Edited by hobotorium ()


Edited by hobotorium ()

[account deactivated]

JohnBeige posted:

im glad youre in an org comrade. have fun overseas and maybe get contacts so other parties can get that sweet sweet china franchise.

for real tho you going to that conference theyre bringing other party's members to? v interested, hope the local sends a few

i have no idea if we sent anyone to the high-level conference, which happened earlier this month. that's mostly the cpc trying to make nice with non-communist parties, and the international they're a part of is explicitly marxist and workers' parties. they didn't send a delegation to that this year, possibly to avoid turning people off to the other thing

really wanted to go to both, though. delegates to the former got to tour the central party school

it is hard to build one-way bridges
[account deactivated]

glomper_stomper posted:

it's not even about building the bridge, it's about guarding it.

every org needs a heimdall

[account deactivated]
'hatchet job' isn't how i'd describe that. it seems a very reasoned and well sourced statement of concern about legitimately disturbing actions by becker. i had no idea about any of this, not being a yank and therefore caring little about the internal politics of orgs like PSL, but it seems to me totally unacceptable for a high ranking member of an ML party to be keeping such company, let alone promoting them. answers, and action, are surely needed from PSL
[account deactivated]
When life gives you smears like 'allows Ray McGovern a platform', make it into a war paint
E: This post is a little bit too leftcom now that i know more about these guests..

I'm trying to come up with ways that Becker could make that okay. Opening with a caveat that says, "This guy was in the CIA, they are an enemy of Marxists, but they are just here to-" to what? To repeat state department propaganda or give out unreliable information? To answer for their crimes? The greatest benefit of a doubt I could offer the podcast is to say that there is simply a pressure to keep up the volume and at some point Becker's podcast production unit uncritically admits, we gotta have a guest on, who can we get? But then why not just get like, anyone? Ask Amazon slaves to recommend coworkers to appear anonymously, interview literally anyone in Flint, even interviewing a common piggie or troop makes more sense.

In the UK there is a recent debacle with RCG(FRFI) inexplicably absolving Andrew Fairbairn of unwelcome sexual provocations and readmitting him as a full member and I see it as a very similar issue. Just in Fairbairn's case it's a lot harder for people to say "Ah it's just one member's politics, you can't exclude everyone you slightly disagree with, reform is possible ex nihilo you know" and so on. Fairbairn actually makes people feel unsafe but this Becker thing should make people in orgs feel unsafe, because they are. One of the points Sakai makes in the recent Lumpen book is that officials in mature peasant organizations (back in China in 1927) disproportionately came from the utterly destitute - left orgs need that tendency, or else the leadership doesn't have enough at stake to take org security seriously. Like why should anyone expect different behavior from white guys in charge?

Edited by swampman ()

I've been listening to Loud & Clear, along with By Any Means Necessary, sorta regularly for a few months now (they're a whole lot less infuriating than NPR.) Both shows brought on co-hosts and expanded from one hour to two hours apiece in September, and the shows usually seem pretty packed with guests (L&C fits almost twice as many guests in the same amount of time as BAMN does), so it seems like they shouldn't be desperate to fill air. I remember the episode with Lionel and it was pretty surreal... they couldn't have given the other guests another two minutes each instead of letting that guy yell for ten?

The angle behind bringing Kiriakou on (not simply as a regular guest but as co-host) seems to be something like "oh here's a guy who got two years for doing the right thing and he can tell us what it looks like from the inside". He also talks about how he loves America and wants it to be better, and he'll discuss his intelligence career prior to the whistleblowing without much apparent remorse. Becker, for his part, doesn't seem to share Kiriakou's stance but doesn't challenge it on air either.

As for the author of the piece: idk i follow them on twitter lol
dotcommunism is an old SA-LF or wddp poster who never moved over here i think. the username rings a bell
The more disturbing possibility is that Becker himself is a crypto-fascist entryist attempting to steer people ostensibly on the left towards anti-semitism and right-wing viewpoints.
Ray McGovern is a peace activist which includes getting his bones broken as he travels round the world confronting Hilary Clinton Dave Petraes etc

He has given some vital (and timely/actionable) insights into the inner workings of the Empire including how the war on Libya was manipulated 2011 and how war on Syria was narrowly avoided 2013

He says exact the same things on the LaRouche channels which give him a platform as he does on the socialist ones

There have been similar campaigns by leftists to 'no platform' RT and PressTV as "fascist media" for giving airtime to the odd crank.

