¡La rebelión se justifica! |
| Author |
Message |
| It's Right to Rebel! Forums Index > La economía marxista / Marxist Economics ~ A response to the liar and Crypto-Trot Carl Miller |
|
|
Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 886
|
|
Carl Miller (or
"Maoist Thinker" as he has gone by in the past) has once again
demonstrated what passes for analysis over at rcp=u$a. We should also
note that Miller did not inform IRTR of his latest criticisms of MIM
and IRTR on his blog. Usually, when making a criticism of an
organization, one invites the other organization to respond. For
example, IRTR has given rcp=u$a plenty of opportunities to post in the
Marxist Economics section of the forum. IRTR has also informed Miller
that his blog entry has been responded to on IRTR.
Last year, Miller made some ridiculous posts to IRTR; they were so
ridiculous that IRTR wasn't sure if they were real or a parody. In any
case, after informing IRTR that communists did not fear criticism, Carl
Miller left quietly, not responding at all or making a self-criticism
that he had been refuted. Apparently, Carl Miller is afraid of
criticism. This is typical of rcp=u$a, they don't really care about
truth. To see Miller run off after being refuted on IRTR:
https://irtr.org/archive/marxleninmao.proboards43.com/indexd
7e6475f4c95962ad971861e7b91130d.html?board=math&action=display&thread=1120084785 (remove spaces in order to view link)
Miller's latest blog entry is entitled, "MIM is C-R-A-Z-Y" and can be
viewed at: http://www.mlmist.blogspot.com/ as of April 7th, 2005.
| Quote: |
[Miller] First off, MIM's 3 main points are:
1. Potential for Capitalist Restoration after Revolution.
2. Cultural Revolution was the highest point of class struggle.
3. In Imperialist countries a "labor aristocracy" of workers exists.
|
Right off the bat, Carl Miller mischaracterizes MIM's position. On
the "About" section of MIM's web page and in just about every MIM
publication, MIM describes the 3 cardinal points as follows:
| Quote: |
[MIM] 1. MIM holds that after the proletariat seizes power in socialist
revolution, the potential exists for capitalist restoration under the
leadership of a new bourgeoisie within the communist party itself. In
the case of the USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the death of
Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's death and the overthrow of
the "Gang of Four" in 1976.
2. MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural Revolution as the farthest advance of communism in humyn history.
3. As Marx, Engels and Lenin formulated and MIM has reiterated through
materialist analysis, imperialism extracts super-profits from the Third
World and in part uses this wealth to buy off whole populations of
oppressor nation so-called workers. These so-called workers bought off
by imperialism form a new petty-bourgeoisie called the labor
aristocracy. These classes are not the principal vehicles to advance
Maoism within those countries because their standards of living depend
on imperialism. At this time, imperialist super-profits create this
situation in Canada, Quebec, the United $tates, England, France,
Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Israel, Sweden and Denmark. (See MIM Theory #1 on the
White-Working Class and MIM Theory #10 on the Labor Aristocracy and
Imperialism and its Class Structure in 1997)(Artistic rendition of
MIM's third cardinal principle) |
Right away, we can see that Miller has totally mischaracterizes point 3
and the other points. MIM does not merely think that some vague labor
aristocracy of workers exists in imperialist countries; point 3 is much
more than that. In fact, almost everyone claiming to be socialist
thinks that a labor aristocracy exists to some degree. Trotskyists tend
to say that the labor aristocracy is limited to just union bureaucrats;
some Hoxhaists can be found saying that a substantial part the first
world so-called workers are bought off. So, nothing about the way
Miller has characterizes point 3 distinguishes MIM from any other
party. As anyone who can read can see, MIM's third point is much more
specific and even discusses the size of the labor aristocracy and
mechanisms that transfer surplus value to create the labor aristocracy.
This is a great place to point out rcp=u$a's method. Rather than
actually criticizing what Maoists have written, rcp=u$a instead would
misrepresent, dumb things down, and set up strawmen. Maoists have long
pointed out that rcp=u$a is simply incapable of scientific discussion.
Miller is just one more example of this.
| Quote: |
| [Miller] ... The Maoist Internationalist Movement is not Maoist, Internationalist, or even a movement...
|
Again, we note rcp=u$a's inability to deal with scientific analysis.
MIM has a long movement history that is public knowledge. In fact, MIM
was calling itself "Maoist" when Avakian was still calling for
"Marxist-Leninist" (not Maoist) unity. MIM has always been principled
in its debates and honest about its history -- whereas, what the
rcp=u$a does is straight up lie.
| Quote: |
| [Miller] I agree with all of those points, but MIM takes all of them, especially number 3 to crazy extremes.
|
The points that Miller lists and "agree(s) with" are not even MIM's.
Again, anyone who had done even 10 minutes of online research could
tell you that those are not MIM's cardinal points. Mao said, "No
investigation, no right to speak."
| Quote: |
|
[Miller] First off, MIM claims that revolution could never happen in
the USA, and that the 3rd world will have to invade the U.S. |
Again, Miller provides no citations; Miller mischaracterizes MIM.
