A Feminist Response to Marxist Vanguard Groups

All Marxist vanguard groups have taken a feminist stance.  That is, they’re adamantly pro-choice, anti-sexist, despise use of the word “bitch,” and occasionally feature women’s issues in their publications.

So why do women continue to experience sexist repression from the male leaders and members of these groups?

The short answer is, because they’re products of their society as well.  All men (and women) are raised to be exploitative to the “lower” classes, genders, races, and sexual orientations.  And most progressive and radical folks recognize this, admit to their places of privilege, and try their best not only to to transcend them but fight the good fight along with their oppressed comrades.

However, things do fall through the cracks.  Women are rarely seen in positions of leadership amongst vanguard parties, and the ones who do write on feminist issues for a party’s newspaper usually tack the issue onto the party’s agenda as a whole, not necessarily in regards to why women’s issues deserve specific, individual attention.

So today I’m just venting like this.  Feeling “put down” by some of my male comrades who believe themselves to be better versed on feminist issues than I am, I’m writing up some things I wish all progressive and radical males and vanguard groups in particular would consider.  I realize I’m putting myself at dire risk of being a culprit of dreaded “identity politics,” but sometimes those carry some validity as well.  Sometimes.

Here we go.

I have experienced gender oppression first-hand, so don’t tell me how I should react to it.  That would be like me, a white woman, telling an immigrant Hispanic family exactly how to deal with the day-to-day racism that shapes their lives and criticizing them for dealing with it in ways that contradict my personal vision for racial justice.

An overthrow of patriarchy does not necessarily require an overthrow of the capitalist system.  I may believe that as well, but sometimes you just sound obnoxious and opportunistic when you try to win over the hearts of feminists in that way.  It’s fine to have an egalitarian discussion on the topic with feminists, but a woman’s dedication to a feminist movement is not an “in” for you to make your move in trying to “convert” them to your particular -ism.

I don’t need to be told how to view “Juno,” or any other movie for that matter.  My abortion at age 18 was frightening and painful and left permanent scars on my attitude towards future childbearing.  I’m not a bad feminist just because I think it’s fine for someone to make a movie about a girl being to afraid to go through with it, especially considering the lousy support systems available for women today.  My experience is valid, as are all women’s experiences.  I trust women to make the best decisions they can obtain, and will always work to better those options.  I am 100% committed to reproductive justice, and view abortion as a tangible experience in many women’s lives, not as an issue to push my agenda.

I am not “taking a step back” when I sit down to knit a scarf for my partner, a man who I love.  My decisions to partake in stereotypically “feminine” acts are enlightened, and I am not a bad feminist because of it.  I would be a bad feminist if I thought less of women who did NOT knit hats for their partners.  But I’m not doing that now, am I?

Women do not, in fact, hold up “half the sky.”  Women, especially in pre-revolution China, hold up far more than half the sky.  Gender equality requires not only women being able to step up to a better life, but for men to take a step down from their places of power.  If women were to obtain the same amount of power as men, we would only continue to compete for more power, and would end up exploiting not only each other but people of other races and classes in particular.  Male power is capitalist power.  It is white supremacist power.  And all need to be relinquished in order for social justice to be obtained.

Acts like “gender fucking” and cross dressing do not mean women are “trying to be like men.”  Masculinity being the norm by which all other genders are measured, it makes sense that in attempting to be comfortable and in control, women will start to look an awful lot like men.  We are not “abandoning” our femaleness here, just our femininity that causes so much discomfort and subjugation.

 

Clarification

Yesterday I was pleasantly surprised with a pingback from a comment on Mike Ely’s blog “Kasama.” (What’s a pingback? I didn’t know either. So I wikipedia’ed that shit and found out.) Mike Ely was until recently, I believe, a prominent member of the Revolutionary Communist Party. He remains a Maoist, a revolutionary, a writer, and is in the process of creating a revolutionary party that resists the “cult of personality” that RCP Chairman Bob Avakian has set forth (at least that’s what I’ve heard from some of my RCP-supporting friends).

