Remembering Farouk Abdel-Muhti

[Deleted]

I never thought I'd post an article from RW, but Farouk was a friend and comrade of mine from the Socialist Party USA. I just went to a memorial held for him this past Saturday, and saw the RW had an article about him:

On July 21, as he finished speaking at an event in Philadelphia called “Detection and Torture: Building Resistance,” former political prisoner and much-beloved Palestinian activist Farouk Abdel-Muhti collapsed and died.

It was a shocking and terrible loss for the people – coming just two months after he finally got out of the clutches of Federal immigration authorities. He had been held for 718 days — almost two years. He had been the target of repeated mental and physical abuse. He had survived 250 days in solitary confinement and was subjected to continual verbal abuse. Despite a long-standing and well-documented need for blood pressure and thyroid medications, the prison guards had repeatedly kept these medications from him. The extent to which his mistreatment in prison contributed to his untimely death may never be known. What is known is that he was a fighter for the people to his last breath.
Fighter on Many Fronts

How can I begin to describe what we have lost with the death of this courageous comrade? I knew Farouk for more than a decade, and his death hit really hard.

I remember the day that I first met Farouk – October 11, 1992, at a cultural program to oppose 500 years of genocide, oppression and colonialism in the Americas that began with Columbus. He was a striking figure at the gathering – a Palestinian militant speaking passionately in Spanish, not only for the liberation of the Palestinian people but also in support of revolutionary and progressive struggles throughout the world.

The event occurred only a few days after the capture of Abimael Guzman (Chairman Gonzalo), the leader of the Maoist people’s war in Peru, and the worldwide campaign to “Move Heaven and Earth to Defend the Life of Chairman Gonzalo” was just beginning. Upon hearing the news, Farouk immediately threw himself into this battle, enlisting progressive Palestinian organizations to the cause. Over the next ten years, our paths crossed again many times. If there was an important political battle of the Palestinian people or others to be supported, one was certain to find Farouk there.

rwor.org/a/1257/farouk.htm

[1949]

I didn't realize there were people from the SP-USA that speak out in defense of Chairman Gonzalo and make plans to get the new Bob Avakian video. I'm downright confused. I thought Farouk was a Maoist from that article, which I read when it came out a few weeks ago. When did Maoists start hanging around in the SP-USA?

[Deleted]

I hate to break it to you, but the article is fairly typical of how RCP tries to tie everything back to themselves.

Farouk was a man who often called for unity. Literally moments before he collapsed, he was speaking about the need for unity. I think the author of this article kind of took advantage of Farouk's non-sectarian attitude to try and imply that Farouk was a supporter of Bob Avakian and RCP.

[kasam0]

sor writes: "Farouk was a man who often called for unity. Literally moments before he collapsed, he was speaking about the need for unity. I think the author of this article kind of took advantage of Farouk's non-sectarian attitude to try and imply that Farouk was a supporter of Bob Avakian and RCP. "

I read the article very differently.

It does not "take advantage" of this brother, nor does it imply that he was a supporter of our main man and the RCP.

And Farouk's call for unity is something the RCP actually agrees with, it was something they had in common with him.

The implication that he was for unity, but the revolutionary communists are not is itself a misleading implication. right?

--------------------------------------------------------



Part of the confusion is 1949's view of things. 1949 has the view that anyone who isn't MLM is reactionary and can't support revolution.

I don't think the RW implied that Farouk was a Maoist, I think 1949 misunderstood because of his/her ideological view on some key line questions.

So he thinks that if Farouk supported Gonzalo -- well then he musta been a maoist. But that is something 1940 has to "work through."

And that view is in fact something that will lead people into confusion and pessimism. Can we only unite with MLMers? Even worse, can only people who uphold MLM support revolution (here and around the world)?

This is not Avakian's view of "solid core with a lot of elasticity" -- this is a view that say a lot of people will support (and contribute) to the revolution who are not MLM. He insists that under socialism, MLM will not be an obligatory ideology, that people will be encouraged to express their views and criticisms -- including views that are explicitly not-MLM. And that this is part of the necessary process that makes a transition to communism possible.

