The Bronx Bolsheviks

Sison is Free!

2007-09-13T17:00:00.001-07:00

Prof. Jose Maria Sison Released

BY EMILY VITAL
Bulatlat
September 13, 2007 - 9:47 p.m.

Prof. Jose Maria Sison would be released from the National Penitentiary in Scheveningen, The Hague in the Netherlands around 6:30 p.m. (Philippine time) today, Sept. 13, according to Connie Ledesma, a member of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) peace panel.

In a statement posted at the website of the Dutch Justice Ministry, the court said that there are no "sufficient indications that the accused [Sison], while living in the Netherlands, committed the offenses he is charged with, in deliberate and close cooperation with the perpetrators in the Philippines." It added, "Neither do they [charges] contain sufficient concrete indications that the accused incited others to commit these serious offenses,"

Sison was arrested on August 28 and was charged with ordering the killings of Romulo Kintanar and Arturo Tabara. The New People's Army, armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), has admitted the killings.

However, the Dutch court also said, "…there are many indications in the files which support the point of view that the accused is still playing a leading role in the Central Committee of the CPP as well as in the military branch of the CPP, the New People's Army (NPA)."

The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) welcomed the development but said the persecution of Sison may not be over yet. The group will continue to hold a mass action tomorrow, Sept. 14, to celebrate Sison's release and to warn the Dutch, U.S. and Philippine governments against further violating Sison's rights.

Single Spark Collective Statement on the Sison Arrest

2007-09-13T15:51:00.000-07:00

Statement on the Arrest of Jose Maria Sison in the Netherlands

On August 27th, 2007, Comrade Jose Maria Sison was arrested by the Dutch authorities for alleged criminal acts in the Netherlands around the death of two men in the Philippines. Comrade Sison has been harassed by Dutch authorities for the last two decades, pressured by US Imperialists and the Arroyo clique.

The Filipino people have a long history of fighting against colonialism and Imperialism of all sorts for centuries. This long history of struggle has continued to this very day, as US Imperialists exploit and plunder the Filipino nation. Comrade Sison, affectionately known as ‘Joma’ by the masses of people, was the founding chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines, which organized the New People’s Army in 1969 and launched a Protracted People’s War that continues to this day. In 1977, the Marcos regime arrested Sison and tortured him for nearly a decade. In 1986, when the fascist Marcos dictatorship fell and Sison was released from prison, Comrade Sison went into exile in the Netherlands. After much struggle with the Dutch authorities, he finally received political asylum in 1992.

The US Imperialists and the Arroyo clique have waged a brutal campaign against the forces for Democracy and Liberation in the Philippines. In the last few years, the Arroyo thugs have murdered over 800 political activists, clamped down on democratic organizations, and waged an intense war against the New People’s Army. In this process, US Imperialists and the Arroyo clique have begun their campaign to target Jose Maria Sison. The US has officially designated Comrade Sison a ‘terrorist,’ and the European Union, following the heels of the US, did precisely the same; however Comrade Sison won his appeal to the European Union to change his status.
Jose Maria Sison is far from a ‘terrorist.’

Comrade Sison still works for the liberation of the Filipino people from outside of the Philippines and for the struggles of oppressed and exploited peoples throughout the world. Comrade Sison became a political consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines and the chairman of the International League of Peoples’ Struggle. He remains a fierce and determined fighter for Revolution and Liberation throughout the world and a supporter of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army fight for revolutionary socialist change for the Filipino people.

This being said, the CPP has been stating for over 20 years that Sison is no longer involved in operational decisions and that he serves the revolutionary movement in an advisory capacity in Europe. The treatment of Comrade Sison by the Dutch authorities is a glaring slap to the face of the struggle of oppressed peoples. Sison has been under solitary confinement, isolated from his family, his supporters, and the people of the world. Such is the hypocrisy of the Dutch authorities, while imprisoning and inhumanely isolating a champion of the people, they follow lockstep with the butchers George W. Bush and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

The Single Spark Collective stands with Comrade Jose Maria Sison and demands his immediate release. The Dutch authorities are blatantly acting in the interests of US Imperialism and the Filipino fascists by arresting Sison. We defend the revolutionary struggle of the Filipino people and stand with their leadership.

Free Comrade Jose Maria Sison!

Long Live the Filipino Revolution!(September 2, 2007)

[Other Statements on Sison's arrest include
The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, Freedom Road Socialist Organization/Organización Socialista del Camino para la Libertad, Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back), Party for Socialism and Liberation, BAYAN USA, and National Lawyers' Guild]

Defend Jose Maria Sison!

2007-08-28T12:33:00.000-07:00

DEFEND JOSE MARIA SISON and ALL FILIPINO PROGRESSIVES!

News ReleaseAugust 28, 2007Reference: Berna Ellorin, Secretary-General, BAYAN USA, email: secgen@bayanusa.org

RELEASE JOMA SISON!!! --- BAYAN USA

Fil-Am Alliance Condemns Dubious Arrest of NDF Political Consultant

The US Chapter of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, or BAYAN USA, an alliance of over 12 Filipino organizations in the US, vehemently condemned the arrest of the National Democratic Front Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria Sison last night by the Dutch Police on false charges of multiple murders.

The alliance further condemned the raiding of homes by the Dutch police of the NDF personnel.

Sison was arrested last night for multiple murders of Romulo Kintanar and Arturo Tabara. Police say Sison ordered the murders from the Netherlands back in 2003. Sison will be put on trial in the Netherlands, not the Philippines.

While the New People's Army has already come forward with admittance to the killings, Sison maintains he is not in the leadership of the NPA nor the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).

BAYAN USA maintains the real reasons for Sison's arrest are political not criminal. Emergency actions will also be set at Dutch consulates across the country calling for Sison's immediate release.

"Behind the actions of the Dutch police is the Arroyo government, which since its ascendency has been in pursuit of Joma Sison and worked tirelessly to subdue his meaning to the people," states BAYAN USA Chair Chito Quijano.

The alliance, a member of the International League of Peoples Struggle, an international organization of which Sison serves as Chair, has been calling for a de-listing of Sison from the US and EU terrorist lists. "

It is in every interest of the US and Arroyo governments to confine Professor Sison for his politics. As the Chief Political Consultant to the organization that comprises one half of the stalled NDF-GRP peace negotiations, the Arroyo government is declaring to the world it is not interested in resuming peace talks," Quijano added.

BAYAN USA has also supported the resumption of peace talks between the NDF and GRP. The Arroyo administration just recently called to intensify the all-out war in Mindanao under the auspices of the US War on Terror as a measure to raise its annual pork barrel of military aid from the US government.

BAYAN USA also asserted it's been a year of hot water for the Arroyo administration, with isolation from human rights watchdogs such as the UNHRC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and even a US Senate hearing that may influence US military aid to the Philippines. Sison, a political refugee in the Netherlands for nearly 20 years, has been one of the most famous and vocal critics of the Arroyo regime.

Earlier this year, a European court nullified Sison's terrorist listing. Since his listing of 2001, Sison had his assets frozen and right to work stripped. Sison remains on the US State Department's terrorist list.

For more information, contact BAYAN USA at info @ bayanusa.org.

Urgent Need to Right Wrongs at DePaul University

2007-08-21T00:10:00.000-07:00

With the fall semester beginning very shortly, students will be hopefully into a new enviroment of radicalism on Campus. Students forced by this State and society are earning a new sense of truth, dignity, and justice throughout the country. Whether it is the Campus Anti-War Network, Students for a Democratic Society, or more local formations taking root like the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee. The cause of freedom and liberation has sparked the pouring of thousands of students into whatever outlet they can find to oppose the brutal oppression and exploitation of US Imperialism throughout the world. The struggle for national liberation is still well and alive in the consciousness of students.

Professor Norman Finklestein has contributed in the field of scholarly work concerning the national oppression of the Palestinian people. Our movements are in depth to Professor Finklestein for producing such immense wealth of knowledge of the current conditions of Palestinians, the historical roots of this oppression, and the state of Israel's colonial project from before its very inception as a state and forged nation.

Finklestein, a senior and respected academic scholar and Professor at DePaul Univeristy was denied tenure alongside collegue Mehrene Larudee. Both were denied tenure the past month of July because of the political pressure of Dershowitz and other members of the intellectual cliques which value a closed universe of discussion on the matter of questions such as Palestine and Israel. A closed universe that fits to their fraud history of Palestine. This was done precisely in the summer to let settle any possible popular resistance from the student body of DePaul. Students coming into classes this fall should be acutely aware of the injustice and number done on Professor Finklesten and Larudee.

That is why I am producing Professor Bill Martin's article that was featured in Dissident Voice and the online edition of Revolution Newspaper (RCP,USA).

Urgent Need to Right Wrongs at DePaul University
by Prof. Bill Martin

August 9th, 2007

They did the wrong thing: the denial of tenure to Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee at DePaul University must be reversed, and very quickly.

Most questions having to do with ethics, politics, and university administration are both simple and complicated. Certainly there are many complex issues involved in the case of Norman Finkelstein. There are perhaps fewer complexities in the case of Mehrene Larudee, which seems to have been treated by DePaul administrators as simply an adjunct to the Finkelstein case. That would make the adjudication of her case an even greater wrong than what has been done to Prof. Finkelstein. But the complex issues should not be allowed to obscure certain simple facts. The administration at DePaul did the wrong thing in these cases. Both Finkelstein and Larudee should be granted tenure and promotion and given every encouragement to continue with their good work in the classroom and in research. These wrongs must be corrected very quickly, both for the sake of Professors Finkelstein and Larudee, and for the sake of the credibility and intellectual legitimacy of DePaul University, which is very much in question at this time. The eyes of the intellectual world are on DePaul, and the leadership of DePaul, which first of all means the president, the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the senior faculty, only have a short time in which to make things right.

What I write here, as a senior faculty member at DePaul, I will write as if I am addressing the president of the university, Father Dennis Holtschneider. Fr. Holtschneider is a man whom I have very much liked and respected, and I hope to like and respect him again. What I say here I would say to Fr. Holtschneider directly, but it is clear that letters from faculty members to the president, while good and helpful, are not going to be enough to go against the larger political tide that the Larudee and Finkelstein decisions represent.

Indeed, I hope that Fr. Holtschneider and Dean Suchar (whom I have also liked and respected over the past seventeen years, the time I have been at DePaul) and others will recognize what I say here as part of an effort not only to help, but indeed even to save DePaul University, and therefore, to help them as well. The stakes of the Finkelstein and Larudee decisions are very high. DePaul has been, in my view, a politically progressive university. I have been very proud of DePaul in this respect, and have felt very happy and privileged to be a part of this university. DePaul has made an effort, far more than most universities, to stand for social justice and inclusiveness. Although there are some first-rate scholars and theorists and creative practitioners in the many departments and schools of the university (and I do not hesitate to say that I am especially proud of my own department in this regard, which also excels in diversity and inclusiveness among the philosophy departments in the United States), DePaul is also a generally plebeian sort of place. There is no overestimating the role that a certain Christian perspective, which at DePaul we associate with the vision of St. Vincent DePaul, and which we call “Vincentian values,” has played in making DePaul a beacon of justice and inclusion. I took the fact that the Political Science Department had hired Prof. Finkelstein in the first place to be exemplary of the kind of university that DePaul has been, and that, indeed, is a very good thing.

Now I feel that my politically progressive university has been destroyed in a single stroke, and this makes me sad, sick, dismayed, and angry.

Furthermore, because these wrong decisions have taken place at DePaul, the door is now opened wider for a general assault on politically progressive intellectuals at other universities. This assault is not just some amorphous thing, it is an organized effort. Indeed, this organized effort played an essential role in the decisions at DePaul.

Two things that are very simple to understand need to be said up front. First, you cannot deny tenure to a professor because she or he takes a political stand that you do not like, agree with, or that is going to incur the disapprobation and wrath of some group. Yes, frankly, I think a professor who is an outright racist or misogynist or anti-gay bigot ought to be removed from the university (though even here there have to be procedures, and judgments cannot be based on whims, innuendo, or the self-promoting agendas of powerful persons or groups), but that is not what is going on here. Second, you cannot deny tenure to a professor simply for a rhetorical style that you do not like. A person cannot be denied tenure simply because you find his or her rhetoric “inflammatory.”

Now, when I say these things cannot be done, I mean two things. First, it is morally wrong to deny tenure to a professor on such bases. Second, to deny tenure on these bases goes against anything that could be codified as a basic procedure, and it undermines the very idea of there being procedures, as opposed to the arbitrary whims of administrators or of senior faculty who are in positions of responsibility in the tenure process.

Of course, there is a level on which it does not mean anything to say that “this cannot be done,” since, at the moment, these things have been done. In the case of College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Dean Charles Suchar and of Fr. Dennis Holtschneider, the fallback position ultimately seems to be that they are the deciders. In response to questions and protest raised by one of my esteemed colleagues regarding the decisions, Fr. Holtschneider said that he was sorry for the disagreement but that he was not going to change his decision. This could either be called a complete non-response or the “response” that, in the end, there are only questions of power and no real questions of ethical or political justification. Procedures, which are meant to embody principles of such justification, are rendered meaningless. Surely it can be considered to be a part of Fr. Holtschneider’s job to be concerned about the fallout that would occur if Norman Finkelstein were to be tenured at DePaul — clearly, powerful interests were lined up against this. What is the proper way to address this concern, however? If the response is to undermine the system of principles and procedures, and therefore any basic trust that faculty — and students as well — might have for the university leadership, then it might be said that the university has destroyed itself in order (supposedly) to save itself.

The powerful outside interests that were lined up against Prof. Finkelstein either touched a nerve or found kindred spirits among certain administrators and a couple of key senior faculty; it is not outlandish to suppose that tremendous pressure was brought to bear on some of these, perhaps most of all the university president. The first two stages of the tenure procedure — namely the deliberations and decisions of the home department and the College committee — are supposed to be the most decisive stages. The votes were 9-3 and 5-0, respectively, in favor of Finkelstein’s tenure and promotion. However, the “minority report” (representing one-quarter of the voting members of the Political Science Department) and Dean Suchar’s decision (and attendant documents and conversations) have the character of an urgent intervention. Dean Suchar and the authors of the minority report (Professors Patrick Callahan, James Block, and Michael Mezey, the last being the former dean of the College and someone with a good deal of clout in the university) were within their rights to make their recommendations, from a purely procedural point of view, but only if their justifications were to be submitted to critical scrutiny at a later stage of the process. In fact, their justifications were flimsy, at best, but these justifications were accorded primary status in further deliberations, and the fact that these justifications had been carefully scrutinized and refuted in a lengthy document by two senior members of the Political Science Department, and that this document was then “ratified” by a three-quarters vote of the department, was accorded no status at all. Or, to leave the lawyer-language aside for the moment, anyone can see that a job was done on Prof. Finkelstein, there’s no mystery here or anything else that can be set aside because of other “complex” factors.

By and by, I have no doubt that all of these documents will be on the table (most of them already are), as well as the credentials and standing of the dean and the authors of the minority report, and this will further undermine the credibility of DePaul University. These decisions have created an opening to a kind of intellectual civil war. This isn’t anything I look forward to; in fact my urgent hope is that the decisions can be reversed quickly and we at DePaul can go back to being what we ought to be, on the basis of the Vincentian values of the university. However, if things drag out, then, as with the case of Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado, we will have to look very carefully at the credentials of the people who have questioned (or trashed, really) the credentials of Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee. No doubt, given the timing of the decisions (at the very end of the school year), those who did this dirty job hope that anger and protest will dissipate into the summer. But the destruction of the university will not end with the departure of Norman Finkelstein (and whatever large payoffs are necessary to ensure that departure), if and when that departure occurs. This wound cuts much more deeply, to the very heart of the university.

DePaul has had a tradition of fairness in its tenure procedures, undoubtedly inspired by Vincentian values and a more general sense that we bring people to DePaul first of all in order to support them and give them every chance to excel in their work. We may not have lived up to this lofty ideal in every case, but it meant something that we worked with this ideal in mind. Often, DePaul has been fair to a fault, bending over backwards to avoid even the appearance of unfairness. In contrast, the teaching and research credentials of Norman Finkelstein stand out dramatically, and this again points to the impression that the process was proceeding as it should have, with Finkelstein headed toward tenure and promotion, when a number was done on him. We can talk about the role of various individuals, both inside and outside of the university, and what might be called a “rolling coup” or series of interventions that were made against Prof. Finkelstein, but then the point would be that it was up to certain key individuals, most of all and especially the president, acting as a protector of Vincentian values, to put a stop to this nonsense. That instead certain individuals in positions of leadership and responsibility actually pressed forward with the intervention, facilitating it and adding to it, is shameful.

The ideal of fairness with which we have worked at DePaul is not the norm at all universities, and at some universities it is taken for granted that senior colleagues will put junior colleagues in difficult positions to see how they fight their way out of the corner, so to speak. But then, DePaul, from its founding (in 1898), never had a “Jewish quota,” something that Harvard, from which Alan Dershowitz presumes to give us lessons in ethics, had well into the 1950s. It has been claimed that, in the end, outside influences did not play a role in the decisions. I would say that, at least from the moment in 2006 (June 16th), when then-chair of Political Science Patrick Callahan wrote to Alan Dershowitz essentially to ask for the “dirt” on Norman Finkelstein (”Could you point me to the clearest and most egregious instances of dishonesty on Finkelstein’s part”), the process was poisoned. And how is that for collegial behavior and Vincentian values? In this case it is completely upside-down that the futures of Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee at DePaul are what we are discussing. If Fr. Holtschneider needed anything else to tell the president of the board of trustees of DePaul, John Simon (a supporter of both Alan Dershowitz and of the decision to fire Prof. Finkelstein), he could simply have said that the poisoning of the process by itself means that Prof. Finkelstein has to be awarded tenure, or otherwise the reputation of the university will be very seriously damaged — and so it has been. Unfortunately, the connection between Alan Dershowitz and John Simon, around fund-raising for the Jewish United Fund, is itself a part of this poisoned process.

