Because it's been so long since I've checked the RGC hushmail account, it was canceled.
Sorry if anyone sent me an email.
Since for the purposes of RGC an email is useless, from henceforth it will be email-less.
Stay tuned though-- a liberal love-amerika "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist"[sic] just gave me a good idea.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Overview of FW Maoist Entities
The following is a list of entities which nominally uphold a correct line on imperialist class structure, which also happen to have an internet presence and claim or appear to be active.
I would advise anyone to take all of these with a grain of salt. I myself take some more seriously than the others.
One problem is that some of these entities stick with theory and others appear to be trying to work out a practice. It's kinda of hard to compare the two. Additionally, it's extremely hard to read a practice from a computer screen- especially when relying on the webpage of the given entity.
This post is itself commentary, not analysis. The point isn't to break down each entity, nor is it one completely of idle banter. Instead, I am hoping that such a post will start critical thought of each group's specific (and sometimes divergent) lines and practices. In the end, what matters in not my personal inclination to this or that entity, it's what is pushing the revolution forward.
(don’t forget to proxify)
Rural People’s Party
Rural People’s Party claims be a collective in South Carolina. As far as I know, it is the oldest independent formation on this list [although MSH and SM/AOM have continuity with the earlier independent IRTR cell].
They have traditionally upheld a correct line on imperialist class structure. Additionally, they uphold Jonestown and northern Korea under Kim Jong Il as examples of socialism. RGC, though hasn’t investigated these claims, tends to disagree. Jonestown, insofar as it was ‘socialism on a small scale’ was build around an unsustainable cult. Northern Korea is likely a form of State capitalism which includes a thin bureaucratic capitalist class (including Kim).
What makes RPP unique is their proclaimed creation of a commune in South Carolina. In the past, the RPP has extended open invitations for people to visit the “Peoples’ Commune.”
The RPP doesn’t seem to be explaining in practical terms how this translates into revolutionary activity (I.e pushing revolution forward). Instead it has explained this strategy in broad abstract terms.
Recently RPP has written about its rural focus in two documents. The first, The First World Fetishism, seems to signify a separation from a tight Third Worldist trend, arguing instead that we must focus on the First World and what we can do here. Overall, the logic in this document has many many flaws. The second, Why We Uphold the Rural Aspect, similarly contains a sort of non-logic.
RGC tends to take RPP with a grain of salt. They uphold many unorthodox and unpopular views, even within the M-TWist camp, and it's hard to see how RPP could possible be doing this for scientific reasons.
Monkey Smashes Heaven
Monkey Smashes Heaven is a blog that focuses largely on theory. Claiming to have evolved out of the It’s Right to Rebel messageboard/cell, MSH has continued to develop in clear ways away from traditional “MIM Thought.” MSH was the first from the trend to publicly denounce MIM.
One major break is with MIM’s line on First World gender. MSH considers FW women to be mainly tied to their labor aristocratic nation-class. This line especially comes out in MSH’s Stand In Gender Line and the more recent International Women’s Day statement.
RGC’s thought is that substituting nation for gender is erroneous. Their isn't a global patriarchy system. Patriarchy is a largely globalized contradiction that happens between gendered males and females in a given society, including within the FW. However, such a contradiction is qualitatively affected by parasitism and thus must by looked at through this lens.
Overall, FW women are not part of the toiling masses nor part of any sort of revolutionary mass base. They are still oppressed through the contradiction of gender though in different manners and to a much lesser degree.
More recently, MSH released the document The Sun Rises In The East[..] in which "Maoism -Third Worldism" is outlined. Summarizing important lessons since the Cultural Revolution, Maoism-Third Worldism is the name for a new universal stage of revolutionary thought. Everyone should read it. Hopefully I’ll get around to commenting on this in the near future.
Shubel Morgan/Art of Maoism
Considered a fraternal organization by MSH, Shubel Morgan/AOF also developed out of the IRTR cell. Initially focusing on video shorts, SM/AOM has recently began pioneering its own theoretical work, particularly on the Theory of Productive Forces. Along with MSH, SM/AOM has is presenting an all around critique of this theory in a very succinct and understandable way. Additionally, SM/AOM videos have always been quite well, both in terms of aesthetics and line. RGC looks forward to seeing SM/AOM’s continued work. Keep up the great work!
