Comrade Miller, Fighting Cultism with Revisionism.
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.
"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
Comrade, is there a way you can verify the authenticity of this document purportedly written by Carl Miller? It seems a bit strange to me that you have printed it here but that Miller himself has not printed it on his blog or published it on any other web site or forum that I have found. It's always good to question these kinds of things and make sure.
If it in fact is authentic, thank you for posting it. I would agree with Miller that Workers World's politics are better than RCP's for exactly the reasons he states. But given that he comes from a Maoist perspective, I would think he would like FRSO (www.frso.org) better than WW since FRSO comes out of the Maoist tradition too and explicitly draws on the works of Mao to inform its ideology and day-to-day practice in building the mass movements.
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:12 AM
I have verified this from various sources before printing this, and early this morning, it has been confirmed by Carl Miller. Carl Miller has rejected RCP and Maoism itself, claiming that Mao Zedong merely put socialism toward Chinese characteristics. He claims now to be a "revolutionary Marxist-Leninist." Carl Miller however in my opinion has drifted toward the Trotskyite positions of WWP. When I asked him his thoughts on FRSO, he dismissed them.
It seems after a few years of being apart of the RCP youth group, Comrade Miller, like many young comrades has been jaded by the Party and has learnt nothing. I am not sure in anyway that he understands Maoism anymore than before joining the RCP.
Hopefully Comrade Miller can see that his position is a mistake and a turn toward the right Opportunism of WWP
Posted by
ShineThePath |
10:44 AM
carl writes:
""[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."
and BronxB speculates that the RCP wouldn't disagree.
In fact, this statement is wrong. Wherever islamic fundamentalists have come to power they have proven that they too are "real enemies" of revolution and the massesof people. The Iranian Khomenei forces drowned the people and the revolutoanry movement in blood. The taliban and its precursors locked female teachers in their school houses and burned them alive for teaching girls to read.
U.S. imperialism may be the strongest reactinary force, but it is not the only "real enemy"....
and more, strategically, the poitn is not to look at the world *as it exists* and "pick sides" between the "two outmoded" class forces colliding. We need to break through with a revolutionary pole in a world that is crying out for one.
And that is what the RCP is fighting to do, together with real communist all over the world... while WWP is working to prettify the reactionary forces of third world fundamentalism.
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:01 PM
ordering buses for big demonstrations doesn't mean you are "leading" something.
Especially if you want to lead toward revolution and communism.
The philosophy of "if it moves fondle it" and "what is possible is whatever exists" may lead to various coalitions in the short run, but it won't lead to liberation for the masses of people worldwide.
And Carl's rejection of the need for communists to be ruthlessly scientific and "passionate about truth" is very revealing. If that doesn't matter to you, if you think we can do what needs doing WITHOUT training growing numbers to see the world AS IT ACTUALLY IS and transform it ON THAT BASIS toward communist society -- well then you will have contradictions with the line and practice of the RCP...
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:15 PM
Well, I think what (and I could be wrong...) BronxB is getting at is that there is more involved then coming from a Maoist tradition. Someone can arrive at the truth and a more revolutionary line then the WWP/FRSO without calling themselves Maoist - that's almost irrelevant. You don't have to acknowledge where correct ideas come from (but it is the honest thing to do), but you do have acknowledge the correctness of correct ideas.
That said, I am a bit surprised such a leaping towards outright revisionism of Carl. Though, honestly - he did seem to be on the dogmatic side of things when he was supporting the RCP, and seemed to miss the important aspects of the Mass Line - as most in the RCP sphere do.
This is sad, but something that the RCP generates. They don't keep people very long - they make them resent the Party. This is largely due to their instrumentalist approach to the Mass Line and mass work generally, as BronxB pointed out.
But maybe a year or so after experiencing the WWP Carl will change his mind and return to a more revolutionary line. After all, he is breaking with dogmatism of the RCP-and that can be confusing and disorienting.
Give him time. Maybe we can change his mind.
Posted by
celticfire |
8:21 PM
The person responding as anonymous has clearly not read a word of what I have written, or merely has assumed that I agree with Carl on his point about "finding truth" and etc. etc., RCP terminology...you like to assert. If you bothered to read I have said
"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.'"