Maoists say revolution will happen in the u$. In fact, the only example
we have of imperialist nations having anything like socialist
revolution is the example that MIM provides of how the Soviet Union
under Stalin invaded nazi germany, although the GDR became revisionist
along with the Soviet Union itself. In terms of who can point to real
examples of revolutions in labor aristocratic first world nations, so
far MIM is in the lead. MIM =1; rcp=u$a and the Trotskyists=0.
| Quote: |
[Miller] MIM believes that "white workers are not proletarians but labor aristocracy".
The line of MIM is that, if Joe and Bob work in a poultry factory,
gut and clean 90 birds an hour, and make a tiny bit of money (the same
amount!), and Joe is white and Bob is black, Bob is a proletarian, Joe
is not. Why? Because of the color of his skin. This is racism.
You cannot determine someone's class because of their skin color. Now,
I admit things are probably a lot of worse for Bob because he is black,
but that doesn't make Joe any less of a proletarian. |
Firstly, this is really comical considering that Carl Miller's blog, in
another entry, actually lists Harry Haywood's Black Bolshevik as one of
the books he is trying to read. I suggest Miller actually finish the
book. Haywood explains the line of the Comintern and Stalin on the
National question. It is the main topic of Haywood's book. Again, this
is to show that rcp=u$a not only have an inability to think
scientifically and do math, they also have major reading comprehension
problems (if they read at all). Notice that Miller, again, has not
actually quoted MIM's position. Serious and honest critics actually
quote the positions they are criticizing to avoid misunderstandings --
not so with the zombies at rcp=u$a. Like Haywood and Stalin, MIM and
IRTR have distinguished over and over that "white" and "Black" refer to
nations, not races nor skin colors. Mao said, "No investigation, no
right to speak."
Secondly, Miller gets it wrong again. Where does MIM say that
members of the Black Nation who make labor aristocratic wages are
proletarian? MIM, nor IRTR, has ever made this claim. Again, Miller
hasn't even bothered doing any research. Once again, Miller engages in
total intellectual dishonesty and doesn't bother to offer any citations
or quotations. In fact, the majority of the Black Nation is labor
aristocratic, like the white nation. However, the Black Nation is an
oppressed nation nonetheless. In this regard, it is like Occupied
Ireland. All of Ireland is labor aristocratic, yet, Occupied Ireland is
still oppressed by english imperialism. MIM, like the Panthers, says it
is best to go with the lumpen under first world conditions where there
is no significant proletariat.
The question of who is and who is not a proletarian is a question of
class, not skin color as Carl Miller's strawman assumes.
Non-proletarians can be nationally oppressed by imperialism. In fact,
this is the case with the Third World national bourgeoisie. So, once
again, Miller and the rcp=u$a demonstrate their utter lack of
understanding of Maoism and the principal contradiction between
imperialism and oppressed nations.
| Quote: |
|
[Miller] So, this brings me to my point that MIM isn't Maoist, because
Chairman Mao Tse-Tung said, in his red book "Among whites in the United
States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress black
people. They in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary
intellectuals, and other enlightened persons who comprise the
overwhelming majority of white people". (Quotations from Chairman Mao,
P. 10) |
This is a great example of why the Maoists launched the campaign to
criticize Confucius (and Lin Biao) during the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution. Look at Miller's lack of argument here. Miller
thinks that a Mao quote out of the Red Book (published by Lin
incidentally) is a serious refutation of MIM. Mao couldn't stand this
rcp=u$a style dogmatism.
This is a good example of the inability to think critically and the
pure dogmatism over at rcp=u$a. Mao was getting most of his analysis of
the u$ from revisionist organizations like cp=u$a and plp. Where did
Mao ever do a class analysis of the u$? Where has rcp=u$a ever
calculated global surplus value and its origins? Miller can't show that
the Maoist line is wrong, all he can do is quote revisionists second
hand. If one examines Beijing Review throughout the Cultural
Revolution, there is more than one line on the first world that runs
throughout. One example of this is Beijing Review publishing Robert
Williams on the white nation. Other examples have been cited on IRTR.
Anyways, Maoist analysis has shown that Mao was wrong on this point.
| Quote: |
|
[Miller] Mao was correct. Yes, black people are an oppressed nation in
this country, but there are plenty of white people who are working
class, exploited and abused. The swollen stomachs in Appalachia belong
to white proletarians. The non-union miners who risk their lives
everyday in unsafe mines are white proletarians. Mao knew this, MIM
does not. MIM is not Maoist. |
This more hot air, emotionalism, and dogma from Carl Miller. IRTR
restates its challenge to Miller, Bob Amerikan, or any other Trotskyist
or revisionist: Prove that there is a significant number of exploited
whites in the u$. Marx has a very scientific concept of exploitation
and class in Capital (for those poorly read Avakianites reading this
post who don't know Marx's titles: Capital is Marx's most systematic
and advanced development of his economic theories.). MIM has already
offered hundreds of pages filled with economic data and scientific
analysis. IRTR is currently holding a class, for serious students, on
Capital in the People's University.
| Quote: |
|
[Miller] MIM has ranted about Avakian being a cypto-trotskyist because
he is "too critical" of Stalin and Mao in his work "conquer the world".
