|
My Debate With the RCP and Its Supporters
Regarding the Mass Line, etc.
During April and May 2002, I attempted to engage in a debate with various members
and/or supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, regarding their new draft
programme and general political line. And, because I was involved, the debate naturally
gravitated toward issues of the mass line, and having a mass perspective. This debate
went back and forth a number of times, until it was cut short by their refusal to let
me post my next reply. (More on that below.)
The RCP (or its close supporters) established the “unofficial” 2changetheworld.info
web site for the stated purpose of promoting debate about the draft of a new Party
programme which they published nearly a year earlier. (Why the big delay? Probably
in order to consolidate Party members, and as many existing supporters as possible,
around the new draft programme before opening it up to dangerous outside criticisms.
[In fact, after this debate was over I was told by an RCP member that this so-called
“draft” programme had been adopted as the official RCP programme and
that all Party members were obligated by democratic centralism to defend it in its
entirety until it is eventually replaced.])
2changetheworld.info was a moderated site, which will no longer exists. I was
surprised to find that I was allowed to say some of the highly negative things I did in
my postings. My first posting, for example, questioned the sincerity of the very stated
purpose of the web site. They said (or implied, anyway) that it was to discuss the
current draft in order to produce a better final draft. I said I believed that the
essential line had already been set, that regardless of what anyone said at this point
only small or cosmetic changes would be made to the draft, and that the real central
purpose of the “big discussion campaign” around the draft programme—including that on
the web forum—was to build more support for the Party. (This proved to be the case;
not even any cosmetic changes were ever made to the “draft” programme.)
All my further postings were in response to what RCP members or supporters said in
reaction to my previous postings. I found that for all the other participants in the
discussion...:
- They were very unfamiliar with the theory of the mass line as presented by
Mao, or with the basic views of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao about the central
importance of having a mass perspective (or what that might mean). Most RCPers
have apparently only read the 3 short paragraphs on the mass line in the draft
programme, and possibly the quotations by Mao in chapter 11 in the
Red Book. (The long-term members probably also once read the old, short
RCP pamphlet on the mass line which came out in 1976 and was pulled from
circulation a couple years later—and which I have made available again on
this web site.)
- They were unable to properly understand the few quotations or passages they
are familiar with.
- They were unable to properly understand even the passages on the mass line in
the RCP’s own draft programme! (The draft correctly says—twice!—that “The
mass line is the method through which the party both learns from and leads the
masses.” Despite this, I had to remind these folks over and over again
that the mass line is a method of leadership—something they just cannot
get through their heads! And this is partly because they also can’t
get through their heads that political education work is different
than leadership work, even though the two must be closely connected in order
for either to be very effective. In Lenin’s words, they are constantly
“confounding politics with pedagogics”.)
- They were unwilling to investigate further, for example, by reading relevant
parts of my mass line book when they these were referred to them.
- They were unwilling to believe I could possibly mean what I said, no matter
how carefully and thoroughly I spelled it out. (I was called “dishonest” by
at least three different people—though to be fair, one was evidently a young
non-member supporter of the RCP, and one was apparently a non-RCP person
sympathetic to the line of that bunch of crazies in “MIM”.)
For these sorts of reasons, my basic task in all my replies was to attempt to clear
up all the drastic misconceptions about the mass line and having a mass perspective
that those in and around the RCP are inevitably heir to. And although I really tried
to clarify things for them, it is pretty obvious that I made little progress. Every new
“clarification” was itself systematically misconstrued. As I said somewhere during the
discussion, people around the RCP are deep into their own paradigm on these issues,
and simply cannot comprehend any other view. (And of course you cannot even
intelligently disagree with a view you don’t comprehend in the first place.)
I would summarize what I learned from this little debate excercise as follows: I
am more sure than ever that the RCP is hopelessly stuck in a rut, and will probably
never be able to connect up with the mass movement, bring the light of revolution to
that movement, and thus lead the masses in revolution. It is true that only a handful
of them participated in the debate against me, but much more tellingly, no one at
all came forward to support any aspect of what I was saying. They really do all
seem to be of one mind on these central issues.