Overall, the pingback did two things. First off, it reminded me of the other, less mentioned but more implicit reason why I remain anonymous in my writing. In my first entry, I said I would remain under the alias of E.G. Smith to “create a voice for radicals of all pseudo- or non-affiliations” without all the weight of the true identity an actual name might add. What I have come to realize, however, is that I was totally bullshitting myself here. The real reason I created an alias was, contrary to what I claimed, because I want to say things unapologetically and let’s face it, I’m just not in the place where I can do that conspicuously right now. Not because I’m a coward, but because our movement simply doesn’t allow for this kind of discourse to happen face to face without creating some serious personal tension. My friends who sport the “we support criticism in all its forms” line are the same ones who have allowed friendships and even functional activist organizing to go down the drain if a person was blatantly critical of their vanguard party, political ideology, etc. Something to think about.

Secondly, the discussion of my writing troubled me and made me rethink the way I present my ideas: Mike E referred to me, E.G. Smith, as being “generally critical of the radical left.” It’s not that he’s incorrect here. I am generally critical of the radical left, but that doesn’t make me not a part of it. So I want to take this time to clear up my intentions, because in being able to post anonymously, I often get so unapologetic that I sound like I’m just blasting this group and that group without offering any support whatsoever to those enmeshed in the movements I claim to love so much.

What I Strive to Do:
- Give voice to the many who identify with the radical left who feel pressured to compromise themselves in order to “fit” into one definitive ideology or those who chose to be nomads for the reasons laid out in the Nomadic Leftist’s Manifesto.

- Offer constructive (if sometimes harsh) criticism of the forces that shape our movements, the vanguard parties, the venturists, the organizational forces behind protests, in order to strengthen our movements overall from the perspective of an organizer and an ideological outsider.

What I am Not Trying to Do:
- Further divide the Radical Left.

- Demoralize those looking to either join a movement, a radical/revolutionary organization, or start one themselves.

- Perpetuate negative myths and stereotypes about the Left overall.

- Attempt to get people to join the organizations or parties I happen to support. I use my other blog, the one with my real name on it, for that kind of stuff.

- Claim to have all the answers, to “know what’s best.” I just want to offer ideas, make people think, debate, engage, and enlighten.

- Promote nomadicism to the masses. I really don’t want to do this. I just want to increase awareness of it, allow people to see it as an alternative if there’s just no vanguard party, organization, or political group you can wholeheartedly support, and that you’re no less of an activist or political thinker if you choose to be a nomad.

I hope that helps clear some things up. I love the social justice movements, the antiwar efforts, and everything feminist. That’s why I can’t stay silent when I see like-minded groups doing such self-destructive things, things that misrepresent the radical left on the whole, and killing the movements we’re all working so tirelessly to keep afloat!

Yours very lovingly in the struggle,
E.G. Smith

 

Failing Movements

It’s official: World Can’t Wait is collecting dues.

And I’m not surprised. It’s February of 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee has closed its eyes and ears on the impeachment movement, and another thing… how is an grassroots organization that’s taken an extremely negative stance on any contact with Congress going to succeed in a mission that, well, requires Congressional action?

I was heavily enmeshed in the organization when World Can’t Wait jumped on the impeachment bandwagon (strangely weeks after sending massive emails to organizers proclaiming impeachment to be a “waste of time”), and I thought it was for the best. There’s a lot protests, civil disobedience, direct action, and grassroots organizing can accomplish. We can end wars, fight police brutality, raise awareness about racism and violence against women, even create our own temporary solutions and resources until our movements attain more permanent brands of social justice. But let’s be honest. Getting a sitting president out of office (without doing some things I’d end up in Guantanamo for mentioning here) requires at least one of two variables: an already established massive movement based in a radical culture, or some serious grassroots organization that’s not afraid to dip its hands into, yes, the dirty abyss of our standing political structure. While WCW organizers sat dreaming of the 60s and trying to literally recreate it, it was becoming undeniably apparent to many of us that that was no longer an option. Building movements, sure. But relying completely on millions of people to suddenly join us in the streets demanding Bush step down? It seemed a little far-fetched, not to mention a waste of time when, to use the language of World Can’t Wait, people were dying, being tortured, and laws were being passed compromising our freedoms at home.