What I have pointed out, as Celticfire has so graciously pointed out is that the "Epistemological Break" claimed by RCP is not a Break what so ever. It has always been apart of the very position of Marxism since Marx's break with the humanist and Idealist rubbish of his time. It was Lenin's break against the Empiricists in his time...Avakian adds nothing new. There is nothing synthetic about what Avakian has put forward...I defy anyone to show what is quite new from Avakian, what can we learn. Is the elastic ball really quite much of anything in terms of theory and practice? I can't concieve so.
The RCP and I agree in a sense that there needs to be scientific rigiorous outlook on the world connected in practice; however for the RCP this is merely something to ideologically hold on upon, while they push a commandist line and not a Maoist one.
My contradiction with the line and practice of the RCP is not that are scientific, far from it, it is quite the opposite. They are indeed the pinacle of utter ignorance. I can list them numerically if you'd like, where the RCP maintains itself to be mystics and not Maoists.
Further the anonymous writer twists what I have stated. I have clearly said that the WWP's apologism for the Islamic Fundamentalists and Iraqi Baathism is indeed appalling...where have you got the sense that I conflate Islamiists with liberators. Yes, I am indeed foremostly opposed to US Imperialism and as a Maoist, it is "right to rebel" no matter who it is. However, do you forget lessons of Comrade Mao on primary contradictions? Opposing US Imperialism is the main objective of ourselves here...It is US Imperialism that is the main antagonistic bloc against Iraqi liberation
Posted by
ShineThePath |
12:52 AM
Wow ShinethePath, this last comment makes me think that you have swung into a more national struggle against imperialism and are breaking away from and adialetcial approach to captialist-imperialism.
the following statment:
"U.S. imperialism may be the strongest reactinary force, but it is not the only "real enemy"....
and more, strategically, the poitn is not to look at the world *as it exists* and "pick sides" between the "two outmoded" class forces colliding. We need to break through with a revolutionary pole in a world that is crying out for one.
And that is what the RCP is fighting to do, together with real communist all over the world... while WWP is working to prettify the reactionary forces of third world fundamentalism." is left-idealist garbage. Perhaps if we were talking about a comprador state that was concilitory to imperialism (india, phillipines, etc) this would be true given circumstance (afterall, the interest of the state is allinged with imperialism in these cases). But with Iran, we have a country in which there is obvious US aggression pointed at it. The US admits that it pours money into "pro-democracy" groups within Iran, Bush labelled them the part of the Axis of Exil. For a fucking "maoist", you sure are a tom for US interests within the Maoist community.
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:03 AM
STP: You said that "When I asked [Carl] his thoughts on FRSO, he dismissed them."
I'm curious on what basis he dismissed FRSO. Did he go into any detail? Or if Carl is reading this, I'm interested in your thoughts.
FRSO practices the method of leadership of working class movements, in unions and in other struggles, that Carl says he is looking for. According to STP, Carl is identifying himself as a "revolutionary Marxist-Leninist" now, which is essentially how FRSO characterizes itself. While Workers World upholds Marxist-Leninist-led struggles around the world, I don't think Workers World even calls itself a Marxist-Leninist organization, though I could be wrong about that.
Anyway, I'd encourage Carl to give FRSO's politics a more serious look and I'd be interested in more specific criticisms if he has looked at FRSO's politics seriously and decided he disagrees.
FRSO website: http://www.frso.org
FRSO Unity Statement:
http://frso.org/about/unitystatement2001.htm
FRSO Stmt on National Oppression in the US:
http://frso.org/about/nq/nq.htm
More statements and analysis:
http://frso.org/about/statements.htm
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:34 AM
A WWP cadre has described their ideology to me as a "synthesis of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao".
That said, they do good mass work (most of the time) in spite of their theoretical limitations.
Posted by
Kosta |
1:04 PM
RCP is so braindead, but WWP isn't much different. I guess WWP's doesn't have that kind of retarded cult though. Who the hell wants to sit around talking about the precious leader all day? It amazes me that anyone gets into RCP, it really does. It's a "check your brain in at the door" organization. More intelligent discussion happens at a Hare Krishna convention than in the RCP.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:21 AM
That last comment by "anonymous" is entirely unhelpful, unprincipled and nihilistic. Referring to revolutionary organizations as "braindead" and "retarded" does not help anyone understand what your actual disagreements are with those organization's politics, or what politics you uphold. That comment could have been written by a right wing anti-communist. Let's aspire to a more principled level of discussion. There are criticisms to be made of the RCP, but the "anonymous" commenter isn't making them.
