It is completely nutso wacko to accuse kasama of behaving like cointelpro piggery. wtf

quoting mike regarding Kasama:
<blockquote> "We have certain principled methods because we have certain goals. Because we want the debate and explorations to happen on a certain high plane — because we want a certain kind of outcome (that moves forward a revolutionary process). Our approaches are not contingent on other people behaving well in groups.
</blockquote>

The RCP's accusation boils down to the result of frustration from inability to have such debate as we see all the time on this site. It is because the RCP can't handle a debate over ideas unless it's on their terms and their chosen subjects.

Here's a passage from the RCP's recent screed (paragraph 2):

<blockquote>An important principle and method is this: if people have disagreements with the line of an organization or individual, "they should take on the best representation of the line they are criticizing, <em>based on what that group or individual publishes about their views</em>, and then state how they differ as clearly and sharply as possible with that line." </blockquote>

Hmmm. And just what are the implications of that little gem?

Looks like nobody can say anything about them except based on what <em>they've said in writing</em>. So, therefore, if you have a secret policy, like, oh, say persecuting gay people. Well, shucks, just can't discuss that, it wasn't written down. How convenient.

Imagine how that would work out if the forms of Christianity, for example, were evaluated in that way.... The Roman Catholic church could only be evaluated on its Bible and papal edicts, but not its priests' all too frequent appalling treatment of little kids, or the Vatican's collaboration with Mussolini and the Nazi's (also not written down).

And who made the RCP the arbiter of what the "rules for radicals are"? Who died and left them in charge of worldwide communism? Who decided what was "an important principle"? Was it the same folks who realized it was a <em>convenient</em> principle?

If you proceed from having a godhead at the top of your organization and the org is defacto always in the right because of its leader, you can cook up a lot of stuff, moral choices, "facts," "policies" that best serve and justify that end, furthering that self-proclaimed and self-justified "rightness."

It is hard to imagine that from the inside of their group that it does not feel like some form of Orwellian nightmare: You are supposed to see four fingers when they hold up only 3. "Reality" such as they are supposed to see it, is what the leaders say it is. All rise for the 3-minutes HATE. Whew.

This is completely irresponsible behavior. The RCP claims that investigating questions of history and political line is "piggish" and reminiscent of COINTELPRO. Apparently they forgot that sowing paranoia and distrust among revolutionaries is itself classic pig behavior.

@JB Connors

As I told Mike privately, most of the people in the left I have discussed this with have the same view as you. Except they feel Kasama suffers of the same and this whole exercise smacks of the pot calling the kettle black.

@SKS Who have we denounced as "piggish" or "counterrevolutionary"? Who have we accused of presenting an existential threat by criticizing us? Certainly there have been times when members of Kasama Project did not respond properly to criticisms, either dismissing or responding defensively to them (I have been guilty of this myself), but I hardly think that is even remotely comparable.

Yeah. WTF indeed. Where are the ad-hominem attacks on BA? I confess that it's still surreal to me to see the RCP engaged in exactly the sort of dishonest, unprincipled behavior it used to pride itself on not partaking in. What about line struggle motherfuckers? Remember that?! Jesus christ!

I find this accusation disgusting!

It is the typical false accusations fabricated in the bureaucratic offices of the KGB in the 1930s. The one violating security here is RCP whom from the beginning of KASAMA spread false rumors about the integrity of Mike Ely.

Forget about the advancement and contributions of Mao over Stalin. In RCP's political practice, Stalin prevails over Mao:

* not the Maoists' two line struggle, but the monolithic party;
* not the encouragement of dissent, but repression of dissidents;
* not a cultural revolution from below, but a cultural counterrevolution from above with Avakian accusing everybody of revisionism except himself;
* not the use of different methods to handle contradictions among the people, but treating contradictions among the people as contradictions with the enemy,...

Forget all about promoting dissent or debate in so-called Avakian's new envisioning of socialism in the 21st century.

Here you have a good example, a clear proof of the type of response critical views will have in the authoritarian state capitalist utopian society Avakian and RCP envision. Have no doubt about what the destiny of people who dissent will have in RCP's and Avakian's "socialism." Have no doubt about the destiny of someone like Mike Ely will have in Avakian's nightmarish 21st century "socialism."

RCP offers an outmoded view of the world! Avakianism is a return to a pre-Maoist Stalinist era. Whatever our thinking about Stalin is, it is an outmoded view relative to Maoism. Contrary to Avakian's rhetoric, his is an outmoded view of the world.

This is why nobody takes RCP seriously. RCP is desperately trying to grow. But with their outmoded methods and cultish propaganda about Avakian, they will never succeed in having an impact among the masses.

I want to publicly express my solidarity with Mike Ely and I to make a call for folks around the country to confront RCP members in public about these false accusations.

Hard for me to even read the article. My eyes just start skipping parts. It is like I know this is garbage at a very gut level.

Did anything in specific prompt this? It seems that the site has really moved beyond critique of the RCP. The last thing that I read about RCP on here was the piece about the Deng Demo, which <i>upheld</i> an RCP action from the past as exemplary.

