Talk:New Communist movement

"Maoism" and Mao Zedong Thought

At this point the article says that "most NCM organizations referred to themselves as Maoist."

This is not accurate. No organizations called themselves "Maoist" until after the New Communist Movement had collapsed. Until then organizations referred to their ideology as Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. This is why groups had names like October League (Marxist-Leninist), Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), I Wor Kuen (Marxist-Leninist), League of Revolutionary Struggle (Marxist-Leninist), Revolutionary Communist League (Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought), and so on.

The article should be changed to something like "most NCM organizations referred to their ideology as Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought."

--71.53.120.220 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This also is incorrect. Most of them, referred to themselves as Marxist-Leninists of some description. There were many “Thoughts” adhered to back then, Mao’s Thought played a pivotal role in determining a lot of the aesthetic value and the rhetoric of the NCM, but even those who openly referred to themselves as “Maoist” often held various positions which so obviously deviated from the Thought of Mao Zedong. Respecter of Humankind (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Legacy Section is a mess.

The Attitudes aren't a legacy and they are bad even if they belonged there. Missing citations. The topic Attitude towards the Khmer Rouge is literally just two guys' opinion. Some guy on some site, critized the wider NCM movement of being pro khmer rogue. And another, of a guy, who is the editor of The Call. No where before is The Call mentioned, but I found out that it was the paper of the Communist Party (Marxist–Leninist). They also aren't mentioned in the article, only their predecessor organisation.

The RCP endorsed the Shining Path? The PCP and the RCP were founding members of the RIM, but they also don't endorse each other; they have split and dislike each other a lot. Also putting people's war in quotes doesn't make any sense. People's War isn't just a name, but a theoretical concept and strategy developed by Mao.

I'll be deleting the two last topics in the section, add a citation needed to "The Revolutionary Union considered homosexuality as "an individual response to male supremacy and male chauvinism."" and expand upon as mentioned in the RCP article, that they "The RCP platform now demands full recognition of LGBT rights as a fundamental element of establishing socialism." Primake (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The New Communist Movement & Homosexuality

So, I feel as if this article is overall limited in many respects. As a scholar of this topic, firstly, I feel as if much more could be said about the NCM’s links to queer liberation, radical feminism, black power, solidarity with anti-imperialist movements in the Third World, secondly I feel that this article lacks coherency in terms of clarifying the debates within and the different trajectories driving the NCM, take for example the lack of mention of the party-building debates which had huge consequences for the structure of many of these organisations, groups, and collectives.

Take this quote from the article as a prime example: ”The groups and individuals representing the movement were persistently hostile towards homosexuality and homosexuals, reflecting both the homophobia within the United States, as well as homophobic tendencies within the larger international Marxist–Leninist movement, although gay rights activism was an early component of the New Left. The Revolutionary Union considered homosexuality as "an individual response to male supremacy and male chauvinism." The successor organization, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA now demands full recognition of LGBT rights as a fundamental element of establishing socialism.”

The Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA was not the only organisation in the NCM, they are not spokespersons for the NCM. The Black Panther Party also existed within the NCM as well as within its orbit, Huey P. Newton exclaimed in 1970: ”there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.”

Even looking at the RCPUSA itself, within the RCPUSA there were homosexuals, and these homosexuals split from the RCP and went onto criticise quite openly their homophobic policies.

All of that is without even mentioning Cell 16 and their Maoist-inspired Lesbian Radical Feminism and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s writings in defence of that Maoist politics of Cell 16’s day.

This article is in desperate need of attention for clarification. It lacks nuance and complexity, there are other glaring issues too, such as the lack of mention about how many NCM groups also wanted to alter general Marxist perceptions of things like class, in-fact, some groups in the NCM ended up altogether dropping any mention of class from their programmes and theoretical journals.

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/speeches-african-american-history/huey-p-newton-women-s-liberation-and-gay-liberation-movements/

https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/S21-Towards-a-Scientific-Analysis-of-the-Gay-Question-3rd-Printing.pdf

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2010/10/recently-at-my-doctorate-completion.html

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1401.html

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.ebbingtide/wprm-nepal.pdf Respecter of Humankind (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Update to FRSO, mentioned in the legacy section.

The legacy section states that both organizations emerging from the FRSO split in the 90s continue on the FRSO name. This is no longer accurate, the FRSO (Fight Back!) Faction is the only group still using the name FRSO. The other faction has rebranded to 'Liberation Road'. Hudson The Cat (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)