Friday, December 28, 2007

Real Maoists Support Lakota National Liberation, Fakes Don’t.

Last week, a group called the Lakota Freedom Movement declared that it is withdrawing from all treatise with the U.S.. This group, which includes Native American activist and actor Russell Means, says it intends to set up its own state and has sent the news via delegation to Washington. Red Guard Camp enthusiastically welcomes this act as a step towards the liberation of the oppressed Lakota nation. As Maoists, it is our duty to lend full support for the national struggles of oppressed nations.

RGC intentionally held off on reporting this news so that the response it generated could be analyzed. Of most interest is the response from so-called Maoists and revolutionaries. Let’s see how they fared.

Monkey Smashes Heaven, which has shown itself to be a leading light of First World Maoism, was quick to pick up this story and support the Lakota Freedom Movement and its struggle for national liberation. The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver also reposted a press release on the historic event.

Real Maoists and real revolutionaries also support national liberation against imperialism unconditionally. A key test for revolutionaries is the support lent towards national liberation when there are no widely visible national liberation movements.

Shubel Morgan, a groundbreaking Maoist agitprop artist, has made several videos about national liberation, Maoist revolution, white settlerism, and amerika’s founding genocide. Additionally, Shubel Morgan has begun releasing these videos in a number of languages; thus helping to advance Maoism and national liberation on an international scale. Shubel Morgan has demonstrated a critical dedication towards the cause of national liberation and anti-imperialist revolution.

The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver has also came out as a firm supporter of national liberation. They have produced a number of articles in support of oppressed nations and have created agitation art towards the same end. They’ve promoted events highlighting the truth about amerika’s genocidal past and ones supporting Mexican national liberation. According to their blog, RAIM-Denver has also been active in Mayday pro-immigration rallies and Kolumbus Day counter-protests. Whereas Shubel Morgan and Monkey Smashes Heaven have done much to promote national liberation far, wide and deep, RAIM-Denver has been working to promote and support national liberation on a local level. All are proving themselves to be genuine and all-around friends of revolution.

The pseudo-Maoists on the other hand appear not to support the Lakota Freedom Movement. That they have been silent on this issue is a clear indication of this. Instead of supporting current national liberation struggles or supporting them generally, pseudo-Maoists at best mention national liberation in passing without clearly defining it. More likely, pseudo-Maoists obscure the role of national liberation completely.

Leftspot for instance, on Decemeber 26th [almost a week after the news first broke], posted an all-around sucky article about the contributions of Mao. This article failed to even mention national liberation or the united front against imperialism. Instead, Leftspot chose to glorify the “mass-line.”

But Leftspot wasn’t the only one who apparently doesn't give a fuck about this recent news. In fact, one can barely find a mention of the Lakota Freedom Movement throughout the pseudo-maoist blogospehere or from the litany of fake-revolutionary organizations. The silence about the Lakota Freedom Movement is quite telling. What is even more a indicative of their corrupted “line” is what they chose to talk about instead.

Fakes have distorted Maoism to the points where it duplicitously supports “national liberation” while diminishing the role of actual national liberation struggles. Leftspot, Mike Ely, etc push an idealistic and non-Marxist “mass-line” which smears over anything resembling a class analysis. In this manner, garbage pile “maoism" is a vehicle for the advancement the labor-aristocray and a tool used to negate the specific role of oppressed nations. All of this happens while psuedo-maoists generally ignore both the Lakota Freedom Movement and the direct criticisms that I have made of their reactionary politics.

Leftspot, Mike Ely and the rest of the pseudo-maoist circus have proven themselves to be fakes of the worst kind. They have proven themselves as people who take up “Maoism” while at the same time opposing national liberation and the most vibrant and dedicated modern anti-imperialist struggles. They have steadfastly dumped the struggles of oppressed nations against imperialism and instead taken up the cause of an united labor-aristocracy. Their lack of support for the Lakota Freedom Movement , their constant obfuscation of national liberation and their steadfast support for a nonexistent white proletariat are all testament to the bankrupt and ultimately social-facist nature of their "maoist" politics.
Update 12.28.07
Rumor is that Putin is considering recognition of the Lakota Nation as a sovereign state.

