Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
World Can't Wait
Drive out the Bush regieme
Drive out the bush regieme on Nov 2nd, says Sunsara taylor of the RCP.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
and extra credit: no one cares that not all anarchists self-identify as left. it's plain there are rightist anarchists as well!!
ever. it's against the rules.
Way-ell...not quite the same. Have you read the RCP's tracts on Chairman Bob?
Nevertheless, some of that goes on, sure -- but to conflate the two is to basically equate bosses and leaders. Leaders are freely chosen -- as such, they're "fireable" as well as "hireable". Not so with bosses. Is Chairman Bob a boss or a leader? You decide.
ps: I'm not losing a lot of sleep over world can't wait. The RCP may get some new folks out of it; but what's more likely is that people will leave them behind - and be part of the left in general (if they stick around). Please don't jump down my throat for mentioning the dreaded "left," I'm just pointing something out.
Or to put it another way: how many @ folks started out in one of these alphabet soup groups, and then left them behind once they realized how seriously flawed they are? Leave the paranoia for the black helicopter chasers, please.
also, they do good work in communities of color, work for which there is simply no equivalent in the anarcho crowd-- and work that no one else touches, let alone effectively conducts. locally of course i'm thinking of O22.
my point isn't that everyone should go join the rcp (unless it appeals to them), but rather, that people should live and let live. the anarchos have enough housekeeping to do, it seems to me, to keep themselves occupied, without going and picking on some other reds trying to do good things for other people.
Yup, hear you on all points. I actually like the RCPers, mostly for the reasons you stated. Suffice it to say, their thing is not exactly my thing...but these days, I'm finding myself wondering who I would want to do work with more: a group that I agree with on central tenets, but can't stand in practice, or a group that I get along with in practice, but have serious issues with around the role of authority? Not an easy question to answer -- but life tends not to be all about the the easy answers, ya know?
In any case, you're most welcome.
Looking for alternatives,
hero/a worship
i'm not anti-non-anarchists, btw, i work with groups and people who i feel have similar goals to mine. establishing a maoist regime lead by bob avaikian is not one of my goals...sorry! i've worked with trots, liberals and even the iso (who i'm also not fond of). i have problems with their politics, yes, but none of them think that china has ever been a workers state!!! do i think that there are a lot of anarchist "bigots"? yes, i do, it's one of my main critiques of anarchists. but, there are limits to who i will support, and the rcp is beyond those limits. so are the sparts, and many other groups that call for full on dictatorships! that is why i was asking why an anarchist would plug the rcp...maoism is in complete opposition to anarchism.
If you really believe that, you haven't spoken with enough Maoists. Or, put another way, you've been believing too much of what you read, and not enough of what you hear.
Whatever their leadership values, Maoism gives good people enough courage to do things like take on thugs like the SFPD for shooting people down in the streets, when no one else will touch such cases (including all those wonderful, progressive, green or whatever supervisors. Well, yeah-- cops have been known to go off and kill those too, ya know.... and get away with it, in this town...)
I say whatever gives them courage, more power to em. You can whine all you want about it, but you have no hegemony of opinion on what is a Maoist, who should support them, and whether they're better or worse than anyone else based on your personal standards.
Welcome to diversity.
I agree -- my problem is that I feel just as strongly about the racism and sexism that I find in many corners of the white anarchist "scene," which I don't find in groups like the RCP. They've got a lot of other fucked up things about them, but being backward on a personal level when it comes to the -isms isn't one of them. Now, thinking that there's gonna be a people's revolution under some authoritarian white guy is pretty backward as well -- but it's a different kind of backward than what you find among the "scene."
in any case, the RCP is fucked up, bigots are fucked up. I don't support either one.
What about people who think that this guy named Muhammad was perfect in every way, and should be reverenced and emulated, and that even trying to do so makes one a better person.
Is that fucked up? so fucked up that it's beyond your pale, beyond your scruples to work with?
If what you're asking is if I'm so high and mighty that I would never consider working with people in the RCP, the answer again is no.
Personally, my experiences with the RCP lead me to be somewhat cautious when faced with the possibility of working with them in organizations that they're a part of -- but that's because I've seen them take over organizations and bend them to their agenda. Nevertheless, I still talk with RCPers, and when they're not trying to take over, I'll work with them, sure. I work with all sorts of folks. I think many liberals are fucked up too -- but that doesn't mean that I won't work with them in coalitions. That's called "building a movement."
Hope this helps clear things up -- sorry if I'm a little self-contradictory, I'm in the process of figuring out a lot around organizing and where I stand with it these days.
If it's not, then it's just a replication of prejudical intolerance. There's no way around it.
I would really like to see an end to political intolerance among "fellow travellers" on the left. It's probably our single greatest obstacle.
Also, it's one of anarchos' biggest social diseases. Generally, I find Maoists a lot more personally tolerant in practice than anarchos (though I will grant I havent hung out with any in actual power....)
Really, what I'm asking is, what's the difference?
What's the difference between Maoist-bashing and Muslim-bashing? It is the same behavior based on the same prejudices against the same kinds of beliefs.
One is called racist, though Islam is a religion that has been beyond race for the entirety of its existence. The other is typical anarcho bigotry against certain other reds.