A further element of the ideal of fairness with which we have attempted to work at DePaul is that we hire people to tenure-track positions in the hope that they will fulfill certain expectations and that we can then award them tenure. Nowhere has it previously been set out in these expectations that a professor cannot use “inflammatory language” in his or her writings or public discourse; nowhere previously has it been said that a professor has to uphold Vincentian values in order to be tenured at DePaul. Even apart from the fact that these requirements, as concocted by Dean Suchar without any discussion with faculty or procedural basis, are nothing but a smokescreen (and not even remotely an effective one) for covering the real issues, surely we would want to talk about the meaning of these new-found requirements; I know that many junior faculty at DePaul are wondering about this, or perhaps justifiably freaking out about it would be a more accurate description. It appears to me that Jesus, for instance, may have said some inflammatory things. Furthermore, to speak up for the existence and condition of the Palestinian people seems like the sort of thing St. Vincent would have done. Lastly, it cannot be a requirement for tenure at any intellectually respectable university that one cannot be a critic of the State of Israel.

But now of course I have veered toward the real issue, the issue that everyone who has followed this case knows is at the heart of the matter. Of course the administrators at DePaul, and the authors of the minority report, know this full well, hence the new-found requirements and the paper-thin justifications. Are these people living so deep inside their own heads that they actually think anyone else is buying this stuff? Seriously, if they really believe this, and I am not saying this in jest, and neither do I take any pleasure in saying this, then their basic mental competence has to be questioned. What is going on instead (for these are not stupid people) is that the crew who did this number on Professors Finkelstein and Larudee just hope that their obfuscations will deter people long enough that the cases will fade away, hopefully during the summer. (A recent response by Dean Suchar to the president of the Faculty Governance Council, Prof. Gil Gott, is a prime example; one great irony — or that’s what it would be called if it wasn’t instead just formalistic obfuscation — of Suchar’s response is that he raised procedural questions about the FGC sending its letter of protestation over his head, directly to the president, as if he himself had not shown contempt for the faculty of the College by overturning the overwhelming majority decisions of the home departments and the College tenure and promotion committee.) However, this issue will absolutely not fade away, and it is very disheartening to many, many people that such a cynical ploy would be attempted by our leaders.

That there is really only one issue in these cases is captured well by a comment that was made at the Norman Finkelstein Solidarity web site: “Keep the C. V., change the subject, and Norman Finkelstein has tenure.” If the “crew” is fooling anyone regarding this, it is only themselves; unfortunately, I can’t even believe that. What I can believe is the combination of enormous pressure that almost certainly was put on some of these people, perhaps most especially the president, combined with the ideological and personal animus that some of them may have against Prof. Finkelstein. One measure of how intense the pressure must have been, coming from powerful pro-Israel forces, is that, last year, DePaul University became the first Catholic university in the United States to have a gay studies program. I was very proud of the university for taking this step (and bravo to the faculty and administrators who organized it); it is the sort of thing for which I have been proud of DePaul for my entire time there, and there have been many such advances. Surely there were many in the Catholic community, academic and otherwise, who were not happy with the formation of DePaul’s gay studies program, but that didn’t stop us.

It would be silly to pretend to debate the question of Israel here, though perhaps not as silly as anyone thinking that Norman Finkelstein’s arguments and research are not a very important part of that debate. The crux of the problem is that there are some who don’t want a debate because, they think, on this issue there is no debate. Part of their position is that there is no such thing as the Palestinian people, though somehow the State of Israel has found it necessary to build an immense wall to contain and shut out these non-existent people. A big part of Norman Finkelstein’s research, and this goes back to his days as a graduate student at Princeton, has in essence been to challenge one of the founding myths of the State of Israel, the idea of “a land without a people for a people without a land.” Just as no thinking person in the United States today can believe that North America was “empty,” a “virgin land,” when the explorers and pilgrims showed up, no one in Israel itself actually believes that Palestine was “a land without a people” when the original Zionist settlers came. Indeed, 1948 is called a “revolution,” and it is hard to see why a revolution was needed if there were only lizards and sand there before. Thus a wall now has to be built against Norman Finkelstein in academia — and if they get away with building this wall they will feel emboldened to build others — even though his position in the debate, and the debate itself, does not exist.

The pro-Israel forces in the United States do not hesitate to fight dirty, and in this case they are even willing to destroy what has been a good university. They were quite willing to attack DePaul for having hired Prof. Finkelstein in the first place, but now Alan Dershowitz praises this “excellent Catholic university” for having fired him. Dershowitz had said that DePaul would be a laughing stock if it tenured Prof. Finkelstein, but of course the reality is that DePaul will now be a laughing stock for submitting (or even simply appearing to submit) to the dictates of Harvard’s leading torture advocate, someone who would probably even be willing to admit that he would be willing to say absolutely anything if it furthered the cause of the State of Israel. Surely part of the pressure used on some DePaul administrators is the threat to unleash the language of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. It does not help that the Catholic church and its institutions does not have a good record on these questions. But let us face the issue squarely: to use these terms loosely, when in fact there are *real* and *really vicious* anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in the world is to trivialize these issues — and why shouldn’t this trivialization instead be called anti-Semitism? To just throw these terms around, to engage in their trivialization in order to advance a political agenda, is disgusting. It is also traumatizing to be called these things, and undoubtedly difficult to find the intellectual and political (and financial?) will to stand up to it, but this has to be done. The cost for not standing up will be enormous: DePaul will be destroyed as a place deserving of respect in the intellectual and academic worlds, and, if this happens, academic freedom will be under attack everywhere.

Without saying anything at all about the State of Israel, or its chief supporter the United States for that matter, we can readily see that, if a particular state is understood to be sui generis, the only true sovereign, and the exception to every rule (including even the law of contradiction, which would say that there is no need for a “revolution” to overthrow people who do not exist), then there are no rules — and then there is no university worthy of the name, either. It attests to the power of the defenders of sovereign absolutism that this — criticism of the State of Israel, especially if done by someone who is not only Jewish but is the child of Holocaust survivors — is the one line that cannot be crossed; no similar line exists, apparently, for the advocacy of torture at elite institutions.

The administrators and faculty at DePaul who created this terrible mess, especially the president, need to come clean. I say this to you now directly: the rest of us ought to appreciate the kind of pressure you are under (and even that people get carried away with certain ideologies and personal animosities and resentments which have no place in a legitimate tenure procedure) and we ought to do what we can to help you stand up to it, but we also have to demand that you do the right thing. Acknowledge the reality that your actions and decisions were wrong. Don’t waste any more precious time with formalistic obfuscation or opening up attacks on your critics. Reverse these terrible decisions and let us get back to the work of restoring the DePaul of which we have been justifiably proud.

For now, a great victory has been handed to people who are essentially fascists. Why is it a great victory? Because, as with Germany in 1933, a decisive role was played by people who are liberals and even progressives. Even more, because a university that should have been one of the last places where something like this could happen is instead one of the first.

Combat Liberalism

2007-08-20T11:49:00.000-07:00

Chairman Mao Zedong

COMBAT LIBERALISM
September 7, 1937

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along -- "So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

They are all manifestations of liberalism.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practise it or to practise it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well -- they talk Marxism but practise liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

Toward a Bright Future: SDS leads the way for the Student Movement.

2007-08-10T17:29:00.000-07:00

It was over 15 hours in a van with students from NYC to Detroit. These were no ordinary students, but students committed toward creating politics that can create an egalitarian and liberated society. The political colors varied from thoroughly Red, to Black, to Pink, to Green, to some mixtures of them all, but what they all had in common was the desire to get to Detroit and begin the process of building a movement, a movement based on the desire to serve the people and smashing oppression. Some with experience in the people's struggles, some more seasoned than others, and many wet behind the ears in their knowledge of the practice of those struggles. Riding in the van to Detroit and arriving there in the first few hours, I was tense, what did I get myself into? Would SDS turn out to be the forum for the self flogging of guilty white petite bourgeois kids, or would it be an actual attempt to create an organization that understood the need for a new Left direction and praxis on the campuses of the US.

I would be pleasantly surprised, and sometimes disappointed by this National Convention.

The pleasant surprises was that there was actually much done, a lot of networks made, and a lot politics discussed informally in a well natured manner. SDS achieved to build unity amongst its different regions, it managed to draw out the questions of the class struggle, the national question, and its relation to itself, and speak about structure and leadership without people having their heads spin. Action proposals for the most part went through, and gave character to what SDS is about. Students unanimously passed the Iraq Moratorium proposal, and will be acting in solidarity with thousands of others participating in it. SDS will be marching on the Capital on September 15th in the International ANSWER supported demo. SDS is showing support to the workers' struggle in this country and challenging the environmental destruction. When the critics of SDS come out of the wood works yammering on what is SDS about, they fail to realize that its broad unity is understood by all within its ranks. Despite its eclecticism, it does have a definite understanding of who they are, and where they are at, but understand that its current stage will need to be superseded by more concrete unity.

Of course such broad unity becomes tedious in the form of liberalism at times. When we go on forever about the process of a matter, or curtail and editing every resolution to a small minorities' concerns, it did get to many a true radicals' nerves. Combat Liberalism is a text that these young radicals should study to understand the need for discipline and taking command of a situation like a few episodes at our Convention. The Broad Unity of SDS did break into a more concrete unity among the most advanced tendencies of SDS, the rallying point of course being the question of structure and leadership. The question of structure is not some mere baseless question of form, but a question of real political consciousness among left students. If a real student movement is to be built, it will be built when we break the immature calls against leadership, against empowerment. Such calls against formal structure and leadership only lead to the authoritarian practices of informal cadre formations, the “undisclosed committee” that exists in many anti-authoritarian models that only sustain itself through the petty bourgeois blindness of the always present structures in society that only reproduce themselves in our own relations.

SDS did make strides in creating a structure, the federated council system, albeit its complexity to avoid any individuals taking too much power seems to only be a call to bureaucracy and for just such individuals to continue to do such work. But this is a step in the right direction, and it did indeed isolate the backward elements of chapters such as University of Central Florida and Tacoma, whose thought seem to converge to the methodology of Crimethinc, The "Ex-Workers" Collective. The proposal for a Nested Council system was withdrawn by its author John Cronan in order to come from this Convention with some direction and formalized way to communicate for chapters.

I found that my prejudices and concerns about Caucuses in particular where not well founded. The Caucuses, and specifically the People of Color Caucus, played a positive role in giving direction to our Convention while not trying the dominated the Convention by utilizing their positions to make any political determining demand on the body. Neither did the Caucuses try to enforce the liberal white guilt mentality by playing identity cards of oppression, “who is more oppressed” game. The direction that the Caucuses gave to our National Convention was needed, and they will become the focal point for further political discussion within SDS.

What are the Revolutionary tasks for those in SDS? Build model chapters, ones which are connected to the struggles in their community, elevate the politics of SDS, and gives an anti-Imperialist analysis to our work. Model chapters that can be emulated by others, by students looking for outlets and forms to begin joining in the struggle against Imperialism.

Where is SDS heading? To the future in my opinion, the organization is now set to handle real political debate and struggle and to begin organizing its campuses (which in many places are already occurring). The Right in Essence group of so-called “Marxists” and Anarchists who have utilized the James Neshewat, a UCF student, produced article to sneer and snicker about SDS show their true colors as utter reactionaries and having no connection to the masses themselves. Their understanding is quite clearly rooted in dogmatic and mechanical approach to building mass, if indeed revolutionary, organizations. There is a need of patience in taking steps and leaps with the majority of its constituency and raising its overall consciousness. The approach of the Right-in-Essence cliques is essentially to ignore this and go to the last step of building real organizations dedicated to popular struggle.

For Marx 2.0

2007-07-24T23:10:00.000-07:00

This is an open letter for all to read on the necessary need to put forward revolutionary Communist politics at the upcoming SDS National Convention in Detroit. In this letter I am speaking toward a couple of the proposals put forward by Pat Korte and Brian Kelly of SDS. Specifically dealing with Korte's vision proposal, which can be found here. The style of this letter is quite obviously polemical; however this is to serve in asking the questions that need to be asked by ourselves. I am entitling this Open Letter, because of its polemical style, and by doing so opening it at the same time to serve as a document in the on going debates on our differances of politics. In good Maoist fashion, lets let a hundred flowers bloom! Let the two ling struggle go forth.

An Introduction to Our Differences

In unity with those who are fighting for an egalitarian society which is based upon serving the needs of the masses of oppressed and exploited people, I am urged to comment and rebuke the line and tendency I have seen in the proposals put forward by some of my own fellow comrades at the upcoming National Convention. Specifically, my polemic shall deal with the Humanist politics put forward by Pat Korte in his vision proposal. I do this not in a sectarian manner, but in the spirit of unity and struggle as well as the maxims of criticism and self-criticism. I was tempted not to write at all on this matter out of the false idea of "solidarity," but to not speak of the ideological consequences of our vision proposals out of fear that this might create bad tensions is the absolute intellectual dogmatism that is persistent in our circles today. We paradoxically speak of not "emphasizing" one struggle over the other, and to keep a "totalist" politics (As Brian Kelly put it forward in his proposal), but this is quite frankly in sum a totalitarian order closeted from us. Let politics be in command, and let's not fear to have ideological struggle within SDS.

The theoretical exchange is an old exchange, which is why I call this letter For Marx 2.0. It is in the same spirit that French philosopher and Communist, Louis Althusser, put forward against the popular and trendy lines of Humanism in his day, defending the scientific legacy of Karl Marx and emphasizing that Marxist politics isn't a Humanism. How do we define Humanism and Marxism? I shall not try to define such theories in its fullest historical development; such an attempt in an open letter would be inevitability problematic. I will however explain Marxism v. Humanism in its simplest maxims. Brian Kelly, in his proposal begins to assert the framework of Humanism via "Totalist" politics, that is "totalist politics" for Kelly doesn't try to 'elevate' one struggle over the other but rather "commit to understanding and paying serious attention to race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, age, ability, and authority without elevating any but instead recognizing the intrinsic importance of each, and their entwinement, and understanding that we must confront the 'totality' of human oppression." There is at one and the same time a lot to unite with here, as a Marxist; however as has been demonstrated before in theory and practice, such a concept is a theoretical muddle. One merely asks the question, upon where did such social relations come? What are they symptomatic of? Asking these questions reveals quite easily to any man or woman interested in the kernel of truth of revolutionary militant politics that such "entwinement" is only possible because such social relations are reproduced daily through our relations to the means of production. That is, history is the process of the class struggle in its most determined being.

This is not to be taken as the usual dogmatic form that has been persistent, that is, the classic formula of base and superstructure, but in the sense that Gramsci and Althusser spoke of when they confronted the cultural hegemony of Capitalism. Such hegemony reproduces its means for production through society; the logic of capital influences all institutions of social being. From the family, the smallest cell of economic production, to relations between nations. Marxists have no interest in undermining the importance of the various struggles Brian Kelly spoke about before, but merely understanding the truth of such relations and how they exist. We do elevate the importance of the class struggle theoretically because it is the fundamental contradiction in our social being and it has its rootedness in all relations. For example, race politics are symptomatic of the Imperialist domination of worldly relations of production. The masses of immigrants coming to this nation can only be possible because of Western super-exploitation in neo-colonies. Race is form of class in the age of Imperialism. The oppressed nations of the world are the exploited nations of the world in the relations between itself and the West.

Democracy and Politics, Who Does it Serve?

What Korte's vision proposal misses thoroughly is such a class analysis; it is my opinion that Korte substitutes such a class analysis for the shallow rhetorical phrases of the movement today. Today one of the shallowest phrases can often be "Participatory Democracy." Whenever presented with the question of Democracy, we must simply ask for whom? What is the class nature of such a "democracy?" Democracy has historically existed in any movement, and democracy takes many forms, but what is its form in our "participatory" model. We are presented with little else than the amalgamation of many different leftist formations. Such formations have historically existed and continue to exist to the present day. What is important is not the many fold types of formations that should exist (which is just the reproduction of the State in its infantile scale), but its political line and class character.

We today, in this epoch, in this country have one of the finest and most liberal of political states. In Europe, such states are even finer in their liberalism, in their "democracy." Universal suffrage, affirmative action, equal opportunity for women, and labor protection, all of such has been won under the liberal parliamentary state, all under the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. It came with struggle, it is protected by such struggles, but it is still won under such a current existing "Democracy." And today, right here in this country, we are convening our National Convention and we are committed to this very society's demise. What we are demanding is not merely more Democracy, we have plenty, what we need is Revolutionary Power in the hands of the masses of people. I will echo the famous demand of all past "authoritarians" and harp upon the need for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I read through Korte's vision of revolution, and it makes me ask whether or not he knows how to make an omelette. Is it not necessary to break eggs? Not once does Korte mention the need for revolutionary struggle, for the overthrow of the Bourgeois state by the means of revolution. Korte talks about the need for "revolutionary transformation," about using reforms to help the people in their day to day struggles, about building the "movement." But without revolutionary leadership, all such that is being called for here can only lead to spontaneity, identity politics, and at best the fake sense of "solidarity" in our struggles. That solidarity I speak of is the mere pragmatism that exists in our Quid Pro Quo model of activism. "Come to my picket line and I'll show up to your workshop." What we are being asked of is revolution without revolution, a chocolate laxative.

