Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

August 26, 2014

Outside agitators in Ferguson, Missouri

Filed under: african-american,revolutionary organizing,Trotskyism,Uncategorized — louisproyect @ 2:16 pm

A week ago the popular news and gossip website Gawker published an article titled “Who Are the ‘Revolutionary Communists’ Allegedly Agitating in Ferguson?” by Michelle Deane, the author of illuminating pieces such as “Your End-of-August Cocktail Is A Lemon Rosemary Vodka Fizz”.

Since I confess to not being a regular Gawker reader, I thought I’d take a quick look at its provenance through the generally reliable Wikipedia. A Brit named Nick Denton, whose politics are rather hard to pin down, launched it in 2003. His main ambition seems to be making money. For some odd reason, he decided to launch a website inspired by the sorry career of Tina Brown, the former editor of “Vanity Fair”, the obvious inspiration for Gawker.

I was intrigued to see that Choire Sicha spent a couple of years as editor there. Sicha launched The Awl, a website covering pretty much the same terrain as Gawker. I have it bookmarked and spend about 15 seconds there each day in a futile attempt to find something worth reading.

N+1, a Marxist literary and political print magazine I read from cover to cover, published an article on Gawker that sums it up fairly well:

Gawker had always sold itself as mean but it now became, actually, very mean. Sicha, who liked to pretend to be a news organization, had sent “correspondents” and “interns” to official media events. Coen found more of them, and she sent them not only to launches and readings but also to private parties, where they took embarrassing party photos. This was the important development: the decision to treat every subject, known or unknown, in public or private situations, with the fascinated ill will that tabloid magazines have for their subjects.

It makes some sense that if you are following in the footsteps of Tina Brown, you are likely to cross paths. Brown founded The Daily Beast in 2008 and was largely responsible for the vast financial losses that Newsweek suffered after an ill-advised merger with her dubious project. Although the Beast no longer has no connections to Brown, her spirit lingers on.

At the Daily Beast you can find the same sort of article on Ferguson that Michelle Deane wrote. Titled “The Communist Agitators Trying to Ignite Ferguson”, it is the sort of thing that was once popular in the 1950s when communism was a force to be reckoned with. The article has a glaring typo in the second paragraph, a dead giveaway as to the Beast’s editorial standards:

The Revolution Club of Chicago took to the streets Monday, busy “working with people.” After darkness fell and while the crowd of protesters grew larger and more boisterous, Carl Dix walked along West Florissant Avenue with Joey Johnson and Lou Downey, members of the Chicago club. It was clear that Nix—a leader in the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP)—was the point man in this small operation, with Johnson, Downey and several others following him as committed political disciples.

Is it Dix or is it Nix? (It is Dix.)

Gawker’s coverage at least had the merit of being written with the obligatory “sassy” style that pervades the magazine:

According to a website called the Missouri Torch, the man French is referring to is one Greg “Joey” Johnson, of Chicago. They have a variety of other images and videos of Johnson and assorted “commie” — their word — friends being shown around Ferguson. It’s pretty plain they’ve identified him correctly.

Johnson has been kicking around the paranoid end of American politics for some time. (To be utterly clear to any conservatives getting excited just reading this, that paranoid end is a 360 degree circle, really, comprising members of all stripes of political thought.) But he hasn’t been wholly ineffective, as an activist. For one example: those of you who went to law school, might recognize him as the same Gregory Johnson who was the defendant in Texas v. Johnson, the case which held that flag-burning is a protected activity under the First Amendment.

The group with which Johnson is affiliated, the Revolutionary Communist Party, is nowadays largely regarded as crank-ish even by many self-identified Communists. It is routinely referred to as a “cult of personality” for its leader Bob Avakian. Avakian, who lives in self-imposed exile… somewhere, still believes that Communist revolution is possible and writes long tracts to that end, identifying the end of racial oppression as key to the eventual overthrow of capitalism. He is also the sort of fellow who writes like this:

One important aspect of boldly spreading revolution and communism everywhere is the work of building what we have characterized as a culture of appreciation, promotion, and popularization around the leadership, the body of work and the method and approach of Bob Avakian. Now, I recognize that some people (especially among the middle strata, frankly) may find it “immodest” (and perhaps, to some, strangely disturbing) for me to speak about this (and, for god’s sake, to refer to myself in the third person!). But, first of all and fundamentally, “modesty” (or “immodesty”) is not the essential issue, not the heart of the matter.