It seems to me that the only difference is in the degree. What they hold in common, these biases, is a particularly ugly sort of ignorance. And sad, because it's so avoidable!!
one of the best descriptions of anarchists i've ever heard was at an anarchist conference several years ago. this person showed up out of curiousity, and was kind of blown away by us -- which is a pretty understandable response living in this consumerist culture, ya know? In any case, what she said about us was "I think you're the most idealistic and the most cynical group of people I've ever met." I feel that pretty much sums us up -- we have this vision of a society without bosses or classes, but in practice, we're kinda mean-spirited and sectarian. I'm not saying everybody is like that, but it is a tendency. We're a community in bad need of a long, hard look in the mirror -- not because of our belief in anarchism, but in our failure to make anarchism a living, breathing, *accessible* alternative to corporatism, greed and death.
Now, as far as the RCP goes? Yeah, they're a lot more friendly. On other hand, they're looking for recruits, so...
I have issues, in specific, with the RCP as an organization. I've worked with a lot of maoists over the years, including the RCP -- and the emphasis on vanguardism within the RCP (or more specifically, the way the RCP in particular emphasizes vanguardism) leaves a lot to be desired when trying to work with them in coalition as a group. That's different than saying "Maoists are fucked up." I mean, the Zapatista leadership grew out of Maoist vanguards, so it can't be altogether messed up. you know? At least that's the way I see it.
In any case, what the fuck do I know? Ultimately, anarchism, maoism, socialism -- it's going to be decided by the people. All we are is the people hanging out the anti-imperialist shingle.
if a boss is a leader who cant be removed...
and I can't vote against Starhawk......
what does that make her? or the people who do support her work? (let alone her personality-based cult...)
In other words, how is that different than the definition of "Maoism" some are offering here? Except in that perhaps the Maoists hold their leaders more accountable than the anarchos do.... it might seem...
or is it bigotry plain and simple?
and why are others who know better (like save ourselves) willing to tolerate its expression in their "space," if you will, when Muslim-bashing would likely be 86ed in, like, 3 seconds?
OK. First off -- Starhawk is not some kind of grand poobah anarchist leader. A lot of us have issues with her; personally, I like her, but I don't hera worship her. If you want to see that, you should go two blocks down to the reclaiming folks. Some reclaiming folks are anarchists, but not all anarchists are reclaiming folks. (For what it's worth, not all reclaiming folks fall over Starhawk's every word -- but that's another story.)
But to get to the heart of things: I could say a whole lot about anarchist theory, how leaders are freely chosen and bosses aren't, and so on -- but the truth as I see it is that we anarchists, as a community, have serious issues when it comes to accountability, especially in relation to people who hold forms of social power. The combination of deeply sectarian anti-authoritarianism and equally sectarian "my shit don't stink but yours does"-ism leads us, as a community, to think that we don't need to check ourselves when it comes to power -- when in fact, we should check ourselves double, if for no other reason than there's no accountability structures, save for the ones we create.
Now, in my view, there's nothing preventing us, ideologically or otherwise, from creating accountability structures that aren't heirarchical -- in fact, you can see that in practice in the way that Earth First! has started to hold sexual predators accountable. But there's a long way to go in this regard.
All in all, one of our biggest problems is that we've created a movement that requires us, by definition, to be impecable in our actions -- and instead, its almost as if we think that professing that we're against authority somehow makes us immune from abusing authority. And that is simply not true.
well, if these are the choices I have...is there another flavor here? I'm not really in the mood for either one. ;-)
But to get to your question: yes, there is anti-red bigotry, especially against party and vanguard communism. Why do I mostly ignore it? Because it's stupid. That doesn't make it right, but it's more like "my club is better than your club" -- which is something that I've seen communists do as well.
What underlies that sectarian squabbling is something more serious in my view. The whole anarchist vs. communist feud traces back to the split in the internationals, as well as the spanish civil war. what does that have to do with the here and now? not much -- which is why I don't give it much bother, I'm more concerned with the flaws in anarchism as practiced in the US, especially in jolly little activist ghettoes like the SF/Oakland/Berkeley hub of the Bay Area -- which I don't feel are due to theoretical failures of anarchism as much as betrayals of anarchism in practice.
That being said, I can't help but cringe when discussions of communism or socialism in anarchist circles start to sound a lot like red-bashing -- but on the other hand, a lot of communists seem to anarchist bash as well. It's a problem.
And maybe a willingness to learn from them will open them up to other ideas?
we just stop the red bashing.
part of it is talking, just like we are doing now.
part of it is calling others on it, which is how i got into this. frankly, i'm delighted to be having this (admittedly unexpected) great convo on it.
part of it is making some friends outside of our ideological ghettos. today a Maoist, tomorrow a Muslim. Next week a republican.
One's ideas might even change, gasp. But then, so might others'....
Oh sure. Just because the way they view vanguards and the state leaves a bit to be desired doesn't mean that there aren't things to be learned. For what it's worth, I'm not the only anarchist who feels this way, either.
>And maybe a willingness to learn from them will open them up to other ideas?
Yes, definitely.
>*gasp* we may change, but so may others
exactly. look, the halcyon days of 50 or 100 years ago aren't coming back. if we're not moving forward, then we're stuck in the past -- and that goes for anarchists, maoists, socialists, whomever. which is not to say that there's not a lot to be learned from the original movements -- but that's just it, they're original movements, not what is happening now. how can we win if we're always living in the past somewhere, be it 1920 or (heh) 1978?
ps: Marx? Dead. Mao? Dead too. Bakunin? Well, let's see...yup, definitely dead. Books may help shape movements, but they don't create movements.