Mao said "we communists do not fear criticism", not "anyone who is to
critical of me or Stalin is a crypto trotskyist". MIM is not Maoist. |
This is ironic because the last time Miller used the phase "we
communists do not fear criticism," Miller ran off rather than face it.
See: https://irtr.org/archive/marxleninmao.proboards43.com/indexd
7e6475f4c95962ad971861e7b91130d.html?board=math&action=display&thread=1120084785 (remove spaces in order to view link)
It's good Miller realizes that Avakian is critical of Stalin and Mao;
Avakian throws Stalin and Mao in the trash. However, I would like to
know where exactly MIM and IRTR says Avakian is "too critical?" When
quotation marks are used like Miller has used them, it indicates it is
a direct quotation, not a paraphrase. On MIM's google search engine
"too critical" is nowhere to be found. In the criticism of the 5 parts
of Conquer The World at
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/crypto.html the words "too
critical" don't appear in a word search. Again, this is just more
sloppiness or dishonesty by Carl Miller. He is okay with apparently
mis-quoting, but nowhere does he actually quote MIM or IRTR.
Although it is true that Avakian throws Stalin and Mao in the trash,
Miller shows has complete lack of reading ability and lack of
investigation. Miller misses all the main points about
crypto-Trotskyism. Among other things, Bob Amerikan is Trotskyist
because: 1. He adopts Trotsky's class analysis. 2. He takes up
Trotsky's line on national liberation. 3. He takes up Trotsky's line on
the relationship between the first and Third World. 4. He adopts
Trotsky's theory of productive forces. 5. He rejects (in content)
Stalin's "socialism in one country" for the same reasons as Trotsky. 6.
He adopts Trotsky's international strategy and conception of the Party
as a world party.
Those wanting to see rcp=u$a being creamed in the debate, visit the following links:
IRTR Marxist Economics Forums: https://irtr.org/forums/forum-3.html (also look in the archives)
MIM's crypto-Trotskyism page: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/crypto.html
This is a good thread (Third World is the motive force) that has a post
where Avakian's quotes are compared side by side with Trotsky's:
https://irtr.org/forums/about603.html
Does Carl Miller address any of this? Of course not. Like the rcp=u$a,
he is a pure dogmatist who doesn't know the difference between a Maoist
epistemological approach and a religious one.
| Quote: |
|
[Miller] Also, MIM is not internationalist. Internationalists are
people who see the working class as an international class that should
unite and overthrow the ruling class. MIM sees the proletariat in the
United States as the enemy, and hates them with passion. On their
websites the have jokes about American women (or womyn, or wimmin)
being raped, as well as discussion on their forum www.irtr.org of
turning America (or Amerikkka) into a gulag. MIM is not
internationalist. |
Where are jokes about rape? Again, let's see this quote. Or, is Miller straight up lying again?
Yes, Stalin era gulags and China's re-education techniques were both
mentioned. It is interesting to see that Carl Miller shares the basic
Trotskyist and liberal view that forced political re-education of
enemies is bad. Another crypto-Trotskyist/pig (who was here at IRTR
under false pretenses, wearing various masks), last year, promoted
negative views about the Stalin's Soviet Union. They also adopted the
liberal anti-communist stereotyped view of communist societies. It
should also be mentioned that they were invited to discuss economics
again and again, yet they proved themselves incapable.
Crypto-Trotskyists can post their economic analysis to Marxist
Economics section -- public posting is enabled.
Miller says yet more ridiculous things without any citations. Yes, the
proletariat is an international class -- where has MIM or IRTR said
otherwise? The proletariat obviously exists across many nations.
However, this does not mean it is evenly distributed across all these
nations. Although the rcp=u$a's new program does read this way with
their ridiculous mechanical "Two 90/10s." The crypto-Trotskyists have
never put forward a scientific class analysis. This latest blog entry
by Carl Miller just shows how truly dismal things are over there at
rcp=u$a. If any Trotskyist or crypto-Trotskyist wants attempt to
disprove the Maoist line in the Economics forum, then they are welcome
to try. IRTR even allows them to post in the Marxist Economics forum
anonymously.
| Quote: |
|
[Miller] Finally, MIM is not a movement. The most anyone has seen of
MIM is one old hippie-looking guy. A movement means lots of people, MIM
is a group of aging hatefilled old men, the few who exist. They
decended from a group at Harvard called "Radacads" or "radical
academics". They are not a movement, they a coookie old white men who
hate white people. |
Yet again, we see typical rcp=u$a tactics. Rather than talk about line,
Miller makes up a fiction about MIM's supposed identity. Miller even
engages in standard identity politics and pig background baiting.
| Quote: |
|
[Miller] They think all sex under capitalism is rape. This must be some
crazy idea for winning teenage boys over to overthrowing capitalism, so
they can have sex and not be rapists! |
Again, Carl Miller is capable of neither correctly characterizing the
Maoist line (all sex is rape under patriarchy) nor refuting it.
