|
|
Post by 1949 on Nov 17, 2004 0:21:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RedFlagOverTrenton on Nov 17, 2004 1:21:56 GMT -5
Though I don't consider myself a Maoist or an RCP supporter (not a detractor, either; I'm not sure at this point in my political developement what line is correct and where I fit into the whole scheme of things), here's one thing I think says alot about the two organizations: Look at the RCP and then look at MIM's "How to join" pages. from rwor.org: "Although this is the website of the newspaper of the RCP, you can't "join the RCP" here online. There are several reasons for that -- but first and foremost because you need to contact the RCP in person to discuss common work, political unity and membership. "The best way to contact the RCP directly is visit one of the local contacts..." etc. MIM: www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/branches.htmlAlso, click the What Concrete Actions Can I Take? link at the top. This is more than enough to convince me that, completely bizarre politics and misunderstanding of class dynamics aside, these people aren't serious at all. They're armchair, internet activists who do rather little besides post their infantile screeds on boards and newsgroups. Its not surprising that their membership is limited to said armchair activists when their politics tell the people they SHOULD be reaching out to that they, the exploited, are in fact exploiters and parasites. Say what you want about the RCP's line, but they're out there, on the streets, engaging people in revolutionary politics and activism. As soon as I get registered on E-G I'll post something similar on the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Nov 17, 2004 13:39:51 GMT -5
i think it is worth thinking through: What is the point of a polemic that focuses on MIM? On one level, arguing with their supporters is like wasting time on the buzzing of flies. And I don't see much value in exposing (yet again) their organization -- as you pointed out, much of this has been done and is available. But what I do think is valuable is revisiting some cardinal questions that are broadly questions among radical and progressive people: People want to know "where will a revolutonary people come from?" People want to know if there is a proletariat in the U.S. (an oppressed class to lead and carry forward as a core of the revolution). And if so, who exactly is this class? People want to know what will we do with all the middle class folks? Can we win some or many of them over? If so how? And people want to know if socialism will be a society worth living in -- or will it be a grim place where are formerly-oppressed minority treat everyone else like shit. And these are all issues involved in the debate with MIM (and also in a different way with dogmato-revisionists like J. Jordan.) It is worth digging into BA's analysis of the "Two 90/10s" rwor.org/a/chair/uflp/ba8.htm and the larger approach it is part of: rwor.org/chair_e.htm#ufulpIt is worth digging into the question: Why does the RCP think it is in the largest interests of much of the middle class to support socialism? And the RCP's view of the stratification of the working class, and what the "real proletariat" is, within that.http://rwor.org/a/chair/uflp/ba3.htm Further there is a view that everyone is a shit, and socialism would need to be some grim police state where a handful of enlightened communists suppress everyone. This is a feeling that comes through from J. Jordan, or from the various folks like ixabert who worship the gruesome and oppressive north korean state. It is a view that is only coneivable because they assume THEY will be directing the secret police -- as if they are the wanna-be state capitalists and social-fascists of the future. And MIM, of course, believes there needs to be a long-term dictatorship OVER the people in the U.S. (carried though a fantasy invasion from a non-existant outside socialist state -- more bizarre nonsense.) But there is a cardinal issue here: of working to create a socialist society where broad masses of people are increasingly part of ruling, where there is debate, ferment, dissent, criticism, and ongoing revolution. If you freeze future society into some gray/grim/opressive police state (even if it is on a "socialist" basis) how can the revolution continue? And why would the people uphold it? And it is important to deal with works like this in the discussion: rwor.org/a/1257/avakian-democracy-communism-6.htmMIM just wrote a document on why they should call women "bitches and hos" -- it is typical of their madness (like the insane idea that all heterosexual sex is rape under capitalism.) Getting drawn into that (beyond quickly exposing their views) is a waste of time. But a real discussion of some cardinal issues is valuable. |
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Nov 17, 2004 19:54:51 GMT -5
Some MIMer signed up at E-G as "mexican" and posted some crap:
I don't know whether I should try to debate this. One one hand, I think the thread "On MIM and Method" has already smashed his "argument" about Marx's LTV and distinction between productive/unproductive work and Lenin's works on parasitism and imperialism, and that anyone who bothers to read what I posted and compare it to what the MIMer posted would see why the RCP line is correct. On the other hand, we could always draw something new from another debate and potentially win over people like J.Jordan who are fairly new to MIM and still have significant differences with MIM on issues like Cuba, DPRK, Maoism vs. Hoxhaism and sex (J.Jordan believes in something similar to Elijah Craig's disgusting idea of state-owned prostitution and thinks sex does not have to be voluntary, in stark contrast to "all sex is rape"). Do you think there is any opportunity in that post for, as you described it, kasama, real discussion of some cardinal issues?
