Australian Anti-Revisionists Evaluate Strategy of Haunting Houses

Image courtesy of VacuityMechanica

MELBOURNE – Meeting in the old Cooper house at the stroke of midnight, representatives of the Marxist-Leninist “October Seventh Socialist Movement”, the Marxist-Leninist (Mao Zedong Thought) “National Preparatory Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Australia”, and the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist “Committee for a Revolutionary Communist Party in Australia” met to discuss the pros and cons of their strategy of agitating for socialist revolution in Australia by haunting houses throughout the Melbourne and Sydney metropolitan areas.

“Woooooooooooooooooo!”, began a representative from the NPCMLCPA, waving around a copy of “Eureka”. “Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!”

“A plainly revisionist position,” countered the OSSM’s representative. “You’ll fall right into the lap of the imperialists talking like that.”

“I’m afraid I must agree,” added the CRCPA representative. “Chairman Gonzalo rejected this stance decades ago.”

While all present agreed that there was a clear disadvantage to appearing in mirrors and jumping out from closets covered in blood to deliver their principled defence of the legacy of Comrade Stalin, it appears that all will continue to organise in this fashion, “for security reasons”.

“Besides,” added the CRCPA representative. “Even if I was capable of braving the sunlight, handing out propaganda in public is for Trots and revisionists.”


7 thoughts on “Australian Anti-Revisionists Evaluate Strategy of Haunting Houses

  1. Aoli

    Nah, not all men. Opposite in fact. VL & MB were hardline maoists when the CPA (ML) were Dengists.
    NPCMLCPA were from Sydney and from memory never mentioned Mao.


    1. Regarding “all men”, all information available for two of the three groups mentioned are indeed all men, with both contact persons with “leadership”-like titles mentioned by OSSM having men’s names, and NPCMLCPA is said to be made up of “followers” of Norm Gallagher. Apologies if that information is erroneous, we would appreciate a correction, but it does not appear that the hasty summary of the three groups given by the person who suggested the piece was “the opposite” of the case, it appears to have only been wrong in the case of CRCPA, and quite right in the case of the other two.

      The NPCMLCPA question (where they stand on Mao, not the Sydney thing, which was also lazy on our part) is quite interesting, since all sources we’ve checked seem to agree they are some sort of “Mao-friendly MLs”. Do you have any further information on this group?

      We will make some changes to this piece immediately. If we get a further response from you regarding the NPCMLCPA’s line relatively soon, we will incorporate that into a public correction on our Facebook page.


  2. Your satirical piece relies on wikipedia. All these groups no longer exist. They were run by people who have since passed away or become politically inactive due to old age – nothing to do with been cowards afraid of security. Maoism is literally dead in Australia. That seems to be the case in NZ as well. Old age also caught up with the NZ supporters of Hoxha ( who didnt become Trots) see Alliance No 38. NPCMLCPA’s line was the same as late period CPA (ML) . Of course they mentioned Mao in their magazine but not in the context of promoting ‘maoism’ or the ‘Thoughts’. I should have made that clearer in my comment. They didnt use that crazy acronym either heheh. The last few issues of Eureka made no reference to the group publishing it. Gallagher was an important trade unionist in Australia who was expelled from CPA (ML). NPCMLCPA was a few of his old comrades setting up a group to record his contribution to the struggle as he too had passed away by that time. Vanguard published a critical obituary of Gallagher accusing him of been an economist or corrupt or something along those lines and that fired them in to action.


    1. Our satirical piece relies on what may be an unreliable and ill-informed Australian source, but none of these parties are or have ever been significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article, and none of them have one. 😉

      As for security concerns, we have met some old Australian anti-revisionists (mostly from CPA(ML) to be fair), and there is a strange “security culture” reflected in materials we’ve seen from them. This is in common with the US, which also is host to a small number of anti-revisionist sects which are slowly fading out of existence due to their secretive and elderly membership.


    1. Many US, UK, and Australian anti-revisionists seem to cultivate a security culture so intense that it results in lessening the visibility of the organisation to the point of making the organisation unable to reproduce itself, and yet this level of security is greater than that of Turkish communist groups which are actually illegal and membership in which is punishable by jail time, that is what we find strange.

      Just to give an example: There are several groups in English speaking countries which use an “anonymous” PO box for communication, as if this is really more secure than the internet if you are really being watched.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s