STORM summation is out!

[Burningman]

Just to interject a quick note: Renaming the ideas of other people strips it of their vitality.

The philosphy members of STORM advocated was "revolutionary internationalism."

Not, "where's my piece" or "whites here, blacks there, chicanos over there and Asians somewhere else."

STORM was a multiracial organization that took care to provide a living movement for revolutionaries from oppressed nationalities to develop without getting swamped by whites desperate to claim a piece of authenticity. STORM was founded as a "post-nationalist" group that had struggled to overcome partial, exclusionary formations in years prior -- such as the time of RAW.

STORM consistently and openly argued within movements that excluded white people for principled unity of action and comradely relations based mostly on practice.

STORM never used the writings of actual "Bundists" or advocated the formation of separate ideological groups based on nationality. They held that we shared a common political and social reality, even where it hit us as peoples and individuals differents.

STORM recognized the psychological effects of racism on non-white people and took care to include poltiical education, leadership develop and organizing that prioritized building socialist conscousness and fighting capacity among oppressed peoples.

Some members of the Bay Area RCP have decided to tag them as "Bundist" for rhetorical purposes, but this is just plain rude. It is frustrating that the use of pejoratives continues despite corrections on many forums.

--------

To answer RedStar's question about why not to be "Bundist:"

Because we are proletarian internationalists.

The oppressed people of all nations have common interests against the capitalists of the imperialist nations, even for those of us who share the nationality of the world's ruling class. This is the core of communism and the greatest strength of the movement.

Identity politics -- what most people call "Bundism," elevates "contradictions among the people" to the central axis of thought and activity instead of bringing us together to overcome white supremacy and imperialism. It makes the words people speak more important than the things we do. And it promotes a cannibalism of the spirit that will never get us anywhere.

But again, that's not what STORM was doing and I think it's important to dig into what revolutionaries are really doing than to make simple for purposes of rhetorical dismissal.

[redstar2000]

Burningman wrote: STORM was a multiracial organization that took care to provide a living movement for revolutionaries from oppressed nationalities to develop without getting swamped by whites desperate to claim a piece of authenticity.

Is the reason that white people become revolutionaries is that they are "desperate to claim a piece of authenticity"?

I thought it was because they examined revolutionary ideas and found that they "made sense" in terms of their own lives. I also thought that's why people of color (or third world peoples) became revolutionaries.

Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

Are people of color "the only authentic people"?

Burningman wrote: STORM never used the writings of actual "Bundists" or advocated the formation of separate ideological groups based on nationality. They held that we shared a common political and social reality, even where it hit us as peoples and individuals differently.

Well, would "semi-Bundist" or "quasi-Bundist" be suitable descriptive terms? STORM did have a "quota system", after all. In order to join, you had to be part of an "incoming class"...and the numbers were rigged to sustain a majority of third world peoples.

True, that's not "classical" Bundism; technically, STORM was "multi-national". Nevertheless, it sounds as if the white folks were "riding in the back of the bus".

Nothing wrong with that, of course...but it's certainly a striking departure from traditional communist practice.

Do you think that STORM's approach to this question was the right approach? Should STORM-like formations be re-created? (Correcting, of course, some of the other mistakes.)

Burningman wrote: STORM recognized the psychological effects of racism on non-white people and took care to include political education, leadership development and organizing that prioritized building socialist consciousness and fighting capacity among oppressed peoples.

Yes, I understand that. Is that "the right way to go"?

Burningman wrote: The oppressed people of all nations have common interests against the capitalists of the imperialist nations, even for those of us who share the nationality of the world's ruling class. This is the core of communism and the greatest strength of the movement.

No doubt about it; but what are the organizational consequences of this view? One enormous "communist formation" with members from everywhere? How would that work?

Traditionally, communist formations have been organized by national boundaries; whatever ethnic/cultural group was in the majority within those boundaries tended to dominate the communist group within those boundaries.

Bad idea? Or just pragmatically inevitable?

What of the kind of unspoken assumption underlying STORM's organizational format? The one which says (or whispers or shouts) that "because" people of color are the most oppressed and exploited section of the American proletariat, "therefore" they "will be" the "most revolutionary".

Is that true? They are certainly the most rebellious...no question about that. But "most revolutionary"?

Burningman wrote: But again, that's not what STORM was doing and I think it's important to dig into what revolutionaries are really doing than to make simple for purposes of rhetorical dismissal.

I quite agree.#nosmileys

[Burningman]

White people become revolutionares for all kinds of reasons, most of them to be applauded. The phenom of whites "searching the Negro streets at dawn/looking for an angry fix" is not a new one.