|
|
|
|
Post by MundoQueGanar on Nov 17, 2004 20:53:38 GMT -5
Well, I'm not that familiar with the names of those who are posting in that thread, but just judging fromthe tone of those who have posted, it seems that "Che y marijuana" and yourself are the only ones trying to keep the discussion at a high level, and "che" only half-heartedly. J.Jordan seems consumed with revenge fantasies, "medyvv" prefers ad hominem attacks and speculation over dealing with material issues, and "mexican" seems more interested in baiting.
I dunno, the whole thread to me seems to reek of the "let's set 'em up and watch 'em fight" kinda thing. I think that just quickly summing up the cardinal questions Kasama raises in this thread and giving links to where people can find more would suffice.
|
|
|
|
Post by kasam0 on Nov 18, 2004 13:40:52 GMT -5
Here is what I think: E-G is a discussion board characterized by dogmato-revisionism. Many people uphold a view of socialism that is a grim, oppressive, tightly controlled police state. They seem to take the official anti-communist caricature of socialism -- and act like they like it and want to be like that. And as part of that, people act like J. Jordan act like any criticism of Stalin's Soviet uniion or even Mao's china are ONLY and SIMPLY lies. Our enemy often points to real weakness to turn people off to socialism. sometimes they point to real problems, and real mistakes. Not all issues raised by our oppressors are lies. and it is important to sort out what is lies, and what are mistakes, and what things we could and should do differently. Here is what our main man says we should do: On the basis of firmly upholding the need for dictatorship of the proleletariat, and on the basis of OVERALL upholding the historical experience of our class in power, we need to to critically and scientifically look at this whole experience and identify important things we would do differently and ways we must do better. This at the heart of the powerful talk he has recently given: "DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY, AND THE SOCIALIST TRANSITION TO COMMUNISM" rwor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/avakian_democracy_dictatorship_speech.htm(It is a work that is at the heart of the communist project today -- pathbreaking and new, and a major leap beyond what Lenin and even Mao understood and said, and is in some ways a critique of even the best of what they were doing.) |
|
|
|
Post by kasam0 on Nov 20, 2004 18:06:11 GMT -5
MQG wrote: "Well, I'm not that familiar with the names of those who are posting in that thread, but just judging fromthe tone of those who have posted, it seems that "Che y marijuana" and yourself are the only ones trying to keep the discussion at a high level, and "che" only half-heartedly. J.Jordan seems consumed with revenge fantasies, "medyvv" prefers ad hominem attacks and speculation over dealing with material issues, and "mexican" seems more interested in baiting."I don't judge a discussion by the tactics of the other side. If you are debating people trained in an opportunist line, they will use opportunist methods and arguments. But dont we need to engage such things anyway -- or at least help the broader audience understand what is wrong with their methods and approach? Often I find it helpful (if frustrating) to grapple with the arguments of opposing trends. If they try to blur the issues (as serivian did in a recent exchange on che-lives), then it is helpful for folks like flyby try to point out their method (even while they also deal with their arguments). www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30272In the case of the MIM shit -- I think there are some core arguments in that discussion that people need to grapple with -- like "is there a revolutionary proletriat in the U.S., and how do we know?" MIM may be infantile, bizarre and hard to take seriously. But that question is a serious one, for honest people all over the world. And there can't be a revolution in the U.S. unless we answer that question well, and then act on the answer. I also think it would be useful to really engage with J. Jordan at some point -- with his police view of socialism, his ideas that people just need a good smack from the state. Is this socialism -- or a form of fascism-flying-a-red-flag? And in particular: if the people are downpressed by a party that wields the police and the stick that way... how exactly is the advance to communism carried out? How will capitalist roaders and traitors in the party be exposed and defeated? How will we avoid what happened in the Soviet Union? Can't we do better? And what exactly does our main man suggest as the road to doing it better? |
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Nov 20, 2004 18:17:09 GMT -5
I've decided I don't want to bother with that thread anymore. I think the information I provided is more than enough to disprove the MIM supporter's post as it is. Although, I am preparing a long post for a new topic summing up my thoughts on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, which I might write and post in December when I'm out of school and have more time and energy to devote to the project, and which will be a response to all sorts of criticisms of the RCP I have heard at E-G going back to June.