Update 1.03.08
The Lakotah Freedom Movement website has a new url:
See Also:

Monkey Smashes Heaven comments on Lakota Freedom Movement

Shubel Morgan's Final Solution and Kolumbus Day in Amerikkka

RAIM-Denver's reports on Transform Kolumbus Day and Mayday

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Nine Letters “Critique” of RCP Drops, No Big Deal.

Around the First World pseudo-maoist pseudo-scene, a small fervor is building around a document entitled Nine Letters to Our Comrades. The document, billed as a “maoist” critique of the RCP, was collectively written and attributed to Mike Ely, a former high-level stage-manager inside the party.

To their credit, Mike Ely and Co. have taken “maoist” creative writing to a new level. Flowery language does well to cover-up for lack of substance. But substance isn’t what Mike Ely is about; hyperbole and idealism is. No doubt, this document is somewhat of a rallying cry for many disaffected pseudo-maoist.

Per usual, Red Guard Camp isn’t impressed. In the cliché “maoist” fashion, Nine Letters runs roughshod over material class analysis, instead preferring abstract conjectures. The actual critique of the RCP is that “real mass-line” has taken a backseat to the Avakian personality-cult.

Red Guard Camp understands this for what it is: another link in the chain of endless platitudes and polemics about “mass-line,” the usual idealist and subjective class “analysis,” and another twist and one more split in the New “Communist” Movement.

All and all this document doesn’t matter. Just like every other splitter document in the sordid history of the NCM, it has little weight and will result in absolutely nothing of significance. There is about an ice cubes chance in hell that any sort of functioning political entity will congeal around this document. Rather, Mike Ely looks to be another Ben Seattle, doomed to spend the rest of his active life handing down lofty pronouncements to a handful of delusional and often times transient adherents.

Perhaps the best utility in Nine Letters is that it may fatally wreck the RCP. This would most definitely be a good thing since RCP has spent the last decade wrecking Maoism internationally. Personally though, I ambivalent about whether another organization springs forth or if the RCP chugs on mostly unscathed. Between a third FRSO or a new-age cult pyramid scheme that claims “Maoism,” neither one is much better than the other.

Good riddance to the whole lot,
Red Guard Camper

P.S. Someone should forward Nine Letters to Scott Harrison. I’m sure this is just the type of thing he’s looking for.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Note On Leftspot

Well, these posts have been going for quite a while with no word from “Leftspot.” For the record, I’ve left his blog a couple comments but he apparently didn’t “approve” of them.

I really hope that our international comrades are paying attention to this polemic and LeftSpot’s outright refusal to defend his bankrupt views. Pseudo-maoists like Leftspot deserve no credibility.
"Not to reply to an argument of one's opponent on a question of principle, and to ascribe only 'pathos' to him, means not to argue but to turn to abuse"
V.I. Lenin, "Some Remarks of the 'Reply' by P. Maslov" Collected Works Vol XV

“Abuse in politics often covers up the utter lack of ideological content, the helplessness and the impotence, the annoying impotence of the abuser.”
V.I. Lenin, "The Political Significance of Abuse"

Both quoted by Mao in On the Question of Stalin.
Update 12-24-07

Well I don't think Leftspot is going to defend his views. In the two days since I've first made this post, he's taken the time to display his "leftist" wikipedia-like understanding of Maoism but in the three+ weeks since I posted Part 1, he hasn't found time to even acknowledge my criticism.

Anyways, I'm going to send him one more comment. Will he respond? Probably not. But at least no one can say I didn't try.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Mass Line: Applications in the First World? Pt 4 of 4

Now I know by now some of you must be thinking, “Red Guard Camper, you mass-line hating mother-fucker..” But I have to say, its not true at all. Nobody loves the mass-line more than I. I just hate it when wannabe-maoists mangle “mass-line” to the point of irrelevance. And both in theory and practice that is what they do.