The tendency of white leaders and activists to use people of color to "diversify" THEIR projects is real. The domination of black movements, in particular, by external white funders and class trained leaders is real.

So is white resentment. Bitching about quotas is the last thing I would expect here. And honestly it's not a debate that young revolutionaries usually want to engage as a first priority.

--------

When STORM formed as a multiracial, revolutionary internationalist organization, there were crowds of very good white people who wanted to join. More, by number, than anyone else and enough that it have quickly and fundamentally turned the organization "white."

Learning to lead, developing strategic skills and creating an environment that is open to people who've suffered a lifetime of racial bullshit is something to be commended. If you think that a group of white people carryng "the correct line" is enough to deal with that, then you might look around and see what it gets.

--------

Traditionally communist groups have taken a number of formations. The period of greatest growth for the international communist movement (ICM) was during the Comintern. And it was one, huge overarching party directed from the Soviet Union.

The experience of China (and the USA) shows how problematic that can be.

Since the soviet union gave up the ghost with the coming of Kruschev, parties split around the world. Then split again. And again. Trotskyists, social-dems, competeing "one-true vanguards" and other peculiarities then gave us the map of the left we see today.

I don't agree with the idea that there needs to be only one party. I imagine several are good, before and after the revolution. Especially since post-Stalin groups have tended to supress internal factions. Not allowing groups to carry distinct ideas inside a party forces the creation of multiple centers of organizing.

In other words, if groups such as the RCP hadn't created an environment incapable of leading, RAW (then STORM) would never have formed. Members of the YB, including some who may be observing this thread, played a key role in creating STORM's predecessor group RAW.

------

Redstar writes:

"What of the kind of unspoken assumption underlying STORM's organizational format? The one which says (or whispers or shouts) that "because" people of color are the most oppressed and exploited section of the American proletariat, "therefore" they "will be" the "most revolutionary".

I don't think they were saying that, or at least it wasn't a dominant line. STORM formed with a system of ensuring a non-white, non-male majority because so many other groups were absolutely dominated by a myopic white leadership.

Young revolutionaries from oppressed nationalities virtually never want to have a benevolent white father break down the one-truth to them. That's been my experience, maybe yours is different. Creating a group that ensures a lack of white demographic dominance isn't putting whites "on the back of the bus." It's saying the bus is going to be shared, all the more important when it's really a mini-van.

----------

The RCP talks about the need for experimentation, but then when people actually go out and experiment, it uses them as a rhetorical foil.

The fact is this: STORM was able to mobilize thousands and poltically train hundreds of people in one region into socialist politics at a time when that was largely considered impossible. They did it through applying the Mass Line, creating an organization based on practice -- not repitition of a catechism -- and engaging a social base of oppressed people.

[redstar2000]

burningman wrote: The phenom of whites "searching the Negro streets at dawn/looking for an angry fix" is not a new one.

Is that from Ginsberg or Dylan? In any event, how is it relevant? Do you think that some white people are primarily motivated to join revolutionary organizations so they can "be (pseudo) black"?

In other words, sure, there are some white kids out there who think they have to pretend to be "black" in order to give their lives some kind of coherent shape.

But I don't think kids like that join revolutionary groups...at least not in any significant numbers. They purchase their "black identity" at the mall.

burningman wrote: The tendency of white leaders and activists to use people of color to "diversify" THEIR projects is real. The domination of black movements, in particular, by external white funders and class trained leaders is real.

Undoubtedly true...but what is the answer to that?

Should autonomous people of color be careful to look at all potential sources of funding and reject the white ones out of hand?

As to "white leaders and activists" using people of color to "diversify their projects", what does that actually mean? The project itself is either a good one or not; it either speaks directly to the needs of the masses or it's just bullshit. If it's bullshit, then sensible people of all colors should depart at once.

A "mixed" project may have more initial "credibility" than an "all-white" project...but there's not really any way to "hide" bad politics behind a "mixed" facade.

At least not for very long.

burningman wrote: So is white resentment. Bitching about quotas is the last thing I would expect here.

Excuse me...I was not aware that I was "bitching" or expressing "white resentment". I am actually curious about STORM and its outlook...so I am and will continue to ask questions.

burningman wrote: When STORM formed as a multiracial, revolutionary internationalist organization, there were crowds of very good white people who wanted to join. More, by number, than anyone else and enough that it have quickly and fundamentally turned the organization "white."

Ok, why would that be "bad"? Where did those "very good white people" go when they found themselves excluded from STORM?

burningman wrote: Learning to lead, developing strategic skills and creating an environment that is open to people who've suffered a lifetime of racial bullshit is something to be commended. If you think that a group of white people carrying "the correct line" is enough to deal with that, then you might look around and see what it gets.

