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

 

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.