On New Communist Methods & Kasama’s Love of Debate
Posted by Mike E on January 11, 2009
By Mike Ely
In the course of intense discussions around the AWTW thread on Israel’s Assault, the commentator “Iranian Communist” has raised some complaints about our debate and how we moderate this site.
Iranian Communist (IC) argues that we should respect those people who we consider “comrades” but we should put big warning labels on views that he considers opportunist. He thinks we should uncover and expose the motives of commentators.
In response, I’d like to poke into some ABCs of the thinking behind our Kasama site.
* * * * * *
IC writes several times that some commentators are not his comrades:
“And the fact that this person, whom I do not even care to call him my comrade, lies in such an unprincipled way about the article of AWTWNS on Palestine. He is truly goes too far, without any regards to the principles of MLM.
Should we only hear and respect people who we consider our comrades? Won’t that be a self-defeatingly narrow discussion?
If we don’t engage in a deep, ongoing and open discussion, how would we decide what our principles should be?
Perhaps people who are not your comrade have something valuable to say. Perhaps people who have an OVERALL incorrect view point out specific things that are valuable.
In particular, IC argues that the views put forward by Joseph Ball and Green/Red should not be allowed to post “provocative” statements critiquing the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) (an organization participating in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, and one of the few groupings that has been alligned with Avakian’s RCP on controversial ideological matters).
“I do not know who is Joseph Ball — and I hope someone at least Mike E. knows him — since no group needs any opportunist mole to use this or that group such as Kasama as a means to start any provocative statement against any communist party — and I don’t care who he is personally. All I am concern about is his dogma-revisionist ( Hoxhaism!) political line.”
Then IC demands to know why such views are allowed to be posted without a quick repudiation from someone associated with Kasama:
“Mr Ball like a snow ball is rolling down and uses that article of ‘Israel’s assault on that part of humanity located in Gaza – and the liberation of all of humanity.’ To go after Communist Party of Iran (MLM)! And why is it that no one in this Kasama group even challenges his rampage and campaign- through principal MLM ideological and political struggle- against CPI(MLM)?”
IC writes:
“… don’t act as moderator now, let me know where are you standing? It is too late to act as moderator, Mike. Why didn’t you act as a ‘moderator’ when those individuals shift the attention of US back Israeli attack on Gaza toward CPI (MLM)? Why didn’t you ask them “to focus on the substantive argument”? Isn’t that just because they share the same objectives as yours of finding someone else to blame, you did come forward to as a moderator? Why did you choose to stay quite then- not acting as “responsible” (!) moderator- and all of the sudden you decide to be such a “responsible” moderator?
The logic here is that if Kasama provides a forum to someone like Joseph Ball, then we must AGREE with Joseph Ball. If we don’t quickly and constantly smack Joseph, we must be his political kin.
How Will We All Tell Right from Wrong?
Our view is that everyone reading this site have a responsibility to “challenge” wrong views…. and that our Kasama group does not have a responsibility to predigest the discussion. I am not required to “warn” readers about views I consider wrong — I expect our readers to think and comment for themselves.
And we generally DON’T require commentators here on Kasama to keep on one topic. If various commentators shift this Gaza thread toward a discussion of Iran, that is ok. It is not disruptive if Joseph Ball wants to raise the issue of how we view the Iranian Mullah government (especially since it is tied to the question of how we view the Palestinian Islamist Hamas forces.) This is a relevant issue.
We do however require that people be civil and substantive. Iit is disruptive (and boring) when comments just flame each other in a snarky and ad hominem way.
In fact, the Kasama Project believes that all of us will transform our understanding of right and wrong through the experience we are initiating. We think that is necessary. We don’t think the truth of every matter is “there for the taking” — and that many of our most cherished verdicts and views should be opened for discussion (as well as for defense).
So our Kasama moderating team has no intention of inform everyone (ahead of time) which views we at first glance consider correct or incorrect. This may seem obvious to many people — but there is a fearfulness among some communists that believes each idea should come with labels that pre-warn the people about official and authoritative verdicts.
