On the Role and Importance of Bob Avakian

[redwinter]

Thought this was a really important letter sent in to Revolution newspaper written by a veteran communist on how important Bob Avakian is (and has been) to the revolutionary movement worldwide.
An Open Letter to the Revolutionary Communists and Everyone Seriously Thinking About Revolution:
On the Role and Importance of Bob Avakian

Check it out at: http://www.revcom.us/a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html

I'm interested in seeing what people think (and without getting fully into my views on this, I will say that this is an important background and justification for the need for a culture of appreciation, popularization, and promotion of Bob Avakian among communists today).

[black magick hustla]

good o'l bobby. is he still eating waffles in france because he believes the cia is trying to destroy his irrelevant organization?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know very much about Bob Avakian, but I do know that the RCP pumps out some of the worst agitprop I've ever read. Seriously...it's bad. I'd rather read a Trot rag than look at another copy of Revolution. :closedeyes:

Although if you need to line your birdcage, I suppose you could do a lot worse.

[Hoxhaist]

is he still alive? what does he look like? I prefer Hoxha to Avakian because Hoxha was fearless in taking on Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, NATO, Revisionist USSR, and Dengist PRC and where is Avakian if he wants to lead a revolution??

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. How is the RCP going to reach out to wide audiences of radicalizing people with articles full of jargon that don't relate to everyday struggle?

2.
Some people raise the question of just who Bob Avakian is to claim to have produced such a contribution to our communist science and understanding. After all, they assert, “what has he done?” In the first place, this approach really begs the question—the issue is not one of “claims and counter-claims”. Check out and evaluate the new synthesis. Even though I disagree with Maoism and the RCP, you guys are better than this. Quotes like the above sound as though they were taken from a LaRouche pamphlet.

3. What happens when Avakian dies? Why should I trust the new guy if he obviously wasn't a great as Bob?

[Os Cangaceiros]

3. What happens when Avakian dies? Why should I trust the new guy if he obviously wasn't a great as Bob?

Bob Avakian, dying? Pfft.

He'll never die. Eventually he'll probably just be a floating head in a tank of preservation fluid, hooked up to a tangle of tubes and speaking through a voice box...BUT LEAD THE PEOPLE'S VANGUARD HE SHALL!

[redSHARP]

the RCP is almost a dirty word in NYC. they seem cultist from my interactions with them. but i see them as more of a west coast/middle country group.

[JimmyJazz]

is he still alive? what does he look like? I prefer Hoxha to Avakian because Hoxha was fearless in taking on Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, NATO, Revisionist USSR, and Dengist PRC and where is Avakian if he wants to lead a revolution??

Bob Avakian would do all these things and more if you would just give him a chance. :crying:

[Os Cangaceiros]

the RCP is almost a dirty word in NYC. they seem cultist from my interactions with them. but i see them as more of a west coast/middle country group.

I've thought about visiting their bookstore before when I've been in NYC, just for laughs. Have you ever been to it?

[Patchd]

An Open Letter to the Revolutionary Communists and Everyone Seriously Thinking About Revolution:
On the Role and Importance of Bob Avakian


I'm interested in seeing what people think (and without getting fully into my views on this, I will say that this is an important background and justification for the need for a culture of appreciation, popularization, and promotion of Bob Avakian among communists today).

Yeah, I'd advise anyone seriously thinking about revolution to come away from hero worshipping and put the movement in their own hands. We don't need a glorious leader to show us the correct path, they can go fuck themselves, what we need is collective action, autonomy and working class democracy in communities, workplaces and places of education.

[redwinter]

1. How is the RCP going to reach out to wide audiences of radicalizing people with articles full of jargon that don't relate to everyday struggle?

2. Even though I disagree with Maoism and the RCP, you guys are better than this. Quotes like the above sound as though they were taken from a LaRouche pamphlet.

3. What happens when Avakian dies? Why should I trust the new guy if he obviously wasn't a great as Bob?

I think these are some important questions.

(1) I think this quote from the end of the letter gives the answer to your first question:



When Mao died in 1976 it was like the whole communist movement kind of held its breath and contemplated what was going to happen: not just in China itself, but also in relation to what we all were going to do without the Great Helmsman at the head of our ranks. At that time Bob gave a speech at a memorial meeting for Mao in which he said: “So when they raise the question, who will be Mao Tsetung’s successors, the working class is ready with its answer: We will be Mao Tsetung’s successors, in our millions and hundreds of millions, and we will continue the cause for which he fought and in which he led us and to which he devoted his entire life, until that great goal of eliminating exploitation and oppression and achieving communism has finally been achieved.”[15 (http://www.revcom.us/a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html#f15)]



This was a very important orientation to set and statement to make in that situation. And because in the final analysis it is the masses of people who make history—who, to again paraphrase Avakian, must in the end emancipate themselves—it is also correct to say that the masses in their millions will be Mao Tsetung’s successors. But having said that, and looking back at it now, I think we also have to acknowledge that his statement was a bit one-sided.



The masses make history, but if it is to be a history that leads to a communist world, they need leadership: genuine communist leadership, including rare and outstanding figures like Mao Tsetung. So the question at that time was also: what leader or leaders were going to step forward to fill that “great need”? There is an important dialectic here. Without people capable of making exceptional contributions on the level of a Mao Tsetung, it is impossible for everyone else to make their maximum contribution and for humanity as a whole to reach the day when there will no longer be any permanent institutionalised division of labour between leaders and the led.[16 (http://www.revcom.us/a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html#f16)]



In light of all that has been said here it should be clear that in my opinion it is without question that Bob Avakian has, through all the twists and turns of the last 3 decades, risen to the challenge and stepped forward to fill that objectively existing role and need. He has not only stayed the course, but has produced a “body of work” containing a new synthesis of our understanding of the science of communism: a new level of freedom from which to engage and transform in a revolutionary fashion the necessity we are currently confronting. This is a tremendous positive factor for continuing and advancing the epic battle for a communist world.
(Source: http://www.revcom.us/a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html)






If we actually want to get to a communist world, it's going to be necessary to promote and popularize the new synthesis coming from Bob Avakian. This does relate to the "everyday struggle" - the everyday struggle to propagate revolution and communism that should be the centerpiece of every communist's work, all the time. Jargon, yeah, it might be hard to understand for the uninitiated - but that's the point of elevating people's level, if someone doesn't understand certain terms or phrases they can ask others or look it up in a dictionary.


