Breaking Butterflies & Poisoning Wells

[Michael Yates]

This thread really began with the posting of Marc Cooper's essay on
Mumia and the efforts to free him.  Some references were made in later
posts to essays strongly criticizing Cooper and/or commenting on the
case in a way that suggests that Cooper is badly in error.  As I recall,
ChuckO made some criticisms of some of the leaders of the Free Mumia
movement, but he has the great merit of speaking as a person involved in
the movement himself, at least in the past.  Then we get a post,
unsigned, forwarded by Doug, telling us how one of Mumia's supporters
and I take it something of a leader in the movement has made statements
in the past supporting capital punishment in China. this person turns
out to be in the RCP, a Maoist group.

Now a good question is:  what follows from our knowledge that Clark
Kissinger made these statements in the past?   Or that he is in the RCP,
or that the RCP is, in the view of some, a cult and full of fanatics?
Carrol suggests that, since the RCP has extremely little power and
influence in the U.S., it is a butterfly.  So why bother with this
attack on Kissinger and the RCP?  Is there some other motive for this?
Is the attack on Kissinger an attack on Mumia and the movement to free
him?

I think that if we take Cooper's advice and make the year 2000 a year
free from Mumia, the chance increases considerably that Mumia will be
killed by the state of Pennsylvania. So isn't it true that if we agree
with Cooper, we are willing to allow this chance to increase?
Personally, I'd rather march with Kissinger (and subject him or anyone
else to criticism) than take Cooper's advice.

Michael Yates

Doug Henwood wrote:


> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >The RCP has been a butterfly
>
> What? Lacan is evil, but the RCP is a butterfly? It's a weird Maoist
> cult. I'd love to hear their reaction if they knew you were quoting
> Pope in their defense. If I weren't afraid of libel suits, the
> stories I could tell you about its guru Bob Avakian!
>
> Doug