Background from Ethan Young on the RCP and Maoism (again, "read the book" by Max Elbaum).

David

The RCP has taken a few twists and turns since 1967-68. Max's book gives a good analysis of their history.

For RCP to claim they didn't support China's invasion of Vietnam is disingenuous without acknowledging some history. I'll explain later on.

When the RU started they were influenced by 2 groups: the Panthers (who they supported, and who adopted a soft Maoist stance) and PL (who they wanted to replace as the main pro-China Maoist group in the US).

Important historical footnote: the basis for the unity of the two main SDS factions opposed to PL's takeover bid in 1969 came in 2 points: support for the Panthers, who PL denounced as nationalist and hence rectionary, and specific support for China, Cuba, N Vietnam, N Korea and Albania. In 1969, PL claimed that their support for China & Albania precluded support for the others or for the NLF. Avakian, who ran for SDS nat sec as the RYM-2 candidate that year (against Weatherman's Mark Rudd), had no problem there. Only after making real ties with the Chinese Party did the RU/RCP begin to drift away from that position.

By 1971, PL had rejected China and begun its long march to sectarian Valhalla. That left RU with a clean shot at the China franchise. The first sign that they were going to let Beijing do their thinking for them was their support for Pakistan in the Bengladesh secession episode. They echoed China's position (as did other Maoists) that the whole thing was an attack on Pakistani sovereignty engineered by India and its then-friends the Soviets. This was the boldest move yet by Beijing in choosing an ally opposed by Moscow DESPITE Pakistan's ties to Washington. 'Despite' would eventually become 'because of'--but that's jumping ahead. Anyway, it was a litmus test for China symps to take an unequivocal stand on an issue that didn't affect their organizing, and that they were ill-equipped to judge.

As it grew more zealous, like PL, WWP, the Sparts, etc., RCP was loathe to be seen as being to the right of anybody. Meanwhile, Beijing was coming out of the isolation of the Cultural Revolution period, not as the friend of revolutionaries but as a realpolitik player trying to isolate Moscow's influence in the third world. In its press, the RCP worked harder than other groups to interpret these moves as principled opposition to pro-Soviet sellouts in Iran, Portugal, Palestine, and of course Cuba and Vietnam, now considered hopelessly revisionist. As the division between Hanoi and the Khmer Rouge's 'Democratic Kampuchea' [fronted by Sihanouk, a VIP guest in China] became evident, the RCP supported the latter. But by the mid-70s Beijing was using less rhetoric about revisionism and sellouts and more about Soviet hegemonism and its sphere of influence--an echo of Washington's 'containment' and 'domino theory' talk. Other Maoist groups picked up on this, but RCP held to the line that both superpowers were equally bad.

This tightrope snapped in the aftermath of Mao's death. Avakian rejected the triumphant Deng Xiaoping faction, and the RCP split. Instead of pausing for reflection, Avakian led his troops into a purification process around what he imagined to be a distilled essence of his hero's ideas. Any version of socialism outside their hyper-sectarian mold was treyf. Avakian 86ed to Paris to look for like-minded movements and start a new international. By the time the name Pol Pot became known, the RCP had already moved away from the pro-Beijing camp.

When China invaded Vietnam, the RCP's position was that it was a falling out among revisionists. Had Mao been alive to lead the attack, I believe they would have supported it. Unlike their onetime support for Pakistan, their current position is to oppose both sides in wars between countries [since there are no more socialist countries to defend] and support insurgencies. But they only support leadership groups with politics similar to theirs. Hence their support for Sendero, the NPA in the Philippines and the People's War faction in Nepal.

Their position on gays was so backward I'm not sure I can accept that they've changed. But I never thought they could go as broad as NION either.

ey

In discussions with the two RCP folks here at my place they argued that RCP had not supported the invasion of Vietnam (on which I think they were wrong, but they may have changed their position not long after), and they simply didn't discuss the Shining Path and I didn't have current info on it.

Unlike WWP, which as a clear, public record of supporting every Stalinist hack until they got overturned, RCP isn't as well known and they have (I'm glad to recognize) changed their position on gays and lesbians (hey, I could even apply for membership now!).

Do you have any kind of dossier on the Shining Path thing? I need that and I don't have time to dig it up. Pacifists are impressed with NION (reasonably so) but not aware of the Sendero Luminoso business.

David