portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war | political theory

Chairman Mao- "Combat Liberalism" - Plus Special Introduction For Arab Nationalist Forum

.
Chairman Mao- "Combat Liberalism" - Plus Special Introduction For Arab Nationalist Forum


SPECIAL INTRODUCTION WRITTEN FOR THE ARAB NATIONALIST FORUM:

--John Paul Cupp,  anti_imperialist_solidarity@yahoo.com


Comrades,

Here is a classice piece by Chairman Mao. Their are some awesome lessons in this, that are extra import for those of us who are or are dealing with western leftiststs, and the pro-imperialists and pro-zionists who call for "unity" without regards to the need for principle in behavior and ideas.

I think this re-enforces many points made by the AN moderators and I suggest those who have time give it a careful study.

Think of this for example "1)To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism."

In other words LIBERATION first "Friends" THIRD, and Comrades Second!

"To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame."

I think this speaks for its self. Whatever Zionist-controlled organizations, members of pro-imperialist social democratic cicrles, etc, who DO NOT STOP RED BAITING, WITCHUNTS, AND SCAPEGOATING, are ALSO GUILTY OF BETRAYING THE PEOPLE AND THE REVOLUTION. That is those who do not actively support anti-imperialism and anti-zionism, and yet know better, ARE NOT NEUTRAL, THEY'RE GUILTY.

Plus,you have to love Mao, just for the simple fact that he said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." This is an excellant lesson for western leftists, or my comrades who think they need to prove something to western leftists, because western leftists think that every time you have sex, drink beer, or start up a zionist controlled "newspaper" about knitting collectives, its a "revolution", as long you call your "newspaper", "Little Beirut". Evidently, Arabs and Muslims now have more sex appeal that Che, the Zapatistas, or Black Liberation Fighters. This is the height of insult and treason, in an era, when objectively Arab and Muslim Freedom fighters are fighting fascism in power "by the barrel of a gun" (and human bomb)!

A GOOD LIBERAL IS A DEAD LIBERAL!

**************************

COMBAT LIBERALISM

By Mao Tse-Tung

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways...

1)To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a

person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument

because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a

close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to

touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as

to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the

individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

2)To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively

putting forward one’s suggestions to the organization. To say nothing

to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say

nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all

for the principles of collective life but to follow one’s own

inclination. This is a second type.

3)To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as

little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be

worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a

third type.

4)Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one’s own opinions.

To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its

discipline. This is a fourth type.

5)To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or

seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling

against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting

the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

6)To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear

counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to

take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

7)To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation

or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among

them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for

their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if

one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

8)To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel

indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him

to continue. This is an eighth type.

9)To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work

perfunctorily and muddle along—”So long as one remains a monk, one goes

on tolling the bell.” This is a ninth type.

10)To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the

revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor

assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in

work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

11)To be aware of one’s own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct

them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh

type.

Introduction

Being a member of the ABCF is not easy. And we have seen it become more

difficult as the years have passed and the ideological and procedural

conflicts have become more complicated and involved. Conflicts of

interest are only natural when building an organization such as the one

we are involved in. And it is necessary to debate and discuss issues

pertinent to our collective growth and development thoroughly. Our

growing ability to do so will qualitatively nurture our organization

and help it grow. A disability to do so will only deteriorate our

efforts.

“This kind of methodical evaluation is a concrete manifestation of

politics in command. In other words, it stems basically from the

philosophical conviction that in all relations between human beings and

their environment, human beings must assume conscious responsibility

for their actions and not resort to the vulgar materialism of always

blaming others or outside conditions and thus seeing themselves as

passive victims.”1

In contrast, however, it has also become painfully obvious at times,

that collective members can involve themselves in and encourage

conflicts and debates that are very unimportant and irrelevant to our

collective work and growth. Very infrequently does engaging in

dialogues such as these become productive.

Distinguishing between the two is sometimes very difficult. At the same

time, trying to be principled and productive while taking part in

necessary critical discussions is just as difficult. We’re coming out

with this piece on criticism to try and help point the organization in

a more forward direction - specifically because we have seen how the

lack of anything of the kind has at times left some members in a state

of confusion and lead to possibly avoidable impasses.

Why is Criticism Important?

“Criticism in the positive usage is the examination, analysis and

evaluation of the comparative worth of one’s acts, practices, policies

and/or ideas by others. Self-criticism, is of course, this same

principle applied to one’s self, but it also refers to the

organizational practice of critically examining and reexamining its own

policies and/or policies and practices of its members...