Instead, he comes up with some half baked non sequitur. MIM has said
again and again that whether one has sex or not has no relationship to
overthrowing patriarchy. This kind of individualist stance is called
"sub-reformism" by Maoists. Individuals having sex or not having sex is
not going to bring down the system.
| Quote: |
| [Miller] Someone should sue MIM for false advertising, but what would be the point, you wouldn't get much money.
|
What an odd thing for someone claiming to be a communist to say, but
then again, there is nothing communist about rcp=u$a. The vast majority
of communists in the world are dirt poor. Whether it is true of MIM or
not, it is interesting that Miller sees that as some kind of fault.
This should be expected given that the line between the rcp=u$a and the
DNC blurs everyday. At least the rcp=u$a isn't calling all hours of the
day (yet) asking to fund their sustainer program to get the demokrats
into office. For information on the Bob Amerikan sustainer program,
visit rwor.org.
| Quote: |
|
[Miller] But it would be cool if we could get some judge to force them
to change their name to MUW, Maniac Uninternationalist Whiteguy(s). |
More identity politics from Carl Miller.
| Quote: |
| [Miller] Alas, we need revolution and real revolutionaries, not crazy MIMists.
|
There is no basic unity between Maoists and the rcp=u$a. Even if
rcp=u$a was capable of any level of reasonable discussion, there would
be no two line struggle with them. Bob Amerikan's revolution is white
nationalist (look at their line on Aztlan, for example), they exist
somewhere between social demokracy and fascism. As a first world
Trotskyist organization, they represent the labor aristocracy. Besides
this, they work for the police and intelligence agencies -- for
example, rcp=u$a publishes CIA articles approvingly, writes positively
of admitted CIA agent Gloria Steinem, they worked with the intelligence
agencies against the Peruvian Maoists, they are now beating the war
drums against Iran under the guise of rescuing Third World wimmin.
Readers here should really examine Carl Miller's blog entry and look at
the methods he uses: 1. no citations or quotations from the material he
claims to be criticizing. 2. blatant mischaracterization and even
misquotes! 3. sloppiness and lack of any investigation on even the most
basic issues, let alone the deeper ones. 4. no scientific analysis at
all. 4. no examination of MIM's line at all. 5. identity politics. 6.
background baiting. 7. total idealist dogma.
Carl Miller is a good negative example. Miller is really very typical
of the level at which rcp=u$a works. Not long ago, Bob Amerikan spoke
of an epistemological break. The real meaning of Bob Amerikan's
epistemological break is the blatant rejection of material, scientific,
analysis. |
_________________
Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movies by Proletarian Productions: redvid.castpost.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow... just... wow...
thanks for reading my blog...
it's good to know there are folks out there reading it.
First off, I don't see my summary of the 3-main-points as being
misrepresentative. I said the same thing your 3-main points say, except
in fewer words. My readers don't want to read a MIM Rant full of
"Amerikkka"s and references to "Bob Amerikan". (Though I do like
"Amerikkka"! And yes, I did use it in my entry on Mao: The Unknown
Story.)
Secondly, I AM NOT AN RCP REPRESENTATIVE, SPOKESMAN, OR MEMBER! I
am a revolutionary who supports the RCP! Perhaps you already knew this,
but I just want to make it clear. When Carl Miller speaks he speaks for
Carl Miller and no one else!
Now, I will issue a self-criticism, Priairie Fire is right, I should have cited my sources.
Here are a few of them:
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/art/humor/antiamerikanjokes.html
5. How does the Amerikan womyn avoid the singles bar scene?
Answer: She marries her kidnapper.
KIDNAPPING AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMYN, or WIMMIN, or even WOMEN IS NOT FUNNY.
MIM hates Americans, not the idea of America like the RCP Hates,
but actual Americans with such a passion, that the idea of an American
woman being raped/kidnapped is humorous.
Also, I think my post did some good, because MIM previously had a
light bulb joke on their site about rape. Yes, I can't prove it. But it
seems that when I put up the post, suddenly MIM realized that rape
isn't funny, and took it down. I have done a good thing.
Also, Invasion by the third world is not revolution. Maoism, as I
understand, depends on the masses of people being mobilized, not a
foreign army coming in and taking over.
I don't want a foreign country to come and invade the USA, I
believe we can make revolution of our will, but alas, perhaps I am an
idealist.
MIM has an entire webpage devoted to the concept that there is no
white proletariat. They even call it, "The Myth of the White
Proletariat".
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/contemp/whitemyths/index.html
And, on that note, I would be curious to learn about how the
swollen stomachs in Apalachia are exploiters? I would also like to know
how homeless people on the street who happen to be white are not
proletarians?
This doesn't make sense!
Wake Up!
And,
Avakian does not throw Stalin and Mao in the trash! He sums up some
serious mistakes they have made. Saying that "Conquer the World"
"throws Mao and Stalin in the trash" is pretty much infering that
Avakian is too critical. There is no way getting around that.
Stalin, Mao, are not God! Sorry to burst your bubble, they made
some pretty fucked up decisions, and if you can't admit that, you are
being too dogmatic.
Now, you went after me for not siting my sources, I will go after
you for not siting yours. Where does Avakian say he doesn't believe in
Socialism in One Country? That's redicules. Absolutely redicules. He
upholds China, Russia, and the draft programme of his party calls for
Socialism in one country. Wow! Just, Wow!
First off, I am correct in saying no one has ever seen more than one MIMist at a time.
And I don't how anything relating to MIM could be public knowledge.
Most people have no idea that MIM even exists, so I doubt they are
aware of MIM's history.
Yes, I made some jokes toward the end of my writings. How horrible of me! Do I dare do anything but spew dogmatic rhetoric!
I have wasted my time on this entry. But I really don't have that
much to do these days. So this is my response, and it's the only one
I'm giving. I dislike the tone of this forum, I joined this forum and
people attacked me from the second I entered, I felt uncomfortable, and
I had no more desire to be here.
But let me say this, if any MIM folks wish to leave comments on my
blog, I would love to hear them. I don't mind alternative veiws, and
your comments will be posted. That's all... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I would also like to know how homeless people on the street who happen to be white are not proletarians?
|
According to even RCP's analysis of classes in the U$, wouldn't tose persyns be lumpen or lumpen-proletarians?
| Quote: |
| First off, I am correct in saying no one has ever seen more than one MIMist at a time.
|
Wow, you must work for the CIA to know this for sure! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Posts: 1546
|
|
| CarlMiller wrote: |
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/art/humor/antiamerikanjokes.html
5. How does the Amerikan womyn avoid the singles bar scene?
Answer: She marries her kidnapper.
KIDNAPPING AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMYN, or WIMMIN, or even WOMEN IS NOT FUNNY.
|
The point of MIM's joke is that Amerikkkan bio-wimmin are gender
oppressors. In no way was MIM making fun of violence against wimmin. I
don't wish to waste more time discussing it with you, since you are
clearly dealing with peripheral rather than core issues.
| Quote: |
| MIM
hates Americans, not the idea of America like the RCP Hates, but actual
Americans with such a passion, that the idea of an American woman being
raped/kidnapped is humorous. |
This is thinly disguised Amerikkkan chauvinism. Prove that "MIM hates Ameri[kkk]ans."
| Quote: |
| Also,
I think my post did some good, because MIM previously had a light bulb
joke on their site about rape. Yes, I can't prove it. But it seems that
when I put up the post, suddenly MIM realized that rape isn't funny,
and took it down. I have done a good thing. |
I am not familiar with the alleged joke and cannot discuss it.
| Quote: |
| Also,
Invasion by the third world is not revolution. Maoism, as I understand,
depends on the masses of people being mobilized, not a foreign army
coming in and taking over. |
There are no masses to speak of right now in the united $nakes. How
revolution will be played out will depend on the objective situation.
An invasion from the Third World may or may not be necessary. Another
possibility is that an exploited proletariat will develop among the
Amerikkkan labor aristocracy as more and more Third World countries
become socialist and cut off the flow of stolen superprofits to
Amerikkka. Even in that case, it will be the Third World that engenders
the collapse of Amerikkka.
In any event, you keep avoiding the issue of the eastern part of Germany, a country that was invaded by the socialist Soviet Union and that did not
have a revolution of its own. It was in fact fascist and had to be
defeated militarily from the outside. Strong parallels to the united
$nakes exist.
| Quote: |
| I
don't want a foreign country to come and invade the USA, I believe we
can make revolution of our will, but alas, perhaps I am an idealist. |
You are indeed an idealist. You repeatedly fail to address material
reality, even when confronted with it. Blinded by your idealist
Amerikkkan chauvinism, you simply accept proletarian revolution in
Amerikkka as an article of faith. You have yet to post a valid argument
for Amerikkkans' revolutionary potential; you merely spout nonsense
about what you "believe," which is of no interest to me unless you can
support your claims.
| Quote: |
| And,
on that note, I would be curious to learn about how the swollen
stomachs in Apalachia are exploiters? I would also like to know how
homeless people on the street who happen to be white are not
proletarians? |
This has been discussed countless times, both at MIM and at IRTR. You
apparently lack the most minimal understanding, such as the fact that
homeless persyns who do little or no work are almost universally
classified as lumpenproletarians, not as proletarians. Even Trotskyists
usually manage to get that one right. You also lack current
information. There may have been swollen stomachs in Appalachia eighty
years ago, but you won't find any there today.
| Quote: |
| First off, I am correct in saying no one has ever seen more than one MIMist at a time.
|
Stop pig-baiting us! You're just hoping to get someone to refute your
claim by disclosing information that could be harmful to MIM if made
public. We don't tolerate such pig tactics at this site.
Of course, even if MIM were only one persyn, it would still be the
vanguard party in the Eng£ish-speaking imperialist countries. So your
allegation would be of no relevance whatsoever even if it were not
unfounded and incorrect.
| Quote: |
| I have wasted my time on this entry. But I really don't have that much to do these days.
|
So you have a lot of idle time on your hands, yet you don't want to
put it towards progressive purposes. Instead, you post irresponsible
articles designed to weaken the communist forces. No serious communist
would say "I really don't have that much to do." Most of us regret that
we have only 24 hours in a day.
