New Peru Friendship Association, United States of America, has criticized the RCP and outlined some differences between them and the Sendero movement in Peru.
From the Red Sun:
COMMENT ON THE DRAMA OF THE AVAKIANISTS
June 2008It is well known that the Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States (RCP) has an incredible capacity to intervene in the matters of the different parties of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) in particular, and of the International Communist Movement (ICM) in general. They have curious detachments in different places on the international level, and they never get tired of fomenting situations in which they would have the possibility of such intervention. It is a party that, presumptuously, all over the world, tries to find different positions (that they call "lines") inside the Parties and organizations, in order to try to divide them and get their own dividends, thus aiming against the leadership of these supposedly fraternal Parties and organizations. That is why now, when a noteworthy member of the RCP leadership, a Mike Ely, along with a group of important Party cadres, have taken with them one of the principal bases of the RCP and have split from their party, many have been inclined to state: "what goes around comes around" - to use an expression that the friends from the United States can easily understand. Even so, we are not going to ask the comrades of the RCP to explain how it can be that noteworthy members of their leadership capitulate, or how many cadres, Party members and masses they have lost, or what are the roots of this in the history of the RCP and the ideological conception that has permitted the emergence of this "line within the Party"; or to which internal documents Ely is referring. Neither are we going to ask what his post was, nor are we even going to ask why all their Party members in New York are new faces or why they have had to close their library in that city and open a new one etc. To be nice, we are not even going to demand a meeting with comrade Avakian for him to explain and argue for his position. We are not going to ask, because of the simple fact that we are not the RCP. Instead, we are going to put forward a few short points concerning the ideological and political positions exposed in the quarrel between the Cain and Abel of avakianism (the reference is made in order to be understandable among those who believe in the visions of Avakian - they love to discuss the Bible)….
Most important are their differences:
“The matter could have remained a curiosity, a simple indication of the ideological crisis of those who follow Avakian's positions, if it were not for the dirty laundry that is being brought to light. For Avakian, what hurts the most is being accused - wrongfully, on that we agree completely with RCP's answer - of having something in common with Chairman Gonzalo. After having put forward that there was a "negative resolution (…) of the revolutionary struggle in Peru" (the question is which: are they upset because the people's war continues?), they rush to state that "that there is a very real, and decisive, difference between what the RCP is actually saying about the role of Bob Avakian and what is embodied in the PCP's line on 'jefatura.'" It is obviously correct that the PCP bases itself on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo thought, principally Gonzalo thought, and the foundation of Chairman Gonzalo's Great leadership is his thought, proven in theory and practice in the process of reconstituting the PCP and in 28 years of people's war, while the RCP bases itself on Avakian's "new synthesis" that has no foundation in practice whatsoever. The PCR-ians emphasize that not only is Avakian not a Great leadership, but that their Party is totally against the thesis of Great leadership, which comes from Lenin - who they, by the way, consider to be a Mafioso - and that "the RCP's line not only does not agree with, and does not apply to Bob Avakian, but which once more Bob Avakian has argued and polemicized against.". What is interesting is not that the RCP and its little chief are against Great leadership - the whole world knows this - what is interesting is that it is the first time they dare to say it publicly. So, where does that leave their hypocritical game of "not making the criticisms public", when they have always been arguing against the just and correct positions of the PCP? Where does that leave their false calls to "not making the differences public"? It leaves them where we all knew, a trick of the hegemonists to try to silent the left while they lose control of the right. Avakian has always argued against the line of the PCP, and now he and his own people have said it.”
For the rest of the article click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment