Debate differences, don’t factionalize and quarrel

The following was printed in
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3Lmdyb3Vwcy55YWhvby5jb20vZ3JvdXAvTUFPSVNUX1JFVk9MVVRJT04=
Yours truly, 史蒂夫・奥多, posted a reply to these other two opinions11/6/2008:


The RCP is the last of the so called "new communist" parties that grew out of the 1970s. We need a "New Communist" Party, so I really don't want to see the RCP simply fail and loose all its members. Kasama probably brings up some legit criticisms, but the greater question is "How can we unite all revolutionaries for a serious attempt to overthrow the ruling class?" Kasama is just another factional break off at this point, no matter how good their arguments are. I saw a lot of this in the 1970s and we lost a lot of political movements by the 1980s. We really need to focus on two things: How to transform our society to a socialist- with a strong communist party and how to resolve factional differences in order to make that happen. There seems to be a debate between the old one party system and the multi parties they have in Nepal. This debate should not get in the way of fighting for the overthrow of the present system.



We can discuss differences, but if we allow them to hold us back, this will be counter revolutionary in outcomes. It doesn't matter who is responsible because outcomes are what matters and if we tear each other up over our differences, we won't advance period.



--- On Tue, 10/21/08, mike ely wrote:


From: mike ely Subject: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] Kasama Project Rejects RCP Accusation of "Counter Revolutionary"To: "maoist revolution"



Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 9:21 AM
The Kasama Project, a newly formed communist organization in the U.S., has suddenly been publicly accused of being counter-revolutiona ry by the Revolutonary Communist Party. This represents a disturbing escalation in the RCP's hostility toward any communists who express critical evaluations of Bob Avakian's new synthesis, and his claim to represent the next stage of Marxism.
The RCP's accusation "What is Counter-Revolution? " appears here:
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbWlrZWVseS53b3JkcHJlc3MuY29tLzIwMDgvMTAvMjAvcmNwLWFjY3VzZXMta2FzYW1hLW9mLWJlaW5nLWNvdW50ZXItcmV2b2x1dGlvbmFyeS8=
The Kasama Project replied to this in an essay published on their website (kasamaproject. org). It is entitled "Kasama's Answer: Revolutionaries need to fearlessly debate and regroup." It appears:
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbWlrZWVseS53b3JkcHJlc3MuY29tLzIwMDgvMTAvMjAva2FzYW1hcy1hbnN3ZXItdGhlLXdvcmxkLW5lZWRzLXJldm9sdXRpb25hcmllcy10by1kZWJhdGUtYW5kLXJlZ3JvdXAv
The opening of that Kasama essay follows:
* * * * * *


Kasama's Answer: Revolutionaries Need to Fearlessly Debate and Regroup
The RCP is publicly accusing the Kasama proect of being counter-revolutinar ies and of helping police destroy revolutionary organization. We have posted this new statement by the RCP, entitled: "What is Counter-Revolution?"
In keeping with the RCP's current style, they mention no names, but clearly this is intended to smear people who created our Kasama site, and also smear the many people who post here.
We urge everyone reading this to speak out against the false charge and its disturbing subtexts.
Four questions:
1) What thinking person can look over our Kasama site and believe this is a launching pad for "vicious attacks" on communists and for police activity?
2) Can we allow this kind of accusation to once-again poison the political culture among revolutionaries and progressive people?
3) Will the RCP publicly assert that this new charge of"counterrevolution ary" is not intended as a justification for violence against their critics?
4) Will the RCP find some appropriate means of sharing specific evidence of their unsubstantiated charge that their organization' s security is being harmed?
Points on Substance and Line:
RCP's new statement rests on a self-serving belief: that any serious critique of the RCP's new synthesis is a "vicious attack" on humanity's best hope. And further that any such attack is objectively "counter-revolutiona ry." This argument arises from the RCP's defining view that "Avakian is the cardinal question" — i.e. that their Chairman Bob Avakian and his theoretical views are the dividing line among communists between revolution and revisionism. Communists who reject (or even question) Avakian's view are viewed as despicable revisionists — i.e. counterrevolutionar ies mascarading as communists.
There is a escalating progression in the RCP's accusations over the last few months: Initially they argued that the Kasama project was unprincipled, revisionist, economist, dishonest, opportunist and so on. Their new charge of counterrevolution is a leap. The earlier claims of opportunism were wrong— this new charge is a further radical rupture with reality.
In words the RCP (and this statement) upholdthe need for principled discussion of key line questions among communists. But, their assertion of this had gotten more and more threadbare. Their leadership wants to command "germanic appreciation" as a precondition of engagement.
Now, there is a disturbingly 1930s character to the RCP's ideological trajectory. This flavoring is new for them, but old for the communist movement. The RCP's application of Avakian's theory of "solid core" has led to an approximation of the old Comintern striving for a "monolithic party." Now, they charge their critics with being counterrevolutionar ies and wreckers. They claim that their critics should be isolated and shunned. All of this recreates the discredited approaches of the 1930s, where one line of communism tried to enshrine itself as a state religion — and treated criticism as heresy. All of this goes against the well-known methods of the Maoist movement in analyzing line differences among communists.
This new RCP Statement suggests there is something fundamentally wrong (and suspicious) about any criticism of the RCP that does not simultaneously offer a complete opposing counter synthesis.. The problem of this argument should be obvious. Kasama is understaking a serious project of developing a road to revolution in the U.S. — including by summing up the contributions and errors of the RCP. The fact that we aren't freely inventing a counter-synthesis (from the air, from our heads, out of old formulas) is not an indictment. It reflects our criticism of Avakian's superficial methodology. We hope to forge a communist road forward, and that will take new practice, new ruptures, new thinking and time. The criticism that communists have not yet "charted the uncharted course" is a criticism that applies to the RCP as well as to us.
[THE REST OF THIS ESSAY IS FOUND HERE:
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbWlrZWVseS53b3JkcHJlc3MuY29tLzIwMDgvMTAvMjAva2FzYW1hcy1hbnN3ZXItdGhlLXdvcmxkLW5lZWRzLXJldm9sdXRpb25hcmllcy10by1kZWJhdGUtYW5kLXJlZ3JvdXAv