Rules of the road

Kasama

On the Shelf

« "I had court today. Fuck this country." | Main | FMLN leader Jorge Schafik Hándal dies at 75 »

January 25, 2006

Comments

Lurigancho

I might have more comments on this later. In general, the spirit of Gary Leupp's writing has been great, but he has a tendency to make easy to correct errors, some significant, in the spate of articles he has written on international Maoism over the past year or two.

In this one, for example, he lists the CPI (Maoist) as a RIM party, which it is not.

fact checker

The list of current RIM signatories is at the A World To Win site:

http://www.awtw.org/rim/index.htm

One of the parties that merged into the Indian unified Indian party was in the RIM, one was not.

The only exchange that's been made public was regarding Mumbai Resistance and the World Social Forum, where there were disagreements -- but engaged discussion.

Following these currents -- the proper place for discussion between parties is, well, between parties. Considering the amount of dubious polemics that float around the internet written by who knows who -- I'd suggest caution regarding speculation without public documentation.

Gary's right. It's been a good year.

The last few years haven't been so bad either. Parties formed in Italy, Afghanistan, Iran and as he mentioned, something is happening in Iraq.

The bad news was the horrible massacre of leading comrades in the Turkish movement. This was a horrible blow. I believe the picture at the top of the website with all the flags on the mountain is from a memorial service for the killed.

http://rwor.org/a/008/mkp-massacre-turkey.htm

Lurigancho

Yes, the massacre of the MKP leadership should have been mentioned. As should have been the bomb the TKP/ML put on the US military base in Turkey (or was that in late 2004?).

Actually, the status of the CPI(Maoist)'s non-membership in the RIM is not speculation, it is well-known, just as the CPP's non-membership is. You are right, Party to Party discussion should take place in that realm. The RIM is not a Party, though, and the issue of who does and doesn't support it is a major issue in determining whether or not it is in fact the 'embryonic center of the world's Maoists' or just what exactly it is.

This isn't meant as a jab at the RIM. After all, the CPN(M), with clearly the most advanced experience and struggle in the world, seems to aggressively promote the RIM.

In grappling over how to move forward the Maoist forces in this country, it is necessary to grapple with the state of the international movement. Now, that should be done responsibly and not in a speculative fashion. But just because AWTW or the RCP has not publicized something, doesn't mean it isn't public knowledge (and not speculation).

Gary Leupp

Actually, I submitted a second version of the piece on the 22nd asking that it be substituted for the first one (sent on the 20th). It made reference to the Turkish massacre and some other matters.

As for the CPI (Maoist) not being in RIM, the last print-copy AWTW (31/2005)lists the MCCI as a RIM member, and this has now merged with PW to form CPI (Maoist). If the new organization has decided not to join, and this is well-known, then I have indeed made a significant error.

If anyone has additional info, please contact me with it.

the burningman

These discussions are difficult, and I'm sure some of the participants here have noticed that there are no open comment boards (anywhere on earth) about the international Maoist movement. Red Flags aims to change that... but it also means everybody has to be on their very best behavior. Thanks to those who are trying.

Avakian's critical writings on Stalin.. and on the essential nature of socialism are provocative and very unorthodox. I know they are controversial internationally -- and all the more essential for that reason.

Socialism 2.0 better have more to offer -- and a renewed centrality for popular agency than in the past. This is taking the best of what we've done and building from it, not just finding a lowest common denomenator of using MLM rhetoric to bring a "heavy state" that doesn't have an organic connection to the proletariat and peasantry.

As I understand it, this is the essence of what Avakian is arguing -- and why even (relatively) small parties can make disproportionate contributions that aren't just based on their ability (or inability) to field military forces.

The RIM is certainly AN embryonic center of the world's communist movement -- and compared to the other really-existing international formations, it is on the best basis of unity I've seen. We don't need to ally with revisionsists, or those who mush it all up. Among those who can be struggled with as comrades, such as the CPP and the CPI (Maoist) -- there is much to be done.

I also think the social model offered by the Philippines movement has much to teach, and that if the RIM is to really be that center, then we can see who the forces on the ground are who will make that happen. Better to take time and really work it out than to cobble some patchwork together just to do it... and have it fragment shortly because the unity was superficial.

other kinds of check

What stands out to me is the simple silence on the RCP,USA.

Why would anyone assess Maoism in the world and not mention the impact of the RCP in the heartland of imperialism?

What does this imply? That only the third world matters? that really there are no prospects for revolution in imperialist countries? That the only measure of advance is directly military?

Revolutionaries prepare for the seizure of countrywide power in accordance with their conditions. In some countries it is possible to wage a protracted war. In other countries the preparations are political, but also real.

Not only has the RCP made some real, and quite visible strides over the last year -- but objectively (from the position of the international revolutionary movement) these kinds of advances within the U.S. are highly significant and promising.

I also think there are some important theoretical breakthroughs that have been made in the last year -- associated with the work of Bob Avakian. Maoists hold that ideological and political line is key -- and so (from that perspective) such things are also important (and not a small side issue) for any assessment of the international Maoist movement -- its consolidation and advance.

the burningman

No doubt.

Maybe you'd like to write up a short piece that ties that all together? There is certainly enough to comment on. It's been the best year for the RCP in recent memory. They're in the game and on the ball.

an observer

Yeah. This article has a lot of good information.

But i do wonder what the line is that leaves out a party that clearly *rates* as both influential and active.

This article bends over backwards to discuss the parties of Bengladesh and Bhutan (even though it can't find any actions in 2005 to list or describe) -- but then there is a black hole where the activity and contributions of the RCP should be mentioned.

Gary Leupp

My "simple silence" on the RCP results from the topic on which I wrote the DV piece--people's wars. An assessment of Maoism globally in 2005 would be a different, more time-consuming project. But I quite agree that the RCP has made impressive strides over the past year, and that the party deserves support.

peeping the scene

The last year seems to have really been good for the RCP. If anything, and aside from obvious growth, they are definitely the pole of attraction (or argument) for people seeking communist organization. There are other Marxish groups, but the RCP is about fighting for communism, not using it as a vocabulary to hold "activists" together.

the burningman

Lurigancho -- I would say that more important than who or what supports the RIM (or doesn't), is the basis on which unity is reached. Obviously success in the field wins prestige, but as the South African movement, Evo Morales and parties like the German Left Party show -- it's not just numbers, but line.

How the ICM is re-established, on what basis, has everything to do with whether this here thing is going to happen.

Lurigancho

I agree whole-heartedly that the basis on which unity is reached is a key factor. There is no point in getting people united on a basis that is not going to lead to liberation.

But what is the basis of unity of the RIM? Is that the best basis of unity on which to bring together the ICM?

On the one hand, obviously the basis of unity of the RIM consists in the two documents that RIM groups sign on to. However, clearly there is more involved than just signing onto documents.

The fact that the CPP and, at least for the time being the CPI(Maoist) are not signing onto the RIM, for me at least, raises more questions about the RIM than it does about the international line of those two parties.

It is not clear to me that the RIM is particularly united on any number of important issues, so I am not entirely sure if it is useful to talk about the positions of the RIM parties as opposed to the non-RIM parties.

peeping the scene

I hope the discussion here isn't just about the basis of unity of the RIM, though that's definitely in the mix. GL could have included a description of what it is, but here are the link to their basis of unity:

http://www.awtw.org/rim/index.htm

A contradiction raises the question of what's its nature is, which I wouldn't assume is the same regarding the Indian party and the CPP.

Whatever the particulars, this is not an antagonistic contradiction and, if anything, is moving towards a an eventual unity. That's the spirt I see and certainly the one I'd like to promote.

The Nepalese have been a real inspiration on this. They had disputes and have resolved to allow for freedom of criticism. Having a scientific approach means, among other things, interrogating ideas for their truth -- not just what they say about who proposes them.

If a revolutionary party has wrong positions, it's not a reason to write them off and say "see!"

No.

Struggle with the ideas -- with a real eye towards how these ideas will take on the "dignity of immediate actuality."

an observor

I raised this, not mainly as some criticism of Gary's informative article, but to sharpen our understanding of line.

Gary wrote: "My 'simple silence' on the RCP results from the topic on which I wrote the DV piece--people's wars. An assessment of Maoism globally in 2005 would be a different, more time-consuming project. "

I did not see a title on "peoples wars" but "2005: A Year of Maoist Resurgence."

It doesn't mention peoples wars as its topic, but Maoism.

And the implication is that this "resurgence" is limited to, defined by, the armed struggle and it alone.

There is a view that the armed struggle is (simply and directly) the measure and essense of maoism. That you can tell who is revisionist and who is not by "who is waging peoples war."

And this is connected to a view that Mao's MAIN contribution to theory and practice was his development of the theory of peoples war.

