Jason Unruhe of the so-called \u201cMaoist Rebel News\u201d (MRN), recently responded to two of my articles, which I\u2019ll answer in two parts.<\/p>\n
My first article ((Kevin \u201cRashid\u201d Johnson, \u201cAnswering a Revisionist Line on the Labor Aristocracy\u201d, http:\/\/rashidmod.com\/?p=879<\/a>)) was written in 2013, to answer a prisoner\u2019s letter that was published in Turning the Tide<\/em> (TTT) newspaper. ((\u201cRe: Novick Article: On the Correct Handling of Contradictions,\u201d Turning the Tide<\/em>, Vol. 26, No. 2 (April 2013))) In that letter, the prisoner argued a position based on teachings of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) \u2013 a now defunct group, which claimed to be Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (MLM), or Maoist for short \u2013 that villainizes workers in the First World (especially whites) as bought off enemies of Third World workers (especially those of color), because First World workers receive higher wages at the expense of the Third World. We in the New Afrikan Black Panther Party-Prison Chapter (NABPP-PC) call this the vulgar labor aristocracy (VLA) line.<\/p>\n As a leading member of the NABPP-PC, which is largely prison based and upholds Maoism, I wrote my article to demonstrate the fundamental errors of the VLA line and that it does not reflect a Maoist line.<\/p>\n During 2015 comrades of the Democracy and Class Struggle blog apparently found unity with my article and posted it on their site where Unruhe read it, which prompted his polemical response. ((Jason Unruhe, \u201cThe Pretend Revolution of Kevin Rashid’s First Worldism\u201d http:\/\/maoistrebelnews.com\/2015\/02\/26\/the-pretend-revolution-of-kevin-rashids-first-worldism\/<\/a>))<\/p>\n My second article was written during 2015 ((Kevin \u201cRashid\u201d Johnson, \u201cThird Worldism and Politicizing The Blame Game: What’s Revolutionary About That?\u201d\u00a0 http:\/\/rashidmod.com\/?p=1202<\/a>)) upon my reading Divided World Divided Class<\/em> by Third Worldist Zak Cope, which promoted a similar VLA line. ((Zak Cope, Divided World Divided Class: Global Political Economy and the Stratification of Labour Under Capitalism<\/em> 2nd Ed. (Quebec: Kersplebedeb Publishers, 2015).)) Unruhe also read that article online, and responded with his second polemic.<\/p>\n Neither of my two articles were against Unruhe, MRN, or any affiliate groups.<\/p>\n The opening sentence of Unruhe\u2019s polemic admits that my first article was not<\/strong> addressed to him nor his coterie. In fact, he specifically named MIM as the group whose line I was critiquing, and denied any affiliation with or interest to defend them. In his own words:<\/p>\n \u201cKevin Rashid of the blog Democracy and Class Struggle attempts to take on [MIM] by claiming he can debunk the idea of a global labour aristocracy\u2026 My purpose here is not to defend MIM, they do not need my help in any way, shape or form. In truth, MIM and I have very different ideas on many subjects.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yet, over the next several paragraphs, he shamelessly contradicts himself, and in a completely schizophrenic about-face contends that I wrote my article against him and his coterie of Third Worldists, and made an \u201coutright misrepresentation of [their] line.\u201d<\/p>\n Under this transparent pretext, Unruhe then substituted himself and his line in place of the prisoner and MIM line that I was actually contesting. On each point he accused me of falsifying his Third Wordlist beliefs and then argued those beliefs as if to set me straight. When I did not reply to his delusional polemic, Unruhe followed with his second one, baiting me in its first paragraph to respond and not blow him off as others have done.<\/p>\n It\u2019s been said when one argues with a madman, observers don\u2019t know who the insane one is. I confront Unruhe, however, as someone being consciously dishonest and representing an equally dishonest worldview. In any event, whether his flight from reality reflects a delusional psychosis or deliberate dishonesty, it boils down to the same thing \u2013 falsehood. And he and his worldview are swimming in it. Let us count a few of the ways.<\/p>\n Unruhe embraces the Third Worldist line which claims to ally itself with Third World workers and demonizes First World workers as corrupted enemies of the Third World because they share in the spoils taken by the Imperialists from the Third World.<\/p>\n Well, if enjoying the privileges of the First World society renders one an enemy of the Third World, what the hell are Third Worldists like Unruhe doing here? What\u2019s more, the Third Worldists are predominantly petty bourgeois (middle class) folks who enjoy even greater privileges\u00a0 and wealth than do general First World workers; yet they\u2019re somehow the friends<\/u><\/strong> \u2013 no, leaders<\/u>!<\/strong> \u2013 of the exploited Third World peoples! How it is that they can rise above their own privileged lifestyles and become the friends, allies, and even the professed leaders of the peoples on whose suffering their comforts depend, yet they argue that First World workers can\u2019t, is a contradiction in their line that goes unanswered.