NOTÍCIAS DA GUERRA POPULAR: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] Critique of the RCP: Goodbye to a Residue of the Past (Thanks to Kasama site for sharing this with us)

Critique of the RCP: Goodbye to a Residue of the Past

Posted by Mike E on November 17, 2010

Kasama received the following letter from Liam Wright. In it, he steps away from the RCP � after being a long-time supporter and ardent advocate.

For the last 5 years Liam has been active in public political work around the RCP in Seattle, and participated in several national mobilizations including: the Denver Democratic National Convention in 2008 and the Louisiana Gulf oil disaster in 2010.

"We need a new path. We need to go to work, studying the world in order to understand it and change it. We need to go back into the history of our movement and revolutionary trends more broadly and open the debate on all the big questions as we do this. We need to involve all kinds of people in this process and through a dynamic of unity-struggle-transformation we can develop something radically new and tremendously liberating. We will develop our lines of demarcation and our strategy, our summations and our policies. �

"We need to take up the approach of reconceive as we regroup a new communist movement that has a real chance of connecting with the masses of people and winning when the time comes.

"Join in this tremendous and liberating undertaking."

* * * * * * *

On the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA:

Criticizing a Residue of the Past

By Liam Wright

I have become convinced that the Revolutionary Communist Party cannot lead the masses of people to make revolution or, more importantly, lead them to communism. In addition to this, it is clear that it is not possible for the RCP to be won to a fundamentally different line. We do not have a vanguard party in the US. And it is more necessary than ever that a new road be forged, that we find the way to make revolution. That we, here in the belly of the beast, be daring enough to chart the course to do away with this imperialist monster and open up the possibility for the masses of people to finally be free.

With this in mind, I ask my comrades reading this, to keep an open mind and engage with what is being said here. There is little doubt that I, like others before me, will be slandered as "counter-revolutionary" and "unprincipled."

But what is at the heart of the matter is two-line struggle. And, if we are to carve out the road that must be traveled, then we must be willing to struggle, to engage, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us or how much it goes against "how we've been trained." It is in the spirit of this and a sense of responsibility to the people of the world that I am leaving the RCP's orbit and am embarking on a different course; in order to fight for a new road.

None of the arguments in this criticism are targeted at any particular individual in the RCP's orbit. My arguments revolve around questions of line. In other words, this isn't personal. Those that I have met around the RCP generally have very high aspirations, the best intentions, and honestly believe they have taken up the correct line. I have a great deal of love and respect for my comrades around the RCP, in particular those that I have been working with for years. So, again, none of this is targeted at any one of those people personally, but rather is written in order to win them. This criticism is a repudiation of Bob Avakian's "New Synthesis." In this piece I also advocate for developing a new revolutionary communist approach.

My arguments are unfolded in five, interrelated but distinct, sections:

Dogmatism & Getting Ahead of Material Conditions,
More on Dogmatism: The Revolution in Nepal & "The Question of Building a New Type of State,"
Distorting Dialectical and Historical Materialism,
Idealism & A Wrong Line on Leadership, and
A Line That Falls far Short of Revolution� Much Less Communism.

Dogmatism & Getting Ahead of Material Conditions

"Both dogmatism and revisionism run counter to Marxism. Marxism must certainly advance; it must develop along with the development of practice and cannot stand still. It would become lifeless if it remained stagnant and stereotyped. However, the basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, or otherwise mistakes will be made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid." -Mao Tsetung

The RCP's method and approach to understanding and changing the world are characterized by dogmatism.

It ignores concrete conditions and is therefore unable, in any significant way, to change those concrete conditions. At the same time, it attacks and slanders those that are applying the scientific approach of communism to conditions where they are at. It treats strategic and foundational principles as tactical and is therefore rigid, unyielding, and stuck in isolation from the masses of people. This approach has come along with an abandonment of the mass line and a rejection of a dialectical understanding of the relationship between changing conditions and changing consciousness. (I will not be focusing as much on the two latter points, but it is important to note.)

