Dear MIM:

I thought you might find this interesting. An RCP-U$A
supporter recently claimed that Mao united with
fascists and used this as an excuse to called for
uniting with fascists, misogynists, and homophobes.
Feel free to use or not use anything here or modify it
however you please.  These are excerpts from a post on
June 5th, 2005. The full text is available at:

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=practice&thread=1108841799&page=3

1949, an "RCP"-U$A supporter, says to an anarchist:
"Second of all, I find your insistence that fascism
simply cannot be compromised upon in any circumstances
stems from your inability to truly recognize the
progressive character of national liberation
struggles. Case in point: the Chinese
Communist-Kuomintang alliance against Japan in the
thirties and forties. Weren’t the communists there
compromising with Chiang Kai-shek and his forces,
which were essentially fascist? And did this not do
immeasurable good service to the revolutionary
struggle in China? Or, an even better example: the
resistance forces in Iraq today. We don’t agree with
what they are going to do to GLBTs, Jews, women and
Kurds when they finally seize state power, but
wouldn’t you rather see them win than see the U.S.
win? Isn’t that what we should be working towards,
even while we simultaneously promote genuine
revolutionary politics in Iraq? I can see the E-G
types playing a similar role in similar situations.
That’s not an argument for letting them post their
reactionary venom on AWIP and RL, but it doesn’t
preclude the possibility of working with them in the
real world nonetheless."

[MIM has said that a good way to judge an organization
is by the kind of supporters they unleash. 1949 an
"RCP-U$A" supporter  recently defends uniting with
fascists. In a way he understands the truth of what
Avakian’s "unite all who can be united" means within
the context of the labor aristocracy more than even
Avakian himself. In the above, 1949 misidentifies what
a fascist is by confusing First World fascism with
various Third World nationalist movements, then he
uses this confusion to justify uniting with fascists!
He even suggests Mao joined with fascists when he
rhetorically asks, "Weren’t the communists
compromising with Chiang Kai-shek and his forces,
which were essentially fascist?"  His reference to
"E-G" fascist-types is to a group of First
Worlders who spew disgusting racist, misogynist, and
homophobic filth all over the web. They even went so
far as to circulate a petition to defend holocaust
denier and neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel!]

CyM wrote: "Until I see signs of real class analysis
taking root amongst the elements of the movement that
consider themselves anti-Capitalist, I'm mostly
ignoring it. Of course, RCP may have class analysis,
but from what I have seen they haven't implemented
much of it in their massive opportunities to appeal to
class consciousness they were thrown over the past two
years."

1949: Please expand on what you mean by this.

[Once again "RCP-U$A" is dead silent on class analysis
and the labor aristocracy.] 

CyM wrote: "The representatives of social conservatism
and reaction, brought to power by the economic
pressures placed upon American capitalism and the
world market in general, have not consolidated the
bourgeoisie, though they've tried."

1949, an "RCP"-U$A supporter: Well, like I said, they
are attempting to consolidate a fascist program. That
doesn’t mean the same thing as them having actually
accomplished that yet.

Bob Avakian says: "…it is important to understand that
there is a difference between Hitler getting appointed
Chancellor and the Nazis having totally consolidated
power and crushing and eliminating the opposition. "

[RM: Again, 1949 wants to unite with fascistic parts
of the labor aristocracy. His excuse? They haven’t
consolidated power yet! In other words, "let the
fascists organize under Avakian’s banner." Class
analysis? Labor aristocracy?  Time to start a
fundraiser to buy those calculators for "RCP"-U$A.]