Unfortunately Deane relied heavily on the video coverage of Ferguson that appeared in the Missouri Torch, a far-right website that is published by the Missouri Alliance for Freedom, a group that seeks to:

  • Reduce taxes and decrease the size of government.
  • Protect parental and children’s rights while encouraging the traditional family unit.

Apparently Sarah Kenzidor, a contributor to al-Jazeera and other nominally progressive outlets, has been tapping the Missouri Torch as well to “expose” outside agitators.

Jacobin Magazine, which has been linked with N+! as the voice of the Marxist Young Turks, published an article by Richard Seymour that took issue with the “outside agitator” narrative without naming any of the culprits. In addition to Gawker and The Daily Beast, the same sort of article appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, CNN and the Wall Street Journal. Richard wrote:

The metaphor of exteriority, of being outside, has two important connotations. First, one is transgressing the spatial ordering of the state. States constitute social spaces like districts, wards, and counties — a process that is historically far from racially innocent in the US.

Second, is that one’s political being is “outside,” and thus traitorous and disloyal. It is not just that one traveled from one city to another — that’s fine, provided the political agenda one brings is benign for the system — but that one brought ideas that are not only not native to the destination, but actually foreign to the nation, the free world, civilization itself.

While I am in total agreement with Richard’s analysis, I do want to take a few moments to look at the RCP intervention that some on the left view somewhat more benignly than I do. Blogger Stanley W. Rogouski wrote in conclusion to an article on Ferguson and outside agitators:

The RCP got it right with World Can’t Wait. Radicals had to take over liberal outrage against the Republicans or watch the “Bush Regime” become the new normal. That they proposed, and with a very straight face, that the alternative to George W. Bush could be Bob Avakian was hilariously delusional. But they were onto something. Perhaps that’s why, now, they’ve become the face of the “outside agitator” in Ferguson.

Sarah Kendzior knows her competition when she sees it.

With so much attention riveted on Avakian’s group, I thought I’d go pay their website a visit. The last time I had any contact with them was back in the 1980s and early 90s when I used to visit their well-stocked bookstore in Chelsea.

The home page of Revolution, their newspaper, made clear who was their main man:

Screen shot 2014-08-26 at 9.30.24 AM

As I trawled through their coverage of Ferguson, I found plenty of militant rhetoric:

We stand with the defiant ones. We stand with the angry ones, the rebellious ones, the ones who will not take it, the ones who tell the truth—and the ones they lie about. Without defiance, without rage, without righteous rebellion, without people insisting on their rights and defending those rights in the street—very few people would even know about Michael Brown and how he was shot over and over with his hands up, murdered by pigs and then left to lie there in the streets, as if he were an animal. Very few people would have shared the grief of his parents for the terrible loss of this young man, at the very beginning of his life. Without the rebellion, this terrible state-done murder would just be another rerun of the same old all-too-familiar story, the same murderous stuff that happens to Black and Latino youth over and over again.

But because of the defiance and rebellion, the whole world knows the story. Now everybody has to deal with this. And people all over the country and all over the world support this fight. You, the defiant ones, are changing the thinking of millions and millions of people… you are calling out to everyone NOT TO TAKE IT… you are making history—in the way it badly needs to be made.

So, yes we stand with the defiant ones—and we will defend them and stand with them in deed as well as word.

But it was not exactly clear what this meant in terms of strategy and tactics. This is not surprising since the RCP is what might be called a “maximalist” organization. Their preoccupation is with REVOLUTION, not any mealy-mouthed intermediate steps that can move the struggle forward. Although I have very little use for James P. Cannon, the founder of American Trotskyism, I live by his observation that the art of politics is knowing what to do next.

In 1938 Trotsky wrote the Transitional Program in an effort to address the task of knowing what to do next. He described it as an alternative to the minimum/maximum divide that existed in the social democracy:

Classical Social Democracy, functioning in an epoch of progressive capitalism, divided its program into two parts independent of each other: the minimum program which limited itself to reforms within the framework of bourgeois society, and the maximum program which promised substitution of socialism for capitalism in the indefinite future. Between the minimum and the maximum program no bridge existed.

Although Trotsky does not delve into this, the two programs effectively became the banner of the Second International and Third Period Stalinism before the two movements began to overlap through the Popular Front period. In the late 20s and the early 30s, the CP would organize foolish adventures along “maximalist” lines that backfired against the workers movement. In Germany, they united with the Nazis to unseat a socialist party politician embodying their belief: “After Hitler, Us”.