Let he who has never worked with liberals cast the first stone, I say

Re: fascist entryism, the history of non-aligned 3rd world Govs accepting (fleeing) nazi help post WW2 then being betrayed by them is instructional


I don't know what this would look like at an org level.
It doesn't seem like fascists have much to offer left wing groups... I get the impression from looking at their ecosystem that they have more cash flowing around at least

E: just to add:

If its genuine fraternal criticism of a leftist org to correct an error, it should be contextualised so as not to add to ideas of the 'antisemetic' Palestine movement, 'white supremacist' Syria and 'nazbol' North Korea solidarity or the general Red-Brown totalitarianismo which killed trillions

Edited by xipe ()

personally, i agree with some of it but other bits i find questionable. going after ray mcgovern only makes sense if the author isnt familiar with his work (linking him with larouche is nothing but a hit) and while im not super familiar with kiriakou, he did get a couple years for leaking.

one of the key questions in my mind when i read that the first time is that its totally unknown to us how much control Brian has over who is invited as a guest. the other is how much control the party has over brian. ive been on a fair number of national calls and afaik i havent seen him lose any internal political conflict. given hes the individual that touched off the split after the WWP election proposal failed, and theres no internal body that exists for rank and file to censure leadership, id guess very little.

ive got crits of PSL, but afaik L&C + BAMN are supposed to be wide-audience shows. if there was going to be a show that was just the party line, it would/should be a resurrection of liberation radio. at the same time, internally national argues that everything said publicly by a party member reflects on the party, and so you shouldnt espouse personal views on things like social media. but if thats the case, then they should cross-apply that argument to Brian and Eugene's shows, especially given the size of their audience. seems like a double-standard to me. but the article itself doesnt make this argument, it basically lists a bunch of potentially questionable guests and hopes the reader isnt familiar with them. if the author really does think people like ray are problematic, where does that end? is ramsey clark cool in their eyes? they were attorney general ffs but have put in hella work since then.
it looks as though they also have quite a few non objectionable guests as well which the article perhaps doesn't make clear? like i just had a look at the episode list and there was like, a palestinian ambassador, lots of activist journalist types, ppl whove written subject relevant books and so on. there is still the question of why they feel the need to get right wing ppl on at all but it seems like its being presented without some of the context?
Yall hung up on the characterisation of ray mcgovern as if this Becker fellow isn't also spending a lot of time with more questionable people than that. If kiriakou was just a guest Id shrug and move on but co-host? Unlike mcgovern he has far from proven himself to be on the straight and narrow, prison time notwithstanding.

Anyway not my org so there's only so much i can give a shit but there are still a few very big question marks there and i think overall the article is mostly asking the right questions even if it's going about it the wrong way
Wasn't dot communism an anime wddp poster who for years said that this forum is fascist due to impper and goatstein?
We turned out all right; its been well over a month since a prominent poster here has been shown to be a perverted stalker.

I don't think the other examples of 'fascists' hold up either: Adam garrie is an amusing BRICS cheerleader against US and Euro imperialism.
He has a weekly video discussion about this here

I've never been able to understand why 'the left' must prioritize show-trials & exile for quirky people like this while embracing & engaging liberals calling for 3rd world blood all day every day
hey, update on that dual power thing i was working on (law enforcement assisted diversion (https://www.leadbureau.org/about-lead) which had been initiated by Critical Resistance and some other orgs). well, instead of being just a single issue campaign to just get a pilot for this program implemented, i've taken over (in other words: per normal been left as the only remaining motivated and interested person), and been approved to expand the group to take on the entire criminal justice reform piece of the overall org.

first public meeting is in two weeks and i'm hoping to drum up some more volunteers.

I'd like to orient this group toward goals I ideologically support like prison abolition. but first we gotta get off our feet!

Petrol posted:

Yall hung up on the characterisation of ray mcgovern as if this Becker fellow isn't also spending a lot of time with more questionable people than that. If kiriakou was just a guest Id shrug and move on but co-host?

like whom and are we fiating Becker's control over the show/that the cohost actually has shit politics instead of just suspecting he does? these kinds of claims need analysis instead of simple stating tbh


xipe posted:

It doesn't seem like fascists have much to offer left wing groups...

catchphrase for 2018


JohnBeige posted:

like whom and are we fiating Becker's control over the show/that the cohost actually has shit politics instead of just suspecting he does? these kinds of claims need analysis instead of simple stating tbh

i agree, the problem is the initial reaction in this thread hasn't been analysis of the claims, it's been to reject some of it and immediately move on to attacking the author, whose intentions may or may not be pure, but that has no bearing on whether the claims are factual.

