go through things and come out the other side. [124] Maoists, following Mao in this, have to leave the comfort of reassuring illusions and misplaced authority. We have to confront that here in the U.S. we have neither a vanguard organization nor the theoretical breakthroughs we need.
The Maoist project centered on the RU/RCP never really “took off.” It never took root as a leading representative of the oppressed (other than in the most abstracted, self-defined sense). After grappling with this contradiction from many sides, this party’s leadership has now consolidated itself around a course that is a particularly sterile response to long-standing problems. This is concentrated in the adoption of “Avakian as the cardinal question.”
Throughout these letters I have been forced to repeat the words “real,” “actual,” and “living” — over and over — because so much of communist project here in the U.S. has been fantasy draped in fine words.

“When Mao’s Red Army abandoned their early base area, they carried with them all the hard-won apparatus of rebel state power: they brought archives, printing presses, factory equipment, rolls of telephone wire, furniture and more. That baggage cost them dearly in lives, when the heavily burdened column faced its first tests of fire. They then simply left off the boxes and machinery of their old apparatus. What they kept was that material that made sense when integrated into their new mode of existence. They were traveling light. They were ready to improvise, live off the land, and fight.
The analogy to our theoretical moment: We need to discard ruthlessly, but cunningly, in order to fight under difficult conditions. We will be traveling light, without baggage and clutter from earlier modes of existence. We need to preserve precisely those implements that serve the advance, against fierce opposition, toward our end goal. We need to integrate them into a vibrant new communist coherency — as we thrive on the run.
Not a remake of the RCP.
It is a great creative challenge. We don’t need a remake of the RCP, but better. The theoretical knife must cut deeper than that. There needs to be negation, affirmation, and then a real leap beyond what has gone before. We need a movement of all-the-way revolutionaries that lives in this 21st century. Not some reshuffling of old cadre, but the beginning reshuffling of a whole society.
We need to take up a great new project of practice — while applying and developing our theory.”

[Rawthentic]

Mike Ely said in relation to this thread:

the fact that this is a debate started by a rather wellknown anarchist (chuck morse) and a maoist (mike ely, moi) should be interesting to the whole revleft crew. the fact that it is not POSED as some snarky, hostile sniping (about POUM and Spain, and Machno and Kronstadt etc) is itself important -- and suggests a new way for the interaction between communists and those people inclined toward anarchism.

I think that is important, and should be how we conduct this thread.

[Winter]

Thanks for posting this. I totally agree.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I honestly don't understand Chuck Morse, I feel like he's our paid intellectual curmudgeon or something. He doesn't actually organize or do anything, but he's very good at writing books, and responding to every kind of revolutionary group under the sun.

[Rawthentic]

Well he did quite a superficial job in attempting to discredit Maoism on our Kasama Project site.

I think Mike Ely did well in responding clearly to what Chuck Morse said.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well he did quite a superficial job in attempting to discredit Maoism on our Kasama Project site.

I think Mike Ely did well in responding clearly to what Chuck Morse said.

It was a stacked discussion. Morse wrote a quick point and Ely wrote a book responding to him.

[Rawthentic]

I think you missed the point here.

The purpose of posting this (and Mike's response to Morse) was the open a wider discussion between anarchist forces and communist forces, in a serious, principled manner. There was a lot that Morse pointed to, and Mike got into that for reasons I outlined above.

That is what I would like to engage. Do you think Chuck is correct when he says that the RCP's failure has more to do with an inherent glitch in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Why or why not?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I think you missed the point here.

The purpose of posting this (and Mike's response to Morse) was the open a wider discussion between anarchist forces and communist forces, in a serious, principled manner. There was a lot that Morse pointed to, and Mike got into that for reasons I outlined above.

That is what I would like to engage. Do you think Chuck is correct when he says that the RCP's failure has more to do with an inherent glitch in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Why or why not?

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."

[Rawthentic]

Thanks for the reply Joe.

So you think that Maoism is a spent ideology in the first world. Have you considered that for the past (at least 40 years) Maoism has been the most prominent communist ideology in the United States? The Black Panther Party was not defeated to some glitch in Maoism. On the contrary, it was their use of Maoism that allowed them such wide popularity. When they first came to be, they practiced what mao called "the mass line", that is, you investigate the conditions the people live in, learn from them, and then from that, proceed with political programs (Ten Point Platform) and organizing.