An example of dogmatism is the RCP's Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America (Draft Proposal). In an editorial on the Revolution newspaper website it says,

"Right in the middle of a cruel, rotting empire, a vision of something entirely new�something very radical and far better than the present way that people are forced to live�will be set forth from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. People who get it will find a visionary�and extremely concrete�model of a future revolutionary socialist society and government. They will read a clear description of how the new power would be constituted, and exercised, in the revolutionary society. They will get a feel, and an in-depth understanding, of how that new, revolutionary state power could work to truly usher in a new world. And they will see a place for themselves in this new world, a world in which people would want to live and could truly begin to flourish." (revcom.us, emphasis mine)

First, the question of rigidity related to this. If one looks at history with a materialist eye, one can see that there is no telling what conditions one would be facing after seizing state power: What alliances revolutionaries will have made, what polarization would be faced, what the international alignment would be, and what necessity one would be facing related to meeting people's basic needs.

To try to develop a new constitution, even the framework of such a constitution, in present conditions where revolutionaries are not on the cusp of coming to power and do not have even a shell of a revolutionary people or a revolutionary situation, runs counter to any kind of real strategy for revolution and the establishment of a new state power. Lets imagine, for a moment, if this had been the method of the Bolsheviks before the 1905 Revolution and the 1917 Revolution and Civil War. What if Lenin had come out with a "socialist constitution" in, lets say, 1899? Would they have been in a position where they could have co-existed with what was the essentially capitalist, bourgeois-democratic Constituent Assembly in 1905? No. Doing so would have robbed the Bolsheviks of the ability to make the alliances necessary at that time, in those conditions, and the opportunity for them to expose the fragile government for what it was, as well as for the masses of people to see through practice that this new state and government was not in their interests.

In addition, the method of the RCP to now develop this "draft proposal" ignores the role of other political forces who will be in alliance with the communist party at the seizure of power. If this method had been employed by the Bolsheviks in their time it would have deprived them of crucial maneuvering room as well as in a basic way robbed the proletariat's governing institutions, the Soviets, participation in setting the terms for the new Soviet Republic.

However, frankly, with the RCP's method and approach, had they been around during that time, probably would have discounted this as "revisionism." In short, it would have meant the lack of recognition of their concrete conditions and the revolution would have failed.

Developing this draft constitution sets a precedent that "all this is solved." That we have the model of the socialist state we need. But in actuality we cannot predict, at this stage, the particular form the dictatorship of the proletariat will take in our revolutionary struggle. And this constitution, as a part of the larger method of the RCP, trains communists to be rigid, inflexible, and cut off from new things or forms that are brought forward (sometimes through spontaneity, e.g. the Soviets).

Revolutions progress through stages. And what is applicable to one set of conditions or one stage is not applicable to another. In the future, developing a framework for a constitution of a new socialist state, based on the actual conditions and necessity revolutionaries and the masses of people are facing, would be very appropriate and necessary. However, this turns into its opposite when applied to conditions where this is not actually applicable. The RCP's method here represents a "formulaic model" of how revolution will unfold and how to consolidate power. It is a slightly different formula than what has come before, but a formula nonetheless.

As a side note, the "draft proposal" the RCP just released indeed has a "very radical" conception like requiring that 30% of the Congress of the new state be people recommended by the Revolutionary Communist Party. This is definitely something to "inspire people" and "get them to think in new ways." Is this what is meant by Avakian's conception of "letting society go to the brink of being drawn and quartered?" In actuality it continues mistakes of the past of merging two-into one between democracy by the proletarian class and the state. It is a recipe for power concentrated in the hands of the party, representing the classes interests, instead of power wielded by the class. This has, in the Soviet Union, led to a stagnation of participation in the revolution by masses of people and the proletariat's ruling institutions. It helped pave the way for (while not the same thing as) capitalist restoration in full by Khrushchev. But, in all honesty, this "draft constitution", was written by "a writing group," with only secondary or tactical disagreements admitted in any serious way. This is the character of "democratic centralism" for the RCP. It certainly gives a real "liberating" feel for how a new society would be run.

More on Dogmatism: Revolution in Nepal & "The Question of Building a New Type of State"

The RCP wrote a polemic against the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), titled, "On Developments in Nepal and the Stakes for the Communist Movement: Letters to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, 2005-2008." This polemic is an important example of approaching the world dogmatically, without consideration of concrete conditions and applying strategic principles tactically. The RCP discounts any creative and imaginative application of Marxism to the real world as "revisionism."

In this polemic the RCP makes several blaring distortions of a piece by a leading Nepalese communist, Baburam Bhattarai, "The Question of Building a New Type of State"�

I would contest that Bhattarai's piece contains important communist thinking and is an example of creative application of communist theory to the concrete conditions in Nepal. Even with some problems with his summation of the history of the communist revolution, as well as some other secondary shortcomings, the main aspect of the piece is overwhelmingly positive and thoroughly communist.

Upon going back and revisiting both articles it became clear that there is not really a valid argument in the RCP's criticism. There is so much wrong with the article I cannot seek to counter it all in this piece. I will instead focus on 3 main arguments made by the RCP: They claim that Bhattarai's piece, "basically placed the extension of formal democracy (including elections with competing political parties) at the heart of the socialist transition and as some kind of supposed "guarantee" for the prevention of capitalist restoration," "proposed that upon reaching socialism the standing army could be dissolved and replaced by militias," "the model of the Paris Commune, with direct elections and recall of officials, was raised as a more positive model than the experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and China."

"�basically placed the extension of formal democracy (including elections with competing political parties) at the heart of the socialist transition and as some kind of supposed "guarantee" for the prevention of capitalist restoration."

It never makes any assertion of the kind. Bhattarai's piece is grappling with the relationship between dictatorship and democracy under socialism and what new forms they could take in the concrete conditions of Nepal. In his piece he does assert: "�drawing correct lessons from the bitter experiences of failure of the masses to stage organized rebellion against counter-revolution in the past, we should ensure a system in the new context whereby political parties may be allowed to get organized keeping within definite progressive and revolutionary constitutional limits and they may be encouraged to function not only in a `cooperative' manner but in a `competitive' spirit vis-�-vis the formal Communist Party.

There can be no objective and logical reason for the Communist Party claiming itself to be the representative of the majority proletarian and oppressed classes to hesitate to enter into political competition within a definite constitutional framework, once the economic monopoly of the feudal and bourgeois classes over land and capital and military monopoly over the mercenary professional army, which are the sources of their political hegemony, are thoroughly smashed. One should earnestly acknowledge that this is not an advocacy of bourgeois pluralism but is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist method to objectively solve contradictions among the people as long as the class division in society exists. Though it could not be practiced for various reasons in the past, the fact that Mao himself was contemplating in that direction can be deduced from his following statement:

`Which is better, to have just party or several?As we see it now, it's perhaps better to have several parties. This has been true in the past and may well be so for the future; it means long-term coexistence and mutual supervision.'"

It is important to note that he is not saying that the dictatorship of the proletariat should be up for a vote. He is saying that within a definite constitutional framework the new state should allow organizations and parties to compete.

In another part of his article he firmly makes the point that the communist party must have control over the military. He is talking about 1. Not letting everything go and holding onto power and 2. That the masses of people should have the freedom to learn through practice, compare and contrast programs and policies, as well has have the power to discard a political party if it loses its revolutionary character. Another important dimension that Bhattarai grapples with is the potential of other avenues through which political power can be asserted. (e.g. the media, culture, etc.) He notes that the bourgeoisie uses these forms to great affect and that we should more fully utilize them than in the past.

One last quote on this point:

"If one attempts to divorce democracy and dictatorship from each other or to merge them both into one, then there occur serious problems and accidents. This has been proved by the bitter experiences of building new type of state in the past century. Democracy and dictatorship are two sides of the same coin. In a class divided society democracy for one class is dictatorship against another class and dictatorship over one class is a democracy for another class. Hence in the new proletarian state to apply dictatorship over the handful of exploiting classes is to provide democracy for the overwhelming masses, and to expand the scope of democracy for the masses is to tighten the noose of dictatorship over the reactionary classes. In this sense democracy is also a form of state and as soon as the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes unnecessary democracy, too, becomes unnecessary or withers away. Hence the revolutionaries should be freed of the hypocritical illusion of absolute democracy or `democracy for all' as spread by the bourgeois."

There are some problems with this statement. But the main thrust here is that he is calling on revolutionaries to not fall for the ruse of "democracy for all." He is saying that we must in actuality exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat and not substitute it for bourgeois democratic pluralism. He is making precisely the opposite argument that the RCP accuses him of.

"�proposed that upon reaching socialism the standing army could be dissolved and replaced by militias�"

Again, basically straight up distortion.