"why is an anarchist plugging the rcp"
maybe not. but why jump to prejudicial conclusions??
I have found thru long hard experience that the RCP doesn't work well in coalition. They don't believe in a united front of equals, but in a "united front led by the party" (this quote is from the RCP's platform or constitution). You can do what you want as long as you do what they want. I have not wroked with too many other Maoists to know if this is only an RCP thang.
And by the way i can work with Muslims on many things (i'm an atheist), as long as they don't ebcome elf-righteous as many religious people tend to and as longs the treat everybody in the coalition whether formal or informal) as equals. There may be those who use Islam as a political ideology who i may not work with.
An as to whether we can unelect Starhawk, No we can't. Anymore than we cna unelect anyone on htis list. She does not have nor does she want any power except for the power of persuasion. The same is not true for Chairman Avkaian.
anyone who thinks there's a difference between politics and religion in, say, Islam, is a stupid westerner who needs to get a clue about how a billion of their fellow humans think about the world and society and stuff.
and anyone who thinks there's a difference between politics and religion in the american left, either hasnt been in it that long, is sleeping through it, or is in fairly severe denial.
hard to even read past a line like that, it's so discrediting. it says "no thinking ahead, just regurgitated dogma, prejudice packaged as wisdom."
go back to sleep, buddy.
from your statements I would say that you are prejudice, or just brainwashed
"anyone who thinks there's a difference between politics and religion in, say, Islam, is a stupid westerner who needs to get a clue about how a billion of their fellow humans think about the world and society and stuff."
before we go off -- again -- pointing fingers at everybody's else's flaws (severe though they may be) -- AGAIN -- how about we talk about our own flaws? in case you hadn't noticed, that's the main critique that we get -- that every time someone who isn't an anarchist offers up a suggestion, we suddenly become more tight assed than the NSA.
sometimes, constructive information comes from undesired sources. ya know?
Please keep the whole Israel/Palestine thing out of this. Framing the debate to suit your own ends is extremely bad form, and exactly the kind of thing that is being criticized here.
ps: One of the few not-quite-so-fucked-up things about the US is that you have the world's biggest soapbox called the Internet at your disposal -- for hardly any cost, and for all intents and purposes, without restrictions. You can even start your own website for $35 *A YEAR* -- compare that to, say, starting even the smallest of television stations. Think about that the next time you post something about "indybay censors."
If freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, well...you get the idea.
I do agree with you, by the way -- but what is a shame is that we can't even talk without it getting into an ideological shouting match. if there's anything that the past 100 years has proved, it's that anarchists, communists and socialists are stuck with each other.
That being said, do I personally feel that there are problems with the RCP? Read my posts above.
Abortion
God shrieks in rage
except when
it's a hippie
then God laughs
all is right with the World
when hippies lie in wasted puddles
Um...do you see any hippies here? If you're going to threaten us with ideological genocide, at least get your countercultural references right.
By the way... if you think onanism (AKA masturbation) should be punished by death, that just proves that you seriously need to get out more. Or were you referring to coitus interruptus?
Meanwhile, back on topic...or is this last post a sign that we should end this thread? Comments, please.
The only good clit is a hairy clit,
No heroes save ourselves
i feel that it's worth adding, that as someone who's not a maoist or even a leninist, no one's said anything to CONVINCE me against maoism, or even that the rcp as such is "bad." they have their own trip, and they do their work, and the one inspires the other but the relation isn't much more tangible than that... at least not round these parts.
on the other hand, the arguments against them that have been offered here never transcend the ideology of the critic. i am an anarchist! says one. bob worship is gross! cries another. well and good-- don't join them. it obviously doesnt call to you. but as for why it's bad... even if all that is true...
see, i am a reasonable person. if you want to convince me, you have to show me rational reasons. if you counter with your own dogmatic orthodoxy, then it's a faith-based argument. that might work for you, but it doesnt move me.
just to make an american analogy... i don't see in the long run how your argument ends up being any different than the preachers preachin over which protestant church to take the family to on sunday. is it a bible based church? do the men and women mix? what about divorce?
never mind works versus faith. if ya see what i mean.
well, for sure. my main objection to the RCP that isn't sectarian (and, um, what you said as far as that goes) is that they can be extremely hard to work with in coalitions *that they are a part of". What do I mean by that? The short answer is that they try to take over, and sometimes to the point that they drive everybody off except them -- which they follow up by moulding the group to fit with their agenda. It's kind of like a hostile takeover.
Now, they're not the only people who do this -- and further, there are many groups on the left who do this in more subtle ways. I also have a friend who has worked with Not In Our Name, a group that has RCP folks working with them, and while she's frustrated at times, she also stands by them.
All in all? Live and let live, walk if you don't like the temperature, and so on. There are critiques that can be made that are actually constructive, but most of the time, that's not what the "critiques" are about.
Question for y'all: to what degree, if any, do you think that your particular ideological flavor has to do with faith as much as rational thought? Mind you, I don't think that having ideological faith is necessarily a bad thing -- but I do feel that it's important to know when you're operating politically out of ideological faith (of whatever stripe).
or if the group has leaders, why shouldnt they compete for power like everyone else who wants it, in a free political system?
or is there another form of political control of a group that's not mentioned here, but still operant?
In a word, yes.