A group of people "carrying the correct line" who fail to create an internal environment "open" to people of color have failed as revolutionaries regardless of their nominal "correct line".

Is "the only way" a group can be "open" to people of color is to be a group where the majority of members and leaders are people of color? If so, I think such a view could reasonably be described as "quasi-Bundist".

That doesn't mean it's "wrong"...it just means that it represents a significant departure from historical communist practice.

I could certainly accept a pragmatic argument for this departure: at the present time in the U.S., people of color simply do not feel comfortable in groups that are white-majority...and that's just the way things are.

And white revolutionaries simply just have to deal with that objective social reality.

burningman wrote: I don't agree with the idea that there needs to be only one party. I imagine several are good, before and after the revolution. Especially since post-Stalin groups have tended to suppress internal factions. Not allowing groups to carry distinct ideas inside a party forces the creation of multiple centers of organizing.

That is a "supplementary" argument that just asserts that the idea of "one vanguard per country" is invalid. It is almost certainly true...but doesn't serve to necessarily justify STORM's approach.

burningman wrote: STORM formed with a system of ensuring a non-white, non-male majority because so many other groups were absolutely dominated by a myopic white leadership.

Was their "myopia" due to their "whiteness" or their "maleness"...or did those other groups suffer from political shortcomings?

burningman wrote: Young revolutionaries from oppressed nationalities virtually never want to have a benevolent white father break down the one-truth to them.

Young white revolutionaries don't seem to like that either...at least I never did.

People who act as if they possess "the one-truth" and, moreover, they're doing you a big favor by telling it to you, rarely win any popularity contests.

burningman wrote: Creating a group that ensures a lack of white demographic dominance isn't putting whites "on the back of the bus." It's saying the bus is going to be shared, all the more important when it's really a mini-van.

If you say so...though the connection between demographics and communist consciousness has rarely been a "straight-line" phenomenon.

burningman wrote: The fact is this: STORM was able to mobilize thousands and politically train hundreds of people in one region into socialist politics at a time when that was largely considered impossible. They did it through applying the Mass Line, creating an organization based on practice -- not repetition of a catechism -- and engaging a social base of oppressed people. -- emphasis added.

How "socialist" were those politics...really?

(That's not a "rhetorical" question...I'm really curious about the answer.)

[flyby]

BM writes: "Just to interject a quick note: Renaming the ideas of other people strips it of their vitality."

Often ideas belong to objectively existing categories that their authors don't acknowledge and understand.

Religious people have thinking informed by objective idealism. Giving their views that name doesn't "strip it of vitality" -- it actually helps other people understand it more fully.

And the importance here is not (in some relativistic way) to give all ideas equal due, or to give each thinker equal "vitality" or whatever -- the point (for us at least) is to sort out what is to understnad the real world in order to change it.

Scientific thinking has a right to name things -- according to its own discoveries.

BM writes: "The philosphy members of STORM advocated was "revolutionary internationalism.""

It is worth noting what someone calls themselves. It is also worth noting that what people call themselves is often not an accurate summation of what they are. We are not subjective idealists -- and the idea (or self conception) does not define the reality.

In fact (and here are ABCs you are familiar with!), the hallmark of revisionism (by definitioin) is that they call themselves the opposite of what they are: the bourgeois politics comes mascarading as proletarian politics. The reactionary nationalist and chauvinist comes mascarading under the banner "internationalism." The counterrevolutionary calls itself revolutionary. And so on. And there is here (in revisionism in particular and by definition) a sharp conflict between self-label and objective essense. And it is precisely the task of revolutonaries to understand the reality (and not be taken in by the self-label, however sincerely it may be believed by the revisionists themselves.)

Now, whether or not, and to what extent, STORM is revisionist is a specific mater for analysis.

But my point is that your opening protestations are a subjective denial of the very task of scientific analysis. We are not bound to "respect" the self-conception of others, we are merely bound to take note of it honestly as we do our own, objective analysis.

[flyby]

part 2

BM writes: "Not, "where's my piece" or "whites here, blacks there, chicanos over there and Asians somewhere else."
STORM was a multiracial organization that took care to provide a living movement for revolutionaries from oppressed nationalities to develop without getting swamped by whites desperate to claim a piece of authenticity. STORM was founded as a "post-nationalist" group that had struggled to overcome partial, exclusionary formations in years prior -- such as the time of RAW. STORM consistently and openly argued within movements that excluded white people for principled unity of action and comradely relations based mostly on practice."

There is some truth in this description: I.e. STORM was multinational (we marxists think the concept "multiracial" denies the national character of this question, and injects the more popular concept "race" which is unscientific for the purposes of this kind of discussion.) It was not designed in narrow national silos -- one for each nationality.

However, anyone who had dealt with them, knows that their whole approach was based on the kind of "what about us and our slice of pie" nationalism that has always characterized Bundism in the U.S. The Bundists (in the 70s) were not opposed to discussing a single multinational party -- but they did want questions of leadership, and line subordinated to "getting their cut" for their nationality -- a merger of careerism and narrow nationalism that reflected, ideologically, the assumptions and logic that is classically bundism.

Bundism is the merger of nationalism with Marxism. The eclectic fusion and confusion of revolutoinary and not-so-revolutionary nationalism with the proletarian internationalism of Marxism. And ultimately, fundamentally, the nationalism is and was the guiding aspect. One eats up the other.

So again, bundism (in the way used by the RCP) is not some narrow analogy to the Jewish Bund, but a general name for a cluster of political projects and ideologies that both are different and specific, but which have a commonality -- i.e. the attempt to conflate revolutionary nationalism with proletarian internationalism eclectically (and in practice negate and subordinate the internationalism).

BM writes: " STORM never used the writings of actual "Bundists" or advocated the formation of separate ideological groups based on nationality. They held that we shared a common political and social reality, even where it hit us as peoples and individuals differents."

I don't think we need to argue that Bundists are only those that read actual writings of the Jewish Bund. Who does? No one. Cause bundism is now only a footnote in Russian History. (Like the Bundists of the 1970s liquidated and are a footnote of their time, and like the bundists of Storm liquidated and will be a footnote for the 90s. See a theme?)

But they did promote all kinds of writings that slipped nationalism in, or served a nationalist outlook.

Like adopting the promotion of Amilcar Cabral cuz if you are tailing spontaneity, and tailing Black nationalist prejudices, it helps them to have a "black marxist" to promote -- and because Cabral's writings are useful for revisionist summations in other ways. You may not promote the Jewish Bund, but I notice you promote a Cabral quote as your sig.

The CoC (which got many of the CP's Black revisionists) has always promoted Cabral as their answer to Mao -- for many reasons. (Just like in the 60s, they promoted Kim Il Sung within the Black Panther Party as *their* answer to the influence of Mao.)

BM writes: "Some members of the Bay Area RCP have decided to tag them as "Bundist" for rhetorical purposes, but this is just plain rude."

Ah, and you not only describe what they did, but feel free to sum up this was not an analysis but just "rhetoric." Who is trying to strip a view of "vitality" without dealing with its content?

BM writes: "It is frustrating that the use of pejoratives continues despite corrections on many forums."

This is not a perjorative but a useful and correct summation.

The method and approach of STORM mirrored closely the politics of the Bundists of the 1970s (who were in narrow "my nationality" formations, but who considered branching out.)

Actually many narrow nationalists experimented with multinational formations (the Black Liberation army formed multinational groups) -- and they did it by making the basis of unity the nationalist/Bundist concept of "black leadership" -- where leadership was not by line, but by quotas. In a way that assumed that people of color (or other oppressed people) spontaneously know what they need -- a basic concept of identity politics and radical democracy that is at the heart of the issues we are discussing. And it is a view directly opposed to an MLM approach to the theory of knowledge, leadership, line and the need to divert spontaneity.

Several people have asked if STORM was socialist.

It was a very opportunist formation: it had marxism to attract marxists, nationalists for nationalists, revolution for revolutionaries, reformism for reformists. It focused on the most narrow economic demands (bus passes in Oakland) while claiming (when appropriate) to be for larger change. Marxist? who know. Socialist? who knows. Communist? who knows.

It was that kind of sticky, amorphous, slippery goo that betrayed only one unifying principle: pragmatism and the tailing of spontaneity.

It is claimed that it grew quickly and gathered "young revolutionaries" around it. This has some truth. And a pragmatic tailing of the spontaneity of the advanced can do that.

But this is not the road to revolution. It is the road that trains people ultimately in reformism, and it ultimately liquidates efforts at revolutonary formation.

Storm is an important example. But only if we learn its lessons.

The summation of storm was done precisely and wholly from within the ideological and political framework that was wrong in Storm.

You talk about experimentation?

Well yes, it is important to experiment, just like it is important to debate. But experimentation and debate are not important in their own right -- they are important for the struggle to uncover correct method and true ideas. The point is to change the world.

Storm was an experiment that led some honest folks (and some revisionist wannabe hacks) into a rut dominated by the Committees of Correspondence. A coexistance of marxism and revisionism and natinalism quickly led to both rightism and liquidation.

"let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

[glow=red,2,300]Relate to the Van![/glow]

[flyby]

part 3

What actually is the point of studying this experience of STORM (the newly departed)?