“Criticism in its positive usage corrects/adjusts mistakes of

practice and of thought, and resolves differences among individuals and

makes for a smooth running, well functioning organization. Mao Tse Tung

in his discourse on criticism put forth the slogan ‘Unity-Criticism-

Unity’ to show how individuals come together and unite under one

principle or set of principles, but in the actual working out of these

principles, differences arise for various reasons which militate

against the accomplishment of declared ends, and against the cohesion

of the organization. When these differences arise there must be

criticism in which those with differences interpenetrate, modify one

another, and form a new and more perfect unity on the basis of having

worked out contradictions that were inherent in the old unity.”2

The founding of the ABCF in 1995 was a clear example of such “ Unity-

Criticism-Unity.” An examination of the notes both from the May ‘95

founding conference in DC, and the October ‘95 conference in Ohio

should illustrate this.

At the founding conference, several ABC collectives came together and

discussed issues of importance to them and ideas about how to move

forward. This culminated in the adoption of a proposal to federate into

the first organization of ABC collectives in N. America, the ABC

Federation. Participants had agreed to “come together and unite under

one principle or set of principles.”

However, shortly thereafter, while attempting to work collectively

under the structure we had agreed to, or, “in the actual working out of

these principles, differences arise for various reasons which militate

against the accomplishment of declared ends, and against the cohesion

of the organization.” It became clear that at least two entirely

different and indeed conflicting perceptions existed about what the

ABCF was.

These differences peaked shortly before the ‘95 Ohio conference and was

an example of how “When these differences arise there must be criticism

in which those with differences interpenetrate, modify one another, and

form a new and more perfect unity on the basis of having worked out

contradictions that were inherent in the old unity” The fact that

there were two different perceptions about what we had united around,

and what these perceptions were, only became clear as a result of the

discussion and criticism that took place at this meeting. Only when we

were able to recognize the differences that existed through criticism

and self criticism, were we able to move ahead and a much clearer

perception about what the ABCF was existed as a result.

We have seen how this was of enormous benefit to ourselves. In October

‘95, the ABCF was a formation of eight locals coexisting with different

ideas about the direction of the whole. Shortly after the October ‘95

conference in which we had the opportunity to criticize and be self

critical of the nature and direction of the organization, the ABCF

dwindled to only 3 locals. However, because these 3 remaining locals

were able to recognize what had come to pass “and form a new and more

perfect unity on the basis of having worked out contradictions that

were inherent in the old unity”, we were able to provide a strong and

precise platform upon which we could organize ourselves and others into

the ABCF. For the most part, we have been able to grow collectively and

recruit new and focused locals into the organization. While most of the

other ABC groups who left the ABCF in October ‘95 have yet to “form a

new and more perfect unity on the basis of having worked out

contradictions that were inherent in the old unity”. As a result, most

have either dissolved, or continue to work in relative isolation,

unable to develop a form of communication with other ABC groups around

the country. This has lead to few groups or people being aware that

non-federated ABC’s exist.

All this is only to illustrate just how crucial and indeed beneficial

criticism and self criticism is, when applied correctly. Or as Mao

correctly stated, “The only way to settle questions of an ideological

nature or controversial issues among the people is by the democratic

method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and

education, and not by the method of coercion or repression.”3

When is criticism necessary?

As has been illustrated, criticism is at times crucial to the

development of the organization. On the other side of the coin,

criticism is also at times abused and can be needlessly directed or

used negatively to disrupt. At this point we’ll try and define some

ways of distinguishing between these two.

As is defined in our constitution and structure, the ABCF is unified

“to build an organization capable of offering long-term, non partisan

support of class war prisoners (PP/POW’s)”.4

When contradictions arise that impede that goal or disrupt that unity,

or, violate any of the other Four Basic Foundation Principles, this is

generally the time in which criticism must be applied. This is not to

imply that within the discourse of our political development,

individual ABCF collectives should not discuss other matters of

political relevance at any time. Only that official and ABCF-wide

internal criticisms should be put forth when one collective feels

another collective has violated any or all of the Four Basic Foundation

Principles of the Federation as defined in the ABCF Constitution and

Structure.

If you are confident that you have observed a breech or contradiction

of the common principles we have committed to struggling, it is vitally

important for you to bring this to others attention. Failing to do so

is both liberal and subjective.