First off, the coalitions that I'm referrning to aren't anarchist ones -- more like broad-based anti-war coalitions and the like. There was a structure that was available to be co-opted, and so they did so.
In terms of taking over leaderless groups: excellent point -- yes, in theory, if the group is consensus-based, and truly representing the will of the people participating, it will flow where the desires of the people in the group take it. But it's still possible to do a takeover even in a leaderless group, if you drive everybody off and use the reputation of the group as long as you can before it implodes. It usually doesn't last for long, because word gets out; but it's still an annoying waste of time.
All groups have flaws. Implementing the equivalent of a hostile takeover is one of theirs.
well, so are these coalitions democratic, or not?
Who decides the leadership? and why is it uncontestable?
that's one question that wont go away-- either it's not democratic by nature, or that democracy is being selectively employed, or the rcp has a right to vie for leadership along with everyone else.
aside from that.... is it that different than a small group of black-blockers showing up and upstaging a larger liberal coalition's march? if so, what's the effective difference?
Who decides the leadership? and why is it uncontestable? <
One, what does "these coalitions" mean? Two, who is talking about leadership, and three, who said anything about uncontestable? If you have something to say, please say it. You appear to have strongly held opinions about anarchists -- why not put those opinions on the table?
I hate hippies! I mean, the way they always talk about "protectin' the earth" and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets - I hate 'em! I wanna kick 'em in the nuts!
http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~mateo/Cartmans_Quotes.html
i have specifically pursued reasons-- preferrably rational ones-- why people are so biased against other groups, specifically the rcp in this thread. that's how this all started.
latest iteration: you said something about them taking over coalitions. i'm trying to understand why what you say you've seen them do is illegitimate or bad enough to make people biased against them. or better yet, to get to the root of the question-- whether such behavior is any different than what other groups do in the name of their own ideologies.
let's pursue this discussion only so long as it is fruitful. i'm not, however, interested in an i think - you think pissing match (and you might imply an opinion in that, if ya like...)
i want to change the terms, not reify them.....
Good. Me too. For a second, I thought this was going to turn into a liberal v. anarchist pissing match, like you said. Glad to hear that's not the case.
In terms of how anarchists are any different -- well, good point. I suppose it's a matter of degree -- objectively, what I saw, in relation to taking over groups, etc., was far worse than anything I've seen anarchists do. I mean, That being said, I'd like to not narrow in to specifics, simply because I'm trying not to have this discussion devolve fully down to a shouting match, if you get my drift. "No we didn't do that" "Well, yes you did do that" "You imperalist counter-revolutionary fish monger" "You leader-worshipping cud-sucker" That kind of thing.
But to address one of your original points: while I'm at best ambivalent about marches that splinter off of main ones, that's not quite the same as taking over, say, the organizing committee for a march. That tends not to be the way we do things; you may disagree and say that differences in approach in approach are not relevant, and that breakaway marches are every bit as bad. We may have to agree to disagree about that, in my opinion.
To move away from that for a second though: what I think we may agree on is that there are areas where anarchists could improve, especially when it comes to relations with non-anarchists. As I said before, we can be a pretty sectarian bunch at times.
ps: not all of us live for the next breakway or window to smash. honest.
neither is inherently illegitimate even when the effects are less than desirable for all affected by them. it is all a byproduct of democracy. any truly free and open process should allow for competition for leadership (as well as checks on its power &c). otherwise, it's very easy to argue that the process is unfree. (at risk of digression...)
therefore, the point i want to make is that people shouldnt be so condemnational of the rcp for being a participant in the public realm. the anarchos have some not unsimilar baggage, from the point of view of others they try to coalition with. that is the reason why i think anarchos in particular should get over this one.
show some tolerance, folks, and maybe you'll earn some. show some intolerance (as at the start of the thread), and what does that make ya?
One simple question, and I want a YES or a NO.
I don't want any fucking hippie idiocy, no "if's", no "and's", no "but's", no waffling, no mewling, no links to sewage from commondreams or A.N.S.W.E.R. or any other Socialist/Communist terrorist fellating group, nothing but a YES or a NO:
Do you want the Butcher of Baghdad returned to power?
But:
a) your post is off topic, and
b) I *just* heard a caller on Randy Rhodes (pre-recorded from this week) doing this particular reductionist mantra. Who fed it to ya?
Extra credit: Wouldn't really free people do their own thinking? and then, what does that make you?
Look -- if you think meetings are what the movement is about, and only seek groups that are all about the comfort level of the participants, then undoubtedly communism isn't for you. Good luck with your other plans, whatever they may be...
But I'm seriously concerned about where the world is heading right now and think we have the biggest and most perilous opportunity to break through the two-party system and captialist hegemony that I've ever seen. I couldn't have dreamed this up. And the RCP is taking it very seriously.
What is wrong with that?
What is wrong with building strong, displined organizations to fight capitalism? What is wrong with admitting and promoting your leaders? What is wrong with telling the plain truth about the Democrats and the responsibilities WE have?
The RCP has the same pathologies any small group had going through years of defeat and social quietism. But now that millions are distraught, we can see their virtues come into sharp relief.
And... the RCP doesn't lie. They don't shit-talk other groups. They don't play for position among the "activist community." They are focused, dedicated, multi-racial and internationalist, and when Maoists have the forces -- they fight.
Again, not for everyone. But people who are revolutionaries and want to do real work outside the ghettos of the left... they are in motion... big time.
