From a Facebook Posting by Federico Fuentes
I have had a few people ask me what I think of the recent article by Mike Gonzalez regarding events in Venezuela https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/02/is-venezuela-burning/
Putting aside the fact he can't even get the name right of the oil minster, here are 3 things that are wrong with the article:
1) “It is no secret that behind the façade of unity, there is a struggle for power between extremely wealthy and influential groups within government — a struggle that began to intensify in the months before Chavez’s death.”
If this was no secret, then surely there would be a mount of evidence to prove this. But Mike offers none.
A more serious analysis, would indicate the opposite: that despite the narrow election victory in April 2013, the immediately wave of opposition violence and campaign around “fraud”, the ongoing economic war against the government, the municipal elections and the most recent events, there has been no visible signs of fractures in the government.
Even serious right-wing analyst can see this: “What makes Venezuela’s government so different is its absolute dominance of all the main levers of political power. President Nicolas Maduro’s administration wields unquestionable control over the Supreme Court, the Congress, the military and the oil industry -- the very institutions that could threaten his regime.” http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-25/venezuela-is-no-ukraine
Add to that the solid support the government still maintains among working class and poor sections and you start to see a very different picture to the one Mike paints of a government on the brink of cracking up.
In fact, the only people that continually speculate about such internal struggles (apart from Mike and a few other leftists) are the gossip columnists in the right-wing media.
None of this is to deny that there are *political* differences within the government and Chavismo more generally, which brings me to…
2) “All of this is an expression of an economic crisis vigorously denied by the Maduro government but obvious to everyone else.”
Again, this is just plain silliness to claim the Maduro government is denying economic problems. In fact one of the key triggers to the recent protests (ignored by Mike) was that the government had precisely begun to take measures to address the economic problems, starting with the imposition of set profit margins and accompanying regulations to open company books.
But Mike’s article goes further and also invents a crisis that does not exist. Let’s just look at what Mike says and some of the actual figures:
“2012 had seen inflation rates hovering around fifty percent (officially) and the level has risen inexorably throughout the last year.”
Inflation in 2012: 20.1% http://www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/actualidad/economia/inflacion-en-venezuela-cerro-2012-en-20-1.aspx
Inflation in 2013: 56.2% http://globovision.com/articulo/inflacion-en-noviembre-fue-de-48-y-la-de-diciembre-22
That is it was not around 50% in 2012 and it did not rise inexorably from that imaginary figure (even if it clearly did rise substantially in 2013)
“The shortages are explained partly by speculation on the part of capitalists — just as happened in Chile in 1972 — and partly by the rising cost of imports, which make up a growing proportion of what is consumed in Venezuela”
Value of imports in 2012: US$47.310 billion
Value of imports in 2013: US$37.802
http://www.ine.gov.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=48&Itemid=33
That is value of imports when down. In fact the value of imports in 2013 was higher in 2007, 2008 and 2009 than it was last year.
“Today, those funds [oil wealth] are drying up as Venezuela’s oil income is diverted to paying for increasingly expensive imports.”
As I showed above imports are not more expensive. But its also not true that funds are drying up:
Value of exports 2012: US$97.340 billion. http://www.bcv.org.ve/Upload/Publicaciones/anuasectorexterno77-12.pdf?id=458
I couldn’t find the figure for 2013, but I doubt exports fell by 2/3 which would indicate Venezuela continues have a nice trade surplus.
I could continue to do the same for almost every other assertion Mike makes (and happy to do so if you want me to). Or point to figures that show despite the “crisis” poverty rates and unemployment continue to fall, unheard of in any other economic crisis. But the main point is not so much the gross errors Mike makes, but why he does so.
The reason is because what he wants to demonstrate is that the government is just as responsible for the “economic crisis” as the opposition. To so he has to make up stuff like the government is going bankrupt, oil money is drying up, imports are skyrocketing while production at home has all but disappeared…. All the same stuff that the right wing media says.
This matters because as the old saying goes: “if you make the wrong diagnosis, you will never apply the right remedy”. The right wing says all this to prove that the Chavista economic model of state control and redistribution of oil wealth to meet peoples needs will inevitable destroy the economy.
But they are not the only ones saying this. There are some in the government who disagree with key economic policies, hence the *political* struggles I referred to above.
