Comrades, I have recently come along an email sent to me about Comrade Miller's split with the Revolutionary Communist Party. This email and statement by Carl Miller is a bit complex, for it shows some true sight of our Comrade but a deviation he has made as well. I have had a long corresspondence with Carl Miller over the years, I think I know him quite well. He is a good revolutionary and a fierce defender in the past of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism despite being in the midst of critique of the Cultist sect "Vanguard" known as the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. Comrade Miller however in his split has deviated in the mechanicism and utter revisionism of World Worker's Party. A group that is ideologically shallow and is Trotskyist origin, not Maoist. I have analyzed Carl Miller's statements, and pointed out some deviations of his post. I shall post as well his statement on this blog, for his blog itself doesn't contain the statement. The source of this statement is indeed unknown, but knowing various people who know Comrade Miller and knowing his polemical style, this is indeed most porbable his statement and I don't post it in haste.
"Repeatedly it has been hinted by RCP supporters that I am not a
Communist. The reason why is often related to an Avakianesque point about “the
struggle to find truth”. That is not what being a Communist is about. That is
what being an intellectual and a scientist is about. A communist is someone
who is a tribune of the people, and actually fights for them and their
interests, and organizes the masses in doing so."
Comrade Miller is utterly wrong, this line is essentially the usual anti-intellectual cretanism that has mobbed the "Ultra-leftism" that he claims to attack. This is the line of Anarchism and Economists, not of a true Communist. A Communist is actually indeed someone who is also pedagogical student of society and is trying to figure the world out. The development of knowledge in our practice is a "struggle to find truth." This is just purely a dialectical Materialist position of the development of knowledge and what Mao has caused Mass Line. What Carl Miller puts out is simply spontaneity, it is what Lenin was fighting in his work "What is to be Done?" and also in "Left-wing Communism." Comrade Miller misses the whole point of "struggling to find truth" promoted by RCP, and Avakian's "Epistemological Break." Epistemology HAS always been the basis of the Materialist view point of the world, and Avakian's "New Synthesis" is nothing new at all. To even give definition to the "New Synthesis" is impossible ebcause it merely a hotch potch of the writings that give little definition to anything "new" or defining in Avakian's thought. Avakian merely combines some humanist thought to his rather instrumentalist and mechanical thinking. Revolutionary Communist Party can't begin a new break in the ICM when they still can't comprehend Maoism itself, and negating the most important breaks that Mao and the Communist Party of China had made.
Carl Miller's essential populist line of what a Communist is, isn't correct. Miller essentially misses Mass Line, throughout. Communists are not merely tribunals of People, and don't merely "fight for their interest." Fighting for their Interest is not defined here. How does a Communist fight for their interest? By using the transitional programme of World Worker's Party or using Mao Zedong's Mass Line? Communists, in difference to Trotskyites, are not merely "tribunals," this is a position that a communist must earn through the struggle to lead and educate the masses while educating themselves. The pedagogical task of a Communist is most important "From the People, to the People." It isn't merely about leading, but building communist and class consciousness which the worker (especially in the US) lacks. We as Communists, take the scattered ideas and interests of the masses and synthesize that to create a plan-of-action, then we learn from our practices and sum up our experience. This a continual process that is apart of the dialectical process of knowledge, this is the epistemology, the truth of Communist methodology that has given success to our movement that both RCP and WWP neglect. RCP throws out this synthesis by Mao as economist, and WWP uses a Trotskite programme.
"Workers World Party formed the ANSWER coalition, which led hundreds of
thousands of people in the streets to oppose the Iraq War."
However WWP isn't the main "socialist" Party that leads ANSWER, it is well known that this destinguished position is that of the Party of Socialism and Liberation. PSL's programme can be defined as more revolutionary and foresighted than the old Trotskyites in WWP; however they follow the essential revisionist formula of Ludos Martens. Further, whether or not WWP formed coalition is pointless. Trotskites organized the Teamsters and were important in the Union Strikes in the 1950s, but I would suspect that Carl Miller would not tell us to join the Trotskyites. Essentially, Carl Miller's position is the position of Opportunism and Menshevism. We evaluate a Vanguard not merely on how successfully they can organize a protest amongst the activist community, but rather what their political line is as well. And evaluation of WWP reveals utter revisionism in their political line. Further WWP, despite what Carl Miller states is not much different from RCP in terms of "leading" the masses of people or organize them. Their mechanical position of foistering themselves in the worker's struggle has led to no progress in their past or today. They remain like the RCP, at best a revolutionary sect.