When I read the threads of 2CTW, there was a theme from Storm-supporters that said "Storm was really great and exemplary and promising -- a model of what we could do -- until, of course, it liquidated and important parts slid of the radar screen or into Ariana Huffington's miscarriage-of-a-campaign."

And so, what I took from that was the importance of really looking at "where lines lead."

In my understanding, the key issue is not Bundism per se -- but the "tailing of spontaneity." Storm was literally "all about that."

And this set of concepts (what is spontaneity? what is the tailing of spontaneity? where does that lead? how is MLM different from that? etc.) are not well understood -- including by me! And yet are a crucial foundation for truly communist politics and ideology. (And are an affront and offense to radical democracy, soft nationalism, popular fads, movement-itis, practical minded economism, anti-leninist moods of all kinds.)

How much does our final goal shape our present operation? Do we go from point to point pragmatically (tactics as process)?or do we look from revolution and communism back (and draw all the implicaitons for NOW) -- i.e. tactics as plan?

Those are the issues i have always seen as central in a discussion of STORM.

And the hardest part of a discussion of STORM is pinning down what they believed -- because (even more than most political trends) it was slippery in the extreme (as flyby points out). Any attempt to say "well they said this or that..." just makes you want to roll your eyes, cuz they obviously said ALOT of different thises and thats -- depending. The essense of their line and approach cant really be uncovered from this or that phrase -- because of how their pragmatism led them to view phrase-making.

Which leads us to the philosophical word "eclectics" -- because that is so important here (and in the larger discussion of revisionism). Eclectics does not outfront deny many things, it just puts them in a context where the primary is subordinate to the secondary.

"We got this AND that. We got whatever you want or need. We got a little of every ideology for whatever taste. We are like Walgreens -- we got all goods in stock. So come on in."

But if you take proletarian internationalism and mix it with nationalism -- you don't have both. If you take revolutionary aspirations and wed them to profoundly economist notions -- you don't end up with a little of both.

**** on another tip ****

I was stopped, cold, right off the bat, at Burningman's opening summation: "STORM was a multiracial organization that took care to provide a living movement for revolutionaries from oppressed nationalities to develop without getting swamped by whites desperate to claim a piece of authenticity."

There is so much here. to unravel. It is actually a precious sentence.

First off, it stands out how much starts the whole discussion in terms of self-cultivation. This is not a group that starts: we are determined to bring imperialism to and end and liberate the world, and look at every thing along the way from that perspective.

[Where in any of this, including their summation, does STORM ever have the basic discussion of "here is the problem, here is the solution"? And what does it mean that you can't really get a straight answer on THAT -- while you get lots of assumptions that the people involved were "revolutoinary youth." How exactly do you have a movement of "revolutionary youth" without moving toward a revolutoinary organization, a revolutionary line, a revolutionary strategy, a revolutionary stand on the basic issues of capitalism, socialism and communism? What exactly was so "revolutionary" about these youth -- except perhaps the aspirations some of them had on entry? And there is always a lot of talk about "STORM did good work" -- which means, i assume, they organized around various ways the people are oppressed, but is such "work" really all that good if it severs the youth and their work from revolutionary politics?]

And, let me add, I believe am not just picking at (or picking on) a phrase. This sentence actually captures something very deep about STORM. i.E. it is important because it is typical and representative.

Ah, "develop" -- and then you discover how much STORM recruited based on promises of "skill building" and "leadership develop" and so on. Attractive to the upwardly mobile -- but not fundamentally rooted in a revolutionary political framework.

(More eclectics: some careerism for the careerists, some revolution for the revolutionary, a mix for those who are mixed on these issues -- training schools fit for future movement hacks not liberators, steeped in the method and line developed by the CP for just such purposes.)

The other part that happens is the "promote by creds" -- i.e. "we are a bunch of heavily third world revolutionary youth -- what right do you have to say anything about us or to us, just shut up and learn, and give us a cut of the funding or we will call you out."

Anyone who had been around STORM in its triumphalist heyday will recognise that. There was a feeling of hustle-just-below-the-surface.

And anyone who has been around left politics for a New York minute can see this is the classic language of identity politics -- right to speak is established by "authenticity," things are examined in terms of who is saying them, a hierarchy is established and insisted on based on various origins and attributes etc. Everything is structured around avoiding "offending" the oppressed. And the final goal is really not an issue in a flood of principles organized around process and sensibility.

And what is the view of "whites" in this "multiracial" framework?

The framework itself becomes shells within shells -- like some russian doll -- with organizational safeguards to protect the fragile "development" of the oppressed nationality from the supposed stampede for "authenticity" (and there is a whole complex of subtext in THAT claim/charge/concept).