[1949]

I regularly post and am even a moderator at the Ernesto 'Che' Guevara forums, as anyone who reads my posts here would know (since I am constantly talking about them). That site is dominated by Stalin-above-Mao revisionists that support the Cuban and North Korean governments, and many of whom hold MIM-like views on the U.S. proletariat and/or wanted Bush to win the election because they thought four more years of his regime would fuck up the country enough to create revolution here. They are far from MLM, but I don't consider them reactionary. I consider many of them comrades, even if I don't consider them communists.

I think it is perfectly possible to unite with people that aren't MLM. And I believe I have developed a lot from the days when I would flame people over their avatars. What have I said recently, besides perhaps my previous post in this thread, to imply that I am the sectarian you describe me as, kasama?

[kasamo]

all your points are well taken, 1949.

I am not dissing you.

And I agree you have made leaps in your understanding.

I also think you see often things through the prism defined by the old communist international of the twenties thirties and forties and its contradictions and summations.

As if our main fight is with trots and revisionists.

As if we live in a world defined by decades-old divisions of the "left" -- and we have to fight it out in THAT arena (mainly).

That may be a charicature....

But i thought it was revealing that you assumed that a person supporting the leader of the peruvian revolution must (somehow) be a maoist.

think about the implications of that....
it is worth struggling through.

Also:

Criticisms are not disses. We all criticize and learn from each other. What I am saying is not a put down. But it also is a sincere argument for "breaking out of these confines" -- we actually need to unite with, struggle with, and win over broad masses of radical and awakening people who are far outside these narrow "left ghettos"

[kasamo]

our main man writes:

"For Maoists, self-criticism means looking honestly, without fear, anger, or any kind of ego thing, at what we do wrong--as well as what we do right--digging out the reasons for this, and moving to correct what is wrong and build on what is right. Criticism means helping other comrades do the same. And in this we are guided by one goal, one purpose: to serve the people, and do our part in making revolution to emancipate the oppressed people, all over the world.

rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm1.htm

[1949]

I didn't interpret it as a put-down. I was seriously trying to figure out if I had made some sectarian comments somewhere. I'm glad we cleared this up.

[Deleted]

In the article, where it says "And he began to make plans to see the new video of the talk by RCP Chairman Bob Avakian and to get a copy sent back to Palestine", how is the relevant other than to imply that he supported RCP?

[flyby]

It is relevant because he was involved in one of the key struggles of our time: seeking to find the ways to spread genuine marxism in Palestine (where it is sorely needed.)

What could be more important? And what is wrong with honoring him for understanding that?

It is relevent because getting this DVD (and the whole revolutioanry project it contains) before more and more people -- is a key focus of revolutionaries in the U.S. right now. And Farouk was part of that.

It is not a way of slyly and falsely promoting the RCP (!!) and you have to be looking at politics and people in a rather narrow and "sectological" way to see it that way.

On the contrary, it is a way of pointing out and honoring a really important initiative he was taking in his last days.

[me]

Ummm, it seems like a valid criticism of the RW obit that it neglected to name the group this guy was a member of; unless it was some type of secret. Not actuallly specifing that he was part of a different trend, but only saying that he wanted to check out the Avakian stuff seems like it would mislead people.

[flyby]

I don't know why the RW didn't mention his membership in some organization But I can think of several reasons why they might not have done so.

They unite with and work with people of many trends, and they don't casually mention people's membership here or there (including membership in the RCP).

Sonofrage may think it is automatic and natural to mention organizaitonal membership. But you have to realize for Maoists that is not the case. (Different views on the state, and on the "left")

Certainly I wouldn't criticize them without knowing the larger situation. And I especially don't believe that any of it is an attempt to portray him as other than what he was.

The RW is very careful to be accurate. Many people of all trends know this and trust their reporting (even while often disagreeing with the analysis for underlying political reasons).