How will we hold the Bourgeoisie, the "coordinator class" [or as Marx called it some century and half before Michael Albert, the Petty Bourgeois], down? How do we lead society in its development? It is remarkable that Korte uses Chile in 1973 as an example to emulate! Does he know why the exploited masses of Chile for decades after 73' suffered under the brutal imperialist puppet regime of Pinochet? It is precisely because Allende failed to hold down those class enemies by the most authoritarian means, because he worked through continued reform instead of revolutionary upheaval under his leadership. Fidel Castro duly noted this very fact, Allende's demise was because of his faith in changing the consciousness of the petty bourgeois, in Chile's democratic institutions, and it wasn't with the people. Asking to emulate Chile comes down to romanticizing what wasn't real. Chile in 1973 was a nation of tremendous upheaval, violence, and social contradictions it was brimming with real class struggle. Of course this is true of Paris in 1871 and again in 1968, it is true of Spain in 1936 and of Argentina in 2001. Why does Korte high light these examples though? It is precisely because they failed, because they couldn't keep down their class enemies, and hold on to power. Why not speak about Bolshevik's state power? Or the Communist Party led revolutions that took place in China, Cuba, or Vietnam? What about the on going communist led revolutions today in the Philippines, India, and Colombia? What about new institutions of revolutionary power in Nepal or Venezuela? There is a reason why Korte doesn't speak of their historical examples, it is because it speaks to the need to hold down class enemies, that our politics are not merely "the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations," but the also necessary hammer to smash our enemies with.

On Economics and Power Relations

When we read Korte on speaking on economic justice, he says little to nothing about the conditions of exploitation and how they have come about. How can we create a classless society without recognizing the reason for its creation? In fact the talk of "social ownership" means nothing if such social ownership continues under commodity production and its exchange, that is if we allow the market to continue, exploitation will continue on just not its private ownership form but in its new syndicalist model. This will not only continue exploitation, but reinforce the divisions of labor that will exist in production. Economy must be planned, not merely owned by collectives, but given a centralized character in determining its exchange and its production.

We can't merely rid classes with our ink on our declarations, but it must be a radical change in the very consciousness of the masses of people. This is including those who are called the "coordinator class," but more accurately described as the petty bourgeois by Marxists. The petty bourgeois will reproduce itself in various forms, and take on new power relations long after revolutionary change. This has been shown time and time again after revolutionaries take power. The divisions of compound vs. simple labor, mental vs. manual labor, industrial vs. service labor, will continue to produce the attitude of the petty bourgeois consciousness within society; it is what Marx remarked as Bourgeois Right. It will prevail in a socialist society and something that we will have to struggle against long after the revolution.

This brings us back to the concept of power to begin with, and its relations. It is not enough to say we wish to dissolve power relations. Such a wish is ultimately illusory and based on the false conception of the world, that is the static conception of historicism and humanism, the false utopia. The world and our social relations will develop in new ways beyond what we can even imagine and think of, our horizon is limited to that of beyond capitalism. We can only begin to think of the new relations that will exist outside of this one. We know what we know, and we can't speak on what we don't know. That is, us in the Bourgeois epoch can speak as revolutionaries and project ourselves into our future from the vantage point of this system; however we can only remain naïve to what the revolutionaries of the revolutionary era will struggle against and what new things develop. Our egalitarian society is not the end of history, but another development. The internal contradictions of our new social being will produce new relations, and new possibilities for further revolution. May I dare to say, there are no horizontal relations, merely its illusion. Relations will turn into their opposites and develop differently, but they become new power relations nonetheless, understanding this dialectical process will allow us to get over some of our more immature prejudices on Leadership, Power, and Discipline.

Unity-Struggle-Unity

Rather than naively accepting these proposals I shall look toward building the national structure for SDS. The question of the ideological and political line of SDS is far from settled and all such proposals without proper discussion within the context of a national organization is merely reproducing the "totalitarian" order that has been repeatedly attacked by SDS itself. There is no need for a consolidation on our political differences at this moment, what is needed is good honest theoretical struggle which people aren't afraid of having splits over. I ask SDS members to consider the primary task of this national convention as that of building the national structure and framework in which we can carry out such debate, and the actions SDS wishes to commit itself to rather than signing up to these proposals on vision.

Party for Justice

2007-07-07T11:34:00.000-07:00

Hosted by Chinese Staff & Workers' Association. I took this from their blog Boycott Saigon Grill

Come party for justice! Help raise funds in support of the Justice Will Be Served! Campaign--in the presence of great music, food, and people! JWBS! is a campaign that unites restaurant, hotel, deli, and other service workers in the tri-state area to fight against long hours, low wages, and other sweatshop conditions.This is an excellent opportunity to join alongside other students and workers who are organizing to end the sweatshop system.

Recently, Saigon Grill workers were locked out of their jobs for organizing to improve working conditions at their restaurant. They have inspired hundreds of other delivery and service workers- nail salon workers, food baggers, and other restaurant workers- across the tri-state area to join them because they see how this struggle has and will impact the industry as a whole. Funds raised during this event will go directly to the JWBS Strike Fund! to support not only the present workers, but also future workers that will come out to ensure these changes are lasting.

Location: NMASS Brooklyn Workers' Center
93 Third Avenue, Brooklyn (corner of Bergen St.) N/W/R or 4/5 or 2/3 train to Alantic/Pacific Ave.

Happy July Fourth!

2007-07-04T10:05:00.001-07:00

La Chinoise

2007-06-27T00:13:00.000-07:00

I have posted up some clips of, french film maker, Jean Luc Godard's movie La Chinoise. A movie about young Maoists in a militant cell. The movie is quite fascinating in it deals with a range of theoretical issues as well as becomes a good depiction of the failures of Maoist students in the 60s'.

At some point i wish to have all of it on.

Defend Joma!

2007-06-16T10:00:00.000-07:00

Jose Maria Sison was the former Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines and is currently a political consultant for the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, as well as the International League of People's Struggle. Today this heroic figure of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is in political exile in the Netherlands, but is in threat by US Imperialism and EU lackies, who have painted Sison as an International terrorist, are trying to extradite Sison back to the Philipines on bogus charges.

Sison has come out fighting back, he has recently been heard in the US on Michael Slate's show and was recently speaking at an event hosted by Anakbayan Filipino Youth Collective, New York - New Jersey chapter. I listened to the Slate show and attended the Anakbayan event and listened to Jose Maria Sison explain what he is up against. The event is best summed up on this page at Josemariasison.org. It is time for people who call themselves Revolutionaries to know what is happening and defend Professor Sison. US Imperialism and their Arroyo lacky regime in the Philippines can't destroy the revolutionary People's War, and we in the Internationalist spirit abroad should not allow them to criminalize and imprison revolutionary leaders like "Joma" Sison.

Defend Jose Maria Sison!
Smash US Imperialism!
Long Live the Filipino Revolution!

Ethics and Maoism

2007-06-09T19:10:00.000-07:00

Recently Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP, USA) member and self proclaimed Maoist Economist Raymond Lotta and Professor Bill Martin (also a self titled Maoist and American Philosopher) gave a talk and had a dialog at Columbia University around the recent book co-authored by Professor Martin and RCP chairman Bob Avakian, Marxism and the Call of the Future: Conversations on Ethics, History, and Politics. This book which documents a back and forth discussion between Martin and Avakian is to say the least quite interesting. One of the issues that this book brings up is the question of Ethics itself and its place in the Communist movement. To briefly summarize positions, Martin feels there is a space for the Kantian concept of the Categorical Imperative within the Maoist movement. Far from proposing a simple false synthesis, Martin has been grappling with the question of morality and contingency within the Marxist framework challenging a lot of the instrumentalist dogma of the Base/Super-structure relationship. In stark contrast Avakian argues for a more orthodox and rigid understanding of morality based on class relationships in society.

Some time in the future, Martin promises us a fuller comprehensive document on his thoughts; however in the mean time we should engage in this question of the place of morality within Communist politics, and in this I can feel a certain affinity with Martin in his attempt to realize a better understanding of Ethics. In a certain sense, I feel that this question overall reveals a certain shallowness within RCP around questions that were usually tossed away to the realm of “Metaphysics,” and as well with some of my fellow comrades. It also begins to show, despite the relationship Martin has with the RCP, that behind this there are major theoretical issues that separate them, and also that the “Epistemological Break” promoted by RCP in regards to the recent writings of Bob Avakian may not be a “break” at all.

To give a brief oversight of some issues in Ethics, and the differences between Martin, Avakian, and his representative at this event, Raymond Lotta, we must begin with one of the biggest names in German Idealism, Immanuel Kant. Kant in every way strikes a Communists with immediate repulsion. Kant refers to his philosophy as “transcendental Idealism,” he is employed by the repressive Prussian kingdom, who he seemingly defends the State Apparatus by stating you need to “do your Duty,” and he challenges the correspondence theory of truth. He and David Hume occupy the title of “agnostics” in V.I. Lenin's Materialism and Empirico-criticism. It is for these reasons that there is a certain Kantophobia amongst the Communist movement historically. We shall keep to Kant's theoretical insights on morality, and not engage his ontology or epistemology. Kant's most well known position is that of the Categorical Imperative, which are propositional maxims that are consistent and universal, as well as being willed by the subject. A common simplification of this is referring to “means as ends,” or that every action should take on universal principles. This is in some ways contra to Marx, who proposed Ethics itself being a product of social construction. It also must be stated that in some regards, the question of ethics and morality are almost insignificant to the work of Karl Marx who sought to create a scientific analysis of History. And in many respects, the ambitious project of Marx to systematize our knowledge of History on the basis of class struggle (what became the science of Historical Materialism) instrumentalized people's struggle toward a bound “wheel of history.” It is for Marx only possible for Capitalism, once a “revolutionary” mode of production to develop through the slavery of Africans in the Americas. Marx himself was horrified of the faith of Africans in the Americas; however he consistently took the position that despite the moral degradation of people involved, it is only a part of a natural process, one that only the development of the proletariat can possibly stop and transform. Marx is himself a conflicted character as his hero was Spartacus; however his same theoretical system held that slave rebellion did not suite an objective development of the mode of production.

It is only through Lenin and more so with Mao Zedong that we find the actual consistent space for Kant and Ethics. Lenin is the first to analyze that the conditions of the Third World couldn't be “revolutionized” by the Western Capitalists, that they in fact were in the business of underdevelopment and the exploitation of its resources. The accumulation of Capital did not take place in these colonial nations, Imperialists powers stripped it of its wealth. Lenin set in motion, despite the orthodoxies and dogmatisms of the likes of Trotsky and Mensheviks, forward the possibility for the Communist movement to spread into the colonial world. No longer was the exploitation and oppression of the Peasantry considered a part of the necessary transformation from Feudalism to Capitalism. The Peasant was no longer considered reactionary, a mere leftover of the feudal era, but an actual revolutionary ally of the Proletariat in its historical struggle. But it is only with Mao Zedong does this change effectively happen. Mao Zedong led largely a Peasant class in China against the centuries of feudal land lords, comprador Bourgeoisie, and Imperialist powers. Mao understood that the instrumentalist view of the dogmatists was wrong, the social mode of production and one's relations to the means of production isn't the determining factor in being a revolutionary. He understood the Peasant is an oppressed exploited class that can be a leading force towards Socialism. Mao once remarked that Marxism can be summed into one principle, “rebellion is justified.” This became a maxim of Truth through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Maxims such as “Serve the People,” “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win,” all became universal principles of the ethics of Revolution itself. In a sense, do your duty for the Revolution, for the People. Is not Mass Line itself, the Maoist method of leadership, not consistent with the Categorical Imperative rather the utilization of people as “cogs” toward historical goals? Rather than the past commandist errors of Communists, the errors Mao outlined in “Be Concerned with the Well Being of the Masses” and “Questions of Methods of Leadership,” Mao set forward a methodology that held responsible to the people the Vanguard Party. The use of Mass Line is consistent with the very goal of Socialism, it is an ends to ends rather than means to them.

In critique of Bill Martin. I can't not speak fully of the views of Bill Martin of Kant and Communism, as his book on the subject has yet to come out (perhaps I might come back to this later in another essay), but it seems to me that Martin might sometimes confuse the ethics of Leftism today with Maoist Truth. For example, Martin in his talk referred to the Meat Industry and its mistreatment and abuses of animals. Martin himself is a vegetarian for this same reason. SHOULD such politics and ethical causes be a part of the Maoist movement? I say why not, but let us speak to our actual projected maxims. Maoist maxims reflect the class struggle and the liberation struggle of the oppressed, that Masses are the makers of history, this is our partisan legacy. It should not be confused with ethical causes which are not necessarily a part of the future goals and aims of Communists. Our maxims come out of the partisan position of being Maoists, they are indeed political and class truths, our projection of what SHOULD be. That has not necessarily much to due to with the rights of animals, a concern which is not particular to Maoists. How can we also speak about violent action, action which potentially will take another's life. For the Humanist this is impossible, real revolution can't occur because it is violent. For Maoists, it is irresponsible not to lead the masses toward revolution, not to engage the world in practice and get our hands dirty, and in a sense “break some eggs,” as Zizek's preface to Martin and Avakian's book suggests to do. Revolutionary violence is not only necessary but actually an ethical act of revolution itself. When Mussolini gets stringed up to a poll by the people, is that the “revenge line” as RCP suggests or People's Justice as I think it properly is.

But we reveal something that is indeed interesting. Is there a “class morality,” we can only say yes and no. Ethics can ever have a direct casual relation to a specific mode of production, what is ethical can only be universal to the subject not to the object world, as we have stated before Ethics has no objective existence, it can't be grasped like a physical entity. However the dialectical relationship between the subject and his social being is unavoidable, in a certain sense he does, but there is no uniformed “Bourgeois Morality.” The very implication is wrong if one notices that we Communists have to unfortunately be born out of Capitalism, yet we don't consider our political and ethical thoughts at all “bourgeois.” Ethics always requires a certain partisanship which is determined by our will, that is there is very much a “Christian Morality” as there is a “Hindu Morality” in the same Capitalist system, there can also be at the same time a “Communist Morality.” They can all be said to be casualty of the Bourgeois system, but they require a certain contingency on our part to decide. The ethics and politics of Communists is bound to a class consciousness, it discloses the world to us.

It brings us to the point of Epistemology, of Truth, that which discloses the world to us. In other words, why the RCP has gotten it wayward. Let us assume the position of RCP that there is no “class truths,” or political truths for that matter, how can it at the same time speak of a Proletarian Morality, or for that matter the development of morality based on the productive forces? We ask this question because it reveals a fundamental problem, the rejection of Maoist ethical truths themselves. If rebellion is justified, why is it justified? Why is it correct and right? It is not because this maxim as we pointed out materially exists in the world but rather it is the partisan position of Communism, of the class consciousness of the Proletariat. In other words it is a political truth, the truth of the Proletariat Revolution. Truth in ethics can only be realized through this partisan position, it is a truth proper to the ideology of MLM.

May 1st March: Equal Rights for All Workers! Repeal Employer Sanctions Now!

2007-04-29T22:13:00.000-07:00

This is not to compete with the SDS post here, it's just another event that's going on in the Chinatown Community/Lower East Side Manhattan.

Also please check out the Boycott on Saigon Grill http://boycottsaigongrill.blogspot.com/

PLEASE READ OUR BROCHURE: http://fackemployersanctions.tripod.com/emp_brochure.pdf

Groups Announce Community March from Chinatown/Lower East Side to Union Square on May 1st

Immigrant and U.S.-born workers call for immigration policy that ensures equal rights for all working people; denounce Washington proposals

On May 1st, working people from throughout New York City will gather in the diverse Chinatown/Lower East Side community in a united call for equal rights for all working people. Marchers will include both native born workers and undocumented workers from all walks of life—including restaurant, delivery and garment workers from Chinatown, longtime Puerto Rican and Latino residents of the Lower East Side, Polish and African-American community members, and new immigrants from throughout the city.

Grassroots groups, Chinese Staff & Workers’ Association, National Mobilization Against SweatShops, and New York Unemployment Project, call on New Yorkers to come join the May 1st community march and say no to any compromise that further criminalizes our communities—both documented and undocumented. They call on working people to stand together to oppose the current Washington proposals, such as guestworker programs and the Strive Act. These proposals being brokered by President Bush and Congress are just an extension of Employers’ Sanctions provision and will only lead to the further criminalization of undocumented workers and the expansion of the underclass in this country. As a result, conditions will deteriorate for us all—undocumented and documented alike. Instead, this Tuesday we will march to demand legislation to replace the Employer Sanctions provision with equal rights for all workers.

*DIRECTIONS*:take train to Grand st (b/d). Meet at the park right off the train (look for soccer field). There will be people to direct ya'll

MAY DAY! Hunter SDS Fights Back!