If you want to understand the RCP politically, their primary influence was Third Period Stalinism, which in the USA was expressed through the period in which William Z. Foster led the CP.

Trotsky proposed the Transitional Program as a way of circumnavigating the treacherous waters dominated by the CP and the social democracy in the late 1930s, two massive movements that had little to fear from the Fourth International that was based on a sectarian model even if its emphasis on “transition” was perfectly lin line with Marxist theory.

When I first came across the Transitional Program in 1967, I was struck by Trotsky’s very first sentence: “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat.” That is just as true today as it was when I read it 47 years ago. Just look at the Middle East and North Africa.

It is also true of Black America that many analysts have begun to compare to oppressed people in MENA, particularly the residents of Gaza who carried signs hailing the struggle in Ferguson.

I was struck by the anger and distrust directed against the official Black leadership in Ferguson, even expressed by some Black elected officials. Back in 1967 the SWP was propagandizing for an independent Black political party, one that could begin to organize and generalize struggles such as those occurring around cop killings now. It had hopes that the Panthers could become that party but they succumbed to Maoist maximalism unfortunately.

As the Black membership of the SWP grew in the 1970s, it became capable of helping to move toward such a party. There were national conferences to launch such a party that withered on the vine, partly out of the participation of Black CP’ers who wanted to squelch any potential challenges to the Democratic Party. The same thing happened with efforts to build a Labor Party, with officials lacking the guts to organize election campaigns that would antagonize their allies in the labor movement.

In the 1970s and 80s, efforts to build such parties was undermined by both the generally more sanguine state of the economy and by the sectarian madness of the organized left, including the SWP. Now that the economy has turned to shit and the sectarians—including the SWP and the RCP—have been reduced to cults around a believe leader, the time is ripe for moving once again to build class struggle alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans in the electoral arena.

19 Comments »

  1. I interviewed Pamela Lightsey, an Associate Dean of the Boston University School of Theology, who spent time in Ferguson last week on KDVS. She considered the ” outside agitator” narrative to be a dubious one, one designed, as I suggested, to try to isolate the people of Ferguson from outside assistance. She also more importantly observed that it is designed to delegitimize the resistance of the people of Ferguson, an attempt, as often happened during the civil rights movement, to deny that people have any grievances. If not for the “outside agitators”, they would be happy and content.

    Having seen the RCP in the Bay Area, I find it implausible that anyone from the Chicago branch could have instigated anyone in Ferguson to do anything they weren’t already inclined to do.

    As for the potential of creating a party centered around class struggle, an opportunity that has arisen because of generational mistrust, you might find this article interesting:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/joelanderson/who-are-fergusons-young-protesters

    “In at least the case of Carter, the pleas for a more peaceful type of protest fell on deaf ears. He said his peers are looking for new leaders, not the ones who marched peacefully and got — as he sees it — few returns for their efforts.

    “I feel in my heart that they failed us,” he said. “They’re the reason things are like this now. They don’t represent us. That’s why we’re here for a new movement. And we have some warriors out here.”

    That stance — and the police response — has led to confrontations, arrests, tear gas, and smoke bombs along West Florissant.

    Last weekend, when tensions were at their highest, the clashes followed a pattern: The most aggressive protesters would edge close to a line of officers, raise their hands — symbolizing the position witnesses claim Brown assumed when he was shot — and chant, “We are Mike Brown,” and “We ready. We ready. We ready for y’all!”

    Comment by Richard Estes — August 26, 2014 @ 4:54 pm

  2. I had some personal experience with RCP long ago when it was the Revolutionary Union and featured H. Bruce Franklin (Stanford professor who was fired) as well as Bob Avakian.

    RCP is a neo-Stalinist/Avakianist cult and is the enemy of any popular revolutionary movement attempting to get going. The RCPers have their own agenda and can recite their lines as well as any Lyndon Larouchite and should be automatically distrusted (and banned) by grassroots movements.

    This brings up the issue of attempting to create a “politically correct” consensus format in a mass movement. There would be far too many sectarian groups and government agencies involved to achieve consensus in its present forms. Of course, it is imperative to achieve an optimal popular input and participation, but there are ways to do this without surrendering the process to its assassins.