(2) I think this question relates to what Hoxhaist brought up in this thread, namely, is the criterion for the correctness of a theory the accomplishments of the author or is it the validity of the theory itself? Marx, who never led a revolution, failed at creating the First International and never even built a party in England, Germany, or anywhere else. He wasn't even involved in the Paris Commune, the most advanced revolutionary upsurge of his lifetime, much less did he lead it. But his contributions in the realm of theory were essential leaps in the science of communism.

(3) Let's hope that doesn't happen for a long time! But if we were physicists in the time of Einstein when he was making his theoretical breakthroughs, I think the problem to be confronted would not be "what do we do when he's gone?" but "how do we promote and popularize the advances that have been made by this unique theoretician?"...I think it will be impossible to advance communist revolution in the 21st century without engaging with the new synthesis being put forward by Comrade Avakian - we need to make sure people now are getting into that synthesis.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"When Mao died in 1976 it was like the whole communist movement kind of held its breath and contemplated what was going to happen: not just in China itself, but also in relation to what we all were going to do without the Great Helmsman at the head of our ranks."

:lol:

Oh Glorious Leader! What will we do without your guidance?

[AvanteRedGarde]

I keep on hearing how great Bob Avakian is and how deeply revolutionary he is. I also keep hearing how unspeakably profound his new synthesis is.

This must be true, because I have never seen someone paraphrase Bob Avakian's unbelievable contributions in less than two pages. Haha, it's true.

Just please; tell me in two to four normal sized paragraphs- without referencing or quoting a specific work by BA and encouraging me to read more to gain a fuller understanding- what he brings to the table that is specifically different from any number of personalities or parties.

I'm not a kid and I don't need to be talked down to or hand-held. Simply explain the distinct and special qualities and what is new and different in a brief yet convincing manner. It shouldn't be that hard.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

is this some kind of joke?

[BOZG]

is this some kind of joke?

Our ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
Our vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party
Our leader is Chairman Bob Avakian



Everybody dance now!

[redwinter]

Just please; tell me in two to four normal sized paragraphs- without referencing or quoting a specific work by BA and encouraging me to read more to gain a fuller understanding- what he brings to the table that is specifically different from any number of personalities or parties.

I'm not a kid and I don't need to be talked down to or hand-held. Simply explain the distinct and special qualities and what is new and different in a brief yet convincing manner. It shouldn't be that hard.

Well, at your request, let me hold your hand and spoon feed you a few of the things that Avakian's bringing forward.

* summing up the experience of socialist revolutions in the 20th century, which was mainly positive but had negative aspects, and re-envisioning both how revolutionary struggle is waged here and now as well as the potential socialist future in a different way than previous thinkers, learning from the mistakes that happened in the USSR and China
* rupturing with relativism, pragmatism, economism, empiricism, determinism, inevitablism, reductionism and other unscientific tendencies in the international communist movement from marx to mao, and making an epistemological rupture within the communist movement
* putting the advance of the world revolutionary struggle above everything, even risking one's own socialist state power if that would benefit the world revolutionary movement
* expanding the marxist understanding of dictatorship and democracy, especially a huge rupture with the broad fetishization of "democracy" itself (even by so-called communists), and the nature of the socialist state as a transitional period to communism and how to continue the revolution in that direction (putting forward the formulations of "solid core with a lot of elasticity" and "going to the brink of being drawn and quartered" in terms of maintaining proletarian dictatorship but actually promoting the clash of ideas and widespread debate among the masses almost to the point of losing that state in order to "fit the masses to rule" (in Marx's words) -- differing from (say) the model of "continuous cultural revolutions until communism".
* an enrichment of lenin's contribution in "what is to be done?" to how to build a revolutionary movement...both with emphasizing the need to break down to the greatest degree possible the barriers to the masses taking up the science of communism (in order to have a significant section of the people, especially among the deepest sections of the proletariat, consciously fighting with the communist goal in mind before the seizure of power), the ensemble of several necessary components of revolutionary work (building on lenin's original idea of having a revolutionary newspaper), and the unique approach of the united front under the leadership of the proletariat.

and of course, i encourage you to read more to gain a fuller understanding. maybe try reading the article from the original post in this thread before responding to it? or there's also this in depth presentation on Bob Avakian's new synthesis:
http://www.revcom.us/a/129/New_Synthesis_Speech-en.html

[Pogue]

He's one man. One man doesn't make a revolution.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It would be a rather nice life though being bob

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg/400px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png

Physioclogical - Yup hes got em all and as far as sex goes im pretty sure the leader of a cult would have no problem pulling one of his cultists

Saftey - Yup dont see he is at risk at all (unfortunately?)

Love - Leader of a cult people adore him because they are freaks

Esteem - He has a few hundred devotees and to them he may as well be god. - That would boost my self esteem

Self actualization - he has probably deluded himself into thinking he is the baddest super dooood revoltuionary who ever lived.

[PoWR]

“Along with this, we should clearly understand—and here again the Manifesto speaks to the substance of this very well and importantly—that today Maoism without Bob Avakian’s new synthesis will turn into its opposite. Instead of making the leap forward that is required, there will be a retreat backward, ending up sooner or later—and perhaps not that much later—in outright opposition to revolutionary communism.” - Bob Avakian http://revcom.us/avakian/ruminations/BA-ruminations-en.html#toc16

[apathy maybe]

Thought this was a really important letter sent in to Revolution newspaper written by a veteran communist on how important Bob Avakian is (and has been) to the revolutionary movement worldwide.
An Open Letter to the Revolutionary Communists and Everyone Seriously Thinking About Revolution:
On the Role and Importance of Bob Avakian

Check it out at: http://www.revcom.us/a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html

I'm interested in seeing what people think (and without getting fully into my views on this, I will say that this is an important background and justification for the need for a culture of appreciation, popularization, and promotion of Bob Avakian among communists today).
At first I thought this was some sort of joke. After all, while I've heard of Bob, it is only because of RevLeft (never in real life). I've never read his stuff, and frankly, due to the reaction of people who have, I won't bother.

If he's that important, surely more people would be recommending his work?

is he still alive? what does he look like? I prefer Hoxha to Avakian because Hoxha was fearless in taking on Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, NATO, Revisionist USSR, and Dengist PRC and where is Avakian if he wants to lead a revolution??Seriously, the response to this was, lol wut?

[ZeroNowhere]

“Along with this, we should clearly understand—and here again the Manifesto speaks to the substance of this very well and importantly—that today Maoism without Bob Avakian’s new synthesis will turn into its opposite. Instead of making the leap forward that is required, there will be a retreat backward, ending up sooner or later—and perhaps not that much later—in outright opposition to revolutionary communism.” - Bob Avakian http://revcom.us/avakian/ruminations/BA-ruminations-en.html#toc16Wait, did he just speak of himself in the third person?
...
Wait, didn't god (the Bible is a reliable source, damnit!) do that?