I support the RCP. I support their goals and (increasingly) their means. They are not occupying space moaning about the "crisis of marxism" or the "sorry state of the left." They are creating new facts on the ground.
Resist or die.
-------
Anarchism? I don't even know what the word means. I've met many anarchists and they come in all types. The problem is that "authority" isn't the problem. Sorry. And leadership is good. Vanguards are good -- no, more than good: without a vanguard party we will never be able to stand up to Bush. It's not something we "submit" to as the more adolescent versions of anarchism would have it: it's something WE DO.
Parties are the oganization of their social base. They are a plan and objective and way of doing things.
The RCP wants communism. So do I. They reject the fake democracy we live under. So do I. They reject racism, without promoting goofy theories that tail racial segregation and act like someone can "lead" just because of their skin color or gender.
They are a serious group and it's way past time for the movement to grow up. You want to define yourself by patches and dietary choices? I guess that's fine, but don't act like those of us tired of treading water -- who've moved to build a revolutionary movement -- are some kind of "slaves."
I'm not a slave. I will not accept capitalism for one day more and I support the party that seems most intent, dedicated and principled in building socialism right here in the USA. If you don't agree then good luck. One thing I learned from the RCP was not to hate on people who disagreed. But that's just more Bob Avakian talk, and we wouldn't want that now would we?
Please keep on keepin' on!
Bob A. is not just a strong leader to Most RCPers. He is THE leader. They have a cult of personality aroudn the guy and fi you can't see that...
The difference is anarchists want everybody to be strong people and not just have one strong leader-an ubermensch.
On the issue of "bitch[ing] about authoritarianism", we disagree. You don't see authoritarianism a problem, i do. I see it as the basic problem, the reason that a George Bush gets in there in the first place. Fine we disagree. I hope we can work together on things we have in common, however don't expect me to shutr up and not wrangle with you.
Look -- if you think meetings are what the movement is about, and only seek groups that are all about the comfort level of the participants, then undoubtedly communism isn't for you. Good luck with your other plans, whatever they may be...
That is a red herring and you know it. Most anarchists hate meetings and are not comfort level. Some are and so what. Anarchists are probably doing as much and more to change the world that the RCP and all the other Marxists combined at this time in history, imho. And your last point in this paragraph is very condescending for someone who doesn't think he insults others in the movement. It's another red herring as well. You think the RCP is about r-r-r-revolution and all others have "other plans, whatever they may be". Well most anarchists i know are about serious anti-authoritarian and anti-captalist revolution. If you don't know these types than you should get out in the world more.
But I'm seriously concerned about where the world is heading right now and think we have the biggest and most perilous opportunity to break through two-party system and captialist hegemony that I've ever seen. I couldn't have dreamed this up.
And you don't think most people are seriously concerned about where the world is heading. Another Red herring.
And the RCP is taking it very seriously.
What is wrong with that?
Not a thing. But you seem to apply that the RCP are the only ones taking it "seriously".
What is wrong with building strong, displined organizations to fight capitalism? What is wrong with admitting and promoting your leaders?
Many things. Here is our real disagreements. The is nothing wrong with self-discipline, but the term "strong disciplined organizations", and "admitting and promoting your leaders" implies a very centralized command, and even on non-theoretical grounds, to have a unified command allows oneself to get picked off.
The RCP has the same pathologies any small group had going through years of defeat and social quietism. But now that millions are distraught, we can see their virtues come into sharp relief.
And... the RCP doesn't lie. They don't shit-talk other groups. They don't play for position among the "activist community." They are focused, dedicated, multi-racial and internationalist, and when Maoists have the forces -- they fight.
Again, not for everyone. But people who are revolutionaries and want to do real work outside the ghettos of the left... they are in motion... big time.
Sure,. MotIon. On November 2nd, people will do a die-In here (been there, done that passive thang.), a bell ringing in a church there (yawn!) and talk but school and work walkouts. I wish these well, but i think they're only hype like "Revolution in the 80's. Go for it". I wish they could produce the goods they promote, but i just don't see it. I'll be out there somewhere promoting a fighting anarchist pole and trying .os of the left? I'm not sayignthat that is the only place to work. But the "left' in broad terms is where peopel are in motion. Join the movement with all its flaws instead of looking for a super-party with a superman leader to save you.
I support the RCP. I support their goals and (increasingly) their means. They are not occupying space moaning about the "crisis of marxism" or the "sorry state of the left." They are creating new facts on the ground.
Resist or die.
-------
Anarchism? I don't even know what the word means. I've met many anarchists and they come in all types
Read more. Try the dictionary, it's fairly simple.
Isn't diversity good? Anarchists don't do all the same thing like other people. Isn't that good.
I could say the same thing about Marxists. Do what anybody does. Find people you like and work with them. You obviousy found your affinity group.
The problem is that "authority" isn't the problem. Sorry.
We disagree. sorry.
And leadership is good. Vanguards are good -- no, more than good: without a vanguard party we will never be able to stand up to Bush. It's not something we "submit" to as the more adolescent versions of anarchism would have it: it's something WE DO.
Parties are the oganization of their social base. They are a plan and objective and way of doing things.
The RCP wants communism. So do I. They reject the fake democracy we live under. So do I. They reject racism, without promoting goofy theories that tail racial segregation and act like someone can "lead" just because of their skin color or gender.
