Reading this is such a waste of time. It is far from "an in-depth critique of BA's line...on how to fight fascism and on BA's stance on the 2020 election." BA's is extensively quoted but his line is not even engaged. BA has provided plenty of analysis on big societal developments that you could systematically critique if you had an oppossing analysis that you could put forward but you got nothing. "They were wrong and didn't sum why they were wrong" is the conclusion that is being worked back from without any attempt to prove. Your link is worth reading only if you want an example of what is meant by "with some people the more they read, the stupider they get."
The fresh-look.net article "Wrong Diagnosis, Wrong Cure" establishes the primacy of the very positive and important critique by BA written in 1981 that dissected the incorrect line of the Comintern on fighting fascism. It then meticulously dissects the 2017 RCP Central Committee line on trying to "oust the Trump/Pence fascist regime" that goes against BA's previous correct analysis. It compares and contrasts two opposed political lines. It also goes into numerous concrete examples of practice, especially with Refuse Fascism, where the incorrect line was carried out. There are also comparisons and contrasts between BA's line on fascism and the vital polemic against the counter-revolutionary line of Prachanda in Nepal that the RCP released in 2009. There is plenty of substance to the "Wrong Diagnosis-Wrong Cure" critique that you seem to have skipped over and/or willfully ignored. A serious reply to the critique would be welcomed. The revolution and the new communism need critical thinkers and an understanding of the fundamental importance of two-line struggle.
You "seem to have skipped over and/or willfully ignored" what is in this substack. Two approaches are outlined, one dealimg with real life complex contradictions with the goal of making revolution and the other is the pseudo revolutionary brittle dogmatism that you're arguing for. How is it missed by you that what BA analyzes in 1981 and in 2017 are different situations? In the garbage you're pushing, BA's living analysis of a moving and changing reality and what had to be done at different points within that is called incorrect with little attempt to prove how BA is wrong. What you get instead is "40 years ago he said something different about a different situation." It's ridiculous to think that article deserves a serious response. Read 51 again and wait for what he mentions is coming on the next one.
Reading this is such a waste of time. It is far from "an in-depth critique of BA's line...on how to fight fascism and on BA's stance on the 2020 election." BA's is extensively quoted but his line is not even engaged. BA has provided plenty of analysis on big societal developments that you could systematically critique if you had an oppossing analysis that you could put forward but you got nothing. "They were wrong and didn't sum why they were wrong" is the conclusion that is being worked back from without any attempt to prove. Your link is worth reading only if you want an example of what is meant by "with some people the more they read, the stupider they get."
This is directed at Mark Sheppard in the comments.
The fresh-look.net article "Wrong Diagnosis, Wrong Cure" establishes the primacy of the very positive and important critique by BA written in 1981 that dissected the incorrect line of the Comintern on fighting fascism. It then meticulously dissects the 2017 RCP Central Committee line on trying to "oust the Trump/Pence fascist regime" that goes against BA's previous correct analysis. It compares and contrasts two opposed political lines. It also goes into numerous concrete examples of practice, especially with Refuse Fascism, where the incorrect line was carried out. There are also comparisons and contrasts between BA's line on fascism and the vital polemic against the counter-revolutionary line of Prachanda in Nepal that the RCP released in 2009. There is plenty of substance to the "Wrong Diagnosis-Wrong Cure" critique that you seem to have skipped over and/or willfully ignored. A serious reply to the critique would be welcomed. The revolution and the new communism need critical thinkers and an understanding of the fundamental importance of two-line struggle.
You "seem to have skipped over and/or willfully ignored" what is in this substack. Two approaches are outlined, one dealimg with real life complex contradictions with the goal of making revolution and the other is the pseudo revolutionary brittle dogmatism that you're arguing for. How is it missed by you that what BA analyzes in 1981 and in 2017 are different situations? In the garbage you're pushing, BA's living analysis of a moving and changing reality and what had to be done at different points within that is called incorrect with little attempt to prove how BA is wrong. What you get instead is "40 years ago he said something different about a different situation." It's ridiculous to think that article deserves a serious response. Read 51 again and wait for what he mentions is coming on the next one.
There is an in-depth critique of BA's line from 2017-2021 on how to fight fascism and on BA's stance on the 2020 election. Please see: https://www.fresh-look.net/wrong-diagnosiswrong-cure