Historically this view is associated with Lin Biao... and connected with a third world nationalism that is sometimes not particularly lofty or revolutionary.

Lin held that armed struggle was THE dividing line between revisionism and Maoism -- a basically wrong view that led him and similar thinkers to embrace "armed revisionism" (including the Soviet Union itself) as progressive and anti-imperialist.

It is also a theory that downgrades the question of WHAT KIND OF POWER we are going for -- Lin Biao himself had a very revisionist and oppressive view of what socialism should be.

Avakian by contrast talks about the importance of going for power -- but also grappling deeply with how we are "going to do something good with it" when we get it.

This recognision, that it is possible to seize power and do something bad with it, is a rather burning question -- on a world scale and at every stage of the struggle.

In addition isn't it true that not all the armed struggles waged by Maoists (even genuine Maoists) have, in fact, been people's wars.

For example, there is a long history in India of armed struggles by various Mao-identified groups that are criticized as "armed economism" -- where the revolutionaries don't establish political base areas and go for power, but used armed squads to pressure landlords to make concessions. (Similar to the roving rebel band line of Mao's day).

There are other cases in the world where armed groups "settle in" and establish a FARC-like defacto modus vivendi with the central government.

And there have been cases where Maoist groups have unleashed armed struggles that are really quite foco-like -- more like guevarism than protracted peoples war.

In short, armed struggle even if led by self-proclaimed Maoists is not inherently or automatically a peoples war.

There is a sharp line struggle in all revolutions about whether "we fight to seize power, or we fight to negotiate major reforms from a powerful position."

This is a struggle that is not simply or definitively settled, but gets reposed by real life.

So gary's article (intentionally or not) suggests that the "resurgence of Maoism" is defined by the armed struggles he lists. And implies that these armed struggles are all by definition "peoples wars."

And the article gives the impression (intentionally or not) that the RCP does not figure into the 2005 Resurgence of Maoism.

All i can say is "Why not?"

Gary writes: "An assessment of Maoism globally in 2005 would be a different, more time-consuming project."

I think there is a view implied here -- that you don't need to assess the armed struggles.

Or, to put it another way, if summing up the RCP's work in 2005 would take some real analysis (which I can't differ with) -- what makes you think that summing up the work of the Indian or Philippine maoists is any easier?

Why is it possible to assume that you can report on, assess, that struggle merely by plopped down a list of actions?

Gary writes: "I quite agree that the RCP has made impressive strides over the past year, and that the party deserves support."

Ok, then why leave it out. And what message does that send?

peeping the scene

I don't think it sends any message at all.

There are several countries where Maoism has become the dominant form of popular resistance. There are different strands of this movement.

Gary said it pretty straight why he made that choice. It's been suggested that someone can write that missing piece -- I'd love to read it.

an observor

I wasn't responding to your points, peeping (sorry for the confusion).

Was precisely responding to Gary when he said "pretty straight why he made that choice."

And i was precisely trying to dig into the implications and assumptions in making that choice that way.

Gary Leupp

This is in response to "an observor" who asks "why leave [the RCP] out"and "What message does that send?"

The limited intent of the piece is clear from the opening paragraph which indicates I will focus on "the four countries most affected by Maoist organizations."

I'm certainly open to struggle on this, but I do not think that in 2005 the US was as affected by Maoist organizations (the RCP plus any others) as were Nepal, India, the Philippines and Peru. This is not because Maoist movements in countries without PWs are less important, or that at some point the RCP might not influence the course of events in the US to the same extent that Maoists are doing in the countries I discussed (the tangential references to Bhutan and Bangladesh obviously with reference to developments in Nepal and India). But had I decided to discuss the RCP, then I'd feel inclined to do some research on the Maoist Communist Party of Italy and non-RIM European Maoist parties etc. Seems to me one can do a piece on countries with Maoist PWs; one on Maoism as a whole; or one that awkwardly joins the former with discussion of the RCP not because this makes a lot of sense but in order to avoid criticism that one is dissing the RCP by omission.

The DV title, "2005: A Year of Maoist Resurgence" was appended after I finished the piece. The subtitle, "A Political and Military Assessment" was added by this site, and perhaps implies a more encyclopedic project than I undertook. Anyway, the implication by "an observor" that any talk of Maoist resurgence that leaves out the RCP's 2005 advances is somehow an Lin Biao-like overvaluation of Maoist parties currently waging armed struggle strikes me as dogmatic and unfair.


an observer

Thanks for your reply and clarifications, Gary.