You obviously believe that they are only people who "reject fake democracy" or "reject racism" How sad that you are so blinded.
patches and dietary choices"
Waht a red herring. Most anarchists do not define themselves by "patches and dietary choices"; and, what a bad orgainzer, to insult those who might.
I guess that's, fine, but don't act like those of us tired of treading water -- who've moved to build a revolutionary movement -- are some kind of "slaves."
I'm not a slave. I will not accept capitalism for one day more and I support the party that seems most intent, dedicated and principled in building socialism right here in the USA. If you don't agree then good luck. One thing I learned from the RCP was not to hate on people who disagreed. But that's just more Bob Avakian talk, and we wouldn't want that now would we?
One was an oh-so witty retort about Bush being the Butcher. I'm sure he traded his lunch money for that groundbreaking response.
(And who is Randy Rhodes?)
The other retort was some of that dime store "I know you are, but what am I" crap about the Right needing things made simple. Logic and rationality doesn't exist in an emotional bedwetters' world.
All in all, I expected hippie idiocy from Appeasers, and that's what I got.
Well, if you act like you're still in grade school, what do you expect? lol
OK...but why wrangle? I mean, they're going to be a centralized, heirarchal group -- that's the way they do things. Discussing differences is one thing, but to focus on this so heavily sends the message that our beliefs are sacred, or at least beyond reproach. It's not a good way to foster dialogue. Does that make sense?
Further, saying that authoritarianism is what got George W. into power is true in anarcho-speak, it sounds like we're ignoring the obvious, *specific* reasons that he's in power (such as capitalism, the republican party, cronyism, and so on) -- in addition, it also can be interpreted as equating the RCP with the Bush administration. Last time I looked, the RCP wasn't juggling multiple imperialist wars while accidentally/deliberately mishandling situations like Hurricane Katrina (and letting thousands of people die or be displaced in the process, who just happen to be overwhelmingly black and poor).
Would the RCP be just as bad as the Bush administration if they were in power? I don't know -- it looks like we have a strong advocate and/or member of the RCP participating in the discussion, why don't you ask them?
Absolutely staggeringly brilliant.
My God, where would we be without the soap fearing "Intellectuals"?
My God, where would we be without the soap fearing "Intellectuals"?<
It's not going to work. You're way off topic. Grow up. Please.
Back to the thread,
no heroes save ourselves
It's like McCarthyism never ended. Reading the anarchist critique of the leading group on the communist left just confirms my suspicions: anarchists might hate the power of capitalists, but they fear the power of workers. When Marxists call anarchism a "petty bourgeois" philosophy, this is exactly what they are talking about.
It's not enough to hate the enemy. We need to be motivated by a love of the people. I support our vanguard party because the RCP knows that the people lead. This is so true, that some people will go and become leaders.
What is wrong with this?
I appreciate the militancy and morality of anarchists, more often than not. But it's hard to take it even remotely seriously when literally every experience I've had with anarchists was that they were all dressed exactly alike, sitting on the edge of larger events complaining. The bookfair is cool, but they'll let the child molesters from the anarcho-pedophile types in before people who actually build resistance movments. That's the kind of thing that just makes me nod by head.
Communists are leading. If you disagree, then just get out of the way. I'm sure you can complain about how "stupid and boring" everyone else is after the revolution.
the right tool for the job.......
the right tool for the job.......<
yes, it has. feel free to speak to that more.
The history of vanguards is a mixed one -- but I would be silly if I looked at, say, Hugo Chavez in the same light as George Bush because they both were statists. They're not the same at all -- and in that light, I can't honestly get seriously worked up about the RCP as some kind of "I'll never you work with you" palpable threat to true people power. Would they betray the people if they held power? Well, I could ask the same question of anarchists, or for that matter, anybody else. Further, if we didn't have a state, there would still be the very real possibility of abuse of authority -- something that we anarchists overlook at times, which I think is part of what you're getting at us being petit bourgeois, no?
As an anarchist, I want to see the people have control over their lives, which is what the RCP claims, in essence, to want as well. Who knows? Maybe we can end over 100 years of sectarian bickering, and prove history wrong. I for one would welcome that day.
Less criticizing, more building,
no heroes save ourselves
To cut to the chase... an effective theory of revolutionary leadership-- explicitly including the ability to discipline that leadership-- is not an excuse for abusive behavior in defense of a dubious hegemony of power. Oh sure, you don't want the bosses back in under another name, but that's happened a lot under Leninism, and hey! what if the workers and peasants want to elect Maoists AND Trotskyists AND anarchists and whatever? Something like in revolutionary Spain.
Furthermore, if the vanguardists can learn some tolerance for an opposition that is political as well as social, it might be the solution to revolutions becoming counterrevolutionary over time (xref China) and under pressure of repeated military assault (xref Russia).
If this is true, then anarchists have an incredibly important part to play in any revolutionary context as a counterweight (a "loyal opposition" if you will) that can keep vanguardist structures honest, i.e. comprised of the people (as in rev. Spain) and not bourgeois monsters in disguise (like in USSR and contemporary China).
To the best of my knowledge, few vanguardists would argue that China is, or the USSR was any time recently, a worker-run state. They all dodge (by blame) why not, and I think that's where folks with those beliefs have to confront the baggage of the failures of the purge strategy-- a historical strategy that anarchists, and all serious revolutionaries, are rightly very suspicious of. Anarchos arent the only ones on the left with shit to sort out!!!
Perhaps revolutionary Nicaragua would be a better model for the both/and strategy. Frankly, I don't know enough about it to say. I wish someone that did, would.
Meanwhile, and in other words... welcome to anarcho-Maoism. Please make yourself at home.
Wow. That was amazing. Thank you.
We simply *have* to learn to work together, if what we are trying to achieve is to have any future at all. We need each other -- and just as anarchism isn't going anywhere, neither is maoism. There's far more that we can accomplish by learning from each other than, well, not learning from each other.
Nevertheless, I could help being amazed at the arrogance of the statement
'Communists are leading. If you disagree, then just get out of the way." My friends politics is not NASCAR racing. This is veyr serious. People's lives and health depend on it. The competitive spirit of that statemnt shows you ain't no communist. Argument, reasoning aand example wqould be better ways to shwo what's the wqay forward. Not arrogance and game playing. Please!!
<p>arrogance and competition
<p>ok...but consider this comment pulled from the WCW thread on the front page:
<i>Here's a prediction. The WCW action will be a titantic bust. And it will be so, in large part because of the RCP's history of craven opportunism toward other progressive forces - and the left's healthy distrust of the noxious cult of personality you've fostered around Avakian. Don't take my word for it - take an internal survey from RCP party activists around the country about how this proposal is being received by the Left and the broader antiwar movement. ( you don't have to disclose this to the rest of us, but at least find out the truth ) </i>
<p>i know that you're trying to engage in dialogue here -- most of the folks on this thread are. but for far too long, the arrogance thing has been rather tit-for-tat.
<p>before you take off to do work opposing the minutemen (and more power to ya there), can you at least consider that there's a fair amount of hubris on both sides, and that may be part of the problem?
damn, it's early...
arrogance and competition
ok...but consider this comment pulled from the WCW thread on the front page: Here's a prediction. The WCW action will be a titantic bust. And it will be so, in large part because of the RCP's history of craven opportunism toward other progressive forces - and the left's healthy distrust of the noxious cult of personality you've fostered around Avakian. Don't take my word for it - take an internal survey from RCP party activists around the country about how this proposal is being received by the Left and the broader antiwar movement. ( you don't have to disclose this to the rest of us, but at least find out the truth )
i know that you're trying to engage in dialogue here -- most of the folks on this thread are. but for far too long, the arrogance thing has been rather tit-for-tat.
before you take off to do work opposing the minutemen (and more power to ya there), can you at least consider that there's a fair amount of hubris on both sides, and that may be part of the problem?
http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/general_articles/mythology_of_the_white-led_vanguard.html
The article in question:
Mythology of the White-Led "Vanguard": A Critical Look at the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
Written by Greg Jackson
Thursday, 16 September 2004
In which the author maintains that the position of the RCP is "homophobic: 'Once the proletariat [the party] is in power, no one will be discriminated against in jobs, housing, and the like merely on the basis of being a homosexual...but at the same time education will be conducted throughout society on the ideology behind homosexuality...and the struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals' (5a+b)."
source:
http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/general_articles/mythology_of_the_white-led_vanguard.html
Note the text does not provide actual pointers to the notes included at the bottom of it. The article is dated 9/16/04. The date of the cited material is much older.
In fact, the RCP changed its position on homosexuality in 2001, as per the current RCP program:
"On the Position on Homosexuality in the New Draft Programme(1)"
where clearly marked and linked note 1 reads:
"This position paper was prepared in 2001 by a specially constituted writing group assembled by the RCP, USA."
source:
http://rwor.org/margorp/homosexuality.htm
Are they just talkin shit to cover up what they really think? Then why is it the first set of links on their program page:
http://rwor.org/s/programme_e.htm
...along with appendices, a glossary, and a bibliography, and a bunch of other documentation that makes clear and accountable what they decided, and why, and in what context, and from where and to where they're going with it all.
None of that is to apologize for whatever may be the many sins of the RCP. But look:
1) They admitted they were wrong, and changed, in a very public way that showed both some rigor and some humility.
2) They did so in a transparent and accountable way.
3) They presentably documented their sources and their uses of same, as well as their process and the line of development of their thoughts.
Show me a contemporary anarcho group doing anything like that level of soul searching, and public change.
When anarchists show such intellectual honesty and rigor, they should get up and criticize others' lack of same. However, let's contextualize the intervention someone(s) has/have used this article to make on this discussion here and now. The sudden miraculous emergence of this hit piece is supposed, it would seem, to discredit discussions of whether they should be tolerated in the movement by anarchists.
But does it?
I mean, the author of the article above-cited didn't even bother running spell check before posting all these "facts."
It's not even that they're necessarily untrue. Who knows? It's that, how's anyone supposed to take that seriously? Hey, anyone can throw up a website, cobble together a few "facts" and make other people look bad. It is very few who can hold themselves publicly accountable, and change in the heat of struggle, modest though that struggle may be.
FWIW, I would assume that the RCP's work against police brutality had as much to do with changing the position as their likely bad scene with the NLG. Hey, whatever. Whatever wakes people up.
Hella props to the RCP for um getting with the program. Here's to more of the same, all around.
not at all. that's an equivocation that allows you off the hook, ideology unexamined.
i would argue that the average anarcho's anticommunist bias is as profoundly wrong as the rcp's antihomosexuality was.
it's even more wrong to re-present that old bigotry as the current truth, when the documentation exists in abundance that the situation has changed.
it doesnt allow people to change, and if you don't allow for that, how on earth will you ever make a revolutionary situation? let alone noncoercively, which i assume as an anarchist is an important piece of it for you.
