by Mike Ely
In our “9 Letters to Our Comrades,” we argue that Avakian’s new synthesis is flawed and that his cult of personality is unjustified. We argue that these errors of line have led to major continuing shortcomings in practice. And we call for a “very presumptuous work” of re-forging revolutionary theory, practice and organization in the U.S.
There have been (as you can imagine) many diverse responses to the “9 Letters.” This includes considerable interest and agreement from many people around the RCP. At the same time, some RCP supporters (in different parts of the country) have responded in ways suggesting a common script.
We recently received the following text from an RCP supporter. These same themes and phrases have been heard from others. This is, I believe, the RCP’s initial response to our “9 Letters.”
“Hey, So… Mike Ely…I’m not going to get into this too much because I really don’t feel like his `nine letters’ are worth talking about. But here are some initial thoughts.
“He is someone who was closely associated with the P for some years who has acted and continues to act in an extremely unprincipled manner, pretending for a whole period of time to support the P even while (as is now clear) he increasingly chafed the rev content and ‘edge’ of what the P is all about- and in this context the importance of BA and his body of work and method and approach- has been more clearly and sharply brought forward, never raising differences with the P, although he had ample room and occasion to do so, then suddenly severing his association with the P and launching highly unprincipled and opportunistic attacks, spreading lies and distorting the views and aims of the P with regard to BA overall. The answer to this is continue to put forward and and to engage in principled discussion with a very broad range of people about what the views and aims of the P actually are, while answering his distortions where is seems necessary and advisable. It is one thing to express differences with the P- as it welcomes the the opportunity and is eager to get into such discussions of differences with people who are approaching this in a principled way, and it does this all the time as part of its overall and ongoing work- but it quite another thing to launch unprincipled attacks, to spread distortions about what the P stands for and does. and to deliberately sabotage and undermine its efforts, when it is clear (and well known to this person) that what the P stands for and is working toward, is viewed with fundamental antagonism by the very powerful, and highly repressive, forces who have power in this society. And it is all the more deplorable to do this after having broken ties with the P on an unprincipled basis and then striking the posture of someone with “inside” info. Quitting the P and then turning around and then attacking the P- particularly in the form of denouncing the ‘cult of the personality’ and accusing Cs’ of “religious dogma and cultism,” including when it is done from a ‘left’ or even a ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ posture- is a rather classical form of capitulating to imperialism and attacking C, while pretending (perhaps even to oneself) that one is not doing so. (witness, for example, Kautsky’s attacks on Lenin, especially when the latter had the audacity to lead an actual rev. while Kautsky betrayed the very cause and the principles professed).”
What stands out:
This response avoids any serious engagement with the substance of the 9 Letters. Instead it focuses a series of charges against me personally. It seeks to dismiss the substantive engagement in the 9 Letters as merely distortions, sabotage, unprincipled attacks, and betrayal. This RCP script is an example of the “whateverist” approach I criticize in the “9 Letters” — the mind-numbing logic that this “caliber of leadership” is right, so anyone criticizing it must be wrong.
I will not answer the personal charges in detail. They are both untrue and irrelevant. Gossip, anecdote, and ad hominem attacks are all beside the point. Maoists correctly say “the issue is line, not author.”
A heartfelt challenge:
Let’s sharply engage on the high plane of two-line struggle. If the “9 Letters” contain errors or “distortions,” name them. And then let’s continue the struggle from there. If Maoist opposition to Avakian’s new synthesis is now inherently counterrevolutionary, explain why.
Let’s confront the RCP’s lengthening silence around the major communist movements of the world, including Nepal and India, that disagree with Avakian’s new synthesis. Let’s debate what internationalism looks like and what a retreat from internationalism looks like.
Together let’s escalate our “very presumptuous” theoretical and practical work toward revolution and liberation.
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
Mike E
Glossary of RCP Jargon used above:
the P – means “the Party.” i.e. the RCP
rev content – rev is short for revolutionary
BA and his body of work and method and approach – BA is Bob Avakian, “his body of work and method and approach” are the three components of Avakian’s theoretical contributions that are said to represent an indispensable and qualitative new leap in Marxism.
accusing Cs’ of – C’s in this case is short for Communists
attacking C – attacking communism
Kautsky – Karl Kautsky was the leader of the Socialist Second International and the large German Social Democratic party who opposed the Bolshevik revolution. The analogy here assumes Avakian is “a Lenin,” and any communist criticizing him is therefore “a Kautsky.”
Published: December 2007
Available online at mikeely.wordpress.com
Send comments to: kasamasite (at) yahoo (dot) com
Feel free to reprint, distribute or quote with attribution to Mike Ely and a link.
This website and all contents are licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.