Kasama is way beyond the point where it need define itself in relation to the RCP. How to conduct line struggle with stuff like the above garbage? Just let people read it. Maybe link to any of the recent posts that have <i>any</i> discussion of the RCP, so that people can see that it is an empty attack.

oy fucking vey! what miffs them the MOST is any criticism of their ridiculous god: "uncle bob," (as i used to refer to avakian, much to the chagrin of cadre). it's so pathetic that they find a need to continue trashing kasama and distorting mike's principled--and warranted--political criticism. such behavior has a sense of desperation to it...

the fact is that the group is obsolete, and while it's been cathartic--and instructive-- for many of us to decompress and share here about our experiences w/it (WITHOUT NAMING NAMES for christ's fucking sake!), i'm pleased that we've been able to move on.

their accusations are false and --i would argue--- delusional.

How's that new purge going Bob? Getting a lot of Kasama spies out?

Absolutely ridiculous charges from the RCP!

Has anyone else noticed that in the RCP statement they only have links to their own material? In particular they link to their terrible response to the nine letters, but not to the actual nine letters. This statement is a prime example of the RCP's "method and approach," in so many ways.

I think it is great that Kasama has made all of the material relevant to these ridiculous charges available and provided links, people can decide for themselves!

Ok, so when someone criticize the RCP, it's a personnal attack against Bob Avakian... Interesting...

seems, that the RCP ("Avakian's Witnesses" would probably today a more appripriate name) reaches new levels of paranoia and cultishness ... which can lead to catastrophies or simply an implosion of the group

I think that this piece from the RCP is just bait. The RCP are the political equivalent of the Orphans street gang in Walter Hill's great film "The Warriors." The RCP is a dying sect and responding to these charges gives them the oxygen they cant get anywhere else.

I know it is probably difficult for comrades who were once in the organization or in its orbit to fully grasp how irrelevant the group is and how responding to their inanities only encourages them. I bumped in to a couple of RCP organizers at OWS and I felt very sorry for them. They were older comrades who had clearly given the best of their life to this organization and it has degenerated into a pretty bizarre and now infamous cult. It may also be hard for comrades who related to the RCP in some way in the past to understand just how bizarre an organization it appears to those who were not relating to it.

I know it may be hard to do, but I think we should ignore them. The RCP is just does not deserve a response, they have no influence. .

The RCP is an embarrassment. Wow. What new level of depths can they reach?

Utterly speechless here.

How odd, been what, three months since Red Closet. Something has happened to the point that the RCP found itself in the position of having to attack Kasama and Mike instead of ignoring it. Look at the bright side, by posting Mike's name and Kasama you will get hits from people who probably have never visited Kasama before, as well as people seeing what a much better site this is than the RCP's which is terrible. I mentioned to a friend of mine in the RCP about a year and a half ago how bad their site is, I was told that they realize it needs to be overhauled, nothing was ever done.

What I find particularly ludricous and insidious about these (IMO desperate) slanders is the timing. If the "Red Closet" posts and commentary is what triggered the RCP's claims of "piggery", etc. directed at the Kasama Project, and Mike Ely in particular, they have had almost 6 months to debate these posts.

And the timing? As thousands have joined the Occupy movement, are in motion, are helping change the political landscape and culture--both nationally and in tandem with sisters and brothers internationally, and helping to target the real enemy of the people worldwide.

IMO, the rcp accusations and more so their methods, is another wake up call to revolutionary communists and revolutionary-minded people to continue to not only further break with old ideas, but continue to break with old and time-worn methods of "struggle" employed by the likes of the rcp. No one organization, certainly not in the U.S., is the center of the universe...although there are some who still seem to cling to that notion.

They make very serious charges. Serious charges demand serious evidence. They provide none.

I read something the other day that I think is appropriate to this attack, "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

We have nothing to gain from this engagement. We denied the charges, pointed out they provided no evidence. Let's move on.

As much fun as it might be to dog pile their rotting zombie of an organization, it doesn't make us look good.

Comrades and readers, let's stick to the high ground, as much as we can.

It is good to hear people speaking out in support of Kasama.

People do want to hear it. And it does give people strength to formulate their own statements.

So they can then join with us to build the kind of revolutionary movement that is so needed,

I agree with Mike on the point that there are some important things that we can learn from this discussion.

A new movement has taken the political stage. People are struggling to develop new forms of organization that are inclusive. I see the importance of this discussion as helping us, as part of a new and dynamic movement, move forward and not as dwelling in the past.

What role can and do communists play in this movement? What sort of principles to we share and encourage? The RCP (and in particular Avakian) has made an error that would have disasterous consequences with political power. The mistake the RCP is currently making is not unique to the RCP. The early RCP came out of a vibrant movement and learned through struggle about the horrible consequences of police-baiting. Why now does the RCP depart from their previous position?

Lots and lots of people struggle with the question of why have communist organizations and parties gone bad?!? We need to look at the history of the communist movement. This error of jacketing political opponents is one that communist parties have made in the past and continue to make. The more that we can understand about this history and experience the better for our movement.

And I agree with Mike, I do think people want to hear us say--no, Kasama did not engage in naming people, etc. We really aren't obsessed with the RCP. On a personal note, I have been extremely proud of the way that Mike keeps struggling with us all to take responsibility for critically looking at our communist history--to own it and on that basis move forward.

Rita

Obviously the attacks on Mike and Kasama are ludicrous. It is regrettable that we have to waste precious oxygen on this, but Mike is right that we are obliged to, if only because of our international audience, And once the matter is engaed it is important for people to express their solidarity with Mike especially since this is a direct attack on him. It is true that any response is out of proportion to the RCP's relevance, but of course this isn't just about the RCP. It is also about establishing standards for principled relations between different currents within a larger revolutionary movement.

I am somewhat convinced by Mike's argument that it was necessary to respond. And I certainly agree that Mike was personally attacked and deserves to be defended and supported. I am a little confused by one point that Mike and TNL made. The idea that the international nature of Kasama's audience makes a response more necessary. This may be besides the point but my curiosity is piqued. Does the RCP enjoy more international credibility than domestic credibility? I would think just the opposite. that the grandiose claims for Avakian's importance would seem even more bizarre to comrades outside of the U.S.

Mike:

No one else in the left agrees with you claim that the RCP had never practiced bad-jacketing until now. You are simply defending the fact that for 30 years you were part of a cult that as a matter of routine bad jacketed people, oppositions etc.

If you believe the times the RCP and then you are upholding very serious accusations against, for example, Carl Davidson, who posts here. Is Carl Davidson a cop? Because this what the RCP said about him using similar language as to what they now use to Kasama.

Mike, regardless of agreements and disagreements we might have, you need to really understand that the image you have of the RCP until you left is not sustained in reality - and your bias as a member does skews your appreciation of history.

I see the issue as being bigger than the RCP.
Their irrelevancy is... irrelevant.

There is a question of method of struggle and ideological line here that is important.

That method of struggle is this:

Label an organization as 'enemy' so that you can avoid actual principled line struggle.
Justify the 'enemy' label with mere declarations and no factual support.
Use that label to consolidate your forces without having to actually engage ideological and political line.

The ideological line is this:

The distinction between the enemy and the people is subjective. Contradictions with ideological and political opponents, especially when associated with recent splits, should be treated as contradictions with the enemy because they are 'objectively' the enemy since (in a fundamentally tautological way) they dis-agree with your correct line.

This subjectivist distinction between contradictions among the people and contradictions with the class enemy bears no objective support and is advocated only by declaration and hype.

This is unacceptable opportunism from an organization claiming to be maoist. This methodology does great harm to the international communist movement and needs to be repudiated.

Ideological and political line struggle are fundamental and necessary to our development. It is critical that we develop an environment of principled struggle that rejects this kind of subjective opportunism.

Revolutionary Communists must insist on a higher plane of struggle.

<blockquote>“Specifically, including very recently, there has been a whole practice of naming individuals who are identified on the Kasama site as being connected to the RCP, and then encouraging people to try to find out about individuals, their relationship to the Party, and speculation about the composition of different bodies and membership in the Party. And there has been an ongoing campaign of posting ad hominem (personal) attacks on Bob Avakian in particular. This alone puts it in the same camp as reactionary and vicious right-wing blogs and websites, doing the work for government agencies whose mission is to collect this kind of information which is then used to destroy individuals and organizations they deem to be a threat.”</blockquote>

I’m almost embarrassed to say I’ve drafted several comments on this in the last few days, only to think midway though, “What a waste of time…”

Others have said what I intended to say. The statement is simply untrue. As I look back over several years of postings I find no single instance of someone “naming individuals… as being connected to the RCP” in any inappropriate way. The individuals who have been mentioned as “connected to the RCP” (by people writing for or posting on the site, which of course is an open site where anyone observing the rules can post) are individuals publicly known as being members or supporters of the RCP.

I find no instance of anyone posting on the site “encouraging people to find out about individuals [and] their relationship to the party.”

I frankly don’t think many of us are interested in “finding out” a whole lot more than we already know about what remains of the RCP. I can’t find any post that seriously encourages “speculation about the composition of different bodies and membership” in the group.

People have noted matter-of-factly that we have no idea who is on the Central Committee of the RCP. But that is not speculation; it’s merely a case of drawing attention to reality.

I find no ad hominem attacks on Avakian. An ad hominem attack is directed at an idea through association with a person. No one is saying any particular idea is wrong because it’s been voiced by Avakian. And no one has criticized Avakian or any RCP figure in an unprincipled way. BA has been satirized as a Wizard of Oz. He’s been accused of heading a cultish organization by some on this site (and many elsewhere). But these are not “personal” attacks on Avakian, unless you think the objective recounting of historical experience amounts to personal attack.

I’d ask any RCP member/supporter accessing this site (because you’re defying orders and doing so, or have been assigned to monitor it) whether it’s an “ad hominem attack” on Bob if someone recalls him denouncing “faggots” at the RCYB founding convention. Or if someone criticizes him for his disastrously mistaken lines on the inevitability of World War 3 between the US and Soviets in the 1980s, or his misunderstanding of the phenomenon of “Christian fascism”.

Where are the unprincipled attacks, or personal disclosures, that serve the interests of “vicious right-wing blogs and websites”---as opposed to the revolutionary-minded people who have gravitated towards Kasama due to its vigor and creativity that throw the RCP’s exhaustion into such sharp relief?

The nice thing about this statement is that it will no doubt incline some attracted to the RCP to check out the site for themselves. What they will see will not just expand their horizons of information but provide a whole different approach to revolutionary politics that can only be liberating, refreshing.

It is a profound point that people want to hear you say what they do believe anyway. People see you are for real.

I reread the one of the red closet stories this morning. It is really hard to believe this did go down the way it did.

It wouldn't today. I can't even imagine it. But if we don't tell the stories we lose the history and the lessons of history.

It is an ongoing question was the party ever worth it. Yes it was I do believe. But the main point is today and that's what these conversations are about.

Mike E,

<blockquote>"I’m a bit confused. First: none of this is “fun.” We have been accused of police activity. And I have personally been accused of consciously setting up people for police attack."</blockquote>

I'm referring to a few posts from people which basically are just snarking at the RCP and Avakian, such as comments 10 and 11.

According to what Kasama published; to what the RCP said; and to the answer, I support Kasama against those vicious attacks. They have no place on a revolutionary movement. It's a sectarian behavior.

Keep up the fight Kasama!Total support from France.

I can appreciate the desire to limit the critique of the RCP to what Mike calls "questions of line" (i.e., their ideas). I see why this would seem like a very principled approach and, in many respects, it is. But, at the same time, a real analysis of the group requires going beyond what the RCP says about itself and its convictions. It also requires placing people in a real context—talking about their class backgrounds, their racial and ethnic origins, even their habits and characters, etc. It is important to be cautious here, given that it is easy for discussions like this to turn into ad hominem attacks, but the risks have to be faced. People and groups are much more than disembodied "forces" acting on "lines."

Mike Ely points out:

<blockquote> "the RCP now does not focus on the real line questions that separate them from Kasama — and they have fallen back on this old communist habit of attacking our motives, claiming we lie without pointing out any actual lies, accusing us of putting them in legal danger, and (now) actually raising the specter that we are “conscious” of the ways we are helping police plots. This is a change in RCP policy, and one we should point out, and criticize. This is not the kind of political culture and logic that a broad revolutionary effort should adopt."</blockquote>

<strong>To put a point on it: </strong>the RCP slur against Kasama has one primary and one secondary audience.

First, it is about re-phrasing their dictate that RCP members (or those close supporters who follow orders without the pretense of democratic participation) refuse to discuss or reference anything that Kasama writes or does. Denouncing it wasn't enough, as that was a plain departure from the communist culture of <i>engaging</i> contradictions. No.

Now they say:

<blockquote>"engage, and you are doing the work of the police."</blockquote>

If you can't win a game... change the rules. Which of course only works on those who accept the word of Bob Avakian as a literal command from heaven. (BA, chapter and verse).

The second audience is communists internationally, who <i>only</i> know the RCP from its own self-pronouncements. Although all significant bridges to the international movement have already been burned by Bob Avakian himself, through his declaration that he personally is the "dividing line" between revolution and counter-revolution within the communist movement — there are still a few who don't know that the RCP is no longer a political organization.

The RCP is not a political organization, let alone a revolutionary communist party. It is a cult, dedicated singularly to retaining a dwindling membership around the vacuous elevation of their guru/leader/chairman.

That Kasama even has to respond to such nonsense is a sign of how weak our movement is. And of how poor our political schools, publications and networks are at engaging the truly burning issues of the day. Consider it a challenge to meet.

There is no political force or social sector in the United States that has any respect for the RCP. Nobody reads their press. There's nothing there to read. They are incapable of dealing with the actual terrain of struggle, and from my recent experiences don't even understand the basics of normal social life — let alone how to lead.

That they seek to turn Mike Ely into their own private <a href="/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein" rel="nofollow">Emmanuel Goldstein</a>, with BA as Big Brother, is farcical. Who cares? Who EVER says, "What does Bob Avakian think?" about anything?

Seriously.

That said, public lies require public repudiation. I understand this sad letter as a control mechanism for their cult. It has no currency anywhere, among anyone.

SKS writes:

<blockquote>"No one else in the left agrees with you claim that the RCP had never practiced bad-jacketing until now. You are simply defending the fact that for 30 years you were part of a cult that as a matter of routine bad jacketed people, oppositions etc."</blockquote>



Who is this "no one else in the left"?

I remember, consistently, as a member of the RCYB being dissuaded from engaging in attacks on other organizations, and again consistently being trained to deal with problems with other groups on an ideological/practical basis (called "line struggle" in Maoist vernacular).

On exactly two occasions I remember being told individuals were "suspect", and in both instances there was no claim that they were agents, only that they weren't organizationally trusted by that party.

I'm aware of all kinds of anecdote and gossip that have passed as serious political discussion among all sorts of leftists. Cop-jacketing is a MAJOR departure in the RCP's internal universe.

When it comes to issues of state infiltration and cointelpro: the issue is a set of behaviors that agent/provocateurs engage in. Stop the behaviors and solve the problem (as best we can). Whether someone is a Brandon Darby or a fool, a sociopath or a full-time cop can be beside the point. That's why accusations are serious business. Stick to what people DO, not claims of who they ARE.

my two cents.

I will also note that Kasama, since the drafting of the Nine Letters by Mike Ely, has refused — as a matter of principle, insisted on by Mike Ely himself — to engage the psychological control mechanisms in the RCP's basic structure or the personal peculiarities of Avakian which are responsible for them.

I believe these are important issues for understanding what the RCP actually is, which is a cult and not a political organization.

There have been many arguments and discussions about this, and I have been in the minority. Others see the "high plane of two line struggle" as where such issues should be dealt with. But again: there's no high plane when it comes to isolating people on principle, manipulating them, wrecking people's lives and damaging them for entirely non-productive purposes. It's not about political differences, in this case, any more than Jim Jones' escapades were.

If Avakian thinks all of world history is dependent on people thinking he's super special... that is a form of mental illness. There's no other word for it. It's not "line" — it's not politics. It's bonkerism, to use a phrase coined by Alexander Cockburn.