I have things I could say, but I'm waiting for deanosor's response, since he was the one who was addressed.
OK. I was just waiting before I jumped in again.
The problem I have with this statement is that the bias goes both ways -- there is political animosity on both sides, anarchist, communist, and so on. We need to get over it. Critique? Sure, absolutely. Divisiveness? Not so good. None of us are going anywhere.
That being said, there are sound reasons to not work with the RCP as an organization, as I stated days ago. But you know, while we're not the same cult of personality that the RCP is, we are as sectarian, dogmatic and yes, frequently as blind to our shortcomings as a political community as they are as a political organization. We've got a lot to fix -- and rather than get our shorts in a uproar every time the RCP pulls some new stunt, we should be focusing on our own house.
So..unless anybody else has something to contribute, I'm done with this thread. It's been tough -- but that's the reality of working with people who aren't exactly like you. Personally, I'd love to see more conversations like this -- how do the rest of you feel?
nor has the documentation been refuted-- in fact, what little response it's received is forced to acknowledge facts.
lets have more of that, and less sneech activity, eh?
Hey, I'm an anarchist! I hear what you're saying, but please don't paint all of us with the same brush. Not all of us are backward -- and as for racism (Sneechism?), well...look here: http://www.illegalvoices.org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneeches
That it is.
> How to use this information
Good question. This may be premature, but it seems to me that maybe we could sit down, declare a "no hating, haters, OK?" truce of sorts, and see what we could work out together -- not so much to come up with anything concrete, but more to learn how to talk with each other.
It's a given that we're not going to see eye to eye -- but as a recent issue of Clamor reports, there are people across the great radical left divide (black vs. red) that are starting to put aside their differences and work together. Perhaps it's time for us to do the same.
First, it is misleading for the RCP to say the problem is the Bush regime. The neo-Cons have had full support from most Congressional Democrats, who, for example just voted unanimously in the Senate for $50 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan. They are both part of the problem.
Second, it is highly misleading to tell people that cascading street demonstrations will bring down the current administration, or for that matter the whole government. Watergate made this clear. The Nixon regime was brought down and as Alexander Cockburn points out in the current Nation, that US imperialism just rolled along, and in some cases was emboldened.
Third, if some combination of implosion, disasters, and military debacles caused the federal government to collapse, we know the trajectory our establishment will take to hold on to power. They have shown us their true self in New Orleans, and they have show us, again and again, throughout the world. They used force to keep control. They don't just walk away. They don't give the working class the keys to the car. They don't call constitutional conventions. They pull the trigger.
Serious lefties, whether Moaists, Anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, or Socialists try to tell people these truths, not make up fairy tales, such as the whopper that street demonstrations will drive the Bush administration from power, and that this would move the country is some vague progressive direction.
yeah, in the grander scheme of things-- but it's a dandy place to start...
>>>The neo-Cons have had full support from most Congressional Democrats, who, for example just voted unanimously in the Senate for $50 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan. They are both part of the problem.
agreed. no one has a better strategy vs the dems, though, except maybe the greens (i.e. compete from the left for "their" voters)..... i would love to hear some ideas on making the democrats politically pay for their incessant kowtowing to the republikaners.... it is absolutely disgusting that Barbara Lee had to vote all by her lonesome against giving that fratboy war powers.....
>>>Second, it is highly misleading to tell people that cascading street demonstrations will bring down the current administration, or for that matter the whole government.
ok, it's a bit of a stretch, but again, it's a starting point. if you read their fine print, i think they're clear enough it's only a start. they want to mobilize people power. the thinking part? that comes in the paper, the one anarchos are always giving em shit for selling at demos....
as for their paper, it is one of the more rigorously analytical reads on the left, the bob-stuff not withstanding..... maybe you should try it sometime, before getting down on them for not having deeper ideas. you dont even hafta agree with it to have a look.....
>>>Watergate made this clear. The Nixon regime was brought down and as Alexander Cockburn
now you wanna talk about scary hacks.......
>>>points out in the current Nation, that US imperialism just rolled along, and in some cases was emboldened.
speaking of kowtowing to the democrats......
>>>>>Third, if some combination of implosion, disasters, and military debacles caused the federal government to collapse, we know the trajectory our establishment will take to hold on to power. They have shown us their true self in New Orleans, and they have show us, again and again, throughout the world. They used force to keep control. They don't just walk away. They don't give the working class the keys to the car. They don't call constitutional conventions. They pull the trigger.
that's why it has to be nonlocal, even international. to their credit, the maoists do outreach to soldiers, who of course, hafta be won over or what you are describing will be the real end of our work.
funny how all those war-resister marines are maoists, not iso types (or hippies or whatever).......
>>>Serious lefties, whether Moaists, Anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, or Socialists try to tell people these truths,
true
>>>not make up fairy tales, such as the whopper that street demonstrations will drive the Bush administration from power, and that this would move the country is some vague progressive direction.
point taken, but i really dont think they were being that simplistic. i think the street-action thing was an appealing hook, and the next-step type stuff is to be found in the work that goes on after 2 nov-- everyone's work.
more than one person said it was really nice not to be at an ANSWER sheep-herd for once....... just breaking that hegemony is a worthy start.