<\/p>\n A comrade recently pointed out such glaring self-contradictions concerning the Leading Light Communist Organization (LLCO) \u2013 a group that came out of the dissolution of MIM \u2013 which Unruhe authoritatively cited as \u201cthe foremost Third Worldist group.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s amusing that the LLCO and their \u2018Commander\u2019 who goes by the name Augusta Luz (and is a white dude from Denver) claim that they are the vanguard of the Third World proletariat even though they are in the First World, and still find need to raise money and ask for items like computers and cars to support their \u2018efforts.\u2019 [Yet] they say there is nothing First Worldists can do in the First World except maybe oppose imperialist wars, that all First World workers are actually exploiters themselves, and that to struggle to improve people\u2019s living conditions in the First World is \u2018fascism.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Facial absurdities like these pervade Third Worldist theory and \u201cpractice.\u201d It\u2019s no wonder characters like Unruhe are drawn to it, and become its representatives.<\/p>\n Another example is his adhering to this Lin Biaoist theoretical line, while being an affiliate and spokesperson of an outfit that calls itself \u201cMaoist<\/strong> Rebel News.\u201d Lin Biao and Mao Tse-Tung embraced opposite political and class lines, and were in sharp opposition at the time Lin\u2019s line surfaced. Indeed Mao denounced him as a thoroughly bourgeois thinker, conniver and saboteur, who attempted an armed coup against Mao in 1971.<\/p>\n Lin became a principal target of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which Mao instituted and led against counter-revolutionary elements like Lin who were angling to restore Capitalism in Socialist China. As Mao said, \u201cif people like Lin Biao come to power, it would be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system. That is why we should do more reading of Marxist-Leninist works.\u201d Yet Unruhe accuses me of waving the red flag of revolution to attack the red flag, when it is he<\/u><\/strong> who under a pretentious Maoist title promotes the anti-Maoist counter-revolutionary line of Lin Biao. One could go on and on, pointing out the hypocrisies, deceptions, and self-contradictions that inhere in Third Worldism and reveal themselves in its proponents\u2019 words and deeds. But then I would never get around to answering the substance of Unruhe\u2019s pretentious arguments.<\/p>\n However one looks at it, Third Worldism is wallowing in petty bourgeois opportunism and internal inconsistencies, of which I\u2019ve given but a few examples. V.I. Lenin denounced these sorts as \u201cpetty bourgeois revolutionists,\u201d people who are left or ultra-left in words, but right in essence. They\u2019re fond of spouting militant sounding rhetoric, fancying themselves as the only \u201cenlightened ones,\u201d and regard those who make their clothes, their cars, and comforts with disdain and contempt. They want to go on record as being \u201canti-imperialist,\u201d but are unwilling to integrate themselves with the masses to do what is actually needed to make revolution, and recline in reformist forms of \u201cprotest\u201d that don\u2019t threaten their privileges.<\/p>\n In that my first article contested the MIM line and not Unruhe (as he\u2019s claimed in his grandiose delusions), it prompted a reply from another offshoot of MIM, the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons (MIMP). ((MIM (Prisons), \u201cRashid’s Empty Rhetoric on the Labor Aristocracy\u201d http:\/\/www.prisoncensorship.info\/article\/rashids-empty-rhetoric-on-the-labor-aristocracy\/<\/a>)) MIMP\u2019s reply has generated a series of ongoing polemics between the MIMP and the NABPP-PC.<\/p>\n One of my responses to MIMP, titled \u201cMIM or MLM?\u201d ((Kevin \u201cRashid\u201d Johnson, \u201cMIM or MLM? Confronting the Divergent Politics of the Petty Bourgeois ‘Left’ on the Labor Aristocracy and Other Burning Issues in Today’s Revolutionary Struggle\u201d\u00a0 http:\/\/rashidmod.com\/?p=1125<\/a>)) refutes their line and practice in considerable depth. Much of what I argued and supported there also answers many of Unruhe\u2019s arguments. So, instead of repeating what I\u2019ve presented elsewhere, I encourage readers to review \u201cMIM or MLM?\u201d, but will revisit a few points.<\/p>\n Unruhe is clearly aware of that article because it was posted on the same sites where he\u2019d read my two previous pieces he responded to, however, he chose to avoid any references to it in his second polemic, and made no other attempt to debate it. Also, another article of mine can be read to refute his claims that the NABPP-PC does not do theoretical work but mechanically holds to outmoded theories, titled \u201cIn Search of the Right Theory for Today\u2019s Struggle.\u201d ((Kevin \u201cRashid\u201d Johnson, \u201cIn Search of the Right Theory for Today\u2019s Struggles: Revisiting Huey P. Newton’s Theory of Revolutionary Intercommunalism\u201d http:\/\/rashidmod.com\/?p=1282<\/a>))<\/p>\nUnruhe Trolls and Lies for Attention<\/strong><\/h3>\n
False Premises of Third Worldism<\/strong><\/h3>\n
I\u2019ve Already Refuted Unruhe\u2019s Arguments<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Unruhe\u2019s Dogmatism<\/strong><\/h3>\n