the question about kiriakou's politics needs to be addressed, and it's hard to say exactly where he sits, but my understanding is that he was a decorated CIA officer whose career only ended because he took umbrage at certain torture practices that he chose to publicise, he then went on to a career in the private intelligence community, and since his imprisonment has become more known for prison reform activism, including a memoir on the subject (because it's obviously a subject he only started to care about out of self interest). so you tell me, is this guy's spook days really behind him? i doubt it, and i don't think ML party leaders should be consorting with the likes of him for what, libertarian street cred?

i have to say i'm a bit puzzled by this question you keep raising about becker's control over the show. it seems to me kind of irrelevant because nobody is holding a gun to his head saying he has to do a show and work with or interview certain people. if there's something about the arrangement he doesn't agree with surely he could walk away and do something more independent?

[account deactivated]
did someone go on a podcast?

Ufuk_Surekli posted:

what would you like to see happen as a result of these attacks on Becker and the PSL?

if i was a PSL member i'd hope he'd answer the criticisms and take whatever action he felt, on reflection, were necessary to mitigate any legitimate issues. if he failed to do that, i'd hope the party has a mechanism for remedial action. but it's really their business.

and really, PSL collapses? if that was a serious risk (it is not) i'd suggest he party has much bigger problems than an unsympathetic blog post.

Ufuk_Surekli posted:

it strikes me that all of these are potential outcomes of these attacks, many of which represent a net impediment to the advancement of an American communist party (and a fortiori a net advantage to the enemies of communism).

this is a counterproductive and unfortunately common attitude towards criticism of communist leaders/parties. not that i am trying to compare the nature or severity of the issue, but it is precisely this attitude that has shielded and continues to shield sexual predators in left orgs. i suggest there is a much greater risk inherent in rejecting criticism out of hand as an "attack" than there is in calmly assessing the factual content of criticisms and addressing any issues that reveal themselves - a party can only get stronger, and make a stronger impression, by handling issues well.

[account deactivated]
Another net impediment to the advancement of an American communist party, an impediment much greater than a medium post read by about 200 internet leftists, is having a party that should be acting as a political vanguard be shot through with moronic third-position drivel. Guess what - if the leadership of a nominally communist party are palling around with LaRouchites and paleocons, they aren't going to build a credible revolutionary opposition to capitalism, regardless of public criticism. The truth of these claims (if you won't weigh in on their truth, then you are in no position to label them 'smears') is absolutely important, and if they are cause for introspection within the party and scrutiny from without, so much the better. There ought to be absolutely zero tolerance for any sort of red-brown bullshit and excising the rot should be the primary concern for any communist, not PR hand-wringing.

i sort of remember dotcommunism from wddp but also it reminded me of this classic...the real reason they dislike this org, revealed:
[account deactivated]

Conscientious practice of self-criticism is still another hallmark distinguishing our Party from all other political parties. As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly, our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly. Our comrades' minds and our Party's work may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing. The proverb "Running water is never stale and a door-hinge is never worm-eaten" means that constant motion prevents the inroads of germs and other organisms. To check up regularly on our work and in the process develop a democratic style of work, to fear neither criticism nor self-criticism, and to apply such good popular Chinese maxims as "Say all you know and say it without reserve", "Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words" and "Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against them if you have not" - this is the only effective way to prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating the minds of our comrades and the body of our Party.

If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticized, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we will correct them. If what he proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it.

Thank you.
[account deactivated]
unless you know something i don't, this criticism is clearly not coming from within the psl & isn't any kind of example of members breaking organisational protocol. further, you are constantly vacillating from claiming you are taking no stance on the validity of the criticisms raised while also insinuating that these are examples of petty gossip --- if the points raised are in fact valid, then this is a legitimate issue of operational security and not petty-bourgeois individualism.

Ufuk_Surekli posted:

since they are not a member of the party, how does any of this apply? Do you seriously think Mao is suggesting that the sole venue for criticizing party activity is internal? How on earth are you supposed to serve the people if you stop your ears against them? Even if the person in question were an actual member of the PSL, why should we treat what is being said as a personal attack, and not as serious, comradely concern? Would the party not be more effective if it didn't open itself up to these accusations, not by ignoring them, but by learning to not do the obviously stupid things that led to them?

edit: beaten

You would think after the developments of the last year that US socialists would've learned the importance of banning podcasts
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]