But for genuine Maoists mass-line has been a problem also: a problem over how it can be applied in a setting where there generally are no revolutionary masses. Here and now is my attempt to clear up some of this confusion.

The problem with pseudo-maoists today is simple. Theirs is a gross non-understanding of imperialism, parasitism and the labor aristocracy: a fundamental non-understanding of the principal contradiction. For genuine Maoists this is not a problem.

Maoists today have a basic understanding that there isn’t a mass base for revolution in oppressor First World nations. Amerika is majority labor aristocrat and is dominated by labor aristocrat culture. The amerikan “masses” are a social base for fascist reaction, not proletarian revolution. On a theoretical level, First World Maoists understand this pretty clearly.

While Maoists correctly uphold that there is no such thing a revolutionary mass-line [of the traditional sense] in a place like amerika, there has been a general lack of clarity on how to adopt mass-line to our particular situation. This has become a major theoretical and practical hurdle for First World Maoism.

One response has been to contradict Maoism by setting up “mass-organizations” with a general “mass” orientation (generally meaning not explicitly Maoist). The other, more correct, has been to conduct work that for all practical considerations is an adaptive form of mass-line while not identifying it as such.

So how should First World Maoists approach mass-line? What is a correct approach? How can we correct the errors of the past?

One of the first questions we must ask about any practical First World mass-line is what purpose it serves. This is important because the purpose of the mass-line is often assumed instead of scientifically analyzed. Typically, both in the Maoist and “maoist” camps, “mass-line” has been used to build the “vanguard party.” For Maoists this notion is completely misguided.

If there is not a social base for revolution, how can there be a functioning revolutionary party? The answer, there can’t be- not in any real sense. Therefore, it makes no sense to situate your mass-line off of building some sort of revolutionary “party” or organization. The logical and likely most sustainable end for any adapted form of Maoist mass-line would be to replicate Maoism: to increase the number of scientific Maoist thinkers.

Now that erroneous assumptions about the function of mass-line has been corrected, we can go on to answer other important questions. Foremost being, “who exactly are the ‘masses’ for whom our mass-line applies?” This area probably requires the biggest stretch in terms of correctly understanding and applying any sort of First World mass-line. Try to keep up.

In asking the question of masses we should ask, “who are our friends.” Don’t be mistaken. There are real friends of the oppressed in the First World. These friends are scientific Maoists like Shubel Morgan, the Monkey Smashes Heaven crew and myself. So the question for First World Maoism, the force that wields First World mass-line, then becomes “who are potential friends, where do they come from, and what is the most effectives ways [our mass-line] to bring the largest number most solidly into scientific Maoism?”

Obviously this leaves open a lot of theoretical as well as practical questions. For now these questions will have to go unanswered until people start answering them for themselves. It’s not that I don’t have my own thoughts as to a correct way forward. It’s just that any answer I can provide would be heavily marred by my own experience and thus be mostly subjective.

But we must remember that all knowledge is cumulative experience. Moreover, we must remember that the best forms of First World mass-line will only be worked out through conscious practice and the summing-up of past experience. It is on that note that I urge all First World Maoists to assess both their current and past work, relate it to this new understanding of mass-line and begin to, on their own terms and according to how they feel correct, blaze the way forward.

