Mike Ely: The Strange Way It Started Fresh
Posted by Mike E on November 9, 2008
RedFlags says that “what some people call ‘just anecdotes’ other people call experience.” Linda has inspired me to tell what happened as I resigned from the RCP — which is by definition not an internal event. I posted my resignation letter, but this is what happened when I handed that letter over.
* * * * * *
I handed over my letter of resignation to a friend, a close comrade I had shared twenty-five years with. He took the letter, obviously startled. And said “This is wrong. We need more struggle.”
I replied that there had been three years of struggle, and I was through. I said, as plainly as I could “This is just not my politics.”
I was done.
And I added, “You can count on me to be principled through every stage of this.”
It had been the culture of the RCP that the struggle would continue after a resignation — with a meeting or two where issues were clarified. The two of us discussed this briefly, assuming we would schedule something for the following week.
The next day, we met again in the same Starbucks. And my friend had a message: He had been sent to say that my resignation was unacceptable, and that I had 48 hours to repudiate my letter of resignation, and without a repudiation there could be no further discussion.
There was no hiding the Orwellian quality of this: That we could not meet to discuss my resignation unless I repudiated the reasons for my resignation.
I said I did not need 48 hours, or half a minute. I had no intention of repudiating these views.
We were done. As we separated, I touched his arm and said, “Come with me, let’s do some real communist work.”
r said
thank you for sharing your experience. This is similar to other experiences posted and is quite notable in what was referred to as struggle “in an aboveboard way”. To self criticize or face silence does sound eerie. I wonder if there was a great cultural revolution or a great exodus.
bella said
when i told a comrade/leader that i was quitting, i also handed in a letter saying I just didn’t feel I could do this anymore. It’s, of course, a long story. But much later the next night, I emerged from the train I took home to find two comrades standing at my exit. They, too, told me my resignation was unacceptable and a betrayal of humanity. They then “invited” me to walk with them to a nearby diner to “discuss” this. After 2.5 hours I went home, where I was expected to tell my husband (who had quit days prior) I was leaving him or he was going to have to leave — and then move out.
I understand why they did what they did. They firmly believe everything they’ve been told and really believed I’d be betraying humanity. But, I really felt in that moment that I was a part of something against my own choosing. I was not enough of a “follower” of Avakian’s line and method, so how could I possibly be expected to think critically about anything? Any critical analysis would be marred by “wrong lines”.
Their understanding of intellectual, scientific experience, research, and theoretical developments and their practice, is far below even bourgeois standards. They say that people learn through practice and growing theory out of interacting with objective reality, but then no member of the party is ever allowed to do that. Their approach for members is entirely, “apply this theory. write a report. we’ll tell you why the theory works and your application is not wrong.” That is not how theories develop, or how people truly interact with, learn about, and change the world.
plain speaking said
Bella says: After 2.5 hours I went home, where I was expected to tell my husband (who had quit days prior) I was leaving him or he was going to have to leave — and then move out.
This is not a unique story. The RCP is not a political party, it is a cult. This is what cults do. Maybe it isn’t “just” a cult, or has stood up when others went with the flow, but however it happened exactly – this is how it has ended up.
Messing with peoples marriages by using concern for the world is sick, twisted. It fundamentally distorts peoples health, their connection to others until “revolution” is just another stand in for the godhead, the coming rapture, karma. There is nothing communist about this. Nothing revolutionary.
Zack said
I’ve had roommates recently decide to move out because I post on this site… it’s an odd mentality that I just don’t quite get because at one point I considered us to be pretty tight.
Sad. Strange. Cultish.
Mike E said
Zack:
What was their argument? Were they accusing you of being a counterrevolutionary and therefore a danger to any revolutionary? Was it a matter of religious “shunning”? Did they give you a reason?
Zack said
Mike:
They didn’t give all that much of a reason but only explained that “due to our political disagreements they thought they should move out.”
The background to this was that I had expressed my disagreement in a prior meeting with a grouping of RCP supporters and then was told to discontinue my posting on this site or I suppose face the consequences (which I found out later was their disassociating themselves from me). This was the week before their NYC/LA “Revolution” meetings at the end of October. They got back from their trip and let me know they intended to move out as quickly as possible.
They didn’t up and call me a counter-revolutionary but I assume that was their warped reasoning. It definitely had the feeling of religious shunning practices.
Green/Red Rev said
That is true to say it is almost like a cult. But that is due to big brother getting old and expecting his face added to the marx engeles lenin stalin mao image. Holy macarony!
While we have to admit that:
1 – May 1st originated due to happenings in the US,
2 – March 8 also was originated here,
that doesn’t make any MIM or RIM leader to declare themselves greatest thinkers for the whole planet.