<blockquote>"If you believe the times the RCP and then you are upholding very serious accusations against, for example, Carl Davidson, who posts here. Is Carl Davidson a cop? Because this what the RCP said about him using similar language as to what they now use to Kasama."</blockquote>



If he gets the time, it may help for CD to weigh in on this. Does he recall being branded specifically as "a cop" by the RCP (as opposed to, say, "a rotten opportunist" or some such)?

To my knowledge, the RCP hasn't called me a cop -- although certainly a revisionist, which they may consider worse, hilariously the 'creature from the white skin privilege lagoon,' which had me and friends rolling on the floor laughing, even a 'lover of Jackie Kennedy' from Bob himself in a debate I had with him at a RYM conference in Atlanta.

The latter was caused by my defense of the ERA and noting that women of all classes could suffer, variously, at the hands of male supremacy.

In turn, I usually characterized Avakian's style of argument as 'demagogic' and his line as 'left' opportunist, with his belittling of democracy getting him in trouble all along the line.

Today, I simply think of him as bizarre, irrelevant, and even somewhat sad.

I stand corrected then.

I think I have a right to be sarky with the RCP considering the garbage some of their followers have pulled on me. Being accused of not being a real Maoist while Bob purges people who are real Maoists trying to follow a Maoist line does kind of get to me. Especially since I'm not part of the whole RCP-Kasama situation. SO you can see what kind of reaction I'd have ot this kind of news.

I remember discussions with RCP supporters several years ago about the importance of not throwing around cop/informant accusations and learning some of the basic ideas about security culture. This was actually one of the better and more educational experiences I had in my time around the RCP, though I suspect this is largely because Avakian was not mentioned in this conversation.

They used to reserve words like "revisionist" and "counterrevolutionary" for Kasama, this is the first example (that I am aware of ) where they have accused Kasama of being anything like police/informants or otherwise undermining security of any organization.

I agree with the above comment (#46) in principle, Mike.

But, as the tame time, the RCP has generated an enormous of anger over of the course of its existence and that will have to be part of the discussion on some level. There this is the Bob Avakain stuff, which of course is weird enough, but also the homophobia, the unvarnished totalitarianism, the defense of groups like the Shining Path, the laughable assertion that it was a "vanguard" party, and a more general degradation of political discourse through the use of hyperbole and loopy rhetoric.

I know that you broke with the group some years ago now—I respect and acknowledge that—and there's a lot that I like about the Kasama website (including and especially your insistence on the civil discussion of political differences), but I believe that the RCP's legacy is fundamentally destructive and negative.

CWM writes:



<blockquote>"I agree with the above comment (#46) in principle, Mike. But, as the tame time, the RCP has generated an enormous of anger over of the course of its existence and that will have to be part of the discussion on some level. There this is the Bob Avakain stuff, which of course is weird enough, but also the homophobia, the unvarnished totalitarianism, the defense of groups like the Shining Path, the laughable assertion that it was a “vanguard” party, and a more general degradation of political discourse through the use of hyperbole and loopy rhetoric."
</blockquote>


Let's just set the RCP itself <em>aside</em> for a second (as virtually everyone on the planet has)... and approach this a bit more from the general (than from this particular).

Even if the legacy of a group <em>were</em> to prove (after examination and study) to be "fundamentally destructive and negative"... so what?

My point is that <em>we</em> need a <em>political culture</em> that trains people in <a href="/http://kasamaproject.org/2011/11/11/what-is-the-high-plane-of-2-line-struggle/" rel="nofollow">critical and long range thinking</a>... not cheap verdicts and snarky partisanship.

And we should not "respond in kind" -- i.e. when facing individuals and groups that are unprincipled, deceitful, manipulative etc. we should, nonetheless, respond using <em>our</em> own methods, in order to have the movement and society <em>we</em> want. It is not the case that we should treat everyone in a principled way <em>except for real assholes</em>...

(There was a moment in the Cultural Revolution, when several of Mao's close supporters put forward an approach of "attack with reason, defend by force." Mao pointed out that the moment you gave yourself permission to use force within this Red Guard movement, every attack would be justified as a 'defense.")

I don't doubt that groups exist (or will emerge) that prove to be "fundamentally destructive and negative." But I am arguing that we should examine (and if necessary expose) <em>their</em> methods and approaches "from the high plane of two line struggle" -- not from the method of "who shot john" (and the accompanying methods of cheap snark and blanket dismissal).

<b>Who shot John?</b>

Someone asked "who is john?" Which is a reasonable question, that (nonetheless) made some of us grin a bit.

<strong>Look: </strong>If we don't approach differences and conflicts (within progressive movements) from the point of view of long term goals -- how do we deal with them?

One is a highly perceptual and subjective method: Where someone lays a long list of grievances and details that no one can possibly unravel...