“Subjectivity assumes many forms, e.g., the protection of one’s

feelings or those of others; fear of hurting feelings or discouraging

people by pointing out their mistakes; attacking those who hurt your

feelings by criticism; fear of taking issues with others; not pointing

out the person who makes a mistake or not pointing out a mistake at

once but waiting until the persons involved are less emotionally caught

up in their mistakes and then dealing with the question only as an

abstraction and therefore without the sharpness which enables the

maximum lessons to be learned by all concerned; hesitating to take

issue with or criticism of the leaders; hesitating to criticize

themselves for fear of undermining confidence in the organization

(emperor protection); “selling” ideas to others rather than discussing

and debating issues in such a way that members can make responsible

choices; making excuses for oneself or for others when mistakes are

made (not enough time, something else came up, conditions beyond our

control, etc.), thus being “ understanding” and “sympathetic” rather

than demanding on oneself and others.

“All these are manifestations of liberalism which is part of the very

air we breathe in the u.s. Liberalism or the evasion of responsibility

is what most amerikkkans mean by “freedom.” Freedom is the right not to

be held responsible or accountable for one’s actions. Since this

tendency is so powerful in the society, it is inevitable present in the

organization. In the past the u.s. has been able to survive liberalism

because of the unique historical conditions of this country,

particularly the “wide open space” which have allowed people to pick up

and leave the scene of their mistakes. Finally, however, the chickens

are coming home to roost in the country. In a revolutionary cadre

organization, they come home much sooner.

“Liberalism leads to the covering up of mistakes and therefore to the

weakening of the organization. When mistakes are covered up, they also

pile up to the point where it becomes impossible to isolate and correct

the specific mistakes, and the organization is in danger of breaking up

in demoralization and bitter antagonisms.

“The above list of liberal weaknesses, incomplete as it is, is familiar

to everyone who has ever been in any kind of organization. When one

realizes how many of these have characterized one’s own practices in

the past, it is easy to become discouraged, unless you keep in mind at

all times the goals and methods to which you are committed and the

collective commitment to this goal which will enable the organization

to grapple with and overcome these weaknesses one by one, week in and

week out, through criticism and self-criticism in the course of the

protracted struggle.”5

Some Thoughts on Making Criticism

If you believe a contradiction exists that does impede the working

unity of the organization, you will need to address this contradiction.

Also, because we firmly believe that no one is above being questioned,

criticized, or corrected, including ourselves, we would like for

everyone to be fully aware that though one may feel that they have

observed or discovered a contradiction, the individual making the

criticism may be incorrect in doing so and should always be aware of

this possibility. As has been stated:

“As long as the revolutionary movement all over the world was dominated

by the D-day concept of revolution (which had been borrowed

mechanically from the example of the 1917 Russian Revolution),

criticism used to take the form chiefly of post- mortem analysis. For

example, one group or individual would insist that a particular setback

in revolutionary developments in a particular country was the result of

a mistaken policy and therefore of the group or individual sponsoring

the policy. Simultaneously, the claim would then be made that if those

in charge had pursued the policy of the critic instead, then there

would have been success rather than failure. This kind of arrogant

subjectivism and hypothetical after-thinking is completely foreign to

the concept and practice of revolutionary criticism and selfcriticism.

”6

The point being is that we are talking about ideas, and no one person

or collective has all the correct ideas. As the Mao has correctly

stated, “Correct ideas come from one’s social practice.”

When drafting your criticism, it is very important to be as specific,

even meticulous and clear about what it is you are raising an objection

to. Give concrete examples and back them up with whatever evidence you

may have. If you have no evidence or examples to site, it will usually

be very difficult for others who are likely coming from a different

perspective to understand or agree with you. Try to determine if the

contradiction falls within the below three categories of human error

and define how they do so clearly and precisely, again, with evidence,

examples and/or proof of events.

“The differences which arise that disrupt unity can generally be found

to have their basis in these three categories of human error:

“1) Opportunism: opportunism is defined as that tendency for an

individual to make a decision or commit an act that is favorable to

his/her own self aggrandizement and at the expense of the collective or

the movement as a whole. Opportunism stems from selfishness and petty

individualism...

When opportunism arises, either in an individual or in an organization,

it is to be severely criticized and if necessary the individual or

individuals expelled from the organization or ostracized from the

movement. (Note: we should always qualify the definition of opportunism

as being at the expense of the collective or the movement.)