I also think there is an interesting tactic the MIM supporter is using with his choice of user name, "mexican". He or she is trying to make it seem as if you oppose the "mexican", then you are a racist AmeriKKKan. Typical MIM bullshit.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Nov 21, 2004 11:22:59 GMT -5
1949 wrote: I've decided I don't want to bother with that thread anymore. I think the information I provided is more than enough to disprove the MIM supporter's post as it is."
I can understand that, and I think you are basically right. Can we post the main links you gave here in awip somewhere.... in one place?
1949 wrote: I am preparing a long post for a new topic summing up my thoughts on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, which I might write and post in December when I'm out of school and have more time and energy to devote to the project, and which will be a response to all sorts of criticisms of the RCP I have heard at E-G going back to June."
Wow that sounds really intersting. Can you give us a hint on some of the line questions involved, and what you are grappling with? A preview?
I also think there is an interesting tactic the MIM supporter is using with his choice of user name, "mexican". He or she is trying to make it seem as if you oppose the "mexican", then you are a racist AmeriKKKan. Typical MIM bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Nov 21, 2004 12:22:20 GMT -5
1949 wrote: I've decided I don't want to bother with that thread anymore. I think the information I provided is more than enough to disprove the MIM supporter's post as it is."I can understand that, and I think you are basically right. Can we post the main links you gave here in awip somewhere.... in one place? Well, the thread "On MIM and Method" is already here. We could pin that. I shall post what kasama wrote at WITBD in the History forum here. I want to start by explaining why Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a third and higher stage of Marxism, because the E-G people don't understand that, and they need to understand that before they will understand what Avakian's contributions to MLM are and why his line is correct, which will follow. I also want to explore some of the myths about relations between RCP supporters online and the E-G people, back when they posted on this board and at the What Is To Be Done forums, and explain why they are false and why, even if they were true, they couldn't be a valid argument against the RCP because their supporters online are not members and thus can't represent the RCP line on some of these issues. And I might explore the line of the WWP a bit, because it is a party a lot of E-G people seem to have sympathies towards and it is often brought up in arguments I have with them about the RCP. |
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Nov 21, 2004 12:52:10 GMT -5
a suggestion:
i would suggest sticking to the cardinal questoins of line. (What maoists call the High Plane of Two Line Struggle.
That stuff in the middle about who did what to who in previous threads and sites etc. -- is the kind of thing that is rarely worth revisiting in detail. And even if some people raises it -- their REAL disagreements are over cardinal issues of line not "he did this to me." You can't get at the real issues by spending too much time on non-issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by FFFF on Jul 24, 2012 22:11:29 GMT -5
Im Spiel hat man selbst die Wahl zwischen zwei Sonnenbrille Armani schicken Modellen von Oakley Sonnenbrillen.Ob das allerdings einen Einfluss auf den Ausgang des Spiels hat? Auf jeden Fall f?rbt sich das Bild entsprechend der ausgesuchten Brille Tienda Brille Rayban 261 ein.Das Spiel an sich trumpft leider nicht mit viel Spannung auf.So hat man einmal die M?glichkeit zwischendrei Golfschl?gern zu w?hlen und ein weiteres und letztes Mal kann man dann 4 noch den Putting-Schlag bestimmen. |
|
|
|
Post by lqq on Sept 20, 2012 20:34:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zl on Jan 7, 2013 20:35:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zl on Apr 21, 2013 8:17:24 GMT -5
|
|