The actual quote they are referring to is

"�.it should be guaranteed that the people's army of the 21st century is not marked by modernization with special arms and training confined to a barrack after the capture of state power but remains a torch-bearer of revolution engaged in militarization of the masses and in the service of the masses. It is only by developing armed masses from both ideological and physical point of view that one can resist foreign intervention and counter-intervention; this fact must be made clear before the armed forces right from the beginning. The main thrust of work for the 21st century people's army should be to complete the historical responsibility of developing conscious armed masses so that they may learn to use their right to rebel."

Lets analyze this:

1. He is talking about working to develop militias but it does not talk about dissolving the professional military under socialism.

2. He is arguing that the principle role of the military should be training and arming the masses of people ideologically and politically. This is in part due to a strategic view that the socialist state must contain seeds of its own withering away. It also has to do with the immediate necessity the Nepalese revolutionaries and their new state will be facing if or when they successfully come to power. They will be immediately presented with the very imminent danger of intervention by India, who's military is roughly ten times the size of Nepal's. The CPN(M)`s strategy acknowledges that they could not win against such an intervention with conventional warfare and that their only chance of winning has to do with relying on the armed masses of people.

Now this is important because Bhattarai is using a dialectical method and is not crudely saying things one-sidedly. There is nuance to his position. (Well in fact this has been the position of the CPN(M) since 2004.) They are grappling both with the necessity of the masses of people to be politically conscious as well as for them to be able to defend the revolution. (Speaking specifically to their own conditions as well as to the coup in China. In that situation masses of people did rise up but were unable to defeat the well trained Red Army. There was a question of militarily not having the training, etc to win and more fundamentally not being conscious of what the coup represented.) What Bhattarai is arguing for is a deeply dialectical and historical materialist position.

"�the model of the Paris Commune, with direct elections and recall of officials, was raised as a more positive model than the experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and China."

Not mainly. Again, Bhattarai's summation of the history of the dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the biggest problems with his piece. However, the main thrust of his citation of the Paris Commune was not to claim it as a "more positive" model. In fact he sites the GPCR as the most advanced experience in the dictatorship of the proletariat. He was principally making the point that the dictatorship of the proletariat can and must take many different forms and was seeking to draw out the lessons for why the Paris Commune was destroyed. Bhattarai is arguing that based on the conditions in different countries it is necessary that the rule by the proletariat takes different forms. For instance, the particular form of democracy and dictatorship they are advocating for is not one they would advocate for everywhere.

A big part of why competitive elections are an important theme in the model they have taken up is because one of the biggest felt needs of the masses of people in Nepal has been for competitive elections. They also have a large diversity of oppressed nations that are united with the CPN(M)

The dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union wasn't envisioned going forward in the way that it did. It was through a mixture of necessity and accident that the Soviets became more or less a "conveyer belt" for decisions made by the party in the Soviet Union under Stalin. In fact, in State and Revolution

An aside on the accusation by the RCP basically claiming that the CPN(M) has given up on revolution and is instead opting for realpolitik. This is simply and totally not true.

They are carrying out a strategy of people's war followed by insurrection. The Nepalese communists have recently formed a number of parallel governments in different regions that are autonomous and under the control of various oppressed nationalities. This is a part of paving the way for final insurrections in Nepal. They have succeeded in getting the puppet Prime Minister to step down. And in this historical moment where there is no prime minister, even after 10 rounds of elections attempting to elect a new one, they are using this opportunity to show the illegitimacy of the peace process and the current state's instability that will lead to it's collapse. Because their party has actual debate over big questions there are different lines in contention right now. Bhattarai wants to consolidate the current government to finish wiping away feudal forces. While Prachanda and his camp believe the current government will seek to maintain the status quo. They argue that insurrection is the first step in facing off with India. Bhattarai, however, believes that the current government can be won to patriotic end goals.

Distorting Dialectical and Historical Materialism

The book Away With All Gods was hailed before its release with:

"There are many people who need this book, and many sectors of society which it must penetrate. In the communities of the oppressed and in the truly hellish prisons, where people are force-fed religion�in the high schools and universities, where atheist and agnostic clubs are beginning to emerge�among the educated and progressive, and among those hungering for enlightenment�this book must reach.

"April should be a time when this book emerges onto the scene with great impact. Several important programs and debates have already been scheduled around its content; these can help highlight the urgency of the themes in this book and should be built for maximum impact."