An Open Letter to the Revolutionary Communists and Everyone Seriously Thinking About Revolution:
On the Role and Importance of Bob Avakian
I prefer Gorter's open letter, tbh.


If he's that important, surely more people would be recommending his work?
Most probably not. RCP members wouldn't, I'm not sure about his popularity otherwise.


Seriously, the response to this was, lol wut?
Enver Hoxha is like Superman, except that he actually does get hurt by bullets.

[bcbm]

Well, at your request, let me hold your hand and spoon feed you a few of the things that Avakian's bringing forward.

Being a snotty little shit to people who just asked to have some ideas concisely explained is a really great way to convince people of your ideas. No wonder your party is booming.:rolleyes:

[ZACKist]

This is actually the second time Avakian has quoted himself (just in print anyways). Is there any other reason this might be so other than he being delusional?

He also specifically dictates that in RCP statements he be referred to as: "special", "rare", "unique", "irreplaceable."

***

How is that communist/revolutionary/liberating/not-batshit-insane?

http://i41.tinypic.com/2nvukuh.png
from here: http://revcom.us/a/090/special-sum-en.html

[AvanteRedGarde]

Like I said, I'm not impressed. Especially since you did not answer the question as I asked. Let's take a look.




* summing up the experience of socialist revolutions in the 20th century, which was mainly positive but had negative aspects, and re-envisioning both how revolutionary struggle is waged here and now as well as the potential socialist future in a different way than previous thinkers, learning from the mistakes that happened in the USSR and China



Here you say that something is new, a "re-envisioned" with a deeper understand, but you again don't say what is new or specific. What exactly is different or has been learned by BA through his studies of Russia and China.

This is exactly with what i charged you with: describing BA and the NS as something new, but unable to succintly describe how it differs from previous Marxist ideologies. You are failing fast. To the next...



* rupturing with relativism, pragmatism, economism, empiricism, determinism, inevitablism, reductionism and other unscientific tendencies in the international communist movement from marx to mao, and making an epistemological rupture within the communist movement
Well anyone can say they are breaking with past errors. In fact, everyone does. Exactly what points of 'relativism, pragmatism, economism etc' has Avakian countered? What specific issues were at the center of these contests. What were the results? What evidence is there, either explicit or implied, that BA has indeed made an "epistemological break within the communist movment?" Do you see how vague this all is.


* putting the advance of the world revolutionary struggle above everything, even risking one's own socialist state power if that would benefit the world revolutionary movement.
That is actually a break with Lenin, Stalin and Mao. In fact, it sounds a lot like Trotsky's position immediatedly after the October Revolution. This poisition was tireless fought and overcome by Lenin. Was Lenin wrong?

Again it's vague. It's also speculative: based off a spotty prescience of if such a conceptual act of internationalism would actually benefit (in what specific way?) the world revolutionary movement.



* expanding the marxist understanding of dictatorship and democracy, especially a huge rupture with the broad fetishization of "democracy" itself (even by so-called communists), and the nature of the socialist state as a transitional period to communism and how to continue the revolution in that direction (putting forward the formulations of "solid core with a lot of elasticity" and "going to the brink of being drawn and quartered" in terms of maintaining proletarian dictatorship but actually promoting the clash of ideas and widespread debate among the masses almost to the point of losing that state in order to "fit the masses to rule" (in Marx's words) -- differing from (say) the model of "continuous cultural revolutions until communism".

I'm just going to write off this last point as vague speculation. At what point has anything approaching "putting forward the formulations of "solid core with a lot of elasticity" and "going to the brink of being drawn and quartered" in terms of maintaining proletarian dictatorship but actually promoting the clash of ideas and widespread debate among the masses almost to the point of losing that state..." been practiced in a socialist state? Thus how can we realibly say that this path would be better than "Cultural revolusions unitl communism?" Do you seriously count this point as a "special contribution?"
* an enrichment of lenin's contribution in "what is to be done?" to how to build a revolutionary movement...both with emphasizing the need to break down to the greatest degree possible the barriers to the masses taking up the science of communism (in order to have a significant section of the people, especially among the deepest sections of the proletariat, consciously fighting with the communist goal in mind before the seizure of power), the ensemble of several necessary components of revolutionary work (building on lenin's original idea of having a revolutionary newspaper), and the unique approach of the united front under the leadership of the proletariat.Of course this was also vague. Personally, I hate vagueness. Too often vagueness merely acts to open the door for opportunism.

Ok, you say that BA has "enriched" What Is to Be Done. In truth, hasn't he just restated it at greater length while emphasizing certain points? (Again I ask, is Avakian a synthesizer or a plagiarizer?) You also say that BA has a "unique appraoch" to the united front, but do not describe what is specifically unique about it.

Just tell me what the RCP's politics are, and how the differ, without the superflous party-sanctioned adjectives. "Unique" isn't an adequate describtion.



and of course, i encourage you to read more to gain a fuller understanding. maybe try reading the article from the original post in this thread before responding to it? or there's also this in depth presentation on Bob Avakian's new synthesis:
http://www.revcom.us/a/129/New_Synthesis_Speech-en.htmlI didn't ask for an 'indepth presentation.' I asked for a concise summary. So far, all you've given me is a lot of vagueness, speculation, and the ABC's of Marxism repackaged as something "new."

[PoWR]

That is actually a break with Lenin, Stalin and Mao. In fact, it sounds a lot like Trotsky's position immediatedly after the October Revolution. This poisition was tireless fought and overcome by Lenin. Was Lenin wrong?

No, you are.

"The absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany we shall perish." - Lenin

"It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish." - Lenin

"'Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?' No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day." - Engels

[Wanted Man]

* rupturing with relativism, pragmatism, economism, empiricism, determinism, inevitablism, reductionism and other unscientific tendencies in the international communist movement from marx to mao, and making an epistemological rupture within the communist movement
Then I can't help but wonder why most of the international communist movement has consistently failed to take notice of this "rupture". It seems evident to me that Avakian is already pretty isolated from the communist movement that he's trying to "rupture" from. While we're doing cheap sloganeering: where is the beef???

Anyway, this rupture sounds kind of pointless. As if the actual communist movement embraces economism or other isms. None of us want to hold on to "unscientific tendencies". Saying that you oppose those things is like saying "I can't stand injustice", or "I like to have fun". No shit!

[ZACKist]

an enrichment of lenin's contribution in "what is to be done?" to how to build a revolutionary movement...both with emphasizing the need to break down to the greatest degree possible the barriers to the masses taking up the science of communism (in order to have a significant section of the people, especially among the deepest sections of the proletariat, consciously fighting with the communist goal in mind before the seizure of power), the ensemble of several necessary components of revolutionary work (building on lenin's original idea of having a revolutionary newspaper), and the unique approach of the united front under the leadership of the proletariat.

