Note: American Socialist Society, or ASS members address each other as "Neighbor," rather than the usual leftist term of Comrade.
TO: Editorial Board of The North Star
www.thenorthstar.info
Speaking on behalf of the American Socialist Society, or ASS, I must most heartily protest some of the disturbing changes at The North Star, since the resignation from your editorial board by one of our members Pham Binh. As you are probably aware Neighbor Binh, serves on the leadership body, the Neighborhood Watch, of ASS.
You claim that the current policy is necessary so, in your own words, "people no longer confuse us with a neoconservative site as we have stopped excluding views that differ from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy." Please be advised that it is not ASS who has adopted the views of the Washington Institute for near East Policy. On the contrary, it is they who have adopted the views of ASS!
As readers of The North Star are well aware of ASS is not alone in our support of US military intervention in Syria. We have to assume that this new change will also negatively affect our stalwart Australian co-thinkers, supporters of The Last Super Power, under the exemplary pro- imperialist leadership of Arthur Dent.
As a result of this "new direction" another member of our leadership team, Clay Claiborne, has assumed, probably correctly, any future articles, submitted by him, calling for US military intervention in Syria, in the finest tradition of the late Christopher Hitchens, will be rejected. Neighbor Claiborne has become so distraught by this probable action on your part, that he has taken to roaming the streets of Venice, CA, where he resides, dressed only in a bathrobe, and slippers, mumbling quietly to himself.
The final provocation was the banning of our General Secretary ( sometimes referred to as Chief Neighbor) Louis Proyect, from your website. This was done by blocking the ISP of Chief Neighbor Proyect's computer. Just because Chief Neighbor Proyect bans serious anti-imperialist Leftists from websites he moderates doesn't give The North Star the right to assume a "chickens coming home to roost" attitude.
This attack upon our leadership is an attack upon our membership as well. An injury to one Ass-ist is an injury to all Ass-ists! Rest assured these attacks will not go unanswered. We will taunt you!
God Bless America,
Mary Barnes Ratchet
American Socialist Society
For information about ASS: http://redguarddude.blogspot.com/2013/07/founding-convention-of-american.html
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
What Next for The North Star?
Last month Pham Binh one of the founders of The North Star website, a Left online discussion list, announced his resignation as editor, for personal reasons. This news caused an immediate discussion as to whether this would result in a change of direction for The North Star and if so, how would this change be defined.
The North Star website started out with the purpose of being an all inclusive online discussion board, with the purpose of uniting the Left in the U.S. Some even saw The North Star serving the same role as the now defunct Guardian newspaper during it's 34 year existence, 1948-1992.
From the very beginning of it's existence The North Star began to drift away from that goal. Instead it became dominated, by those who support U.S. military intervention in the Syrian conflict, and others who take offense at the very existence of organized Socialist groups. The interventionist position was represented by a group of Australians, including Arthur Dent, who are affiliated with The Last Super Power, and U.S. blogger Clay Claiborne, who apparently sees himself as the replacement of the late Christopher Hitchens
The attacks on the organized left, were for the most part directed at the International Socialist Organization, the ISO. The steady stream of ISO bashing appeared to be motivated by the ISO being the largest Socialist group in the U.S., as well as Binh's former membership in the organization. many of the contributors to the site lent credence to the claim that some of the worst sectarians are the "anti-sectarians."
The new editorial board of The North Star claims their position is neither pro nor anti U.S./Nato intervention in Syria, as stated in the most recent article, Moving Froward? Hopes for the Future of the New North Star. The article would seem to contradict the non intervention claim. The article uses the example of Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Vietnamese liberation movement, the Vietminh, accepting U.S. assistance to fight the Japanese. The U.S. aid was offered to assist the Vietminh in fighting Japan, who the U.S. was at war with. When the Vietminh fought their war of independence against the French, no U.S. aid was forthcoming. The article uses the example of the international arms embargo against the Spanish republic during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. What is omitted is that the armed forces of the Spanish republic, were fighting for the legally recognized government of Spain. The situations that existed in Spain and Vietnam are different than the current situation in Syria.