“2) Subjectivism: the second type of error that disrupts unity and

impairs revolutionary progress may be found in the general category

called ‘subjectivism’. Subjectivism can be distinguished from

opportunism often only by the merest of hairlines. It generally has to

do with personality flaws. One makes a decision or commits an act that

is based on one’s personal feelings, desires, resentments, jealousies,

prejudices etc... Such subjectivism may possibly stem from any number

of sources; childhood trauma, subliminal conditioning, religious

superstition, etc... When such subjectivism pops up to impede the

functioning of the individual or the progress of the organization it is

imperative that it be dealt with. The consciousness of many must

necessarily be stripped of the old pernicious ideas and values inbred

by bourgeois culture. Though, again, Mao Tse Tung cautions that those

traits and personal idiosyncrasies which are not particularly harmful

to the individual or the cause, but are largely a matter of style,

should not be needlessly criticized.

“3) Errors from objective causes: thirdly there is the type of error

that stems from objective causes. For example, one may have lacked

certain objective information, or may have placed too heavy an emphasis

on certain elements of a situation rather than more correct elements.

And/or the environmental conditions themselves may have been such as to

limit the formulating of a more correct idea or policy. This last type

of error is the type that a cell or collective will inevitably find

itself dealing with again and again. That is to say, most persons

coming into a collective can be expected to more or less quickly grasp

the rules against opportunism and subjectivism (though time to time

these problems too must necessarily be dealt with) and subscribed to

a... outlook which in its concreteness, means analyzing a situation

with the objective facts of the situation uppermost in mind. But the

objective factors of a situation are continually undergoing change as

the old elements and factors fade and diminish, and new elements

appear. Hence policy and practice must be reexamined periodically,

and/or new policy to into account the changes in the situation.”7

Once you have defined, documented and supported your position, we offer

the below guidelines that may help you determine the best way in which

to forward a criticism or begin a critical discussion:

“How to conduct a Criticism Session:

“In conducting a criticism session, we find that these few broad rules

apply.

“Criticism not before the collective: Mannerisms of a subjective nature

which are minor, and inconsistent with the organizational rules and

principles [in our case the Four Basic foundation Principles] may be

dealt with privately by one rade pointing out the error and

inconsistency to the other. The criticism should be acknowledged by the

recipient and resolved at this point.

“Criticism before the collective:

A) Opportunism is a major departure from revolutionary principle and

must be brought before the collective.

B) Subjective errors that persist after criticism is brought in private

should be brought before the collective.

C) All objective propositions that have to do with the organizational

policy and practice, or that affect the Black Liberation Movement [or

for us, any or all of the Four Basic Foundation Principles of the

Federation] as a whole should be brought before the collective.

“Each criticism should be dealt with on its own merits; that is, do not

bring up a criticism of another individual in order to divert attention

from ones’ self (unless there is a direct connection between the two).

Only after the original criticism has been resolved should another

criticism be broached.

“No attack upon personalities or unprincipled criticism [see later].

A) No name calling

B) No disparaging remarks about an individual (but only about acts of

an individual)8

In addition to these guidelines, we would also like to offer the

following reminders Mao drafted. Though they were written for the

Communist Party of China and make frequent reference to the “ communist

party” or “socialist transformation”, the subject matter at hand

certainly transcends those specific circumstances and can be broadly

applied. We should all keep the following in mind when making critical

evaluations of others (or ourselves for that matter):

“In the political life of our people, how should right be distinguished

from wrong in one’s words and actions? On the basis of the principles

of our Constitution, the will of the overwhelming majority of our

people and the common political positions which have been proclaimed on

various occasions by our political parties and groups, we consider

that, broadly speaking, the criteria should be as follows:

1) Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people

of our various nationalities.

2) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to socialist

transformation and socialist construction.

3) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, the

people’s democratic dictatorship.

4) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken,

democratic centralism.

5) They should help to strengthen, and not discard or weaken, the

leadership of the Communist Party.

6) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to international

socialist unity and the unity of the peace-loving people of the

world.”9

Lastly, an overriding principle that we should ever be mindful of, “To

criticize the people’s shortcomings is necessary,... but in doing so we

must truly take the stand of the people and speak out of whole-hearted

eagerness to protect and educate them. To treat comrades like enemies

is to go over to the stand of the enemy.”10

Negative or Incorrect Criticism

Possibly as often as criticism is used to build, it is used just to

destroy and divide, at times even under the guise of building. How can

we differentiate between the two? There are several ways in which we

can attempt to do so. Though, this is undoubtedly an incomplete guide

to make distinctions, when viewing criticisms in an overall

perspective, the following may be helpful.