Till Next Time,
Red Guard Camper

P.S. I know there has been a tendency to outright dismiss mass-line as “ass-line.” While superficially correct, such a label undermines the more universal aspects of mass-line in terms of building cohesion and raising consciousness. To simply dismiss these more universal aspects of the “mass-line” simply because there are no masses is- in its own nuanced way- a form of dogmatism.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

A History of “Mass Line” Failings, The New Communist Movement Then And Now, pt 3 of 4

The concrete history of the failings of mass-line idealism is deeply intertwined with the history of the New Communist Movement [sic]. Part 2.9 of this series dealt with the who’s who of the New Communist Movement. This article will elucidate the political context of the New Communist Movement and relate it to the dismal record of the “mass-line.”
The New Communist Movement was conceived in the turbulent 1960’s. The years preceding the induction of the NCM was marked by mass radicalization [including very healthy national liberation trends] within amerika and a global upswing in worldwide revolutionary movements led by the example Maoism. Unfortunately, even before NCM fully came into being, this trend began to reverse: a visible decline in U.S radicalism had begun and the Cultural Revolution had already been dealt a number of serious blows. Understanding this context is key to understanding the NCM and much of its errors.

While the New Communist Movement never had a unified political line, there is a specific set of political characteristics were widely descriptive of it. First, the NCM was deeply influenced, at least in form, by Maoism. Second, the NCM ran slipshodly over class analysis and held that amerika was majority exploited. Third, they declared that a “genuine” vanguard party was needed to organize the “masses” and lead them towards revolution. Lastly, they often held that the way to do this was through “mass-line.”

On a personal level, Red Guard Camp sympathizes with the early NCM. A period of astounding revolutionary energy followed by an immediate and irreversible die-off in radicalism must have thrown many genuine comrades through quite a loop. From this perspective it is easy to understand how and why such conclusions were reached. Additionally, not all of these erroneous ideas can be solely attributed to the RYM and early NCM. During this same period, the supposed vanguard of revolutionary thought and practice- The Chinese Communist Party- upheld an incorrect line regarding the extend of parasitism and the labor aristocracy. In this regard, uncritically following the lead of the CCP and so-called “Marxist” conventional wisdom helped push the NCM into wrong positions.

On the other hand, understanding the conditions which lead to specific errors is not the same as excusing these errors or those who commit them. Indeed, it is not like the NCM couldn’t have made a scientific class analysis itself. There were a few comrades of the period who were raising serious questions about the role of parasitism and the labor aristocracy. Likewise, there were historical references to the labor aristocracy by Engles, Lenin, the Communist International and indirectly Lin Piao. But all and all revolutionary science was vastly overshadowed by the “sounds good, feels good” politics of the day.

But the point here is not to further beat down the NCM. There isn’t really much use in that since there isn’t a “NCM” to correct. Maoists must critically assess the errors of the NCM so that we can push revolutionary science further. We must understand the NCM’s errors but also their root causes so that we ourselves do not perpetuate them.

Nearly four decades has passed since the NCM came into to being and something like twenty years since it was reduced to a degenerated mess. This hindsight has turned out to be quite valuable as it has given us not only four decades to further study to extent of imperialist parasitism but also two to objectively study to the NCM itself. People who are unable to render both of these things, a critical reassessment of imperialism and an objective critique of the NCM, into a synthesized conclusion cannot be called scientific Maoists.

But alas, that is exactly what we have today: people calling themselves “Maoists” who are blindly committing the exact same mistakes.. But before we go any further, lets take a look at the historic failings of the NCM’s mass-line idealism.

The NCM’s erroneous “mass-line” fixation is perhaps nowhere better documented than This website is [I assume] ran by one Scott Harrison. At the top of the main page, the first paragraph explains that the website is “devoted to mass-line” [bold in original]. This is no mischaracterization. The website worships the “mass-line” with an air of religiosity.

According to Scott H., he was expelled from the RCP in 1977 for having an interpretation of the “mass-line” that was, in his own words, “that of Mao Zedong’s.” Besides maintaining, Scott H. has also spent the several years working on a still uncompleted book about the “mass-line.”

The website itself contains documents stretching all the way back to 1976. Most of them are of various NCM groups going back and forth on how to correctly apply the “mass-line.” Interestingly, in the entire website there is not one mention of global class analysis and no serious mentions of the labor aristocracy. Humorous, in a page about his failed attempts to create a “New Revolutionary Organization Which Actually Uses the Mass Line!” and in a section reserves for links of “Ongoing Current Efforts to Create New Revolutionary Communist Organizations,” Scott H. writes, “If anyone is part of, or knows about, other current efforts along similar lines, please let us know!”