It is portrayed by the RCP as a major breakthrough in the science of Marxism's understanding of religion, its development, its role in society, and the way it takes shape in people's minds. The RCP's editorials on the book seem to say that not only is this book a major breakthrough in science but is also perfectly suited for propaganda aimed at breaking people from religion. I will not focus so much on the question of propaganda because I think it has content that is effective as a means for people to confront their religious beliefs; if one approaches the work instrumentally. However, the book proves to be overall regressive when it comes to understanding the actual development of religion, its role historically, the way people understand it, and is generally quite different than a dialectical and historical materialist approach.

In the book Avakian sums up religion with this paragraph, listed in bold,

"The notion of a god, or gods, was created by humanity, in its infancy, out of ignorance. This has been perpetuated by ruling classes� Bringing about a new, and far better, world and future for humanity means overthrowing such classes�"

This is more or less a thesis by Avakian. It concentrates his position on the historical development of religion, its role throughout history, and the way through which religion can/will be done away with. None of this statement is incorrect. But it is not dialectical. It is, however, ahistorical because of this. Throughout the book Avakian does not mention any positive role of any religion, religious sect, of any religious force today, or religious figures besides a vague mentioning of liberation theology.

But in order to be accurate, and approach things as communists, the progressive and/or revolutionary role of some religious forces is a part of the history that we have to understand; it has to be a part of our analysis. We are not making a leap in understanding by cutting out the secondary aspect of the history and role of religion and declaring, "Religion is bad!" This turns what is the primary aspect of the contradiction into the entirety of the contradiction. It vulgarizes dialectics into a one-sided analysis claiming this to be its essence.

We must understand history and the world in all of its complexity and motion to the fullest degree possible. To, in order to better make your point, distort or compress history is instrumentalism or political truth. This cannot be our method for understanding and changing the world. It will hem us in and keep us bound within the world as it is.

Another example of Avakian's distortion of dialectics is shown in his take on epistemology.

The claim that "relative truth is still truth" is another example of replacing dialectics with an "assertion of essence" based on the primary aspect of a contradiction and negating the existence of a secondary aspect. There is an important distinction between relative truth and "truth." This doesn't mean we don't know anything. This isn't eclectics. This is dialectics. This means that an idea can be relatively true. In order to raise that to a higher level we must test that idea through mutual scrutiny, debate, and most importantly, it must be verified and summed up through practice. Throughout this process an idea can be summed up as mainly correct or mainly wrong. The "wrong" part is cast aside and the "right" side is synthesized as a part of developing a more correct understanding. (Obviously it is more complex than that as sometimes things are summed up incorrectly and are actually a regression of knowledge.

Also, even the "wrong" aspect becomes a part of the further synthesis as a "teacher by negative example." The actual process is even more complex and multi-layered than that but this is meant to be a simple illustration on my part.)

Avakian's approach to dialectics has more in common with the linearity of Stalin than of the approach of Marx, Lenin, or Mao.

In Avakian's most prominent piece on dialectics, on the Revolution DVD, he talks at length about a unity of opposites, about phenomena dividing out, and what is principle in a contradiction. But nowhere does he talk about a dialectic as an overall process of change through which something could turn into its opposite. One must pose the question: What kind of implications does this have for a party, much less a whole revolutionary movement, if someone with this method, in theory and in practice, is promoted as the example of having the ability to most consistently apply the communist method?

These distortions of dialectical materialism can be connected to many of the problems in line, organization, approach toward the masses' development of consciousness, and of changing the material world more at large. One can see why, with a method that does not recognize the fluidity of contradiction in matter and its ability to radically change in character, the RCP would dismiss the Nepalese revolutionary leaders as "revisionist." One can see why the summation of past revolutions amounts to proscribing a new formula labeled as the "New Synthesis."

Communists vary in understanding and in their ability to apply the science of dialectical materialism; it is to be expected that different communist leaders have unevenness. But to claim Avakian is on the level of our movement's historic leaders, when one compares his methods and theories to theirs, would be laughable if it weren't so destructive.

Idealism & a Wrong Line On Leadership

The RCP has itself entrenched in a deep dogmatism, a metaphysical spin on dialectics, and a cult of personality around its chairman, Bob Avakian, which characterizes him as "special" and on "the level of a Lenin or a Mao." It claims he is "greater and more than the Party even while he is subordinate to it."