2007-04-27T16:15:00.000-07:00

Calling All Fighters in the Everyday Struggle at Hunter College!

Celebrate May Day with Your Chapter of Students for a Democratic Society.

Festivities for Tuesday, May 1

Noon to 3pm: Check out Students for a Democratic Society
in the Third Floor Crosswalks area.

3pm: Meet Up in the Hunter West Lobby Area to Get Set to Go Down to the Rally at Union Square at 4pm.

What is May Day?

It is the day for all those who must work for a living to get
together, to be united together in common struggle for a
better world where the People -- not the Bosses -- have the Power. It is a day when all of the People, all around the world, march united in the spirit of friendship and solidarity. It is a day when that unity means that whether blue collar or white collar, black skin or white skin, citizen or undocumented immigrant. An attack on one is an attack on all!

We are marching this year for a world without la migra. A world where we can walk the streets without fear of police shooting. A world where war is no longer necessary. Another world is possible -- let’s start building it today.

Who Are We?

We're the Hunter College chapter of the Student for a Democratic Society.

We are a part of Students for a Democratic Society, a
national student organization buiilt to take the illegitimate power away from the the hate-dealers, war pimps, and
the bosses who profit from non-stop exploitation.

We work to put real POWER in the hands of the People through Particpatory Democracy, for a world that is built on participatory democracy.

Our means are STRUGGLE -- for without Struggle, there is no Progress. Anything and everything we have has come from Struggle. It is only through Struggle that we assert, defend and expand our rights.

The Post to end my series of Rebuttals

2007-02-14T20:09:00.000-08:00

To simply say that class consciousness is Communist ideology is to deny class consciousness. Here we find the contradiction of statements made by RCP supporters here. The development of Proletarian “historically” allowed for such a possible consciousness, but it took Marx to come to synthesize such a consciousness, further the consciousness is more than consciousness...but also a science!

How do you then reconcile the fact that RCP has denied the fact that there is “class science” and truth?. If Marxism is a science, than its application as a science has nothing to do with the development of classes itself. Further that Marxism, in its pure scientific sense, apart from consciousness and political line. Then the propositions must be result as such

1)RCP says communism is both science and class consciousness
2)RCP denies “class truths” and class effecting science

Then there is contradiction here. It is either that something has to give, is Communism a class consciousness or a science? How can it be asserted, as Jibaro has, that “Dialectical Materialism” is the result of the historic development of classes and that they as a class they are the only class to be able to take such a “scientific” analysis, then to assert that the post-structuralists make wild exaggerations when they say science is not outside of Ideology? What is coherent here?

Of course the problem here is that probably RCP hasn't broke away from the instrumentalism of the CPSU. The model for RCP is an actual reversion to the 'Stalinist' model, it does not grasp the ideological breaks of Mao Zedong and the CPC, nor the philosophical development that was allowed to happen since the death of Stalin. What has been contributed to the field of understanding ideology and the subject is immeasurable, and really RCP for its talk against the determinism merely reverts to it.

Take for example the talk of the “historic development” of the Proletariat being the root for of consciousness. This essentially the root of RCP idealism as it speaks of consciousness in the abstraction that Hegel spoke of it, and Lukacs who tried to re-read Marx in a Hegelian form. In this sense, RCP fully believes that there is “true” consciousness and “false” consciousness (ideology) because of the mere historic development of the proletariat. Dialectical materialism has become a true consciousness, a consciousness only possible with the development of the Proletariat, and all forms of ideology are false from this epoch, no other class in its revolutionary state could not have developed such a consciousness. But isn't this the very thing that RCP is attacking? To reduce consciousness, ideology, and science itself (which Jibaro considers the dialectical materialist method) to be apart of the development of economic base is indeed the “instrumentalism” that has been attacked on this board. I think clearly here the idea of Communism as both consciousness and science is wrong, and further that it is only possible because of an abstract historic development of a class merely is the same old orthodoxy.

Then what is the difference between ideology and science. In this sense, Marxism as whole has a two nature character to it. Marx while opening up a science, Historical Materialism, also opens up an ideology based on the class struggle of the Proletariat and the “historical interest” as he understood in his time. So there is indeed a separation, the study of History as a science, as a material phenomena that can be analyzed and understood and the ideology of Marx and Communism which takes upon itself a historical project based upon the class struggle in the epoch of Capitalism.

However in terms of the separation, they are not completely distinct. It is through only a scientific understanding of history of the development of history to Capitalism, and the dynamics of class struggle within Capitalism was it possible for the creation for a politically revolutionary movement based on the class struggle. What this means is that the opening of science, the consequences of science always have an ideological impact that is felt. As Althusser has said, philosophy lags the development of science. Also in its capacity, since science is always developed in a system and its structure, Capitalism and the ideology of Capitalism for example, science is slowed by Ideology. Is it absurdist, or a “wild exaggeration” that contemporary commentators have made in regards to science that is itself within the ideological framework of capitalism? That the very language of Capitalism has incredible impact on us in all structures of itself?

What is funny is that the field of History in our age has been limitedly accepted as science by the Bourgeois schools. They have taken the scientific rupture of Marx and re-appropriated them back within the ideology of Capitalism ala Durkheim and Sociology, Liberalism and Economics, Humanists and Anthropology. So we do have the field of history accepted as a science, all though considered “humanities,” in the Bourgeois epoch. Where Marxism fell short was the acceptance of the Bourgeois constraints of ideology, where in the USSR, Bukharin atomized Marxism into a sociological school, Marx's Capital was turned into a lecture in Economics, and Dialectical Materialism was pushed to explain the division between protons and electrons (an attempt that ultimately was not accepted at all by the bourgeois institutions of science).

Can it be argued then that Science has a class nature, that ideology has a class nature. Perhaps the baby was thrown out with the bath water when it is declared “no class truths.” In fact, what should be criticized is the mechanical way in which the Cultural Revolution attacked the the ideology of “class” science. Science is not outside the game so to say, it is well apart of the subject in its development in history. The Bourgeois epoch has specific ramifications on the institutions of Science as well, it has profound impacts on how knowledge is understood. Truth may reflect reality, but truth isn't reality, and it has character. In it is important to remember, that Lenin recognizes within the sciences a spontaneous Materialism, that knowledge always come through in the ideology of pragmatism or empiricism.

Then let us ask, as Jibaro has put forward, what does Lenin's “Materialism and Empirico-criticism” contribute. I think there is a character of positive and negative points within Materialism and Empirico-criticism. Slavoj Zizek has called the work, “the worst philosophical exercise” he has read. While I think there is indeed some over-exaggeration, there is indeed some truth to it. Firstly, Lenin doesn't overall a real solution to the Kantian problem of trying to know the “thing-in-itself,” Lenin while triumphantly attacking the worst of idealists like Wundt, Mach, and others, does not actually answer the question of most importance within the battle. How does subjectivity affect the role of science and knowledge. Is it possible to achieve a pure objectivity. Lenin dismisses the paradox that Kant tried too solve to quickly in his attempt to stop the sophistry of Neo-Kantians in the school of philosophy and the worst of idealists who tried to deny matter itself with the contradictions in Physics at the time (The beginnings of the Analytics and Positivists).

We find then a strange and unique question, the place of Bogdanov and the role of “Prolekult.” How do we reconcile a movement which recognizes the role of culture and ideology in shaping consciousness and reproducing “the reproduction for the conditions of production” (Althusser) without recognizing Sciences being pushed into the terms of such ideology. It is the “mistakes” and deviations of Stalin and Mao against the Marxist understanding that Bourgeois culture and science represented a “universal height” for all mankind. Socialist realism, The Cultural Revolution, and other campaigns certainly did pigeon hole many artists and even in cases extremely persecuted them, but there is a profound truth to it. The ideology of the old has to be combated in every way to move to the next step. Revolution is going to fall apart if revolutionary ideology is supplanted by more 'pragmatic' solutions. When Khruschev stopped the madness of Stalin, he also stopped the madness of revolution. When it is said by Mao that “revolution is not a dinner party” he means exactly that. There is no polite discussion and dialog to fight against Bourgeois ideology, if the Cultural Revolution was any less radical than it was, could it ever have lasted so long?

The problem is not finding the right “balance” of forces for stability, the logic of Kautsky and all revisionists, but what essentially matters? To keep the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or not.

Historicism is a question that is brought up, and I think the one posting as “passer by” has give a good analyze and is not apart from mine. When we speak of any science, we have to be clear of what science and what science is not...Science vs. Pseudoscience. There is indeed a reading of Marxism that turns it into a Pseudoscience, which is really historicism. This reading of historicism is the flip coin of humanism, and are apart of the same fundamental idea of humanity progressing to reach “human achievement.” This reading comes across to when one applies Marxism as an inevitably, that Communism WILL occur. Despite how Jibaro hides it with various talks to “trends” and so on, this is a reading I believe he gives it. Historicism is not merely a criticism to undermine Marxism, but a genuine critique of the vulgarization of the science of history that Marx opens up, as well as the reduction of the science to be apart of the consciousness. What we see in the German Ideology is not a set forward linear model of the development of history, but a model for further study and outline. Slave Society didn't pass just naturally to Feudalism, nor will Capitalism just have a natural progress to Socialism. Existing trends and developments to give rise to possibility, but it is in this that the contingency of people make the difference, and the importance of Communists in making history itself. Marx said, “The philosophers interpret the world, the point is to change it.” Us conscious of the need to destroy Capitalism are the real catalyst toward Communism.

Chinese Communists made revolution not because Capitalism took a globalized form, it happen because of the ideology developed by Marx. Capitalism never fully developed in China before the revolution, and the short period before the Great Leap Forward wasn't a fully extensive period of Capitalism. Its existence is nominal, it was termed Capitalism but was merely a pragmatic solution to build Chinese Industry, as was NEP. The differences with this “state-capitalism” is essentially the character of it, it was done under Communists making the world of difference. This very fact shows that Ideology, “politics in command,” is important to the communist project.

The Illogic...The Illogic

2007-02-11T01:02:00.000-08:00

A bit of a break from polemical style reading...well at least the usual kind.

What a sobering day. This saturday, after a brief month stint of haitus from the political activist world, I threw myself fully into a political slide show/presentation that took place at Hunter. It was set up presumably by the Palestinian Club, and I guessed help by one or the other Trotskyite groups within the school. It was to mark the beginning of Palestinian Apartheid week, and our presenters were Palestinians from the occupied land of West Bank and Gaza. The presentation was rudimentary but blunt and stunning. I recommend anyone who reads this post in the New York area to check out the many events through the following week Here!

But what caught my attention most, and how I came to know that this program was happening, was the attempt by fanatical religious and Zionists Jews to organize a sort of "fight back" against the organized events through the college internent medium known as Facebook. Reading its event board (not unlike those event lists on the network site known as Myspace), I added some thoughts on the very problematic and faint logic in their "counter" information leaflet. It was filled with little more than Red Herring and Racist presumptions about how the rest of the Middle Eastern states are inferior to the state of Israel in terms of liberalism, as if such were the question itself. Essentially, Oppression of Israels was not as bad as the alleged genocide in Darfur, so therefore why even talk about Apartheid?

Of course...we have heard this all before quite really. Illogical presumptions, arguments that have little to do with the discussed issue..etc. etc., an essential fools game if you engage them.

Of course, being the fool...I managed to do just that.

During the event, a woman, who it seemed had a sort of emotional imbalance started yelping and crying as people told her male friend to "shutup." Of course, I won't go into this in much detail, and is besides the point since emotions can get to is in such a political discussion with high emotions rolling. This is however the setup for what was to occur outside of the campus of Hunter College. Me, my friends, left after the first question in Q&A to get a Pizza. We were confronted outside by men, who were flying an Israel flag along a Colonial American flag (a befitting sight), handing out leaflets on how great is Israel is..etc.etc, the usual apologist orgasm in their literature.

I politely said "no..not quite interested," to which an old fat zionist yelled "self-hating Jew." It is funny that this is the gut reaction that we immediately faced, what a cliche! For anyone in the know, I am not Jewish...I am an Atheist, and further culturally I come from an Italian-Chilean backround. But to be called a self-hating jew, that was indeed a first. I exchanged a few words and then crossed the street, to where the man yelled "Go back to Iran with your brown friend." This made me laugh a bit, I had to engage now! Out of just pure entertainment, I wanted to see where this horror show went.

Something attracted myself to such lunatics. It was indeed a sight, hysterical yelling, being told I am complicit with Al-Qadea and the Saudi Arabian government. It made us all laugh. When we got to the heart of the issue, it turns out that my fat old Zionist was a bigger religious fundamentalist then ANYONE in the meeting upstairs.

What was sad was not this looney tunes display of fanatic Judeo pride in front of me, but that these men brought their children and made them sit in the cold for presumably two hours for a small slide show upstairs.

It all ended with my "Brown Friend" yelling...as he is an Atheist himself..."God is dead", to which I responded..."Meaning you guys have no right to no land"

Film of the Revolution

2007-02-02T22:05:00.000-08:00

The Single Spark Collective has recently put videos up from the DVD Eight Glorious Years of the Great Nepalese People's War. The DVD is hard next to impossible to get a hold of in the US for reasons I am not sure, I thank the Single Spark Collective for this great service in putting up these videos. I would recommend all readers to this blog to take a look at the site, Maoist Media, on the Single Spark Collective website.

Soul Beats for the Anti-War Movement

2007-01-30T10:55:00.000-08:00

And the People in the Neighborhood
They could it they only would
Meet and shake the others Hand
Work together for the good of the Land

And All the Soldiers who are Dead and Gone
If we can only bring back One
He say "We've got to have Peace"

Curtis Mayfield

Burning Down the House (Not Literally)

2007-01-28T13:28:00.000-08:00

Comrade Miller, Fighting Cultism with Revisionism.

2007-01-19T15:52:00.000-08:00

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.

To Be A Communist

2007-01-18T15:52:00.000-08:00

I write this in dedication to all the young comrades and revolutionaries out there who are still confused about the question of essentially what does it mean to be a Communist? What can you call a Communist and what are its objectives, and of course, what is its history. In the grand sectarian turf warfares on the street by all sorts of little cults and sects who call themselves “Vanguards” this can be indeed quite confusing for someone who wants to learn Communism. Two things occur, a Young Communist because of this environment never gets the proper chance to develop his critical thought and ideology, he is either wrapped around simple phrases of a sect and praises them without critical thought. Other Comrades become frustrated with the Party routine in America, and become insular. They become naïve and stick to simplistic almost Webster dictionary definitions of Communism. They become Utopians. These are the real dangers for young Communists, they may drift into cult thinking and sectarianism or become Utopian socialists.

Other revolutionaries, who are young, frustrated by the “Leninist” political scene turn toward other revolutionary activity. Anarchism, cultural nationalism, identity politics, and so on. These groupings give them simple understanding of the complexity in the class struggle or other relations of oppressive nature. It also gives them a community from which they can be secure in their confusion as well. We have seem this time and time again, young comrades slip away because of their frustration to understand ideology and to really engage in struggle, to really have genuine practice. Selling news papers for ISO, RCP, PSL, etc. takes its toll and they give up.

Because of these problems, we face difficulty in getting our movement to grow substantially amongst youth. And because of this confusion it is our job to give particular ideological material for them to grasp, and not hackneyed dogma. No here is where it is complicated, because of the nature of sectarianism in the US, dogma is what fills the “Vanguards” paper, there is no serious material analysis that doesn't stick to party line. The US revolutionary parties fail to give serious material for us to read. So we are failing our duties to be Materialists, and we fail to have a dialog. It is only in the blogosphere it seems where such honest communication is taking place.

I would like to begin offering some thoughts on what it means to be a Communist in the future, what is Communism. These questions are never discussed in proper manner without confusion for our young comrades...even workers. It will be so for a long time as well, as long as opportunists and cultists dominate the class struggle in the US.

And of course I am ironically speaking about fighting dogma and this sectarianism; however on my part I fully understand myself as a partisan in this fight. The contradictions of being a Maoist. We can only understand the world through ideology, through dogma....with the “science” of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. In this sense, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism might be a misnomer as a term itself since it is actually really understanding social development and historical development in a dialectical, but primarily a materialist understanding. I say primarily materialist, because sometimes we get lost in merely trying to be “dialectical” but ignoring gross objective facts sometimes. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in this sense is not just the collected works of Marx, Lenin, and Mao...but a scientific understanding in how to develop a revolution and a revolutionary people. If a work of Lenin contradicts what we know in practice, we can only build upon what is true and not what is dogma. In this sense, we are Maoists 2nd and Scientists and Observers 1st . A dogmatist rather inverts this.

We can see this happening in other sciences as well, Physics or Mathematics for example. To be a Pythagorean in Mathematics was at once acceptable, but when critical observations about certain of Pythagoras' concepts revealed them to be wrong, to be a 100% observing Pythagorean would be absurd. However still people look to Pythagoras for some knowledge of the world; however with a critical knowledge that he is not a 100% correct. In all fields of science and philosophy, this is true. Our knowledge of the world deepens, and we come to know the world better. Only the religious minded stay with Dogma...whether they worship God or Histomat (The rigid Marxist, Stalinist, and Trotskyite [Instrumentalist] conception of History).

Young Comrades...I hope this helps to better explain simple point of what we, those pests who are critical communists, mean when we call MLM a science. I want to open the floor up to you in order so we can clarify concepts and struggle together.

Long Live Revolution!