    But then, should I be forced to choose between Bob Avakian and Al Sharpton …. Hmmmmm. Is there a suicide option?

    Comment by Joe Barnwell — August 26, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

  3. Disgusting passage from the front-page article in the mis-named “Militant,” paper of the US Socialist Workers Party:

    “. . .Demonstrations have continued into the night, as have attacks on police, looting and vandalism by a small group of provocateurs, opportunists and undisciplined youth — which have been met by police assaults, tear gas and rubber bullets. . .”

    http://www.themilitant.com/2014/7831/783101.html

    Comment by John B. — August 26, 2014 @ 9:03 pm

  4. Provocateurs are generally understood to be plants whose role it is to disrupt a struggle, and The Militant has discussed this permanent aspect of the class struggle since 1928. They are utilized especially in such situations where the fight has the potential to escape the confines of the state, including the media, to control it, as is the case in Ferguson. And while not all looters and undisciplined youth are provocateurs, the provocateurs were certainly amongst the looters and undisciplined youth, unless you think there is something about burning down or looting someone’s store who had nothing to do with the racist abuse is not undisciplined. These things need to be acknowledged and reported, as such expressions, even if they are the result of deep anger, retard the struggle and keep it from extending it’s base of support within the working-class and their allies, and is detrimental to the cause of receiving justice for the slain youth. And it’s not like the Militant is the only one to notice, for heaven’s sake. African-American youth from the neighborhood (most notably in the first few days) have formed defense squads to protect the stores from damage and have circulated amongst the demonstrators in an attempt, with some success, to prevent unnecessary provocations that would allow the police to crack heads, or worse. And the family and friends of the deceased, from the beginning, including at the funeral itself, have admonished supporters to remain disciplined. I don’t understand what the objection to this particular sentence is, especially within the context of the entire article.

    Comment by Dave the First Mate — August 27, 2014 @ 2:49 pm

  5. Hello, Dave! Still doing yeoman work as a Barnesite hack, I see. Tell me, do you support the SWP’s new line supporting the “right of return” of Jews to Palestine? Even Jay Rothermel couldn’t swallow that.

    Comment by John B. — August 27, 2014 @ 5:10 pm

  6. Hello John, still changing the subject, I see.

    Comment by Dave the First Mate — August 27, 2014 @ 5:17 pm

  7. Why “undisciplined youth” do what they do :

    http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/ferguson-st-louis-police-tactics-dogs-michael-brown

    Comment by John B. — August 27, 2014 @ 8:07 pm

  8. I’m not changing the subject at all. It’s actually the same subject: The Militant blames the oppressed for their own situation: When Israel attacks Gaza, it’s because they were “provoked” by Hamas. Police brutality and martial law in Ferguson? Blame provocateurs and “undisciplined youth.” Why do you keep defending them, Dave? I’ll bet they don’t even invite you to Oberlin anymore.

    Comment by John B. — August 27, 2014 @ 11:48 pm

  9. I defend the political content of the Militant in general and this article in particular because I agree with it. Not necessarily every dot and every T, but the overall approach. It’s as simple as that. Why does this upset you so? I don’t have a cow or shit a brick over your political viewpoint, whatever that might be. Come to think of it, I don’t even know who you are.

    Comment by Dave the First Mate — August 28, 2014 @ 12:20 am

  10. Yeah why would anyone take revolutionary politics, racism, war and military police so seriously? It’s all just for kicks, right Dave?

    Comment by steve d — August 28, 2014 @ 5:39 am

  11. What’s the SWP position on industrial action nowadays? Don’t let your picket block the factory gates since it might provoke the police and give them an excuse to attack?

    Comment by steve d — August 28, 2014 @ 5:40 am

  12. The Lenin way, the Farrell Dobbs way and the Malcolm X way…that pretty much sums it up when it comes to the acute crisis of leadership, whether in the Middle East and northern Africa, on the picket line or in Ferguson, Missouri. The picket line involves the direct action of workers and in most cases a union, a worker’s organization, and thus the odds are much better that those involved will confront the boss with other options besides their bare chests, since their instincts are far superior, to say the least, to those of Hamas, Trumka or the Democratic Party. I would suggest reading State and Revolution, the Teamsters series and Malcolm X Talks to Young People, if you haven’t already done so. And if you have, then I would suggest you read them again. Or not. In the arena of working-class politics, what you are for is more important than what you are against. I know what you are against, but I do not know what you are for. Some will see the Militant as an attempt to put these ideas into practice and others will see a failure to do so, presuming that any given person thinks the ideas of Lenin, Dobbs and Malcolm are worth propagating. That’s the way it is and that’s the way it’s always been.

    Comment by Dave the First Mate — August 28, 2014 @ 12:23 pm

  13. Dave, don’t you realize how stupid you sound when you write “That’s the way it is and that’s the way it’s always been.” The fucking SWP blames Hamas for the latest Israeli slaughter, opposes BDS, and supports the “right of return” for Jews in Israel so that they will be able to avoid “Jew-hatred”. This has about as much to do with the SWP when it was still moored to the planet earth as I do with Kundalini Yoga. I have no idea what makes you into such a brainless cultist. You have none of the privileges of membership but insist on functioning like one of Barnes’s trained monkeys. Sad, really.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 28, 2014 @ 12:35 pm

  14. Socialists in the United States and around the world have very different assessments of politics today. Some, like the SWP and Socialist Alternative, do not think the BDS is helpful to the cause of the Palestinian people, others like yourself and the ISO think it is. On the other hand, the SWP and Socialist Alternative have different views of what constitutes a revolutionary electoral strategy. The same could be said about Ukraine, where you and I have broader agreement. Ditto the revolutionary process in Cuba, while others think the process should be overthrown. There are many other examples too numerous to list. The Workers World Party makes fabulous pronouncements about “imperialism”, but then turns around and endorses Democrats in the United States, which is another area where you and I have similar views. That’s what I meant when I wrote, “That’s the way it is and that’s the way it’s always been.” You are an excellent essayist who employs the Marxist method, even though I don’t often agree with your conclusions (although sometimes I do), and if you write an essay on the Militant’s view of the Palestinian struggle, I may feel motivated to say something, or maybe not. Like you and others, I look at the world and based upon my experiences, draw conclusions. If they generally line up with the views of the Militant and the SWP, it is because I think they are more correct than not. But I am not a member, and haven’t been for a long time and thus I only speak for myself.

    Comment by Dave the First Mate — August 28, 2014 @ 1:41 pm

  15. Some, like the SWP and Socialist Alternative, do not think the BDS is helpful to the cause of the Palestinian people, others like yourself and the ISO think it is.

    Politics is not just about holding positions. Socialist Alternative has hundreds of young members who are out in the street building the movement. If the SWP was doing anything to challenge the capitalist system except selling Pathfinder books and the Militant, I might care less about its wrong positions. It is not in the same league (or universe) with the ISO or Socialist Alternative. It is instead a bizarre cult of 100 members, mostly in their 60s, who are just marking time until they and their cult leader croak. Jack Barnes and Mary-Alice Waters live in luxury condominiums in NYC that me and my wife could not afford and our income was $150,000 last year. You are pathetic to defend these assholes.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 28, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

  16. I remember one time when a surgeon, who was having a hard time with a procedure, and looking for someone to blame, referred to me as a “trained monkey” as well. I think his exact words were, “trained chimpanzee”. I looked over at him, and seeing that I was, by then, more experienced in my craft as opposed to less experienced, replied, “If a am a trained chimpanzee, then who is mapping the contrast as it drops from the Vena Cava into the left ventricle”. Deep down inside I knew he didn’t really think I was a “trained chimpanzee”, so I let it go in one ear and out the other.

    Comment by Dave the First Mate — August 28, 2014 @ 2:10 pm

  17. Whatever.

    The point is that you are exactly 100 percent the same way that Stalinists were in the 1930s who lacked the inability to think critically about Stalin. This is the irony of Trotskyist politics, that it molds people into blind obedience. What makes you weird is that you continue to haunt blogs and other Internet forums as if you were still a member of the SWP. I’ve never seen anything like it.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 28, 2014 @ 2:22 pm

  18. I have Facebook discussions with people who generally agree with me and I occasionally post on the Unrepentant Marxist, which I thought was more of an open forum, and which includes commentary from people who have far deeper differences than you and I. That’s about it for me these days, although in the past I foolishly participated in other venues, which are mostly now defunct, as you say.

    Comment by Dave the First Mate — August 28, 2014 @ 2:44 pm

  19. No martyrdom intended, but I will get out of your hair and refrain from posting here in the future. No hard feelings, I hope.

    Comment by Dave the First Mate — August 28, 2014 @ 3:44 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: