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
February 28, 2008 at 5:55 am
If you think there were inaccuracies in how you (or your project) were described on Kasama, please let me know.
If you write significant analysis in the future of the RCP, WCW or other important parts of the Left, please let us know so we can engage them.
Yours in the great adventure of humanity’s liberation.
Mike E
February 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm
This entry was more just for damage control, and to remind myself of my goals so that *I personally* don’t stray away from my intentions, or simply moan and groan and create “internet trash” teehee. Thanks for responding!
March 2, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I understand you know wanting to be put in a box.
Critics of RCP
___________________________
| blackstone |
| E. G Stone |
| Mike Ely |
| unprincipled leftists |
| conservatives,liberals |
| capitalists |
___________________________
Sometimes, its good to clear up misconceptions and to reiterate to others your bigger goal and that criticism of the radical left is just a small part of it.
March 2, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I’m not exactly sure I understand the first part of your comment, blackstone…
March 6, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Ahh, next time ill proof read! I meant
“I understand you not wanting to be put in a box.”
As in, you do not want to be labeled as critic of the radical left, true you and I are critics, but that’s not all that we do. We do not criticize to destroy the left movement, but to solve it’s problems and move forward.
March 13, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Keep on writing. Keep on poking.
April 3, 2008 at 2:48 am
It’s true that the Kasama project “resists the “cult of personality” that RCP Chairman Bob Avakian has set forth,” but that’s hardly the only thing it is doing, or even the primary thing. I’m not sure if the project is even opposed to cults of personality on principle. The eight letter in particular tries to distinguish the “better” cult around Mao from the “worse” cult around Avakian, without explicitly repudiating the former.
Of course, the Nine Letters were (as Mike Ely is the first to point out) ghostwritten by about a dozen people, and had to accommodate all their views. Don’t assume that the eight letter’s failure to repudiate the Mao cult tells us anything (one way or another) about any of the constituent member’s personal beliefs.