In the RCP bookstores, there used to be a “poisonous weeds” bookshelf that included trotskyist and revisionist works. It was considered, at the time, very daring to sell such things at all — which says something about the political culture we were emerging from. And meanwhile, some fearful caution and onesided snarkiness of all this was considered necessary.
If we assume we can easily label right and wrong — where will this take us?
Well, certainly it would kill our discussion here very very rapidly. We would end up with the kind of one-way monologue that has (for example) characterized many communist newspapers and websites. And we would be making our pronouncements to a small and shrinking audience (as is the case with quite a few other left trends). What good is that? It is boring, cloitered and generally wrong.
More important, won’t our various revolutionary movements end up (again) isolating and ignoring people who criticize us? With that kind of a culture and epistemology, wouldn’t we end up punishing and silencing dissenters under socialism?
To state what should be obvious: History shows that communists are not always right. Often critics have something valuable to say. The process of open and principled debate is, itself, highly valuable for the revolutionary process (including, as Mao says, for “exposing our dark side publicly.”
It is not just debate “among comrades” that is valuable — but also debate that includes clearly wrong ideas, and even some people and views that are (overall) reactionary. And if we don’t embrace a culture of broad debate — we won’t have debate “among comrades” either.
This Kasama site is dedicated to a substantive, civil, principled debate over issues important for the world revolution. I urge Iranian Communist to think through the strategic importance of that for the revolution.
What’s the Issue: Line or Author?
Iranian Communist writes:
“….you can say about this argument- don’t mock people, calling them Mr! I don’t believe they are my comrade, maybe you know them well enough to call them comrade, I hope you do, so don’t decide what I choose to say about bunch of baby blamers that you gathered here. So tell me do you know these people or not? Do you know who Mr. Ball, Green and the newcomer NSPF Or maybe you don’t care who is here.And for what reason they are here?!”
There is a legacy of the Comintern that says: It is the motives of people, not their line that matters. This emerged in the late thirties: first leaders of industry, then leading figures of the Soviet Communist Party were accused of being dishonest foreign agents — and so their actual lines were considered irrelevant (or at least were less and less discussed publicly).
In fact, in that view, if you were willing to engage the views of such people, you were falling for their deception. You were taking their arguments seriously, and by debating these views you were giving them credibility among the people. And you were not focusing on the real issue: i.e. that they were opportunists, wreckers, enemies and probably agents. Agents should be shunned, isolated, exposed, but not engaged.
The RCP used to have some understanding of what was wrong with this — certainly the criticisms of H. Bruce Franklin (in 1969) and the split with the Bergman-Jarvis “Revolutionary Workers Headquarters” were (in the main) conducted on the basis of line. The RCP was proud of its polemic — and their custom of circulating the documents of opposing sides.
But in our most recent split (over the issue of “Avakian as the cardinal question“), the RCP has reverted to a 1930s mode — and tried to argue that people should not engage arguments that their party leadership had labeled “unprincipled” or “dishonest”" Instead they had focused on discrediting particular individuals and their supposedly sinister motives. This approach has cost the RCP a great deal of credibility and respect.
If you assume your views are right, clear and infallible, then it is a quick step to assume that criticism is a sign of different motives (and perhaps some police connection). And open debate has little value — it just gives a platform (and credibility) to sinister forces. If the truth is known and its influence is fragile, then heresy arises from evil influence and deserves inquisition, right?
Overall, such a focus on motive (not line) is not a correct approach. The focus on author and personality (not line) is not a correct approach. Suspicion of open debate is not a correct approach. And the argument that “you are just giving them a platform and a credibility for wrong views” is an argument for against critical thinking and serious scientific methods.
By contrast, we should train people to grapple with the views of many different political (and class) forces — focusing on the question of “what road” would various lines lead us on. (Where does this lead? Who does this serve? Does it correspond with reality and our goals?) And how can people grapple with these thing if we don’t give views “a platform” (and then offer the same platform for criticism)?