Up until now (and for a while), the RCP has been the most serious communist pole in the United States, this is without a doubt. It was the party that attempted to open up much needed discussions on Maoism, first world revolution, and several other issues that need re-examination. Like Mike Ely says, in every social uprising that occurs, Maoists will either be at the fore, but at least in the mix (this is also inevitable). Today, there is no real ideology or concrete movement besides Maoism that aims for the most radical restructuring of society on a revolutionary basis. From India,to Nepal, and the Philippines, Maoism is a guiding force to liberation for millions of people.

I think you misunderstand the role of leadership in relation to Maoism. In every social movement and revolution, there will a be a core of leaders that will have the highest understanding, commitment to the cause. Let's face it, revolutions are led and consciously made by a minority of the masses, who push forward the rest of their brothers and sisters to the cause (i dont mean vanguard parties as the "minority", but in terms of the masses who take up revolution). Is it wrong to uphold a leader that has made valuable contributions to the people and the revolutionary cause? I believe, and most Maoists do as well, that such leaders are indispensible to revolution. Could Nepal have gone so far in its revolution without the leadership of Prachanda? I doubt it. Right now, their revolution is facing a crisis, and Prachanda is a comrade who has upheld revolutionary communism throughout, and will be needed in this case as well.

Do maoists fetishize third world struggles? I think you are talking more in relation to MIMites and "third worldists" rather to us from Kasama. We support third world struggles, no doubt (nepal, india, philippines) but from a communist perspective and how that movement can achieve state power. Please clarify this criticism so that I can reply in full to it.

I think it is incorrect to say that we have an "inability" to connect with the white proletariat. The RCP and RU (predecessor to the former) did a lot of work amongst white workers in the bay area as well as in the coal mining in the east (ely has direct experience in this). As of now, the reality is that the most oppressed sectors of the people in the US are the black and latino proletarians (immigrants included too). They need to and will be at the fore of organizing and revolution, while still of course doing the same amongst the white proletariat.

Nepal. Its conditions call for a drastic build up of its infrastructure, factories (the few it has!), the countryside (millions live outside the cash flow and survive on agriculture alone). Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world, it NEEDS this development. In every socialist revolution in the third world, a nascent capitalist economy will coexist next to an ever expanding socialist, planned economy. The former will be subordinate to the latter and serve it. But I think that the pivotal question here is that the Maoists uphold as a part of their overall revolutionary strategy to implement NDR and ultimately, socialism. Its a means to get where Nepal needs to be to get to socialism. We cant be mechanical and say that the Maoists are "traitors" because of this, we need to look at their concrete conditions and what they are really dealing with.

Sorry for the hasty paragraph, I am in a rush.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I hope this can be constructive.

So you think that Maoism is a spent ideology in the first world. Have you considered that for the past (at least 40 years) Maoism has been the most prominent communist ideology in the United States? The Black Panther Party was not defeated to some glitch in Maoism. On the contrary, it was their use of Maoism that allowed them such wide popularity. When they first came to be, they practiced what mao called "the mass line", that is, you investigate the conditions the people live in, learn from them, and then from that, proceed with political programs (Ten Point Platform) and organizing.

Yes and their mass line worked because just about any successful revolutionary uses a similar tactic. They went around the neighborhood, asked people what their biggest problems were, and then organized parallel structures to perform services that the state should have. Then they entrusted the programs to community members. We call that dual power. The Muslim extremists call that Islamic social justice. Any serious revolutionary utilizes these sorts of programs. Mao has no hold on them. Anarchists could have organized the same things.

However, when the BPP used Maoism in other areas, the party disintegrated. They built a cult around Huey Newton and the other leaders and the government set them against each other. Ashanti Alston has a pretty good critique of it. He was a Panther and a BLA guerilla, who converted to anarchism in prison because of the failings of BPP Maoism.

Btw Maosim is not the most prominent communist ideology in America. Trotskyism, anarchism and Stalinism all had similar influence at one time or another.

Up until now (and for a while), the RCP has been the most serious communist pole in the United States, this is without a doubt. It was the party that attempted to open up much needed discussions on Maoism, first world revolution, and several other issues that need re-examination. Like Mike Ely says, in every social uprising that occurs, Maoists will either be at the fore, but at least in the mix (this is also inevitable). Today, there is no real ideology or concrete movement besides Maoism that aims for the most radical restructuring of society on a revolutionary basis. From India,to Nepal, and the Philippines, Maoism is a guiding force to liberation for millions of people.