In other words, (like in other Bundist formations, and in the world of identity politics) people are not comrades -- they are not within a communist party as internationalists, with a common cause, class, ideology. They circle each other, suspiciously, protected from the constant urgent dangers of (supposedly inherent and pernicious) white supremacy by safeguards, special rules, structures of assumptions and suspicion. And central to all that, is the assumption that tailing the sensibilities of the oppressed (or even just the prospective recruiting pool) is a principle -- and is even called "the principle of third world leadership."

All this is exactly Bundism and identity politics.

****

And on their liquidation: Clearly the summation is unsatisfying -- and highly perseptual. They were tired, demoralized, burnt out, divided etc. Ok, that is the surface. But what is the essense? What is the issue of line that led them there (instead of toward forming the revolutionary party that some wanted)?

[redstar2000]

That was a most perceptive (and damning) analysis of STORM, flyby. Much of what you wrote clearly "makes sense".

But the issue of "tailing spontaneity" is not dismissed as easily as you evidently think.

If the masses spontaneously do something that you think is objectively revolutionary -- even though the vanguard is conspicuous by its absence -- what then?

Is it your view that spontaneous initiatives by the masses are "always wrong" or, at least, "always inadequate"?

Can the masses "ever get it right"?

I quite agree with you that tailing anything just because it's momentarily "popular" is stupid.

I'm not that "pragmatic".

But, to take STORM as an example, they wanted a "multi-racial" formation that would be led by people of color.

You correctly observed that "multi-racial" was an unscientific term and should be rejected.

But your suggestion -- "multi-national" -- seems open to the same objections. Stalin attempted, in his most famous work, to formulate a "scientific" definition of "nations"...but I don't think it's held up very well.

What I think we've seen in the last century is that "nations" appear to be "constructed" by a vocal minority...who invent a written form of one of the spoken languages in a particular area, invent a "history", construct a mythology, etc.

Does the RCP think this process is actually taking place within the territory of the United States right now?

And if not, do you think it should take place? Is it something communists should support and encourage?

Should we regard African-Americans, Hispanics, etc. as "nations-in-formation"?

As it happens, I prefer the term "multi-ethnic" myself...as it seems to be an accurate descriptive term at the present time.

But what of this pragmatic difficulty...that many politically conscious people of color seem to be radically uncomfortable within a white-majority group even if they agree with its general line.

There is bourgeois social research that suggests that two ethnic groups can "co-exist" in a single political group provided the ratio of majority to minority stays in the range of 3:1 to 2:1...ratios outside this range are unstable and lead to a group with only one ethnic membership.

Naturally, I have no idea if this stuff is really true or total drivel...though it does seem to work for neighborhoods.

So is there anything that communists can do -- and remain principled -- about the radical discomfort that many people of color feel in overwhelmingly white groups?

[Burningman]

Except STORM was not a nationalist organization. They intended to form no new "nations" based on ethnicity.

--------

There's this idea that by merely possessing an analysis, it changes what you are. That is philosophical idealism.

If a capitalist picks up marxism on the side, he's still a capitalist so long as that's his class function. If a worker becomes a Democrat and applies bourgeois ideology, the worker is still just that.

There is a deeply idealist strain in Maoism that argues the ideas in our heads are more important that what we do. I agree with Mao that practice is the criteria.

So, looking back, the Chinese communists launched a war of "national liberation" for "new democracy" but were obviously communists. The nationalism of oppressed people is a complex matter and I don't think there is anything wrong with experimenting with organizational forms to answer questions that have long divided the socialist movement in the USA.

Questions of terminology aside, STORM was able to lead thousands of people, often from oppressed communites that were normally quiet, into political struggle on a very high basis of unity.

For some, standing to the side and waving an ideological banner is the correct way to do things. So, even if the group is almost all white, it's "objectively" or "essentially" multi-ethnic if it upholds a "line" that is for the liberation of all people. That's an interesting theory. But where it is by proxy it is not.

STORM had public leaders of various ethnicities, including white people. STORM explicitly rejected "identity politics" and argued the questions involved with it in close quarters. STORM did orient it's mass work, educational projects and activities towards oppressed nationalities and sought to make known the rich history of socialist struggle outside of europe, arguing that "communism is not a 'european' thing."

Many people's first (and only) experience with communists is a run-in with a scruffy, white newspaper seller who shows up one day in the 'hood to say what the correct line is. This leaves most who experience it decidedly non-plussed.

----------

"Bundism" is a word used by NO ONE except the RCP as a way of denouncing 1) groups organized along lines of nationality that are Marxist (or semi-Marxist), and 2) expanding that to include groups like STORM which are/were multiracial and directly grappling with how to builid a revolutionary movement among oppressed nationalities.

It's inaccurate and pejorative. If you guys have made up your mind to create a neat little dismissal box for STORM, I guess there's nothing to stop you. But mind that anyone with firsthand experience of the matter will have a hard time taking you seriously. It comes off like you're dishonest and/or hard-headed.

[Burningman]

STORM was not a vanguard party, in fact it wasn't a party at all. It was an "intermediate" poltiical formation that took some aspects of a mass organization, added a cadre structure and attempted to continually engage ideological development.

STORM developed out of a revolutionary nationalist/communist political network, dropped the nationalism, opened up to white members, sought a national network, worked with a wide variety of political actors (including RC forces, as possible) and became increasingly red over time.

I don't know where this "bus pass" thing comes from or where the accusations of CoC domination comes in. STORM played a key role in organizing Critical Resistance, a prison abolition movement, in the Bay Area. Perhaps that's it. But it's actually not true. STORM members did not have dual memberships and the CoC did not play a "sponsorship" role with STORM.

There were other influences, particularly from former leaders of Line of March -- though they were never members of STORM and often disagreed sharply as STORM was actually revolutionary and the former LoM people were not.

And, exactly ONE person from STORM joined the Huffington campaign over a year after he left the organization. One person. Not two, not three. One.

Regarding the "element of hustle," sure. That's true. There was one former, unprincipled leader who was, for lack of a better word, an opportunist. And other people put up with it. Big mistake.

----------

But this is the one by Flyby that gets me:

"Ah, "develop" -- and then you discover how much STORM recruited based on promises of "skill building" and "leadership develop" and so on. Attractive to the upwardly mobile -- but not fundamentally rooted in a revolutionary political framework."

You know who else it's attractive to? All that skill building and leaadership development? People who want to make revolution and don't have skills. Perhaps some were attracted to this rather than waving newspapers and acting like some catechism was going to save the world. Ya' know? What crude baiting, "attractive to the upwardly mobile..."

Organizing takes skills, political education, a sense of history and critical thinking. Knowing how to run canvasses, phone banks, manage information, get money, resolve conflicts, network, carry out actions, plan campaigns -- that all takes skills. Oppressed people don't generally have them. So "development" is one of the most important things there is. People who are afraid to speak in groups of strangers tend to appreciate people who help them learn.

If all you have is your ideology in a bottle, but a pracitice that repulses radicals -- then you can comfortably sit back and shit-talk everyone else. You're "right" because you don't lead. That's some strange notion of the "vanguard."

Poltiical schools are a godsend. There should be more. And more. If the masses are going to make revolution, they need to develop consciousness through collective study. What a worthy task! And something STORM carried out consistently. But I guess learning about People's War, Mass Line and the history of the movement is just training for "movement hacks." Yeah, all they should be learning is how to say this sentence:

"We have the line, the leadership and the program."

Who needs a school for that? It's easy.

---------

STORM was promoting Mao, effectively, in 1995. If Flyby thinks that's opportunism, or "tailing" the movement -- s/he is insane. STORM directly challenged anti-Communism by promoting socialist ideas at a time when absolutely no one was "spontaneously" doing so.

I am aware of the uses of Cabral by revisionists. I also read his writing and found it incredibly useful. The RCP does not encourage deep reading or study, even of Lenin and Marx. You have one author and a few adjuncts. Everything has to be digested by the great leader.

For the rest of us, a library card (to say nothing of a bus pass) is useful.

[flyby]

There is much here.

i have read it eagerly.

Can't respond now.

Many pressing things.

Luckily we have both unity and struggle!!

And there are some things we all need to UNITE TO DO!!

Later, all.

[Burningman]

I didn't have time to do justice to your critique, either.

Here's the trick that brought me onto the 2ctw discussion and onto this board: the RCP has adopted a position on STORM that is factually incorrect and that makes a discussion of the actual issues and limitations of STORM's experience more difficult.

Identity politics is a serious problem. It is hindering the development of a unified and strong revolutionary proletarian movement in this country. It elevates "contradictions among the people" to a primary position and is more about "space" than power.

But as I've repeated: STORM was the group that engaged that struggle in the most concentrated way over the last ten years. Not by standing on the sidelines, but in the thick of it. They were eclectic, and there are some real problems with that -- obviously. They dissolved.

But that dissolution, I believe, had more to do with a different set of problems:

1) Not holding leadership accountable to the base of the organization. STORM adapted democratic centralism to mean "democracy in the center," not the management and selection of leaders.

2) STORM formed as something of a "Bay Area All-Stars" and many of the individual leaders earned their bonafides by control of fiefs outside the strategic direction of the group. Leaders were able to direct their own projects on a WIDE variety of political orientations, and this tended to enable opportunism and careerism.

