[Rosa Harris is an official spokespersyn for the "RCP." We tried to engage her on the Maoism group we administer at Yahoo, but the "RCP" had no follow-up.] --- In maoism@y..., "rosaharris76" wrote: > Subject: MIM's views oppose Marxism-Leninism-Maoism > > > The following are excerpts from the debate on > http://2changetheworld.info – the website dedicated to a discussion > of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA's Draft Programme and issues > of revolutionary strategy. > > Subject: Revolutionary Workers in the Belly of the Beast > Posted by: naxalite maoist3@yahoo.com replies for MIM: Rosa, did you think we would not notice that this is mostly a verbatim posting the same as http://groups.yahoo.com/group/maoism/message/1184 ? Perhaps you could answer the criticisms and questions posed to you? More follow below. > > Just three historical examples: > > a) This is what Mao wrote on the issue of workers in imperialist > countries in 1938: > > "The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by > war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This > Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for > China and for all other countries. But while the principle remains > the same, its application by the party of the proletariat finds > expression in varying ways according to the varying conditions. > Internally, capitalist countries practise bourgeois democracy (not > feudalism) when they are not fascist or not at war; in their external > relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress, other > nations. Because of these characteristics, it is the task of the > party of the proletariat in the capitalist countries to educate the > workers and build up strength through a long period of legal > struggle, and thus prepare for the final overthrow of capitalism." maoist3@yahoo.com replies: Yes, this quote is on our web page. It's one thing to have to take a position on a question, as Mao did. Mao had to say something about the united $tates as a scientist. However, it's another thing to quote a man who never set foot in the united $tates against MIM to justify not answering our questions: 1) how much surplus-value is u.$. imperialism extracting? 2) Where does it come from ? 3) Where does it go? 4) What kind of reparations, to what quantitative extent would they have to go to eliminate imperialism or the possibility of social-imperialism? You can review your literature and prove otherwise, but we don't believe the "RCP-USA" ever answered the questions. Mao would certainly refer to you as followers of Wang Ming, for this approach to MIM. > > b) Mao made at least two statements on the U.S. itself (and on the > dynamic relationship that we today call "the solid core." It is clear > from his remarks that he rejects the notion that the majority of > workers have objective interests in supporting the domination over > oppressed nations. > > from his 1963 statement in support of the African American civil > rights movement: > > "I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, > enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons > of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, > to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. > imperialism and support the black people in their struggle against > racial discrimination. In the final analysis, national struggle is a > matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States it is > only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress the black people. > They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary > intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the > overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the > handful of imperialists headed by the United States, and their > supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are > oppressing, committing aggression against and menacing the > overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. We are > in the majority and they are in the minority. At most, they make up > less than 10 per cent of the 3,000 million population of the world. I > am firmly convinced that, with the support of more than 90 per cent > of the people of the world, the Afro-Americans will be victorious in > their just struggle. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism > arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in > Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete > emancipation of the black people." maoist3@yahoo.com replies: This is more Wang Ming stuff from the "RCP-USA." Among the few Yankees Mao consulted was Robert Williams. By 1966, Robert Williams was published in Peking Review--Mao's official magazine--as saying the Amerikkkans were majority oppressor. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/classics/text.php? mimfile=robertwilliams1966.txt BTW, although the two Mao statements from 1963 and 1968 are similar, something Mao left out in his 1968 statement about U.$. Blacks is his statement about "the overwhelming majority of the white people." The 1968 statement pointedly says of one statement, "I still maintain this view," which means that other things in the 1963 statement might not still be maintained. Considering the publication of "Long Live the Victory of People's War" in 1965, and considering what Robert Williams said in 1966, we at MIM think that dropping references to the exploited "overwhelming majority of white people" makes good sense by Mao in 1968. In any case, none of these quotes can justify not knowing our conditions for ourselves today. They cannot justify not answering MIM on concrete questions. Now I'm going to answer why the "RCP-USA" continues to quote the 1963 statement against MIM while ignoring official statements from China after 1963. In 1963, there was no Black Panther Party yet. The Black Panthers were not born till 1966. In 1963 it was Malcolm X everywhere. Against this, PLP (Progressive Labor Party) started to arise. At first they bent the bar against Malcolm X "too far" by talking about workers vs. his "white devils" approach; although we admit it's natural in such a situation to exaggerate contrasts. However for "RCP-USA" to dwell on Mao's 1963 statement 40 years later does the following: 1) Sets up "RCP-USA" as trying to follow PLP's footsteps--which ended in Trotskyism. "PLP" did not disagree with the 1963 statement either. 2) Negates the statements in 1965, 1966 and 1968. 3) Negates the existence and historical significance of the Black Panthers entirely, because you can't blame Mao in 1963 for not summing up the Black Panthers who did not exist until 1966! 4) Negates summing up the whole history of class and national struggle in the 1960s and 1970s. Mao did not do that. PLP did do that and abandoned Maoism. Now "RCP-USA" is in line to do the same thing--which BTW, explains why they did not call themselves "Maoist" until 10 years after MIM. > c) finally your remarks on the Communist view toward the Japanese > people during world war 2 is equally wrong. > > It was a sharp point of contention during WW2 whether one supported > fraternization with fascist troops or not -- propaganda to win them > over. In China, the communists argued for winning over japanese > troops (based on a correct class analysis on their fundamental > interest in revolution). This was their approach. > maoist3@yahoo.com replies: This again is what Mao called the "nine fingers against the one." See what Marx had to say about the bourgeoisie. You have provided NO evidence that a majority of Japanese troops went over to the Maoist side--and there isn't any, of course not, because of their class nature. By now in the struggle, you are intentionally conflating the minority with the majority with the explicit purpose of smuggling the majority (labor aristocracy) into the proletarian movement. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/classics/classics.html The principal form of struggle with the Japanese troops was armed. That is the principal form of struggle needed today also. > For example the Chinese volunteers were famous for winning over > captured U.S. soldiers (during the Korea War that followed WW2) -- > significant numbers came over, some chose to stay behind and join in > the revolution. maoist3@yahoo.com replies: Still no talk of the majority of U.$. soldiers--the "RCP-USA" does not do class analysis. It tells stories. > > This is an internationalist approach considtent with MLM and with a > correct class analysis of the masses in imperialist countries. > > [[I'm not going to go into the example of stalin during world war 2 -- > but let's just say, your off-the-cuff assertion here is equally > wack.]] maoist3@yahoo.com replies: Now you are calling the Peking Review of 1966, "wack." Here is what the Chinese comrades published to straighten out imperialist country nationalists like the "RCP- USA." "Yet, there is a mighty tendency, promoted by the sinister American devil himself, to engender more sympathy and fraternalism for the so- called 'good reasonable Americans' than for the wretched victims of vicious and brutal U.S. imperialism. The U.S. constitutes one of the greatest fascist threats ever to cast its ugly shadow across the face of the earth. When the butchers of Nazi Germany were on the plunder, the world cry was 'Crush Nazism!' 'Crush the Fascist Power Structure!' 'Crush Germany!' Total war was unleashed without deference to any who may been considered "good Germans" inside Nazi Germany. No sane person opposed to fascism pleaded for a soft policy toward Nazi Germany or pleaded for victims to wait for deliverance through the benevolence of 'good German workers and liberals.'" http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/classics/text.php? mimfile=robertwilliams1966.txt The Peking Review was the highest political organ in China. The PLP of the time dismissed it as "hate whitey" and today the "RCP-USA" is doing the same thing, calling it "wack." The bottom line is that "RCP-USA" and PLP oppose Stalin's invasion of Germany. They don't think he had the "right" to do it, because these are great white "proletarians" he invaded. We at MIM believe Stalin was correct and that the German majority had their chance to prove even the slightest proletarian nature and they simply did not have one except in the small minority of people. > Subject: Two Streams and the Principal Contradiction > Posted by: Area Man > > Jenifer writes: "The life and death struggle being waged in > palestine, nepal, peru, colombia, philippines, etc. is not dependent > on what is happening here. Since the principal contradiction is > between imperialism and oppressed nations. > > Ayacucho writes: "the labor aristocracy is a majority (not a token > few) in this country... That is why the principal contradiction in > the world today, is that of between imperialism and oppressed > nations." > > These folks are promoting a line that uses a mistaken approach to > the "principal contradiction" to deny the Maoists stand on "two > streams of world revolution." > > The Revolutionary Internationalist Movement has summed up: "[t]he > world proletarian revolution is composed essentially of two streams - > the proletarian-socialist revolution waged by the proletariat and its > allies in the imperialist citadels and the national liberation, or > new democratic revolution waged by the nations and peoples subjugated > to imperialism. The alliance between these two revolutionary currents > remains the cornerstone of revolutionary strategy in the era of > imperialism. > > The stand by the RIM is an affirmation (under current conditions) of > the stand on this also taken by Lenin, Stalin and Mao. > > The Draft Programme says: > > "The proletariat in the United States has a great responsibility and > a great mission: to carry out a revolution which, once victorious, > will mean the defeat and elimination of a monstrous international > exploiter and oppressor, justly hated by masses of people all over > the globe. When this revolution succeeds, hundreds of millions > worldwide will rejoice and will step up their own revolutionary > struggles." > > What is the meaning when a political voice, speaking from within in > the U.S., rejects this argument, and says in effect that "the > principal contradiction is the only possible contradiction." In > denying the possibility of revolution in countries like the U.S. (and > by arguing that the masses of workers are reactionary and bought off) > they are dong the opposite of what is needed: they are rejecting > this "great responsibility and great mission" that the RCP Draft > Programme is dedicated to. > > To be blunt: using the `principal contradiction" to deny the > possibility of two streams of world revolution is an attempt to deny > the possibility of revolution -- and convince people not to take up > their responsibility in the belly of the beast. maoist3@yahoo.com replies: Yes, look at the RIM statements and RCP draft programme carefully. The flowery phrases LEAVE OUT that the international proletariat has the right to exercise dictatorship of the proletariat over the united $tates. They leave out that the united $tates's majority white population may not be objectively capable of implementing a dictatorship of the proletariat and may have to be de-parasitized first. They leave out that Stalin and others decided that Soviet occupied Germany could not go directly to the dictatorship of the proletariat either; even though Germany was an advanced industrial country. Talking about "two streams" and the "great responsbility" is code words for saying the international proletariat does not have the right to settle things like in 1945. Well, when it comes to this question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is only one proletarian class worldwide, and not "two streams." The "two streams" may have some metaphorical or tactical use in other contexts, but not in discussing "friends and enemies" and the definition of proletariat itself. MIM for its part has always said it's possible that after disaster like a couple nukes going off or massive environmental disaster that the u.$. population could be re-proletarianized. Then possibly it would rise up in the majority. We've never excluded that possibility, but you won't find the "RCP-USA" or the people they conned in the "RIM" explicitly stating the rights of the international proletariat to bring an end to u.$. parasitism itself, without waiting for the Amerikkkans. In other words, the "RCP-USA" is objectively white nationalist and in some cases, subjectively white nationalist as well. As this debate unfolds, we see that "RCP-USA" consciously defend letting Amerikkkans hold the revolution hostage and thereby promoting white nationalism.