“Perhaps another way to get an indication of the value of positive

criticism is to compare it with the bourgeois use of criticism, or

negative criticism.

“At the base of the difference between the bourgeois use of criticism

and the [correct] use, lies the false ideological emphasis on the

individual, rather than on the collective. As a result, for the

bourgeois with their emphasis on individualism, criticism inevitably is

negative. It is [not] used to build, but rather to destroy. It ceases

to be a tool by which to correct and adjust mistakes, or resolve

differences and repair breaches in unity, but rather it becomes a

weapon of assault of one personality upon another. It is divisive and

destructive; it is fault-finding, nit picking and slanderous; an attack

upon the intrinsic worth of an individual.”11

Also of importance are the following codes of conduct that are found in

the Irish Republican Army Green Book. Again, while the below are

written specifically for them and their organizational structure, the

principles which are put forward also transcend the framework of their

organization and can be used by many.

“1) Any volunteer who attempts to lower the morals or undermine the

confidence of other Volunteers [in the Army]... shall be deemed guilty

of treachery.

“2) Any Volunteer taking part in a campaign of slander and denigration

against another volunteer, thereby weakening authority and discipline,

and bringing the Army into disrepute, shall likewise be found guilty of

treachery.

“Minimum penalty: Dismissal with ignomy.

“3) All Volunteers are expected to act in an honorable way so as the

struggle is not harmed or undermined.”12

Another reality which may help us differentiate correct from incorrect

criticism was forwarded again by Mao when he wrote; we “must grasp the

principle of subordinating the needs of the part to the needs of the

whole. If a proposal appears feasible for a partial situation but not

for the situation as a whole, then the part must give way to the whole.

Conversely, if the proposal is not feasible for the part but is

feasible in the light of the situation as a whole, again the part must

give way to the whole. This is what is meant by considering the

situation as a whole.”13

Reaction to Criticism

Upon receiving a criticism from another, it is important to keep your

cool. Don’t respond right away, give yourself some time to think it

over. Responding to criticism, be it positive or negative, takes a lot

of political maturity. Important also is the fact that something can be

learned from both good and bad criticism. Because of this, it is

crucial to remain calm and principled in your response and reaction to

criticism. If not, we may never be able to discover what was at the

root of the criticism.

Try to view each criticism objectively. Do not take them as personal

attacks, or a criticism of one’s person or personality. If a criticism

has been made correctly and with consideration, it has been made of an

act, or an idea of an individual (or collective), not of the

individual. As mentioned earlier, “No disparaging remarks about an

individual (but only about acts of an individual)”. It is important to

repeat, we criticize the act, or the idea - not the individual.

Also, if you are to be in an organization, you will be dealing and

working with the broad array of individuals who make up that

organization. We come from many different places and have grown to who

we are in different ways. We therefore deal with things as differently

as the individuals we are. This is part of collective struggle.

Therefore you will have to deal with everyone’s different

personalities. Some people will make criticisms that are direct, blunt

and to the point, seeming almost unmerciful. Others will seem more

generous and forgiving. Within the ABCF, we do not foresee a time in

the near or distant future when we will all approach one another about

critical discussion in a way in which all of us will be satisfied.

Therefore we believe that it does not necessarily have to be written in

a style in which one likes or believes would be more beneficial to the

individual. Though obviously ABCF members should be considerate and

understanding not only with each other, but in all of our dealings.

However, so long as it generally conforms to “Some thoughts on making

criticisms”, and does not fall within the category of “Negative

Criticism” the format or style shall remain subjective.