'Anonymous' is "amazed that anyone gets into the RCP." Yet, many sincere young radicals are attracted to the RCP or its mass organizations. So lets talk about what they are doing right that attracts young radicals, and what can be learned from that. Lets talk about how Workers World has been able to consistently organize and lead massive mobilizations in DC and SF/LA while no other Marxist left organization has been able to do so for the last couple decades (except the CP/CoC along with some of their liberal allies).
Lets learn the positive lessons that can be learned from these organizations' practice. And if you have a criticism, make it a principled one.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:31 AM
Two unrelated points.
It’s amazing how many on the US left uncritically accept the imperialist characterization of the Iraqi Resistance as consisting of Muslim fundamentalists, Al Qaeda, etc. Undoubtedly there are Muslim fundamentalists fighting the US in Iraq but to simplify the Iraq War as Jihad v. McWorld is wrong. There are many secular groups fighting the US. Unknown thousands of “ordinary” Iraqis are fighting the US. I’ve downloaded English languages videos by insurgent groups that don’t mention religion at all except for a customary “Allah willing” here and there.
Would I prefer a Maoist party to lead the resistance against the US? Of course! Should the Iraqis have a chance at real liberation instead of relying on reactionary groups? Of course! Should Maoism take root in Iraq? Of course! Should we have to pick between US imperialism and Islamic reaction? Of course not! That being said, a Maoist party is not going to come out of nowhere in Iraq, lead the people, and expel the US invaders all in one day in the midst of the bloodshed. In a very real sense we have to deal with what we have in Iraq as it exists now.
What the US left does not say explicitly but needs to be said is that the US must lose in Iraq. It must lose big. As big as possible. That is the best of all possible outcomes under real world circumstances. Let Iraq be the Vietnam syndrome of the 21st century. Let it be even worse (for US imperialism) than that. This will only happen at the hands of the much maligned (even by the left) Iraqi Resistance. Sadly, a Maoist vanguard is not going to emerge in Iraq to lead the people. It’s just not going to happen at this juncture.
The only reason there are big protests in this country and others against the war, the only reason the Democrats were swept into office last November, the only reason the Iraq War is being publicly debated (though admittedly in terms set by the imperialists), the only reason the support for the war is at a all time low, is because of Muhammad, Hassan, Ibrahim, and countless others with their roadside bombs, rocket propelled grenades, etc. If anybody is going to end this war, it’s them. Not United for Peace and Justice, the RCP, or some blogger. Think about it. The Iraqi Resistance, which the US left arrogantly dismisses, is the main force that will end the war. Why would the US left, which alleges opposition to the war, cast aside this main force?
Point number two.
I ran with the RCP back in the day before the “culture of appreciation” kicked in. As a result, I never was exposed to it. Ironically, Avakian was almost a non-figure to me in those times. I’m not ready to blindly accept as true everything I read about “culture of appreciation.” But I’m sure some of it is true. What a shame.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:47 PM
RCP uses people. LS defends a cult that wrecks peoples lives and takes advantage of good people and hurts their lives. If LS wants to defend the cult then he should go join it for a year and see what happens. He should shut up unless he knows what he is talking about.
True communists are sick of this kind of the bullshit and covering up for Avakian.
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:58 PM
The person posting as anonymous, and I suspect who you are, should be wareful of what he or she says. I really do mean it. Telling LS to shut up because he isn't RCP is just childish and naive. Further, merely expressing your rage and frustration as you have is not in any way helpful...you have yet to give a genuine critique of RCP even in sum.
Think well....just saying Bob Avakian and RCP is a cult, which it perhaps is, is far from a genuine critique.
Posted by
ShineThePath |
9:23 AM
cross posted from carl's own blog, it's a response to what he wrote here: http://mlmist.blogspot.com/2007/01/broken-hearts-cultism-and-escape.html
ls is right, but doesn't go far enough. if you're going to call yourself a communist then be a fucking communist. use science, use mlm.
who gives a fuck what tee-shirt someone wears at a demonstration? or what kind of look you get from someone?
this isn't about interpersonal relationships (or bourgeois myths about evil communist cultists) in some narrow kind of way. this is about creating a whole different world, and how to get there. who has the line the leadership and the program?
i'm sorry but the crap about bob avakian being evil only serves the rulers, enough said. but do you honestly think that he's the only communist individual leader with a cult(ure) of personality? what about lenin, stalin, or mao? or for that matter che, or gonzolo? what about fucking sam marcy for that matter? i disagree with the cult of the personality in theory and practice, but that doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie is right about communists, or that our leaders aren't fucking precious.
the questions we're dealing with in the communist movement are world historic, and this is absolutely a time in the world where we could make huge gains. eclectics won't do anything good for the people of the world and the proletarian revolution, i'm sorry but it won't. what is communism and what is revisionism? does it matter if people know that and are trained in that? or is it all good? a little marx, a little trotsky, a little mao, a little chavez, a little cuba, hell even a little north korea, and whatever slogans are popular? or is there a line of demarcation between communism and revisionism that actually means liberation or suffering for the masses of people?
people can have principled disagreement. i certainly have a number of disagreements with the rcp, and in fact that crazy cult leader bob avakian is the first to encourage it. but these times demand that we apply the most rigor, the most science, that we be communists and nothing less.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:43 PM
well, here it is:
"The Trotsky I Knew
By Carl
"In my days as a Stalinist, I thought I knew Trotsky. But I have come to discover that the Trotsky I knew was false. Trotsky was not a reformist, a sectarian, or a militarist. Trotsky was a revolutionary, who’s views have been distorted by Anti-Soviet opportunists.
"Reformism
Trotsky was fervently a revolutionary throughout his whole life. He said he was a “revolutionist” and maintained this. It was Stalin who, in 1934 declared the popular front that made the Communist Parties of the world into reformist social democrats. Khruschev did not invent this, it was a Stalinist tradition that said “Socialism in one country” in the USSR, trumped the world revolution.
"Sectarianism
Trotsky was not one to spit on the world revolution, as is done by the
International Socialist Organization and the Spartacist League. Trotsky wrote “In Defense of Marxism” which laid out unconditional support for the Soviet Union and all socialist countries, but a critical support which criticized their bureaucratic character. Trotsky supported the Soviet Union, but was critical of it, from the left, calling for it to be more of a workers democracy, and less of a bureaucratic dictatorship.
"Militarism
The RCP and Bob Avakian maintain that Trotksy wanted to militarize the Soviet Union. I cannot find this in any of Trotsky’s writings. When I read the platform of the Opposition, it does not call for a military state, it calls for more democracy, more power in the hands of the workers, greater services, and a higher level of socialism.
"I currently think it is incorrect to call myself a “Trotskyist”. There is no need for such sectarianism. If the Maoists in Nepal were victorious, this would be a great victory for the working class, and I would have no need to spit on it as “Stalinist”. I support all forces in the world which fight for a socialist future, however, I maintain a position of Marxism-Leninism as being a correct path for such forces to take.
"I do not accept Stalin’s distortion of Marxism-Leninism, and I think
Trotsky, the leader of the Red Army and the champion of the Russian Workers, was a great revolutionary.
"What many people associate with Trotskyism is Shachtmanism. Max Shachtman was a leader of the New York City Independent Socialist League, and later the Socialist Workers Party, who claimed the Soviet Union was not a workers state. He denounced the USSR. His followers went on to found the ISO, the Democratic Socialists of America, the Social Democrats, USA. Many of his followers have gone on to be reformists, and worse, Neo-Cons. If one does not stand with the world revolution, one stands with imperialism.
"The mentality that went with Max Shachtman, saying that because the USSR did not live up to his standards was not worthy of support, also flows through the Revolutionary Communist Party. The RCP looks at the Iraqi Resistance, the brave heroes dying to free their nation from the grip of imperialism, and says “well, they’re Islamic, so we won’t support them”. This leads the same direction as Shachtman’s spitting on the USSR, and this, in the end, will cause many RCPers to go to the right.
"Sam Marcy, the founder of the Workers World Party was correct to point out, that there is world revolution going on, and everyone is on one side, or the other."
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:40 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:40 PM
Post a Comment