Maoist Information Website
This website claims to be doing theory work. I find much of its work rather hard to read, part because of the technical language and part because of sometimes nearly incomprehensible sentence structure.
New Afrikan Maoist Party
This entity claims to be a Maoist vanguard party for the Black nation. Currently they claim to be in their first congress.
One thing I noticed was that they seem to tail much of MIMs work: their newsletter often reprints MIM articles. Needless to say, RGC is not much in favor of this approach. Another thing I’m leery of are vanguard party schemes in bourgeoisiefied nations. This applies the U.S. Black nation as well.
Of the entities which claim to have an on the ground presence, NAMP reports the least on it. However, that is not cause for speculation.
In any case, it’s my sincerest wishes the NAMP pushes forward onto a relevant and sustainable praxis.
Revolutionary Anti Imperialist Movement- Denver
RAIM-Denver claims to be a loosely organized formation in Denver. Of those on the list which claim to have an on-the-ground presence, RAIM-Denver seems to be the most active in terms of “mass” work.
Unlike MIM’s past mass organization, the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League, RAIM-Denver doesn’t claim to be under the leadership of another entity. Nor does it even claim to be a Maoist formation.
Long Live the Victory of People’s War is on their short recommended readings list however. RAIM-Denver has also reposted agitational art by TW Maoist Third-Wordist entities. Additionally, MSH publicly calls RAIM-Denver part of the proletarian camp: both MSH and SH/AOM link RAIM as an anti-imperialist organization. I think it’s safe to assume that RAIM-Denver is conscious of Maoism-Third Worldism.
Not since RAIL has there been so much apparent Maoist activity on the ground. RAIM-Denver has reported to have been active at anti-war protests, pro-migration rallies, mass demonstrations against Columbus Day. RAIM-Denver posts events happening around many of these issues.
Though quite apparently an anti-imperialist formation, RAIM-Denver doesn’t theoretically connect a materialist account of class structure with there own First World practice . When they do attempt to, such as in their Turn The World Upsidedown statement, they are extremely vague and offer little in terms of substance.
Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons
Apparently evolving out of the Maoist International Movement’s Ministry of Prisons, MIM-Prisons only recently became a nominally independent entity.
In any case prison work seems to be of great importance. A disproportionately nationally oppressed mass of imprisoned people with much time to pass- could one imagine a better group within the U.S. where some sort of mass-line could apply?
MIM-Lite
There to do work “leftover by MIM", MIM-lite generally isn’t contributing anything. By even placing it on this list, I am giving more legitimacy than it actually deserves.
Whoever is behind all this need to hang up the ropes, take a break, and try to come to political work under a different name and with a clearer thought. At this point, the only thing that is being accomplished is the continued muddying of the “MIM” name. Best wishes on that.
RGC
I would advise anyone to take all of these with a grain of salt. I myself take some more seriously than the others.
One problem is that some of these entities stick with theory and others appear to be trying to work out a practice. It's kinda of hard to compare the two. Additionally, it's extremely hard to read a practice from a computer screen- especially when relying on the webpage of the given entity.
This post is itself commentary, not analysis. The point isn't to break down each entity, nor is it one completely of idle banter. Instead, I am hoping that such a post will start critical thought of each group's specific (and sometimes divergent) lines and practices. In the end, what matters in not my personal inclination to this or that entity, it's what is pushing the revolution forward.
(don’t forget to proxify)
Rural People’s Party
Rural People’s Party claims be a collective in South Carolina. As far as I know, it is the oldest independent formation on this list [although MSH and SM/AOM have continuity with the earlier independent IRTR cell].
They have traditionally upheld a correct line on imperialist class structure. Additionally, they uphold Jonestown and northern Korea under Kim Jong Il as examples of socialism. RGC, though hasn’t investigated these claims, tends to disagree. Jonestown, insofar as it was ‘socialism on a small scale’ was build around an unsustainable cult. Northern Korea is likely a form of State capitalism which includes a thin bureaucratic capitalist class (including Kim).
What makes RPP unique is their proclaimed creation of a commune in South Carolina. In the past, the RPP has extended open invitations for people to visit the “Peoples’ Commune.”
The RPP doesn’t seem to be explaining in practical terms how this translates into revolutionary activity (I.e pushing revolution forward). Instead it has explained this strategy in broad abstract terms.
