Nepal Maoists: On Criticism by RCP
Posted by Mike E on January 3, 2008
 |
|
|
The second edition of RED STAR has just appeared. This is the new online English language newspaper reporting on the Maoist revolution in Nepal. I am printing it all out for a close read.
However I do want to call to attention a brief-but-significant passage in an interview with Netrabikram “Biplab” Chand, who is described as a member of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
This passage acknowledges that the Nepali Maoists are facing criticisms from some forces internationally. Everyone has seen the criticisms of the Maoist of India (so that part is not a surprise). But Biplab also specifically mentions Bob Avakian of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA as one of those doing the criticizing.
This too is not surprising — because almost anyone watching the RCP realizes that they simply stopped writing their own commentary on the Nepali revolution in the Spring of 2006. Such an abrupt end to their previous enthusiastic reporting was an obvious sign that they had differences with the CPN(Maoist) that amounted to a cessation of support.
I say “almost anyone” because one group of people may be surprised: Many supporters of the RCP seem unaware of such differences. This is because they have been on a rather strict information diet — in which many details of their own movement (including major parts of the RCP’s own political and ideological line, and major setbacks in the RCP’s work) are simply kept from them.
So here it is, out in the open: the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) mentions (cheerfully, generously, almost in passing) the criticisms of Bob Avakian. Now finally we can (here in the U.S.) get beyond the info diet and get to the heart of the matters: Let’s dig into those opposing lines, let’s compare and contrast. And let’s discuss the question I have been asking: Where is the internationalism?
To be clear: There may well be principled criticisms to make of revolutionary comrades in Nepal — of this or that statement, this or that belief, this or that decision. I am cautious of thinking I know enough (from afar) to judge. I am inclined to look at their progress as something to learn from, as something to shake up our own too-rigid thinking here. A great revolution is unfolding in the Himalayas and south into India, and it will inevitably force earthquakes in communist thinking as well.
Bob Avakian once wrote (very long ago in Mao’s Immortal Contributions before his “epistemological break”):
“It can further be said that it is even a law of revolution, and especially of proletarian revolution, that in order for it to succeed in any particular country, the struggle in that country and those leading it will have to depart from and even oppose certain particular conceptions or previous practices which have come to be invested in the stature of ‘established norms’ in the revolutionary movement. This is an expression of materialist dialectics, because every revolution arises out of the concrete conditions (contradictions) in the country (and the world) at the time it is occuring and every new revolution inevitably involves new questions, new contradictions to be resolved.”
There may be principled criticism to be made now. But I have to ask: what criticisms are SO MAJOR, so basic, that they justify silence on Nepal — when things happen like the massacre in Gaur, or when new machinations and lies emerge from the U.S.?
In India police have arrested the editor of the Maoist newspaper People’s March, P. Govindan Kutty. He has launched a hunger strike to protest his imprisonment and the attempt to suppress the revolutionary press. Many Maoist fighters and leaders have been tortured and murdered in the Indian prisons. Such things need to be exposed and opposed here in the heartland of imperialism.
I remember during the Vietnam war, when many of us had our eyes opened, and realized (to our own shock) that the “other side” was really a popular movement for national liberation. Vietnam was not just a bloody war, and an “unnecessary” war — it was an UNJUST war (and the revolutionary forces called “the Vietcong” were really “The National Liberation Front of South Vietnam” who deserved that lofty name.) There were at that time real reasons to question the political and ideological line of the Vietnamese Workers Party — it was more and more leaning toward pro-Soviet politics (in international orientation, in its view of the revolutionary process, in its approach to the reliance on weapons, and more). From the Tet offensive on, we revolutionaries in the U.S. had such questions. The Vietnamese made proposals at the negotiation table (for possible coalitions in South Vietnam, for mergers or accommodation with the local puppet forces). They even urged us to support the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate George McGovern in the 1972 elections. And we developed (over time, with respect and with much agonizing) some critical summations of the line they were taking, and the road they were walking.
But…. (and here is my point)… never in all of that process did we go silent on our opposition to the war in Vietnam. Never did we stop reporting on the crimes of the U.S. in Vietnam — its interventions, its lies about the revolutionary forces.
And here we are in 2007, where the political landscape has been far too barren of revolutionary movements. And there is a bright spot in South Asia, where two (rather different and quarreling) Maoist movements are making progress… one in India and the other in Nepal. They face great dangers — including all out military attack, and U.S. interventions of various kinds.
The politics of the Nepali and Indian Maoists are quite a bit more clearly revolutionary than the forces that took over the Vietnamese Workers Party…. right?
What are the RCP criticisms of the Nepali and Indian Maoists that could justify the RCP’S silence now? What kinds of issues would justify this?
And more: if this Maoist party is not shouldering these important internationalist tasks, what requirements does that put on us — as we regroup and reconceive, and climb the unexplored mountain?
* * * * * *
In Red Star, Netrabikram “Biplab” Chand, is asked why international communist parties are criticizing CPN(M)?
Biplab’s answer:
It’s a burning question, indeed. Our party and revolution isn’t the party and revolution of Nepal only. It is one of the essential organs of world communist party and world revolution. Therefore, the success and failure of the revolution influences the entire world. Another important fact is that the situation in which we’re standing today is built due to the help and solidarity of the world proletarian class.
When we initiated people’s war in Nepal, we were observing the revolution of Peru, Philipines and Turky at that time. We discussed and shared the experiences with fraternal parties- RCP and CPI (Maoist). They have helped us too much. The revolutionaries of India helped us in political, technological, academic and other sectors. RIM and CPI (Maoist) have some anxieties and criticisms about Nepalese revolution while we are in peace process.
We’ve accepted those complains and criticisms cordially and should do so, because they belong to the same class. They don’t want only the revolution, but also revolutionary internationalism in Nepal. Some others complain on it, but we say that the criticism of com. Ganapati and com. Bob Avakian is more favourable, beneficial and salutary than the admiration and compassion of Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh and American president George Bush. We should make them to believe that we are resolute to our class, ideology, ideal and our goal.
chegitz guevara said
I am blown away by this response from the Nepalese comrade. Almost every other person or organization I’ve known, when facing criticism, immediately goes into defensive mode, starts trying to explain why the criticism is incorrect, or, as shown by the RCP’s initial response to the 9L, shoot the messenger.
I’ve supported the struggle in Nepal in my heart and verbally occasionally, but I don’t know enough about it. I really need to study up on these comrades and understand why they are different.
your comrade,
chegitz guevara
SUN! SURF! SOCIALISM!
Pavel said
For many years I have considered myself a friend if principled critic of the RCP. Once very close to it, I distanced myself because of line differences but found myself drawn back towards it during the 80s mainly because of its solidarity work around the PW in Peru. By the early 90s due to international work of my own not directly related to the RCP I came to realize that the Maoist movement internationally was far larger than RIM and that the Revolutionary Worker was not offering anything like the coverage of that movement that its readership might expect. I made criticisms, that I think were heard to some extent, and was especially happy to see some development of ties between the party and the CP Philippines—a party that had been ignored by the RCP or dismissed as leaning towards revisionism despite the rectification campaign of 1992. Lotta visited the Philippines in 1996, positively reporting on the NPA. The parties exchanged anniversary congratulatory letters. Even recently, Revolution Books in NYC hosted a videoconference event involving participation by Sison from Utrecht.
But (aside from the silence on Nepal, which I was informed reflected the need for study within the party such as that following the coup in China or the reports about “peace talks” in Peru) there is minimal attention to, and I think even interest in, the PWs in the Philippines or in India. The CPI (Maoist) pulls of incredible, inspiring feats that the RCP ignores in its press, like the storming of the Dantewada prison in Chattisgarh December 16, in which 303 inmates were freed. Meanwhile the RCP press excitedly reports about how an unknown number of people filled Libros Revolución in LA to discuss Bob Avakian’s “Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity.”
In the absence of any organization in this country that does do work in solidarity with these ongoing PWs, I’ve figured that the RCP at least has the potential to do so. But I’ve pretty much given up on that hope. What really woke me up and caused me to understand the bankruptcy of priorities was an invitation from several party people to sign the Engage! Statement. Before I was aware of Mike’s break from the RCP or his polemic, still thinking, “Well, the RCP is the only thing out there,” I read that statement first feeling puzzled (is BA somehow threatened?), then worried (about the sanity of the party going so public with its obvious personality cult), finally angered at how the whole campaign and its effort to attach “public intellectuals” to the cult insults one’s intelligence. I just regret that it took me so long to wake up.
BobH said
Pavel,
your experiences to some extent seem mirror my own. One thing I and others concluded in the 90s is that the RCP and RIM cannot be relied upon to do non-sectarian solidarity work for Maoist struggles around the world; and even the solidarity work they do do is very limited by a narrow, ideological view that completely precludes basic work like keeping people informed, and get turned off like a spigot when lines start to shift. So there were some attempts to do this kind of work in the U.S. independently of the RCP, but for a variety of reasons that was not sustainable.
I believe that there is a possibility of doing practical “Maoist” solidarity work (in quotes to suggest a “big tent” approach to defining Maoism) that can inform and inspire people and serve as a pole of attraction for radical minded people here. The first step would seem to be a clean break with the “our way or the highway” attitude of the RCP towards solidarity. This blog seems to suggest that a critical turning
point has been reached.
Of course, solidarity work is not the same as developing radical organizations, but it is not useless — and the ones who are putting their lives on the line abroad deserve better than the lackluster “support” they do get. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the potential for this kind of work.
notsopoeticfeelings said
BobH, you SEEM to be much more interested in RCP bashing and RIM bashing than anything else. and as such, despite your intention of not wanting to be sectarian, you employ a method that is itself highly sectarian. Here are a bunch of Maoists that have stated clearly what some of the problems are, and trying hard to put it in perspective and find CORRECT answeres to ADVANCE: very resolute, optimistic and focused. how you come across instead, is very pesimistic and liquidationist: “we tried, it didn’t work.” this is how I read your underlying message, despite your intentions. For if you want to help materialise your intentions you have to concentrate, at least on this page,on why your efforts failed. Share with us those “variety of reasons” that made your efforts a failiure so we won’t make the same mistakes again.
We don’t have grudges against the RCP; we see some problems that need resolution in order for us to go further.
BTW, i haven’t forgotten your clarification in the other post of yours; it just needs a somewhat more detaild answer than I have time right now.
Saoirse said
Hi everyone,
I dont mean to derail the general thrust of this discussion but there is something I have wanted to ask on a related matter. Is there interest in building a Nepal solidarity movement here in the US? The very first actions that politicized me in the late 80s was both Ireland solidarity work and work with CISPES. Both experiences, for better or worse have fundamentally shaped my politics and inspired and motivated me. And with regard to the later an entire generation of activist were brought into the struggle against US imperialism through CISPES. Further I would argue I found myself giving the RCP a more serious examination b/c of there work supporting the PCP.
It’s fairly obvious now why the RCP has not sought to foster a solidarity movement around events in Nepal. Building such a campaign could have the dual purpose of supporting internationalism and building an actual organization pole around Maoist influenced mass work in the US. Who know maybe we could build a red organization around such work!
In all sincerity and struggle, Saoirse
Red Heretic said
Mike, I think that what you are doing here with the quote from the Nepali comrades is both unprincipled and very one sided. You completely negated the comradely invitation for criticism that the Nepali comrades directed at Avakian and Ganapati. You’ve applied the Nepali comrades’ thinking both one-sidedly and pragmatically to fit your own anti-Avakian and anti-RCP agenda, and you fail to see the way that you aren’t just distorting the line of and doing harm to the RCP and Avakian, you’re also distorting and doing harm to our comrades in Nepal.
“We’ve accepted those complains and criticisms cordially and should do so, because they belong to the same class. They don’t want only the revolution, but also revolutionary internationalism in Nepal. Some others complain on it, but we say that the criticism of com. Ganapati and com. Bob Avakian is more favourable, beneficial and salutary than the admiration and compassion of Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh and American president George Bush. We should make them to believe that we are resolute to our class, ideology, ideal and our goal.”
Jimmy Higgins said
In response to Saoirse, let me just say that considerable thought should be given to undertaking such a venture, let alone discussing it in a public forum like this. The CPN(M) is classified as a terrorist organization by the bourgeois state apparatus in this country, at a very different time than when similar strictures were placed on the ‘RA and the FMLN. Nor is there a social base in the US of Nepalese immigrants comparable to the Salvadorans or the huge Irish-identified population.
zerohour said
Red Heretic -
I’m not sure what your criticism is here. For over a year, there has been deafening silence from RCP on Nepal. Many of us could only infer that it was related to unstated political differences. Now we have some evidence of that.
Mike not only quotes the passage where the comrade welcomes Avakian’s criticisms and says it is more valuable than praise from heads of state, but links to the source so you can read the entire statement for yourself. Where is the one-sidedness and what is being negated here?
Saoirse said
JH,
I definitely appreciate the differences and have some experience post 9/11 with doing anti-intervention work in Colombia. Still aspects of this work could certainly exist. If this is not the forum to engage this discussion I won’t press the issue.
BobH said
Notsopoeticfeelings says
BobH, you SEEM to be much more interested in RCP bashing and RIM bashing than anything else. and as such, despite your intention of not wanting to be sectarian, you employ a method that is itself highly sectarian
Ok, I’ll take that as constructive criticism; perhaps I was chanelling too much old bitterness over the rather cavalier way some imperialist country Maoists treat the living struggles in the semi-colonial countries. You are right, that is of little use. If you are saying that it was unprincipled for people then to try to do solidarity work without the guiding hand of the RCP, I’m quite certain you are wrong because useful work was accomplished. For example, translation and publication of PCP docs into English at a time when neither AWTW or CSRP was interested in touching them.