Things got even more confusing once we joined the impeachment movement. It seemed we were still working towards that million plus in the streets, except instead of chanting “Bush Step Down,” it was “Impeach Bush.” Who? Who should impeach Bush? Not Congress, no. We didn’t go there. We were truly grassroots and revolutionary. So… who?

That contradiction ended it for me as I more and more began to see WCW as a dead end movement.  And don’t exacerbate me by pulling the “I don’t see you starting a massive movement with celebrity endorsements” bullshit.  That sounds more and more like big businesses blaming local mom and pop stores for not being able to hold their heads above water; it’s not that they haven’t tried with all their might to flourish, it’s that the big guys flood the industry with such top-down leadership that no one else stands a chance.  I’m not saying WCW is Wal-Mart or anything (hey, I’m trying to pin them as a dying movement, right?), but it’s damn near impossible to build a truly grassroots movement when groups like WCW, UfPJ, and ANSWER dominate demonstrations and what goes on at them with such an iron fist.  Movement building requires big names, lots of money, fliers, bodies, and full-time activists.  I’ve got none of those.

But what I do have is knowledge of what a last resort looks like.  When I was an organizer with World Can’t Wait, I was constantly receiving emails and phone calls pressuring me to fund raise every chance I got.  Fund raise for what?  I never could tell, and neither could WCW’s donors.  Which is why they’re collecting dues now.

It just seems so strange, a grassroots movement requiring monetary support for “membership,” especially so late in the game.  Actually they’re pinning it as more of a donation, a “membership drive” instead of a fundraising drive.  Something that will make you more of a sustainer I guess:

“Now, for the first time, you can become an official member of Nation magazine’s MOST VALUABLE CRUSADE of 2007, World Can’t Wait. Whether you are an activist, a supporter, or new to World Can’t Wait, we welcome you to not only join today, but to bring your family and friends on board, too! Simply select your preferred giving-level and sign-up today!”

I could speak volumes on the choice of the word “crusade,” but that’s a whole other entry!  But I was so confused by this.  Here I am, recently left my local chapter but still on the national organizer’s list, getting an email telling me that all the meetings I ran, events I helped plan and implement, conferences I attended, hours I spent doing outreach, and yes, DOLLARS I spent on the movement that I never even ASKED to be reimbursed for did not, in fact, make me an “official member.”  I have to give money for that.

But wait!  Surly the communist involvement with the organization understands economic hardship… right?

“World Can’t Wait is an inclusive organization.  We truly value everyone’s commitment. If cash flow is an issue under the economic failure of the Bush regime, then simply set up your membership with convenient monthly installments. OR become a valued World Can’t Wait member simply by recruiting two new members, or hosting a house party.”

Monthly installments, friends with money, or the time to organize and host a house party (still can’t figure out what that one is) on top of everything else you’ve already done.

Now I can understand vanguard groups collecting dues to sustain the papers they print.  That seems reasonable.  But World Can’t Wait is supposed to be a grassroots organization, and limiting membership to those who literally BUY it, that just seems like the final breath of a quickly failing movement.  Besides, will they be collecting dues from all those celebrities they like to tout as being signatories of the Call?  Gore Vidal?  Sean Penn?  Tim Robbins?

Boy I’m glad I got out when I did.

Yours in the Struggle,
E.G. Smith

 

Calling All Nomads!