My own position is those in rebellion against the Assad regime in Syria, have the right to accept weapons and armaments from anyone offering such aid. This is not the same as calling for air and possibly ground operations against the Assad forces in Syria. The North Star is correct in their critique of those forces on the Left who support Assad.
Rather than engage the various Socialist groups in discussion, the strategy of The North Star, has been to entice individual members of these groups to drop out of their respective organizations. This does nothing to build left unity.
Can The North Star be all things to all people? Is there common ground between those who support and those who oppose US military intervention abroad? Is their common ground between those who support Democratic Party electoral candidates and those opposed to such an orientation? Can their be unity among those who believe in membership based Socialist organizations and those who have total contempt for the organized Left? Would honesty not demand that the points of unity, for supporters of The North Star be, "yes to US intervention in Syria" and "no to a revolutionary party?" These questions need to be addressed.
Recommended further reading:
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10171
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3121
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2013/09/syria-and-hitchensification.html
http://socialistworker.org/2013/09/10/standing-against-war-and-dictatorship
The North Star website started out with the purpose of being an all inclusive online discussion board, with the purpose of uniting the Left in the U.S. Some even saw The North Star serving the same role as the now defunct Guardian newspaper during it's 34 year existence, 1948-1992.
From the very beginning of it's existence The North Star began to drift away from that goal. Instead it became dominated, by those who support U.S. military intervention in the Syrian conflict, and others who take offense at the very existence of organized Socialist groups. The interventionist position was represented by a group of Australians, including Arthur Dent, who are affiliated with The Last Super Power, and U.S. blogger Clay Claiborne, who apparently sees himself as the replacement of the late Christopher Hitchens
The attacks on the organized left, were for the most part directed at the International Socialist Organization, the ISO. The steady stream of ISO bashing appeared to be motivated by the ISO being the largest Socialist group in the U.S., as well as Binh's former membership in the organization. many of the contributors to the site lent credence to the claim that some of the worst sectarians are the "anti-sectarians."
The new editorial board of The North Star claims their position is neither pro nor anti U.S./Nato intervention in Syria, as stated in the most recent article, Moving Froward? Hopes for the Future of the New North Star. The article would seem to contradict the non intervention claim. The article uses the example of Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Vietnamese liberation movement, the Vietminh, accepting U.S. assistance to fight the Japanese. The U.S. aid was offered to assist the Vietminh in fighting Japan, who the U.S. was at war with. When the Vietminh fought their war of independence against the French, no U.S. aid was forthcoming. The article uses the example of the international arms embargo against the Spanish republic during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. What is omitted is that the armed forces of the Spanish republic, were fighting for the legally recognized government of Spain. The situations that existed in Spain and Vietnam are different than the current situation in Syria.
My own position is those in rebellion against the Assad regime in Syria, have the right to accept weapons and armaments from anyone offering such aid. This is not the same as calling for air and possibly ground operations against the Assad forces in Syria. The North Star is correct in their critique of those forces on the Left who support Assad.
Rather than engage the various Socialist groups in discussion, the strategy of The North Star, has been to entice individual members of these groups to drop out of their respective organizations. This does nothing to build left unity.
Can The North Star be all things to all people? Is there common ground between those who support and those who oppose US military intervention abroad? Is their common ground between those who support Democratic Party electoral candidates and those opposed to such an orientation? Can their be unity among those who believe in membership based Socialist organizations and those who have total contempt for the organized Left? Would honesty not demand that the points of unity, for supporters of The North Star be, "yes to US intervention in Syria" and "no to a revolutionary party?" These questions need to be addressed.
Recommended further reading:
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10171
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3121
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2013/09/syria-and-hitchensification.html
http://socialistworker.org/2013/09/10/standing-against-war-and-dictatorship
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Whither the ILWU
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the ILWU, has a reputation as being one of the most militant and progressive unions in the United States. This was the union that was central to the San Francisco General Strike of 1934. It was the ILWU that first organized farm workers in Hawaii, thirty years prior to the organizing successes of the United Farm Workers on the mainland.
The ILWU has a tradition of supporting stuggles for racial, and gender equality and for the rights of all workers. It was ILWU Longshoremen who refused to cross community picket lines to handle South African cargo, during the Apartheid period, or scab cargo on the ship the Neptune Jade, in solidarity with the striking dockers of Liverpool, England.