There are two questions here: the specifics of the kind of Maoist solidarity work people were trying to do in the 90s, specifically around Peru, independently of the RCP and RIM, and the question of solidarity work in general without a leading party.
On the first, it was a complex situation due to the larger line struggle between CoRIM and upholders of MLM,GT, as well as many individuals and grouplets with their own agenda trying to “fish in troubled waters”, and then the gradual erosion of the PW in Peru. I could get a lot more detailed about it, but I’m definitely not the person to sum that up since I only have a partial picture. While I believe there’s a lot of negative and positive lessons there for Maoists, my own personal view is that this kind of solidarity work is best undertaken on its own merits rather than as a vehicle for advancing a specific, narrow ideological agenda, as both the RCP and supporters of MLM,GT did in their own different ways. I don’t think it would be good to get into a lot more detail though.
On the second question, which I believe Saoirse and Pavel are raising, I don’t see why a general PW solidarity project that focuses on propaganda and news with a very careful eye of not falling into the pitfalls of post 9/11 laws, etc. is impossible. It was probably hard to do solidarity work around China during the McCarthy years, but I’m sure it happened. There are people out there who don’t necessarily want to be in a very narrow MLM-type formation or march in lock-step with a line but are “fellow travellers”, and could probably do some useful work. I suspect this kind of project could help vitalize that, if the past is any kind of guide.
joeblow said
The criticism of the the RCP’s silence is well-deserved & the welcoming attitude of Comrade Biplab towards negative criticism is a breath of fresh air in comparison to the RCP’s long history of not engaging such criticism from comrades. To challenge the RCP on line questions seems to automatically put you in the enemy camp, as I & many others have found out, to our common dismay.
However, I am also very fearful of the lack of response of the CPN(M) to the criticism of comrade Azad in the 2006 PM interview–or at least, I am not aware of any public response to the Azad criticism. Has there been any & if so, why hasn’t it been discussed in the 9-letters? Very serious–crucial– issues were raised by Azad that, if true, would call for serious self-criticism & rectification on the part of the CPN(M).
One of MIke’s remarks in this regard could be very off-putting, where he seems to pour cold water on evaluating the CPN(M) from “afar.” So tell me, was it wrong to sum up that the Chinese party had been taken over by a bunch of revisonists after Mao’s death–from “afar”? Not only should we do such evaluations– cardinal questions may be involved in the turns in the road; e.g., the restoration of capitalism in the former Soviet Union after Stalin’s
death & in PRC after Mao’s death–in fact, we have a duty to do exactly that.
steve said
I am also very fearful of the lack of response of the CPN(M) to the criticism of comrade Azad
Absolutely nothing says that each debate in the international communist movement must be public. Each party has the right to decide if they want to make a criticism or answer a criticism publicly or privately. Of course, I don’t have any internal information about this, but if I had to bet, I’d say CPN(M) has probably already answered and seriously debated with the Indian Maoists about the issues raised by Azad in 2006.
Don’t get me wrong though: I do think that the RCP,USA approach towards Nepal is completely wrong. While it can very well be OK for Avakian not to state openly its disagreements with CPN(M), there’s no reason whatsoever to stop public support for the Nepalese revolution (unless he thinks CPN(M) betrayed the revolution, in which case this should be said publicly).
ShineThePath said
I agree with BobH, that despite the current situations, I can’t see the reason why there should not be Solidarity Committees around this country for what is occuring in Nepal. In fact, despite the current legal conditions we do have groups that do similar work, such as those connected to the ILPS and BAYAN, USA. I mean, as someone already noted, Joma was speaking to people in NYC via the internet at a Rev Books.
Obviously, as well, the RCP in the conditions of post-911 were promoting the Nepalese People’s War, promoted Li Ornesto’s book about her travels to Nepal, etc.
In fact there was such a group at one point, http://www.geocities.com/nepalsolidarityusa/ . This was actively promoted at the Rev Books in NYC, it had its own stickers, but it was stopped being promoted around the time of 2005.
On a particular point, that JoeBlow raises a bit. There has been this criticism expressed openly by the CPI (M) on the CPN (M)’s turn toward work with the parliamentarians and actively going in these elections. Since BA’s criticisms are not openly put forward to us, I would have to think that the objective developments in Nepal have led to the RCP’s silence on it. CPI (M) has at least put forward their openly their line disagreements, but I don’t know anyone in the US, with the exception of the people out of MLMRSG that have said anything concretely about these developments.
I would like to know Mike and others thoughts on the matter?
Maz said
The World People’s Resistance Movement could be an interesting vehicle for this type of project.
joeblow said
“Absolutely nothing says that each debate in the international communist movement must be public. Each party has the right to decide if they want to make a criticism or answer a criticism publicly or privately. Of course, I don’t have any internal information about this, but if I had to bet, I’d say CPN(M) has probably already answered and seriously debated with the Indian Maoists about the issues raised by Azad in 2006.”
I think that the issue is not the rights of parties re whether or not “they want to make a criticism or answer a criticism publicly or privately,” or whether or not “CPN(M) has probably already answered and seriously debated with the Indian Maoists about the issues raised by Azad in 2006,” though it would be a good start if they have already done this.
I think what is at stake is that of grappling with the issues raised & arming the masses with an understanding that promotes a scientific view of the world, as part of calling the masses forward to battle on the specific practical & theoretical questions involved. I see this as a CARDINAL QUESTION that has everything to do with the actual orientation of an organization towards the achievement of a communist society. By restricting discussion of key questions to a small circle of “leaders” (doing this repeatedly will actually make you a misleader)or simply not actively seeking to seize every opportunity to help raise the consciousness of the masses, we effectively give up on ever getting to communism. Instead, we need to constantly promulgate scientific assessment of the world, stimulate discussion of key questions,especially of major shifts in strategy & tactics, among ourselves & the masses. The RCP, by its treatment of the Nepal question, has essentially shown that it does not deserve either the R or the C in its name anymore (tho in the distant past of the late 70s & very early 80s, it was virtually the only, if not the only, revolutionary pole in the US). How does leaving those who read its press bewildered by the RCP’s silent dropping of support for the Nepalese struggle not an clear statement that arming the masses is not on their radar?
But then, doesn’t this criticism also apply to the CPN(M)’s lack of a public statement answering Azad–assuming it is true that they have not made such a public statement?
somecomments said
I think that joeblow’s remarks in posts 11 and 15 are well taken. While we have to be conscious of what we know and don’t know about what is going on in Nepal, and while final “verdicts” (either endorsing or condemning the strategy of the CPN(M) cannot be made in the midst of a developing and unstable situation), we do have an internationalist responsibility to evaluate what is happening in Nepal and raise important questions and make comradely criticisms. Internationalism also requires us to act in solidarity with the revolutionary masses of Nepal (and India as well), an important part of which is exposing and opposing the counter-revolutionary maneuvering and actions of the Indian state and the U.S. imperialists behind it.
In their comments on the situation in Nepal, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) has focused on the question of state power and what it will take to seize it and wield it in the interests of the people. A week after the CPN(M) agreed to deposit its arms in seven designated cantonments in early November 2006, Azad, the spokesperson for the CPI(Maoist) stated:
“The agreement to deposit the arms of the people’s army in designated cantonments is fraught with dangerous implications. This act could lead to the disarming of the oppressed masses of Nepal and to a reversal of the gains made by the people of Nepal in the decade-long people’s war at the cost of immense sacrifices. The clause in the agreement to deposit an equal number of arms by both sides will obviously work in favour of the Koirala-led government as the latter will have the option to use the huge stock of arms still at the disposal of the army anytime and to further strengthen the reactionary army of the government. The decision take by the CPN(Maoist) on arms management, even if it thinks it is a tactical step to achieve its immediate goal of setting up a constituent assembly, is harmful to the interests of the revolution.
“Entire experiences of the world revolution have demonstrated time and again that without the people’s army it is impossible for the people to exercise their power. Nothing is more dreadful to imperialism and the reactionaries than armed masses and hence they would gladly enter into any agreement to disarm them. In fact, disarming the masses has been the constant refrain of all the reactionary ruling classes ever since the emergence of class-divided society. Unarmed masses are easy prey for the reactionary classes and imperialists who even enact massacres as proved by history. The CC, CPI (Maoist), as one of the detachments of the world proletariat, warns the CPN (Maoist) and the people of Nepal of the grave danger inherent in the agreement to deposit the arms and calls upon them to reconsider their tactics in the light of bitter historical experience.
“The agreement by the Maoists to become part of the interim government cannot transform the reactionary character of the state machinery that serves the exploiting ruling classes and imperialists. The state can be the instrument in the hands of either the exploiting classes or the proletariat but it cannot serve the interests of both these bitterly contending classes. It is the fundamental tenet of Marxism that no basic change in the social system can be brought about without smashing the state machine. Reforms from above cannot bring any qualitative change in the exploitative social system however democratic the new Constitution might seem to be, and even if the Maoists become an important component of the government. It is sheer illusion to think that a new Nepal can be built without smashing the existing state.”
If comrades think that this statement is a dogmatic reading of the situation in Nepal, they should argue their position. If they think that the CPN(M) can take state power peacefully through elections to the Constituent Assembly, they should explain how. And if they think that state power can be seized and held while the PLA is holed up in seven cantonments, or if the PLA is integrated into the Nepalese Army (as the CPNM is demanding at present), they should explain how this can be done. While the situation in Nepal is different in an important respect (the existence of a people’s war and a people’s army) from that of Indonesia in 1965 and Chile in 1973, aren’t there important lessons to learn from the counter-revolutionary coups that led to the slaughters of tens of thousands (Chile) and over a million (Indonesia) communists and supporters?
By 2005, the CPN(M) had liberated 80% of the country. It was preparing to go over to the strategic offensive and could possibly have made a final push to defeat the Nepalese Army and take Kathmandu. However, it confronted two major problems. It might have faced direct Indian military intervention, and it had a relatively weak base of support among the urban masses that would have made it difficult to launch urban insurrections and to maintain state power in Kathmandu and the other major cities. Thus, the CPN(M) made a strategic shift to suspend the armed struggle and make political struggle principal.
Several articles in the July 2007 issue of The Worker indicate that the CPN(M) is rethinking its strategy and is preparing for “the other option.” Guarav points out that “It will be naive to think that the monarchy and the ruling class patronized by imperialism esp. the US imperialism, will accept its own overthrow without any resistance.” He states that “In every Socialist or New Democratic Revolution, there are some fundamental laws and ideological and political lines which are universally applicable and hold good, but succeeding revolution can not be replicated as the previous one. Every revolution discovers some thing which is new. When you are doing some new experiment there is always risk involved in it.” He also states that the immediate aim of the party is to overthrow the monarchy and to establish a new democratic state, which is a shift from a previous formulation that put off the new democratic revolution into the undefined future.
In another article, Basanta says that Mao’s statement that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun is “a general truth for any revolution and a revolutionary party.” He states that since the initiation of armed struggle in 1996, and through two ceasefires and periods of negotiation, the CPN(M) has “been trying to maintain a proper sequence between political and military offensive, i.e. politics and war.” Basanta goes on to explain that political offensives allow the next military offensives to be justified among a wider section of oppressed masses. This is an expression of what the CPN(M) calls the “fusion” of people’s war and insurrection–which calls for applying “either one that fits in the given concrete objective situation irrespective of which model it came from.”
The Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPN(M) held in April 2007 (also published in The Worker No. 11) explicitly refers to making preparation for insurrection, including making efforts to “unite patriotic and nationalist elements” within the army and police forces. The Resolution also calls for a tactical shift to place “the struggle against national betrayal” in “the primary position”–referring to stepped up Indian intervention in Nepal.
This rethinking is a welcome development. However, if the CPN(M) is making plans for insurrection and for dealing with Indian military intervention, it must be asked how this can be done with the PLA holed up in seven cantonments with its weapons in storage depots. A militant but unarmed mass movement cannot stand up to the Nepalese Army or the Indian Army. Even if the party decides to withdraw the PLA and its weapons from the cantonments, this cannot be done quickly and safely. The PLA will be exposed to enemy attack while it attempts to move into positions favorable to the resumption of the armed struggle. This is not to say that it can’t be done. The reality is that the PLA is in a very dangerous position, and the oppressed masses of Nepal need an unfettered people’s army to complete and defend their revolution.
joeblow said
Somecomments, thanks for (a) info & (b) sharpening the question. Your post was very helpful for someone like me who feels very shaky about the Nepal situation & would like get on top of it as much as I can.
I hope Comrade Biplab is paying attention to this thread & will provide us with answers to our questions. I do not doubt his/her sincerity but this is no substitute for clarification, exactly because I agree with Mike when he says, “I am cautious of thinking I know enough (from afar) to judge.” Somecomments has help to put some flesh on the vague discomforts I had been feeling, due to my lack of knowledge. I would like to see the issues raised in Somecomments’ post addressed.
matagari said
With mounting excitement, I’ve read Mike E.’s letters, as well as all the posts so far. I have some questions & apprehensions, which I’ll raise in this post—but then, we’re only at the beginning of a major process of discussion & debate. Many things in the letters and posts stoked my optimism about our collective process & what might come out of it. In particular, Mike E. (#114 in the responses to 9-Letters) accurately summarized the dominant thrust of the posts that have appeared, as well as articulated a good & useful orientation for our work.