3) Objective conditions: STORM developed as a revolutionary Marxist organization exactly at a time when the vast majority of the active element were opposed to not just socialism, but any kind of strategic thinking. Anarchism and petty nationalism dominated spontaneous thinking and had a nefarious influence internally. Swimming against the tide is exhausting. Blaming the swimmer may not be the best place to start.

4) STORM was overly ambitious. They were trying to do everything at once because so much needed to be done. Volunteerism, arrogance and "fronting" became normal from what I've heard. They took themselves too seriously and not seriously enough. Shutting down a group for a year because of accusations against a leader is bananas. Spending inordinate amounts of time "working through issues" is a sign that STORM was effected by the "consensus model" a bit too much and couldn't just draw lines. Drawing lines is how decisions get made. The cost is that everyone won't agree. A group can only hold an ultimately superficial basis of unity for so long before it needs to make some hard decisions.

6) The inability of the base membership to engage the highest level of discussion with weight ultimately caused factionalizing that the organization couldn't sustain.

This is roughly their own self-critique and I think there is a lot of truth to it.

-------

The question then, is how much of this could just be avoided.

Saying that people should just get down with the "the Party Chairman Says" doesn't seem to fit reality.

RC forces were active in the Bay Area at the same time and were largely peripheral to the radical movements, community organizaing, radical media projects and so on. The RCP was not able to just lead because of a self-perceived correct line. That's not how it works.

The question for this forum then seems to be:

Why has non-insane revolutionary communist organization been so hard to build at the moment that anti-capitalism is gaining a mass audience?

[flyby]

Burningman:

One of the things about this site, that I believe you will appreciate, is that we are struggling over the methodology for conducting PRINCIPLED criticism of various political lines.

In that spirit, let me just highlight one sentence of your post:

"Saying that people should just get down with the "the Party Chairman Says" doesn't seem to fit reality."

And that is (of course) true... that saying people should "JUST get down' with the analysis, body of work, method and approach of our main man is not (by itself) enough.

But, as you know, that is NOT what anyone is "JUST" proposing.

So you describe (and ascribe) a one-sided, inadequate approach to people who don't have such a one sided approach... and the unfolding of any valid critique screeches to a halt there.

As you know (i'm sure!) the RCP does much much more than just (abstractly and simplistly) call on people to "get down" with Bob Avakian.

The RCP is deeply involved in class struggle -- including the intense swirl of events going on now -- and (if you will allow a partisan moment) is doing that with some principles, creativity, bredth of mind and real focus on what is needed. In addition to seeing to build BROAD unity and struggle, the RCP is seeking to develop a hard-core out of those who see that this whole system is at the root cause of the madness around us.

And for this work (both the broad unity and struggle, but also the energetic efforts to build and strengthen the communist core (and its leading role in the struggle) -- it is valuable to pay close attention to what Bob Avakian is doing. Not "JUST" pay close attention (and do nothing else) -- but certainly, it is a complex and unprecedented struggle to get from here to communism, and it is certainly difficult to do that in a country like this.

So it is very important (and even decisive in many ways) for more and more people to "get down" with our main man. Because that has everything to do with where we are going, and whether we actually get there. It is to create (and celebratre) the living link betweenthe present and the future (especially the final goal of communism, which is so often lost, or disparaged, or paid whispered lipservice).

So, yes, in a profound way: "sailing on the sea depends on the helmsman" as the revolutionaries of China used to say. (Or else you can sail and sail and don't end up where you wanna go! Or sail and crash on hidden and not-so-hidden rocks!)

We don't want to wage struggle, and unite others in struggle, and have the whole thing collapse like a house of cards, or get handed over to Democratic (or Green) party vacuum cleaners who are eager to destroy every sign of radical life. Or get handed over to whatever form that Amerikkka's rightwing cops and fascistos now incarnate themselves into.

Anyway, I just wanted to make that one simple methodological point -- about not ascribing a stupid argument to someone (both non-stupid and non-insane) who you disagree with.

Other than that, let's leave your last post as the last word.... for now.

[Wind From the East]

The RCP criticism of STORM as identity politics is not just a mistake, but is outright dishonesty, especially since STORM's actual positions on nationalism and identity politics have been pointed out publicly by ft/bm on 2ctw and here.

On the RCP's position on identity politics, RCP supporters should be horrified to learn that their particular take on identity politics is almost exactly that of Todd Gitlin. Check out his book on the topic. Alone on the left, the RCP has decided to attack struggles for self-determination as their main enemy on the left and paint them as 'bundism' and 'identity politics'.