So, I’ve decided to start work on a zine that will give voice not only to me, but to radical nomads everywhere.

If you’re a nomadic leftist that loves to write and wants to get your ideas out there in printed form, respond to this entry and I’ll contact you to get started!

E.G. Smith

 

Extremist Journalism, Integrity, and Credibility

I’ve always said the Radical Left doesn’t look to itself often enough when considering what’s going wrong in the movement. Instead, we tend to blame the “others,” those who would rather stoop to the lowest common denominator as to “not offend anyone.” These groups, we press, are just as complicit in the failings of the movement as those who do nothing. And we get angry, and we get pushy, and we get aggressive and start telling people how it is instead of actually listening to the aspirations of the people. And it’s a downward spiral: we get angry because people aren’t joining our movement and so we get aggressive with people and then people are even less likely to offer their support, much less join the movement. So we become even more extreme, more stand-offish, and far less likely to gain the support of the general public. We’re walking contradictions in this way, no better than the extremist agenda we’re fighting against.

Venturist anarchists come to mind here. If people don’t want to run around vandalizing buildings, throwing molotov cocktails and generally fucking shit up, then screw them. This brand of anarchist is elitist by their very nature, isolationist and divisive. Organized Marxist groups also come to mind here, and often their procacious nature is far more visible because they produce publications that they’re constantly pushing towards the masses. These articles aren’t afraid to have an agenda; they are by their very nature excessively forward. A recent headline from Revolution comes to mind:

As a writer, I’ve never been a big fan of Larry Everest. While I did truly enjoy the ideas brought up in War, Oil, and Empire, I just can’t get behind his brand of journalism. “Bush the Liar Escalates War Threats Against Iran.” Couldn’t he have just said “Bush Escalates War Threats Against Iran?” You’d think someone that would even consider reading Revolution would already know the man’s a fucking liar. And for a paper that’s constantly criticizing Fox News for their anything-but-fair-and-balanced news reporting, this seems a bit hypocritical, even for a paper that willingly admits to an underlying agenda. For me personally, that’s the kind of thing that will make me give a polite “no thank you” or simply ignore you when you ask if I want to buy your paper. And I’m pretty turned on to Leftist politics as a whole; I’ll read anything. How, then, would that resonate with the rest of the general public who have neither heard of the RCP or even considered communism to be a positive thing?

My guess is that Everest was taking on this exact tactic I’m speaking to: he feels the public needs to be told how to think, what to think about it, and that they just can’t formulate these opinions for themselves. But I guess that’s an all too common aspect of the vanguard party.

And it’s not just the RCP. I recently attended a discussion lead by members of the International Socialist Organization. It was sort of an intro to their organization, and since I’m close friends with a few of their organizers and realized I don’t know much about what they stand for, I figured I’d go and have a chat. We started talking about their paper, the Socialist Worker, which, while not nearly as “extreme” as Revolution, often harbors much of the same characteristics of any vanguard group. I brought this up, asking why the writers of Leftist publications feel they have to stoop to this level of literally spelling it out for the reader, how that really undermines the reader’s intelligence and the integrity of the publication on the whole. Besides, I added, it’s not like most people they’ll speak to don’t already think Bush is evil/ the war is wrong/ etc. The discussion leader said he understood what I was saying, but that the SW has to do this because “they do, too.” “They” referring to Fox News, talk radio, and other conservative media outlets. That really struck me, that he would be so blatantly shameless about something so incredibly disgraceful in the eyes of anyone with the slightest taste for decent journalism.

If it’s not wording that leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths, it’s representation. I was recently browsing the World Can’t Wait website and saw an article about Obama. I’m always happy to read critiques of the 2008 candidates; I’m not harboring any delusions about this upcoming election. But the first thing that struck me about this article was the picture they chose to go with it:

It’s no secret that World Can’t Wait has ties with the RCP, and that the RCP is staunchly anti-religion in all its manifestations. All religions, they argue, no matter how moderate or progressive, can be taken in a fundamentalist and oppressive direction (never mind that the RCP’s own Maoist ideology has been extremely oppressive historically, and their current ideological manifestation tends to follow that same model). Even though World Can’t Wait boasts support across political, religious, and social lines, the organizational structure itself harbors severe criticism of beliefs that don’t fit the communist model. The picture chosen to accompany this critique of Obama’s not-so-progressive politics is particularly telling in this sense. The article itself does indeed provide a decent critique of Obama’s true politics, but the way they chose to represent him here is troublesome at best. If the article had offered proof or even a suggestion that Obama is, in fact, a Christian fundamentalist (a belief system that has indeed shaped American politics for far too long and has been used tirelessly to push a program of endless war, torture, and oppression), this picture would be quite fitting. As it is, commentary on his religious beliefs are completely absent from the article. It would seem the writer or web designer chose this photo with the idea that it would perhaps speak for itself: Obama is no change from the usual suspects, and the fact that he would even appear somewhere near a symbol of Christianity should provide further proof that this guy is pure evil.

Of course religious fundamentalism is one of the most damaging, most tyrannical aspects of our political leadership. While it’s always shaped our political culture, the Reagan years in particular began an ardent shift towards oppressive religious-based politics. The RCP, World Can’t Wait, and other secularist groups have every right to push a non-fundamentalist agenda. The problem here is that Obama is being represented as that sort of politician with no textual evidence to back it up. Not that I think Obama will provide any sort of relief from our current situation, but I’m not so sure he’s a Christian fundamentalist either.

I often wonder what the Radical Left would look like without all this extremism, this near-dishonesty. Being radical and revolutionary can attract so many; being overly aggressive only attracts a few. There’s a difference between challenging people in a way that makes them think and making them feel inferior, that they’d better hook in or fuck off. I believe that, with a welcoming approach that is neither wishy-washy nor extreme, we could break down those barriers that have separated us from the masses, and worse, from each other. We owe it to ourselves and to the masses of oppressed people to look at ourselves now and then, realize where we’ve gone astray, and maintain enough integrity to change what we find to be destructive.

Let the inner-revolution begin!
E.G. Smith

 

Out with the old, in with a great New Year!

Sometimes you have to distance yourself from certain things to truly see them for what they are. For the past couple of months, I have taken myself slightly aback from the World Can’t Wait organization at a time where they have undergone some serious overhaul. It began with a period of complete passive activism where they suggested that the answer to “driving out the regime” involved nothing more than wearing orange and getting others to do the same. And now, with 2008 officially in progress, they have released a new statement for movement building this coming year. Being on their organizer’s listserv, I received every draft of this statement they were able to crank out over a two-month period, and was never impressed by it. In particular, I thought it was poorly written and lacked direction. But that didn’t matter… it was discussed at a meeting in New York, and I of course couldn’t exactly get up there for a 48-hour period to discuss it, and I think it was probably already set in stone before that.

That’s one of the things I noticed when I stepped back. The organization as a whole has gotten very top-down… or was it always that way?? I really don’t know because I dove in face first (I mean, I considered us to be in a dangerous situation that required immediate action… I still do think that), so I didn’t have any time to really view it as an outsider.

I do think seeing it from the point of view of an insider often helped me abolish criticisms. As a very active organizer who was not a supporter of the RCP, I could combat red-baiting from folks who wanted to criticize the organization without really ever being involved or even close to it.

But it gets hard because the way I’ve seen the organization turn (or maybe it’s always been that way?) is exactly what I despise about the RCP: the absolutist, top-down leadership with no room for criticism or even democratic organizing. I guess I have to remember that even though WCW is not an RCP front per se, it was almost completely initiated by RCP members and supporters, and with the leadership they brought to their movement, the leaderism of their vanguard party was sure to follow.