Despite my apprehensions, I have to say that what is happening is very exciting—water in the desert after a seemingly endless drought—so I would like to throw my 2 dineros into the mix. I should say, however, that I still feel the need to give 9-Letters a much deeper read & engage in our joint exploration before I form firm opinions on a raft of issues. The 1st of my apprehensions has to do with Nepal:
Basically, though I might say things a bit differently, I agree with the comments of Joeblow (#11 & #15 in the responses to Nepal Maoists: On Criticism by RCP), especially his assessment of the importance of seizing on situations to further the development of scientific activism. I was very glad that Mike included a link to the PM interview of CPI(M) spokesperson Azad criticizing the CPN(M) but I couldn’t help wondering why Mike did not comment on these criticisms.
Like Joe, I was also apprehensive—though just slightly—about how “[o]ne of Mike’s remarks in this regard could be very off-putting, where he seems to pour cold water on evaluating the CPN(M) from ‘afar’.” The entire thrust of 9-Letters goes against interpreting Mike’s remark as an attempt to discourage wrangling over & evaluating the views & actions of revolutionaries all over the world. Nonetheless, what Mike E. said could easily be read that way, especially given his lack of comment on the Azad criticism.
I agree very strongly with Joe in his 2nd post, where he says: “I think what is at stake is that of grappling with the issues raised & arming the masses with an understanding that promotes a scientific view of the world, as part of calling the masses forward to battle on the specific practical & theoretical questions involved. I see this as a CARDINAL QUESTION that has everything to do with the actual orientation of an organization towards the achievement of a communist society.” Such evaluations can be absolutely crucial, as in the criticism of Deng Xiaoping after Mao’s death. One of the RCP’s strengths at that time was its publication of the writings of the contending lines, urging people to read both sides & to see for themselves that “the Gang of Four’s” line sought to lead forward toward Communism, while Deng’s clearly led down the “capitalist road.” Other groups at the time (such as those who split from the RCP & formed the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters) effectively took the position, “whatever the Chinese comrades decide”—not wanting to “second guess from afar.”
Jimmy Higgins said
I had hoped to avoid having to root around in the sock drawer of my political past and raise issues from the 1978 RCP/RWHq split at this point, though there may be merit in revisiting some of them further along in the process Mike has initiated here.
That said, Matagari compels me to make three historical points:
1. Both the RCP and the RWHq published fairly comprehensive versions of the internal exchange of documents during the split. Both came out under the name Red Papers 8, differing mainly in their summation of the exchange.
2. The RWHq documents had plenty of content on the Gang of Four and on the errors in their line and methods of work. (They also contained criticisms of the Avakian cult in a much earlier stage.)
3. The RWHq Red Papers 8 said of Deng Xiaoping, “The capitalist roaders are still on the capitalist road.”
On the larger subject of “second guessing from afar,” the difficulty in investigation the social realities revolutionaries in another country are grappling with and understanding line struggles within (or even between) parties in those countries should not be shrugged off.
In China, for instance, during the GPCR, the English-speaking expatriate community did split, but not along G4 vs. Deng lines. Many Westerners, some of them CPC members, threw themselves wholeheartedly into the turmoil while the other side (which included RU founding leader Leibel Bergman and his wife Vicky Garvin) argued that it was too difficult even for them to grasp all that was at stake or follow the nuances of the struggle. (Of course, this was true for most Chinese, as well.) Leading figures among those who did take part committed what were late identified as egregious ultra-left errors in the estimate of the CPC leadership, including G4 members, and served long prison terms before being released under Deng. Those who did not were later praised and thanked by Party leaders of varying political lines for their judgment and restraint.
This is not to argue that we have no responsibility to try and understand what is going on in Nepal, or India, or wherever, but that there is also a twin responsibility to do so with humility and to avoid the use of Procrustean beds for determining who is “genuinely” making revolution and who is selling out.
Mike E said
I replied to this thread with a separate post.
To avoid confusion, we can continue to discuss these issues here.
Joseph Ball said
I agree with the thrust of what Mike is saying that we should not try to micro-manage the Nepalese revolution from our PCs in the West.
But is Mike really sure that the best way of helping our Nepalese comrades is to leave RCP-USA and set up some new movement that will act in solidarity with them? Does Mike believe that is what our Nepalese comrades actually want him to do?
Either the RCP-USA is the proletarian party in the USA or it is revisionist. If it is the proletarian party then it is surely incorrect to leave it and set up something else. If Mike really thought it was stagnant or had significantly wrong lines, then the answer would have been to try and change the line from within. Ok, Mike might argue that the ‘top-down’ structure of the party prevented this. Then the appropriate line would be to leave the party, criticize it in public but remain in support of it and not try and set up some new movement to replace it. Obviously, we don’t want to encourage people to criticize the proletarian party in public, as we need unity in the face of the enemy. But on really important issues, this may be acceptable.
The only reason for leaving RCP-USA and then trying to set up something new to replace it, would be that RCP-USA is revisionist. Nothing Mike has said has indicated that this is the case.
BTW, it is true that Mike does seem to be proposing some sort of new movement or party. Check out Letter 9 where Mike states
‘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.’
NSPF said
For years there were more than one Party or Organization from single countries in the RIM. Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Italy, among them. Must we assume that half of them at least, of necessity, were revisionist? what would that say about RIM then? A good chess player has to anticipate ten or twenty moves ahead through various senarios, but would neverplay the twentieth move in a possible senario of the future before getting there. You are moving too fast and jumping moves. I’m pretty sure Mike wouldn’t play it that way.
Yo said
What’s up with Mike E. going after the RCP in the 9 letters for their agnostic position on Nepal — which was always explained to me in terms of “withholding judgement” and taking a “wait and see” approach — and now advocating essentially the same position?! The difference, I guess, is that instead of silent agnosticism, Mike wants to loudly take an agnostic position. The problem is that loudly publicizing CPN material actually amounts to PROMOTING what could be a very incorrect and disastrous line. The RCP is not trying to be a solidarity group. As a serious revolutionary party, and a member of the RIM, it seems to me that you can’t just go spouting your mouth if you aren’t quite sure yet.
The criticism from the RCP that the Nepali dude is probably referring to is (my guess) the last article that Revolution put out about it which basically said: This is what is happening in Nepal (joining the government, etc.), we are not taking a position on it and are waiting to see what happens, but our understanding is that it takes a REVOLUTION to make a revolution… but prove us wrong.
What do you think about Revolution publishing the article about the editor of people’s march being arrested… and their article a few months back about Sison? How does that fit into the RCP’s lack of internationalism toward their fellow communists?
Yo said
What’s up with Mike E. going after the RCP in the 9 letters for their agnostic position on Nepal — which was always explained to me in terms of “withholding judgement” and taking a “wait and see” approach — and now advocating essentially the same position?! The difference, I guess, is that instead of silent agnosticism, Mike wants to loudly take an agnostic position. The problem is that loudly publicizing CPN material actually amounts to PROMOTING what could be a very incorrect and disastrous line. The RCP is not trying to be a solidarity group. As a serious revolutionary party, and a member of the RIM, it seems to me that you can’t just go spouting your mouth if you aren’t quite sure yet.
The criticism from the RCP that the Nepali dude is probably referring to is (my guess) the last article that Revolution put out about it which basically said: This is what is happening in Nepal (joining the government, etc.), we are not taking a position on it and are waiting to see what happens, but our understanding is that it takes a REVOLUTION to make a revolution… but prove us wrong.
What do you think about Revolution publishing the article about the editor of people’s march being arrested… and their article a few months back about Sison? How does that fit into the RCP’s lack of internationalism toward their fellow communists?
tellnolies said
Either the RCP is the proletarian party or it is revisionist? Those are teh only two options. This seems to me a highly schematic way of talking (let alone thinking). I’m pretty sure that the RCP is not the proletarian party, but I don’t think calling them “revisionist” is particularly helpful. there may or may not be particular continuities between what is wrong with the RCP and what was wrong with parties in the past designated as revisionist, but what I find most refreshing about the Nine Letters is its avoidance of the practice of trying to stuff the present into the categories of the past.
What is happening in Nepal is of interest to revolutionary-minded people no matter what the ultimate verdict ends out being. Reporting on it is not the same as promoting a wrong line, but rather is fulfilling a fundamental responsibility of a revolutionary press. The RCP’s near-total silence on events in Nepal shows a profound lack of faith in their supporters and readers capacities to think critically for themselves. It is precisely an example of the sortt of info-diet that Mike discusses in his letters and it is the exact opposite of preparing peoples minds for the tasks of making revolution.
ShineThePath said
Yo,
There is a complete differance between what Mike is doing here and what RCP does in terms of coverage of other revolutionary parties and revolutions through the world. Mike is not “judging” the final verdict of the Nepali Revolution, while maintaining active support for the CPN (M) in its struggles. RCP has treated the struggle in Nepal with complete silence for nearly two years. This is the reality of the matter, and the reason for such silence is because of actual line differance between the CPN (M) and RCP, USA. Rather than opening up such disagreements to be known to party supporters and people in the US who had supported the CPN (M), we are kept in the dark about what Bob Avakian thinks of what is happening in Nepal.
These are two different approaches. Mike’s approach and the approach of many other Maoists is to open such discussion, to engage what is happening in Nepal, and have some “wrangling.” That is percisely what Azad’s article was about and the CPN (M) and CPI (M) have had public debates on the question of this line.
Show me one place where we can find RCP and Bob Avakian’s part in this discussion, where they openly speak about Nepal. It is one thing to have critical support, it is another to keep things silent.
Of course RCP, USA isn’t a solidarity group, but “Yo” explain to me why the RCP, USA has stopped the promotion of the Nepalese solidarity group that was being promoted in their bookstores?
Also Sison’s arrest got statements from WWP, PSL, FRSO (both), and other organizations. But on a whole, do you really think it is showing an internationalist spirit and solidarity to just speak of international events when leaders are imprisoned, like Kutty and Sision?
Ulises said
Yo:
I think Mike’s point is that the RCP does not have an agnostic position on Nepal. Their silence is in fact a verdict that the Nepalese are no longer on the revolutionary road. Mike believes that it is too early to carry such a verdict. You may have been told that the RCP’s lack of discussion had to do with “withholding judgment”, but it has become clear to me through the statements of people around the RCP, that the RCP does have a line and verdict that the Nepalese are off the revolutionary road. That they have not published such a position doesn’t mean that they aren’t acting on it, or that such a position is itself incorrect.
Ulises said
I would add that if the news reports and theoretical writings of the Nepalese are in fact representative of an “incorrect and disastrous line”, it is probably a good thing to make them publicly available for discussion so that such “incorrect and disastrous” lines can be recognized and fought against.
This question raises another question: is the line of the Nepalese “incorrect and disastrous” and how are you going about deciding this question?
The entire point here is that Avakian thinks that he can recognize the Nepalese line as “incorrect and disastrous” even as he’s coming from a ridiculous distance to practice, and as the very sharp and fluid events are occurring. It is one thing, as Mike notes, to recognize the coup in China after the whole history of the GPCR, it is quite another to begin making sweeping judgments about “revolutionary or revisionist” in the contemporary situation of Nepal.
Pavel said
YO says:
Mike actually says little about Nepal in the 9 letters. In the first, he adds to his charges of “crudely un-critical thinking” surrounding the “cult of personality,” “over-reaching analysis [about] a post-911 ruling class lurch toward theocratic fascism,” and what he terms the RCP’s movement “further and further away from actually organizing people in struggle” the charge that, “Meanwhile the militant and heart-felt internationalism so closely associated with the RCP is being deeply compromised” by the RCP’s “long sour public silence” on Nepal.
He does not refer to “agnosticism” in the 9 Letters but in a separate posting cautioning about “thinking with our gut” in regards to Nepal. I don’t think he is attacking the RCP’s lack of a public position of CPN(M)’s accord with the bourgeois parties, but lack of reportage in general on Nepal, including the CPN(M)’s successful campaign to end the monarchy and proclaim a republic.
He might have added that internationalism is also compromised by the silence on India and the Philippines. The fact that the RCP newspaper has published AWTW reports on Sison’s arrest and the arrest of the People’s March editor (without comment) doesn’t make up for the fact that the paper avoids reportage on, for example, very significant CPI(M) military actions.
In the second letter, Mike cites what seems to be an implicit criticism of the RCP (and maybe some other parties) by the CPN(M):
Which is to say, it’s not just Mile Ely raising criticisms of the RCP. So is the party which the RCP has held up for praise and admiration for over a decade, suggesting that the U.S. party isn’t concentrating of developing correct strategy for revolution here but rather lecturing others about how to make revolutions in their countries. I believe revolutionaries in the Philippines and India have made similar criticisms of Avakian and that, the correctness or incorrectness of the Nepali Maoists’ line and behavior aside, the assessment Mike cites is appropriate to note.
Finally in the last letter, Mike states:
This is in the context of the Letters’ call for readers to abandon the course he criticizes.
Perhaps it implies a positive preliminary assessment of the course the Nepali Maoists have selected, but more broadly it calls for a change of course in this country, requiring courage and creativity.
I’m not sure that Mike has “essentially the same position” of “agnosticism” as the RCP. His position is to encourage discussion of events in Nepal, giving the Nepali Maoists the benefit of a doubt while withholding judgment. The party’s (as he puts it) “sour silence,” conveying the sense that something ominous (on a par with the coup in China or Guzman’s call for peace talks in Peru) has happened in Nepal, forcing the RCP to totally clam up while internally studying the situation.
Mike E said
Yo raised important questions above — and several posts have hit the nail on the head in clarifying things.
Studying a situation doesn’t mean that we must do nothing and fall silent. There are powerful mass revolutionary movements in Nepal and India, and there are important responsibilities that come with being communists, and with being in the belly of the beast. “Sour silence” as the U.S. imperialists intervene and spread lies is particularly intolerable.