"All members of Workers World are very active in their trade unions."
Which Comrade Miller, shows the utter mechanicism and Trotskyism of WWP. Trade Unions represent 7% of the labor force in this country, and WWP doesn't contain any sway or power over the Trade Unions. The refoundationists in the FRSO had exercised more power; however because of their utter one sided understanding of Mass Line and basic economism, they become merely a more "workerist" front in Trade Unions (which are dominated by the Labor Aristocracy). They turn to Trade Unionists and not Communists, which shall always coem with the one sided economism of groups like WWP. If WWP were really wanting to become the leaders and vanguard of workers, and really build the consciousness of the masses, they would have adopted the Mass Line tactics of Maoists long ago, and become of the Masses struggle on all fronts rather than nostagically looking to Trade Unions as the real bastions of workers power.
"The RCP, while it may support these struggles, clearly is not
interested in organizing them, and just sees them as an opportunity to spread the
cult of Bob Avakian, and sell newspapers."
This indeed a true statement. And I am in agreement with Miller on this point.
"[a]n Islamic State is not desirable in Iraq, but at the same time,
the real enemy of the people of the world is the U.S. Imperialists, and all
INTERNATIONALISTS must side with those fighting to free their country."
I am not sure if RCP suggests quite otherwise. Essentially what this amounts to is the agreement with Apologists and instrumentalism of the Communist movement, which WWP is apart, for the brutal oppression of peoples in the country of Iraq, Yugoslavia, and else where. "Better than US Imperialism," one has to say yes and no to this question. In our opposition to Imperialism, we become strange ebd fellows in the struggle with various fascists, nationalists, petty bourgeois organizations, and even the fundamentalists. However Fundamnetalism is in no sense desirable, or the fascism of the Iraqi Baathist Party; however for WWP they fawn over Hussein and other questionable suspects in the "anti-imperialist" struggle going as far as denying their horrible crimes.
"That [referring to a selection of the Revolution newspaper] might speak to college professors of Philosophy, but not to the interests of the workers. The people in East Cleveland do not know what 'petty bourgeoisie' means. They also do not know what a 'proletarian' is. This is not an insult to their intelligence, it is merely a fact. We have a system which purposely miseducates and under-educates people."
Carl Miller on this point further tries to point in comparison to WWP's more "simple usage" and how they are more accessible to the workers. Carl Miller's point is actually a mix with his own intellectualism, the truth is workers aren't so stupid as Carl Miller claims. Though one must say that a weekly paper like the Revolution or Workers World should have a simple but thorough polemic that exposes the systematic and daily expolitation and oppression of people in this country and through the world; however being said, there is no reason why a Party should not delve into the questions of "intellectual" importance and relevant to the knowledge that a party needs to succeed, one of course recommends that such issues and topic be apart of a theoretical journal, but knowing that RCP has no such journal they use their paper to put material on theoretical issues that concern the ICM. The relevancy of Carl Miller attacking the usage of the word "Proletarian" over workers is not of major importance to justify split. It is secondary, it is true RCP doesn't have a clue when it comes to the masses and how to "create public opinion and seize power." They are indeed reluctant to bring a communist message to the Workers and focus on the "intellectual circles," their practice of organizing events has shown this; however why this is done is more importantly because of the line of RCP which is antagonistic toward Maoism. The main question of the contribution of a Party's paper is line. Is the line of WWP any better? For reasons stated already, no. They are revisionists and opportunists, no better than the cult of the Avakianistas.
"Most of the RCP’s supporters, interestingly, are not workers, but intellectuals."
This is true throughout the left in this country, even amongst Carl Miller's "beloved" WWP. In a sense this will always be true, even the workers that join the leadership of Parties usually become organic intellectuals in a sense. Lenin has already shown that it is an organized core of such intellectuals who are the vanguard of revolutionary proletariat. What is more important however, and this is the basic reason why RCP and WWP shall never become a Party with mass support or the masses with them, is they don't utilize the Mass Line and are simply commandists. They have never trully breaked with the vulgarized instrumentalism in the Communist movement.
"As far as I am concerned, there is really only one line within the RCP,
that is, the line of Bob Avakian."
That is absolutely true. And this is also has led to RCP's shallow line for more than 30 years.