Recently RPP has written about its rural focus in two documents. The first, The First World Fetishism, seems to signify a separation from a tight Third Worldist trend, arguing instead that we must focus on the First World and what we can do here. Overall, the logic in this document has many many flaws. The second, Why We Uphold the Rural Aspect, similarly contains a sort of non-logic.
RGC tends to take RPP with a grain of salt. They uphold many unorthodox and unpopular views, even within the M-TWist camp, and it's hard to see how RPP could possible be doing this for scientific reasons.
Monkey Smashes Heaven
Monkey Smashes Heaven is a blog that focuses largely on theory. Claiming to have evolved out of the It’s Right to Rebel messageboard/cell, MSH has continued to develop in clear ways away from traditional “MIM Thought.” MSH was the first from the trend to publicly denounce MIM.
One major break is with MIM’s line on First World gender. MSH considers FW women to be mainly tied to their labor aristocratic nation-class. This line especially comes out in MSH’s Stand In Gender Line and the more recent International Women’s Day statement.
RGC’s thought is that substituting nation for gender is erroneous. Their isn't a global patriarchy system. Patriarchy is a largely globalized contradiction that happens between gendered males and females in a given society, including within the FW. However, such a contradiction is qualitatively affected by parasitism and thus must by looked at through this lens.
Overall, FW women are not part of the toiling masses nor part of any sort of revolutionary mass base. They are still oppressed through the contradiction of gender though in different manners and to a much lesser degree.
More recently, MSH released the document The Sun Rises In The East[..] in which "Maoism -Third Worldism" is outlined. Summarizing important lessons since the Cultural Revolution, Maoism-Third Worldism is the name for a new universal stage of revolutionary thought. Everyone should read it. Hopefully I’ll get around to commenting on this in the near future.
Shubel Morgan/Art of Maoism
Considered a fraternal organization by MSH, Shubel Morgan/AOF also developed out of the IRTR cell. Initially focusing on video shorts, SM/AOM has recently began pioneering its own theoretical work, particularly on the Theory of Productive Forces. Along with MSH, SM/AOM has is presenting an all around critique of this theory in a very succinct and understandable way. Additionally, SM/AOM videos have always been quite well, both in terms of aesthetics and line. RGC looks forward to seeing SM/AOM’s continued work. Keep up the great work!
Maoist Information Website
This website claims to be doing theory work. I find much of its work rather hard to read, part because of the technical language and part because of sometimes nearly incomprehensible sentence structure.
New Afrikan Maoist Party
This entity claims to be a Maoist vanguard party for the Black nation. Currently they claim to be in their first congress.
One thing I noticed was that they seem to tail much of MIMs work: their newsletter often reprints MIM articles. Needless to say, RGC is not much in favor of this approach. Another thing I’m leery of are vanguard party schemes in bourgeoisiefied nations. This applies the U.S. Black nation as well.
Of the entities which claim to have an on the ground presence, NAMP reports the least on it. However, that is not cause for speculation.
In any case, it’s my sincerest wishes the NAMP pushes forward onto a relevant and sustainable praxis.
Revolutionary Anti Imperialist Movement- Denver
RAIM-Denver claims to be a loosely organized formation in Denver. Of those on the list which claim to have an on-the-ground presence, RAIM-Denver seems to be the most active in terms of “mass” work.
Unlike MIM’s past mass organization, the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League, RAIM-Denver doesn’t claim to be under the leadership of another entity. Nor does it even claim to be a Maoist formation.
Long Live the Victory of People’s War is on their short recommended readings list however. RAIM-Denver has also reposted agitational art by TW Maoist Third-Wordist entities. Additionally, MSH publicly calls RAIM-Denver part of the proletarian camp: both MSH and SH/AOM link RAIM as an anti-imperialist organization. I think it’s safe to assume that RAIM-Denver is conscious of Maoism-Third Worldism.
Not since RAIL has there been so much apparent Maoist activity on the ground. RAIM-Denver has reported to have been active at anti-war protests, pro-migration rallies, mass demonstrations against Columbus Day. RAIM-Denver posts events happening around many of these issues.
Though quite apparently an anti-imperialist formation, RAIM-Denver doesn’t theoretically connect a materialist account of class structure with there own First World practice . When they do attempt to, such as in their Turn The World Upsidedown statement, they are extremely vague and offer little in terms of substance.
Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons
Apparently evolving out of the Maoist International Movement’s Ministry of Prisons, MIM-Prisons only recently became a nominally independent entity.
In any case prison work seems to be of great importance. A disproportionately nationally oppressed mass of imprisoned people with much time to pass- could one imagine a better group within the U.S. where some sort of mass-line could apply?
MIM-Lite
There to do work “leftover by MIM", MIM-lite generally isn’t contributing anything. By even placing it on this list, I am giving more legitimacy than it actually deserves.
Whoever is behind all this need to hang up the ropes, take a break, and try to come to political work under a different name and with a clearer thought. At this point, the only thing that is being accomplished is the continued muddying of the “MIM” name. Best wishes on that.
RGC
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
MIM Theory
MIM said that after it closed down new ‘operations’ on its etext website it would post PDFs of MIM Theory. Sadly, as of yet this has not happened.
MIM should stand by it’s word and publish all issue of MIM Theory in full. Doing anything but is a disservice to the proletariat.
For those who haven’t gotten a chance to read them:
While they should be read critically, MIM Theory contains some of the better English “Maoist” writings ever. If MIM ever gets around to publishing them, everyone should definitely read them.
MIM should stand by it’s word and publish all issue of MIM Theory in full. Doing anything but is a disservice to the proletariat.
For those who haven’t gotten a chance to read them:
While they should be read critically, MIM Theory contains some of the better English “Maoist” writings ever. If MIM ever gets around to publishing them, everyone should definitely read them.
Oh, the irony
Over on Mike Ely’s blog, a tizzy is being thrown over RCP’s “non response.”
But really, Mike Ely and Co. got a response- just not the one they wanted.
Instead of some sort of air time in the form of a name-drop or a response to the whatever points Nine Letters purportedly contains, the RCP published a wordy “Fuck You” anonymously directed to Mike and the rest of the rightist splitters.
But why should Mike and the rest of the disaffected RCPers expect anything more? Afterall, MIM has been pointing out flaws and revisionist thinking within the RCP for decades. The RCP nor Mike Ely have ever attempted to respond to these criticisms or any others coming from a similar direction. Fuck, I published a direct criticism a few months ago and there hasn’t been a single response, not even vague indirect ones.
So I have to ask, why in the world does Mike Ely think his trite little “critique” deserves some sort of special attention?
But really, Mike Ely and Co. got a response- just not the one they wanted.
Instead of some sort of air time in the form of a name-drop or a response to the whatever points Nine Letters purportedly contains, the RCP published a wordy “Fuck You” anonymously directed to Mike and the rest of the rightist splitters.
But why should Mike and the rest of the disaffected RCPers expect anything more? Afterall, MIM has been pointing out flaws and revisionist thinking within the RCP for decades. The RCP nor Mike Ely have ever attempted to respond to these criticisms or any others coming from a similar direction. Fuck, I published a direct criticism a few months ago and there hasn’t been a single response, not even vague indirect ones.
So I have to ask, why in the world does Mike Ely think his trite little “critique” deserves some sort of special attention?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
No, I haven’t been assassinated by an axis of anti-Maoism.
Not to bore you with my personal life, but I’ve been doing other shit.
Thanks to those who sent supportive emails and comments, I’ll try get something posted soon.
And just for the record, no one from the various barf-bag pseudo-maoist circles have attempted to respond to my pretty thorough empirical refutation of mass-line idealism. But I must make a self-criticism: I’m not the first person to write such things. These specific criticisms have been around for a long time. How much originality and innovation I interjected into it?- I’ll let others pass final judgment. Point being, Mike Ely, Leftslop and the vultures hovering around them are completely full of shit.
Alright, I’ll talk about something else next time.
Thanks to those who sent supportive emails and comments, I’ll try get something posted soon.
And just for the record, no one from the various barf-bag pseudo-maoist circles have attempted to respond to my pretty thorough empirical refutation of mass-line idealism. But I must make a self-criticism: I’m not the first person to write such things. These specific criticisms have been around for a long time. How much originality and innovation I interjected into it?- I’ll let others pass final judgment. Point being, Mike Ely, Leftslop and the vultures hovering around them are completely full of shit.
Alright, I’ll talk about something else next time.
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: Republicoflakotah.com
-----------------------------------------
See Also:
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.
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.
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.
------------------------
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.
------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