See you can’t tell me that the RCP was ever serious about communism when they were anti gay until 1999. When you hold homosexuality as “bourgeois decadence” and you’re a first world, modern communist party…well there’s no excuse. The RCP was never serious business; they’re the sum part of a split of a split of a split. They protested Deng Xiaoping and then they pretty much faded into history, becoming more irrelevant with every passing year.

Nor is Maoism the “most revolutionary” or the only alternative. The only active Maoist movements aboard are the Naxalites, the PNA, and the Nepalese. The first two are struck in a protracted and seemingly endless set of guerilla conflicts, and the latter is about to encourage foreign investment. And let’s not forget the Shining Path, who did enough killing to discredit Maoism for a century in Latin America.

I think you misunderstand the role of leadership in relation to Maoism. In every social movement and revolution, there will a be a core of leaders that will have the highest understanding, commitment to the cause. Let's face it, revolutions are led and consciously made by a minority of the masses, who push forward the rest of their brothers and sisters to the cause (i dont mean vanguard parties as the "minority", but in terms of the masses who take up revolution). Is it wrong to uphold a leader that has made valuable contributions to the people and the revolutionary cause? I believe, and most Maoists do as well, that such leaders are indispensible to revolution. Could Nepal have gone so far in its revolution without the leadership of Prachanda? I doubt it. Right now, their revolution is facing a crisis, and Prachanda is a comrade who has upheld revolutionary communism throughout, and will be needed in this case as well.

This is the main failing of Maoism. People (Plural) make history, not people (singular). Prachanda is most likely communism’s greatest enemy right now, as is any Leninist leader in a post revolutionary situation. No core of leaders ever really understands revolutionary theory “the best.” Whatever original perspectives they have are usually destroyed when they are exalted to leadership status. Why? Well leaders tend to become drunk on their own power and fuck everyone over. But even for those who only get buzzed, there’s still a problematic shift in understanding. As the exalted leader on high, the leader loses perspective on events. They begin to see themselves as better than others, or at least more correct. Thus emerges a dangerous feedback loop. The longer in power he/she stays the more detached the leader becomes, and the surer of their views they become. Conversely with the loss of perspective from the base, their ideas degrade into more and more abstract nonsense, divorced from the realities of the working class.

Though there is more a fundamental flaw. Not only do leaders become corrupt on power. Not only do leaders lose perspective and become ideologically myopic. But there is also no chance of ever getting such an exalted leader in the first place. Anarchists don’t name themselves after others for this very reason. Every major disciple or theorist has made serious mistakes in some way. Kropotkin supported the French in WWI, Mahkno swerved to close to authoritarianism, Juan Garcia Oliver joined the Catalonian government. History teaches us that no matter what, the most dedicated radicals can always err. Lenin implemented one man management, Mao organized the Great Stumble into a Ditch, Hoxha was batshit insane, Trotsky conscripted soldiers and wanted to implement military discipline for labor. The list goes on. Maoism is unable to come to grips with this. Your exaltation of the great leader blinds you to his massive failings.

Do maoists fetishize third world struggles? I think you are talking more in relation to MIMites and "third worldists" rather to us from Kasama. We support third world struggles, no doubt (nepal, india, philippines) but from a communist perspective and how that movement can achieve state power. Please clarify this criticism so that I can reply in full to it.

I mean that the discussing, providing solidarity for, and fantasizing about these struggles seems to be the primary concern of most Maoists. Sometimes the third world struggle is brought a bit closer to home, ala some oppressed minority group such as African Americans or the Quebecois. Regardless, Maoism focuses on third world type liberation struggles as a sort of sacred cow. For example, does Kasama not have a whole blog dedicated to the “revolutions” of South Asia? For all it’s failings Anarchism is engaged in significant struggles in both the third world and the first world.

I think it is incorrect to say that we have an "inability" to connect with the white proletariat. The RCP and RU (predecessor to the former) did a lot of work amongst white workers in the bay area as well as in the coal mining in the east (ely has direct experience in this). As of now, the reality is that the most oppressed sectors of the people in the US are the black and latino proletarians (immigrants included too). They need to and will be at the fore of organizing and revolution, while still of course doing the same amongst the white proletariat.

When and for how long? I’ve never seen any accounts of building bridges to white workers. The RCP was mostly composed of white student radicals. No doubt some of them were working class, but many were like Avakian, ruling class to the core. Could they really do significant work in the white working class for extended periods of time? The weathermen tried and horribly failed. The PLP had much of the same results. Both suffered from a lack of working class militants, the RCP suffers in the same way.