This is also true more broadly with the Bolivarian Revolution. For example, Roland Denis, who Mike is so fond of, is part of a group within Chavismo that argues much the same line as Mike when it comes to the government’s economic problems. Unlike Mike, they have put forward their alternative economic policies in the Que Hacer? document http://www.aporrea.org/ideologia/a167599.html
I’ll let you decide jut how “left-wing” their economic policies are.
Again, none of this is to say there are not economic problems, but behind this debate filled with dubious stats and assertions is a more important political debate of what should happen to Venezuela’s oil wealth.
3) “What can save the Bolivarian project, and the hope it inspired in so many, is for the speculators and bureaucrats to be removed, and for popular power to be built, from the ground up, on the basis of a genuine socialism — participatory, democratic, and exemplary in refusing to reproduce the values and methods of a capitalism which has been unmasked by the revolutionary youth of Greece, Spain and the Middle East.”
This is all well and good, but ultimately a motherhood statement devoid of any content. I wonder if Mike agrees’ with the alternative policies proposed in the Que Hacer document as a way to refuse to reproduce the values and methods of capitalism? Who knows? All Mike has to say can be summed up in a slogan “one solution: revolution!”
But this is not the only problem with such statements. Pretty much since 2002, leftists like Mike have been saying the same thing “Venezuela is at a crossroads, only two options, restore old order or deepen the revolution towards socialism”. But after 12 years should we ask ourselves some questions like: isn’t it perhaps possible that out of every crisis, the government has taken measures to deepened the revolution, hence why the Bolivarian revolution is still going and the old elites are not back in power? Isnt perhaps true that implementing some kind of war communism in Venezuela (which tends to be what calls to deepen the revolution amount to) would not be the best course of action? Isn’t it the case that given the current international balance of forces it is possible for the revolution to continue advancing but that conditions do not exist for Venezuela to implement socialism in one country?
This are serious questions that some of the left continue to paper over, preferring slogans to real action.
Federico Fuentes is a national executive member of the Socialist Alliance (Australia). He edits Bolivia Rising and is part of the Venezuelanalysis.com editorial collective
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Louis Proyect and the ISO: A Response
In his article, Notes on a Staggering ISO, www.counterpunch.org Louis Proyect criticizes the International Socialist Organization (ISO), for having members only political discussions. Proyect defends anonymous sources leaking ISO internal documents to a blogger who is hostile to the organized left.
Proyect's position is since the government knows everything we're doing, anyway, there's no need for secrecy. I wonder what Proyect would have said, to the organizers of the 1930's Flint Sit Down strike, or the Minneapolis Teamsters organizaing drive, who conducted many of their meetings in secret? What does Proyect have to say to workers engaged in the initial phase of an organizing campaign, where secrecy is certainly required?
Much has been said, for or against "security culture" within leftist groups, on other forums. My response, with this article, will be to address the alternatives to Leninist or cadre formations that Proyect proposes, and the ISO opposition.
Historically, within the US Trotskyist movement, internal factional battles have usually been along clear cut lines. Examples include whether or not to defend the former Soviet Union against imperialism, disagreement,whether or not Cuba is a "healthy" or "deformed" workers state, or the relevance of the theory of Permanent Revolution.
This is not the case with recent factionalism within the ISO. Those who have left, within the last 5 years, or still remain within the organization, are all over the place politically. The most prevalent unifying theme is that the leadership is in error, defining the post 2008 recession period as one of "heightened class struggle." The opposition really never offered a concrete proposal on changing the direction of the ISO.
Former members are not exactly united. Historically, in most groups when an opposition leaves or is expelled they generally leave as an organized tendency or faction, and in many cases form a new organization. Most recent examples are Left Turn, by former ISO members, Committees for Correspondence by former Communist Party members, and Socialist Action by former members of the Socialist Workers Party/US.
As they were internally, externally former ISO oppositionists are all over the map, politically. Some work in single issue campaigns. I know of only one who has joined another revolutionary organization. One has thrown his lot in with the Anarchists. Another has written off organization altogether saying, "carrying out a revolution is like calling up some friends to go to a movie." I would advise this individual to cut back on his drug usage. It remains to be seen what political path that former members of the ISO Renewal Faction, who were expelled at the recent convention, will take.