So after 40 years of endless polemics and platitudes about “mass-line,” have we ever seen its successful implementation in the First World? No, not one single example. All we have is pathetic Scott. H. fanatically clinging to his bankrupt ideals of a “genuine mass-line.” One would think Maoists today would have learned a great deal by the NCM’s grave errors. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Today we have phoney-Maoists committing the exact same mistakes in the exact same fashion. Rather than undertaking a scientific investigation of global class structure, today’s maoist-wannabes are still running around idealistically promulgating erroneous ideas about the mass-line. For these fakers, its almost as if the NCM and their failings never existed. It’s even getting to the point where they are splitting and reforming over “mass-line.” It’s sick and overall damaging to Maoism and world revolution generally.

The idealistic errors of the Revolutionary Youth Movement turned into a deviation for the early New Communist Movement. This in turn became a full blown new First World revisionist movement when the NCM finally got some air [some air] under its wings. Now this “mass-line” revisionism is replicating itself with people like Leftspot and blogging collectives like Good Morning, Revolution.

Any new efforts towards a “genuine revolutionary practice of mass-line” and a corresponding "genuine revolutionary party" will fall hard fast. The objective history of the “mass-line” proves this. But like everything else, pseudo-maoists prefer idealism, subjectivism and ahistorical tripe over materialism.

Underpinning Leftspot’s idealist approach to history is an outright metaphysical approach to who the “masses” are. The pseudo-maoist problem with mass-line is at its heart an incorrect assessment of imperialism and extent of parasitism. Until so-called “Maoists“ can correctly answer, “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?,” no matter what they pronounce almost anything they try to do in a “revolutionary” manner will end in great disappointment. Thus has been the history of the New Communist Movement and pseudo-maoism generally.

Next Part: Mass-Line, Applications for the First World?

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

A Brief 'Biography' of the New Communist Movement. Part 2.9 of 4

In the next installment of this series on the "mass-line," Red Guard Camp will be discussing the New Communist Movement [sic]. As a lead up to this, RGC is here posting a brief 'biographical' history of the NCM.

To be clear: the following is not a Maoist analysis. The purpose of this post is to make Part 3 more accessible and better understandable to the majority of possible readers.


Students for a Democratic Society was a student coalition of liberals and radicals that rose to prominence throughout the United Snakes during the mid-late 1960’s. As the war against the people of Vietnam raged and the worldwide revolutionary movement was in ebb, the character of SDS began to grow more radical. Along with this tendency in towards heightened militancy and radicalism, two specific trends began to emerge: one, led by the Progressive Labor Party, which put into prominence the role of the U.S. "working" class; and another, inspired by Third World national liberation struggles and Maoism, which emphasized the anti-imperialist struggles of oppressed nations. SDS soon split along these lines with the latter group taking the name Revolutionary Youth Movement.

But it wasn’t long before RYM split also. The first part of RYM, RYM1, advocated immediate armed struggle against the imperialist system. This group soon turned their advocacy into action and became the Weather Underground Organization. The second group, RYM2, argued that the conditions for armed struggle were premature. Hence, they called for the building of Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties as a prelude to this eventual revolution. This second group is what became known as the New Communist Movement [sic].

After the NCM agreed that the path to revolution was through vanguard proletarian parties, they split on how to build such parties. That is an understatement. They split, split and then reformed- and then split again- over how to do this.

A good linear example of this is the Revolutionary Worker’s Headquarters. RWH, which was a splitter from the Revolutionary Communist Part (previously Bay Area Revolutionary Union, an original member of RYM2), joined with Proletarian Unity League (another RYM2 descendant) and the Organization for Revolutionary Unity (which was created through the merger of two RYM2 groups) to form Freedom Road Socialist Organization. FRSO consequently split into two organizations which both retain the same name.

So where is the “New Communist Movement” today? There are a few groups today, such as RCP and FRSO, which have linear continuity with the NCM. But on a much more important level the NCM is nowhere and everywhere. They are nowhere is the sense that almost no one still claims to be part of the NCM: the term itself has largely been swept into the dustbin of “leftist” history. At the same time the NCM is everywhere in the sense that, even after it nominally died, the characteristic errors that led to its overall degeneration are being committed today by those that call themselves Maoists [see “Fake-Maoist Links” for a few examples].

And while the physical continuity, the who’s who, of the NCM is complex, it is not important. What is important is politics: the political context, political errors and political lessons that should have been learned. It is from this vantage point that we will pick up our discussion of the NCM and more broadly the historic failings on the part of mass-line idealism.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Roots of "Mass-Line" Idealism, pt 2 of 4

Last time I ragged pretty hard on Leftspot[sic] for his misapplication of the mass-line. Today I’m going to elaborate a bit more on this issue.

The root problem is basic. At the heart of Leftspot’s mass-line problem is a class-analysis problem. To be precise, a problem of an idealist and subjective class analysis instead of a materialist one. To be fair, this problem is not one that is exclusive to Leftspot and his ilk. In reality, the problem of a haphazard appreciation for scientific class analysis is one that spans across the vast majority of First World “Maoist” entities.

Mao took class analysis seriously. So much so that the first eight words of his Selected Works are “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?” For the revolution in China to succeed, communists had to have a basic grasp of not only class relations in China, but also how those classes related to outside forces. A scientific approach to these questions was at the forefront of Mao’s mind long before he started thinking about how to apply the mass-line.

For fake maoists today, the situation is reversed. “Mass-line” takes precedence while scientific class analysis takes a back seat. Leftspot and those like him simply do not take global class structure seriously. It is from this perspective that I say those like Leftspot are not practitioners of Maoism.

To what degree fakes are willing to tackle this fundamental issue, it is from a position of idealism and subjectivism, not one of materialism. What they end up with is an analysis that sounds nice; not one that is correct. Their class analysis is what they want to believe- not one that in its totality corresponds to reality.

Leftspot thinks that amerika is majority exploited. He holds this view despite all evidence suggesting otherwise. Leftspot is simply living in fantasy, not the real world.

But this series is not about global class structure or the pseudo-maoist pseudo-analysis of it: it’s about “mass-line.” And all you have to remember is that according to maoist fakes like Leftspot, mass-line is widely applicable inside amerika.

Next Part: The continuous failings of "mass-line" idealism.

See you next week,
Red Guard Camper

Update 12-13-07: Just so that everyone is aware, Leftspot's policy on this has been to thus far ignore it. He has gone so far as to delete a simple comment on his blog that said "Response to 'Fred Hampton Day' " and directed people to the first post in this series. Apparently Leftspot finds himself unable to defend his views. We'll see if he comes around by the end. I'll keep everyone updated.

Update #2: In case people are wondering, Part 3 is titled "A History of 'Mass-Line' Failings, The New Communist Movement Then And Now." But first I have to drop Part 2.9, "A Brief 'Biography' of the New Communist Movement." Those of you in the so-called "Maoist" blogosphere should really follow up on this stuff.

Friday, December 7, 2007

Response to "Fred Hampton Day"

Around the pseudo-maoist blogsphere, Leftspot[sic] put out a call for a day of blogging dedicated to Fred Hampton, the Chicago Black Panther who was murdered by the pigs on December 4th, 1969. The response to this call was pretty dismal and as always thoroughly unimpressive.

All and all, the “Fred Hampton Day” posts were really lame. Very few focused in the least bit on his line. Most were biographies with little value. These blogs would have been better off to just post a link to wikipedia.