If you have so much free time and are serious about revolution, go
to the People's University. You have much to learn, so get busy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 886
|
|
Much of this is just repeating myself because Carl Miller has still not addressed anything from the last response.
| Quote: |
|
First off, I don't see my summary of the 3-main-points as being
misrepresentative. I said the same thing your 3-main points say, except
in fewer words. My readers don't want to read a MIM Rant full of
"Amerikkka"s and references to "Bob Amerikan". (Though I do like
"Amerikkka"! And yes, I did use it in my entry on Mao: The Unknown
Story.) |
Where in MIM's statement of their 3 cardinal points do they mention Bob
Amerikan? "Amerikkka" isn't mentioned in the 3 points either. Anyone is
welcome to scroll up to my last post in this thread where I quoted
MIM's actual points. Carl Miller doesn't even bother reading what is
actually posted. Again, this shows how dismal it is over there with the
crypto-Trots.
Miller's 3 points are not MIM's, especially point 3 which is
central to what it means to be a Maoist in the u$. Let me repeat. Most
everyone on the first world so-called "left" agrees with Miller's point
3 that there is some labor aristocracy. Not everyone agrees with MIM's
point 3 that the labor aristocracy is the majority in the first world
and there is no significant first world proletariat and what makes this
situation possible is value transfers in the form of super-profits from
the Third World to the first world. I already covered this.
"In Imperialist countries a 'labor aristocracy' of workers exists"
does not mean "..imperialism extracts super-profits from the Third
World and in part uses this wealth to buy off ***whole populations***
of oppressor nation so-called workers. These so-called workers bought
off by imperialism form a new petty-bourgeoisie called the labor
aristocracy." Miller's point and MIM's are obviously not the same.
Miller even says on the blog that he agrees with his own point 3
yet doesn't agree with MIM (saying MIM goes to extremes) about whole
populations being bought off. That's a good indication that the two
points are not the same! Miller is upholding the position, which is
also popular among Trotskyists, that the labor aristocracy is just the
very upper strata of first world workers. MIM's 3rd point says that MIM
is talking about whole populations.
As I already said, Miller's characterization is obviously not accurate and Miller should admit it.
| Quote: |
|
Secondly, I AM NOT AN RCP REPRESENTATIVE, SPOKESMAN, OR MEMBER! I am a
revolutionary who supports the RCP! Perhaps you already knew this, but
I just want to make it clear. When Carl Miller speaks he speaks for
Carl Miller and no one else! |
Rcp=u$a is free to disown Miller. Miller's blog is part of the RCYB/WCW
web-ring. Self-identified RCYB and WCW and various Bob Amerikan fans
comment and link to Miller's blog. This is an issue of rcp=u$a's
complete lack of accountability. This kind of thing is repeated again
and again:
A crypto-Trotskyist makes a criticism of Maoists. Sometimes the
criticism is completely unprincipled silly material like Miller's blog,
where I note, he has chosen to include in his moderated comments space
(as of April 13, 2006), comments threatening violence against Maoists
and attacking some womyn. Other times, the crypto-Trotskyist
interventions will be a bit more sophisticated. They will be by
Avakian's professional liars or cops working with Avakian. When these
people are exposed as liars, hacks, or cops, they immediately say "I
don't speak for anyone but myself!" Even though some of these
individuals are well known persynalities in the crypto-Trotskyist camp,
as soon as they are exposed, they act like they are acting as isolated
individuals. This shit has been happening for a long time.
Nothing is stopping Bob Amerikan from disowning this kind of behavior and the individuals engaging in it.
Crypto-Trotskyists link to Miller's blog, they obviously read it from
time to time. It is even posted on a pro-Avakkkian message board. Not
one of them has said a thing criticizing Miller's unprincipled
behavior, or now, the talk of violence against Maoists and some womyn
in Miller's moderated comment space. This just shows how rcp=u$a
quietly allows its "fans" and so called "supporters" to carry out
stupid unprincipled attacks of all kinds. Rcp=u$a gives them the nod to
do it.
Miller was asked to give sources on a number of false claims he made
about Maoists. These claims ranged from a mischaracterization of the
line on sex to a mischaracterization that MIM thinks Blacks making
labor aristocratic wages are proletarian. We should note that Miller
provided no further comment on any of these false claims he made. Nor,
has he admitted he was wrong in his characterization of MIM's position.
Miller is so stuck in his dogmatism that he is unable to make any basic
criticism of his uprincipled and factually incorrect blog entry.
Let's look at the few "sources" Carl Miller listed:
| Quote: |
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/art/humor/antiamerikanjokes.html
5. How does the Amerikan womyn avoid the singles bar scene?
Answer: She marries her kidnaper.
...
KIDNAPPING AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMYN, or WIMMIN, or even WOMEN IS NOT FUNNY.