Reflections on White Supremacy and NYPD Culture

2007-01-16T11:32:00.000-08:00

We see in our movement two positions that foister itself on Maoists and revolutionaries. The position of Dogmatism and the position of Nationalism. This is what essentially characterizes the position of ourselves in the question of White Supremacy. Economics vs. Culture in our field. One states that the question is a matter of the historical development of Capitalism itself, that racism and White supremacy is the tool of the Bourgeois class in dividing the worker. While the other states this is a matter of cultural dominance over the black nation, that white supremacy is rooted in white people being naturally departed from black communities. These propositions seem equally right, and indeed both convincing when studying the development of "White Supremacy," but both in the end fail for categorically wrong methodologies in the persuit to overcome the problem. We see some Socialists today become apologists for "White Supremacy" by blaming Capitalism for the historical development of this racist system. In fact, they say, in Socialism this will not be the case. While others are one sided in their approach of analyzing the consciousness of masses of people toward White Supremacy, and controversially I'll say to understand White Supremacy one has to understand the psychology of the black oppressed masses and the white masses, specifically the white workers, in their diposition toward race.

First in the question of historical development of racism from Capitalism itself, one has to state that this has to be false in a sense that the oppression of races and ethnicities pre-dates the development of Capital as king in our world. Perhaps there has been intesification of this oppression, but it seems with anything other in Capitalism, that intesification might have been natural. Blaming solely the root of White Supremacy on Capitalism seems to be a mistake of the dogmatists who hold on dearly to the idea of economy determining all social relations (beyond class relations of course) in the world. In fact the truth is here that these dogmatists are also uninspiringly holding to the same positions in questions of Patriarchy and Heterosexism. Eliminating White Supremacy is not just a matter of getting all races to realize their positions as workers, because even in this act, people consciouslly hold prejudices based on their limited experiences and rumors.

The Cultural Nationalists have indeed a more inspiring understanding, and do hit something new when they bring up the question of culture and its role. But they as well miss crucial points. Fighting white supremacy is not going to be won by merely empowering the oppressed races, this still does not solve the basis for White Supremacy. While empowering people may help in building consciousness of the oppressed, and it certainly does, White Supremacist culture will live on regardless to this. The culture around this racist divergence in society is actively played to by the Market itself. In this sense, Capitalism intensifies division, it rep-produces through the market the consciousness and consumption for hate itself. It plays on the stereotypes and rumored roles of races. In this sense, the hate which had existed in a community, can be played upon by the market, and the consciousness is created to actively create new social relations in a society based upon racial oppression. Capitalism differs in this way with previous social-economic model, Markets create consciousness, and they can create racist ideology. In previous Feudal-Agricultural societies, this effort to create racial oppression was largely either contingent to State policy or it was contained to the remnants of tribal difference.

Workers are not divided in the workplace by the Bourgeois, as some economists try to push this line of thought, they are divided by the Market society before. A Boss preys on this in the work place, but this racial division existed in our communities long before. The Market commodifies and sells such ideology whether it comes in the form of horrible comedians like Carlos Mencia or through reality tv that gives spins toward racial stereotypes, this is accepted in sum by masses of people as true. Should we be suprised at the recent killings of Sean Bell or others in New York City by happy trigger cops (whether the cop is black, hispanic, or white)? The culture of NYPD (And believe you and me, that culture does indeed exist) is the rudimentary culture of White Supremacy America. It is the culture of various white workers and is even pervaded into the culture of other peoples beyond whites. Empowerment can't solve everything because of this reason. White Supremacy is so deeply pervaded through America, that even the most liberal of people are apart of it. Can we truly overcome White supremacy when whites leave on record droves to the suburbs when blacks move in, or when they behave as thuggish vigilantes in Queens?

White Supremacy and its aftermath seems a question that will plague us for a long time, since it is wrapped up with the entire market culture and is imbedded through society. We maybe reaching communism and still figuring this one out, but we should not dispair at this thought that it is imbedded. In fact this means that we as communists must get our hands dirty and struggle with people to consciously see something different. This struggle will be a long process and reoccuring with every new generation, but it is our task as communists to do so if we are to eliminate NYPD culture from our ranks and from the masses.

State of White Supremacy during MLK and today

2007-01-15T01:25:00.000-08:00

Today is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and there is much to know, especially with the upcoming African American History Month. I will be coming from different perspectives, since I have been in a long range of groups (nationalist, liberal, etc.) sorts of groups before thinking in a Marxist and Maoist perspective. So please clarify me if you think I am wrong, and don’t hesitate to critique my works, since I know I am still developing my analysis of this world.

We know Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born today, but what is there much to learn about MLK and the political scene around him? We know MLK was a civil rights activist for non-violence. Malcolm X was critical of the "Negro Revolution", he spoke of in his speech There is No Such Thing as a Non-violent Revolution. He was critical of accommodation of his people in to a white ruling society. These these he was critical of were voting, being able to eat in restaurants, and riding in desegregated buses, and sitting in the toilets next to white people. Much of MLK’s ideology of non-violence was rooted from Gandhi. Much of what most people know was that Gandhi focused much on his passive resistance, but what most don’t know was that Gandhi may have been actually a racist in the end, as this article explains (http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/hunt.html). I can’t use it against MLK for Ghandhi’s own mistakes.

MLK to many Americans, was the epitome of the civil rights movement. The reason for this is that many Americans feel closer to him, mostly from this bourgeois attitude of society. Being treated equally, not for race, but for one’s content. His movements were all liberal responses to racism and white supremacy. However, MLK had a lack on the effectiveness on the state of White Supremacy, instead focused on racism. The current state of white supremacy today, is still around. For example, job discrimination, economic inequality, political involvement, and low graduation rates still increasing for a lot of African Americans today. MLK actually did much more than what the majority of Americans and high school textbooks tend to say about him. There is much to learn about MLK than just his March on Washington and the "I have a dream" speech. We should study him, more than just the way most people want to feel safe with him.

In the past, there was a lot of racism present during this time, for the privilege of mainly whites. It was needed in that time, especially the unity for all people of color against the ruling group of people, who were predominantly white. Legal changes and demonstrations continued to stop white supremacy and racism, but there was a lack of focus on the working class of all Americans and people in the world. There was a lack in realizing other people were being oppressed as well, not only African Americans struggling in economic inequality, especially with the increasing poverty thresholds. With all these movements, all these elements still occur on a daily basis, obviously it can not be abolished overnight, but at least decrease with more people being conscious of what is going on.

The state of white supremacy can be seen in the global context, as foreigners have more privilege than even their own native citizens. Such as, the case of Thailand, where many tourists, from Europe and America go there for prostitutes, some who are pedophiles. A large chunk of Thailand’s economy is reliant on tourism, however, there are other races who take advantage of this privilege as well, but does not outnumber the amount of other whites.

In America, I believe that white supremacy is still present, but I take a different stand on this issue, since I have removed myself from nationalist analysis the past two years now. White supremacy should be taken care of, but I believe the focus should be on class issues, because it will unify all of us once and for all against capitalism that creates competition among the citizens of the world. Many American citizens have to rely on selfishness and ruthlessness to get a piece of the American Dream, this cause for the people is not only for one identity, it’s not for dominance of a group of people, and certainly is not to simply be part of capitalism, it is for equality for everyone. Unfortunately, MLK and Malcolm X did not live long enough to be able fully understand these are the true issues that the people need, though they began to realize these issues were important. No more class antagonisms, but more for the people.

Alienation

2007-01-10T12:13:00.000-08:00

A Post by Comrade Anthony (MaoUnderTheRedStar). Comrade Anthony is a good friend and is delving into Marxism himself and this post reflects some of his intitial views studying Marxism. I hope you do enjoy, I know I shall be leaving comments on his work and will critique.

Reflections on Alienation and the Future of Country

I am back to write on the ShinethePath’s collaboration with other Maoist thinkers. Do not take this as anyone else’s view, it may or not reflect the views of other posters here. Currently, I am in Philadelphia writing on things I have been thinking about. A lot of my thoughts are reflections of reading various things that I am curious about. Most of the comments I say may be obvious to some of you because of your experience within MLM works, I am still no fully experienced nor enough to call myself anything yet.

I have read “Alienation and Social Classes” from The Marx-Engels Reader, and realized even more that the division between the two social classes are still present today. Marx wrote:

The possessing class and the proletarian class represent one and the same human self-alienation. But the former feels satisfied and affirmed in this self-alienation, experiences the alienation as a sign of its own power, and possesses in it the appearance of a human existence. The latter, however, feels destroyed in this alienation, seeing in it its own impotence and the reality of an inhuman existence. To use Hegel’s expression, this class is, within depravity, an indignation against this depravity, an indignation necessarily aroused in this class by the contradiction between its human nature and its life-situation, which is a blatant, outright and all-embracing denial of that very nature.

Looking at the current trend of economics in America, this indignation will increase. Knowing that the gap between the rich and poor are increasing and the decreasing numbers of the middle classes are going to increase these antagonisms more. Realizing that these antagonisms will increase, I believe the revolution is inevitable in the future, it will happen. When this happens, we can not let the ruling classes be replaced with another, but change this trend in history. As the Red Book states, “The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.” The masses should never face oppression, class antagonisms, and starvation ever again, as long as the force of history is within the hands of the people.

2006-12-30T06:11:00.000-08:00

Hussein hanged

The controversial figure for anti-imperialists is dead.

Thoughts on Revolution, State-Capitalism, and the State

2006-12-27T15:25:00.000-08:00

Recent discussion amongst Communists about the developments in Nepal has sparked some interest for me in rethinking what it means to be Revolutionary and the often pejoratively used term “State-Capitalism.” I think right now I am in a state where it seems to me that terms must be thought out, the very terms of Marxism are losing material basis and are cornered to this and this sect's definition of such a term. Terms that were grounded in the real are losing significance as we use them in such a wide array that they lose the proper meaning or they miscommunicate what we try to get across. The term State-Capitalism is precisely one of these problems, for it does not communicate what specifically Maoists mean when they refer to the revisionists in the USSR and China. It is indeed problematic.

When we speak of revisionists and revisionism, we usually refer to counter-revolutionary trends within the Marxist movement or counter-revolutionary politicians in charge of a nominally socialist state. There is however problem with the usage “State-Capitalism, ” and the terms and concepts around it as well. While the revolutionary ideology around these terms are mostly correct, they fail at providing the scientific analysis of the historical development that we need. Merely labeling USSR 'State-Capitalist' will not do in the end. Why is this? Because the concept of State-Capitalism is itself problematic, what do we mean when we use this term? If we look for example during in the USSR under Lenin, NEP was labeled State-Capitalism by the CPSU (B) because it operated similarly to a capitalist economic model; however had oversight by the the revolutionary state in the USSR. While NEP did not last, some aspects of foreign investment and collective farm kept capitalist methods. This is true in Mao's China, except for the period of GLF. In the early part of the P.R.C., the Country was essentially a mixed economy. The state owned Industries; however agriculture was still largely small farming, capitalist entrepreneurs were allowed to invest, and there was a great investment from foreign nations, Soviet Union providing the most, into the Chinese economy. After the period of the Great Leap Forward, the state began using capitalist methods even through the Cultural Revolution. What further complicates this issue is the usage of the term to describe different economies in the same manner. NEP USSR for some Maoists doesn't qualify for state-capitalism, but a nation like DPRK through its history does. What qualifies a nation for being State-Capitalist, in general Maoist usage, doesn't really matter the economic model, it is rather the “revolutionary” nature of the state.

Therefore we will arise into problems in describing what we mean politically and ideologically by using economic terms such as “State-Capitalism.” Marxism must be particular in its analysis of society, and rather not generalize in such ways that it vulgarizes the science of history itself. Marxism has always suffered from this, as Marx generalized in history to provide an example for further analysis, many of his followers and even our movement took his example in such a dogmatic way that it defined our understanding in development of history into nothing more than stages. It became a formula, Slave-Society to Feudalism to Capitalism to Socialism and finally Communism. This formula led to complacent type attitudes and mechanism, and more importantly it was the roots of positivism itself. Buhkarin's sociological vulgarization of Marx's Historical Materialism and soulless examination of Dialects has shaped Communist thought till today. We shouldn't merely lay blame on the feet of Buhkarin, the primer theoretician in the USSR after Lenin's death, for Stalin, Trotsky, and other fragments of the International Communist Movement took upon themselves the same “science.” Lukacs tried to creatively understand Marx, but found himself in Hegelianism. Gramsci laid some of the ground work for a break; however his life too short and his thought in a muddle. It took until the death of Stalin for there to be a vigorous challenge to Soviet bound Marx. Sartre contributed greatly to the question of contingency, and this fellow traveler, challenged us to find a correct answer to human-being in revolution. Althusser lay question, in spirit of Gramsci, to the simplistic understanding of the Marxist “Base and Economy” and question the vulgarization of contradiction. Mao as well, developed the understanding of dialectical materialist contradiction further then before, and put power back in the hands of the consciousness rather than the cold indeterminable “laws” of the economic and sociological dogma of the Soviet Union.

These were all real breaks, that still many Communists still don't fully understand and is still controversial. Maoism was a movement in spirit of this break, but remained contained in the terms of the historical determination of 19th century Marxism-Trotskyism, and Stalinism itself. So while the real criticism of the Soviet Union was on the matter of the conscious shift of the party and state from a revolutionary party (albeit truly Stalinist) to an outright conscious anti-revolutionary power bloc, Maoists didn't break from the economic and sociological terms of those who they broke from (Stalinists and Trotskyists). We examined the Soviet Union not as a NEW type of system that had its own roots in the revolutionary upsurge in 1917, that was born from and developed in a way natural from Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union. In fact, we didn't fully comprehend Mao's ideological break because of us being wrapped by the terms themselves. Mao spoke of the revisionists naturally developing from the system because of the power they controlled within the party; however he used terms in the way of the old. This was a “bourgeois class” that developed from the contradictions of Socialism. While it is utterly true that this class developed from the internal contradictions of the party, the state, and society, it would be a cover-up to claim it came from the economic model of society itself, that “capitalism” was the problem again. What Mao tried to convey was not that it was merely the small expropriators who were the contradiction in Soviet society, but it was the ideological baggage of Capitalism and the ideological weakness of the Stalin and the Soviet Union itself that led its specific development. Most if not all of the Communist parties around the world shared this same weakness of the Soviets. The Communist parties because of these weaknesses could not develop the type of society possible, but developed into states which maintained themselves merely for the sake of power. Even the self described up-holders of Stalin and defenders against Soviet aggression such as Enver Hoxha and Nicolae Ceausescu, states finally collapsed into full fledged members of the capitalist world. No matter how they opposed the revisionist plague in the ICM, none successfully lived, even Maoist China.

What is to be learned? There has to be a lot of rethinking and re-engagement with MLM in a creative way that can re-invigorate the spirit of revolution across the world. That spirit is awake, but we must shape it into an all changing force, and give it a theory that isn't scarred to re-examine itself unlike our comrades of the past. They gave a “science” that merely fostered its own infantile understanding. What MLM is today, is not merely a “science,” but also a conscious understanding of a constant need for revolutionary change and continued development of our consciousness. Re-examining our ideology in a critical but principled way. When it comes to the history of the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, and their move toward revisionism, Maoists should not reject this because of the economics in some superficial way. Such as speaking endlessly about Soviet industries using profit indicators from the Kosygin reforms, reforms that were limitedly accepted. We must overall analyze Soviet history from its political stagnation as a revolutionary state, and how did a self-serving Kafkaesque bureaucracy end up the outcome of Proletarian Revolution. Even Mao Zedong's life and death struggle during the Cultural Revolution could not stop the stagnation of politics in PRC.

State-Capitalism, “Bourgeois Right,” and so forth are all real; however a general application of such terms without fully understanding their origins and context of use seems misguided. State-Capitalism has been a component of Socialist development, and ALL Socialist nations have used State-Capitalist techniques in their economic development. State-Capitalism is then a natural part of the development of Socialism itself. We should in fact delineated between State-Capitalism and what has been called “Market Socialism,” the economic model of Deng Xiaoping till Hu Jintao in China, Vietnam, and Laos. There is a great particular difference in the economic models of the revisionist Eastern Bloc and revisionist China and Vietnam. Lets look at the Juche state, DPRK, it is unlike China in its economic model and is not “Capitalist” and “Bourgeois” in the same way as China. China and Vietnam have a 'really existing' (to borrow a term) Bourgeois and Capitalist economy, it is an active participant in this new stage of capitalism. Without its participation, this new stage itself would be jeopardized. The DPRK, on the other hand, is not a capitalist “market socialist” nation, but rather has developed into a bureaucratic self-serving state. Trying to understand the DPRK's revisionism merely on the basis of state-capitalism, is shallow.

Bourgeois Right might give us clue to the question; however merely putting it class terms limits us. For the concept of Bourgeois Right gives us some understanding of the ideological and conscious element of revisionism while still limiting itself to the Base-Superstructure paradigm. It is not merely just a 'bourgeois' right, for such a right existed in any social system; however it is defined certainly by the division of labor and the ideological baggage of the past. Bourgeois Right is defined in some sense by status and power that comes from the labor you do or power you hold in the state or party. People in academics and sciences, while technically not 'Bourgeois,' can be swayed quite easily by the consciousness that defines 'Bourgeois' thought. It is not merely because they are convinced by swindling counter-revolutionaries, but because of their status in society, the labor they preform, they will spontaneously develop bourgeois consciousness in even a socialist society. This is true with party politicians and cadre who sit on their laurels or hold power over the masses' heads. Even amongst the Masses of oppressed themselves under Socialism there is a certain spontaneous conscious developing from the need for power and status in society, or sometimes out of pure self-interest, shall also develop 'Bourgeois' consciousness.