I don’t think we should “loudly take an agnostic position” (as Yo perceives it) — I think (like Huxley on Darwin’s theory of evolution) we should be the fiercest advocates where the issues are clear, and cautious where they are not.
And some things ARE clear: It is clear that “Maoists are not terrorists!” It is clear that the people of these South Asian countries are bitterly oppressed. It is clear that there are powerful revolutionary communst movements for change that have succeeded in winning powerful mass support and developing strategies for seizing power. And it is clear that people in the U.S. need to know about all this. There is no excuse for being “agnostic” (or silent!) about this.
Yo writes:
Let’s not be naive. The RCP has a developed critique of the Nepali Maoists (and a separate one of the Indian Maoists). This is obvious on many levels. It is related to a number of crucial questions: The question elaborated by the RCP around the Peruvian events that (they believe) it is simply wrong to start and stop a peoples war in pace with conditions, or to inject periods of mainly-political offensive. The question of democracy is particularly concentrated around Avakian’s “three sentences on democracy” and elaborated in Dictatorship and Democracy, and the Socialist Transition to Communism. And this integral part of the new synthesis is sharply opposed to the view of the Nepali Maoists (and many other communist forces). These are works that can be read as polemics on the Nepali theory and line. There are other issues: the question of “two roads and two types of countries” — which the RCP just reaffirmed (rather crudely a priori) in the major article “ON THE POSSIBILITY OF REVOLUTION,” when they wrote:
In fact it is a major point of struggle among communists in the world whether there are only “two types of countries” (Which type is Argentina which has no feudal remnants in land? Or South Africa which mixes first world and third world in one? Or the Palestine-Israeli configuration –which combines European conditions in the settler state, and bitterest third world conditions in the surrounding and integrated occupied areas? Or South Korea which exports capital?) And it is a major point of struggle whether there are only ” two corresponding strategic approaches (roads) to revolution.”
Isn’t it amazing that we have had basically two successful communist revolutions (in Russia and China) and it is assumed that today (in the next century) there are still only two models for making revolution? Is that coincidence? Or rigid dogmatic assumptions about models?
In fact, Prachanda of Nepal has argued precisely that there are not two distinct roads in that sense… but a lot of particularity in specific countries that determine road.
So there are clear differences… not just some reference in a passing and distant Revolution article.
I am not arguing that the RCP “must come out of its bag.” There may be reasons for holding back its criticisms, and keeping them within other channels among communists. (Here too we don’t all have the basis for a verdict!)
But my core argument that it is wrong to fall silent as struggle presses ahead, and as the U.S. in particular makes moves that must be opposed.
* * * * *
Yo writes: “The RCP is not trying to be a solidarity group.”
Well, very clearly it is not. Including in important ways that any genuine communist party SHOULD be about internationalist solidarity and work.
The RCP did actively support the revolution in Peru. And it very actively supported the revolution in Nepal. And then it stopped. And it is worth asking why? And it is important to debate whether that silence and inactivity is justified. I think it is not.
Lenin has a famous quote:
I suspect this is a bit narrowly phrased, and could be misunderstood. It was correct to welcome, study, and learn from Zapatista uprising, the Palestinian “war of rocks,” and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa — even if those progressive struggles were not actually leb by communists.
But here is an important point to Lenin’s words: It IS ESPECIALLY important to support COMMUNIST revolution when it sets its foot on the world’s stage. It is important because such political support helps mobilize people to see and oppose the actions of the ruling classes around the world against arising revolutions. And it is also important because it helps the people here see (at long last!) living communist revolution solving problems TODAY. Such communist revolutions emerging powerfully in a few countries (and their lessons, nature, and real life problems) can be powerful teaching and “seeding” machines for communist thinking and organization everywhere in the world, including here.
And the idea that you fall silent because what is unfolding (in several countries) doesn’t embrace your synthesis (even on important questions!) is a view that should be debated (and I believe repudiated). Look at our experience with vietnam.
In fact PLP stopped supporting the liberation fighters in Vietnam because they didn’t meet PLP’s (wrong!) standards on key questions of line — and revolutionaries in the U.S. correctly labeled this intolerable and sectarian. And the liberation fighters in Vietnam were led by a line that had problems (and made people uneasy and more) — but what would the world have thought of us if we fell SILENT on U.S. crimes and actions in Vietnam, or on the justice of the struggle for liberation there?
I believe there is considerable evidence that the RCP is not “agnostic” about Nepal or India — but that on some level, they believe that the revolutions in India and Nepal are not “this line and only this line” — meaning they are not on the right side of important dividing lines AMONG COMMUNISTS in the world.
* * * * *
The RCP may change its tactics. They may start speaking on Nepal and India — compelled by events, or compelled by the pressure of communists in the U.S. (including communists within the RCP). They may break their silence (as they did, for a moment, by reprinting someone else’s article on the arrest of the People’s War editor in India).
And if they stopped “sitting on their hands” it might be a good thing — depending on what they finally say when they find their tongues. (Here too we would need critical analysis and thinking!)
* * * * *
Somecomments wrote in a related thread:
I think that questions should lead people to study deeply. And I agree that would be a good thing. We should have critical thoughts and serious investigations into lines and events. We should act on our questions, and dig into the issues.
But we should not allow partial, initial concerns to prevent internationalist work around the revolutions of India and Nepal.
I am glad you agree with the proposal for “work on the four levels.” That is an important level of unity and is (imho) the main thing right now. Political questions (and understandable unease and worry about revolutionary people in “cantons” and base areas) must not be used to justify “sitting on our hands.”
Get in touch with me and lets work on it. We are developing some specific plans.
I plan to comment on Azad’s criticisms when I feel the process had taken us there, and when I feel I have an opinion truly worth expressing. I am not about to blurt out my “gut thinking.” Part of my point in these posts (and in the 9 letters) is that is nothing wrong with acknowledging limited understanding (especially when it is based on objectively limited information) — and there is nothing wrong with acting on what you do know and struggling for deeper understanding from there. In fact, that is precisely what we are universally FORCED to do in this universe, by the very nature of things.
We must not pancake relative and absolute truth together.
There is also (by the way) a timetable here that we should be aware of… because Nepal may or may not move toward a Constituent Assembly in April. There is a possibility (not a certainty) of sharp struggle and challenges to the government and army then. It may prove important to have our initial networks and work started well before them.
Yo said
It seems to me very irresponsible for Mike to be making all these conjectures about what the RCP’s silence means (how sour or bitter it may be) and what can or cannot “be read as” a polemic against the Indian Maoists or the CPN or the Filipino Maoists… especially when you’re talking about fraternal parties in the RIM. You’re not on the RIM steering committee are you Mike? Didn’t think so. What business do you have making the completely made up assertion that the RCP is silent “because what is unfolding doesn’t embrace their new synthesis.”
Call it the “fetish of the word,” but what the RCP says is what they mean — and what they don’t say they don’t mean! Read the last statement the RCP made about the situation in Nepal. It was carefully worded. Has the situation in Nepal changed qualitatively since then?
ShineThePath said
Yo, what can be said without revealing too much of internal dynamics and being really unprincipled?
As the website says
“These letters emerge from a collective process. Mike Ely has been a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP,USA) since its founding in 1975. Over the last 25 years, he worked as staff writer and then an editor of the party’s press.”
I think if someone is an editor of RCP’s press for over 25 years, you think they know something about the political reasons for silence in such a press about the situation in Nepal. What is peculiar is your need for Mike to give what authority he has to speak on such matters. This is just simply a way for someone to be silenced if he remains principled in public debate.
Besides that, I think any lay person who wasn’t an editor for the RCP’s press and supporter since its inception can give some serious analysis about this situation for what is there for the taking in public. There is no doubt there is an actual line differance the RCP has with the international comrades of the CPN (M), CPI (M), and CPP. Between all such parties there are particular line differances than arise from their particular situations and general differances on questions of Democracy, etc.
It is clear, out of all such Parties, RCP is distancing itself or being distanced by the success of the Nepalese comrades and the growth of the CPI (M). The Nepalese are obviously not accepting this “new synthesis” or Epistemological break that Bob Avakian claims to have. They have rejected certain concepts which are integral to the RCP’s approach particularly on Democracy, on Personality Cults, etc.
Communist Party of India (Maoist) is rejecting the RIM completely. It is not a member of the RIM, neither is the CPP.
Mike E said
I think the impression is often given that any deep criticism of the RCP’s line (especially from revolutionary communists) is inherently unprincipled and irresponsible. Within the party, it was said “the train has left the station” — i.e. Avakian was now a dividing line between revisionism and communism, and opposition to the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” was now no longer permitted within the party. As the same time, it is said to be unprincipled to raise such criticism of this “cardinal question” outside the party.
Similarly, if we explore what it means for a revolutionary communist party to stop virtually all mention of other maoist forces in the world (other than the Sarbardaran of Iran), that too is quickly called out as “irresponsible.”
I will discuss the questions of what is principled and unprincipled for communists — in more depth soon. Including the question raised by several people (including Emma and Joseph) about when it is principled to leave a party, and on what basis.
Joseph wrote: “But is Mike really sure that the best way of helping our Nepalese comrades is to leave RCP-USA and set up some new movement that will act in solidarity with them? Does Mike believe that is what our Nepalese comrades actually want him to do?”
That is not, I believe the basis for deciding what revolutionary communists in the U.S. should do.
Joseph wrote: “Either the RCP-USA is the proletarian party in the USA or it is revisionist.”
I don’t think the world is that simple. Marxists believe all transitions and boundaries in nature and society are relative and conditional. There is motion and leaps within motion. Basically: I believe a very wrong line now is now consolidated in the RCP and there is unlikely to be a change in it. It will not lead to new advances for the revolution, and if left unopposed will squander the remaining organized revolutionary communist forces in the U.S. It combines currents and problems that were always part of the RCP’s mix… but they are now consolidated in a new way and to a new degree. And there is explicitly no room for raising opposition to that within the RCP. “The train has left the station.”
It has come to this: Something quite different is needed — and must now come into being. Revolutionaries need to reconceive and regroup.
Some factual notes.
1) STP wrote: “I think if someone is an editor of RCP’s press for over 25 years…”
In fact, the 9 Letters (which STP quotes) says that I worked on the party’s press over the last 25 years. Part of that time I was a staff writer, and then I became an editor. IT does not say that I was “an editor…for over 25 years.”
2) The Communist Party of India (Maoist) is not a participating organization within the RIM, for reasons they have presented through various means. If you look closely you will see that “rejecting the RIM completely” is not their policy or view.
3) Yo writes: “You’re not on the RIM steering committee are you Mike? Didn’t think so.” I’m not going to comment on the tone of this. But I will speak to the question. In writing the 9 Letters I gave the answer to questions like this:
I think that matters of LINE can and should be excavated, correctly characterized, and debated to the degree possible — in a principled way that recognizes that we live in class society. As part of that I will not discuss or quote specific internal documents of the RCP (or the RIM for that matter). I will not discuss what precise relationship I may or may not have to any of this. And I imagine Yo understands this well and disn’t actually mean to demand that I discuss such things.
But I will also add that I am not in the habit of speculating or conjecturing in a loose way about important matters. I was never sitting in some inner circle of the RIM, but i’m sure Yo (and everyone else) understands that is not the only place where these issues are known.
There is plenty of evidence that there has been sharp polemical exchanges between Maoist parties (including the RCP and the two main parties of South Asia). And there is plenty of evidence what they revolve around. And meanwhile, it is true that principled restraint dictates that “potential documentation of some arguments remains submerged.”
I plan to post one of the Indian Maoists’ polemics, and then afterwards, one of the documents from Nepal that can be seen as a rejoinder to key arguments. Stay tuned.
ShineThePath said
By rejecting the RIM, I meant exactly that, they they don’t want to persue joining it. It has many reasons in fact that have become some what heated in recent years in debates over WSF and the role of Internationals. I didn’t mean to express they don’t even bother with it.
zerohour said
Mike -
While Yo’s tone is a bit hostile, I don’t think we can dismiss the legitimate claim that any argument needs supporting evidence. Where such evidence is not available, you should expect people to be skeptical or undecided.
I think we can legitimately infer there are substantial line differences between RCP and the CPN[M], based on RCP’s silence on Nepal in over a year and the fact that they are doing no solidarity work at all. However, as far what those differences are, we have nothing concrete to go on but your word. I’m not doubting your credibility but until we see some more definitive proof, we have no way of independently evaluating RCP’s actual position – we just have your characterization of it. The CPN [M] don’t accept Avakian’s “new synthesis”? That’s plausible but I’d like to know just what they find unacceptable.
You say: “But I will also add that I am not in the habit of speculating or conjecturing in a loose way about important matters.” Fine, but like everyone else, you make errors and you have an interpretive lens.
Please post as much of the evidence as you can, I think we’d all like to see it.
steve said
On the topic of internationalism and building support for the Nepalese revolution, I recommend reading the article titled “Building Support for the Nepalese revolution in Europe”, available here: http://krishnasenonline.org/Bulletin/international.html
Here’s an excerpt showing an encouraging developement:
In France, a French Nepal People’s Solidarity Committee had been formed in Paris, on 24th of November 2007, in the presence of Comrade Gaurav and with the involvement of French, Turkish, Iranian, and Nepalese revolutionaries.
And another excerpt, even more inspiring:
Belgian authority had put over 45 thousands minimi rifles on pipe line of supply on demand of the then Nepalese regime. The struggle of the Nepalese organisations on this issue had not only exposed the criminal mission of the Nepalese old state, but also attracted a lot many people including politicians and journalists by which internal contradictions of the Belgian government mounted to such level that the supply was finally stopped. Of course, this struggle was an equivalent to capturing of a military barrack in the country.
As I posted elsewhere, a study group on South Asian revolutions has also been set up in Montreal. I’ve read they’ll have a website soon, so I’ll post the link when it’s online.
Joseph Ball said
Mike’s post doesn’t really address why he could not have made criticisms of RCP-USA from outside the party but in a more supportive way, i.e. not proposing some new movement to replace RCP-USA. Mike says that RCP-USA is unlikely to change. But it has changed radically in the past. It changed when it upheld the so-called Gang of Four. It changed when it changed its line on homosexuality.
What forces are there that Mike can gather to build his new movement? Has he calculated the negative effect that undermining RCP-USA will have on American communism, if what he is doing succeeds in its own terms? I have seen so many initiatives like Mike’s fail in the UK. People leave parties for similar reasons (because they’re supposedly stagnant or the leadership is perceived as dogmatic) and try to set up radical new alternatives-but without a clear idea of the direction these alternatives will go in. They just end up weakening and dividing the party they have left with the people who led the split ending up in the political wilderness themselves.
YO said
This disortion is typical of the distortions throughout the 9 letters (which I will write more about at some point). Ely takes an aspect of the truth — there are line differences between the RCP and the CPN, just like there are line differences between the CPN and the CPI — and turns it into a caraciture of reality: RCP is silent “because what is unfolding doesn’t embrace their new synthesis.” And then he claims to have an insider perspective at the same time as he distorts the RCP’s position — including a gross distortion in the 9 letters of what Avakian’s New Synthesis is about. When you call him on it, well, he’s being “prinicpled” and can’t reveal the juicy info. To the casual observer, who sees the CPN printing Avakian’s epistemology article and agreeing with much of Avakian’s criticism of the history of the Communist Movement, and his call for a new vision for the 21st century, it would appear unlikely that the RCP would be playing the game (you don’t accept Avakian as your leader, you get the silent treatment) that Ely describes. But then again, he’s got the inside scoop right?
Chuck Morse said
Joseph Ball raises an interesting question: Mike do you believe that the RCP can be reformed and, if so, exactly what reforms do you believe that it needs? Or, alternately, do you believe that RCP is beyond repair and should be abandoned?
Where do you stand on these issues? (Apologies if you’ve addressed these questions elsewhere.)
Mike E said
Joseph Ball writes:
Chuck adds:
Yes, Joseph does raise important questions. They are issues that we wrestled with for over six months as we wrote the 9 Letters. (And I say “we” because this was a truly collective effort. Two dozen people remarked substantively on the drafts, while often agreeing with its emerging conclusions and sometimes not. And while I actually wrote the letters, quite a few people were active, almost daily, in commenting and contributing.)
To answer straight up: I believe the RCP is beyond repair and should be abandoned.
That is why I left. And that conviction as only deepened as I have spent the last period of time thinking over its history and arc of development.
This is true on a number of levels:
First, a line has been consolidated, concentrated in the theory of “Avakian as the cardinal question” and in Avakian’s own synthesis, that will not and cannot lead to revolutionary change in the U.S. (or anywhere else). They say “This is a new party.” And when they do, they are talking about that consolidation and change. Avakian’s synthesis takes communism in a direction inherently divorced from people and practice — and from real living politics (the struggle of people for power).
Second, that line is now consolidated in a way previous approaches were not. There have previously been dynamic tensions within and around the RCP that allowed different approaches to emerge at times with both synergy and contention. But because of the nature of the struggle that has gone down, and because of changes in the operation of the party, we don’t believe this party is not “going back” to something else, or “going forward” to something better either. There will (of course) be new adjustments, initiatives, explanations, campaigns etc. around the RCP. There will be course corrections and so on. There will certainly be new developments to the synthesis proclaimed every few months from now on. But key verdicts are in place that (we believe) will not be uprooted.
Third, there is more involved than this recent change of line and the endgame it shapes. If we look over this history and development of this revolutionary project, it has not reached any of the most basic and necessary expectations we all had for it when we started it. Letter 2 starts by saying “The RCP has not developed, ever, a mass partisan political base for revolutionary communist politics anywhere, among any section of the people.” That is a sobering fact. And one that can’t just be ignored. This project has overall been a failure, and the reason is not JUST objective conditions (though they may be principal overall in the shortcomings). The RCP has never broken out of isolation, has never taken root among the oppressed — despite dogged, fierce and even creative efforts to implement its line(s). And by now, given its line, outlook and training, even if this formation did (somehow) get wind in its sails, I don’t believe it would be a good thing for the people.
Joseph asks if we have “calculated the negative effect that undermining RCP-USA will have on American communism, if what he is doing succeeds in its own terms?”
Yes, clearly. We have thought and debated (and even agonized) deeply over that. And here is our conclusion: It would damage American communism deeply if all this is not called out. If there is not a settling of accounts. If the line struggle is smothered and muffled. If difficult truths are hidden or shouted down. And if something new doesn’t fight for life.
Many people have been silenced by the fear of “undermining the RCP” — often thinking it is all we have, and that something good might come out of its efforts. But I believe that, by now certainly, that logic and silence are fundamentally wrong. The RCP is undermining itself rapidly — our efforts aren’t a major factor in that. And not to struggle over its course and history openly would be to squander the moment, and allow its unfolding endgame to be the endgame of revolutionary communism here.
And it is not just a matter of excavating and criticizing the RCP’s CURRENT line.
We need to step back and look at the project overall — over 35-40 years. And (speaking for myself) I have no intention of seeking to reform an RCP-lite, or a morphed RCP, or “the real RCP.” It is not like you can remove a broken module from this party and just insert a better one. Some people have thought that if the RCP just (somehow) re-embraced a particular new version of the mass line things that many problems would be solved — I don’t believe it.
Chuck wrote: “Where do you stand on these issues? (Apologies if you’ve addressed these questions elsewhere.)”
The whole 9 letters speaks to these issues. As we say in Letter 9:
I appreciate the chance to discuss all that straight up.
Joseph asks a practical question: Are there forces for a new movement, a new revolutionary trend?
We will see. They are certainly not yet at hand and visible. And yet there are major dispersed forces that could form such a new movement and trend. There are perhaps millions of people who want some radical change, and a significant minority among them are interested in revolution. To be clear: There is not yet any core for such a new movement. But there is a great need for that — in fact the people of the world need for us to dare to attempt that. If you would like to see such a thing emerge, help make it happen.
We need something deeply revolutionary and creative — not simply an extension of a previous trend.
The point of summing up the RCP is not to “do it again, but better.” I believe it is to do something that takes a different road.
Here is what Letter 9 says (among other things):
Chuck Morse said
Thanks for the clarification, Mike.
You’re calling upon people to abandon the RCP and to talk about and analyze things. I support those goals (even though that’s hardly a politics…).
With respect to the RCP, it’s failure is just a small moment in the much broader failure of Maoism and Marxism generally. As you know, oceans of literature have been produced about this failure … dissecting it, grieving it, celebrating it, etc. … I am wondering where you stand in relation to those discussions. Or, to put it differently, what part of Maoism do you still embrace?
Yo said
All this talk of the “failure” of the RCP over the last 35 years is deceptive. It’s intended for people with no little sense of historical context. In the late 60s and early 70s, revolutionary Maoist parties and groupings formed throughout the world, including all over the first world. How many of them have persevered, and stayed revolutionary, through repression and the “death of communism” ideological assault? Not that many. More specifically, how many Maoist parties/organizations are there in first world countries — countries with “big, fat middles” — that are revolutionary and have any ability to influence national politics? Only 2: the RCP and the RIM party in Italy. By any historical criteria, the RCP is actually a success! And it is on the front lines of trying to figure out ways to breakthrough.
tellnolies said
Chuck’s framing of this important question fails to distinguish between the general and the particular. It is true that there has been a world-wide “crisis in socialism” that includes Maoism and has raised deep questions for and about Marxism. And it is also true that much of what is wrong witht he RCP arises from this more general crisis. It is important to acknowledge this and to draw it out.
At the same time it is important to understand that the experiences of Marxism and Maoism on a world scale are not as readily summed up with the term “failure” as the RCP. A critical point in the Nine Letters is that the RCP has been a failure in the most basic sense of not being able to accomplish its most iimmediate objectives of establishing partisan bases for communism in the US. The experience of communist-led socialist revolution around the world is more contradictory. On the most basic level, there is a rich body of experience in the successful revolutionary overthrow of certain kinds of states and in carrying out certain important social transformations. These successes are, of course, interwoven with major defeats and failures that revolutionaries need to face squarely if we want to not only avoid repeating them, but to rescue the revolutionary project from the damage done to it in the minds of huge sections of the worlds peoples.
Mike can answer your question for himself, but I think there are two key elements of Maoism that are particularly important to retain and that are not just particualr expressions of the conditions that existed in China, but that have universal applicability. These are 1. the method of leadership known as the mass line, and 2. the understanding of the continuation of class struggle under socialism. These are not panaceas and we should never imagine that Mao had the last word on them, but these are major contributions to revolutionary theory that I would not want to see discarded. There are probably folks here who would add Mao’s strategy of peoples war. They can make the case as they see fit. I think that while there is much to be learned from the strategy and historical experience it is much more a reflection of particular conditions that are much less widespread than they were fifty years ago. They are far from nonexistent however and their persistence in particular countries makes those places likely centers of revolutionary activity as we have already seen in Nepal, the Phillipines, and rural India.
This last point, of course, is the strongest response to the sweeping characterization of Maoism as a unalloyed “failure.” What other unambiguously anti-capitalist movement has anything like the political and military capacities of the Maoists in those three countries? This is not to dismiss the importance of really examining the limitations of these movements, or questioning the applicability of what they are doing to our conditions, or the importance of understanding other movements (the Zapatistas, Chavez, Morales, the World Social Forum, etc…). It is to insist however, that the facile verdicts on the complex phenomena of building socialism in the 20th century that are pushed so hard by our own bourgeoisie should not be parroted by people who are looking to make revolution in the 21st.
Big L said
Yo is right on to consider the fact that the RCP has stuck around since the 70′s, considering all that’s happened since then in relation to revolutionary politics.
At the same time the 9 Letters point out, “The RCP has not developed, ever, a mass partisan political base for revolutionary communist politics anywhere, among any section of the people.”
What is the criterion for judging how revolutionary an organization is? Is it its ability to stick it out through decades of bourgeois ideological assault, or is it the ability to build and develop a revolutionary base amongst oppressed peoples?
Is this a false dichotomy? Is it even true that the RCP has failed to build partisan political bases? I asked one RCP cadre about this question – as it’s an important and provocative one – and they told me, “I haven’t seen anything ever summed up and written up in Revolution newspaper about failure to build base areas . . . so how would we know if that’s true?” I haven’t seen any analysis of this either, so how are we to judge whether or not it’s true?
Chuck Morse said
Yo, perseverance is not a virtue in and of itself. And you’re wrong to claim that the RCP has “any ability to influence national politics.” It has zero ability to do so.
Big L writes: “Is it even true that the RCP has failed to build partisan political bases? I asked one RCP cadre about this question – as it’s an important and provocative one – and they told me, “I haven’t seen anything ever summed up and written up in Revolution newspaper about failure to build base areas . . . so how would we know if that’s true?” I haven’t seen any analysis of this either, so how are we to judge whether or not it’s true?”
Have you ever seen Bob Avakian and Ronald McDonald in the same room? Well, then, who are we to say that they’re not the same person? … Seriously, we know that the RCP has no political bases because it doesn’t have any (and it’s not like they would keep it a secret if the did).
steve said
how many Maoist parties/organizations are there in first world countries — countries with “big, fat middles” — that are revolutionary and have any ability to influence national politics? Only 2
I doubt this quite a bit. What is your basis for saying this?
zerohour said
The point about partisan bases is something that has been bothering me for a while. It’s true that the Party has no such bases, but it seems that they are not trying to develop bases. The main strategy seems to be to take part in struggles when they are at their highest peak, win over the more revolutionary workers and try to retain them on the basis of line because the Party will move on when the struggle begins to ebb.
It seems that when people here refer to bases, they are referring to struggles tied to geography. I see the attractiveness of that notion but I’m not sure how viable it is to tie oneself to it either.
This critique assumes that it is desirable to build “partisan bases.” Can anyone explain what exactly that means and how it would work over the long term? How do other groups do it and what can we learn from them?
Andrei Mazenov said
In my experience in the RCYB, it was almost impossible for us to build partisan bases because of the methodology that Zerohour speaks of: “The main strategy seems to be to take part in struggles when they are at their highest peak, win over the more revolutionary workers and try to retain them on the basis of line because the Party will move on when the struggle begins to ebb” or, as Mike Ely says in the 9 Letters, the Party often sent its supporters into proletarian areas as “revolutionary ambulance chasers”. Often, we would start developing a good circulation of distribution of the newspaper, get contacts, and become visible in certain areas, only to be yanked around to another place… Eventually it became overwhelming as we were tossed around (either by the Party or by ourselves) from area to area, never really taking the time to really build such things. In the end, when it was time to sum up our experiences, the verdict was simply that it was our individual faults and our lack of dedication that prevented us from achieving a partisan base in certain areas. Thus, actually SUMMING UP our work in those areas was instead replaced with “ideological thrashing” and criticizing ourselves and each other for the lack of voluntarism.
My question is this: why does the Party throw its cadre and supporters around like this? Such a thing was never really explained to us, and it was rather frustrating. My other question is: HOW CAN WE DO THIS DIFFERENTLY?
Mike E said
Yo Says:
* * * * *
For some reason, Yo chooses to start every post unjustly charging me personally with dishonest intent. This is neither true, nor helpful at getting into the line questions involved. And really Yo has no basis for evaluating of me (personally), while many others here obviously do.