...
MIM hates Americans, not the idea of America like the RCP Hates, but
actual Americans with such a passion, that the idea of an American
woman being raped/kidnapped is humorous. |
Carl Miller said this was a joke making fun of rape victims. How so? If
anything, it is pointing out that what are considered normal
relationships in amerika are twisted and violent. It is ridiculing
romance culture and gender oppressors. It is pointing out the
systematic nature of gender inequality and also how this violence is
invisible to most.
This joke should only offend those who have some kind of liberal idea about relationships.
| Quote: |
|
Also, I think my post did some good, because MIM previously had a light
bulb joke on their site about rape. Yes, I can't prove it. But it seems
that when I put up the post, suddenly MIM realized that rape isn't
funny, and took it down. I have done a good thing. |
This is just more nonsense from Carl Miller. MIM's etext web page is
cached on goggle. Anyone can search google's backed up etext pages and
see Miller is just making stuff up here. If he isn't he can easily take
the time to go through google and find it. Rather, he is too lazy to
actually substantiate his fictional claim. This is in line with
Miller's entire method: factual errors, dumbed down, gossipy, no
citations at all.
| Quote: |
|
Also, Invasion by the third world is not revolution. Maoism, as I
understand, depends on the masses of people being mobilized, not a
foreign army coming in and taking over. |
Is Miller saying that Stalin was wrong to invade labor aristocratic
nazi germany? Is he saying that Stalin should have waited for the nazi
labor aristocracy to mobilize and overthrow Hitler? There is a massive
war on right now against the Third World. Does Miller oppose a Third
World invasion of the u$?
Look at how mechanical Miller's method is. Obviously the first world is
not China in 1930. The form that revolutions will take match objective
conditions where they take place. Mao came to power in a great tide of
peasant revolution led by a proletariat. He led a people's war which
surrounded the cities from the countryside. Obviously, a people's war
carried out mostly by a peasantry is not how revolution will come to
the u$.
Lenin led an urban insurrection. He was brought to power by the
industrial proletariat and an alliance with the peasantry. After this
insurrection, a civil war followed. Obviously, this is not going to be
the way revolution comes to the u$. For one thing, there is less and
less employed in an industrial sector at all in the u$. More and more,
amerikans are employed in completely parasitic sectors like the service
sector or white collar work. It should be noted that white collar
workers opposed Lenin's revolution and went on strike against it.
In the case of China and the Soviet Union, there was massive
exploitation in oppression. The masses lived under the heal of brutal
systems of oppression. In the u$, there are no significant number of
white masses. In the u$, the vast majority benefit from imperialism to
such a degree that they are not exploited at all. In fact, the average
amerikan is an exploiter. The Marxist and scientific definition of
exploitation is when someone makes less than the full value of their
labor. Amerikans make far in excess of the value of their labor. They
also receive all kinds of secondary benefits from being at the center
of imperialism. The reason amerikans make above the value of their
labor is because the imperialist economy transfers value from the Third
World to the amerikan population as a a whole. All over this economic
forum and on MIM's web page, one can find hundreds of pages documenting
this view of the relationship between the Third World and the labor
aristocracy.
Miller mechanistically assumes that the proletariat is evenly
distributed throughout all nations. It isn't. There will be no amerikan
proletarian revolution because there is no amerikan proletariat. The
amerikan so-called "worker" is not exploited according to Marxism.
Luckily, history has given us an example of a case where a first world
labor aristocratic nation has had a revolution. This case was the
example of the invasion of nazi germany by the armed proletariat led by
Stalin. As I already said, in terms of who can point to real examples
of revolutions in labor aristocratic first world nations, so far MIM is
in the lead. MIM=1; rcp=u$a and the Trotskyists=0. So far, the Maoists
have more historical evidence backing their view. The
crypto-Trotskyists have none, but evidence has never mattered to them.
Rcp=u$a is not a communist organization. It is a new age cult that
intervenes on behalf of social democracy and the pigs to undermine
Maoist revolution.
| Quote: |
MIM has an entire web page devoted to the concept that there is no
white proletariat. They even call it, "The Myth of the White
Proletariat".
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/contemp/whitemyths/index.html
|
So what? Miller implied that MIM says skin color determines class. MIM,
nor IRTR, says that. Miller still hasn't given any source! Maoists are
talking about NATIONS, not skin colors. And, if Miller bothered doing
any research, Miller would know that. Instead, Miller just makes
himself look foolish.
| Quote: |
|
And, on that note, I would be curious to learn about how the swollen
stomachs in Apalachia are exploiters? I would also like to know how
homeless people on the street who happen to be white are not
proletarians? |
This is just emotionalism. Comrade Serve The People has already pointed
out Miller's errors here. Carl Miller's posts amount to nothing more
than waving his arms up in down. There is no argument in anything
Miller writes. MIM gives plenty of up to date data on white amerika.
Why doesn't Miller point out the specific places where this data is
wrong?
| Quote: |
Avakian does not throw Stalin and Mao in the trash! He sums up some
serious mistakes they have made. Saying that "Conquer the World"
"throws Mao and Stalin in the trash" is pretty much infering that
Avakian is too critical. There is no way getting around that.