I truly do continue to sincerely respect the RCP and those around it for their
revolutionary fervor and staunchness, and for remaining revolutionaries while so
many others over the past few decades have finked out. But I cannot respect them
for the downright idiotic method they continue to use in attempting to build
a revolutionary movement. (That method, in a nutshell, is “concentrate almost
entirely on educational work, focused around their newspaper, and avoid actual
participation in and leadership of most mass struggles”.) You would really think
that after a quarter century of abject failure with their approach, at least a few
of them would start to question it. People with any sense are supposed to be able
to learn from their errors, at least eventually!
But I am afraid that the steady streamlet of individuals in the RCP who do
eventually get frustrated by their lack of progress toward revolution tend simply
to give up on revolution altogether, drop out, and then disappear into the woodwork.
Instead of learning from their experience that the RCP is going about things in
a fundamentally incorrect way, such individuals seem capable of only
drawing the invalid conclusion that revolution is “impossible” in this country. In
short, even in their slinking away, they are still under the spell that says the
“RCP way” is the only possible path toward revolution. When they eventually see
that that method has failed, there is nothing left for them but to give up
entirely.
This sort of response is utterly shameful for any real revolutionary! It is
simply not the Marxist, scientific way to go about making revolution. And it says
something very negative indeed, not only about most of those who drop out of the
RCP, but also about the Party itself. What kind of political culture exists there
when its members are not constantly seeking to find ways to get around all
the many obstacles to revolution that we face—including line problems in
our own ranks? What kind of people are these who, when faced with a dead-in-the-water
Party for an entire quarter century seem to be completely unable and unwilling to
loudly raise the question, just what the hell is wrong here?! When RCP
members become disillusioned about the line of the Party—as most of them eventually
do—they seem to be like the spent drop-outs from some religious cult, not active,
thinking revolutionaries, determined to identify and correct their own political
errors and those of their comrades. If I act disgusted with a Party that produces
such people, it is because I really am.
* * *
As I mentioned above, the debate between “me and them” was cut short when they
refused to let me fully express my position in replying to some wildly distorting
criticisms of my views from somebody using the handle “naxalite”. The moderator
refused to post my response unless I “revised” it in accordance with their
“guidelines”. (One charge against me is that my submissions are too “emotional”.
They do tend to be emotional; I only write about what I deeply care about.)
Anyway, I refused to censor myself this way, and chose to post my unexpurgated
response here. (See below—look for the red font—, where you will also find a
link to the moderator’s letter stating his reasons for refusing to post my
submission, with my rebuttals interspersed.)
Can you really have a fair debate when one side insists on the right to censor
the other (or force him to censor himself)? Of course not. No more than you can have
a fair debate with the editor of your local newspaper (even if the editor himself
only participates as a “moderator”). As I said, I was actually surprised the RCPers
were as open as they were to letting me spout off. But since they no longer let me
freely express my views in their forum, in good conscience I can no longer
participate there at all.
This doesn’t mean that I will have nothing more to say, however! In addition to
the reply below which they tried to censor, and a number of the earlier contributions
I made to the discussion, I may yet post additional responses here to things they
said on their site.
- Scott’s first posting (4/6/02) to 2changetheworld.info,
entitled “Is this all a waste of time?” It questions the sincerity of the RCP’s
willingness to revise its draft programme in the light of criticisms raised
against it.
- Scott’s reply of 4/26/02 to “naxalite” which argues
that the RCP has long been in a dogmatic rut, and that it is mostly a propaganda
organization.
- Scott’s reply of 4/27/02 to “naxalite” disputing
“naxalite’s” claim that the mass line “permeates” the RCP’s new draft programme.
- Scott’s reply of 5/2/02 to RCP spokesperson Dolly Veale
who argued that the RCP does use the mass line all the time, as evidenced
by articles in the Revolutionary Worker. (The entire text of Dolly’s post
is also included here.)
- Scott’s response of 5/7/02 to “naxalite”.
This is the word-for-word response that the moderator refused
to post on the 2changetheworld site. It is in fact quite long (another
of the charges against it), and also includes the entire text of “naxalite’s”
post that it replies to.
- Humorous Coda This is the
“rejection slip” Scott received from the
moderator of the 2changetheworld site when he attempted to make one
final “goodbye posting” on 5/12/02, which would refer people to this
site. (His attempted posting is appended to the rejection slip.)
- Scott’s letter to “X” (7/5/02)
Part of a post-debate exchange with yet another RCP member or supporter.
- [Other discussions with RCPers may be added here later.]
Return to MASSLINE.INFO RCP page
Return to MASSLINE.INFO Home page
|
|