There is a legacy in the communist movement of painting all opponents as dishonest reactionaries. I believe it is rooted in Stalin’s assumptions that views judged to be objectively wrong can then be assumed to arise from malevolent subjective intent. It is also tied to the idea that “the truth” is rather simple and “there for the taking,” so if I don’t see it your way then I MUST (by reductionist logic) be some kind of pig. It is a rather poisonous legacy. We should not continue it. I just want to state clearly to Yo: I advocate a different method for even sharp differences of opinion (especially among revolutionaries). I don’t question your sincerity or motives. In letter 2 we write about the RCP and its leadership:
We can’t allow important discussions of urgent matters to be diverted toward an unnecessary defense of me or my personal intent. I have asked others on this list to restrain their eagerness to jump to my personal defense. Defend the arguments (if you want), SURE! But the charges of “unprincipled” intent are unsubstantiated, false and rather obviously lame.
The issue (for revolutionary communists) is “line not author.”
* * * * *
Now, on to the points of substance:
The core of Yo’s argument is this:
I just don’t think that is correct — on either method or facts. Our basic criterion has to be whether we make revolution or not. That (not mere survival) is our yardstick. And short of making revolution, are we making strides in “preparing minds and organizing forces for revolution”? Is the qualitative and quantitative progress? Taking mere survival as the standard is truly what the RCP calls “puny thinking.” I was involved, many times over many years, in discussions of how to celebrate anniversaries of the RCP in its paper. And we very carefully and consciously did NOT celebrate mere survival, and for good reason. In Letter 9 we quote Bob Avakian on this:
The RCP has always insisted that the objective conditions (though difficult) did not forbid major advances and breakthroughs on the revolutionary road — and that communists can work to create new conditions through struggle. The RCP’s new line puts a very voluntarist spin on this, which i don’t think we should embrace. But the Maoist approach of “hasten while awaiting” more favorable objective conditions is correct, and I think we should uphold that approach, despite the repeated failures of the RCP to make good on its attempts.
Instead it has encapsulated, to keep a skeleton core intact over time as the rest frittered away. This encapsulation and isolation (from the living ties to the masses) has reacted back on the RCP, negatively affecting its nature and politics (and clearly, in Yo’s case, the measure of success among some supporters!)
Letter 2 opens with the following simple factual statement:
I want to note (in passing) that Yo does not claim this untrue (how can he/she?) — Yo just tries to argue it is irrelevant. I don’t think that will wash — but Yo’s argument is an example of an approach that casually denigrates practice and a culture of self-aggrandizing wishful thinking.
Second point: Yo claims that our arguments are “intended for people with no little sense of historical context.” But then, ironically, his/her own attempt at historical context publicly reveals effects of the the RCP’s info diet.
There are in fact more Maoist parties and forces than Yo acknowledges (and perhaps than he/she knows about). IF you define Maoist parties as only those in the RIM then you come up with Yo’s list of two: The Italian and the RCP,USA. But even the RIM (correctly) doesn’t claim that it contains all the Maoist parties. There are in fact Maoist forces of various colorations and significance in Canada, France, and Greece — and more depending on how narrowly you define Maoism.
Much more important: There is a phenomenon that we must not ignore — but must raise to a prominent place in our analysis. There have been some significant revolutionary and Maoist currents within Europe that have had their roots among the immigrant workers. Sometimes leftists activists in Germany would say to me, “Yeah, ok, but they don’t count in the sense of being a German party.” One even said in Hot Autumn 1983, “There you guys go, showing up with truckloads of Turkish workers again,” as if this wasn’t something to celebrate. Obviously I don’t think that we should embrace that rather chauvinist blindspot when assessing the political scene in Europe (even when, as in Yo’s case, it arises from unintentional ignorance).
The powerful migrations of the world are mixing up politics in startling ways. The Turkish workers form an important part of the now-multinational European working class, and they are not going anywhere, and (literally for decades) they have formed an important revolutionary force within several European countries. And, perhaps it needs to be said, the TKPML’s living base among workers in Germany has been of a scale and quality far greater than anything the RCPUSA (unfortunately) ever developed among working people in the U.S. And the impact these revolutionary Kurdish and Turkish workers had on the radical German youth (in key moments of the 1980s) shows some real potential — (as the history of Berlin’s modern Revolutionary May Day reveals).
It is correct, as Yo writes, that conditions are difficult in the U.S. — for reasons that are pretty obvious (and that are discussed in Letter 2).
The Nepalese Maoists intriguingly write in one of their documents (in Worker 10) that in the last half of the nineteenth century conditions in Europe were such that genuinely Marxist organizations only emerged as sects, and the socialist parties that grew did so on the basis of reformism. I have thought deeply about that evaluation… Could it be true that the best we could aspire to in the U.S. is a sect — a small, encapsulated, isolated group that aspires to more but remains confined to agitation and sterile forays?
My conclusion is that I don’t believe that is all that was or is possible. I think the experience of the 60s (and some things since like the LA rebellion and the revolutionary immigrant movements in Europe) suggest otherwise (especially in regard to the U.S., which had a substantially larger component of revolutionary ferment among the working class itself than in many other imperialist countries, because of the radicalism, power and class character of the Black Liberation struggle.) The RU/RCP and other trends emerged with some power and promise out of the 60s precisely because of this.
There is much to be understood about how the U.S. is becoming more and more connected with the “planet of slums” through the “living link” of immigrant workers. Migration of this nature and scope is a major phenomenon — and it is literally happening all over the world on an unprecedented scale.
If you study U.S. history (without the chauvinist veil imposed by the revisionist CP in the U.S.), it jumps out that the living revolutnary and communist currents have always been deeply tied to immigration. I wrote a history of Haymarket events that brought this out in regard to the late 1800s (that was its polemical point!). The emergence of the modern communist movement in the U.S. (a generation or two later, after 1917) was also deeply rooted in the consciousness and alienation of immigrant workers, especially workers from the Russian empire (including Finns and especially Russian Jews). The nature and texture of the radicalism among native-born worker-revolutionaries (of the IWW or SP varieties) was very different — some much more economist, some much more inclined toward various kinds of chauvinism and reformism.
Here is what I want to focus on: I suspect we will discover that revolutionary ideas and organization will emerge in imperialist countries in ways much more tightly bound to the politics of immigrant workers than is currently appreciated. (“From without” gets a whole new meaning.) And waiting with a patient self-satisfaction at the doorstep of a sectified-but-surviving indigenous party may not be the approach worth taking (if you get my drift) — I would much more be inclined to carve out other more-promising approaches.
Joseph Ball said
I must admit I am at a slight disadvantage when discussing RCP-USA’s practical activities as I only know about them from their paper and the occasional discussion when one of their supporters comes to an academic seminar or something similar in my own country. But the impression I got was that the RCP-USA was very keen on the idea of linking into immigrant struggles. With Mike’s proposals there will end up being 2 parties (or a party and a Maoist movement of some kind) doing the same work.
Mike states he has come to the conclusion that the RCP-USA can achieve nothing more. But I don’t see much theorising of this. Ok, there’s an allegation that the alleged cult of Bob Avakian has gone too far. What were all of you doing when the international communist movement was being told that Chairman Mao is the red sun that rises over China, making the East red and warming the proletariat with his benign rays of light? I don’t personally believe in the overblown claims that have been made for any of our leaders in history. I think we have to get beyond that kind of thing. A party should consist of leaders of the proletariat. To be a member of the party you should be able to lead in some capacity, not just be a follower of a single leader.
However, so-called ‘cult of personality’ is not the main aspect of Mao’s legacy. The main aspect of Mao’s legacy is the way he led a party that freed the Chinese people from feudalism and imperialism and massively increased the standard of life. The main aspect of Stalin is not so-called ‘cult of personality’, it is the way he led a party that modernised the Soviet Union, increased their welfare greatly and prevented Hitler from bringing world civilisation to an end. OK, Avakian has not been able to make achievements on the level of these two, but there are objective as well as subjective reasons for this. Judging someone a failure because they have not been able to make a socialist revolution in the richest country in the world is setting the bar somewhat high.
In regard to MIM’s latest ‘security update’. If they really do believe Bob Avakian or any of his supporters or part-sympathisers are agents for the security agencies then it is their proletarian duty to
put this evidence on the table to prevent further damage being done by these alleged ‘spys’ and ‘wreckers’. If they haven’t got any evidence and it’s actually all a load of bollocks, then they need to come up with a more coherent criticism of their political opponents (which they appear to have the knowledge and ability to be able do, they seem to be held back by ‘ad hominem’ factors).
Stiofan said
One of the great ironies of the RCP’s prodigious efforts is that they have fallen silent on the crucial issue of internationalism – the struggle of comrades in India and Nepal, while obsessing about a seemingly secondary matter – the inherently illogical nature of religious law and dogma. I can remember when the RCP’s paper published first rate material on Nepal which has seemingly been replaced by a running polemic against the Bible along the lines of “that’s fucked up.” What is really fucked up is the process by which revolutionaries become blinded to the complex nature of history and culture that shape the “masses” for which the “mass line” is intended. I don’t want to engage in quotation worship in the spirit of the 70′s, but the example of Mao is in stark contrast to the spirit of the RCP. When reporting on the peasantry in Hunan province, Mao discussed the nature of religious belief and the role of party militants in responding to it.
The idols were set up by the peasants and in time they will pull them down with their own hands; there is no need for anybody else prematurely to pull down the idols for them.
The agitational line of the Communist Party in such matters as these should be: “Draw the bow to the full without letting go the arrow, and be on alert.”
(“Investigation Into The Peasant Movement in Hunan,” pp. 47-48 in the International Publishers Edition)
Mao then proceeds to give an example of such agitation as he relates a meeting with peasants where he acknowledges that while the gods “may deserve our worship” it is the peasant association that is actually improving the lives of the people, not acts of religious devotion.
It is a fact of contemporary history that the comrades in Nepal and India have had significantly more success in applying the mass line then anything attempted by the RCP. It is a shame that the developments in those countries have been replaced by crude attempts to tear down the idols in advance of our people’s own understanding of the need to do so.
Yo said
You’re right Mike, I shouldn’t assume malevolent subjective intent or dishonest intent. However, there are gross distortions/misrepresentations throughout the 9 Letters of what the RCP’s and BA’s actual positions are. And they are being presented from the posture of an “insider.” Maybe you didn’t do it on purpose, but that’s hard to believe. I pointed out one small example above — your assertion that the RCP’s recent silence on nepal is “sour” and that it’s based on the CPN maoist failure to accept BA’s new synthesis. Where is the evidence? You can’t tell us because of your “principled restraint.” But aren’t there certain procedures that fraternal parties of the RIM follow in terms of public airing of line differences? It seems to me, that to be “principled” would involve you not making assertions which are either not true or otherwise have not been aired publicly.
Here are a few other distortions/misrepresentations which lead me to question the intent (I could be wrong…) of the 9 letters:
1) Your 4 point caricature of the new synthesis at the end of the first letter has almost nothing to do with what Avakian’s new synthesis actually about. It’s amazing that you could be around for so long and have so little understanding of it… unless there was some other intent.
2) Your assertion in letter 2 that a leading line in the RCP is saying that “The party itself ‘got in the way’ of the chairman’s ability to reach and transform the masses.” This is just ridiculous. Read the section called “building the party” by BA in last week’s (Jan. 20) Revolution newspaper.
3) In your next paragraph you say: “Communist work must now be centered around the task of “appreciating, promoting, and popularizing this rare, unique and special leader, his body of work, method and approach.” Well, this is one crucial aspect of communist work… and should be integrated into everything we do. But I’ve never heard anyone say that everything must be centered around this aspect, especially not in the ways that you suggest.
4) In the next paragraph you say: “There is a fantasy of ‘re-polarizing’ the society around the one leader…’ I remember reading someone on the Red Flags website making this same assertion (maybe it was Mike Ely?). So I specifically asked a Party person about it and they said that was not what we’re trying to do. The point is to RE-POLARIZE FOR REVOLUTION. This involves broad re-polarization in the ways that WCW is attempting, but most importantly, re-polarizing around the 3 main points in the paper. Avakian definitely needs to be out there being debated by people broadly during this re-polarization process, and in particular, his synthesis needs to be grasped and applied by the solid core that is actually leading the re-polarization. This is a very different, and actually much more ambitious and radical, conception than repolarizing around one leader.
5) Your comparison in letter 3 of the two newspaper covers is ridiculous. You could have compared the May Day 1980 paper to the May Day 2007 paper and you would’ve seen a remarkable political improvement. Or you could have compared one of the newspapers from back then defending and promoting avakian during his national speaking tour to the 2007 special edition on BA. Instead you chose to compare apples and oranges in a sense, in order to make your point. The person is clearly NOT looking at the word leadership (even though, in the real world, the masses are looking for leadership)! It is also not clear who the person is (party supporter or not), and that is hardly the point. And “adoration” is no where in the picture!
I could go on (and I probably will some other time), but here I’m just trying to make a point about why I question the intent of the 9 letters.
I also wanted to speak to the earlier question about the RCP’s “failure.” Those of you that pointed out that the “survival” and “perserverence” of the RCP is not in and of itself a success are correct, especially not considering the RCP’s goals. However, I do think it’s no small achievement that the RCP is still on the front lines of trying to breakthrough and make revolution in a way that so many who have dropped out are not.