"During the past year, a discussion came up about 'What is to be done?.'
I actually read 'What is to be done?,' but this was a struggle. Originally all I was supposed to do was read Avakian’s 'enriched what is to be done.'"
This has been true in the experiences of myself as well and other people familiar with RCP. They promote a version of WITBD in a way that is actually a vulgar and simple formula, and doesn't understand the true struggle Lenin had with the economists. In this, RCP uses this to justify their appalling anti-Mass Line "Maoism." Labeling all Day-to-Day struggle as economism.
"
Lenin led a revolution, overthrew a capitalist state, and built the
world’s first socialist government. What does he know in comparison to a man
who has lived in France eating waffles for the past twenty years? (See the last
sections of memoir for Avakian’s own admission of this fact.)"
This statement, while obviously sectarian, contains a truth but it is unrecognized by Comrade Miller. It is indeed true, that Lenin's experiences led to a much richer understanding of the state than was possible before. He came to understand the State's nature and relationship in making society itself, breaking away with merely state as the ligiment of economy. He understood what it meant for a State to be a dictatorshp. Avakian on the otherhand, through his "new synthesis" merely objects to Leninist knowledge of the state in certain levels (for example, the state being absolute dictaorship, being beyond laws). What Avakian does is become a Humanist, projecting utopianism and Idealism into "what is possible" and stating this to be a "break." This is no sense a break, and it is just an underlying stupid critique. Communists know that we would like to learn from the experiences of Soviet Union, China, and other Socialist states and learn how to create a better revolution, a better society, that can break in some ways with some of our history's atrocities and brutalities. However, we can only engage this in the actual realm of practice where we can learn what is and is not possible, and in situations, will have to be as brutal and relentless as the Bolsheviks.
"The RCP is an obsure Ultraleftist sect. Workers World Party is a group which actually reads and understands Marx and Lenin."
This last statement is actually confusing from Carl Miller who has considered himself a Maoist. Calling RCP an Ultraleft sect is a half truth, in fact they share revisionism of both right and ultraleft tendencies. But beyond that, why does Carl Miller whose blog, http://mlmist.blogspot.com/ reduce the role of Mao Zedong here. WWP doesn't understand Marx or Lenin; however Carl Miller leaves out Mao! Why does he do this? This can be a simple mistake; however I think it is the turn of Comrade Miller toward the right opportunism of Trotskyism and of WWP. A Party which openly rejects Mao Zedong as a theoretical leader of our movement, a party which before everyone supported Yugoslava revisionist Tito and Khruschev, and labelled comrades Enver Hoxha and Chairman Mao Zedong "dogmatists" and "ultraleftists." Ultraleftism was used by WWP to characterize Maoism, and the implication by Miller is essentially that RCP DOES understand Mao Zedong (which they do not) and that Carl Miller rejects Maoism on whole. Carl Miller through his statement states nothing about Maoism and how RCP deviates from our ideology. Does it stand that Carl Miller has drifted toward Trotskyism? Hopefully he will inform us; however as it stands now this seems to be the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Miller's Statement
Why I Split with the RCP, and Why Workers World is Where I am turning
#1: They are actual Communists…
Repeatedly it has been hinted by RCP supporters that I am not a Communist. The reason why is often related to an Avakianesque point about “the struggle to find truth”. That is not what being a Communist is about. That is what being an intellectual and a scientist is about. A communist is someone who is a tribune of the people, and actually fights for them and their interests, and organizes the masses in doing so.
Being a Communist isn’t about showing up at an Anti-War/Anti-Death Penalty/Pro-Labor rally and selling newspapers and CDs. Being a Communist means you are the ones to organize that rally, and lead your class in fighting back against the system with all your might. Communists are tribunes of the people; they are not parasites who cling to spontaneous resistance as an opportunity to promote a leader.
Workers World Party formed the ANSWER coalition, which led hundreds of thousands of people in the streets to oppose the Iraq War. Workers World is currently leading the struggle to free the Lucasville Five. Workers World played a key part in organizing the movement to free Mumia Abu Jamal. All members of Workers World are very active in their trade unions.
The RCP, while it may support these struggles, clearly is not interested in organizing them, and just sees them as an opportunity to spread the cult of Bob Avakian, and sell newspapers.