To expand the power of workers on the docks, the union began what was called The March Inland to organize warehouse workers, near the docks. This was later expanded to include manufacturing plants. It is because of the union's militant and progressive reputation that workers in non related fields, such as bicycle messengers and book store workers have sought membership in the ILWU.
The members of ILWU Local 21, Longview, WA in 2011 were engaged in a hard fought battle to preserve union jobs at the port of Longview. Their pickets were attacked by police and several Longshoremen, including the International President Bob McEllrath, as well as the President of the local labor council were arrested.
It was during this time, the Occupy movement arose. At the beginning Occupy received support from the leadership of the AFL-CIO and several unions. Among the campaigns of Occupy on the west coast, was a December 12 shutdown of several ports, including the ports of Portland, and Oakland, CA.
Occupy groups in Oakland, CA, Portland, OR and Seattle, WA made the defense of the Longview workers a top priority. To build support. solidarity meetings were held in Portland, January 5, 2012, and the next evening, January 6 in Seattle.
The Seattle meeting meeting was disrupted by union leaders and members of the Seattle and Tacoma locals as described in an article in the January 9, 2012 edition of Socialist Worker:
ACTIVISTS IN Seattle had responded to a call from Jack Heyman and Clarence Thomas, ILWU Local 10 members from Oakland, Calif., to organize public solidarity meetings to help build the mobilization for Longview and support for Local 21's struggle.
The ILWU has a tradition of supporting stuggles for racial, and gender equality and for the rights of all workers. It was ILWU Longshoremen who refused to cross community picket lines to handle South African cargo, during the Apartheid period, or scab cargo on the ship the Neptune Jade, in solidarity with the striking dockers of Liverpool, England.
To expand the power of workers on the docks, the union began what was called The March Inland to organize warehouse workers, near the docks. This was later expanded to include manufacturing plants. It is because of the union's militant and progressive reputation that workers in non related fields, such as bicycle messengers and book store workers have sought membership in the ILWU.
The members of ILWU Local 21, Longview, WA in 2011 were engaged in a hard fought battle to preserve union jobs at the port of Longview. Their pickets were attacked by police and several Longshoremen, including the International President Bob McEllrath, as well as the President of the local labor council were arrested.
It was during this time, the Occupy movement arose. At the beginning Occupy received support from the leadership of the AFL-CIO and several unions. Among the campaigns of Occupy on the west coast, was a December 12 shutdown of several ports, including the ports of Portland, and Oakland, CA.
Occupy groups in Oakland, CA, Portland, OR and Seattle, WA made the defense of the Longview workers a top priority. To build support. solidarity meetings were held in Portland, January 5, 2012, and the next evening, January 6 in Seattle.
The Seattle meeting meeting was disrupted by union leaders and members of the Seattle and Tacoma locals as described in an article in the January 9, 2012 edition of Socialist Worker:
ACTIVISTS IN Seattle had responded to a call from Jack Heyman and Clarence Thomas, ILWU Local 10 members from Oakland, Calif., to organize public solidarity meetings to help build the mobilization for Longview and support for Local 21's struggle.
The resulting January 6 event at the Seattle Labor Temple brought out 150 people to hear a panel of speakers, featuring a rank-and-file union member from Local 21, as well as Occupy Seattle activists, an Occupy Oakland activist, Heyman, Thomas, a rank-and-file ILWU member from Portland, a fundraising pitch and musical entertainment
Shortly after Jack Heyman, a retired Local 10 member and former Business Agent, began his remarks, about a dozen ILWU officials and members from Local 19, in Seattle and Local 23, in Tacoma began disrupting the meeting.
This attack on the Seattle meeting, may have been encouraged by the International leadership. This was an attack on the Occupy movement, as well as the left. Ironically, one of the leaders of the disruption, Rich Austin, of Local 23, is a self described "socialist."
This was not the first indication, that the ILWU was straying from it's once proud history. In 2000, International President Brian McWilliams, lost his bid for reelection to James Spinosa. Bob McEllrath, who was later to be elected to succeed Spinosa, was elected as International Vice President.