If this is so, that even workers and oppressed are not immune to Bourgeois consciousness and ideology, why define it as 'bourgeois' at all. Well while this is true, there is merely no set standard class anything...no class thinks in only one specific way or one thinks in another. Prolekult, Lysenko, Great Purges, and the divisions of Red Guard are evident of this. There are no class truths, class morality, class culture defined objectively out of the economic conditions that provide them. But why this IS still BOURGEOIS CONSCIOUSNESS, is because the bourgeois system is the primer place for the indulgence of the self and the search for status and power. The Bourgeois themselves, multi-billionaires some, continue their exploitation of the world not because they were born to do so, but because they grab more from it. The question of power itself is never properly addressed by Marxists, nor the question of individual motivations, beyond merely pure economic and sociological factors.

Bob Avakian, while awkwardly leading a possible rupture of the “old ways,” remains tacitly apart of it himself. In this article about the state and its second part that appeared not so long ago in Revolution paper, Avakian denies in the usual instrumentalist fashion the agency of the state. Rather Avakian begins to postulate a Humanist type version of what a state should be without really looking into what a state is beyond the dogmatic conception of state as merely an appendage of the economy. What is funny, is that Avakian himself contradicts this by stating that the Proletariat state has agency! And the history of the communist movement has proven that, so how is it that the nature of the state itself has no agency besides the proletariat one? For this with get no explanation beyond Avakian's usual, because it has a different character. Yes the Proletarian state does have a different character, but that character is not defined by agency, the Bourgeois states have exercised agency. Would Avakian like to explain how Nazism and the Holocaust were products of the productive forces? How would Avakian explain the Soviet state degenerating into Capitalism if it was not for state agency itself. Avakian goes as far to claim that the 'Christian Fascists' are a product of a section of the ruling class itself. What simplifications and grotesque conspiracy theories, there is no organized group of the ruling class that is looking to toss out evolution for the sake of their own capitalist profit. Such a group of Evangelicals exist not because of the need for more expropriation, but perhaps they actually believe it! It is usual of people of Avakain not to actually engage in the reality that these groups of people might actually be Christian fundamentalists because of their own consciousness, rather there are underlying reasons why. Yes in quite the abstraction one can say Christian fundamentalism is a product of the bourgeois system, capitalism, its ideology is bourgeois; however these are again simplifications that lose the significance of these groups, that they are involved in the game to shape history and society. They are no mere lackeys of Capitalist, but capable people willing to make sacrifices for their own political ambitions. The state does have agency, if the state uses such agency in exercising it for more expropriation and becomes a pure actor of the Bourgeoisie, this happened not because certain economic factors determined it such, but in the class struggle (a real act of agency itself) this is what occurred. The state acts as the instrument of class rule not because it does so out of definition, it does so because the class has determined it as such. Avakian tries to find limits in the state, he tries to find something that limits dictatorship, such as laws; however one can only find how he is missing that the dictatorship is not bound to anything except its own consciousness in a determined material world.

A Dead Tyrant But No Justice!

2006-12-12T23:02:00.000-08:00

This semi-Chilean rejoices

Chilean strong arm of American Imperialism, General Augusto Pinochet Urgate, was buried with security abound. Pinochet lived to the ripe age of 91, evading justice for his politically motivated murders for decades. Pinochet overthrew the elected government of Salvador Allende on the infamous day of September 11, a day in Chilean history when two elected Governments were overthrown and Military Juntas established. Allende fought bravely against the CIA influenced Coup in the Presidential Palace till his death. Pinochet from then on became a lackey of American Imperialism and the darling boy of Monetarists and Neo-Liberals like Milton Friedman for a fake "Economic Miracle", which expanded impoverishment, inflation, and unemployment; however the GDP went up for the cream of Chilean society, the comprador Bourgeois and spineless Middle Classes.

Pinochet, though dubious for the left and oppressed people of Chile, remains still a figure of respect for many in the nation and a question that divides the nation. The history of the Allende government and the Pinochet coup is still an almost taboo subject in Chile until recently when the corruption charges against him and his son have opened up the dilog again.

Pinochet, instead of being buried like a dog (no offense to dogs), was given military honors on his funeral. The state, led by the fake Socialists Party which pissed on the Allende legacy, has refused to take a position on the death of the dictator. President Michelle Bachelet, even though her father was killed and her and her mother tortured by Pinochet's government, has been silent in respect for the Army and Pinochet supporters. Despite what is said about "Chilean Democracy," it still is in fear of the all powerful force of the Armed forces of Chile.

Though Pinochet is dead, I am not happy, the man enjoyed Nine decades of life without facing up to his crimes in any legtimate way. However there is something fulfilling to know Pinochet and Friedman are dead, albeit that is indeed morbid.

Fight Orthodoxy, Fight Dogmatism

2006-12-05T11:30:00.000-08:00

ShineThePath

Recently there has been a back and forth on Leftspot between me and Greg Young over whether or not the Baathist Party in Iraq specifically was a Fascist party? I think this discussion revealed some tendencies that should be dropped like a bad habit and I shall write briefly about them. I attend to write a fuller length article on “What is Fascism?,” such a question is an important one today as the word is pejoratively used by anyone and their grandmother to describe some authoritarian measure. RCP for example has been talking about a Fascist movement coming to fruition from the Christian Evangelical movement and the Bush administration. They make some comparisons between Hitler and Bush, and then they conclude “Fascism.” I am not satisfied with that at all, it throws away a lot of important things about Fascism such as ideology and practice.

Greg Young does quite the same; however while RCP is using the term “Fascism” in a flexible way to describe a certain reactionary core of America and the Republican party, Greg Young sticks to the Trotskyite-Stalinist interpretation of Fascism. That Fascism is essentially the bloody hand of the Bourgeois in times of great need, Fascism is just a tool of the Capitalist class to keep itself in power. This is of course a common understanding of Fascism through the eyes of orthodox Marxism and is further the general methodology of understanding consciousness and ideology from a Marxist standpoint. It is also an outdated way of looking at the world, a fundamentally Instrumentalist method that should have been wrapped around the body of Trotsky in his casket.

This instrumentalist thinking comes from the often cited and vulgarized concept of Marxist Base (Economy) and Superstructure (State). A lot to be said here, there has been a lot of work done around this field by many Marxist writers, my favorite being Althusser in his article “On Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatus.” It might contain some remnants of the instrumentalist past, but it is a continuation I think a “rupture,” if you like, that begins with Gramsci and through Mao toward the question of what is Consciousness and Ideology and how is it shaped. The question of consciousness is important for Communists, more important then whether or not the mysterious Productive Forces have given rise to Socialism. It isn't Productive Forces that will lead toward the development of Socialism, it is the consciousness of the Masses and their role as active agents in the radical change of society. This is not to say the radical socialization of the means of production and relations to the means of production or not important, but putting one sided emphasis on the economy is utterly useless without revolutionizing the consciousness of the masses and ourselves. The brilliance of Mass Line is that it gives this opportunity for the masses and ourselves to build class consciousness together.

Gramsci declared a “Revolution against Capital,” meaning the dogmatic Marxism that said societies like Russia and China were incapable of having a revolution because of their lack of an “industrial” class of workers and their backwardness in social relations. It was a revolution essentially against those who said the masses are nothing more than cogs in the systematic play of History, a revolution against a deformed Hegelian system posing itself as Historical Materialism.

This where relevant Marxism (meaning Maoism) obviously splits with Trotskyite dogmatism, a 19th century analysis in the day of Globalization. Over a century and a half have passed since Marx declared a Socialist revolution possible ONLY if Capitalism spawns it like a child from its womb, only if its economic forces are good enough. More and more the truth is leaking itself about Socialist revolution, that it doesn't come into the world as a child naturally conceived by the Capitalist mode of production, but is rather a brutal purge of Capitalism itself. It is a revolution of not only the economy, but is a necessary revolution of the mind. This revolution of the mind of man isn't essentially bound to whether or not you work construction or are an office worker.

Above all I declare our movement a revolution of Ideology.

Pinochet makes Statement on Birthday

2006-11-25T20:34:00.000-08:00

This article is sourced from here Reuters News. Nothing makes me more disgusted than a brutal Bourgeois miltary Dictator who apologizes and offers excuses...I wonder what people think of Chile and its history...thoughts an comments? I hope to return to Chile in the future, my short time in Chile was one of the most marking experiences in my life.

SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov 25 (Reuters) - Former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet celebrated his 91st birthday on Saturday with a mea culpa, taking "political responsibility" for acts committed following his 1973 military coup.

In a letter read by his wife, Lucia Hiriart, from the doorstep of his upscale Santiago home, Pinochet said loyalty to his country had motivated all his actions.

"I assume the political responsibility for all of the works carried out with no other motive than to make Chile a great place and prevent its disintegration," he said in the letter.

Pinochet did not accompany his wife to the porch of his home while she read the letter, but could be seen behind her. Later, he stood from a chair just inside the house to wave to a band of mariachi musicians who came to serenade him with his favorite song, the Mexican ballad "El Rey" (The King).

"Today, close to the end of my days, I want to make clear that I hold no rancor toward anybody, that I love my country above all else," Pinochet said in the letter.

The legal noose is tightening around Pinochet and he was recently, briefly under house arrest for crimes including torture, murder and kidnapping during his regime.

Around 3,000 people were killed or "disappeared" during the former general's rule and some 28,000 were tortured after he overthrew Marxist president Salvador Allende and came to power. While thousands of Chileans left the country and went into exile.

Most recently an appeals court stripped Pinochet of immunity -- a privilege of former presidents -- to face charges relating to the kidnap and disappearance of a Spanish priest in 1974 who was arrested by agents of Chile's DINA, the dictatorship's most oppressive police unit. (Additional reporting by Rodrigo Gutierrez and Victor Ruiz)

The Style Council

2006-11-19T01:11:00.000-08:00

Here is a video from Youtube...I hope all you Red Comrades enjoy this one. It is the Style Council and the song is Walls Come Tumbling Down. Paul Weller is a phenomenal artist...I shall dedicate a post to him in the future.

Important News around the Left

2006-11-18T23:38:00.000-08:00

There are some major developments throughout the Left in the world. I can't give my full detailed opinions in this post; however comrades, I shall link you to other blogs and news sources that can inform you better than I can.

The first thing of importance is at this moment the developments in Nepal around the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Prachanda in a recent interview with an Italian publication has put foward some stark contrasting ideas to the very fine dogma that many Communists have been use to. This is something that will certainly spark a lot of debate throughout the International Communist Movement, and push people to re-examine their lines. CPN (M) is leading the fight against Dogmatism, and it is sure to bring up the many contradictions in our movement. On Leftspot's Blog

Recently as well, Daniel Ortega has won the presidency of Guatemala. The Sandinistas are in power after their loss of power in the early 90s' which can be attributed to the USA and its hostile actions in supporting the Contras and squeezing the people into submission. However it is not the same Sandinistas as before...their politics have certainly changed with the times. Now they support CAFTA and other neo-liberal policies...a certainly much different FSLN. It has also making concessions to the Catholic Church by voting alongside other traditionalists against Aborition, Abortion is now illegal even in cases where it endangers a woman's life. I am not sure what to make of the Sandinistas; however it seems they are nothing more than a liberal movement at the moment, with some populist and nationalist rhetoric..we shall see in due time what kind of role they will play.

In Mexico, the authorities are now cracking down on the Oaxaca revolutionaries. After the murder of Brad Will, a Journalist of the Left-wing Indypendent. He was murdered in cold blood by Mexican police, and now the Mexican state has send in federal troops to deal its bloodier arm to crush the revolutionaries. The Mexican officals are now brazingly pushing the murder on the revolutionary APPO this is what their forensic scientists say. I don't really quite buy this, since there is taped evidence (tape shoot by Brad Will himself) that confirms that Mexican police were shooting into the crowd.

And of course..the American Elections ousted a Republican controlled congress and a Mr. Rumsfeld; however all those wanting to see Bush out of office...such a thing will not occur with the Democratic controlled Congress...they said so themselves. the FRSO (Fight Back!) analysis and of course RCP's view which pushs the World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime! line...which at any point seems unpractical. They don't push for impeachment...just to "drive him out and repudiate him." Some weaknesses I see in their article, but overall it is good.

are delightful

Thoughts on Typical Activism

2006-10-18T02:24:00.000-07:00

Hey everybody,

I liked to bring up this topic and get everyone's reactions. I found out about the event at Columbia, the protest against Gilchrist, through my father who happened to being watching Gilchrist debate a member of the Chicano political group at Columbia university. At first I disagreed with my father and protected the protestors, because I didn't see the actual protest and assumed all they did was hold up a large banner. I took time to watch the segment on Democracy Now on Youtube and was astonished at how these activists behaved. I am now currently finding myself in the minority of the so-called "activist" community because I disagree with the tactics, not because I thought Gilchrist has a right to speak (whether he does or not is insignificant), but I didn't see how bum rushing a stage was educating, exposing, and building class consciousness around the problem with undocumented workers. People very progressive were even alienated by the action. The rushing the stage was typical I thought of extreme student activism which has no connection to reality or to people.

So today I happen to stumble into ISO asking me to sign a petition to help the students at Columbia who took this action. I declined and cited my reasons, and I had a mini-argument with one young man in the group, and when I said I thought the action wasn't relevant to the struggle of undocumented workers, that in affect alienated people and didn't raise consciousness, they kind of blew up on me. In their usual ISO mannerisms (aggressive posturing and unwillingness to listen to others speak), they try to deduce the argument to make it seem I was a Gilchrist supporter, a Stalinist, and racist...etc. etc. That their action is correct because they silenced a Fascist. "They polarized the question." Which humors me, since the question has always been a polarizing one...what they truly have only polarized is themselves from real world people.

I realized afterwards really the reason why ISO, PSL, and these other groups took this action and why they focus vigorously on the Minuteman. In NYC, undocumented workers are treated as sweatshop labor and are super-exploited in every profession. There are cases every day, it is prevalent all around the cozy environment where these groups operate; however they themselves never confront the reality of this and settle with confronting boggy men like the Minuteman project. Yes I think it is absolutely important to expose Gilchrist and try to educate people about what their Project's implications really are and why we need to oppose it. Building class consciousness around this issue is important, but all of this is in itself meaningless when the very operations of super-exploitation are occurring all around you and you fail to even recognize that, that you give the meaning to only border crossing incidents with some nativist organization. Of course this corresponds well to the utter shallowness of their analysis of the "immigrant" issue. The very fact that they see this as an "Immigrant" issue alone shows their utter lack of class consciousness, and not seeing how this issue is truly an issue and concerns all laborers and workers, whether undocumented or not. "NO person is Illegal!" "Amnesty Now!" "No borders!" etc, etc, are the slogans that many of these groups have approached the Immigrant Communities with; however no matter how good of a response "No Person is Illegal!" gets, it still shows how inept their understanding truly is.

The question must be raised, how does any of what they call for actually help the worker (undocumented and documented) and actually solve the problem of Modern day slavery. Let us hypothetically say all Undocumented peoples are legalize, all this has really done is set up the process for new undocumented workers to be criminalized once again and go through the same process of exploitation. It doesn't actually solve any of the actual existing institutions that have already set up avenues for super-exploitation of peoples without their papers. Lets say HR 4337 is defeated, have these groups overlooked the fact that the IRCA of 1986 has enacted pretty much similar legislation which has already criminalized people. HR 4337 creates further criminalization, stopping it is a partial battle. Leaving it there is corresponding to the principle "The Movement is Everything, the Goal is Nothing."

What Leftists don't want to admit is there is an actual reality to there being a problem with illegal immigration itself. It has contributed and correlates with the continual worsening conditions for labor, and the employer taking advantage of all workers through employer sanctions, and the internal outsourcing through subcontracting. Further we must make clearly that overwhelming reason why undocumented workers leave their native birthplace is mostly economical. It isn't because there is some sort of dream they want to realize here, they in reality want to be Americans...this is hardly the case. Whole villages in Mexico have been rooted and have come here seeking economically better conditions in this nation. What does this say really about the system of Neo-Liberalism itself...is breaking down the borders the solution? It is what pushed these problems to their inevitable development. I will respond to those who say "No Borders!" by stating "Close the Borders! Save the Mexican Worker and Farmer!" Free Trade and the progress of NAFTA has created in many parts of Latin America greater poverty. This is why in the liberated areas controlled by the EZLN, the people have not left their land. They understand that the large stream of immigration to the North has caused various economic impacts at home, such as allowing monopoly farming to buy up land and further hurt the people. Zapatistas have even ostracized people for leaving. Why haven't the Left here realize this? Supporting immigration and "breaking down borders" is no way creating a better situation.

The changes in Oaxaca are inspirational, this is the only true way such a system of super-exploitation and criminalization will change, when the worker in Mexico and elsewhere is actually changing his conditions and society and beginning to realize the role Neo-liberalism plays. We must not act as some agency or advocacy group for understanding and support for Undocumented people. Acting as self-righteous "vanguard" agent who fights marginal fringe rightists doesn't accomplish a thing. We have to work with undocumented people to see their role as a worker, and raise their consciousness. How do you fight modern day slavery? You take the fight to the employer who exploits and the government who turns their blind eye to it. You go to the worker, learn from the worker, synthesize, and create a plan of action that builds class consciousness and exposes the workings of Imperialism in the work place.