They don't lie about numbers in demos. They don't "take credit" for the work of others. They have fought for (explicitly) the view of BA that they should learn from others, and recognize the contributions of others.

I think their obit is in line with that.

Lots of people who are not Maoists uphold the revolution in Nepal. Lots of people who are not in the RCP are checking out the works of Avakian and helping to spread the DVD.

There is a rather rigid view that assumes if someone is pro-CPN(M) or spreading the DVD tyhat they "MUST" be MLM and pro-RCP. The problem here is that rather narrow and pessimistic assumption.

But that is not the RW's view.

If they mention he supported the rev in Nepal, and was into circulating Avakian's DVD -- that doesn't mean they are portraying him as MLM or somehow tied to the RCP.

They are well aware that MANY different kinds of people support the revolution (and can be won to supporting it).

Faroud apparently worked on some projects with the RCP in his city. And in the obit they mentioned that, admiringly. Is that wrong? And why paint it as sinister?

It is a great obit, as sonofrage himself pointed out by posting it -- a tender, loving, appreciative, heartfelt memory of a fighter who has died.

[Obituary Commentator]

I doubt the motives of the obituary writer were sinister. However, I do want to criticize the obituary.

A political obituary in a party newspaper should take account of both:
a) what the person being memorialized meant to the party and why they were appreciated or criticized by it
b) how that person saw their own political work and life history. (This applies to friends of the revolution, not necessarily to political obituaries of enemies of the people.)

Membership in an organization or heavy participation within a political trend are very important things in the lives of political people.

Can you imagine an obituary that a group like NOW might run for Mary Lou Greenberg (similar examples might be found for most Maoist public figures, this is just the first one that comes to my mind): "She was a great fighter and worked with NOW to fight for abortion rights. Toward the end of her life she joined us in opposing the continuation of the Bush presidency."

Now, wouldn't it be something of a disservice to her not to mention her role as a Maoist for all these years? I feel that the RW obituary of Farouk Abdel-Muhti was one-sided in this way.

[Deleted]

flyby said:

It is relevant because he was involved in one of the key struggles of our time: seeking to find the ways to spread genuine marxism in Palestine (where it is sorely needed.)

What could be more important? And what is wrong with honoring him for understanding that?

It is relevent because getting this DVD (and the whole revolutioanry project it contains) before more and more people -- is a key focus of revolutionaries in the U.S. right now. And Farouk was part of that.

It is not a way of slyly and falsely promoting the RCP (!!) and you have to be looking at politics and people in a rather narrow and "sectological" way to see it that way.

On the contrary, it is a way of pointing out and honoring a really important initiative he was taking in his last days.

I think that is a gross mischaracterization of what Farouk was doing.

I can't and will not speak for Farouk, that would not be appropriate. However, since I actually knew Farouk, it is in my view most likely that an RCP supporter brought up the subject of the DVD with Farouk and in his typical non-sectarian way, Farouk was happy to get a copy and pass it on to someone who would get more use out of it than he would.

Many years ago, I believe when Farouk was still living in Palestine, Farouk went into the office of the local communisty party (I forget which one). He went into their library and saw all the works of Marx and Lenin, beautifully bound. Farouk took as many books as he could carry and started walking out the door when someone stopped him and said "What are you doing?" Farouk responded "I am going to give these books to my brothers and sisters. They need them. You don't!" He then walked out with the books.

Does this mean that Farouk was a Leninist. No, it does not and he wasn't. It just shows that Farouk was the type of man who wanted to get people thinking and expose them to revolutionary ideas they may not have come into contact with before. It is not right to try and make it sound like he was specifically trying to get Chairman Bob's stuff out there.

[Deleted]

flyby said:

Sonofrage may think it is automatic and natural to mention organizaitonal membership. But you have to realize for Maoists that is not the case. (Different views on the state, and on the "left")

No, I do not. As a matter of fact, I never said anything remotely like that. You will often play mindreader and make such comments that are quite contrary to what others have actually said (you've done this to Redstar2000 many times). I don't think that is a very principled thing to do.