Prior to Spinosa, the four previous International Presidents, had been or at least considered themselves socialists, or at a minimum social democrats. This changed with Spinosa, who could probably at best, be described as a centrist Democrat.
The first ominous warning that the union was changing occured in a conflict between the new International leadership and Local 6, of the Warehouse Division. When I lived in San Francisco, I was a member of Local 6, which covered the San Francisco Bay area, with the exception of the docks.
A new leadership team was elected in Local 6, in 2000. The leadership that had been defeated for reelection refused to accept the results of the election. When the local appealed to the International, much to everyone's surprise Spinosa sided with the defeated candidates and refused to support the new officers, in violation of both the local and international constitutions. After a lengthy battle, which included mobilizing the membership, and endorsements from other locals, in different divisions, the democratically elected leadership was finally recognized, reluctantly so, by the International leadership.
A few years later Steve Stallone, the Communications Director of the union, and editor of the union newspaper The Dispatcher was dismissed. Stallone had written an op ed critical of a pro Israeli and anti Palestinian article written by the International Secretary-Treasurer.
The Longview struggle was settled with the intervention of the Democratic state Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington, in an attempt to head off a mass picket at the port. Occupy groups along the west coast had planned a massive mobilization of thousands at the port. This could have resulted in a conflict with the Coast Guard, which would have been embarrassing, for President Obama, prior to the 2012 Presidential election. The settlement that was hailed as a victory was anything but a victory. It was a concessionary conflict that allows management to bypass the union hiring hall, eliminated the clerks jobs, and refuses to recognize July 5, Bloody Tuesday as a holiday. On this day, to honor those killed during the organizing battles of 1934 Longshoreman of the ILWU take the day off. Not in Longview.
Once regarded as one of the last class struggle unions, the ILWU has sadly, adopted the "business union" model, that is representative of the US labor movement. The only thing to reverse this course, is for an engaged rank and file to get this once proud union back on course.
sources:
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/mayjun_12/mayjun_12_21.htmlhttp://socialistworker.org/2012/01/05/longview-call-for-solidarity
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2013/heyman090613.html
http://socialistworker.org/2002-1/405/405_11_LaborInBrief.shtml#ILWU
http://socialistorganizer.org/another-look-at-the-battle-of-longview/
Thursday, September 12, 2013
What's Going On With Clay Claiborne?
For more than a year Clay Claiborne has been waging a relentless crusade calling on the American left to support US military action in Syria, to assist those in armed rebellion against the Assad regime. This campaign includes writing what appears to be a single issue blog, calling for US military action in Syria. Issues such as massive unemployment, poverty, homelessness, evictions, and crippling student debt appear to be of little interest to this self described Marxist.
Claiborne's single issue campaign, includes denouncing all who oppose the US going to war with Syria as supporters of the Assad government. He has even denounced Veterans for Peace, for not suppporting US military action in Syria. This would be difficult for the anti war veterans group, since one of the points in their Statement of Purpose is "to restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations". He also denounced an anti war demonstration in Los Angeles, which occured, July 11, 2013, as a pro Assad rally. The rally was endorsed by over a dozen organizations, whose point of unity was no US military intervention in Syria, NOT support for the Assad government.
Claiborne had been a member of the October League, a Maoist aka New Communist Movement organization, which later changed it's name to the Communist Party Marxist Leninist during the 1970's. During that period he appears to have been a dedicated leftist and anti war activist. He served several months in jail as a result of his opposition to the war in Vietnam.
In the early 1980's about the time CPML dissolves, he becomes somewhat of an enigma. He went into business for himself as a computer repair technician. He basically drops off the political map during the 1980's and 1990's.
In 2008 , he produced a documentary about the Vietnam War, narrated by actor Martin Sheen, Vietnam: American Holocaust. The documentary is available for viewing on YouTube. He next shows up with Occupy LA, during the height of the Occupy Movement.
Leftist blogger and part time film critic, Louis Proyect, after seeing the documentary makes contact with Claiborne, and next thing we know Claiborne is posting on the Proyect moderated online discussion list, Marxmail. Claiborne next shows up commenting at The North Star. Consistent with his blog entries, his comments, on both sites, are exclusively about events in Syria.