So that’s it. And I’m feeling great about it. The way I see it, this course of torture, war, spying, and attacks on human rights still needs to be stopped, and I’m not fooling myself about any Democratic candidate. The words of the Call still ring true in my heart. The inner workings of World Can’t Wait, however, I can let go.

Happy New Year!!
E.G. Smith

 

Sorry!

I’ve not forgotten

I’ve been very busy.

I won’t disappoint you.

Be back soon!!!

 

You Don’t Belong Here

It gets lonely out there when you don’t have your own paper.

Really though… I’ve said there should be as many schools of Marxism as there are Marxists. I would think that would be an accepted statement amongst my Leftist comrades, or at least something that would make them think. This, however, has not been the case, in particular with my close comrades that are supporters of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party.  This is not to say members of other Leaderist parties wouldn’t react this way, but I’m in closer contact with the RCP because of my involvement with World Can’t Wait.

But I am singling out the RCP here in particular.  Because they have some of the most contradictory stances on dissent and criticism.  Their much-fronted chairman Bob Avakian recently said in a closed Q&A session: “The revolution that we are about should certainly be able to encompass (dissenters to our party)—in fact, not only encompass but welcome them in their role—as maddening as it might be at times!”

The RCP has paraded this sentiment in the forefront as a defining characteristic that sets the RCP apart from any other Leaderist Vanguard group, and it certainly would be fantastically refreshing if Bob Avakian or the RCP itself had ever actively gotten behind it.  Unfortunately, though, this is nothing more than another Bob Avakian quote that can quickly be thrown into the “bullshit” pile.  And here’s why.

The RCP loves to claim itself “objective,” “searching for truth,” and “willing to admit when they’re wrong.”  Much like the WWP, they believe in a very controversial Marxism and uphold an even more controversial communist leader that everyone else is simply “misinformed about.”  In order to sway the general public from anti-communist conventional wisdom, these groups take it a few steps too far and refuse to admit that the Maos, the Stalins, etc have ever done anything wrong or contrary to the beliefs of Karl Marx.  They assume, I can only imagine, that the general public has been so programed by capitalist-imperialist society that everything is to be seen in black and white terms.  That is, capitalism is all bad and Maoism (in the case of the RCP) or Stalinism (in the case of the WWP) is all good.  They much prefer in-party propaganda to contrasting historical accounts that are often just too hard to sift through (i.e., Mike Ely’s “historical” account of the Maoist revolution in Tibet from a Maoist’s eyes only), and enjoy denouncing dissenters as “reactionaries.”

Really though, I suppose Avakian only said they’d welcome dissenters in the throws of the revolution.  I suppose that means once we really *are* in the throws of a Maoist revolution and a few simple “truths” have already been accepted and never challenged.  But given the RCP’s unwaivering Maoist stance, are we really to believe dissenters would not only be accepted but “welcomed”?   This would play into my idea that there should be as many schools of Marxism as there are Marxists… and that’s obviously not what a pro-vanguard Leaderist party is about, hence the reactions I’ve gotten from RCP supporters (as well as some ISO members, and the few SWP’ers I know).

The idea of the Vanguard Party is in and of itself flawed in this way.  You take a set of ideals that may or may not be true (or may be both true and false, depending on the situation… sorry, Bob A, that *can* happen), you run with it, you try your best to convince others that you’re 100% correct, and you fail 90% of the time.  Vanguards like to blame capitalism/ imperialism/ anti-communist programing/ red-baiting/ etc for that, and many times I do think that’s to blame, but what very few Leaderists fail to realize is that they are to blame as well.  They are to blame for both their flawed ideals as well as their inability to adequately address the anti-communist sentiments people have grown up embodying.  The main struggle for the Marxist today is, in my opinion, to be able to figure out what the People are thinking, where their biases lie, how far their dissatisfactions with capitalism reach, and how we can struggle with them in a constructive and non-elitist manner to build a revolution that is not dictated by some Ivory Tower Vanguard, but by the people… that’s Communism.  And that’s what Marx was getting at in essentially all of his works on building for the people’s revolution.

It hurts me to think that my personal understanding of Marxism is what keeps me from not belonging.

 

The Nomadic Leftist’s Manifesto

I’ve already touched on how radicals that refuse self-affiliation are perceived by their comrades: we’re assumed to be reactionaries, disorganized, people that weaken the movement, and of course often “not radical enough.” While it’s usually our RCP/WWP/SPART counterparts that enjoy partaking in this diagnosis on the whole, I’ve personally encountered more of this from self-procliamed anarchists, which is funny considering by their very nature they strive to be unassimilated in any particular “-ism” (other than anarchism, of course… which I think is where the true contradictions really manifest).

So I’ve drawn up some points about being a nomadic leftist, what we stand for, where the misconceptions lie, and how we are just as important in any social justice movement as any Leaderist or self-affiliating radical.

I’ll be adding more points as I think of them. I’ll also post any new points I get in comment form. But for now, let’s start with these:

1) We have chosen to be nomads because we have not yet found an “-ism” that fits our ideologies. Or maybe we just haven’t found one that accepts a few ideological differences within its own ranks.

2) We are not divisive by our very nature.  On the contrary, we have chosen to work towards unity beyond the confines of the usual sectarian brands of Leadersism and self-affiliation we have become so fatigued by.

3) We reject sectarianism in all its forms and believe no true movement of the masses be organized while simultaneously building up petty ideological walls to ensure it’s “our” brand of radicalism that will lead the masses into revolution/momentous social and political change. We believe that sectarian is ripe with harmful identity politics, and that the evolution of sectarianism will only result in more splits between organized groups until every single person has their own wall built up around them.

4) We are not reactionaries. We are not venturists. We are not confused, we are not overly-stubborn, uneducated, misinformed, and we do not lack legitimate ideologies or beliefs. We are passionate about what we believe and true to ourselves, whether or not any other human being ascribes to our beliefs 100%.

5) We love our ideological differences. We don’t only accept them, we embrace them. We discuss them. We are willing to change our ideas if, through intelligent discourse, we are convinced that an opposing idea better fits our mission. But we do not cut off association with those who believe differently than ourselves and do not become convinced of our conflicting points of view. We are not so stuck in our own set of ideals that we cannot see the other side of things; on the contrary, we believe hearing conflicting ideals is the only way to reach unity and struggle together to achieve our goals. We are aware most Party leaders (such as RCP Chairperson Bob Avakain) claim to ascribe to this belief, but we believe they have yet to prove it to us in a pro-active manner.

6) We do not spend “too much time talking” and “not enough time acting.” We believe our situation today requires immediate radical action, but we also value the time not spent in the streets for discussion, debate, and discovering new routes to reach more people and lead us in new directions.

7) We value the work Marxist-Leaderist groups such as the ISO, RCP, WWP, etc, and strive to build strong connections with them all. Similarly, we value all forms of anarchism, Marxism, radicalism, anti-racism, feminism, and any other -ism with similar goals as ours. We believe our differences lie not in the ends, but in the means of our movement building.

8 ) We are not “overly-PC.” Our goal is not to give every single ideological belief equal importance in our minds, but to be able to decide for ourselves with beliefs make the most since to us as individuals, which ones we choose to embody; therefore it is important to give each ideological belief equal thought before deciding for ourselves if it makes sense or not. We are not afraid to openly criticize those beliefs that we cannot personally embody.

9) We are not “trash talking” when we criticize your group. If we ever criticize your group’s political/ideological beliefs, our goal is to be constructive and help ourselves and others find truth, not to wage an ideological war against you.

10) We are not “spineless” if, through discussion and constructive debate, we reevaluate our beliefs and find we may have been wrong about a few things and change what we believe. In fact, most of us do this often, and we believe the Left would be much stronger and more united if we were all able to do this regularly.