“All things considered, when taking into account the competitive

environment in which we live, still, we realize just how difficult it

can be to make or take criticism. In the amerikkkan social and

political environment at all levels, it is very difficult to make this

kind of objective criticism/self- criticism a real part of daily life

and practice. This again is for the very deep historical reasons

already referred to, especially the tendency of amerikkkans to look

upon problems as nuisances and headaches, to be gotten rid of by some

external means (e.g., pills), rather than as challenges from which one

can learn. Therefore, the tendency is to cover up mistakes rather than

to admit or grapple with them. Amerikkkans are also very preoccupied

with their own personalities or individualities and inclined to develop

guilt feelings about their own mistakes or as a result of hurting other

peoples feelings, by pointing out mistakes. For example, an individual

may apologize for making a mistake because he feels guilty, thinking

that he or she is criticizing himself or herself when s/he is really

just expressing subjective or personal feelings. Often what is put

forward as self-criticism is simply self-protection, e.g., when an

individual rushes to admit a mistake to avoid criticism or further

examination of the mistake by others.”14

When responding to either positive or negative criticism, remain

principled and try to remember what has been said earlier about making

your own criticisms or responses. We’ve previously attempted to clearly

illustrate how and why criticism is crucial to development of the

organization. It is tedious and difficult and is precisely why we lead

this passage by saying being in the ABCF is difficult. We have seen

members quit the organization or avoid participating in critical

discussion. This is bad and we must be aware from the moment we make

the decision to join the ABCF that participation on nearly any front of

a struggle will require some level of protracted commitment and

patience. We feel this is particularly true of PP/POW support and

specifically within the ABCF.

“All this may seem very elementary and common-sensical, but it is far

from being obvious, either in the general overall political atmosphere

of this country, or in the particular atmosphere of the ‘movement’s’

helter skelter, on-the-go politics. Amerikkkans generally tend to have

a technical approach to every project, to try to overpower those whom

they are seeking to influence or to defeat, by the sheer weight of

their know-how and equipment. Or they have a ‘new frontier’ approach:

if something doesn’t work out so well, or things go bad, just abandon

the project, or the place or the people involved in it, and go on to

something or somewhere or somebody else. They are always running off to

a new beginning.”15

After all, “An organization like ours, which seeks political objectives

based upon the principles of justice and freedom, must ensure that

these principles are applied internally and in our dealings with each

other.”16

Finally, it is clear that several different sources have been used and

cited in this piece, many of them having origin in other than anarchist

movements. However we feel that the merit of what is said is the

principle point here, and believe that such merits are not constricted

to the specific time place and individuals that produced them. In

general, what is said is objectively of more value than whatever

individual etc. may have said it.

Footnotes

1 Organization Means Commitment, Anonymous

2 Black Liberation Army Study Guide, 1977-78, BLA Coordinating

Committee

3 On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, Mao Tse

Tung

4 ABCF Constitution and Structure, ABCF

5 Organization Means Commitment, Anonymous

6 Organization Means Commitment, Anonymous

7 Black Liberation Army Study Guide, 1977-78, BLA Coordinating

Committee

8 Black Liberation Army Study Guide, 1977-78, BLA Coordinating

Committee

9 On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, Mao Tse

Tung

10 Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art, Mao Tse Tung

11 Black Liberation Army Study Guide, 1977-78, BLA Coordinating

Committee

12 The Green Book, Irish Republican Army

13 The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War, Mao Tse

Tung

14 Organization Means Commitment, Anonymous

15 Organization Means Commitment, Anonymous

16 The Green Book, Irish Republican Army
Combat liberalism is right! 11.Jun.2004 10:11

Mind_Cemetary

But also combat vanguardism! Mao was just a left-fascist who, like Marx, Lenin, and all pro-state "Communists" sought to replace one ruling class with another. There are plenty of good reasons for criticizing liberals, but their supposed tendancy to "not follow orders" isn't one of them. This comment is just an illustration of the authoritarian mindset with which Mao looked at the world. Statists of ALL stripes must be resisted REGARDLESS of their views on economics. I don't care if you support Keynesianism, "Communism", or laizzez-faire capitalism. If you support statism, then you are a counter-revolutionary!

Combat " 'tard-ism" 11.Jun.2004 15:10

Harry Potter

1. If you believe that only thru non-violence can we be free...you're a 'tard!

2. If you believe that only your particular clique, party, collective, religion, or individual self is the sole source of all truth...you're a 'tard!

3. If you're an authoritarian, and proud of it,...you're a 'tard!

4. If you believe that "the personal is political" to the point of alienating everyone around you...you're a 'tard!

5. If you believe that being profoundly alienated somehow makes you and your line superior to all others...you're a 'tard!

6. If you are unable or unwilling to study the works of Mao, Lenin, Kropotkin, Newton, Komboa-Ervin, and others, including the Bible and the Koran...you're a 'tard!

7. If you're rigid, dogmatic, and cannot answer the question "do you have ideas...or do ideas have you?"...you're a 'tard!

COMBAT 'TARD-ISM IN ALL OF ITS FORMS WITHOUT COMPRIMISE!