But comrades, you resigned for various reasons. Could you not eventually agree on democratic centralism that has more openness in it, to aid the massses of people to take it seriously as a party and eventualy form it? Of course, KASAMA is closer to ILPS that i respect but, the US does need a serious revolutionary party… of course you can start with an “organizational” format or whatever, but anyhow, let’s see when it comes around!
Mike E said
Green Red writes:
I think this is an important question. I strongly believe that revolution requires a united and disciplined political organization able to work with a high level of common understanding under complex and rapidly changing conditions. And quite clearly, that means both having structure that has both democracy and centralism — accountability of leadership, broad discussion over policy, and also decision-making that is centralized for quick united action.
On the other hand, it is hard to repeat the term democratic centralism without answering which kind of democratic centralism — because clearly there is not one concept (even if some people think there is only one, common, universal concept.) There has been, overall, a great underestimation among communists of universality (i.e. the assumption that a single form of organization was applicable to communists in all places and all times).
Clearly at different stages of the revolutionary movement, different forms of organization are called for. And there needs to be an actual process through which unity, discipline and organization develops.
Saying that the revolution needs a disciplined national organization of revolutionaries with deep roots among the people does not mean that the way to get there is to quickly form a small embryonic democratic centralist grouplet with no roots among the people.
There has been a lot of experience that suggests this approach is mechanical and self-deceptive.
Kasama, which has just started to form itself, needs to adopt organizational forms that suit its tasks and work — and they need to adapt and change as the work develops.
And there is a debate going among revolutionaries, over whether the form of vanguard party has itself been exhausted. I don’t believe the way to approach that debate is to reject its conclusions without engaging its arguments. I think this has to be gone into deeply: How have changes in the world, in national structures, economics, politics and communications influenced the ways that political organizations work? What do we draw from the experience of previous socialist societies about the nature and role of leading parties? What are the forms of political organization we can imagine, and that we need?
I enter that discussion with some views on these matters — but I also am eager to hear and engage other views. I don’t think organizational matters can be resolved simply by announcing that the correct universal organizational form has been discovered a century ago, and it is permanently “there for the taking.” We need to actually look at the world around us, at our experience, at our tasks, at our stage of development, and find the path to a revolutionary movement that brings revolutaries together with a high level of unity and a deep level of connection with the most rebellious sections of the people.
Ben Seattle said
Hi there Mike and Red-Green and others,
Every time that I feel like giving up on Kasama, some thread like this appears to show that determination exists to confront the necessary questions.
Mike and Red-Green and others are again raising questions related to organizational form, democratic centralism, political transparency and the role of modern communications as they relate to serious revolutionary organization.
Here are some of the key questions (as I see them) and the conclusions to which I have come:
————————————————————
(1) How will we create the party of the working class?
What will be our common work that will unite
all that is best in the progressive movement?
————————————————————
The party will likely emerge from a loose network organized around the development of a revolutionary news service that that will offer comprehensive news, analysis and discussion from the perspective of the material interest of the working class. This news service will be open to contributions from all progressive trends (and from ordinary people) and will also provide a platform for the struggle of trends.
This news service will be active in assisting popular struggles of all kinds and will help to mobilize support for these struggles and to provide analysis on the direction the struggles may need to take in order to be successful.
————————————————————
(2) Who will be in the party — and who will not?
————————————————————
The party will be open to everyone who agrees on its program. Its program, in a nutshell, will be for the overthrow of the system of bourgeois rule and the control of society by the working class. There will be no ideological litmus test (ie: do you support Mao or Trotsky, etc) for members–other than support for the party’s program.
The openness of the party raises the question: what is to prevent liberal and/or social-democratic types from flooding into the organization and seizing control of it–in order to liquidate it?
The party’s structure will be designed to protect against the seizure of the party by a temporary majority:
(a) The party’s most basic rules would only be changed by a supermajority.
(b) The party will include a fairly wide range of independent groups.
Liberal of reformist-minded activists might, for periods of time, constitute a majority of the party–but it would be far more difficult for them to penetrate many of the more militant groups within the party. And these more militant groups, even as a minority–would be able to effectively wage struggle against the reformist influence and win activists to this position.
———————————————————————-
(3) How will our party defeat the terrible disease of reformism ?
———————————————————————-
The reformist disease will be defeated by means of protracted struggle. Most reformists will be denied entry to the party because it would be difficult for them to successfully pretend to support the party’s program of the overthrow of bourgeois rule. Other reformists (with more radical camouflage) will be able to enter the party and the struggle against them will be carried out openly by the more militant, anti-reformist groups within the party.
The great struggle against reformism within (and without) the party will create a powerful force that will gradually bring together and unite all the militant sub-groups which understand the need to oppose, tooth and nail, the reformist influence.
Over the course of time, practice and struggle an ever-increasing number of party activists will understand the nature of reformism and the need to oppose it.
———————————————————————-
(4) How will our party defeat the terrible disease of sectarianism?
———————————————————————-
The openness of the party structure, in which independent subgroups will be able to (and be expected to) openly oppose sectarian principles and practices–will puncture the influence of sectarianism–which can thrive only in darkness and cannot survive in the light of day.
———————————————————————-
(5) Which immediate tasks are most decisive in creating this party?
———————————————————————-
This, of course, is the most difficult question.
Over the long term, the central task that will unite everything healthy in all the warring factions of the left will probably be the creation of a revolutionary news service, as described above.
In the shorter term, however, there are many different kinds of projects which might assist the long-term goals. I am, to a large degree, clueless about which projects will give the most immediate return to activists in exchange for the time and energy which they may invest.
I can, however, make two recommendations for the Kasama community:
———————————————————————-
6) Discussion of Kasama development must be public
———————————————————————-
As much as possible and practical, I believe discussion about Kasama’s structure and future must be public and open to all activists who are sincere and demonstrate the ability to treat others with respect.
Mike has written of the need for “private forums devoted to Kasama supporters”
I want to make it clear that I oppose this.
I support Kasama to the degree that there is authentic motion here to create the mass revolutionary party of the working class. However I will not participate in private forums because I do not believe they are really necessary (in relation to the questions which I believe are decisive) and our movement has countless examples where excessive and unnecessary secrecy has kept ourselves in the dark far more than it has the class enemy.
There are few things that need to be private in the present circumstances (ie: issues related to _legitimate_ security questions, individual privacy and so forth). What should _not_ be private are any questions related to political differences and future direction.
———————————————————————-
7) Kasama needs a central place to discuss organizational questions
———————————————————————-
The Kasama blog and the “threads” forum is an excellent place for valuable discussion. But there are two problems to which we must find solutions.
Some kinds of discussion are not well suited to the blog structure–because posts on some topics may require days (or even weeks) to think over and write about. The “Kasama Threads” forum is better suited to conversations that unfold over weeks or months–but the forum has another problem: it can be difficult to find the threads related to organizational questions.
I have long argued that Kasama needs an easy and highly visible navigation beacon that directs readers to those threads related to organization. For example, the right hand column of the blog currently has large graphical links to the following four topics:
* Revolution in South Asia
* Kasama threads
* Nine Letters
* RCP response to nine letters
I understand the importance of the Nine Letters. Mike and others needed to start somewhere. But eventually we need to focus more on the future than the past. We need some means by which readers can easily find those threads dealing with creating a revolution–not in Asia–but here in the U.S. We need some means by which readers can easily find out–not what is wrong with the RCP–but what is needed for a mass revolutionary organization here in the U.S.
I am not arguing, of course, that the graphical links to these other topics should be removed. I am simply arguing what should be obvious to many–that we need, above all, focus and attention on the creation of an authentic mass revolutionary organization with the ability to unite everything healthy in the progressive movement.
sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle — http://struggle.net/ben/
For more on these topics, please see:
How to Build the Party of the Working Class
http://struggle.net/Ben/2008/222-HowTo.htm
Green/Red Rev said
Regarding the charge of “Counter revolutionary”.
In different places of the world, including where i come from originally, parties or organizations talking about “people” “my people” etc. have often brought with it the impression that the party or group is the guardian, leader, or – pen-forbid – husband of the people. And their sectarian so-called ideological struggle often turns into allegations and so forth.
Whilst that could be understandable to an extent, now accusing others of being “counter revolutionary” is as if “I am the revolution,” or “only what I say is the revolution.”
And sisters/brothers – comrades, including the rcp-ites who read this text — revolution is never anything similar to your original planning.
Through revolution sometimes people are not sure if they want to go further than achieved already or in fact if any changes come about. for example, in Nepal, is that a revolution fulfilled or is it just a people’s war turned into reformism? who are we to judge these things? Yes. The monarchy is overthrown and people are happy. And the youth of the party and many groups they have made will continue to seed the correct understanding of what the party really wants at the end.
And in there, i of course dare to say that when this or that ex-comrade has stepped out of the party there is a GROUND for calling somebody counter revolutionary – rightly or wrongly as the case may be – but when there is no revolution whatsoever then are you almost saying revolution is your private property?
And being self centered is a self coup… for me Avakian’s Silver book was an attempt to copycat China. The only other one i ever heard about was little Green book by colonel Moamar Quazafi !
But rcp-ite friends, great comrade Bob, it is never late to in fact expand your horizon and treat people who have for years SERVED you, with all that constitution of this much of your income and whatever else people like this brother Mike had to do as a paper editor. keep the negative feelings for the enemy that the revolution has to overthrow!