Former members of the ISO tell me, that oppositionists were never able to contact each other because of not having the right to organize tendencies. The existence of the now defunct, as a result of their wholesale expulsion, Renewal Faction would seem to contradict this claim. In any event the right to form tendencies and factions, at least for pre convention discussion should be quarnteed.
Louis Proyect calls for a new type of organization altogether. He wants to assign the term cadre, "to the dustbin of history." He doesn't quite get the military usage of the term cadre right. It's not just officers, but trained soldiers, around which units are bought up to full strength. The term in military usage, also refers to those responsible for training new troops. This includes drill sergeants, instructors, and yes, officers.
The politcal concept, is that when there is an upsurge, ideally a revolutionary one, the relatively small revolutionary organizations will be the core, to attract larger numbers, or I suppose one could say, critical mass. The most famous example is the expansion of the Bolsheviks in Russia, in 1917, from 10,000 members at the time of the February Revolution to 250,000 at the time of the Ocotber Revolution (old calendar). Though I haven't seen the figures, I assume that the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries also had significant growth during this period.
Proyect omits the significant role played by cadre type organizations in various struggles. Examples are the role of the Communist Party in labor organizing and eviction defense, during the 1930's, the role of the Socialist Workers Party in the Teamster organizing campaigns in Minneapolis in 1934. Later examples are the role, once again of the Socialist Workers Party, during the anti war movement during the Vietnam war, the role of Socialist Action in solidarity work with the Hormel strikers during the 1980's, the international conferences against neo liberalism in which Socialist Organizer played a significant role. Proyect seems unaware of the exemplary role played by the International Socialist Organization during the campaign to defend the Charleston 5, in 2001.
It could be argued, I suppose that non cadre organizations, while having a smaller percentage of their members being active, would make up for this with a larger membership. In other words, a non cadre organization of 5000 could do the work of a cadre type organization of 1000. Fair enough, except where is this non cadre organizatin of 5000. Solidarity? Socialist Party USA? I don't think so.
Proyect calls for getting rid of the usual leftist symbols such as red stars, and go with American symbolism. Is Proyect proposing for example that leftist conferences, such as the annual Socialism Conferences sponsored by the ISO begin with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Is Proyect suggesting that instead of closing the conference with the singing of The Internationale, a more appropriate closing anthem would be God Bless America? Reminds me of an article by one of Proyect's co-thinkers a former member of the International Socialists Network, in Britain: Down With the Internationale, Up With Rule Brittania! OK, the article wasn't quite that bad. Almost, but not quite.
There are some good suggestions by Proyect. For example:
......we need something like an American Syriza-a broad left-of-center party that can accept people on their own terms ideologically as long as they adhere to key programmatic demands such as:
-Run election campaigns opposed to corporate rule, against both Republicans and Democrats.
=Organize campaigns against environmental despoliation from fracking to mountaintop removal.
-Strengthen the trade unions through organizing drives aimed at the most exploited workers.
While not bad suggestions, as usual the devil is in the details. Will this type of organization be an activist one or a talk shop? Will there be well organized campaigns, or will everyone do whatever they want to do, politically speaking?
The non cadre type organizations, such as Solidarity and Socialist Party USA, are both probably smaller than the ISO. The one attempt by former SWP members, to form such an organization, during the 1980's, the North Star Network, was nothing more than a personality cult around the late Peter Camejo. Why will Proyect's alternative be different?
Speaking for myself, I'm of the opinion that the entire left, all organizations as well as individuals, failed to understand the signifcance and impact of the "Great Recession." The entire US left regards the suffering and deprivation resulting from the economic down turn of 2008 as just one issue among many.
This is hardly surprising. Issues of unemployment and poverty have traditionaly been the Achilles heel of the U.S. Left. Anarchists in the San Francisco Bay Area don't even believe that involuntary poverty and unemployment exists among native born workers. Others on the left believe that Bill Clinton resolved all the contradictions of capitalism. I submit that this failure, more than any organizational formula is the main explanation for the marginalization of the U.S. left.