Leftspot’s post was by far the best. This is due to the fact that it wasn’t a biography and it did focus on Hampton’s politics. However, this blog was unable to make any critical assessment of these politics almost 40 years after the fact. Likewise, instead of relating Hampton’s politics to current situations, Leftspot just dogmatically applies Hampton’s praxis regarding internally oppressed nationalities (specifically the Black nation) during the 60’s to amerika as a whole today. This particular type of unscientific reasoning is the result of an idealist, not materialist, view of global class structures and history.

Leftspot’s post focuses a lot on “mass-line.” For those that are unaware, mass-line is a Maoist method of organizing and mobilizing the masses. In mass-line, the revolutionary organization takes the needs, desires, ideas from the masses and returns it to them synthesized with revolutionary politics. From here, the masses and the cadres can engage in these ideas, plans, campaigns etc together and thereby solidify their ties. The Black Panther Party’s free breakfast program is an example of mass-line.

Leftspot, in his general noncomprehension of global class structures, slavishly applies “mass-line” to the First World where there is no mass base for revolution. In this respect, Leftspot differs from Bob Avakian and the RCP which has all but given up on mass-line, declaring it to be reformist in nature and “workerist” (whatever the fuck that means). Although a mere intuitive assessment of the futility of applying mass-line in the context of the First World, Bob Avakian and the RCP are nonetheless more correct than LeftSpot.

Leftspot, in his idiotic redundancy, states that people learn from observation and participation. He says that revolutionaries need to learn the same way: by getting out there and by, in a “revolutionary” way, working around the issues felt by the “masses”. Red Guard Camp sincerely hopes that Leftspot follows his own advise. Only by getting out there and working with no success will people like him be able to intuitively understand that there is no revolutionary potential amongst the First World “masses.”

Of course, there is an easier way to figure this out. That is by global class analysis: studying who’s living off whom. It’s not hard. Unfortunately people like Leftspot and the whole pseudo-marxist bunch have proven time and time again that they simply do not care about facts, numbers or statistics.

Oh well Leftspot, I guess you’ll find out the hard way.

Red Guard Camper

Update: RGC has decided to make this a four (maybe five) part series on "Mass-Line".

As a comparison to LeftSpot’s platitudes, RGC invites everyone to view a recent post by Monkey Smashes Heaven. In this post, MSH celebrates the 100th birthday of Lin Piao by offering a current assessment of his line. Through viewing both of these posts (LeftSpot's and MSH’s), one can see for themselves and better understand the difference between a Maoist and a non-maoist analysis.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Welcome to the new Maoist blog, Red Guard Camp. The creation of this blog is happening at a crucial time for First World Maoism. On one hand, after a few years of degeneration (which took a particular bizarre twist towards the end), the Maoist Internationalist Movement is no more. On the other hand, the Revolutionary Communist Party [sic] is falling apart as well as its cominterm, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.

Out of this situation, a number of new entities have spawned. From RCP, a number of ex- junior cadres have appeared on the blogosphere. Out of the ashes of MIM and from those inspired by its analysis of the labor aristocracy, as well as from the now defunct message board It’s Right To Rebel, a number of other entities have formed.

Needless to say, if Red Guard Camp had to be categorized, it would most definitely fall into the latter group. In the coming months, this will be made more clear as I get this blog up and rolling.

Red Guard Camp is significantly different than other First World maoist blogs and entities in a number of ways. Probably the most noticeable is that RGC is more casual. Whereas entities such as Monkey Smashes Heaven and Maoist Information Website are quite formal and focus much attention on theory as it relates to history, RGC will focus more on commentary. Instead of providing a lengthy monologue on a given topic, RGC makes it its goal to stimulate discussion and critical thought. I will essentially leave things for people to think about.

Additionally, RGC will act as a portal to various websites. In the case of the ex-RCP junior cadre blogs that I previously mentioned, I will make a habit of criticizing their line.

While much of the style of RGC may seem unorthodox, I hope that I can help contribute to First World Maoism and world-wide Maoism generally.

See you next post,
Red Guard Camper