There are, of course, agents and liars in the world. There are forces whose political face and arguments is just deception. There are encapulated groups created by the political police.
But the issue (both overall and in a discussion like this) should be ideological and political line — Much can be learned from a civil, substantive exchange of facts, analysis and strategic thinking.
So yes, in answer to Iranian Communist: I don’t think we have to uncover or critique everyone’s motives in a forum like this.
Now lets be clear: this Kasama site is not a group, it is a wide open discussion with many different politics in contention. Meanwhile the Kasama Project is an organized communist network.
Because this seems confusing to some, let me repeat: the Kasama site is not the same thing as the Kasama Project. This Kasama site is something created by the members of the Kasama Project.
Joseph Ball (for example) is not a member of the Kasama Project. However he is welcome as a commentator on the Kasama site.
Though I think Joseph Ball’s views are generally dogmatic and wrong, I think there is value in having them posted here — because such Third Worldist views are influential in some places, because such “preceding from formulas to reality” is common, because Joseph articulates his views clearly, and because they give an opportunity for others to make a thoughtful critique. I wish Iranian Communist used this opportunity better.
Jamal an Iranian writes:
“So I want to warn my friends here in Kasama to investigate for yourselves and be very careful with what this Iranian fellow tries to make you believe.”
Exactly. good advice.
Tell No Lies said
I’d be interested in knowing if there are any other revolutionary or communist sites out their that people think have a similar approach to debate as Kasama. I know that a lot of anarchist sites are essentially open forums, resulting in the opposite error of that criticized here by Mike, namely unmoderated and largely unproductive free-for-alls. (Though it is instructive to note the similarities between Chuck’s insistence that a discussion of Stalin start with an acceptance of his already formed verdict and IC’s similar insistence that Ball et al’s views be labelled.) But I don’t know of any other sites that function like this one. The value of this seems self-evident to me, but it also seems clear that many communists experience it as profoundly threatening. It is precisely this sort of fear of engaging unapproved ideas that has prevented me from identifying with Maoism or MLM in spite of certain important agreements re: Mao’s contributions to revolutionary theory and practice. Maybe its my anarchist training, but I find this view intellectually stultifying and therefore objectively counter-revolutionary.
Keith said
This is a great post. I think that as long as Kasama remains an open site it will continue to grow. Mike is right that if Kasam were not open it would quickly become a boring echo chamber.
I do have a question though. Is openness a principle or is it a tactic?
In other words how does the current openness of Kasama jive with many comrades here adherence to vanguard formations which tend (in my experience) to shut down debate. Is Kasama just an open forum for the time being, until a new vanguard is formed, or is Mike arguing that communists must adopt new organizational models to deal with revolution in the 21st century?
Mike E said
TNL writes:
Yes, it seems clear. And (honestly) I’m not sure why.
There are quite sincere and revolutionary folks who think that if you re-discuss how revolutionaries should be organized (i.e. if you reopen the question of a specific form of “vanguard party”) that you are opening some airlock to the great vacuum, and you are going to liquidate everything that matters.
There is a profoundly defensive crouch that has fallen over some communists — which works against any thoughtful engagement with a rapidly changing reality. and if we don’t break with that, then there is just no chance of playing a good role in whatever comes.
The fact is that every revolution needs to reopen basic questions in at least two two ways:
First, we need to creatively debate whether earlier verdicts still apply — or else we will be stuck making the classic error (described in military doctrine as) “waging the next war with the methods of the last war.”
However successful previous methods and verdicts may have appeared (in other times and places) they need to continually justify themselves in new contexts.
Second, we need to win a whole new generation to a radical communist program, which requires creatively posing and debating all the central ideas of society itself. This can’t be done using a backward-looking orthodoxy.
* * * * * *
keith writes:
This is not a simple question — including because I can’t predict with any precision what we will together uncover, decide and implement as a result of our period of “reconception.”
We need to really embrace an underlying epistemology that recognizes the relative nature of our truths (and the inevitability of correct criticisms by others, including opponents), and the need to continuously revolutionize our understanding.
Mao said:
I think there are changes in the world that demand changes in forms of communist organization. And I specifically think that the previous model of “Leninist Party” was in fact a mythic invention that was far from what Lenin’s Bolsheviks, and any other vibrant communist movement actually did.
That said, it is also true that there are moments (in any serious struggle) where decisions have been made, goals have been set, and everything is on the line. The Avakian theory of “solid core” has drifted quite close to Stalin’s theory of “monolithic party” — in an extreme example of bad methods.
In other words, while we need a general culture of debate and creative thinking, we also need the capability of acting with real unity and discipline. And the specific ways of combining these things need to be actually worked out (in both theory and practice)….
more to come (obviously)
Keith said
Mike writes:
“In other words, while we need a general culture of debate and creative thinking, we also need the capability of acting with real unity and discipline. And the specific ways of combining these things need to be actually worked out (in both theory and practice)….”
I unreservedly agree with this comment. The content of any revolutionary organization must be free and open debate combined with the capability to act in concert with discipline. The problem is that in the history of vanguard parties free and opened debate is eventually and always sacrificed for discipline with devastating and counter-revolutionary consequences. So in my view the vanguard party is not a useful form if the content sought after is diversity of thought and unity of action. The vanguard form somehow crushes the intended content.
I mention that here because Mike wrote, in response to TNL’s observation that many communists find free and open debate threatening, that he “honestly doesn’t know why.”
I think I know why free and open debate is threatening to many communists.
In a an essay by Bob Avakian that Mike linked to in an earlier thread , advancing the world revolution Avakian says:
“Line will always remain decisive…”
The line that, “line is decisive” is the problem. It is the reason that many communists cower in fear of an open debate. To them the correct line is precious like a diamond and more fragile than an eggshell.
The reason that some communists find free and open debate threatening flows directly out of the view that “line is decisive.”
How does it work?
Let’s say we have the correct line (leave aside how the correctness of the line is determined for the time being).
Now it is very important that we communicate that line to others so that they take it up too (the revolution itself is at stake, without the correct line all is lost). It is not important that we listen to what others have to say (or if we do listen it is only so we can tell them the correct line when they are done talking). Our goal is to get them to take up the correct line. Our goal is not to discuss the issue.
If we have the correct line, and line is decisive, and someone puts out a contradictory line then it is of utmost importance that we respond immediately with the correct line before illusions and confusion spreads. This quickly becomes a pain in the ass (for a lot of reasons) and so it easier just to hide incorrect lines.
And after a time, it turns out that one person always seems to have the correct line, so why not just have them tell us the line and everyone else just shuts up, and voilà: Avakianism.
Here is the thing: Line is not decisive. The idea that line is decisive is an idealist view and it causes people to be frightened of putting out the wrong line (because the wrong line will screw up the revolution). Deeply connected to the idea that “line is decisive” is the view that there is only one working class “line” and every other line can be attributed to some other class.
Before Lenin died he wrote three or four crucial essays like: “Better Fewer, But Better,” “On Co-operation,” “The Importance of Gold Now And After the Complete Victory of Socialism,” and “How we should reorganise the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection” where he starts to argue that if socialism is going to triumph in the USSR it most become of the project of every child, woman, and man. Every single person must be engaged in socialist construction if it is going to succeed.
Now that may be an exaggeration, but the point is that the striving for the correct line must be balanced with organizing masses of people. The people are decisive.
In Eddy Murphy’s old stand up “Delirious” he has a great skit where he talks about how everyone is going to go back to work on Monday after being at his show and screw up all of his jokes. He goes on to imitate someone trying to retell his jokes to their fellow workers. Repeating someone else line is like repeating their jokes –it doesn’t work. Everyone has to come to their own way of understanding the issues and lines and it can be circuitous.
I hope that Kasama stays open on principle rather than expedient. Clearly, many core Kasama people know what lines they think are wrong but they haven’t put out any lines that might guide action, so the re-conceiving process makes it easier to stay open. The trick will be to stay open after there has been a new “conception.”
(I don’t believe in new conceptions, new synthesis, or revelations all of which strike me as inherently closed…. I believe in developing revolutionary theory in revolutionary practice but that is another issue).
=========
Mike, do you know where I can access the RCP’s debate with Bruce Franklin?
Green/Red Rev said
Great clarifications and general outlines of policies.
Hi Keith, without refering directly to Avakian’s putting importance of the the line that ought not to be touched, my generaly presumed understanding of democratic centralism was understood as the party’s line that in theory would be determined by inside part – and not inside central committee’s – nor inside chairperson’s house – i.e. all ranks of the party, and sympathizers. And when due to social changes it was determined that the line had been incorrect and/or incomplete, new ideas would be suggested, discussed. But in reality, especially in undercover world of the third world countries, many circomstances would make quick new decisions to be made. So while member, supporters would disagree with a recent order from the party, still being faithful was inevitable factor since, party’s all branches acting harmonious is a vital factor. Still, congress and discussion groups and later congress of the party could deter line differently at an extent or further positions and that would be accepted or rejected by the party as a whole.
The Franklin Group, was discussed in RU’s pamphlet referred to as “Papers” I genrally recal and, Rev Book stores must have a copy in archive and they may, or may not make copies for you. Generaly speaking, the group had ideas about gun arms, etc. that in a first world country without mass base – especially after post Black Panther experience, was considered adventurism. With all in intention, activities of the wide range of Weatherman up to… SLA showed ambitious, but not productive. To an extent, the Congress Report of Maoists reference to Franklin group seemed to an extent a different variance of what it was or could have been, but of course according to rcp friends the state spies’ report could have been incorrect and misleading.
Thansk once again for this discussion of clarification and I hope Iranian Communist, Jamal and others teach and learn the best out of the site and all readers would try to improve their corresponding movement with thoughts and methods learnt in such sites since, our enemies are common and, uprisings and even revolutions are seldom one single group or partiy’s sole activity, hence improvement in many fronts is for the betterment of all radicls in the movement.
Tell No Lies said
Keith makes an important point here. I’ve always winced at the “line is decisive” line. There is an important truth here that a correct analysis can enable the transformation of a small revolutionary force into a large one, but the idealism emerges from the lack of qualification of what makes a “line” a “line,” and that is practice. Line in this sense is not just words on a page, but is embodied by real people engaged in struggle. And this is where it gets complicated. It is all too frequently the case that the people who have the best words on paper have lousy practice and that the people with the best practice sometimes are not so good at articulating it in the form of a sharp and coherent “line.” The struggle is to find ways to draw out and sharpen up the better lines that emerge often instinctively in practice.
N3wDay said
Also, I think it’s fair to say that one can’t (at least anyone with an inner sense of rebelliousness) implement a correct line well (assuming it is) if they think it is generally wrong and no one is willing to discuss it in an open manner.
Clearly, there will be questions in which people will simply never agree with. But, without a certain level of healthy debate occurring, no matter how staunchly someone upholds the notion difference of opinion unity in action, they simply won’t be able to give it all they’ve got unless that respect has been given to them and their views.
Carl Davidson said
Good points, Keith. It’s a reason why I like to substitute ‘working hypotheses’ for ‘correct line’ across the board. It’s better for uniting a group around testing them in practice, and then improving them as a result.
BobH said
While I agree with a lot of Keith’s points (I’ve tended to think of the democratic centralism I’ve seen as “lineism”), I think he goes too far in liquidating line as idealism. That is, taken to an extreme “line is decisive” can become idealist, but is not necessarily so.
Equating line to a working hypothesis seems to negate the role of theory as something higher than a hypothesis: it seems to limit how much we can know ahead of time.
I’d suggest making an analogy with warfare, where having a correct strategy is decisive. Of course, if you have no army, and no means of raising one, having the “correct strategy” is useless. Furthermore, in the history of warfare few correct strategies were apparent from the beginning. Think of Lincoln and Union in the Civil War, with all the material advantages, yet stumbling around and losing battles (and nearly the war) until they could find the right strategies and right generals to win. And I recall that somewhere Marx wrote a newspaper article that outlined and predicted the correct Union strategy of splitting the south in two, which was a “correct line” that changed nothing because it was unconnected to the actual struggle.
So if we start from the position that we don’t have the correct line, but hope to develop one through a protracted process of building forces, making mistakes, changing leaders, etc. I think it’s safe to argue for the decisiveness of line. The problem rears its head again, though, when a manifestly correct line results in winning, because we become overconfident and don’t realize we’re faced with entirely new problems which require, in all likelihood, new lines, new forces, new leaders, etc. Every victory contains the seeds of a future defeat, I suppose. (I think Mao was unusual in that he not only proved the most farsighted war-time leader but also the most farsighted leader of the socialist period).
I suspect that unless the necessity to periodically reopen past debates and verdicts is somehow institutionalized in a political organization, the cultishness and dogmatism that Keith outlines is practically inevitable.
It will be interesting to see if the Nepalese have something to teach us in this regard.
Mike E said
there is much to respond to here (particularly on the issues of whether “ideological and political line is decisive” and the underlying question of what is meant by line.
However, leaving that for later….
Keith asks:
The split between the early Revolutionary Union and what became the shortlived Venceremos organization) was a subset of a larger debate — where the RU’s Bruce and Jane Franklin, the exiled Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver and the former SDS leaders forming Weatherman each (in their own way) put forward a strategy of moving immediately (in 1970) to some version of protracted war (i.e. urban guerrilla warfare).
In opposition the RU (and Avakian) articulated reasons why urban guerrilla warfare was suicidal in a highly integrated society like the U.S. — and why revolution had to take the form of insurrections, the telescoped formation of a central area, and then civil war to seize as much territory as possible. The arguments probed the difference between semi-feudal agriculture and weak third world states (that made protracted war and liberated zones possible)in contrast to the integrated political economy of an advanced imperialist social formation. there were corollary issues (related to understandings of the situation of Black people, and the “national question” generally.)
The RU polemicized with the franklins (as they pulled about a third of the organizatoin into Venceremos).
the main documents of that debate were gathered in a publication called “Red Papers 4″ (and which had a formal title of something like “Proletarian Revolution vs Revolutionary Adventurism.”
Like many of the documents of that period, it is not (as far as I know) available online yet.
If anyone has pdf’s of RP4 (or the other red papers), Kasama would be willing to host them for general interest.
Keith said
I think, in response to some of the things raised by Bobh, and around the question of what “line” is, that it is important to start to distinguish between what we can know scientifically (it can be proven) and what is more “art.” Consider Marx’s comments in the “Preface to a contribution to the critique of political economy.”
Marx writes:
“In studying such transformations (revolutions) it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.”
Notice what, according to Marx, can be treated with scientific precision and what cannot be, production and productive relations are capable of scientific treatment while politics and the ideological forms are not capable of scientific treatment.
So it seems to me that a line is a guide to action, it is not scientific. It is a political plan that results from scientific analysis and practical experience. So it should be constantly developing. The idea that incorrect lines pose a mortal danger seems implicit in the notion that line is decisive and that is where the problem lays.
I am not entirely sure what the origins of the concept of “line” are, it is part of M-L culture –that’s how I learned to use the term, but I suspect the concept originates with one of the metaphors that Lenin uses in What is to be done (building a revolutionary movement is like laying brick and you can’t lay brick without a line). Does anyone know the origin of the term?
I have always been fond of Lenin’s famous quote in What is to be done?: “Without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement.” I think that he is right in the main. Overthrowing capitalism is a complex task and it can’t be accomplished without a decent understanding of how the system works. But Lenin’s quote should also be contextualized because he is responding dialectically to the opposite point made by Marx.
Lenin’s political opponents around the newspaper Rabocheye Dyelo quoted Marx’s statement: “Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes.” And Lenin responded: “To repeat these words in a period of theoretical disorder is like wishing mourners at a funeral many happy returns of the day.” And then Lenin goes on to conclude “without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement.”
So here is the thing. Marx says, in general, real movement is better than lines. Lenin responds, yes, but SOMETIMES line or theory is decisive. And SOMETIMES it is, but to say it is ALWAYS decisive is idealism (and one-sided or meta-physical at that).
BobH said
With all due respect to what Marx was saying about studying revolutions scientifically, there’s been some pretty big improvements since Marx’s day in methods to quantify opinions, ideas, and ideology via social research, polling, etc. It would not surprise me if people are working on software to measure the zeitgeist by quantifying blogs and google searches. Not quite a science, but not worthless either.
So I don’t think there is a clear line between what is an art and what is a science (e.g. Donald Knuth, a great computer scientist, titled his major work “The Art of Computer Programming”). There even seems to be something of a hierarchy in how “scientific” a particular science is, as this cartoon suggests.
Overall I agree with your conclusion that line is not always decisive. Keeping with the line/strategy analogy, in wartime it’s clear that strategy is decisive, but that in peacetime there is a need for general staffs to try and anticipate future strategies, evaluate different techniques, etc. That suggests to me that in a period like this, a broad approach to theory, history, verdicts, etc. is more fruitful than the clearly bankrupt policy of fetishizing a “line” can possibly be.
irisbright said
LMAO, XKCD is such a great comic. Snap.
Anyways, I really hope this discussion continues, its great and I’m learning alot.
Zack said
“no group needs any opportunist mole to use this or that group such as Kasama as a means to start any provocative statement against any communist party”
Rather than applying a label (“opportunist mole”), it would be so much more productive to the discussion to dissect why it is the case that something is “opportunist” or why someone may have “mole” intentions. Even regardless of that, where do correct ideas come from? I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on truth… all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds can have insights others might have missed. What’s the damage of investigation into Ball’s claims? If anything, I’d say this would enlighten more than be damaging.
Dare to be wrong, dare to learn from mistakes and make new discoveries from past inaccuracies.
I think something very important that was stated was this:
“So our Kasama moderating team has no intention of inform everyone (ahead of time) which views we at first glance consider correct or incorrect. This may seem obvious to many people — but there is a fearfulness among some communists that believes each idea should come with labels that pre-warn the people about official and authoritative verdicts.”
Exactly.
Another thing that sticks out to me with people wanting “moderation” and “pre-warnings”… it strikes me as awfully insecure with our audience, as if we’re to be handed with kid-gloves, as if we can possibly discern the reactionary from the revolutionary. Part of the excitingly profound nature of discovering things and of coming up with better answers to past plaguing unanswered questions is realization through a protracted amount of study and investigation.
I mean, really, what’s the fucking fun of just being told at the beginning of an article that something is “opportunist” or something is “unprincipled.”
misor said
Really! Zack. Your view about the finding objective reality in anti M.L.in fact it is in line with Boujavasie. You and your moderator are bunch of liers. Mike and you and all who are involve in childish “Blame Game” made this possible for “Opportubist Moles” such as yourselves to grow here.
To find the only reason and the only person to blame.
Look at the mirrior!
What do see?
Well according to Zack, all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds can be blamed but who he sees in the mirrior!
misor said
What’s the fu…ing fun of just being told “opportunist”? I tell you what’s the fu…ing and again fu…ing fun of just being told something opportunist it might be. That “something” is not anything, he happened to be an opportunist bourgeoisie mole. Understood? And remember, F. word is not part of ML literature. It is American way of thinking and talking. To me whoever uses F word is nothing but a tatterdemalion, a truly lumpen-proletariat. So lets not think like American. Let’s think like a true proletariat.