<blockquote> "I was in a committee with xxx, and they were very bossy. When we came to a vote, they brought two people yyy and zzz, and so the vote didn't go my way. When I complained, they didn't listen to me. I think it is because they all seemed to come from elite colleges and are arrogant. When I went home, my bike had a flat and I suspect that zzz slashed it. Afterwards, they didn't call me back, and meetings were (i believe) held without me. But in the public meetings they acted like I was still part of the committee, but decisions were already made. So I really hate their group, the Micro-League for Perpetual Sorrows (MLPS)."</blockquote>

If differences are posed <em>and left</em> this way (at that level of non-summation without a discussion of ideological and political line), a number of things happen:

a) No one knows what the <em>underlying</em> issue of <em>line</em> because it wasn't excavated. (That includes <em>strategic</em> line -- i.e. where to go -- but also <em>organizational</em> line -- i.e. how to make decisions; and <em>ideological</em> line -- i.e. who do we serve, how do we view self interest, how do we think about complex things. etc.)

b) This form of the criticism (leaving things at perceptual and subjective levels) produces a long mind-numbing debate over "who shot john" where the MLPS writes a response:

<blockquote>"It is true that bbb was on a committee with us, but bbb was totally uninterested in doing any work, and when we expected accountability, bbb responded by accusing us to trying to take over. We had to bring two more people onto the committee just to get the basic work done, and then bbb didn't want yyy or zzz to have any say or vote. We have pre-committee meetings of our faction, but don't see anything wrong with that. As for the tire claim, it is not true, the MLPS is fundamentally opposed to giving other people flats, and think bbb is an asshole and a liar."</blockquote>

And so it goes -- the interaction between political currents gets reduced to the kind of micro-chatter that follows a very bad date.

Political disputes become much much clearer (and more productive) when they are associated (as much as possible) with the issues of overall direction: What are the MLPS goals (for the committee and within the committee)? What are these votes where bbb ended up in a minority? Where would MLPS' politics and organizational methods take the larger movement? and so on.

<b>A negative example</b>

There was a real life example of this recently around the Ottawa Occupation movement, when some revolutionaries went into the movement and encountered anticommunism (and hostility to their rather <a href="/http://kasamaproject.org/2011/10/28/and-what-about-consensus/#comment-45762" rel="nofollow">mechanical and dogmatic approaches</a>. They responded by running away, publicizing a classic "who shot john" denunciation full of incidents, details and complaints about individuals -- while not proposing solutions, or creatively reaching out to the other participants and (unfortunately) insisting that the occupation is too unsafe to participate (i.e. encountering some problems that exist within almost all the occupations yet responding in ways that are far from constructive problem-solving.)

My impression is that these folks fleeing the Ottawa Occupation were fairly new to radical politics, a bit naive, and encountered problems they just didn't know how to solve -- and there is no crime in that. But their public <a href="/http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=ottawa%20occupation%20rcp&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CCQQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpcr-rcp.ca%2Fpdf%2FWhy_We_Left_Occupy_Ottawa.pdf&amp;ei=AI7BTqXQJKqFsgKbuqWfBA&amp;usg=AFQjCNFOixY-C86BtpFVnBTEDRvwuu3uEg&amp;cad=rja" rel="nofollow">denunciation of the Occupation</a> is an example of the wrong way for communists to approach problems -- and its "who shot john" methodology does not lead to insight or good resolutions of <em>contradictions among the people</em>, and really just ended up denouncing the occupation without helping to solve the real problems on the ground. If we learn from their negative example, then perhaps something good will come out of that episode.

<b>What we can learn by excavating line</b>

CWM writes:

<blockquote>"the RCP has generated an enormous of anger over of the course of its existence and that will have to be part of the discussion on some level."</blockquote>

Go read the <a href="/http://kasamaproject.org/2011/08/02/opening-the-red-closets-door-then-a-demand-to-shut-it/" rel="nofollow">Red Closet series</a> again.... obviously there is plenty of basis for justified anger.

And yet, the authors there were actually quite careful in their approach and tone.... not in order to somehow "be soft" but in order to be forward-looking and constructive.

Really the point here is <em>not</em> "aaaa, bbbb, and cccc, plus Bob Avakian of course, are such homophobic assholes."

The point is that a revolutionary current was (for reasons that are being excavated) unable to change their backward and entrenched views on an important matter. They stubbornly went through the 1980s AIDS crisis insisting that gay people are reactionary and also literally persecuting them (relatively secretly) within the organizations ranks. And then when they finally changed their public views, they refused to do a serious and substantive self-criticism (or even an accounting) and their organization (more or less) fell apart as a result.

There are substantive matters here that will appear in other movements (including our own!):
* about secrecy and cover up
* about organizational accountability, courage and honesty
* about cults of leadership specialness
* about the basic community and solidarity among revolutionaries
* about how the communist movement has historically dealt with sexuality, and how it can become revolutionary on those matters

Sure, anger is reasonable -- among those persecuted (certainly), among those who were kept in the dark while their organization did awful things, among those lied to about these matters, a little self-directed anger by those who didn't do enough, anger among those driven out of the RCP for demanding accountability and serious summation....

But we also (as a movement) can only learn limited things from anger. And this is an experience that really has potential to <em>teach</em> us things -- if we approach it that way.

The point to me is not really to demonize the RCP or those who were at the core of this awful line and practice.
<strong>
The point to me is far more humbling:</strong> I believe <em>any</em> real revolutionary movement <em>will</em> have such moments... where their old views are seriously out of step, when deep problems are discovered or awful things have been done.

And I think we need to learn from this experience (and also those of us who were there need to do some real self critical thinking and soul-searching).

<b>Look:</b> In one of Mao's base area, there was a major spy scare that led to a lot of decent communist being killed in the 1930s. Something similar also happened much more recently in one of the base areas of the Communist Party of the Philippines. In one period the CPUSA turned its back on Black people (refusing to support the double-V movement during world war 2, and dissolving its apparatus in the Jim Crow states as part of its alliance with the Democratic party). Some political forces in the U.S. made propaganda supporting the Pol Pot regime and at the same time supported the Deng counterrevolution in China. Or.... if you zoom in close on the Black Panther Party, you can see practices and events that are sometimes truly shocking (including mutual shootings during a political split, but also even worse things).