For further reading:
http://socialistworker.org/2014/02/19/a-response-to-slander
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/we-are-expelled/
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/killing-lenin-again-the-conscious-crusade-against-left-security-culture
http://redguarddude.blogspot.com/2014/02/leftists-against-left.html
Proyect's position is since the government knows everything we're doing, anyway, there's no need for secrecy. I wonder what Proyect would have said, to the organizers of the 1930's Flint Sit Down strike, or the Minneapolis Teamsters organizaing drive, who conducted many of their meetings in secret? What does Proyect have to say to workers engaged in the initial phase of an organizing campaign, where secrecy is certainly required?
Much has been said, for or against "security culture" within leftist groups, on other forums. My response, with this article, will be to address the alternatives to Leninist or cadre formations that Proyect proposes, and the ISO opposition.
ISO Opposition
Historically, within the US Trotskyist movement, internal factional battles have usually been along clear cut lines. Examples include whether or not to defend the former Soviet Union against imperialism, disagreement,whether or not Cuba is a "healthy" or "deformed" workers state, or the relevance of the theory of Permanent Revolution.
This is not the case with recent factionalism within the ISO. Those who have left, within the last 5 years, or still remain within the organization, are all over the place politically. The most prevalent unifying theme is that the leadership is in error, defining the post 2008 recession period as one of "heightened class struggle." The opposition really never offered a concrete proposal on changing the direction of the ISO.
Former members are not exactly united. Historically, in most groups when an opposition leaves or is expelled they generally leave as an organized tendency or faction, and in many cases form a new organization. Most recent examples are Left Turn, by former ISO members, Committees for Correspondence by former Communist Party members, and Socialist Action by former members of the Socialist Workers Party/US.
As they were internally, externally former ISO oppositionists are all over the map, politically. Some work in single issue campaigns. I know of only one who has joined another revolutionary organization. One has thrown his lot in with the Anarchists. Another has written off organization altogether saying, "carrying out a revolution is like calling up some friends to go to a movie." I would advise this individual to cut back on his drug usage. It remains to be seen what political path that former members of the ISO Renewal Faction, who were expelled at the recent convention, will take.
Former members of the ISO tell me, that oppositionists were never able to contact each other because of not having the right to organize tendencies. The existence of the now defunct, as a result of their wholesale expulsion, Renewal Faction would seem to contradict this claim. In any event the right to form tendencies and factions, at least for pre convention discussion should be quarnteed.
A New Type of Party?
Louis Proyect calls for a new type of organization altogether. He wants to assign the term cadre, "to the dustbin of history." He doesn't quite get the military usage of the term cadre right. It's not just officers, but trained soldiers, around which units are bought up to full strength. The term in military usage, also refers to those responsible for training new troops. This includes drill sergeants, instructors, and yes, officers.
The politcal concept, is that when there is an upsurge, ideally a revolutionary one, the relatively small revolutionary organizations will be the core, to attract larger numbers, or I suppose one could say, critical mass. The most famous example is the expansion of the Bolsheviks in Russia, in 1917, from 10,000 members at the time of the February Revolution to 250,000 at the time of the Ocotber Revolution (old calendar). Though I haven't seen the figures, I assume that the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries also had significant growth during this period.
Proyect omits the significant role played by cadre type organizations in various struggles. Examples are the role of the Communist Party in labor organizing and eviction defense, during the 1930's, the role of the Socialist Workers Party in the Teamster organizing campaigns in Minneapolis in 1934. Later examples are the role, once again of the Socialist Workers Party, during the anti war movement during the Vietnam war, the role of Socialist Action in solidarity work with the Hormel strikers during the 1980's, the international conferences against neo liberalism in which Socialist Organizer played a significant role. Proyect seems unaware of the exemplary role played by the International Socialist Organization during the campaign to defend the Charleston 5, in 2001.
It could be argued, I suppose that non cadre organizations, while having a smaller percentage of their members being active, would make up for this with a larger membership. In other words, a non cadre organization of 5000 could do the work of a cadre type organization of 1000. Fair enough, except where is this non cadre organizatin of 5000. Solidarity? Socialist Party USA? I don't think so.
Proyect calls for getting rid of the usual leftist symbols such as red stars, and go with American symbolism. Is Proyect proposing for example that leftist conferences, such as the annual Socialism Conferences sponsored by the ISO begin with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Is Proyect suggesting that instead of closing the conference with the singing of The Internationale, a more appropriate closing anthem would be God Bless America? Reminds me of an article by one of Proyect's co-thinkers a former member of the International Socialists Network, in Britain: Down With the Internationale, Up With Rule Brittania! OK, the article wasn't quite that bad. Almost, but not quite.
There are some good suggestions by Proyect. For example:
......we need something like an American Syriza-a broad left-of-center party that can accept people on their own terms ideologically as long as they adhere to key programmatic demands such as:
-Run election campaigns opposed to corporate rule, against both Republicans and Democrats.
=Organize campaigns against environmental despoliation from fracking to mountaintop removal.
-Strengthen the trade unions through organizing drives aimed at the most exploited workers.
While not bad suggestions, as usual the devil is in the details. Will this type of organization be an activist one or a talk shop? Will there be well organized campaigns, or will everyone do whatever they want to do, politically speaking?
The non cadre type organizations, such as Solidarity and Socialist Party USA, are both probably smaller than the ISO. The one attempt by former SWP members, to form such an organization, during the 1980's, the North Star Network, was nothing more than a personality cult around the late Peter Camejo. Why will Proyect's alternative be different?
Conclusion
Speaking for myself, I'm of the opinion that the entire left, all organizations as well as individuals, failed to understand the signifcance and impact of the "Great Recession." The entire US left regards the suffering and deprivation resulting from the economic down turn of 2008 as just one issue among many.
This is hardly surprising. Issues of unemployment and poverty have traditionaly been the Achilles heel of the U.S. Left. Anarchists in the San Francisco Bay Area don't even believe that involuntary poverty and unemployment exists among native born workers. Others on the left believe that Bill Clinton resolved all the contradictions of capitalism. I submit that this failure, more than any organizational formula is the main explanation for the marginalization of the U.S. left.
For further reading:
http://socialistworker.org/2014/02/19/a-response-to-slander
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/we-are-expelled/
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/killing-lenin-again-the-conscious-crusade-against-left-security-culture
http://redguarddude.blogspot.com/2014/02/leftists-against-left.html
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Leftists Against the Left
Leftist cyber space has been engaged in a debate the last week, involving leaked preconvention documents from the International Socialist Organization (ISO). For the benefit of those who aren't aware, many left organizations, including the ISO, have an internal discussion several months before their scheduled convention. As a general rule, these written, nowadays, generally online documents, reflect what the membership wants to be discussed, voted on, and adopted at the convention. In most cases these documents are for members only. This is the case with the ISO.
Ross Wolfe, an enemy of the organized left, who publishes an online blog, somehow got access to and published, preconvention documents, for the ISO convention scheduled, February 15-17, Not content with just publishing the documents for the current convention, Wolfe, also posted all the documents from previous conventions beginning with 2011.
In an article, Leaking Internal ISO Docs: A Question of Revolutionary Ethics, at the Kasama Project website, Mike Ely criticizes Wolfe for leaking the documents. As a result of the debate generated by that article, Ely published a follow up article, Killing Lenin Again: Conscious Trolling Against Left Security Culture.
The links to both articles along with other links will be posted at the end of this article, and I would encourage everyone to read both articles, and also the comments. Those who support the outing of the ISO documents appear to be motivated by the belief, that members of a revolutionary organization should be denied the right to have internal discussions to plan perspectives and how to carry out their objectives. In the name of democracy, ironically.
Two of the most strident opponents of leftist organizations having members only discussion are leftist cyber wannabe sage Louis Proyect, and his trusty, not so comical side kick, Joaquin Bustelo. Proyect has a web site, Unrepentant Marxist, and is moderator of the online discussion list, Grumpy Old Man Mail (aka Marxmail). Bustelo is best known for calling for the destruction of cadre type left organizations, and for giving a bad name to Assholeism. Bustelo also appears to be of the opinion, based on earlier articles and comments in other forums, that involuntary poverty and unemployment no longer exist, at least among native born workers, in his beloved America.
In a comment, following the second article Proyect makes the outrageous claim that revolutionary socialists have no reason to fear being victimized on the job or denied employment for political reasons. Yes, no one in the good ol' US of A ever gets fired for political reasons. Well, actually, with the possible exception of those who have been fired for political reasons. As a matter of fact, Proyect's co-thinker, Bustelo, not his real name, uses a pseudonym in order to protect himself from being victimized on the job.
Why has the ISO been singled out for attack, by those opposed to the existence of revolutionary socialist organizations? The answer is because the ISO is the largest such group in the U.S.