11) Just because we are nomads does not mean we do not by definition identify with any particular -ism. We can be Marxists. We can be feminists. We can be anti-racists. We can be anarchists. We do not contradict ourselves by ascribing to any set of ideals. Our decisions to be nomads simply reflect a certain amount of ideological mobility within the traditional confines of these -isms.
E.G. Smith

 

On Marxist Leaderism

“I’m a Trotskyist.” “I’m a Maoist.” “I’m a Marxist-Leninist.”

I really believe labels are keeping the Left from uniting, whether under a Marxist umbrella or other leftist ideologies. Group-affiliated and leaderist leftists are bound apart, unable to find common ground, from critically thinking not only about their “rivals” but also about themselves. Group-affiliated Marxists, for example, often chose their favorite historical communist, defend everything they ever did (never asking why “their version” didn’t work out or at least placing the blame elsewhere), and become as dogmatic as the imperialists they’re up against.

Definition: guaranteed failure.

The ISO is Trotskyist. The RCP is Maoist. The WWP is Stalinist. And I just can’t find a home in any of them.

What’s a forward-thinking radical Marxist to do? I dig Lenin. I think Trotsky would have been better than Stalin. And yes, I will concede that Mao *did* do some really important things for Feudal China. And while I just can’t get behind Stalin, I can, through actually sitting and chatting with friends from the Workers World Party, understand why they would want to defend Stalin in some ways.

Then, of course, you have to consider the authoritariaism Lenin placed on the people post-revolution. Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Stalin’s… Stalinsim! And Trotsky, who never got a chance to fuck it up, probably would have (this does, however, make Trotsky easier to defend).

That’s a question Trotskyists need to ask: If he’d come to power instead of Stalin, what could have led him to failure?

The most productive things these Marxist Leaderists could do is be better able to criticize their ideological lineage without immediately going on the defense: “Yeah, making children in Tibet shoot their parents who refused to drop religion *was* kind of fucked up… but look at the literacy rate Mao’s armies brought to the region!” These kinds of post-defenses never increase my liking of Mao… they only reaffirm my belief that most Marxists today are doomed to fail if they don’t admit to their idol’s failures as communists.

I’m not saying Leaderists don’t criticize their own idols within their own ranks. But most WWP supporters would never purely denounce Stalin’s very real genocide in the presence of “outsiders.” And I’ve never met a Maoist that willingly, without being asked, questioned the good of the Cultural Revolution without mentioning the supposed “good intentions” behind it (more on that later), or far more often, bringing up an unrelated benefit to Maoism.

What it really boils down to is the question of legitimacy. We need legitimate Marxism to make it work. Most people’s main opposition to socialism is that they have a) read American text books that do in fact revise a lot of history, and b) that they, regardless of biased and revisionist history, do know the truth about how socialist states have gone. While many people may be surprised to find that China is not, in fact, communist, and has not been for some time (or ever, depending on who you ask), they do know that socialism hasn’t exactly worked thus far. This would be a fantastic opportunity for Marxist thinkers to engage new audiences, converse without lecturing, ask the people where they believe we’ve gone wrong in the past, and yes, correct inaccuracies when needed. Unfortunately, no Marxist Leaderist group I have ever encountered is willing to do this. No matter how much they claim to see the need for conversation, debate, critical thought, etc, most of them write off any criticism of their idols as “revisionism” and lecture. And I think most believe they are doing socialism a big favor by remaining unconditionally positive about every single thing their idol has done, but what they really do is reaffirm all the negative sentiment about socialism, what it is, why it’s needed, and how we can take the problems from the past and make great strides toward a better future. I have always held true that it is not communism that has failed, but communists, and if we’re never going to address that, we’re just going to see the same failure again and again until we have nothing more to offer.

In the very divided depths of the struggle,
E.G. Smith