Let me add a few clarifications of meaning to my own post.


Gary wrote: "I'm certainly open to struggle on this, but I do not think that in 2005 the US was as affected by Maoist organizations (the RCP plus any others) as were Nepal, India, the Philippines and Peru."

This is hard to dispute.

Gary wrote: "This is not because Maoist movements in countries without PWs are less important, or that at some point the RCP might not influence the course of events in the US to the same extent that Maoists are doing in the countries I discussed."

Noted and agreed.

Gary writes, "Had I decided to discuss the RCP, then I'd feel inclined to do some research on the Maoist Communist Party of Italy and non-RIM European Maoist parties etc."

I don't see the logic here.

Gary argues against doing something "in order to avoid criticism that one is dissing the RCP by omission."

I certainly agree that it would b e wrong to do something merely to "avoid criticism" -- especially if that criticism is unjust.

However, as i wrote, my point was not to criticize you at all, but to suggest that there has been a rather one-sided assumption (around and about, perhaps not including you) that the defining thing about maoi

Gary writes: "The DV title, '2005: A Year of Maoist Resurgence' was appended after I finished the piece. The subtitle, 'A Political and Military Assessment' was added by this site, and perhaps implies a more encyclopedic project than I undertook."


Anyway, the implication by "an observor" that any talk of Maoist resurgence that leaves out the RCP's 2005 advances is somehow an Lin Biao-like overvaluation of Maoist parties currently waging armed struggle strikes me as dogmatic and unfair.

an observer

I accidentally hit "post" on the preceding remarks -- without finishing them (or worse, without editing them.) Sorry folks.

However, the point I wanted to make was that i had not intended a criticism of Gary.

Perhaps his last paragraph gets at this most.

Gary writes: "Anyway, the implication by 'an observor' that any talk of Maoist resurgence that leaves out the RCP's 2005 advances is somehow an Lin Biao-like overvaluation of Maoist parties currently waging armed struggle strikes me as dogmatic and unfair."

I certainly did not mean to imply that. And in particular, did not mean to imply that about Gary's piece.

First: this is hardly a time to talk about "overvaluing" struggles like the revolution in Nepal -- which are, to put it mildly, INvaluable. (Including on a world scale.)

i was describing and criticizing a Lin Biaoist view as part of the political landscape -- not ascribing it to gary or his piece. And I thought that was clear in context.

the burningman

Just so people know the lingo being used, Lin Biao was the leader of the People's Liberation Army and tended to believe that People's Wars in the third world would surround the "city" of the imperialist countries. He was an advocate of armed struggle, but was also deeply "commandist" in his political orientation.

He was the editor of the Red Book, which was originally used as a political education tool inside the PLA before it spread to mass popularity. For many years, Lin Biao was considered the likely successor to Mao.

There was a major campaign in the Cultural Revolution against dogmatism and commandism called "Criticize Lin Biao and Confucious" that I'm studying right now.

How Biao died is a matter of speculation, but the most widely accepted variation is that he attempted to flee to the Soviet Union and that his plane was shot down in transit. Almost like Trotsky, he wanted to militarize socialism and deeply failed to grasp how popular agency was the core of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Why did someone need to understand what Mao was saying when they could just memorize aphorisms and do what they were told?

In this discussion, Lin Biaoism refers to "third worldism," or writing off revolution in the imperialist countries. Or using the force of arms to make political arguments.

I think the post criticizing Gary for not including the RCP was a little quick. But the essence of it is correct. The RCP's role both within the United States and internationally is disproportionate to its physical size.

Maoism isn't just "third world Marxism." It's revolutionary communism. Including the RCP, USA is a way of showing the depth of this movement and its global aspirations.

As of now, there are no other Maoist parties in the United States. There are post-Maoist groups such as (the two) Freedom Roads, and a couple of non-entitities that mainly exist online (with highly dubious politrix).

In Europe, there is a real push happening now. A RIM-associated Maoist party recently formed in Italy, and a continental speaking tour regarding the situation in Nepal is hitting most major centers.

For many years, Maoism in Europe has been concentrated in immigrant communities, most notably the Turks in Germany. This is changing, too -- and is great news to be cheered.

Should a party form in France or Britain, or Spain -- the possibility of speaking to the very particular crisis of Europe is there. So far, much of the discontent has been swept up by social movements which are largely re-articulations of failed social-democracy. See the German Party of the Left, Communist Refoundation in Italy and the Trots who get the big electoral numbers in France.