While doing an online search, I found that Claiborne was elected to the State Central Committee, of the California Peace and Freedom Party, from Los Angeles county, where he lives. For the benefit of those not familiar with Peace and Freedom Party, this is a political party that describes itself as socialist, has ballot status in Califronia, and has consistently opposed U.S. military intervention abroad. My sources in Peace and Freedom inform me that although he was also elected to the Los Angeles County Central Committee, he has never attended a single meeting of either of these leadership committees. Honesty would have required Claiborne's election platform to have been, if nominated I will run, and if elected I will not serve.
In a recent posting on Marxmail, Claiborne submitted a post calling for support of a pro war rally, supporting US military intervention in Syria. The rally was held in Washington, DC, September 9. The moderator of the list, who does not support direct US military action in Syria, responded with a post expressing his disappointment, that anyone would advocate support of a pro war rally on a Marxist discussion list. Good call there, Moderator.
Claiborne's conduct raises some questions. If he is so pro war, why hasn't he made a serious effort to build a pro war movement. If his intentions were serious, by now he would have reached out to forces beyond the left, where he is becoming even more isolated. Potential allies on the right of the political spectrum, who are supportive of Claiborne's pro war stance, include Senator John McCain. McCain, who is so wealthy, that he isn't even sure how many houses he owns, could certainly assist in raising money for such a venture.
Claiborne drops out of the picture, politcally speaking, for almost three decades. Then after the Occupy movement he goes on a single issue campaign, for US military intervention in Syria. He wins election to not one, but two leadership bodies in Peace and Freedom Party, than apparantly blows it off. His only real political accomplishment thus far, has been to serve as a divisive force within the left. This raises the question, what is Claiborne's real agenda. Who or what is Clay Claiborne?
Clay Claiborne's blog: http://claysbeach.blogspot.com
Claiborne's single issue campaign, includes denouncing all who oppose the US going to war with Syria as supporters of the Assad government. He has even denounced Veterans for Peace, for not suppporting US military action in Syria. This would be difficult for the anti war veterans group, since one of the points in their Statement of Purpose is "to restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations". He also denounced an anti war demonstration in Los Angeles, which occured, July 11, 2013, as a pro Assad rally. The rally was endorsed by over a dozen organizations, whose point of unity was no US military intervention in Syria, NOT support for the Assad government.
Claiborne had been a member of the October League, a Maoist aka New Communist Movement organization, which later changed it's name to the Communist Party Marxist Leninist during the 1970's. During that period he appears to have been a dedicated leftist and anti war activist. He served several months in jail as a result of his opposition to the war in Vietnam.
In the early 1980's about the time CPML dissolves, he becomes somewhat of an enigma. He went into business for himself as a computer repair technician. He basically drops off the political map during the 1980's and 1990's.
In 2008 , he produced a documentary about the Vietnam War, narrated by actor Martin Sheen, Vietnam: American Holocaust. The documentary is available for viewing on YouTube. He next shows up with Occupy LA, during the height of the Occupy Movement.
Leftist blogger and part time film critic, Louis Proyect, after seeing the documentary makes contact with Claiborne, and next thing we know Claiborne is posting on the Proyect moderated online discussion list, Marxmail. Claiborne next shows up commenting at The North Star. Consistent with his blog entries, his comments, on both sites, are exclusively about events in Syria.
While doing an online search, I found that Claiborne was elected to the State Central Committee, of the California Peace and Freedom Party, from Los Angeles county, where he lives. For the benefit of those not familiar with Peace and Freedom Party, this is a political party that describes itself as socialist, has ballot status in Califronia, and has consistently opposed U.S. military intervention abroad. My sources in Peace and Freedom inform me that although he was also elected to the Los Angeles County Central Committee, he has never attended a single meeting of either of these leadership committees. Honesty would have required Claiborne's election platform to have been, if nominated I will run, and if elected I will not serve.
In a recent posting on Marxmail, Claiborne submitted a post calling for support of a pro war rally, supporting US military intervention in Syria. The rally was held in Washington, DC, September 9. The moderator of the list, who does not support direct US military action in Syria, responded with a post expressing his disappointment, that anyone would advocate support of a pro war rally on a Marxist discussion list. Good call there, Moderator.