Throughout the 9 letters it becomes clear that Mike has a narrow view of practice. In other words, your practice only counts — or you only have a right to speak, or the theoretical contributions you make based on your practice and your summation of the practice of others is only valid — if you win (which the RCP clearly hasn’t). Within Mike’s narrow framework I was trying to make the point that even the existence of a party like this in a country like this is an achievement (not that anyone should sit around patting themselves on the back), and that deserves some acknowledgement. And yes Mike, somehow despite my info diet i’ve heard about Maoists in other 1st world countries with big fat middles (Greece doesn’t fully fit this crude description), including the new RCP of Canada… although I don’t think those other maoist groupings have as much influence as the RCP or the Italian maoists.
But clearly, rather than stay within Mike’s narrow framework of practice, what I should’ve been pointing out is that Mao had the right line on the peasantry and people’s war before narrow “practice” vaulted him to prominence. If people had been listening to Mao in 1927, instead of Comintern conventional wisdom, thousands of communists wouldn’t have been massacred. Lenin wrote What is to be done long before narrow “practice” vaulted him to prominence within the ICM and even before he had the authority he later had among the Bolsheviks. If we were conscious back then, we would’ve been promoting Mao and Lenin’s lines, even though they hadn’t achieved what they later came to achieve, right?
In conclusion, I’d like to say that while Mike may criticize me for “puny thinking,” in my opinion “puny thinkers” are those who dismiss as “wishful thinking voluntarists” those who are on the frontlines of trying. The 9 Letters is saturated with what Bob Avakian would call “determinist realism” and Lenin would basically call “economism” — where what is desirable is what is possible, and what is possible is what already exists. It’s not my idea of lighting up the sky, and it’s not going to inspire anyone.
[So there's no confusion: this is not an "official RCP response"]
redflags said
Yo – a question.
Can you become a member of the RCP if you do not believe that Bob Avakian’s (still formally inarticulate) New Synthesis is correct?
Does Bob Avakian stand over and above the party?
If not, by what means can leadership rotate?
Ely has a somewhat more nuanced critique of the cult of personality around Avakian, which is more charitable than I would grant… Perhaps because of that nuance Ely is truly cutting.
I’m surprised you are saying the RCP doesn’t hold Avakian to be the “cardinal question” facing communists. It is my experience that they do, and leave it slippery when directly confronted with it.
If you think such practices as promoting cultism on principle should be abandoned, there is no room in the RCP for you. Period. Security culture is then used to stifle such discussions, because “you don’t know how it really is” etc, ad nauseum.
But we do know how it is. Bob Avakian just wrote an article plainly laying out how promoting Bob Avakian is itself literally promoting revolution, as if he patented the f’ing idea. As if his status will change because of an ad in the New York Review of Books… as if that’s how politics actually functions!
It won’t work, and it wouldn’t be right if it did. Avakianism isn’t a coherent body of theory – it is “whatever Bob Avakian says”. It is, to be blunt, about training cadre to be followers not leaders, about holding together a miniscule grouplet devoted to spreading the good word about Avakian, not building a fighting party of the oppressed.
How do I know?
Because if you don’t kow tow to Avakian, there’s no room on that train… that’s “already left the station” in any case.
Avakian is the one who decided to make his own, personal cult the issue – don’t shoot the messenger.
I suspect that Ely thinks building the RCP was worth the last 30 years of his life… That isn’t something people treat lightly, nor should you treat the single most engaged thinking on Bob Avakian as some simple spoiled grapes.
Let me put it another way: Please tell me where I can find what you would find “principled” criticism of Avakian. I can’t imagine a more thoughtful, deep or principled-in-its-restraint criticism than the polemic under discussion here. So post the link and I’d like to see the kind of critique you hold as a model.
ShineThePath said
Just what a bunch of nonsense Yo. You clearly have not “cleared” up any mistaken understanding we may have about Avakian’s synthesis despite Mike’s allegedly crude description of it. Then it is put on you to tell us what the “SYNTHESIS” is? How has it ruptured from MLM and what are it benchmarks. How is so many people who have been “engaging” Avakian for some time clearly get it wrong, but the Party never clarifies what we have mistaken. I just like you in possible brevity put forward what makes Avakian’s line a synthesis we need to grab on to to like a Lenin or Mao.
Also there are number of erroneous statements here. Specifically if people had “listened” to Mao in 1927? WHat are you referring to exactly? In what statement or documents was Mao criticizing the Comintern or Stalin in 1927, if you can provide one document that shows in 1927 that Mao was criticizing the Comintern. In fact, I’ve read bios of Mao and have his collected works and I am not aware of any published works besides Mao’s Investigations in Hunan.
Also Yo, despite how you have wrote history here, Lenin WAS one of the main leaders of the Bolshevik tendency in 1905. “What Is To Be Done?” was actually heard by the RDSLP, it’s methodology actually served to divide one in two. Of course that is the problem of RCP thought, it sees things quite shallowly and homogenously, as if the WHOLE Second International was going to accept Lenin’s thought and his word. Come on man, what happened to Two Line Struggle?
Further this is just surely just a crude way of looking at this, if people were just “listening” to Mao. Completely mechanical, and anti-dialectical.
There are two things here, people WERE obviously listening to Mao, he became a commander in the PLA and he was a serious leader in the CPC by 1927, at the age of 33. Second, this method Yo ahs is completely speculative and lacking any historical rigor. Maybe if the Mensheviks, the Social-Revolutionaries, and the Tsarists just obeyed Lenin…our troubles would have been over, we would have Communism! But that is just not how history develops, it is about struggle. The very thought that the problem in the Communist Movement was no one was “listening” is pure naivety that young supporters of the RCP are trained in. If only Avakian’s voice is “heard.” HIS VOICE IS BEING HEARD!!! People have taken their stands, now lets have some theoretical rigor and debate.
Here is your chance to set us straight, and instead of giving us the reasons for Bob being a Lenin or a Mao (how distasterous that now in the ICM one becomes “a” Mao, isn’t this reminiscent of Casear?), you merely engage in some tit for tat in questions of how prestigious RCP is around the world. Hate to shatter your world, but THAT doesn’t replace the question of what is RCP’s line.
abyes said
Yo -
You say that “Your 4 point caricature of the new synthesis at the end of the first letter has almost nothing to do with what Avakian’s new synthesis actually about.”
I have myself tried to grasp what Avakian’s “new synthesis” is, and I thought that Mike offered a very clear summary of it which encompassed what I had been able to see in it. But you say that it’s a caricature.
What would your summary of the “new synthesis” loo like?
Yo said
Let me try to answer a few questions here. Keep in mind that I am a young person who has some experience but does not speak for the party. First Red Flags
“Can you become a member of the RCP if you do not believe that Bob Avakian’s (still formally inarticulate) New Synthesis is correct?”
Should you? Don’t we need a solid core? Shouldn’t that solid core be the party? In other words, it makes perfect sense to me that a Leninist party would want its members to be in basic agreement with the leadership (not on every question, but probably on “cardinal questions”)
“Does Bob Avakian stand over and above the party?”
My understanding is that he is the elected chairman of the party. He is on the central committee and not above it. This is different from the Jefetura line in Peru.
“If not, by what means can leadership rotate?”
Elections. Isn’t all this spelled out in the party constitution or something?
“I’m surprised you are saying the RCP doesn’t hold Avakian to be the “cardinal question” facing communists. It is my experience that they do, and leave it slippery when directly confronted with it.”
Actually, I didn’t mention the idea of “cardinal question” in my post above. But it seems to me that Avakian’s new synthesis IS A cardinal question — something without which we will not get where we are trying to go. The woman question, the national question, and others, are also cardinal questions in that sense. This is different from it being THE cardinal question — particularly when the definition being used by Mike is that a cardinal question is something that divides revolution from counter-revolution.
“Let me put it another way: Please tell me where I can find what you would find “principled” criticism of Avakian. I can’t imagine a more thoughtful, deep or principled-in-its-restraint criticism than the polemic under discussion here. So post the link and I’d like to see the kind of critique you hold as a model.”
The Bill Martin book would be an example. As I began to point out in the last post, the 9 letters is riddled with distortions posing as the “inside scoop,” which is why I view it as unpricipled. To the extent that he actually addresses real line questions, his arguments are pretty weak. His narrow view of practice, his upholding of class truth, his chapter on Christians and fascists come to mind (more on that some other time). He’s flailing around and not really offering an alternative strategy for putting communism back on the map in the richest and most individualistic country in the world. And the denuciations of voluntarism, get-rich-quick schemes, and “wishful thinking” are gonna lead any Mike Ely followers (if they can get off the internet) stright to the economist swamp of the “possible.”
To Mike, Abyes, Shinethepath, and others wondering what the new synthesis is all about. Check out the summary at the end of part 1 of Avakian’s recent talk:
http://www.rwor.org/avakian/makingrevolution/
Briefly in my own words, what I would say is that the new synthesis is a response to the questions posed by the fact that our most advanced historical experience — the cultural revolution — was defeated, basically without a fight. How do we do better? How do “fit the masses to rule” in a qualitatively greater sense, so that people are more and more consciously and voluntarily changing themselves and the world? What does the epistemological break and the unleashing of debate and ferment through principles like the “solid core with a lot of elasticity” have to do with that? Well, debate, ferment, the clash of ideas… this is how people actually come to see the truth (which does not simply emanate from the party or the proletariat)… this is how the masses become conscious “emancipators of humanity” and “fit to rule”… this is how we will do better next time. [to get a taste of the historical experience of socialism that Avakian is rupturing with, check out Avakian's essay "Conquer the World"]
zerohour said
Yo -
I don’t think you understand the confusion. We all know what Avakian is saying – we just don’t understand what is so “new” or groundbreaking about this “synthesis.”
At your suggestion I re-read the passage you linked to. All I see is a re-statement of his vision of socialist society with the addition of an expanded role for intellectual ferment. This is a point he acknowledges has already been raised by critics. He SAYS it’s not eclectic but it is. Taken on it’s own it’s not objectionable but strip away the enthusiastic language and see what you have left.
As for “solid core with elasticity” some of us, including myself, have already seen it in practice. What it comes down to is “don’t micromanage.” The solid core makes substantial decisions while the rest of us get to apply our creativity towards implementation. I experienced this with STRS and elsewhere.
Mike E said
I agree with Yo above.
I also recommend giving Avakian’s own summaries of his synthesis a close read.
With that in mind, we cited his most detailed recent summation in footnote 13, in Letter 1, right at the very beginning of the 9 Letters.
While Avakian’s personal capsule description below is significant and revealing (in both form and content) — it doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to step back and evaluate his synthesis overall (independently and critically). This includes a responsibility to judge whether his own (personal) summation of himself (and his synthesis) is adequate, complete and correctly captures the essence of things.
In other words, within Marxism, people don’t get to define themselves, or have the final word (even on their own ideas).
It is a principle of Marxism (and of materialism generally) that you can’t evaluate people by how they evaluate themselves. Just one example: Sections of the Christian Bible describe themselves as the word of God, and they describe the essence of their message (from God) in various ways. But as Marxists we can’t (and don’t!) take any of that at face value, and through work we have our own evaluation of what the sources and essential teachings of the Christian doctrine are. Or take another example: the early American Marxist Daniel Deleon invent a theory of socialism based on “socialist industrial unions.” And influenced (in part) by such ideas, the early revolutionary Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) promoted an elaborate “Father Haggerty’s Wheel” which described how a future society could be run by a complex hierarchy of elected union bodies. Now they thought this was the essence of their doctrine — but as Marxists, we have some things to say about this from a “stepped back” position. We have some things to say about the naive utopianism of it, the undialectical syndicalist approach to society and production, and the inherent sectarianism of thinking you can impose self-invented schema on humanity. The Deleonists or Wobblies might each answer: Well, you are not talking about our doctrine, which is revealed our writings or by the Wheel. And a thinking communist would answer: Yes we are, but we are making an independent, critical analysis of your doctrine (in the context of reality, not simply in the context of your own self-evaluation).
To put it bluntly: No, you can’t decide what Avakian stands for simply by taking Avakian’s own self-description at face value. No, you can’t uncover the essence of his doctrine by looking simply at what he (for the moment) claims that essence is. You have to make an independent, critical and all-sided analysis. You have to look at the inner connections and inter-connections. And you have to (as a fundamental question of method) compare the various claims (mine, Avakian’s, yours) to reality at each point. That is more difficult than simply “racing to catch up with Avakian.” It is more confusing than just “steeping yourself in the Chairman.” But this method (of materialist dialectics) is the only way you can really sort truth from falsehood, or insight from bullshit.
Avakian (for example) occasionally argues that the heart of his synthesis is “solid core with a lot of elasticity,” but my view (expressed in the 9 Letters) is that his presentation takes (in a rather instrumentalist P.R. kind of way) one sliver of Avakian’s doctrine and presents that fairly recent concoction as if it were the core of the whole. There is, however, as Avakian himself says, a whole “body of work, method and approach” here, and Avakian’s personal theory of socialism emerges (as a mere subset, and specific application) from that larger whole. It is that whole which needs to be evaluated and focused on, not just the sliver which he wants to focus on.
You can see in Letter 1 how we break that down. Yo misread this and says we only raise four points within the synthesis. But if you read the Letter closely, you can see that these are only the specific 4 points we have been prepared to engage in depth at this time.
Here is what we write at the beginning of the 9 letters:
The next sentence lists a number of other elements to this synthesis, to be explored elsewhere:
So (as you can see) there are at least seven different elements identified here, and there are (in fact) still more that could be mentioned. I don’t pretend (or intend) to decide which elements form the core of his synthesis. But the 9 Letters argue that there is a basic set of philosophical ERRORS underlying it all — rooted in an idealist view of truth, a denigration of practice and a voluntarist focus on will and the special individual. This appears in Letter 4 — Truth, Practice and a Confession of Poverty. So that is what we focus on.