With the uprisings in the French suburbs (immigrant ghettos), we can see the lines that the next left will be built off of. Maoism speaks directly to this situation, and the sooner it articulates itself instead of existing in the breach, the better for the whole world.

So, Gary -- investigate that European scene, and also note that the while the RCP isn't governing any part of the USA, it certainly is helping change the game in a way that is surprising just about everyone.

Maoism is a world movement. It is revolutonary communism. It is the specter that haunts not just Europe, as Marx said, but the world.

an observor

another element of this is the mistaken notion that "all we need is the will to do it."

There is a false implication in the Lin Biaoist view that the conditions are fairly uniformily and continually ripe for revolution (pretty much anywhere in the world) and that launching revolution is therefore mainly a matter of will (courage, subjective desire, and "class stand").

In fact, important as subjective factors are (including line in the first place, not mainly gut "will") -- there are also major objective consideration involved. Hence the importance of the approach of "hasten and await" (raised and advocated by Avakian).

And it also implies that theory is a settled matter -- that all that is needed now is "application" of what has already "been laid down."

As if the world hasn't changed in very major ways since Mao led the long march -- including in ways that impact strategy and tactics.

Hey hey

Don't sleep on "gut will."

That's why the people love Che. Whatever other mistakes he made, the motherF went to the mat.

hey hey

Well, one big change since the days of the Long March is the F-16.

What's interesting about Iraq militarily is that the insurgency is based in the cities, not the "mountains." It's certainly not a people's war, though.

There is some dispute about the issue of "base areas" -- in particular in India. Here's a situation where a very powerful central state can bring such a magnitude of force to bear on any locale in the country that there is really no possibility of a Yenan... except, perhaps, a little further north in "the mountains."

These are heady days.

handy dandy

"Observor" -- The sharpest knives get dull the fastest. The rigid board breaks because it can't bend. Water beats rock.

Questions About RCP's 'Resurgence'

Some of the comments here raise a question for me. A couple of commenters say that the RCP-USA deserves to be included in an article such as Leupp's about the resurgence of Maoism in 2005.

Underlying this view is the belief that the RCP has made significant advances over the last year. I don't mean to ask this in a nay-saying kind of way, but I'm genuinely curious what that view of the RCP's advances is based on. The RCP doesn't exist in my city, so I don't directly see their work on the ground. I'd like to know what it looks like to people who see them on the ground and have seen them over a longer period of time to have something to compare to.

The RCP doesn't report membership numbers, so there's no way to verify if they are growing numerically. Of course, seeing more people selling Revolution newspaper and seeing more people in their contingents at demos would be a good way to guess that they are growing. So I'm curious, does it look like they're growing?

And, more importantly, I have some questions in terms of their political work. They have clearly kicked off a number of new initiatives over the past few years. World Can't Wait is the most visible of those, and seems to have met some success in resonating somewhat broadly among a layer of progressives and even angry liberals, and has succeeded in mobilizing some folks beyond just the RCP and their supporters. That is an accomplishment and is a good thing.

But the RCP has had various initiatives over the years that seem to me to have had success comparable to WCW. For example, is WCW much different than No Business As Usual in the 80s? From my experience (and hazy memory), the number of people mobilized at the protests is about the same; dozens to hundreds in smaller cities and maybe a thousand or two in a couple of their strongest cities. Both NBAU and WCW were endorsed by some big-name leftists; both succeeded in mobilizing mainly high school students and youth that other groups hadn't even tried to mobilize. Maybe WCW has reached deeper into the 'disaffected liberal' folks, even including some elected Democratic Party politicians.

For another example, the Oct 22 Coalition against police brutality, in the first couple years at least, was picked up more broadly than the RCP and their supporters, and there were mobilizations in many cities where the RCP didn't have a presence. They got a decent sized turnout to the demos in their strongest cities. They succeeded in getting endorsement from some prominent leftists and prominent family members of well-known police brutality victims.

All of this is not to poo-poo the RCP's work with World Can't Wait or to say that I disagree that the RCP is in the midst of a resurgence. Honestly I don't know the answer to that. I just wanted to try to put it in a historical context of the RCP's initiatives and activity over the years and see what people think. My disagreements with the RCP aside, I have been interested to see how WCW goes and have been somewhat impressed. These types of sweeping, broad-call actions are the RCP's strength.

Any thoughts or comments?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Hot Shots