Claiborne's conduct raises some questions. If he is so pro war, why hasn't he made a serious effort to build a pro war movement. If his intentions were serious, by now he would have reached out to forces beyond the left, where he is becoming even more isolated. Potential allies on the right of the political spectrum, who are supportive of Claiborne's pro war stance, include Senator John McCain. McCain, who is so wealthy, that he isn't even sure how many houses he owns, could certainly assist in raising money for such a venture.
Claiborne drops out of the picture, politcally speaking, for almost three decades. Then after the Occupy movement he goes on a single issue campaign, for US military intervention in Syria. He wins election to not one, but two leadership bodies in Peace and Freedom Party, than apparantly blows it off. His only real political accomplishment thus far, has been to serve as a divisive force within the left. This raises the question, what is Claiborne's real agenda. Who or what is Clay Claiborne?
Clay Claiborne's blog: http://claysbeach.blogspot.com
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Is Maoism Making a Comeback?
Maoism may be making a comeback after it's two decade rise and fall, from the 1960's to the 1980's. Internationally, Maoists have been recently or are currently engaged in armed struggle, or Peoples Protracted Warfare, in Peru, Nepal, the Phillipines, and India. In Nepal the Maoists forces actually suceeded. At least for a while. The Communist Party of the Phillipines, the political leadership of the New Peoples Army, no longer consider themselves Maoist.
For a history of Maoism, or the New Communist Movement, during the 1960's through the 1980's I highly recommend the book Revolution in the Air, by Max Elbaum. The Anti-Revisionism section of the Marxist Internet Archives, www.marxists.org, is another good source.
Two of the main groups from that period were the Communist Party Marxist Leninist (CPML) and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). While the CPML, were officially recognized by the post Mao Chinese leadership, the RCP supported the ousted leadership faction, known as the Gang of Four. As a result of a boisterious demonstration at the Chinese embassy, in Washington, DC, in 1979, RCP leader Bob Avakian faced criminal charges. After being indicted Chairman Bob fled to France, and requested and received political asylum.
Avakian's current whereabouts is not really known. A reporter who attempted to interview the Chairman, a few years ago, found out that charges had been dropped against Avakian in 1983. Apparantly, not being aware of this, poor old Bob had to endure 20 years of exile, in that drab and dark city, Paris, France, and forced to subsist on a steady diet of French food and wine.The sacrifices some people make for the revolution!
Many, if not most Maoists, today claim that what was called Maoism was actually "Anti-Revisionist Communism." JMP, aka Josh, at his blog, Marxism Leninism Mayhem, http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com, claims, as do many if not most contemporary Maoists , that Maoism wasn't really defined until the publication of the document Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in 1993 by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. The document is available online:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060520201533/http://www.csrp.org/rim/longlivemlm. To get an overview of the Maoist movement, internationally, this website is probably the best source.
JMP is a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Canada, which has no relationship with a group with the same name in the United States. The website for the RCP, Canada is:
http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/en/.
Another group I ran across, actually a study group, is Marxist -Leninist-Maoist Revolutionary Study Group: www.mlmrsg.com. Among their online documents is one that helps explain some of the rightward moves, such as supporting the U.S. and South Africa during the 1970's civil war in Angola by New Communist Movement groups. To view the document go to:
http://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/article/74/ChForPol-Final-4-09.pdf, especially pages 26-37.
The Maoist website with the catchiest name, would have to be Maosoleum, or Undead Mao:
http://maosoleum.wordpress.com. Maosoleum also has a Face Book page.
The most influential of the Maoist leaning websites is probably www.kasamaproject.org.. The leading figure at Kasama appears to be Mike Ely, the former editor of the RCP paper, Revolutionary Worker, which changed it's name to Revolution. Ely was recently denounced by his former comrades in the RCP with a 36 page polemic: http://revcom.us/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf. Whether Kasama will serve as a pole of attraction to build a new Maoist party, or exist as a Maoist version of Grumpyoldmanmail, aka Marxmail, remains to be seen.
The one thing that appears to link Maoists, internationally is their disdain for the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S., especially Bob Avakian's New Synthesis. Avakian has been publicly criticized by several Maoists groups, including the Communist Party (Maoist) Afghanistan:
http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/A_respose_to_the_rcp_USA_sh28.html.