The point with the excavation of past problems is to seriously grapple with <em>coming</em> problems -- it is precisely not (as the RCP charges, and you seem to agree) to demonize the RCP past and present.

How easy that would be! And how unhelpful!

No, we need to anticipate the future -- how will we hold leadership accountable without creating very weak organization? How will we handle events and conflicts that threaten to tear our movement apart? What kinds of things need to be secret in a movement, and what kinds of problems can secrecy be used to cover up? How to we become flexible enough to see the new that is arising and emerging (like Act-up, the queer movement were in the 1980s), and not become old, exhausted and backward as we fight to hold "fidelity to our fidelity".

An easy (and snarky) demonizing and dismissing of the past RCP actually robs us of the hard answers to certain hard questions.

And it is similar to the way that some people just demonize and dismiss Stalin or the Soviet Union of the 1930s.

If we naively take the easy road and say "these are obvious questions, and the inevitable verdict is simply 'they suck.'" -- Then, unfortunately, we will find ourselves startled and unprepared when real life inevitably brings us <em>ourselves</em> to the brink of the kinds of difficult and unexpected choices that test your conviction and ethics.

Yeah, Mike, I agree with your arguments about the futility of demonizing the RCP. I share your views there.

But I think I differ with you in two ways:

- While I agree that long term goals should be central to any discussion of the left (past or present), I don't think that the analysis of the left or revolutionary movements can be reduced to that. Among other things, there is a class, racial, and gender context that is important. We need to look not only what people or groups want, or said they want, but also who they are and how they fit in the social order.

- There is the historical question of the turn toward Maoism in the late 60s/early 70s. I regard that turn as a huge disaster and the RCP's problems as illustrative of why. Of course, we differ on this point, but frustration and anger about that turn is a very real part of the political landscape (not just for me, but for many).

I certainly share and admire your desire for open debate and the respectful discussion of differences.

Mike, it kind of confuses the dialogue when you change your comments after posting them. It retroactively changes the context, which I find a little frustrating.

CWM writes:


<blockquote>
"Mike, it kind of confuses the dialogue when you change your comments after posting them. It retroactively changes the context, which I find a little frustrating."</blockquote>

Sorry man. I only do such self-editing on the first read-through (how can i resist?!), and try not to do it much later.

* * * * * * * * *

CWM writes:



<blockquote>"There is the historical question of the turn toward Maoism in the late 60s/early 70s. I regard that turn as a huge disaster and the RCP’s problems as illustrative of why. Of course, we differ on this point, but frustration and anger about that turn is a very real part of the political landscape (not just for me, but for many)."</blockquote>

Yes this is an important historical question for summation. And I understand what your views are.

But again, this is a matter of line -- not of snark, anger, or easy verdicts.

Put another way: If you look close at any real world revolutionary effort (whether a relatively small one like the RCP, or a world-historic one like the Chinese revolution), you will find the ludicrous and the lofty, you will find things we celebrate and things we grieve.

And I am arguing against a method that stops cold at discovering some of those "things we grieve" and says "Ah, there it is, that settles it, these folks are fucked." Because that is an idealist method.

The fact that serious problems developed in the RCP doesn't mean that the "turn toward Maoism" was a disaster. That requires an overall summation.

And our own walk along the revolutionary road needs for us to learn <em>well</em> the negative lessons from the past (of our <em>own</em> movement) <em>in order to do better.</em> And I think easy dismissals just rob us of those lessons, and leave us <em>more</em> vulnerable to a repeat.

<strong>One example that has come up: </strong>We have discussed here the question of cheap cop-baiting. This was (as we all know) a legacy of the Comintern in the 1930s. Virtually every group I ever met who had roots in the CPUSA also had a habit of casually police baiting political opponents. (the early PLP was one example. The more recent CIA-baiting of Avakian in some dogmatic circles is another.)

The early RU/RCP critically observed that police-baiting (in the past and in the 60s, and how COINTELPRO exploited it!) and drew a lesson -- and consistently did something different. (Until recently..... heh.)

This is an example of learning from a critical evaluation of the past, and we need to do a lot of that in regard to the previous communist movement (and are trying to do that here on Kasama). We are just starting (obviously) and have things to say and learn (for example) about the negative example of forming small mini-sects (that portray themselves as parties but are, in fact, incapable of organic fusion or actual party creation). There too, approaching the past experiments seriously (and even respectfully) is important to actually extracting what we can. Forming sects may have been <em>all that was possible</em> during the down turn of the 70s and 80s -- so again it may be wrong to speak of "disaster" without considering the objective possibilities of the times, even while it is necessary not to reproduce the waves of self-delusion that (unfortunately) went along with doing what was possible.

that's cool. . . no prob

I keep trying to write something profound and eloquent it keeps getting out of hand and incredibly unwieldy.

<strong>Here's the short version: </strong>I am in full support of Kasama and its driving force, Mike Ely. As a longtime supporter of the RCP for many years (until a few years ago), I completely reject the attacks that organization has launched against Kasama and Mike Ely. I am very, very glad that Kasama exists. It is a breath of fresh air and an important forum -- and voice -- for revolutionary-minded people everywhere.