Debate among leftist over political differences, is of course legitimate. What is not legitimate is calling for the destruction of a revolutionary socialist organization, simply because of it's very existence.What is not legitimate is attempting to deny members of such organizations the democratic right to determine the policies and program of their own organization, to include members only discussion. What is not legitimate, is the demand that policies and programs of left groups should be determined by non members.
The organized left has been too tolerant toward those calling for the destruction of revolutionary socialist organizations, by those claiming to be part of the left. It is time to toughen up and to recognize such individuals as the enemy, and to treat them accordingly. By any means necessary.
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/leaking-internal-iso-docs-a-question-of-revolutionary-ethics
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/killing-lenin-again-the-conscious-crusade-against-left-security-culture
http://louisproyect.org
www.socialistworker.org
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Chris Hedges: The Sparks of Rebellion
In his article The Sparks of Rebellion, Chris Hedges correctly shows that corporate power has become the dominate force in society. This corporate control of society has occurred as a result of those in political power, being either being complicit in this takeover by the corporations, or unwilling to check this abuse of corporate power.
As a result we are in the sixth year of the worst economic conditions since the depression of the 1930's. Not only has unemployment and eviction levels been the highest since the Great Depression, but according to business publications, the long term unemployed, especially those over 50, are probably facing a life time of unemployment. The political leadership of the country is engaged in a bipartisan effort to make significant cuts in retirement, unemployment and Medicare benefits.
Hedges takes the position that the only way out of this morass is a popular rebellion. As a result of the decline of union members, especially among those in industrial unions, other forces will need to be mobilized. Hedges suggests that an alliance between low paid workers, and unemployed or underemployed college graduates would be a natural alliance. While strikes are often the deciding point in successful insurrections, unions have a tendency to join struggles organized by other forces, rather than being the initiators of such struggles.
The article quotes studies showing that a movement with majority support of the population can effect change with a small activist minority, of 1%-5% of the population actively engaged in the struggle. Surprisingly, at least for me, struggles adopting the strategy of non violence have a higher success rate than those adopting a strategy of violence.
There were many who were hopeful that the Occupy Movement of 2011 had the potential to become a movement that would radically transform our society. Hedges raises some criticisms of occupy, including the consensus decision making process. Consensus while possibly effective in small groups become a liability in larger groups.
What was missing in Hedges article, was a critique of Occupy for not making demands. With massive unemployment, and record level student debt, and evictions, why was there no demand for a massive government financed jobs program? Relief from crushing student debt? A moratorium on evictions? These three demands alone had the potential of building an effective mass movement. Hedges, also omits the question of leadership. All successful movements, including the struggles for union rights and racial equality had a clearly defined, effective leadership.
Those engaged in prolonged struggles, as Hedges correctly points out, need logistical support. This includes food, shelter and medical support. This has caused some confusion among those who have read the article. Hedges is not advocating a "serve the people" strategy of providing meals in low income areas, but rather providing meals for those engaged in the struggle.
A good historical example, just one among many, was during the Minneapolis Teamster strike of 1934. The striking workers had their own kitchen, dining hall, and medical treatment facility. This is discussed in the book Teamster Rebellion, by Farrell Dobbs.
One objection to raising demands is the possibility of the system making minor concessions in order to co opt a potentially revolutionary upsurge. This is a legitimate concern. Do we accept a half a loaf, instead of the whole loaf? The answer depends on the relationship of forces and the confidence of those in the movement.
I've given just a brief overview, and some of my own opinions. Hedges' article deserves to be read in it's entirety at:
http://portside.org/2013-09-30/sparks-rebellion#sthash.aRSY1UQj.dpuf
"The dispossessed working poor, along with unemployed college graduates and students, unemployed journalists, artists, lawyers and teachers, will form our movement. This is why the fight for a higher minimum wage is crucial to uniting service workers with the alienated college-educated sons and daughters of the old middle class."-Chris Hedges
"The dispossessed working poor, along with unemployed college graduates and students, unemployed journalists, artists, lawyers and teachers, will form our movement. This is why the fight for a higher minimum wage is crucial to uniting service workers with the alienated college-educated sons and daughters of the old middle class."-Chris Hedges
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Open Letter from American Socialist Society to The North Star
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
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
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)