Maoism appears to be the dominant left trend in the developing world. With the possible exception of the Communist Organization of Greece (KOE), who participate in the electoral coalition SYRIZA, and the RCP/Canada in Quebec Province, the Maoist haven't really managed to gain noticeable influence in Europe or North America. I suppose the Maoists would counter, especially in light of recent splits of other tendencies, neither has anyone else.
This article was not meant to be a complete listing of all websites, blogs, and groups which consider themselves Maoist. This omission on my part was due, strictly to space and time limitations.
"Birds cannot give birth to crocodiles."-Bob Avakian
For a history of Maoism, or the New Communist Movement, during the 1960's through the 1980's I highly recommend the book Revolution in the Air, by Max Elbaum. The Anti-Revisionism section of the Marxist Internet Archives, www.marxists.org, is another good source.
Two of the main groups from that period were the Communist Party Marxist Leninist (CPML) and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). While the CPML, were officially recognized by the post Mao Chinese leadership, the RCP supported the ousted leadership faction, known as the Gang of Four. As a result of a boisterious demonstration at the Chinese embassy, in Washington, DC, in 1979, RCP leader Bob Avakian faced criminal charges. After being indicted Chairman Bob fled to France, and requested and received political asylum.
Avakian's current whereabouts is not really known. A reporter who attempted to interview the Chairman, a few years ago, found out that charges had been dropped against Avakian in 1983. Apparantly, not being aware of this, poor old Bob had to endure 20 years of exile, in that drab and dark city, Paris, France, and forced to subsist on a steady diet of French food and wine.The sacrifices some people make for the revolution!
Many, if not most Maoists, today claim that what was called Maoism was actually "Anti-Revisionist Communism." JMP, aka Josh, at his blog, Marxism Leninism Mayhem, http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com, claims, as do many if not most contemporary Maoists , that Maoism wasn't really defined until the publication of the document Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in 1993 by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. The document is available online:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060520201533/http://www.csrp.org/rim/longlivemlm. To get an overview of the Maoist movement, internationally, this website is probably the best source.
JMP is a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Canada, which has no relationship with a group with the same name in the United States. The website for the RCP, Canada is:
http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/en/.
Another group I ran across, actually a study group, is Marxist -Leninist-Maoist Revolutionary Study Group: www.mlmrsg.com. Among their online documents is one that helps explain some of the rightward moves, such as supporting the U.S. and South Africa during the 1970's civil war in Angola by New Communist Movement groups. To view the document go to:
http://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/article/74/ChForPol-Final-4-09.pdf, especially pages 26-37.
The Maoist website with the catchiest name, would have to be Maosoleum, or Undead Mao:
http://maosoleum.wordpress.com. Maosoleum also has a Face Book page.
The most influential of the Maoist leaning websites is probably www.kasamaproject.org.. The leading figure at Kasama appears to be Mike Ely, the former editor of the RCP paper, Revolutionary Worker, which changed it's name to Revolution. Ely was recently denounced by his former comrades in the RCP with a 36 page polemic: http://revcom.us/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf. Whether Kasama will serve as a pole of attraction to build a new Maoist party, or exist as a Maoist version of Grumpyoldmanmail, aka Marxmail, remains to be seen.
The one thing that appears to link Maoists, internationally is their disdain for the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S., especially Bob Avakian's New Synthesis. Avakian has been publicly criticized by several Maoists groups, including the Communist Party (Maoist) Afghanistan:
http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/A_respose_to_the_rcp_USA_sh28.html.
Maoism appears to be the dominant left trend in the developing world. With the possible exception of the Communist Organization of Greece (KOE), who participate in the electoral coalition SYRIZA, and the RCP/Canada in Quebec Province, the Maoist haven't really managed to gain noticeable influence in Europe or North America. I suppose the Maoists would counter, especially in light of recent splits of other tendencies, neither has anyone else.
This article was not meant to be a complete listing of all websites, blogs, and groups which consider themselves Maoist. This omission on my part was due, strictly to space and time limitations.
"Birds cannot give birth to crocodiles."-Bob Avakian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)