Stalin, Mao, are not God! Sorry to burst your bubble, they made some
pretty fucked up decisions, and if you can't admit that, you are being
too dogmatic. |
I am just repeating myself here. Miller has a habit of mis-quoting
throughout his post. Miller attributes to others, sometimes using
quotation marks, things that they did not say. This is a pattern of
dishonesty in Miller's posts, just like Miller mischaracterize MIM's
3rd cardinal point. If Miller uses quotations, then he better be damn
sure that he is actually quoting the persyn.
Obviously, Avakian, like any Trotskyist, is critical of Stalin and
Mao. Even if I had said he was "too critical," that would be massively
understating the issue. Bob Amerikan throws Stalin and Mao into the
trash. Like Miller, Avakian does think that Stalin and Mao fucked up.
Avakian upholds classic Trotskyist positions with a thin Maoist facade.
Avakian may nod to the GPCR here and there, but when one looks at the
positions he actually upholds, they are in direct opposition to Maoist
positions. They are classic Trotskyist and liberal ones.
| Quote: |
|
Now, you went after me for not siting my sources, I will go after you
for not siting yours. Where does Avakian say he doesn't believe in
Socialism in One Country? That's redicules. Absolutely redicules. He
upholds China, Russia, and the draft programme of his party calls for
Socialism in one country. Wow! Just, Wow! |
I did cite my sources. Here they are again:
IRTR Marxist Economics Forums: https://irtr.org/forums/forum-3.html (also look in the archives)
MIM's crypto-Trotskyism page: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/crypto.html
This is a good thread (Third World is the motive force) that has a post
where Avakian's quotes are compared side by side with Trotsky's:
https://irtr.org/forums/about603.html
Specifically, if Miller wants to see Bob Amerikan reject socialism
in one country and national liberation for the Third World, check out
Conquer the World Part 2 and the criticism right here in this forum.
The entire thrust of Conquer The World is to reverse the Maoist
approach to socialism and national liberation and replace it with a
Trotskyist world party model.
| Quote: |
First off, I am correct in saying no one has ever seen more than one MIMist at a time.
And I don't how anything relating to MIM could be public knowledge.
Most people have no idea that MIM even exists, so I doubt they are
aware of MIM's history. |
First off, MIM's history can be read about on their web page. There are
several documents explaining how MIM was formed. It is public.
Second off, what is Miller talking about? MIM is an underground
party. MIM is not running for office or building some kind of free love
cult.
What is Miller's point here? MIM is small? So what? Since when is
correctness of line determined by numbers? All organizations claiming
to be communist in the u$ are tiny. For obvious reasons, the more
social demokrat ones tend to attract more numbers. If Miller bases
correctness by how many members a group claims, Miller should probably
join the demokrats, or at least the greens.
Like comrade Serve The People said, even if MIM was only one persyn, it
would be better to follow MIM than an organization with an incorrect
line.
Maoists in the u$ are behind enemy lines. We have to take seriously what Lenin said about numbers: Better Fewer, but Better. |
_________________
Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movies by Proletarian Productions: redvid.castpost.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 65
|
|
| Quote: |
| I
don't want a foreign country to come and invade the USA, I believe we
can make revolution of our will, but alas, perhaps I am an idealist. |
This is not idealism. It's straight up white nationalism, period.
"I don't want ..." Yeah, here's the out-of-the-mouth-of-babe-Kkkarl
fundamental truth behind the r"c"p=u$a's white nationalist line on
revolution in amerikkka. Usually hidden behind unsubstantiated
assertions that amerikkkans are revolutionary so invasion of the u$
won't be necessary, Kkkarl at least lays out the truth plain and
simple: "I don't want". He 'believes' "we [amerikkkans] can make
revolution" but that's just tacked on for filler. Bottom line: a
thundering white nationalist "I don't want". This is not feigned
philosophical idealism about amerikkkan revolutionary potential in the
service of white nationalism. This is the fundamental "I don't want" of
unadulterated white nationalism paraded front and center, with that
feigned idealism tagging along, bring up the rear.
"I don't want" ... what? "I don't want a foreign country to come
and invade the USA ..." Not idealism. White nationalism. Only white
nationalism denies that the "foreign invasion" has already taken place,
hundreds of years ago, when the foreign white settlers invaded the
hemisphere. Only white nationalism trumpets the "USA" as a legitimate
political entity rather than the empire built on conquest and genocide
that it is. Only white nationalism denies that amerikkkans are the
foreigners and invaders who illegally occupy oppressed nations' lands,
who owe reparations in terms of land to the First Nations, Latino
Nations, and the Black Nation. Only white nationalism treats the stolen
land and riches of the "USA" as sancrosact and considers those from
whom this parasitic wealth is stolen from as "foreign." The nations of
theThird World, like the internal oppressed nations, are not "foreign"
to the "USA," their wealth is native to amerikkka's birth, growth, and
continued imperialist existence. Only white nationalism sees it
otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