For the record, I could have easily named names.

I wanted to. You better believe there was a part of me that really really wanted to. There were a lot of long conversations with Mike and others where I hashed out all my feelings and remembered long-buried experiences. Believe me, I know exactly who was involved. I know who was at what meeting, what (current) leader said what to me. Who interrogated me about my sexual thoughts, asking me if I looked at lesbian porn. I know the names of every single person who was involved.

I could say and do a lot to expose people for the fucked up shit they did to me when I was young and vulernable.

But the point is that as much satisfaction as it would give me personally to publically call people out for the shit that they put me through, that's not what we do. We argue on line. We argue on actions. We argue on facts. Unlike the RCP, we aren't engaging in a personal attack on individual party members. (Even though I could easily argue that they waged a personal attack - no, more like a war - on me and my sexuality).

If my story and all the other "personal narratives" are just gossip, then they should put their cards on the table and tell us how we're lying. They're the RCP, they keep records. They know exactly who we are. They can figure out who all the people in these narratives are - so if we're lying, they should say it.

But they aren't doing that are they? Nope. Because they know we aren't lying. They know this isn't gossip, lies, or half truths.

And the fact that they dismiss my story as "personal narrative" of something that happened long ago - fuck that shit. They never appologized to me. They never came to me and said, we're sorry and this is how our line has changed. Even their "change" of line never took into account the many people like me who were closeted within the RCP/YB that they knew of already (not to mention the pain of people who couldn't handle the closet and left, or who became alcoholics or developed personal problems because of the stress of hiding who they were).

Just because something happened long ago doesn't make it irrelevant, especially when the people who did it have never accepted responsiblity for what they did.

And also, to echo someone else's story about German Shepherds - "by the way, I don't have sex with dogs, and I don't name names publically either."

Libri, while I definitely respect your right to deal with this in the way you deem appropriate, I can't help but wonder: why *not* name names? It seems to me that it is a good thing to hold specific individuals accountable for their specific actions. Is there a reason to protect these individuals from the embarrassment that they would presumably feel if their names were attached to their grotesque actions?

I think I hear what you're saying, Mike, but the damage done by the RCP was not done abstractly (to abstract people by abstract people), but by specific individual to specific individuals and it seems to me that real accountability requires naming names. Of course, one can and should be still be principled when discussing individuals, but that is sort of a different issue.

Not that I would have information to share, but I don't feel any impulse to protect the RCP at all. And no one who persecutes LGTBQ people has any right to make a claim on my solidarity. Furthermore, it's not like exposing someone as an asshole homophobe would get them in trouble with the police or some other law enforcement agency. And, actually, the individuals who hounded LGTBQ people in the group are probably doing something equally fucked up right now. It would be good to know who those individuals are/were, so anyone who has the misfortune of interacting with them can steer clear.

Mike, the discussions here have led me to believe that RCP has long used the excuse of creating a "security culture" to shield itself from criticism and that, of course, is really reactionary. Naming someone responsible for persecuting LGTBQ people within an organization, who is doing so as an authorized representative of that organization, is not the same thing as "leaking information" to the police and does not jeopardize the RCP's security. It's about holding people accountable for their actions—real, specific, concrete individuals.

There are many ways to hold people accountable. Publicly naming them and associating them with particular actions is one way that is appropriate to certain circumstances. It is certainly not appropriate to all situations. Indeed it is often counter-productive. In my years in the movement I've learned a lot of dirt on a lot of people in a lot of groups. In the name of "accountability" I suppose I could just put all of that out there. I don't think that is constructive.

While the RCP may use its security culture to avoid having to account for its actions, the practice of not naming members or leaders of an explicitly revolutionary-minded organization is, I think, entirely legitimate and there is no compelling reason to violate that. What would it really add to this discussion to say "Joe Blow, district organizer of such and such city, said the following screwed up things to me in 1988"? And what names should be used -- legal names, pseudonyms? Would any of that really hold the RCP more accountable than the approach taken here? There is much evidence of how the approach you are suggesting can rapidly spiral into destructive cycles of mutual recriminations that, in addition to disrupting organizations, actually distracts from the political substance of the questions being discussed here. The approach taken here has been far more effective, in my view, in exposing what was wrong in the RCP's practice, so much so that they have felt compelled to make these ridiculous accusations.

And accountable to whom?

There is (or should be and has been in lots of cases) an unspoken principle—a principle of leftist, radical or revolutionary “etiquette” (if you will) that you don’t name names.

Victor Navasky wrote a whole book about it, in reference to the McCarthy witchhunts—“Naming Names.”

(Hey--“We’re” not the only ones reading, participating in, supporting, or even lurking on Kasama. The ruling class has an interest in this revolutionary-communist site too, and most likely increasingly so, especially as things heat up worldwide.)


It is the rcp’s overt reactionary line on homosexuality, with all the reverberations from that “former” line (some think not simply former but some of the same currents with a little different shading) that has caused such a ruckus. Part of those reverberations, has brought forward those who went through excruciating pain, and who have brought their experiences to light, some 20 years later.

But I can’t help but think that these testimonials go beyond the rcp—that there are lessons for us all, and that it is beholden on anyone who thinks of themselves as revolutionary-minded, to root out their own backward thinking, as well as struggle against some perhaps more covert homophobia within their various organizations.

Kasama has stuck with its correct principles, and continues to do so—so naming names (under the guise of accountability) is in my opinion, a red herring.