I actually don’t agree with Zerohour that “We all know what Avakian is saying…” That really isn’t true. It isn’t even true for most supporters of the RCP who are required to claim that this synthesis is a dividing line among communists. Luckily, for you, some of us have spent a great deal of time (literally years of study) “steeped in the Chairman” (an expression of the RCP that always made me feel like a teabag). And so on that basis, it has been possible to open this door to an initial engagement among comrades.
* * * * *
Anyway, here is the one-sentence quote from Avakian that both Yo and the 9 Letters recommend that you study and dissect. Personally I recommend that you read it out loud slowly to yourself and interested companions:
Big L said
Yo, did you notice that the same summary at the end of part 1 of Avakian’s “Making Revolution . . .” speech is cited exactly in the 4 points you characterize as having “almost nothing to do with the new synthesis”?
I think that it’s important that you’re here defending what you think is correct – and being challenged by it. I was struck by something you wrote in an earlier post:
Yo goes on to talk about ‘ “practice” ‘ (in quotation marks), but its this previous statement that really got me thinking about something I’ve been dealing with for a while. What is our criterion for judging “when practice counts”? It seems to me that it’s not simply about whether or not you’ve won (and I agree that the RCP has obviously not been winning for some time). Even if we haven’t won, practice should definitely be summed up in order to find out WHY we’ve lost, and HOW we can do things differently in order to WIN.
Winning is the point, isn’t it? Sometimes I get the feeling people lose sight of this.
What I get tripped up on is that even though we can all pretty much acknowledge that the RCP hasn’t won, and isn’t winning, why hasn’t there been any summation of the reasons behind this? I’ve read NOPE [Notes on Political Economy], and some other documents, but I’ve never seen anything truly critically getting into why the RCP hasn’t won any battles, and grown significantly organizationally. Isn’t this something that should be summed up?
I’m not a follower of Mike Ely, but I do follow his work. It seems like these 9 Letters aren’t merely personal gripes, but rather are exactly the type of thing that is needed for our movement (broadly speaking, the revolutionary movement) to have a chance at growing. I agree that it lacks in putting forward that positive vision of what revolutionary organization should be – but that isn’t the job of one person.
Big L said
(started writing that last night and didn’t continue till this morning, so apologies for repetition at top)
Yo said
Zerohour, check out this summary of the solid core in the passage you read:
“I have spoken before about the four objectives of the solid core, in socialist society—namely: to maintain power for the proletarian revolution; to expand the solid core to the greatest extent possible at any given time; to work to constantly narrow, and work toward finally overcoming, the difference between the solid core and the rest of society (this speaks to “the withering away of the state”); and to foster the maximum elasticity on the basis of the necessary solid core at any given time.”
That’s a little different than “don’t micromanage,” although it seems that would be part of it… the whole “drawn and quartered” yet still holding the reigns of state power thing.
Big L, I think there’s some confusion. The statement about practice only counting if you win is what I believe Mike’s narrow view of practice is. That’s definitely not my position.
On your question about whether the RCP sums up failures, or experiences that don’t lead to victories, it seems to me that that is happening all the time. It’s part of the democratic centralist process. The RCP is constantly changing, adjusting their strategy, based on previous experience. When WCW started, it was explained to me the ways in which something different from NION was needed… people around the world don’t just want a statement of conscience (which was a very important thing in the post-9/11 atmosphere), they want/need this regime to be actually driven out. After Oct. 5 — which Mike very one-sidedly called a “spectacular failure” — people spent a month doing “active investigation,” going out and talking to people, and an extensive report was written that tried to sum up why people didn’t come out and move forward from there. The initiation of the Revolution Clubs has involved a summation of the RCYB, etc. During weeks when we were taking out 500,000 (which was actually a small “success”) of the “special edition on Bob Avakian” broadsheet, in my area we summed up halfway through that we were focussing on the “leadership we need” side of the equation too much and not infusing it enough with the “crossroads we face.” We made adjustments. I could go on.
Big L, I did notice that Mike put that paragraph from Avakian in the footnotes. And I found it very disturbing that Mike’s summary had very little to do with that paragraph below. What’s telling about Mike’s summary is that it begins with “For the purposes of these letters…” Mike, you can’t just make up whatever you want and say this is Avakian’s new synthesis. Argue with what he says, rather than a caricature of it.
zerohour said
YO-
I was talking about how “solid core” is being carried out in practice today, not a hypothetical future. While the goals as Avakian presents them sound broader than what I had mentioned, they won’t be achieved by commandism and disrespecting the ideas and initiatives of non-Party supporters. From what I’ve experienced and seen, initiative is only valued when it doesn’t challenge the core assumptions of any Party project. You can ask questions but will only be made to feel that you are the problem because you don’t understand the objectives, or the “New Synthesis”. Subsequently questions are evaded, and we are only left with two choices: do as we are told or leave.
Otherwise the solid core as you quoted is simply a re-statement of some of the aims of socialism.
I do agree that we need to struggle though what we mean by “failure.” Is it a numbers issue? When ANSWER brings millions to a demo is it a “success”? Many people were disappointed with the Oct. 5 demo a failure for two reasons: 1] not as many people turned out as expected and 2] those who did turn out, most did not continue on with WCW. I’d like to see how others sum this up – I’m not sure what to think myself.
Jaroslav O, said
That is a very good question to bring up, what exactly is the criteria for a “success” in a demo? (Not the demos are the be-all-end-all of success in terms of getting closer to revolution, though neither are they irrelevant.) As Mike described, the RCP doesn’t do much in the way of sum-up, & when I was around I didn’t have much practise in trying it out, certainly not collectively. Here are some possible things to look at (not in any particular order):
- number attended
- demands met (if any)
- message amplification (i.e. media coverage, word-of-mouth spread, etc)
- mood (hard to measure, but there’s a difference between thousand quiet paraders & couple hundred combative demonstrators)
- recruiting
- consciousness raised of participants
- cooperation with other organisations
- exposure of state apparatus (e.g. police beatdown, bad it happens, but it happens anyway so good if people see it openly)
- exposure of other organisations (e.g. revisionists seen to collaborate with pigs)
However I must stress that sum-up is not just recording such data, although as someone said on this site, a question well framed is already half answered. No, you must go further to synthesise this, identify what is primary, hypothesise what sources are for the positive & negative aspects (esp. is it objective or subjective source), & of course form new plans based on all this (which could be to keep doing more or less same thing, but could be different).
However RCP does not sum-up in a thorough way, so they keep doing more or less same thing but expect different results. To the extent there is any sum-up, it is surface & attributes lack of success to things like masses not being daring or not just not getting or whatever (see Mike’s letter about BA blaming masses) — anything but RCP’s own strategy & tactics, & interestingly not even other objective factors like ruling class cracks not big enough or what have you.
Thus we see the “ALL OUT FOR NOV 2ND! IF WE ALL GO ALL OUT BUSH WILL BE DRIVEN OUT (SOMEHOW)!”, followed by “ALL OUT FOR FEB 4TH! IF WE ALL GO ALL OUT BUSH WILL BE DRIVEN OUT (SOMEHOW)!”, followed by “ALL OUT FOR OCT 5TH! IF WE ALL GO ALL OUT BUSH WILL BE DRIVEN OUT (SOMEHOW)!”, followed by “ALL OUT FOR JAN 31ST! IF WE ALL GO ALL OUT BUSH WILL BE DRIVEN OUT (SOMEHOW)!”, with some medium sized calls in between to keep us on our toes. And every time, the RCP puts out some stuff about how it will work this time, now that the imperialists are really in a crisis (without of course explaining how the crisis is now worse, or that apparently last time wasn’t actually a crisis, or anything on the subject at all). Look it’s all about logic. If you have the same conditions & you do the same actions, you will get the same results. 2 plus 2 is always 4. Maybe you can’t do a thorough mathematical proof of 2+2=4, but anyone knows that it’s not random, it will never be 5 or 33 or 2.69i, or anything else but 4. Except in terms of demo success, or more importantly advancement of the movement & progress towards better conditions/preparation for revolution, the result will start to decrease, as intermediate & advanced forces in general & then even close supporters start to realise the futility of the actions. But even that is because the equation actually changes to 1+2 instead of 2+2 or whatever.
Anyway let’s not stretch the analogy too far. The point is, voluntarism is bad & sum-up as Mao outlined in On Practise is good.
Anyway to the question of summing up Oct 5th, I’d already left, but for Nov 2nd it was quite good, larger than expected, spirited demo in the city I was in. Afterwards many folks came to a (previously announced) mass meeting to supposedly make plans to actually build the movement & in reality drive Bush from office. However at this meeting not only were no concrete plans beyond a next meeting time made, but the discussion’s direction was steered without exception away from such concrete plans & towards airy philosophy talk of “daring”, “orientation”, & so forth. Now I want to be clear, I don’t denigrate importance of orientation or daring in the least, they are very important, but they must be linked to the real world, otherwise you are back to Plato with roses being red because they are imbued with the abstract “red” idea (rather than that they are reflecting & absorbing certain wavelengths of light). You need to make plans & decide whether the plans are daring enough, if they follow the proper orientation, etc. The ideological line leads the practise, it’s not enslaved to follow the practise or it will be pragmatism, but it must be linked to the practise & have a back-and-forth with it else it will idealism. So anyway not so many people came to that 2nd meeting. Those that did were to find that the whole plan boils down to passing out flyers, & if people like the vision in the flyers, they should take a stack of flyers & pass out those flyers; then we’ll have a demo where we can march in the street & pass out more flyers to bystanders, so they can find out about the movement, come to meeting, & get a stack of flyers to pass out.
And what do folks keep saying on receiving these flyers? “I LIKE IT BUT HOW WILL WE ACCOMPLISH THIS? WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?” The answer is “Come to the meeting & give us your ideas, let’s make a plan together.” Years it goes in a circle like this, no real plan is ever made, & guess what else? The masses’ response is still the same: “I LIKE IT BUT HOW WILL WE ACCOMPLISH THIS? WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?” Even if the RCP has abandoned the active pursuit of applying the mass line, you’d think they’d take the hint after a while.
Big L said
“Many people were disappointed with the Oct. 5 demo a failure for two reasons: 1] not as many people turned out as expected and 2] those who did turn out, most did not continue on with WCW. I’d like to see how others sum this up – I’m not sure what to think myself.”
I worked pretty hard in my area building for October 5th, and I thought it was great. Of course there weren’t as many people as we had expected, but there were many militant youth who brought incredible energy and made up for the lack of numbers. I actually think that if it hadn’t been somewhat idealistically billed as a day of “mass resistance” (nothing wrong with this, except it was kind of assumed amongst folks i was around that “mass” meant tens of thousands would show up) as opposed to taking a more materialist, concrete approach which might have actually facilitated a better process of FOLLOW UP. This is my main criticism of October 5th – not that it was failure, because really it was pretty bad ass in and of itself.
Most of the youth that came out wound up falling away, and not becoming active with WCW (or RCP, or much else . . .) This is where I would say that it was a failure. And I think it has something to do with the RCPs view of political practice: so much energy is spent building these flashy demos & events, but the day-to-day grind of building cadre amongst these youth that come to the demos seems to be way lower on the totem pole of political importance.
Yo:”During weeks when we were taking out 500,000 (which was actually a small “success”) of the “special edition on Bob Avakian” broadsheet, in my area we summed up halfway through that we were focussing on the “leadership we need” side of the equation too much and not infusing it enough with the “crossroads we face.” We made adjustments. I could go on.”
I think you’re right – the RCP does make these types of summation. But what I’m wondering is, considering that they haven’t won, do they make the deeper and perhaps more painful summation that promoting Bob as more-or-less the sole leadership needed to develop a base of revolutionaries capable of overthrowing capitalism and getting on the path towards a new world — that perhaps this method isn’t the right method for doing so?
I’m not saying that it’s definitely not the way to do that, but I do wonder if this type of self-interrogating internal struggle been carried out? (Especially in light of not having “won” in “practice” for what seems like many years).
I suppose this could be criticized as saying “if it works it’s true, and if it doesn’t work it must not be true,” but I think that writing it off as that is too simple. What’s the practical, material proof that Avakian is indeed the leader needed to get to communism?
abyes said
Yo -
You are mischaracterizing the view of the relation of theory and practice expressed in the 9 Letters.
You say, and are quoted by Big L,
“In other words, your practice only counts — or you only have a right to speak, or the theoretical contributions you make based on your practice and your summation of the practice of others is only valid — if you win (which the RCP clearly hasn’t).”
Then you reiterate, in reply,
“The statement about practice only counting if you win is what I believe Mike’s narrow view of practice is.”
I don’t think this can be supported by what’s put forward in the 9 Letters. Letter 4 most directly concerns practice, and here what is argued is that
“In Avakian’s hands, theory is teased far away from practice. And the result of this methodological denigration of practice is (ultimately) new strains of subjective idealism.”
In Letter 6 (and this may be what you are thinking of–and grossly mischaracterizing) a basic points is that
“Revolutionary communist leaders are fundamentally a product of the struggle of the broad masses of people, especially (but not solely) of movements they actually lead.”
A little later Mike writes, summing up,
“The adoption of a new synthesis requires critical scientific evaluation, including real testing and modification in practice.”
The argument, in other words, is that correct theory is forged in close inter-relation with practice (not a very debatable point, you’d think, for a Marxist!). But in the case of the RCP, on the one hand they have not really summed up their own practice in any deep or consistent way — that’s shown in Letter 2. On the other hand, the “new synthesis” is an attempt to create theory in a way that leans close to idealism philosophically, floating free from practice.
None of this analysis even comes close to saying “your practice only counts if you win,” or anything like it.
So again, what’s your basis for attributing that view of practice, and its relation to theory and leadership, to Mike?