#2: Iraqi Freedom Fighters Are Not the Enemy
Imagine if the U.S.A. were invaded by Muslim fundamentalists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are being slaughtered by these Islamic Imperialists, torture chambers are being set up, etc. Imagine then, that a resistance was organized to defeat these invaders, however, many within this resistance were Christian Fundamentalists (Fascists).
The line of the RCP, as they are applying to Iraq, would be that both sides in this conflict are wrong. They are “two outmodeds”. The resistance fighters, though they are fighting against Imperialism and aggression, are JUST AS BAD as the invaders, simply because they do not hold the same ideology Bob Avakian.
Yes, an Islamic State is not desirable in Iraq, but at the same time, the real enemy of the people of the world is the U.S. Imperialists, and all INTERNATIONALISTS must side with those fighting to free their country.
#3: Worker vs. Proletarian, What the masses are and aren’t
The RCP has been standing on street corners with Revolution newspaper for the last thirty years, and it still remains a tiny sect. That is because its newspaper does not speak to the masses of people, it speaks to intellectuals, and not even them sometimes.
For example, take the first sentence of the latest Avakian selection in an issue of Revolution:
And this relates to the very real and often acute contradiction between applying the united front under the leadership of the proletariat—the leadership of the proletariat, and not of the petty bourgeoisie, or some other class—all the way through the transition to communism on the one hand, and on the other hand, actually forging ahead through that transition and advancing to communism.
WTF!
That might speak to college professors of Philosophy, but not to the interests of the workers. The people in East Cleveland do not know what “petty bourgeoisie” means. They also do not know what a “proletarian” is. This is not an insult to their intelligence, it is merely a fact. We have a system which purposely miseducates and under-educates people.
The RCP refuses to acknowledge this. To the RCP, the masses in the ghettos and barrios are all capable of understanding the above passage, or else “they should”.
This is childish. Millions in this country, especially members of the working class are FUNCTIONING ILLITERATES! Many more are reading on elementary school levels. How in the hell, do you expect them to be digging into six hour Avakian speeches which are not even put in terms they can understand?
But there are terms that workers can understand. Read Workers World newspaper for example. Workers World newspapers exposes the U.S. Imperialists as criminal in simple plain terms. Workers World highlights the events of the workers struggle around the world. Workers World points out that the problems which affect workers in their everyday lives are systemic.
What more, Workers World in the past has had programs on Public Access television. These programs are not videos a bearded man standing at a podium, these are videos of protests, videos of events from around the world, all pointing out the truths about this system.
A great realization of this occurred to me, when I was working on producing a pamphlet with a group of RCP supporters. It was proposed that we include the word “Proletarian Revolution”. I pointed out that most of the masses do not know what “Proletarian” means. I was simply told “they should”.
What kind of intellectual snobbery this is! Rather than trying to appeal to the workers, the workers are expected to become intellectuals on the level of Bob Avakian, and if not fuck them.
This kind of approach to the masses, will not make revolution.
Conclusion:
The Revolutionary Communist Party is a party, not of workers, but on intellectuals. The RCP does not speak to the workers, but to intellectuals. Its propaganda may be taken to the workers, but it does not really respect the workers themselves. Most of the RCP’s supporters, interestingly, are not workers, but intellectuals.
And even for intellectuals, it sucks.
Notice that the only theoretical articles in Revolution newspaper are written by Bob Avakian. The RCP promotes a “culture of appreciation” for Bob Avakian. DVDs are made, which feature one speaker, Bob Avakian.
As far as I am concerned, there is really only one line within the RCP, that is, the line of Bob Avakian.
In the eyes of RCP supporters, Bob Avakian is like Jesus Christ. No jokes can be made about the great Messiah. No disagreement with his line is promoted.
RCP supporters actually admitted to me once that they only read the selections from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao which Avakian reccomends.
During the past year, a discussion came up about “What is to be done?”. I actually read “What is to be done?”, but this was a struggle. Originally all I was supposed to do was read Avakian’s “enriched what is to be done”.
Lenin led a revolution, overthrew a capitalist state, and built the world’s first socialist government. What does he know in comparison to a man who has lived in France eating waffles for the past twenty years? (See the last sections of memoir for Avakian’s own admission of this fact.)
The RCP is an obsure Ultraleftist sect. Workers World Party is a group which actually reads and understands Marx and Lenin.
Labels: Avakian, Carl Miller, Communism, Cultism, Maoism, RCP, Revisionism, World Workers, WWP