And while the most oppressed sectors remains people of color (where incidentally there is also little Maoist presence) the white proletariat still makes up 45-65 percent of the working class. Any revolution requires their decisive support.

Nepal. Its conditions call for a drastic build up of its infrastructure, factories (the few it has!), the countryside (millions live outside the cash flow and survive on agriculture alone). Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world, it NEEDS this development. In every socialist revolution in the third world, a nascent capitalist economy will coexist next to an ever expanding socialist, planned economy. The former will be subordinate to the latter and serve it. But I think that the pivotal question here is that the Maoists uphold as a part of their overall revolutionary strategy to implement NDR and ultimately, socialism. Its a means to get where Nepal needs to be to get to socialism. We cant be mechanical and say that the Maoists are "traitors" because of this, we need to look at their concrete conditions and what they are really dealing with.

But this doesn’t make logical sense. When you have a small group of men and women controlling the economy, they inevitably make it to enrich themselves. As much as I disagree with state socialism, it’s clear that a state can industrialize without capitalist help. The Nepalese Maoists are bringing on their own destruction by inviting in sweatshops, and the Export Processing Zones, they are letting the genii out of the bottle. The capitalists won’t allow Nepal to make them a fine profit, and then watch as they nationalize their industry.

Prachanda has two choices. He can either A. openly and honestly invite foreign capital to industrialize and subjugate the people of Nepal, or B keep the private capitalists out completely. He can’t go the middle road, capitalists either won’t invest or they’ll use their military might to crush the Maoists before they nationalize. Of course there’s also the question of what the workers will do. Will they go on strike when they realize what shit conditions are in the sweatshops? What happens if they riot like in Bangladesh, and start burning down the factories? Do the Maoists side with the workers, thus ending capitalist development prematurely, or do they send in troops to quash the strikes in the name of “socialism and development”?

But I don’t think it will come to this. The history of Maoism has shown a clear tendency to take over a country, industrialize it and then hand it over to the capitalists. Prachanda and company are forming a new class of red capitalists, just as in china, their massive Constituent Assembly salaries are evidence of this.

[Rawthentic]

thanks for the reply Joseph.

Yes and their mass line worked because just about any successful revolutionary uses a similar tactic. They went around the neighborhood, asked people what their biggest problems were, and then organized parallel structures to perform services that the state should have. Then they entrusted the programs to community members. We call that dual power. The Muslim extremists call that Islamic social justice. Any serious revolutionary utilizes these sorts of programs. Mao has no hold on them. Anarchists could have organized the same things.

However, when the BPP used Maoism in other areas, the party disintegrated. They built a cult around Huey Newton and the other leaders and the government set them against each other. Ashanti Alston has a pretty good critique of it. He was a Panther and a BLA guerilla, who converted to anarchism in prison because of the failings of BPP Maoism.

Btw Maosim is not the most prominent communist ideology in America. Trotskyism, anarchism and Stalinism all had similar influence at one time or another.

Thats odd. Their mass line tactic worked because others use it too? That makes no sense. Btw, the mass line theory is attributed to Mao (http://marx2mao.com/Mao/QCM66.html#s11). His party, and other Maoist parties around the world, are known for applying this tactic and making it a concrete reality, thereby establishing roots and links with the people. Anarchists could have organized the same things, so could trotskyists and others. But, have they? No. Why is it that Maoists are known for this, and have actually implemented it?

How did the BPP use Maoism in other areas? What areas? I'm sure there were people that treated Huey in terms of a cult, and the CIA did infiltrate the BPP. But can you please show us how this is attributable to Maoism? Was it wrong of the Panthers to be inspired by the Chinese Revolution and want to carry forward the lessons learned?

About that anarchist prisoner, well, that really does not discredit Maoism. There were real shortcomings that the BPP had and led to their downfall, but you have not shown how it is some glitch in Maoism that caused this. Also, Mumia Abu Jamal is no doubt still a Maoist (or at least has Maoist sympathies) and is far more listened to, defended, and upheld than the anarchist.

Eldridge Cleaver turned to Christianity after the fall of the Panthers. Do this prove Maoism wrong? There is more than what you make it seem.

See you can’t tell me that the RCP was ever serious about communism when they were anti gay until 1999. When you hold homosexuality as “bourgeois decadence” and you’re a first world, modern communist party…well there’s no excuse. The RCP was never serious business; they’re the sum part of a split of a split of a split. They protested Deng Xiaoping and then they pretty much faded into history, becoming more irrelevant with every passing year.