This is the only way to change the conditions for day laborers, restaurant, construction, manufacturing, garment, and other workers where undocumented workers are super-exploited. Yelling "FASCIST!" Blaming the Right-wing Conspiracy, Holding up banners WON'T do this.

What to do with revisionism and dogmatism?

2006-10-02T22:30:00.000-07:00

Do What With Revisionism and Dogmatism?

As I made my trip back home in Philly I went looking through all my books. Thinking about my collection of my books. I looked through my Maoist collection of books. I decided to look into one of the bios, one series of bios I did not finish on Mao. The author of the two part book of Mao's life was written by Han Suyin. A very talented writer upon Mao. I came across a chapter called The Hundred Flowers in the book "Wind in the Tower: Mao Tsetung & The Chinese Revolution 1949-1975."

Within the beginning of the chapter it talks about Revisionism how it was coined and used by Mao. Han Suyin wrote:

The word "revisionism" was first used by Mao as a hint to the Kremlin leadership in December 1956. Again, in his March 1957 speech at the National Conference on Propaganda Work, Mao warned against revisionism at home. "One of our current important tasks on the ideological front is to unfold criticism of revisionism." However it appears that until 1963 the Chinese Party in the main did not feel that China could have "revisionists" in its upper echelons.

Denounced by Lenin as the crassest form of opportunism, revisionism is a distortion of the basic principles of communism. It denies class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat; it breeds a new elite class from within the Party itself, which in turn becomes an exploiting class and leads back to capitalism -- or worse, to what Lenin had called "social-imperialism." And its most pernicious feature is that while practicing capitalism, it cloaks itself in Marxist phrases and slogans.

This definition on revisionism is the clearest explaination I've found (for me) so far. This is not the only problem as Suyin puts it. Dogmatism was a big problem as well. She wrote:

Mao had always been critical of what he called "blind faith," unthinking acceptance of everything that Russia did because "it was the fount of socialism." He now hoped that "blind faith" would stop in the Chinese Party. The lessons of historical experience must be learned, he said, and Party members must develop their critical faculties. Mao told humorously how he had not been allowed to eat eggs of chicken soup for three years because Russian medical men said they were bad. Then they had changed their minds, and so had Mao's Chinese doctors. When he was painted with Stalin, the Chinese painters "made me a bit shorter [as if] knucking under to the moral pressure exerted by the Soviet Union at that time." But he also disapproved of Khrushchev's arbitary and total demolition of Stalin. It too was a kind of pressure, unprincipaled, non-analytic, and he only hoped that "blind faith" would not recur.

This means that not only revisionism is the demise of the Party, but also blind faith. To fight revisionism does not mean dogmatism should be embraced. How should all communists handle dogmatism and revisionism?

New Changes!

2006-09-21T22:27:00.000-07:00

This Blog will be changing for the better. I have been talking to many of my comrades in the Bronx, and the greater NYC area, and this Blog will certainly be moving forward as a voice of working people, especially youth in the Bronx. We are expanding and trying to open the revolutionary discource. We invite all others to visit frequently and to comment and debate. So keep tune...great posts from us soon!

9/11 Workers and Lower Manhattan Community Fight Back!

2006-09-10T12:38:00.000-07:00

On 9/11 thousands of workers were sent to work and clean up the disaster area down at Ground Zero. The work was primarly done by many laborers at Local 79, Local 78, and other laborers who were either undocumented or not with any particular Trade Union. These workers were exposed to toxic dusts and a unhealthy enviroement which the Federal government declared to be safe A number of TWU Local 100 members were affected as well, and of course members of the community which were blanketed by the toxic dusts that came from the rubble of the World Trade Center towers. These workers and people were immediately affected with numerous health problems which stretch from new cases of asthma, bronchitis, and other various lung conditions, to irregular menstruation and rashes. It has finally taken some 5 years for this to be exposed in the National media on 60 mintues tonight; however workers have been fighting against the fact the government on all levels have forgotten them. The government in this issue completely turned its back on workers and people of low income who could not afford to treat themselves from their own pocket.

They also knowingly hired undocumented workers to clean up the rubble of 9/11. These are people most affected by this case because they have no way of paying for their health problems and if they are unable to work, lose their whole livelyhood. The government's negligence and utter hypocricy reveals how apathetic and unconcerned this government can be. This nation declared those who participated in the clean up effort as heroes, and in the same breath handed them paper masks to deal with the toxic fallout. When it was obvious that these people needed much better equipment than paper masks and hard masks.

Now workers and communities are stepping forward. On September 6th, there was a relatively sizeable protest on a work day down at the site of the World Trade Center organized by NMASS and Beyond 9/11. The rally was attended by various workers organizations, such as CSWA and TWU Local 100, community groups, and other laborers. Local 79 and Local 78 have also put significant pressure on the State government to recognize the need to provide for workers affected on 9/11. So far this fight is being won by laborers. The state government was forced to pass legislation that gives workers and volunteers some health compensation for their work at the WTC. Check out this blog for more comprehensive news on the legislation from this Trade Unionist Blog. And of course the 60 Minute spot would have never aired where it not for the tireless effort of workers coming forward and demanding the government recognize what had happened.

In Reponse to Professor Grover Furr

2006-06-25T18:02:00.000-07:00

For those to understand what this about, please refer yourselves to Comrade Patrick's blog at http://celticfire.blogspot.com/2006/06/on-stalin-interview-with-grover-furr_17.html
Professor Furr has responded to my comments here

http://tinyurl.com/rkkug

This is my response...I liked to apologize as well to Professor Furr if he felt in anyway offended by comments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Furr and other readers,

I hope you allow my email to be linked to your rebuttal of myself, so your readers can I understand both sides of the coin.

I like to first point out through this whole diatribe against what I have stated you have assumed that I accept anti-Stalin works at face value, and that I myself am anti-Stalin. This can be further from the truth. I have historically defended most of the political line of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. I have defended his economic policies, and his campaign against Bukharin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and the rest. I defended his political line of Socialism in One Country and so on. So implying that I have said what I have said out of prejudice against Joseph Stalin is absurd. I have upheld the Soviet Union, defended Stalin, and defended those who upheld Stalin against Khruschev (Mao and the CPC, as well as Hoxha and the PLA).

Now I like to male some self-criticism of myself about certain issues, I did not bother to show references and this led me to make an accusation that is not true. This about one thing in particular that I made a mistake on, that concerning Bukharin's son. I got to completely confused with something else; however Bukharin's family was in the end split, Buhkarin's son was sent to an orphanage and Anna Larina spent decades in a labor camp. However what I said about certain comrades being tortured is not false, this even comes out during the trial when Rakovsky said how he spent six months in solitary confinement. Interrogations were long and drawn out with out right of attorney, without any judicial oversight. Confessions that are taken in such a manner are usually thrown out by any respectable court. In the United States, Police Enforcement have drawn out false confessions through less coercive tactics through interrogations that last hours. Rakovsky and others were interrogated for months in solitary confinement, can we make a logical conclusion about why they confessed? I ask you to take a look at quite a brief article from this website http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030430-000002.html

Now let us also consider certain things. Yezhov himself said that innocent victims will be the product of his purges; however this was necessary in order to force out "fascist" enemies of the Party. The period of Yezhovchina was marked with many victims, that Stalin himself was not aware of which Party members and cadre beyond the Central Committee were being sent to camps and the few who were being executed. Stalin realized this and had felt the NVKD and its prosecution during Yezhovchina had gone too far. The Central Committee passed resolutions stating that if the NVKD prosecutors and staff violate Soviet judicial law any longer they would be severely punished. Of course, the person to take the blame for all this was Yezhov himself. He was charged with an actual crime he did commit, killing thousands of innocent people and imprisoning hundreds of thousands; however it was because he himself was a foreign agent. Yezhov refused to confess to this, and once again there is no such proof that this was the case in the least bit. Professor Furr says that Yezhov and his allies did confess to such plots; however he produces menial evidence at best from a book he admits is anti-communist and does not recognize other key facts. A question should be asked is why isn't General Ernst Koestring talked about in any of the previous trials of the "Rightists," but brought along in this document?

Prof. Furr accuses me of not using primary documents from NVKD files and from other Russian archives; however Prof. Furr himself has used secondary sources throughout his interview and in his response to me. HE HAS NOT SITED ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT FROM THESE FILES! He has only cited works referring to those files, so how can I check any of his "primary sources?"

Further Prof. Furr maintains that Beria himself was close to Stalin and represented much of Stalin's will. How can this be? I ask was not Beria behind the fake Doctor's Plot? Kagnovich and Molotov have stated that Beria made statements in which he took credit for the death of Stalin. Beria planned on liberalization of the economy much like Khruschev and resembled plans for an NEP syled economy.

www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node149.html#SECTION0013203

Prof. Furr has accused me of being an anti-Communist and non-Marxist; he implies that I have not taken a scientific method. This is not true, if Prof. Furr was the least bit interested in my political line and whether I approach things scientifically, he should have bothered to learn the fact that I have supported Stalin, I have supported his leadership, and I have written furiously against Trotskyists and revisionists who have tried to make Comrade Stalin look like a monster, as Stalin would say "such is the facts." However it is important to point out that Prof. Furr himself picks and choices his references and ignores the very written word of good Marxist-Leninists such as Molotov, Kagnovich, and others. He completely has ignored the fact they themselves believed the Trials and the Great Purge to say the least to be "excessive."

It the last part, I like to say to Prof. Furr that there is much that unites us and little that divides us; however as he is continuing to study the legacy of Stalin, I am as well learning such a legacy of Stalin. However I myself have an opinion based on what I understand to be objective, and I don't have the slightest reason to BASH Stalin. I believe Prof. Furr does a great service as a scholar of Stalin, and trying to uphold the legacy of Stalin. What is more important, is to be critical about the history of Stalin, which I don't believe Prof. Furr has shown.

I shall conclude in agreement with Ludo Marten's book "Another View of Stalin." Here he cites Professor J Arch Getty in his book, "Origins of the Great Purge."

`The evidence suggests that the Ezhovshchina --- which is what most people really mean by the ``Great Purges'' --- should be redefined. It was not the result of a petrified bureaucracy's stamping out dissent and annihilating old radical revolutionaries. In fact, it may have been just the opposite. It is not inconsistent with the evidence to argue that the Ezhovshchina was rather a radical, even hysterical, reaction to bureaucracy. The entrenched officeholders were destroyed from above and below in a chaotic wave of voluntarism and revolutionary puritanism.'

Oppose Anti-Immigration! Fight for the Proletariat! Support Revolutiob Books Against Bigots!

2006-06-20T17:09:00.000-07:00

June 20, 2006

For Immediate Release
From: Revolution Books, New York City
9 West 19th Street
New York, NY 10011
revbooksnyc@revolutionbooksnyc.org
212-691-3345

Revolution Books, NYC, has learned of an announcement by the group "New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement" (NY I.C.E.) of an anti-immigrant "demonstration" outside Revolution Books on Friday, June 23. Following is a statement from Revolution Books, NYC:

A group calling itself "New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement" (NY I.C.E.) has issued a press release calling for a demonstration in front of Revolution Books, this Friday, June 23 at 6 p.m. Their stated aim is to bring "out from the shadows" those who support "illegal immigrants."

Revolution Books will stay open that day and invites people to come and learn the truth about the real issues involved, including to check out our foreign language book selection.

Revolution Books is proud to support the rights of immigrants and opposes a system that, in its never-ending search for greater and greater profit, forces over 200 million people worldwide to leave their homes and criss-cross the globe and be "kept in the shadows-- and even scapegoated and harassed by organizations like NY I.C.E. We will continue to provide the information that people need --the truth that people need--to change the world.

Revolution Books also invites the rank-and-file members of NY I.C.E. and other groups who are organizing against the rights of immigrants to go to the website of Revolution newspaper, revcom.us, to learn what is really going on here and how they are being manipulated.

***

From the Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA:

"In the communist future, the idea of borders that divide and rank people will be as absurd as the idea of 'racial divisions,' and the word 'immigrant' itself will lose its meaning."

END

Prachanda accepts role in Interim Gov't

2006-06-17T12:01:00.000-07:00

Rebels to Join Interim Nepal Government

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 16, 2006
Filed at 3:31 p.m. ET

KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) -- The chief of Nepal's Maoist rebels emerged from a landmark meeting with government leaders Friday to announce the guerrillas would join a new interim administration for the Himalayan kingdom.
The long-elusive rebel leader known as Prachanda said the new government would be formed within a month. ''This is a historic decision and will move the country in a new direction,'' he told reporters.

Officials of the government that took office after mass protests forced the king to give up absolute power April 24 had no immediate comment. But Home Minister Krishna Sitaula read the text of the deal before giving way so Prachanda could address reporters.

It remains to be seen if the leaders of the traditional political parties and the rebels can work together after a decade-long insurgency by the Maoists that killed 13,000 people and ruined Nepal's tourism business.

The interim government, which is to draw up a new constitution, will replace the current national parliament as well as the Maoists' ''people's government,'' which rules the territory they control, according to the deal.

The agreement also calls for creation of an interim constitution and for United Nations' oversight of both Nepalese soldiers and Maoist fighters. It makes no mention, however, of disarmament.
An agreement of some sort had been expected, and the deal was seen as a positive sign for Nepal, one of the world's poorest nations.

''Today's meeting was a breakthrough in establishing peace in Nepal,'' said Narayan Wagle, editor of Kantipur, the country's biggest newspaper. ''Prachanda appearing in public in the capital was a big achievement that guarantees that they (the rebels) will not be returning to the jungles.''

The past year has seen immense political changes in Nepal, where weeks of mass street protests and a general strike organized by an alliance between the rebels and the now-ruling parties forced King Gyanendra to relinquish the absolute power he had seized in early 2005.

Friday's announcement came after talks that began early in the morning, when Prachanda was flown to Katmandu in a government helicopter.

Prachanda and a deputy were escorted into the official residence of Prime Minster Girija Prasad Koirala under heavy security. Soon after, the heads of the political parties joined them.

The talks did not end until well after nightfall.

It was the first time Prachanda, whose real name is Pushpa Kamal Dahal, had met the country's top leadership since the insurgency began in 1996.

For a decade, Prachanda has been Nepal's most secretive figure, a one-time teacher and the son of a farmer whose rebel army took control of wide swaths of rural Nepal during its war to create a communist state. He seldom appeared in public, making only occasional visits to remote villages controlled by the rebels.

But dressed in gray shirt and trousers, he appeared at ease Friday during a brief meeting with reporters gathered in a tent set up in front of the prime minister's residence. He even made a joke about the tent not having lighting, saying that ''this is the state of the country.''

He said he intended to return soon to the rebel-controlled areas. Government officials refused to say where he would stay while in the capital.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said Sitaula, the home minister, flew by helicopter Friday morning to an unspecified location in western Nepal to pick up Prachanda and accompany him to Katmandu.

The first round of talks on ending the insurgency took place last month, when the two sides agreed on a code of conduct and said they would meet again.

On Thursday, during a second round of talks, government and rebel negotiators agreed to form a monitoring committee of peace activists and human rights workers with help from the United Nations.

The new government already released hundreds of rebels from jail, dropped terrorism charges against them, and agreed to a cease-fire. It also agreed to rewrite the constitution -- a key rebel demand that crippled peace talks in 2001 and 2003.

Is Bolivarianism the Future?

2006-06-06T18:53:00.000-07:00

I would like to understand why people feel the "Bolivarian Revolutionaries" in Latin America represent a Marxist line, while the leadership of Mao Tse Tung and Joseph Stalin does not? It is absurd to say the Venezuelan society under the leadership of the eclectic national Bourgeois, Chavez, is more socialist than the societies of China and the USSR under the leaderships of Comrade Mao and Comrade Stalin.
Let us look at the facts, I will speak about why Venezuela is not Socialist...but in essence is Capitalist.

1. Chavez is not a Marxist, he is in fact quite eclectic and nationalistic. Chavez has called himself a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Christian, a Bolivarian, and even a Maoist. Chavez is really none of these things, except for a strong man populist leader. While Chavez is obviously influenced by Marxist and even Maoist rhetoric, it is quite clear he does not understand Marx, Lenin, or any of Socialist theory in any way. Chavez is indeed a follower of Bolivar though, that is to say, Chavez is a Bourgeois Nationalist. This has been his ideology, Casearism and Nationalism.

2. Venezuelan economy is CAPITALIST. It operates and functions as do all Capitalists economy, and exchanges on the World Market. There is still substantial foriegn investment in the nation, private property ownership, Capitalist businesses, and so on. Classical textbook Capitalism at work; however there is more Social spending. This has been the accomplishments of Hugo Chavez, creating a modern european styled welfare state, like a European model. Chavez is in reality not opposing Capitalism, nor Imperialism, he is fighting fo his nation's own Capitalist development, so it can take the world stage and lead Latin America in competition against America and other European nations.

3. There has been no change in class relations in the nation what so ever. While there has been little power given to the masses under Chavez, being he is a populist, the Masses have not taken power, nor are they being used to change society. The masses are mostly idol, waiting for their savior Chavez to save them. The Bourgeoisie still have great power and lead society mainly, while allowing the crums to fall to the floor for the masses.

Now if you look at Comrade Mao, these criticisms can't be made about his leadership at all. While Comrade Stalin made many errors in not utilizing the Masses for the Revolution. Mr. Chavez has not accomplished anything significant in changing class relations in his nation nor allowing the masses to take more power into their hands, nor has he in any way changed Venezuelan economy.

Hopefully Chavez can move beyond his eclecticism, and start shaping a socialist society and lead the masses to changing their nation...but I think this is idle thinking if we think Chavez has already done this.
I also think it is rather foolish to denounce Comrade Mao or Comrade Stalin, without making any thorough going criticism of both men, and without looking critically at Mr.Chavez's "Boliviarin Revolution."

An Excellent Article from the Independent!

2006-05-02T10:18:00.000-07:00

After Years Of Insurgency, Nepal EruptsBy Jed Brandt From the April 29, 2006 issue Posted in International
In a dramatic turn of events, Nepal’s Maoist-led People’s Liberation Army lifted ablockade of the capital of Katmandu and announced a unilateral three-month ceasefire after politicians in the newly restored parliament agreed to elect a constituent assembly that would tackle the status of the country’s much-despised monarchy.According to the Hindu, a daily in India, Maoist rebel leader Prachanda warned against any backsliding, however. “I wish to make it clear that if the first meeting of the (restored) parliament does not take a positive decision on the declaration of an unconditional constituent assembly, we will be compelled to reimpose the blockade.”

The move came after King Gyanendra restored on April 24 the very same parliament he dissolved four years ago in a lastditch effort to save his regime. Gyanendra had been isolated after a 19-day general strike that saw millions of Nepalese demand his ouster and the establishment of an assembly.

The king’s retreat came the evening after one million protesters, fortified by throngs from the countryside, pushed past Katmandu’s city limits and braved shoot-on-sight curfews, tear gas and mass arrests that had already left hospitals overflowing with thousands injured and at least 19 killed.

Amid popular jubilation, leaders of the “Seven Party Alliance,” independent of a loose pact with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), chose the infirmed octogenarian G.P. Koirala of the centrist Congress Party for his fifth stint as Prime Minister.

It was just 14 months ago that the king assumed emergency powers and established a brutal dictatorship in response to the Maoistled “People’s War” that had established effective control over 80 percent of Nepal’s Himalayan countryside.

The terror previously reserved for the Maoists was unleashed on the middle classes and their political representatives in the Seven Party Alliance. Thousands were arrested, tortured, raped and disappeared by the Royal Nepal Army. Freedom of assembly and the press were completely suppressed. The king’s foreign sponsors, the United States, Britain and India, which views Nepal as part of its regional sphere of influence, were forced to distance themselves from the regime they had armed and trained. The Hindu monarch, who claimed to be the living incarnation of the god Vishnu, withdrew into his palace while his army ran amok.

TOWARDS DEMOCRACY, UNITY AGAINST THE KING

With Gyanendra regarded by the vast majority of the population as illegitimate, the Maoists and the Seven Party Alliance announced an alliance on Nov. 21, 2005, despite years of often lethal conflict. The Seven Party Alliance was party to the government’s counterinsurgency campaign, and the Maoists targeted the parties’ officials in kind.

The parties and the Maoists united behind a “12-point agreement” demanding a democratic constituent assembly to draft a new constitution and decide the monarchy’s fate.

The Maoists called a ceasefire and requested peace negotiations aimed at the king’s abdication. Gyanendra refused, and issued a call at the start of 2006 for municipal elections, which were boycotted by every party and flopped.

The Maoists went on the offensive militarily, scoring successive victories against the army, which was increasingly confined to the barracks.

In February and March, Prachanda and the unorthodox leader of the Maoists’ popular organizations, Baburam Bhattarai gave a series of interviews to the international press in which they pledged their respect for democracy and called for a “final blow” against the monarchy. This was the first time Prachanda appeared in public since the launch of the people’s war in 1996.

The Seven Party Alliance took responsibility for organizing the urban protests, which spread spontaneously. Schools were shut down, virtually all commerce stopped and the pro-democracy movement became the only order of the day. Young people dominated the bloody protests, and politicians kept a low profile.

For their part, the Maoists launched a renewed military offensive, attacking targets around the country, while sparing the capital. As the protest began, an army helicopter was downed by ground fire for the first time.

Revolution, a Chicago-based paper published by the Revolutionary Communist Party, reported, “On April 6, the PLA took over Malangwa, the district headquarters of Sarlahi [and the main trade link with India]. The action left dozens of security personnel dead, and dozens injured. Some 125 prisoners, most of them political, were released from the prison.”

By the denouement of the April protests, when it became clear the king had no domestic support outside the military, the U.S. State Department called for the king to step into a “ceremonial role,” restore the urban political class to power and, it hoped, forestall an insurrection that would upend the feudal order and leave the Maoists with a clear path into the capital. The State Department is hoping the Seven Party Alliance will save the state from the rising revolution and has offered aid.

SACRIFICE THE KING TO SAVE THE STATE
The king still stands in control of the military. The Maoists initially denounced the Alliance’s acceptance of the king’s terms as a “historic blunder,” only calling off their blockade on the promise of an immediate constituent assembly and that they would no longer be designated as a terrorist group, according to local media.
Koirala was set to be sworn in as prime minister on April 28, but he is reported to be too sick to leave his bed. Statues of the king are being ripped down throughout the country, with celebration and anxiety in equal measure.

As The Indypendent goes to press, the Maoists have announced a mass rally in the heart of Katmandu while the parliament they are not part of meets. You can skip to the end to leave a response.

"Hang the King!" They Chant

2006-04-22T12:36:00.000-07:00

King Gyanendra has said that he would restore "democracy" in Nepal, and wants peacen in Nepal. It seems hallow, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninists) [CPN (UML], one of the major parties in the Seven Party Aliance (SPA) has already rejected the kings offer on the basis that it leaves out the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [CPN (M)] from the process, and it does not concern itself with the twelve point agreement made with the SPA and CPN (M). The Constituent Assembly seems to be the only thing the SPA wants, and this will mean the end of the Feudal Dictator, King Gyanendra. It will soon be the end of the King, and perhaps the Constituent Assembly will lead to a New Democratic State. Prachanda and Dr. Bhuttari (spelling?) have been leading a new break, I think what this is leading to...above all is national liberation and democratic soverignty of the people. And perhaps we will see a new Maoist state that will allow for multi-party democracy under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Maybe this is the new "People's Democratic Dictatorship" to quote Mao. It is hard to say, but what is indeed clear is that the SPA and CPN (M) on the basis of the 12 point agreement, is bound for victory.

Long Live the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)! Uphold the 12 Point Agreement and Democracy for the People!

Check out some interesting links and stories...

http://cpnm.org/new/English/documents/Bulletin_15.htm

http://www.asiantribune.com/show_article.php?id=3125

Set The Record Straight

2006-04-18T10:42:00.000-07:00

Next stop for Set the Record Straight speaking tour —Columbia UniversityThursday, April 20, 6:00 pmFaculty House, Harison Rm, 2nd Floor400 West 117th St. (between Amsterdam & Morningside)
Download the leaflet and postcard for the NYC program.On February 23, Raymond Lotta spoke at Harvard University. The audience included students from diverse fields, including economics, anthropology, and romance languages. There were students from Eastern Europe and a few visiting scholars from other parts of the world. A member of the Harvard Medical School faculty emceed the program. read more...In October 2005, the Set the Record Straight project hit the University of California-Berkeley and UCLA campuses. This was the first round of Raymond Lotta's national campus speaking tour: "Socialism is Much Better Than Capitalism, and Communism Will Be a Far Better World." The political and ideological climate cries out for this project. Here we are: unjust war in Iraq and the "normalization" of torture, half the planet living on less than $2 a day, strangulation of the Earth's ecosystem, natural disasters like tsunamis and hurricanes that become social disasters. These are the workings and outcomes of world capitalism. Growing numbers of people are concerned about the state of the world and the fate of the planet. Do things have to be this way? read more...At UCLA, the campus reactionaries took notice and alarm. On the day of the speech, the campus republicans wrote an anticommunist rant in The Daily Bruin of UCLA attacking the speech and the two departments sponsoring it. Set the Record Straight replied in The Daily Bruin.

2006-04-16T22:22:00.000-07:00

Hey Everyone...A New post, educating fellow comrades about a struggle that needs to be waged. One I think is particularly important. The opposition against H.R. 4437 is a Class Struggle, not just about Immigrants, but about all Proletarian people...documented and undocumented. Learn more about this comrades, at www.nmass.org. Repeal IRCA!! Fight for ALL Working People!

WHAT IS "EMPLOYER SANCTIONS"?
“Employer Sanctions” is a misnomer
Signed into law by President Reagan, employer sanctions was supposedly enacted to protect jobs for U.S. citizens by punishing employers with a fine for “knowingly” hiring undocumented workers. Contrary to its name, however, few employers are actually “sanctioned” under the law. In 2004, for example, the government issued to employers a total of only three “notices of intent to fine.” The limited number of enforcement actions against employers since 1986 is no accident; there are strong political and economic interests that favor expanding the supply of cheap labor.
Consequently, it is not the employers that are punished by the law, but working people in this country. The government gives e mployers a ‘hoodwink and a nod' to hire undocumented workers, authorizing them to wield unchecked power and to use immigration status to legally exploit workers. By denying undocumented workers the right to make a living, our government creates an underclass of laborers who are criminalized and forces them to accept the most undesirable, inhumane working conditions. To compete with undocumented workers, native-born Americans and documented workers must then lower their standards or else be replaced by cheaper labor, fueling a cycle of resentment and hostility among working people.
The Real Purpose
The purported intent of employer sanctions was to deter illegal immigration and to protect American jobs by targeting the demand for undocumented workers. Yet, government, community groups, labor unions, and scholars recognize that employer sanctions has accomplished neither goal.
Employer Sanctions:
DID NOT PROTECT: It made the undocumented workforce even more attractive by stripping away their rights to demand fair conditions and forcing U.S. citizens and documented workers to compete with them in a race-to-the-bottom.
DID NOT DETER: It actually increased the demand for a vulnerable group of workers and invigorated employer demand for cheap labor. Today there is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. , a dramatic increase from the estimated 4 million present when IRCA was enacted. In the 1990s, there was a net annual increase of approximately 500,000 persons.
THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE
With so many proposals for immigration reform on the table, many questions arise on what a true immigration reform should be. We address some of the common questions below.
Will the repeal of employer sanctions mean more undocumented immigrants coming to the U.S. ?
In its quest to remain competitive, the U.S. government along with business interests must maintain an economy wholly dependent on the exploitation of undocumented and documented workers. They ultimately desire more undocumented workers, not less. While there are other factors that influence why immigrants come to the U.S. , the government-created “pull factor”of employer sanctions proves to be a powerful force in channeling more undocumented workers to this country. Employer sanctions, by criminalizing undocumented workers, has created an environment whereby undocumented workers are favored by unscrupulous employers and can easily gain employment as exploited labor. This has led to the expansion of the underground economy, making the labor law unenforceable. Law abiding employers who compete with unscrupulous employers must also lower their standards and conditions. Meanwhile, undocumented immigrants are uprooted from their native countries, separating families and diminishing the chances for communities to come together to change conditions in their native country.
Repealing employer sanctions means 1) workers will no longer easily be pitted against one another to compete for jobs and will have greater opportunities to organize, which will lead to 2) greater enforcement of not only labor but other laws as people come out of the shadows, and 3) the destruction of the foundation that all regressive anti-immigrant measures rest on. All of these changes will seriously weaken the incentives created by the government when it enacted employer sanctions. Employers will no longer have the same insatiable desire to seek out undocumented workers because they will no longer be as vulnerable.
Why won't putting more resources into strengthening enforcement against employers result in better wages and job conditions?
Some argue that strengthening penalties against employers and setting up a better system for verifying a workers work authorization would solve the problem. This position is flawed at its core. The call to reinforce employer sanctions is really just a ruse that, as the last twenty years since IRCA have shown, will be used to push undocumented workers further underground and continue to downgrade the conditions of both immigrant and citizen workers. The government will continue its consent to the hiring of undocumented workers. Employers, too, will find other ploys to evade sanctions such as increasing their use of subcontracting.
Why aren't legalization or a temporary guestworkers program viable long-term solutions?
Not one immigration reform proposal currently being offered by the Administration or by Congress calls for the repeal of employer sanctions. In fact, many of the proposals, such as Sensenbrenner's Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Act (HR 4437) and Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy's The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, call for the strengthening of employer sanctions and stepped up border control and enforcement. These measures will only widen the gap within and between the community and increase the coercive power of employers over their workforce.
From our history, we know that legalization programs are limited when they are not able to address the causes and effects of an increased undocumented population. Twenty years ago, when advocates traded employer sanctions for the amnesty provision of IRCA, the cost of legalizing 2.7 million immigrants meant in return the future criminalization of tens of millions more people who came after 1982. The Bush Administration proposal for “temporary guestworkers”, and other proposals like it, will become another limited legalization program that will keep workers in indentured servitude-like conditions.
How does Employer Sanctions impact us?
Repeal of employer sanctions affects us all no matter who we are
The criminalization of immigrant workers has hurt all workers and communities. Employer sanctions puts labor law in the hands of employers, not workers. As a consequence, employer sanctions becomes a versatile tool for employers to further exploit workers. Employers can readily invoke sanctions in order to pit workers against one another based on immigration status, retaliate against undocumented workers who stand up and crush any unified organizing efforts, and defend against their own law-breaking actions by arguing that undocumented workers have no rights because they are “illegal.”
For instance, i n New York an employer utilized employer sanctions to retaliate against a group of undocumented and documented Chinese restaurant workers when they began organizing together. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, African-American workers and undocumented Latinos are being pitted against each other throughout the rebuilding efforts in the South, giving employers free reign to drive working conditions downward. Many workers in a range of industries see the mid- and late 80s as a demarcation for when working hours began to skyrocket while wages plummeted . With such a system in place, documented workers, too, have little room to refuse or to organize against unfair working conditions.
Employer sanctions is also the cornerstone of a series of regressive, anti-immigrant laws we are seeing today such as Hoffman-Plastics and Real ID Act on the federal level. It is also being used to justify new state laws that deny undocumented injured workers their owed compensation and medical benefits. In other parts of the country, particularly Arizona , employer sanctions constitutes the basis of the national trend to attack the rights of undocumented workers.
The repeal of employer sanctions will lead to greater labor protections for all working people and can actually raise our standards. It will diminish employer control over the workforce and counter the trend of regressive legislation. By decriminalizing undocumented immigrants and bringing this underclass from out of the shadows, the abolition of employer sanctions will also allow for greater security in our communities and lead to a safer, more just society for us all.

What are the effects of employer sanctions outside of the workplace?
By forcing an entire class of workers into the shadows of society, employer sanctions makes not only labor law but all laws unenforceable. It discourages people from openly exercising their civil liberties or coming forward to report crimes and illegal activities, threatening the security of us all.

Is it Clear to Say?

2006-04-14T08:57:00.000-07:00

Well it has been some time since Fukuyama declared that history has ended. If this is the end of History, and we are to see the last man, how unsatisfying. There are literally people starving in the tens of millions and we have enough to feed the whole world over and over again, yet we can't allow the Market to make prices cheaper...it would cause Market chaos. We are on the verge on ecological disaster; however the Capitalist world is more addicted to the Petroleum based economy than ever. I see the oppression and exploitation of my fellow neighbors, and the mental shackles that have been placed on my whole generation. If this was the best of all worlds we could possibly hope for, I wonder what the worst was. Well am I clear to say now? I don't believe that is the best we are afforded, not in the least! There is something still out there, in my opinion, it is in the blood of those who toil, of those who have not in this society. It screams in their sweat, it is anger in those tears. After 30 years since the death of the "great helmsman" Chairman Mao, after 39 years since the death of the young revolutionary named Che in the mountains of Bolivia, after 89 Years sine the Bolsheviks stormed the palace in St.Petersburg, and yes after 158 years since these words were first said, there is still the spectre of Communism which haunts the Capitalist World. We look to the top of the world, and there the red flags waves and invites others to join in to rid ourselves of our Monsters. In Nepal, a small mountain country, our brothers fight to rid themselves of a genocidal and fascist monarchy. They offer all those who fight for Democracy, the olive branch, but for the Monarchy they only offer the bullet. They have been fighting this People's War for the past ten years. I salute them for their epic People's War. Long Live CPN (M)! Long Live Pracanda Path! In the Phillipines, our brothers and sisters fight against Fascism and US Imperialism, they strive to liberate the Filipino people from the comprador bourgeoisie and Imperialism. CPP is a leader in a coalition with our revolutionary parties in what is known as the National Democratic Front, and it also leads the New People's Army. They work tirelessly in accordance to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and fight for the Proletariat and Peasantry, the have nots of society. They have been fighting their People's War for the last 37 years! And they have yet to relent. Long Live the CPP! Long Live Jose Maria Sison! The world over is fighting against US Imperialism. What end of History do you see? They are still fighting for Communism! Whether it is in the island of the Phillpines, the mountains of Nepal, the jungles of India, the villages in China, or the streets of New York. We are not dead yet, and lets put the Bourgeoisie on warning, we have just begun!