On the one hand there are some of the basic shortcomings in the method and approach of Avakian that separate him from a consistent dialectical materialist approach; on the other hand there is an approach toward leadership that greatly differs from a communist method or one that reflects reality in a basic sense. I will attempt to illustrate this.

There is a question here of a real lack of summation of the impact or response to the "culture of appreciation and promotion." Contact after contact that is made is scared away because of this approach toward leadership. Yet it is asserted that not only is this vital for building a movement for revolution but at the same time that this is actually attractive for people. That in fact people are looking for "such a leader." This is in sharp contrast to reality and what we hear all the time from different sections of people; proletarians, people from the middle strata, activists, etc. But any summation that contradicts this line from the party is dismissed as determinist-realist. Instead of basing summation off of actual practice on this question the RCP insists that the line on Avakian and the promotion of him is correct and a "dividing line question."

In reality, it is divisive among the communist movement, idealist in character, and gives weight to what are typically baseless anti-communist caricatures.

Marx was not declared to be "more than" the highest level of organization in the communist movement. Marx would never have claimed such a rank absurdity. Instead of valuing debate and disagreement on big questions, seeing them as an avenue to get at the truth, as well as a way to win over more people, within the RCP, significant disagreement is crushed.

In the RCP's movement, at youth conferences, youth are told

"there is no room in this movement for people that don't grasp this question (referring to Avakian)."

What kind of spirit of debate and discussion does that encourage? Where the youth, hungry for knowledge and with a defiant spirit are told, "There is no room for you if you don't accept our special leader." This is religion straight up, with only a modicum of filtration, using the trappings of materialism as its garb.

What about Lenin? When the Bolsheviks had a split with the Mensheviks did they they write them off? No. They carried out debate and struggle and continued to work with them as events unfolded. They even reincorporated them into their organization at different points. This is the principle of communist unity-struggle-unity; even if it wasn't formulated in that way by Lenin. A vanguard party has one line. But there is open disagreement and debate over all the questions of the revolution. This includes models of socialist transition, strategies for revolution, the role of intellectuals, etc. We should not fear this disagreement. Line struggle is a healthy thing that principally enables the greatest diversity of views and strengths around the communist goal with common discipline and unity when under a centralist framework.

What kind of world do we want to bring into being? How do we get there? These are serious questions that cannot be solved by Avakian without contestation or debate from his comrades. A communist party is useless if it does not serve to lead the people to communism. I contest that a communist leader is useless if it seeks to silence those within it's movement that disagree with it.

The reason for the prestige of communists in Russia and in China was not because they promoted and extolled "leaders of a special caliber." It was because they showed in practice that they represented the interests of the masses of people and a way out. It was through the practice of making revolution. Through showing, that with these communists, the people could emancipate themselves. That is how they "broke down the belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions." Not through imagining the contradictions we'll have in our particular experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat or proscribing a blueprint for how to run the new state and declaring this "the way out."

A Line That Falls far Short of Revolution� Much Less Communism

All this together amounts to a line that can't lead to communism. The RCP embodies a line that does not grasp reality and the ways through which to lead humanity to change it. From its a priori approach toward theory and its relationship to practice, dogmatism, metaphysics, and a real lack of democracy and debate around the biggest questions of the revolution; its line cannot lead humanity anywhere besides being stuck within the world as it is. We need something new; we need a new path.

We need to go to work, studying the world in order to understand it and change it. We need to go back into the history of our movement and revolutionary trends more broadly and open the debate on all the big questions as we do this. We need to involve all kinds of people in this process and through a dynamic of unity-struggle-transformation we can develop something radically new and tremendously liberating. We will develop our lines of demarcation and our strategy, our summations and our policies. But we need to invite radicals, revolutionaries, and those that are already communists into the process of doing this. We need to take up the approach of reconceive as we regroup a new communist movement that has a real chance of connecting with the masses of people and winning when the time comes.

Join me in this tremendous and liberating undertaking.

The RCP is not all there is. It is a residue of the past; we need to go out and build the vanguard of the future. There are revolutionaries from various trends leaving the old left all over the country who are regrouping and inviting new and awakening youth into this process. Lets join them. In the US, revolution is not yet on the horizon. But a new beginning for communists and those fighting for revolution is.

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity: