[Comment from comrade:]Here Avakianites basically admit the Trotskyist basis
of their economics:

MIM isn't the only one that has called out RCP=U$A. An
RCP=U$A  supporter Repeater138, in order to justify
its Trotskyist line, cited (and this is a first for
RCP!) a work by Harry Braverman.

CommunistLeague: Of course, the irony of this
discussion is not lost on me. It's not every day that
a Maoist uses the writings of a Trotskyist as the
basis for an attack on a communist around the question
of class. 

Repeater138 for the RCP=U$A:  Thirdly, your method of
attacking both I and Harry Braverman because he was a
so-called trotskyist is pathetic. Again you cannot
deal with ideas, but you must deal with the identity
of who brings forth those ideas. This is especially
dishonest as you get to define another's identity
instead of the person in question defining
themselves.

Regardless, the bottom line is if Braverman is right,
then it doesn't matter if he's a trot or not. It's the
content of the ideas which are important not the
identity of the person. 

(http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34943&st=60)

mim3@mim.org replies:
Lately the RCP=U$A has in more than one place said that if something is correct, it doesn't matter if it is 
Trotskyist or not. We should say sure, except we often give our readers the credit of agreeing with
Stalin and Mao that "practice is the sole criterion of truth" and hence Trotskyism is untrue for not leading 
any revolutions after the death of Lenin. For Repeater what is "right" is what his "main man"
Bob A says, not what brings about successful revolution. This is what Bob A means by an "epistemological 
break,"—breaking with the idea that rational knowledge stems from practice. Instead rational knowledge 
according to RCP=U$A stems from Avakian's greatness, not the facts about Trotskyist failure. If repeater 
did not hold this view of truth isolated in practice, there is no way any credibility from him would attach to 
Trotskyism.

It's also a matter of dishonesty, because if Trotskyism is what the RCP=u$A wants, then it should call itself 
Trotskyist-Avakianist. For the same reason, we consider creationists to be dishonest when they call 
themselves biologists or worse, Darwinians. It slows down discussion immensely. 

This is not a question of "beliefs" or trusting Bob A. There is no "second stream" of revolutionary 
movement based in Braverman's white collar workers. That is a fact.