Nor is Maoism the “most revolutionary” or the only alternative. The only active Maoist movements aboard are the Naxalites, the PNA, and the Nepalese. The first two are struck in a protracted and seemingly endless set of guerilla conflicts, and the latter is about to encourage foreign investment. And let’s not forget the Shining Path, who did enough killing to discredit Maoism for a century in Latin America.

The RCP did incorrectly hold that homosexuality was a capitalist symptom, and, although, they did correct it, did so without a real summation of that period and dubbed it part of their "revisionist package." Wrong methodology.

But, Joe, can you name any other revolutionary party or organization in the past few decades that has had any more following than the RCP, done more revolutionary work than the RCP, or had any more international relevance than that Party? There has been no other, and this party for many years has been the largest pole for communist politics in this country.

No doubt it is drowning in irrelevance, and a sect-like mentality, but we should not ignore its past and what it means in terms of the communist movement in the US.

How are the RCP the product of splits? I dont think you know very much about their history.

Wow, and you easily discredit the Maoist movements and struggles in the third world. Do you really know what is going on there? Why do these wars seems "endless?" It has far more to do with the power of the states they struggle against than any glitch in Maoism (as ive said before). These Maoist movements, in India, Nepal, and Philippines, have built BROAD bases and roots amongst the people they struggle for, and put forward and anti-imperialist, communist alternative for the people that dont see anything else for hope. I think its hopelessly simplistic and sad to dismiss such communist movements w/o a real understanding of their conditions and implications that they hold for us.

Maoism is the most radical ideology out there. There is no other theory that (in both) theory and practice fights and struggles for a complete overthrow of social conditions. Up until now, there is nothing that rivals it.

This is the main failing of Maoism. People (Plural) make history, not people (singular). Prachanda is most likely communism’s greatest enemy right now, as is any Leninist leader in a post revolutionary situation. No core of leaders ever really understands revolutionary theory “the best.” Whatever original perspectives they have are usually destroyed when they are exalted to leadership status. Why? Well leaders tend to become drunk on their own power and fuck everyone over. But even for those who only get buzzed, there’s still a problematic shift in understanding. As the exalted leader on high, the leader loses perspective on events. They begin to see themselves as better than others, or at least more correct. Thus emerges a dangerous feedback loop. The longer in power he/she stays the more detached the leader becomes, and the surer of their views they become. Conversely with the loss of perspective from the base, their ideas degrade into more and more abstract nonsense, divorced from the realities of the working class.

Joe, why do you take the same stance as bourgeois liberals in terms of communism and its leaders? Do you realize that they also say that communism is impossible because leaders "inevitable become drunk with power?" Is this a real assessment of leadership (in capitalist then socialism and within movements and parties)? Not the least bit.

In every revolutionary and radical uprising, without exception, there will arise certain leaders out of that event, that represent the aspirations of the masses that are making the struggle. Is there something wrong with this? Why? I dont understand how wrong it is for such leaders (as prachanda for example) to emerge out of these struggles and to help lead them in their correct path. W/o such leadership, or such cores, we can never make revolution. The masses of people need rev leadership to make revolution, it is indispensable. I think the one that is making abstractions is you. Look at any radical movement going on today. Are there leaders, coordinators, etc? Of course! Are they important? They are crucial. What would communism be had Marx not created scientific socialism? Where would the working class movement in Russia had gone had it not been for the rev leadership of Lenin? I think we need to understand, whether you like or not, that leaders will inevitably emerge in the heat of struggle that have a degree of commitment, understanding, and experience enough to have the trust of the people and lead them.

We live in capitalist society (a horrible authoritarian world), and socialism will inevitable bear its birthmarks for a long time. There will be hierarchy, leaders, managers, under socialism. But the question is not "are there managers! oh no!", but what class interests they serve. All of this is an important part of building socialism, and overcoming the contradictions that arise from the "left overs" of capitalist society.

In China, during the rev struggle and into socialism there were countless struggles to combat bourgeois methods of leadership (commandism, violence), instead of communist leadership (serve the people, respect the people, listen and learn from them), and the GPCR was the culmination of this struggle for the masses to uproot remnants of bureaucracy and its leaders that maintained wrong methods with the people. Maoism is the ideology that always stresses the the leaders must obey and serve the people to the fullest, it is one of its main tenets.

Dont patronize me. There are many things that went wrong in China and that Mao did. I understand that, criticize that, but I dont have blind faith in mao or anything like that, that goes against the spirit of Maoism.

Mao said:

The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.

What was that about Maoists not accepting that masses make history?

I mean that the discussing, providing solidarity for, and fantasizing about these struggles seems to be the primary concern of most Maoists. Sometimes the third world struggle is brought a bit closer to home, ala some oppressed minority group such as African Americans or the Quebecois. Regardless, Maoism focuses on third world type liberation struggles as a sort of sacred cow. For example, does Kasama not have a whole blog dedicated to the “revolutions” of South Asia? For all it’s failings Anarchism is engaged in significant struggles in both the third world and the first world.

Idk what Maoists you are talking about. At Kasama, we read and learn about the communist movements in Southern asia, but we do it critically. Shouldnt we support the only communist movement that is so close to a seizure of power (since 1949!)?

This really does not apply to me much.

When and for how long? I’ve never seen any accounts of building bridges to white workers. The RCP was mostly composed of white student radicals. No doubt some of them were working class, but many were like Avakian, ruling class to the core. Could they really do significant work in the white working class for extended periods of time? The weathermen tried and horribly failed. The PLP had much of the same results. Both suffered from a lack of working class militants, the RCP suffers in the same way.

And while the most oppressed sectors remains people of color (where incidentally there is also little Maoist presence) the white proletariat still makes up 45-65 percent of the working class. Any revolution requires their decisive support.

Any google search into the history of the RCP and RU will show that. I dont have time to show that now. The weathermen never tried to establish roots with the people.

and btw, the RCP has had and has many cadres from oppressed nationalities (just as a side note).

There is literally no significant communist presence in any areas of the proletariat, so I dont know what you gain by saying that there is no Maoist presence. Im not the one that said there was. What I am saying is that the oppressed nationalities (working class) will be at the fore of the rev struggle because, in contrast to their white working brothers and sisters, they are not exposed to imperialist super profits that buy off certain sections of that class (and thus make it that much more difficult to attain any rev consciousness).

But this doesn’t make logical sense. When you have a small group of men and women controlling the economy, they inevitably make it to enrich themselves. As much as I disagree with state socialism, it’s clear that a state can industrialize without capitalist help. The Nepalese Maoists are bringing on their own destruction by inviting in sweatshops, and the Export Processing Zones, they are letting the genii out of the bottle. The capitalists won’t allow Nepal to make them a fine profit, and then watch as they nationalize their industry.

Once again, I think you ignore the conditions in Nepal.

I am going to disregard your hate for leaders and leadership (as ive replied to that above) and get into something else. Nepal is without a doubt a predominantly semi feudal society with very little factories, or any sort of infrastructure. The countryside is much worse in terms of electricity, water, heat, etc. Nepal needs foreign investment to deal with these burning questions that can determine the welfare of the people. In many cases, capitalist industry can play a progressive role, due to its power to build desperately needed industry.

Where is it implicit, or explicit that the Maoists will hand over Nepal to the capitalists? Do you not understand Nepal's conditions and that if the Maoists lead Nepal, capitalist development will be in an entirely different context (building towards the necessary conditions to maintain socialism)? To even think of socialism, and maintaining the socialist road (crucial) there needs to be strong enough productive forces and new production relations (result of building socialism) that will occur both in the rural and urban areas.

Did capitalists ever take over China? I think that is a wrong assessment. There was a state capitalist sector in China, but that was to build industry and was smaller than and subordinate to the socialist, planned economy. Like I said, in any attempt to build socialism in the third world, a nascent capitalist industry will coexist with a socialist economy (in an every expanding and changing manner). Socialism (as it emerges from capitalism) will need to deal with these "birthmarks" of the old society in the correct way.

What shall the workers do? Do you realize that they overwhelmingly support the Maoists and the Maoists have their own unions as well? I think that if the Maoists welcomed in foreign investments (in the context and reasons I explained above) the workers and masses will welcome it because it will lead to an improvement in their conditions, far better than what they had before. But, like I said before (and you ignored) the main question is, where is this leading? What is the context? In relation to the Maoists, it is a part of the NDR and necessary transitional steps in building socialism.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Thanks this is proving useful.

Before I start, I’d like to request that we should quote each others posts in their entirety. While I’m fine with responding section by section, I don’t like it when people quote only a few paragraphs since they tend not to respond to all the points listed.

Thats odd. Their mass line tactic worked because others use it too? That makes no sense. Btw, the mass line theory is attributed to Mao (http://marx2mao.com/Mao/QCM66.html#s11). His party, and other Maoist parties around the world, are known for applying this tactic and making it a concrete reality, thereby establishing roots and links with the people. Anarchists could have organized the same things, so could trotskyists and others. But, have they? No. Why is it that Maoists are known for this, and have actually implemented it?

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.

How did the BPP use Maoism in other areas? What areas? I'm sure there were people that treated Huey in terms of a cult, and the CIA did infiltrate the BPP. But can you please show us how this is attributable to Maoism? Was it wrong of the Panthers to be inspired by the Chinese Revolution and want to carry forward the lessons learned?

About that anarchist prisoner, well, that really does not discredit Maoism. There were real shortcomings that the BPP had and led to their downfall, but you have not shown how it is some glitch in Maoism that caused this. Also, Mumia Abu Jamal is no doubt still a Maoist (or at least has Maoist sympathies) and is far more listened to, defended, and upheld than the anarchist.

Eldridge Cleaver turned to Christianity after the fall of the Panthers. Do this prove Maoism wrong? There is more than what you make it seem.

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.

The RCP did incorrectly hold that homosexuality was a capitalist symptom, and, although, they did correct it, did so without a real summation of that period and dubbed it part of their "revisionist package." Wrong methodology.

But, Joe, can you name any other revolutionary party or organization in the past few decades that has had any more following than the RCP, done more revolutionary work than the RCP, or had any more international relevance than that Party? There has been no other, and this party for many years has been the largest pole for communist politics in this country.

No doubt it is drowning in irrelevance, and a sect-like mentality, but we should not ignore its past and what it means in terms of the communist movement in the US.

How are the RCP the product of splits? I dont think you know very much about their history.

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.

Wow, and you easily discredit the Maoist movements and struggles in the third world. Do you really know what is going on there? Why do these wars seems "endless?" It has far more to do with the power of the states they struggle against than any glitch in Maoism (as ive said before). These Maoist movements, in India, Nepal, and Philippines, have built BROAD bases and roots amongst the people they struggle for, and put forward and anti-imperialist, communist alternative for the people that dont see anything else for hope. I think its hopelessly simplistic and sad to dismiss such communist movements w/o a real understanding of their conditions and implications that they hold for us.

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?

Maoism is the most radical ideology out there. There is no other theory that (in both) theory and practice fights and struggles for a complete overthrow of social conditions. Up until now, there is nothing that rivals it

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.

Joe, why do you take the same stance as bourgeois liberals in terms of communism and its leaders? Do you realize that they also say that communism is impossible because leaders "inevitable become drunk with power?" Is this a real assessment of leadership (in capitalist then socialism and within movements and parties)? Not the least bit.

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?

In every revolutionary and radical uprising, without exception, there will arise certain leaders out of that event, that represent the aspirations of the masses that are making the struggle. Is there something wrong with this? Why? I dont understand how wrong it is for such leaders (as prachanda for example) to emerge out of these struggles and to help lead them in their correct path. W/o such leadership, or such cores, we can never make revolution. The masses of people need rev leadership to make revolution, it is indispensable. I think the one that is making abstractions is you. Look at any radical movement going on today. Are there leaders, coordinators, etc? Of course! Are they important? They are crucial. What would communism be had Marx not created scientific socialism? Where would the working class movement in Russia had gone had it not been for the rev leadership of Lenin? I think we need to understand, whether you like or not, that leaders will inevitably emerge in the heat of struggle that have a degree of commitment, understanding, and experience enough to have the trust of the people and lead them.

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?

We live in capitalist society (a horrible authoritarian world), and socialism will inevitable bear its birthmarks for a long time. There will be hierarchy, leaders, managers, under socialism. But the question is not "are there managers! oh no!", but what class interests they serve. All of this is an important part of building socialism, and overcoming the contradictions that arise from the "left overs" of capitalist society.

In China, during the rev struggle and into socialism there were countless struggles to combat bourgeois methods of leadership (commandism, violence), instead of communist leadership (serve the people, respect the people, listen and learn from them), and the GPCR was the culmination of this struggle for the masses to uproot remnants of bureaucracy and its leaders that maintained wrong methods with the people. Maoism is the ideology that always stresses the the leaders must obey and serve the people to the fullest, it is one of its main tenets.

Dont patronize me. There are many things that went wrong in China and that Mao did. I understand that, criticize that, but I dont have blind faith in mao or anything like that, that goes against the spirit of Maoism.

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!

Mao said: “The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history”

What was that about Maoists not accepting that masses make history?

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.

Idk what Maoists you are talking about. At Kasama, we read and learn about the communist movements in Southern asia, but we do it critically. Shouldnt we support the only communist movement that is so close to a seizure of power (since 1949!)?

This really does not apply to me much.

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.

Any google search into the history of the RCP and RU will show that. I dont have time to show that now. The weathermen never tried to establish roots with the people.

and btw, the RCP has had and has many cadres from oppressed nationalities (just as a side note).

There is literally no significant communist presence in any areas of the proletariat, so I dont know what you gain by saying that there is no Maoist presence. Im not the one that said there was. What I am saying is that the oppressed nationalities (working class) will be at the fore of the rev struggle because, in contrast to their white working brothers and sisters, they are not exposed to imperialist super profits that buy off certain sections of that class (and thus make it that much more difficult to attain any rev consciousness).

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.

Once again, I think you ignore the conditions in Nepal.

I am going to disregard your hate for leaders and leadership (as ive replied to that above) and get into something else. Nepal is without a doubt a predominantly semi feudal society with very little factories, or any sort of infrastructure. The countryside is much worse in terms of electricity, water, heat, etc. Nepal needs foreign investment to deal with these burning questions that can determine the welfare of the people. In many cases, capitalist industry can play a progressive role, due to its power to build desperately needed industry.

Where is it implicit, or explicit that the Maoists will hand over Nepal to the capitalists? Do you not understand Nepal's conditions and that if the Maoists lead Nepal, capitalist development will be in an entirely different context (building towards the necessary conditions to maintain socialism)? To even think of socialism, and maintaining the socialist road (crucial) there needs to be strong enough productive forces and new production relations (result of building socialism) that will occur both in the rural and urban areas.

Did capitalists ever take over China? I think that is a wrong assessment. There was a state capitalist sector in China, but that was to build industry and was smaller than and subordinate to the socialist, planned economy. Like I said, in any attempt to build socialism in the third world, a nascent capitalist industry will coexist with a socialist economy (in an every expanding and changing manner). Socialism (as it emerges from capitalism) will need to deal with these "birthmarks" of the old society in the correct way.

What shall the workers do? Do you realize that they overwhelmingly support the Maoists and the Maoists have their own unions as well? I think that if the Maoists welcomed in foreign investments (in the context and reasons I explained above) the workers and masses will welcome it because it will lead to an improvement in their conditions, far better than what they had before. But, like I said before (and you ignored) the main question is, where is this leading? What is the context? In relation to the Maoists, it is a part of the NDR and necessary transitional steps in building socialism.

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.

[trivas7]

Nice discussion. Nevertheless, Rawthentic and Joe, you are talking past each other.

[Rawthentic]

What do you mean, trivas?

[trivas7]

Rawthentic -- It's clear to me that because you are a Marxist and Joe's an anarchist (among other things probably) your discussion re Maoism and history have entirely different focuses. How Joe's last post, e.g., differs from any bourgeois liberal's re this is beyond me.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Rawthentic -- It's clear to me that because you are a Marxist and Joe's an anarchist (among other things probably) your discussion re Maoism and history have entirely different focuses. How Joe's last post, e.g., differs from any bourgeois liberal's re this is beyond me.

Are you accusing me of being a bourgeois liberal?

[Rawthentic]

trivas, I do agree (however much that I want to maintain a principled debate) that Joe maintains remnants of what is clearly bourgeois liberalism.

But the point here is not to label others and thus dismiss what they want to say - we need to engage that because we can all learn from this nice discussion (and many others are reading this thread as well).

[trivas7]

But the point here is not to label others and thus dismiss what they want to say - we need to engage that because we can all learn from this nice discussion (and many others are reading this thread as well).

Point taken, I didn't mean for discussion to stop.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

trivas, I do agree (however much that I want to maintain a principled debate) that Joe maintains remnants of what is clearly bourgeois liberalism.

But the point here is not to label others and thus dismiss what they want to say - we need to engage that because we can all learn from this nice discussion (and many others are reading this thread as well).

Of course I have remnants of bourgeois liberalism, the roots of liberalism are pre capitalist, and offered a philosophical starting point for anarchists and Marx. Karl had about as much liberalism in him as I do. He got the foundations of a lot of his theories from liberals. Alienated labor was a materialist riff on Feurbach's "The Essence of Christianity." The problem of liberalism today is it's support for capitalism. However take out its support for capitalism, and liberalism is a thoroughly materialist, rational, down to earth philosophy.

[trivas7]

Karl had about as much liberalism in him as I do.

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.