Funny... how's that whole "building a revolutionary movement" going these days? If anything the RCP has done nothing but shrink... faster and faster. It hasn't produced its paper in its "weekly" status in almost a year (has been forced to go bi-weekly), its had to consolidate its operations in an effort to not completely die (moving headquarters to NYC from Chicago), the organization's ranks have been excavated because they didn't "appreciate" Avakian enough.

***

"You're either with Avakian(therefore revolutionary) or you're not(therefore counterrevolutionary), people!"

Haha.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Dates please? Lenin obviously changed his tone as he advocated for an immediate peace with Germany and proceeded to focus on domestic issues.

He threaten to quit the Bolsheviks if they did not agree to accept an immediate peace deal. Doesn't seem like he was really pushing for self-sacrificial internationalism of the revolutionary state, at least not after he was a part of it.

[Wanted Man]

Also, how is Bob "Blame the masses" Avakian supposed to lead the masses?


Not all, but still too many, Americans—especially within the middle strata, although not only there—are in a real sense falling into acting like children, easily distracted with toys. “Here at midnight tonight—the new i-Phone!” People will line up, and fight each other to get in line, to get the new i-Phone, but they can’t bring themselves to mobilize against the torture and the wars and everything else that is being done by their government, in their name and right before their eyes—this is not even really being hidden.

(...)

This is the moral equivalent of coming upon a man brutalizing and raping a woman and not doing everything you can to stop it. You call out strongly “Stop!” But then, when he menacingly turns and responds, “No—I really need to do this,” you simply slink away muttering “Oh, I didn’t know he was so determined about this—and I don’t want to get hurt myself.”
http://revcom.us/a/109/avakian-resistance-en.html

[ZACKist]

Also, how is Bob "Blame the masses" Avakian supposed to lead the masses?


http://revcom.us/a/109/avakian-resistance-en.html

So long as they shut up and don't get in the way of that Stalinist-style-"solid core", I'm sure they'll be fine.

[Cumannach]

No, you are.

"The absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany we shall perish." - Lenin

"It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish." - Lenin



There's hardly a need to post the following since, as the other comrade pointed out, Lenin signed for peace. I posted these before ;


"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."

("On the Slogan for a United States of Europe") Lenin-1915

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...915/aug/23.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm))

"Indeed, the power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. — is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society out of cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it."

("On Cooperation") Lenin-1923

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...923/jan/06.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm))

[Kassad]

These guys are fucking nuts. First of all, they aren't a party. Hate to break it to you. There is no real means of membership. The website is not even for the party. It's for Revolution magazine. Secondly, Bob Avakian has not contributed one thing to modern Marxism. The only ground he has to stand on is the fact that he's modern, which may convince a few cultists that he is somehow 'updating' or 'adding' to Marxism, when in truth, he just provides a modern analysis. He isn't adding anything, just rehashing already comprehended information to make himself seem relevant and revolutionary

The revolutionary vanguard does not hide. It does not give secret lectures and poke its head out once in a while. The vanguard is active and militant. If Bob Avakian wants respect, why didn't he march on the Pentagon? Why didn't he march on Boeing? Why didn't he march for a free Palestine? Why doesn't he give lectures at strikes? Bob Avakian is afraid and is attempting to paint this 'revolutionary in exile' portrait which is much like the Dalai Lama. Bob Avakian needs to create a party that can rally membership. As far as I know, there is no way to actually join the party.

The Revolutionary Communist Party is not a party. It is one man and that is Bob Avakian. Bob Avakian gives the green light to articles. Bob Avakian gives his approval for each issue of Revolution. If Bob Avakian protests to even one thing in an article, maganize or in the party platform, it is removed. I guarantee you that every article, every magazine and every piece of party dogma has gone through Avakian for approval.

It's truly a shame that so many people are manipulated by Avakian. I assume that upon his death, the party will lose the majority of its supporters, as they aren't there for revolution. They're there for Bob Avakian.

[ZACKist]

they aren't there for revolution. They're there for Bob Avakian.

Well said.

[PoWR]

Dates please?

First Lenin quote is from 1918. The second quote is from 1921.

Interesting that you point out the Brest-Litovsk peace deal. It was in regards to that he said the 1918 quote.

Later the same year he said again: “Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.”

In 1919 he said "We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph."

In 1921 he said "An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time."

[AvanteRedGarde]

In 1919 he said "We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph."

In 1921 he said "An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time."

Ok, that's great and all. But at what point did Lenin say that the existence of the Russian socialist state should be set on a course of even graver danger in order to prod the masses of other countries into revolution?

PoWR. Raising specific arguments in a way that doesn't address the original topic, and your party, look dumb.

[Sam_b]

I assume that upon his death, the party will lose the majority of its supporters

Thats being a bit to kind on them. Upon his death, the party will completely capitulate. I already invision a multi-fraction split over who holds the "legacy" of great leader Avakian and they will disappear altogether, even more so than their current marginalised position.

The current party resembles nothing more than a bizarre quasi-Marxist group which shows nothing but contempt for the working class in its organisation and rhetoric. They won't be missed.

[redwinter]

These guys are fucking nuts. First of all, they aren't a party. Hate to break it to you. There is no real means of membership. The website is not even for the party. It's for Revolution magazine. Secondly, Bob Avakian has not contributed one thing to modern Marxism. The only ground he has to stand on is the fact that he's modern, which may convince a few cultists that he is somehow 'updating' or 'adding' to Marxism, when in truth, he just provides a modern analysis. He isn't adding anything, just rehashing already comprehended information to make himself seem relevant and revolutionary

The revolutionary vanguard does not hide. It does not give secret lectures and poke its head out once in a while. The vanguard is active and militant. If Bob Avakian wants respect, why didn't he march on the Pentagon? Why didn't he march on Boeing? Why didn't he march for a free Palestine? Why doesn't he give lectures at strikes? Bob Avakian is afraid and is attempting to paint this 'revolutionary in exile' portrait which is much like the Dalai Lama. Bob Avakian needs to create a party that can rally membership. As far as I know, there is no way to actually join the party.

The Revolutionary Communist Party is not a party. It is one man and that is Bob Avakian. Bob Avakian gives the green light to articles. Bob Avakian gives his approval for each issue of Revolution. If Bob Avakian protests to even one thing in an article, maganize or in the party platform, it is removed. I guarantee you that every article, every magazine and every piece of party dogma has gone through Avakian for approval.

It's truly a shame that so many people are manipulated by Avakian. I assume that upon his death, the party will lose the majority of its supporters, as they aren't there for revolution. They're there for Bob Avakian.

The Party doesn't exist now? There is no real means of membership? Well, it's not a cyber party as is so popular on this forum where one is considered a part of the "vanguard" if you fill out a form on a website - log off your computer, go to (or write to) the nearest Revolution Books and ask them about talking to a Party representative about joining.

Lenin was in exile for many years before the Russian Revolution, I didn't hear about the workers complaining that he wasn't one of the 32 speakers at some rally in Russia during his exile and so they shouldn't follow him - all he did for years and years was "secret meetings" you're talking about. And you seem to know the internal workings of how the newspaper is published?

Again, the original link I posted actually directly addresses all of these criticisms you're trying to raise (http://www.revcom.us/a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html). I think they're pretty shallow. I summed up some of the contributions of Avakian to Marxism before in this thread. And of course, as the writer of that letter noted, how you view Avakian's role is "a question of how one views communist revolution itself: are you for it, or not." I don't know if people have actually read the article or a few have just found an excuse to write some anticommunist bullshit against Avakian.

(BTW Avante was complaining that it was too vague, or it wasn't new, or whatever. I provided a link for a more in-depth presentation - not sure what you want, comrade. Show me someone else who is saying the same thing if it's not new. My tone was a little sarcastic cause I think it's arrogant to ask somebody to write up CliffNotes on thirty years of writings by Avakian because you're too lazy to read a 30 page presentation on the topic.)

[Revy]

Bob Avakian is not anything special. Hundreds of similar figures have emerged all throughout the history of the Left.

There are no recent images of Bob Avakian. His whereabouts are unknown, and it is said that he lives outside the U.S. so how he could be a leader for this country's movement, I have no idea. Members like Sunsara Taylor are more often seen and heard than he is. The way they have crafted Avakian, it's like a religion, making him into a man of myth.

People like Lenin, while they were revered by many, and often excessively, they actually went out there and led the workers and gave speeches to them. What has Bob Avakian done to earn the image he is afforded with in the RCP?

[Kassad]

The Party doesn't exist now? There is no real means of membership? Well, it's not a cyber party as is so popular on this forum where one is considered a part of the "vanguard" if you fill out a form on a website - log off your computer, go to (or write to) the nearest Revolution Books and ask them about talking to a Party representative about joining.

Lenin was in exile for many years before the Russian Revolution, I didn't hear about the workers complaining that he wasn't one of the 32 speakers at some rally in Russia during his exile and so they shouldn't follow him - all he did for years and years was "secret meetings" you're talking about. And you seem to know the internal workings of how the newspaper is published?

Again, the original link I posted actually directly addresses all of these criticisms you're trying to raise (http://www.revcom.us/a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html). I think they're pretty shallow. I summed up some of the contributions of Avakian to Marxism before in this thread. And of course, as the writer of that letter noted, how you view Avakian's role is "a question of how one views communist revolution itself: are you for it, or not." I don't know if people have actually read the article or a few have just found an excuse to write some anticommunist bullshit against Avakian.

(BTW Avante was complaining that it was too vague, or it wasn't new, or whatever. I provided a link for a more in-depth presentation - not sure what you want, comrade. Show me someone else who is saying the same thing if it's not new. My tone was a little sarcastic cause I think it's arrogant to ask somebody to write up CliffNotes on thirty years of writings by Avakian because you're too lazy to read a 30 page presentation on the topic.)

Hi. I'm Kassad. I organize with the ANSWER Coalition and the Party for Socialism and Liberation constantly. I am very active in their affairs and am organizing a branch in my city. Feel free to step down from your ignorant pedestal. Anyway, this isn't czarist Russia. This is the United States where, at the very least, you have more freedom to express dissent than a significant amount of the world. Bob Avakian is not going to get carried away and potentially tortured, imprisoned or executed like Lenin could have been. Bob Avakian could stand at any protest like any other socialist and proclaim his message. Again, your cult of personality does not withstand this thing we use called 'logic.' I don't need to comprehend the paper incredibly to realize that your website is plastered with quotes, recordings and links to Bob Avakian's works. Curiously, his books aren't available for free online. I wonder why not.

Anyway, it's obvious to just about everyone in this thread expect you that the Revolutionary Communist Party centers around Bob Avakian. The Party for Socialism and Liberation remain incredibly active and are pulling in massive amounts of support and new members, especially since the economic crisis began. What's the difference between our parties? Yours promotes Bob Avakian communism. Mine promotes Marxist communism.

But here we go, folks! Don't agree with Lord Avakian? That means you're anti-communist! Step right up and ride the ignorance coaster! Compliments of Emperor Avakian! All you need is a malleable mind and you're there. Coming next week, President Avakian will be unveiling his new radio communicator device which recites Bob Avakian quotes every minute on the minute. Plus, the surgery to implant it into the base of your skull is so painless that it's no wonder he's number one!

By the way, I've listened to the vast majority of Avakian's recordings from the website. Though he has a significant grasp of revolutionary Marxism, it isn't like he's saying anything groundbreaking. The problem you fail to see; that I see along with every other person in this thread, is that without Bob Avakian, your party loses a huge chunk of its credibility and general core. If Gloria La Riva left the PSL, that's a damn shame, but we wouldn't bring our action to a screeching halt. The RCP would do just that and you know it.

[Revy]

Also, how is Bob "Blame the masses" Avakian supposed to lead the masses?


http://revcom.us/a/109/avakian-resistance-en.html

I'm sure he's thinking, "If they only had ME to lead them". It has to revolve around him. People are object-oriented and not people-oriented because of their lack of knowing him, and what better way to forget about iPhones than to concentrate your daily thoughts on the impenetrable wisdom of the great Maoist sage Bob Avakian, Eternal Chairman?

[Sam_b]

Lenin was in exile for many years before the Russian Revolution, I didn't hear about the workers complaining that he wasn't one of the 32 speakers at some rally in Russia during his exile and so they shouldn't follow him - all he did for years and years was "secret meetings" you're talking about. And you seem to know the internal workings of how the newspaper is published?

This is so ridiculous it's laughable. And on this point you fail for so many reasons its hard to count. However, the most important are.

1. Lenin was not the Bolshevik party. He was a leading member, yes, but it was not solely his political project. The most important thing was the working class, which Lenin made perfectly clear. I doubt worker's would have 'complained' because they were busy enough building revolutionary forces, and (not that I was there, of course :rolleyes:) I assume that they had hundreds of capable comrades to speak at rallies at their disposal at short notice. But maybe thats looking too much into it.

2. Are you seriously trying to compare Avakian with Lenin? I feel bad for giving your party the benefit of the doubt on such things, but if so you guys really are deluded.

3. These 'secret meetings' (and I would dispute what you mean here) were only part of Bolshevik organisation, as well as paper distribution, generalising, radicalising soldiers at the front....well, you should know all of this anyway. Point being is that their tactics worked because at that time the Bolsheviks had a pretty large sway and influence amongst the working class (obvious point being they were comprised of members of the class). Whereas in the example of the RCP, they have absolutely no influence whatsoever.

So in short, your hero worship of Avakian and comparing him to a revolutionary that actually organised properly, helped to build a revolutionary party that made history and changed the world, fails on every single level. If Lenin was around today, I dount he would be hiding, and I doubt the party would be surrounded by unapproachable mystery.

[JimmyJazz]

http://i41.tinypic.com/2nvukuh.png
from here: http://revcom.us/a/090/special-sum-en.html

quoting for posterity :lol::lol::lol:

[redwinter]

This is so ridiculous it's laughable. And on this point you fail for so many reasons its hard to count. However, the most important are.

1. Lenin was not the Bolshevik party. He was a leading member, yes, but it was not solely his political project. The most important thing was the working class, which Lenin made perfectly clear. I doubt worker's would have 'complained' because they were busy enough building revolutionary forces, and (not that I was there, of course :rolleyes:) I assume that they had hundreds of capable comrades to speak at rallies at their disposal at short notice. But maybe thats looking too much into it.

2. Are you seriously trying to compare Avakian with Lenin? I feel bad for giving your party the benefit of the doubt on such things, but if so you guys really are deluded.

3. These 'secret meetings' (and I would dispute what you mean here) were only part of Bolshevik organisation, as well as paper distribution, generalising, radicalising soldiers at the front....well, you should know all of this anyway. Point being is that their tactics worked because at that time the Bolsheviks had a pretty large sway and influence amongst the working class (obvious point being they were comprised of members of the class). Whereas in the example of the RCP, they have absolutely no influence whatsoever.

So in short, your hero worship of Avakian and comparing him to a revolutionary that actually organised properly, helped to build a revolutionary party that made history and changed the world, fails on every single level. If Lenin was around today, I dount he would be hiding, and I doubt the party would be surrounded by unapproachable mystery.

There are people that work with the RCP all over the place as well, there are ten Revolution bookstores across the USA and RCP supporters are fighting in many movements of resistance, tens to hundreds of thousands of people read Revolution newspaper every week...look at the major struggle for justice for Oscar Grant, in the midst of being framed up and targeted by the government, with a comrade from the Revolution Club in Oakland who is facing heavy legal charges...this isn't leading the masses? If not, what is?

And of course the RCP does distribute their newspaper and boldly propagates the need for revolution and communism. I'm not sure what you're arguing about. The point is that it doesn't matter if Lenin was not on a streetcorner in St Petersburg selling Iskra, he was still an important leader of the communist movement internationally though he was in exile in Europe from January 1907 (first self-exiling himself to Finland citing "security purposes" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/bio/timeline.htm)) all the way up until 1917. The point is that the criterion for what's correct isn't based on how many papers you sell or how much you're "out with the people" -- and in fact if you try to discredit Avakian for this you have to also discredit Lenin for it.

[Hoxhaist]

it seems the problem with leader-centric groups is once the leader is gone, the successor either cant match up, undermines the legacy, or multiple successors emerge and divid the group

[redwinter]

this is essentially the liberal anticommunist argument of "all power corrupts"...so there's no way we can get out of this system, all the leaders are going to sell out.

i think it's important to understand what went down in the restoration of capitalism in china after mao's death, what was good and bad under Mao and what do we need to do to prevent the reversal next time, to be able to go forward with revolution in the 21st century. ironically, avakian has written a ton of stuff on this topic which is referenced in the original link of this thread (http://www.revcom.us/a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html).

[Jack]

I prefer Hoxha to Avakian because Hoxha was fearless in taking on Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, NATO, Revisionist USSR, and Dengist PRC

People don't fuck with loons and thier bunkers.

[ZACKist]

Redwinter hasn't addressed a single thing I've stated.

Curious.

[Hoxhaist]

People don't fuck with loons and thier bunkers.
Damn straight they dont!!

[PoWR]

Ok, that's great and all. But at what point did Lenin say that the existence of the Russian socialist state should be set on a course of even graver danger in order to prod the masses of other countries into revolution?

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. "- Lenin

"The facts of history have proved to those Russian patriots who will hear of nothing but the immediate interests of their country conceived in the old style, that the transformation of our Russian revolution into a socialist revolution, was not an adventure but a necessity since there was no other choice; Anglo-French and American imperialism will inevitably strangle the independence and freedom of Russia unless the world-wide socialist revolution, world-wide Bolshevism, triumphs." - Lenin

[black magick hustla]

Well, at your request, let me hold your hand and spoon feed you a few of the things that Avakian's bringing forward.

* summing up the experience of socialist revolutions in the 20th century, which was mainly positive but had negative aspects, and re-envisioning both how revolutionary struggle is waged here and now as well as the potential socialist future in a different way than previous thinkers, learning from the mistakes that happened in the USSR and China
* rupturing with relativism, pragmatism, economism, empiricism, determinism, inevitablism, reductionism and other unscientific tendencies in the international communist movement from marx to mao, and making an epistemological rupture within the communist movement
* putting the advance of the world revolutionary struggle above everything, even risking one's own socialist state power if that would benefit the world revolutionary movement
* expanding the marxist understanding of dictatorship and democracy, especially a huge rupture with the broad fetishization of "democracy" itself (even by so-called communists), and the nature of the socialist state as a transitional period to communism and how to continue the revolution in that direction (putting forward the formulations of "solid core with a lot of elasticity" and "going to the brink of being drawn and quartered" in terms of maintaining proletarian dictatorship but actually promoting the clash of ideas and widespread debate among the masses almost to the point of losing that state in order to "fit the masses to rule" (in Marx's words) -- differing from (say) the model of "continuous cultural revolutions until communism".
* an enrichment of lenin's contribution in "what is to be done?" to how to build a revolutionary movement...both with emphasizing the need to break down to the greatest degree possible the barriers to the masses taking up the science of communism (in order to have a significant section of the people, especially among the deepest sections of the proletariat, consciously fighting with the communist goal in mind before the seizure of power), the ensemble of several necessary components of revolutionary work (building on lenin's original idea of having a revolutionary newspaper), and the unique approach of the united front under the leadership of the proletariat.

and of course, i encourage you to read more to gain a fuller understanding. maybe try reading the article from the original post in this thread before responding to it? or there's also this in depth presentation on Bob Avakian's new synthesis:
http://www.revcom.us/a/129/New_Synthesis_Speech-en.html
nothing of this is new. its some althusser smashed in with some goddamn stalinism to make it more youth friendly.

[Sam_b]

The point is that it doesn't matter if Lenin was not on a streetcorner in St Petersburg selling Iskra, he was still an important leader of the communist movement internationally

Yes. Point being is that Bob Avakian isn't, and never will be with his attitude towards the class.

[ZACKist]

I once, straight-up, asked an RCP rep what they were going to do once Avakian did expire (he's pretty old already) and they honestly couldn't answer me... only saying that it would be a horrible day and whatnot.

Sad.

[superiority]

Wait, did he just speak of himself in the third person?
Bob Avakian does not tolerate pronouns. Pronouns are counterrevolutionary. Bob Avakian always speaks about Bob Avakian in the third person, and always using Bob Avakian's full name.



http://i41.tinypic.com/2nvukuh.png
from here: http://revcom.us/a/090/special-sum-en.html
Do these people actually think that anyone is going to "come after him"?

Avakianism (or should that be Bob Avakian thought?) is not so much a serious strand of political thought as it is a bizarre cult based around promoting and protecting the Dear Leader, as can be seen by most of the work put out by the RCP.

[KC]

All of his works are poorly written rehashings of Marxism with some ideas of other thinkers mixed in (as marmot pointed out). So I don't see why anyone would think this guy is smart, much less a "leader". But then, a leader only becomes a leader by being recognized as such by his followers, so perhaps this tells us more about his followers than it does about him.

[bcbm]

look at the major struggle for justice for Oscar Grant, in the midst of being framed up and targeted by the government, with a comrade from the Revolution Club in Oakland who is facing heavy legal charges...this isn't leading the masses? If not, what is?


What a bunch of opportunistic crap. As though the people of Oakland who actually face police brutality weren't enraged on their own and acting on their own? It wasn't the RCP who sparked the protests, let alone the riots and that one of them got caught in the aftermath doesn't suggest any sort of "leadership of the masses." I doubt most of those who were torching cars, smashing windows, etc after the murder give a flying fuck about the RCP. This is the problem with most (all?) revolutionary "parties" or even groups in general... they're simply leeches on the popular struggles of the people and try to hijack them to get more subscribers to their stupid line or newspapers or whatever. Here's a newsflash: our class doesn't need you; we can organize ourselves and you're a dead weight holding us back. Get with the program, stop organizing around some "mystical leader" and start working for our actual empowerment as a class or fuck. off.


this is essentially the liberal anticommunist argument of "all power corrupts"...so there's no way we can get out of this system, all the leaders are going to sell out.

The so-called "communist parties" and their various leaders have always been among the first to sell us out. Any wonder most working people don't give a fuck about you, particularly when your own leaders (as evidenced from quotes in this thread) view us as slobbering morons? Forgive me for not respecting the "new, unique, brilliant, special, holy" theories of Bob Avakian, but what the fuck has he or his theories ever done for me or for more class? Fuck all.

[MarxSchmarx]

Anyway, this isn't czarist Russia. This is the United States where, at the very least, you have more freedom to express dissent than a significant amount of the world. Bob Avakian is not going to get carried away and potentially tortured, imprisoned or executed like Lenin could have been. Bob Avakian could stand at any protest like any other socialist and proclaim his message.

To be fair, I believe Avakian is wanted in the united states for attempted murder or something pretty serious. That is why even in France, where he is believed to be, he lives "in hiding" because he could be extradited back to the states.

[Devrim]

To be fair, I believe Avakian is wanted in the united states for attempted murder or something pretty serious. That is why even in France, where he is believed to be, he lives "in hiding" because he could be extradited back to the states.

Actually all charges against Avakian were dropped in 1982.

Devrim

[MarxSchmarx]

Actually all charges against Avakian were dropped in 1982.Huh, then I endorse Kassad's point. The man is clearly delusional for likening his situation to that of Lenin under Czarist Russia. Or he is doing it deliberately as part of an act. Either way, what a clown.

[Communist]

Actually all charges against Avakian were dropped in 1982.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/01/27/free_bob_avakian/

:confused:

[redwinter]

actually, Lenin didn't have any charges he was fleeing czarist russia from either, he left because it was a security threat that he could have been taken out by the ruling class (obviously in both cases they were trying) and that would've been a blow to the movement. not trying to make a one-to-one comparison, but don't talk shit about Avakian and then uphold Lenin who did the same thing.

If people are interested in learning about who Bob Avakian is (and by extension the revolutionary movement he has been leading), check out his memoir:

From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976023628/qid=1134933076/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9772655-2207940?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[Martin Blank]

In my view, it is understandable that an organization like the RCP would stick with Avakian. Like it or not, he is outwardly theoretical (even if his theories are wrong), and given the New Left's historical hatred for theory, there is a relative superiority there. Moreover, there does seem to exist a good instinct for engaging in the right kind of activity (World Can't Wait, Refuse and Resist), even if what they do in that work is wrong. On top of that, there is the "franchise" element: the RCP's relations with Maoists in other countries that are actually waging "people's war". All of those together, along with their broad-spectrum media work does allow them to attract young people. And since the latter two elements are generally attributed to Avakian's pushing of these issues, I can see why RCP members stick with him.

That said, it seems to me that while the RCP's websites and leaders push Avakian like there's no tomorrow, some of their members (yes, the working-class members) have a little more sense about it.

I actually spent about an hour today at the RCP's bookstore here in Detroit talking with the woman who was staffing it. During that entire hour, Bob didn't come up once, in spite of the fact that we spent a lot of time talking about Nepal (they are running a forum series here on the relevant political questions involved in that dispute that piqued my curiosity), the communist conception of the state, the situation in the U.S. left and what Obama has done since taking office, etc., as well as personal experiences and other semi-to-non-political things. Maybe it is the crop of RCP folks here, but there was not an attempt to spoon-feed Bob to you when you're in there (and I know the person who was staffing the store did not know me).

And this seems to dovetail into what I've seen of the RCP around here over the years. They seem to rely less on the Bob and more on the general politics, only bringing up the Chairman once they find you have an agreement with them (if then, sometimes it comes later than that).

This kinda gets into the last point that I think it's important to raise. In my opinion, the RCP is an organization in theoretical flux. They are making a break from their old politics pretty hard, and it is being spurred on by Avakian. So, in that sense, too, I can understand why RCPers are looking so much to him. Between the new draft Programme and Manifesto, and the flurry of books written by Bob, they have moved pretty far away from how they were when I first started meeting them 20 years ago. They are not your father's RCP, and I think that's actually a good thing. They think more, not less, even if it is mainly about what Avakian writes.

Eventually, though, that level of thinking will turn the current situation in the RCP into its opposite, and there will come a rebellion of RCP members against the current party leadership -- perhaps including against Avakian himself.

[al8]

Maybe it is the crop of RCP folks here, but there was not an attempt to spoon-feed Bob to you when you're in there (and I know the person who was staffing the store did not know me).


"Structure your cult like an onion..."

zxJyfqeaKU8

[Martin Blank]

"Structure your cult like an onion..."

Y'know, I wasn't really going to say this before, but given how so many people here worship Che, Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc., I don't think most of you are in any position to cast the first stone.

For that matter, all of the explanations of what a cult is and how it works are so vague they can be applied to any organization. In the end, the whole thing becomes an exercise in subjectivism.

Is the RCP a cult? Probably, but no more than the Spartacists, the SEP/WSWS, the IMT, the IST and a myriad of other groups. In other words, the argument is meaningless.

[al8]

However I am, since I worship none of those dudes. What I am saying is that it's natural to save the cooky stuff for later when you've warmed up to the group, if it indeed acts as cult. If its outside work is good it has an aura effect that blinds one to the bad parts. This is bad, revolutionary organisations shouldn't be run like churches or religious sects, it intirely defeats the purpose. And I don't think cult is a devoid term. If only revolutionaries where more consistent and thorough in spoting this nonesense and organize in another manner then we would maybe finally get somewhere. That is, not be some dogmatic jargonheads in a circle-sect worshiping secular saints.

[KC]

actually, Lenin didn't have any charges he was fleeing czarist russia from either, he left because it was a security threat that he could have been taken out by the ruling class (obviously in both cases they were trying) and that would've been a blow to the movement. not trying to make a one-to-one comparison, but don't talk shit about Avakian and then uphold Lenin who did the same thing.

The difference is that Lenin mattered, whereas nobody cares about Avakian except his followers.



If people are interested in learning about who Bob Avakian is (and by extension the revolutionary movement he has been leading), check out his memoir:

From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/097...books&v=glance (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976023628/qid=1134933076/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9772655-2207940?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

I'd check out his writings if they were on the internet, but it seems that he only wants his writings available to people that buy them. If you wend me a free copy I might read it, but other than that don't hold your breath.

[el_chavista]

http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/part_2/rcpleader.jpg
- Who is that guy with Cindy?
- It's none other than good old Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.
http://www.bobavakian.net/graphics/avakian3copy.gif
BOB AVAKIAN is a creative and wide-ranging thinker who, at the same time, maintains a profound sense of the actual struggles, trends and sentiments among the masses, the movements of opposition, and society broadly. And, he is the leader of the RCP, USA, a Party which is seriously setting its sight on the seizure of power right within the U.S. itself, and the revolutionary transformation of society as part of the world proletarian revolution, and he is at the same time a very important leader of the international revolutionary movement and the international communist movement.
He is one of those truly rare individuals who emerge only occasionally as an especially concentrated expression of the very best of what the revolutionary people and their struggles can forge and bring to the forefront at certain junctures in history. “REVOLUTION: Why It’s Necessary, Why It’s Possible, What It’s All About” will allow you to spend a day with this unique leader.

[Dimentio]

Is it true that RCP-USA has had an official policy of creating a personality cult around Bob Avakian? :lol:

[redwinter]

el chavista: that is a photo and description from a reactionary US fascist website, obviously that is not bob avakian. i am glad you put the description from bobavakian.net, i think people should also check out the DVD "Revolution:Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About":
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Necessary-Possible-What-About/dp/B0002Z9VCG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1240078867&sr=8-2

Serpent:
The RCP,USA has said that one of the mainstays of communist work is building a culture of appreciation, popularization and promotion of Bob Avakian and his body of work.



When we’re taking this out, and working to build this culture of appreciation, promotion, and popularization, we are not doing so in order to build a cult around a person, in some religious sense. We’re doing so in order to enable people to engage the most advanced understanding we have of where society and humanity needs to go, and can go, what this body of work and method and approach has to do with that and why it’s important in relation to that—why, in reality, it is indispensable for masses of people to engage with this in relation to—to serve, and to advance towards—that, and not anything else. Even the aspect, which is secondary but not unimportant—the aspect of the person Bob Avakian—is important only in the framework of, and on the basis of, being a revolutionary communist leader, the leader of a communist vanguard party which is capable of leading people toward the goal of revolution and ultimately communism—which has to continue developing its ability to do this, but has a basic foundation for actually leading people toward that goal. That is the point of all this.
(Source: http://revcom.us/a/115/makingrevolution-p2-03-en.html)


I would check out that source link above and read the whole section of the talk about this topic since it's very controversial, and you might as well get the full revolutionary communist point of view even if you're going to oppose it...i'd like to hear people's thoughts after checking out that whole section on the "CAPP".

[el_chavista]

el chavista: that is a photo and description from a reactionary US fascist website, obviously that is not bob avakian.
I was looking for a Bob Avakian's photo and that was the only I could find. Do you have any?

[redwinter]

yeah, watch the DVD i linked to above and you can see what he looks like...

[Rosa Provokateur]

This is actually the second time Avakian has quoted himself (just in print anyways). Is there any other reason this might be so other than he being delusional?

He also specifically dictates that in RCP statements he be referred to as: "special", "rare", "unique", "irreplaceable."

***

How is that communist/revolutionary/liberating/not-batshit-insane?

http://i41.tinypic.com/2nvukuh.png
from here: http://revcom.us/a/090/special-sum-en.html


That last bit made me giggle: "for the benefit of humanity" lol. All Bobby's benefitted is himself and his fanclub aka the RCP. I watched that dvd with his little secret meeting/speech thing... thats a nice watch he has on.

[KC]

el chavista: that is a photo and description from a reactionary US fascist website, obviously that is not bob avakian. i am glad you put the description from bobavakian.net, i think people should also check out the DVD "Revolution:Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About":

Put it online for free and I'll watch it. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my money.

[Trystan]

http://www.bobavakian.net/graphics/avakian3copy.gif
BOB AVAKIAN is a creative and wide-ranging thinker who, at the same time, maintains a profound sense of the actual struggles, trends and sentiments among the masses, the movements of opposition, and society broadly..

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/02/Im_kind_of_a_big_deal.jpg

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

http://rwor.org/a/019/pictures/chair-wall-comm2.jpg

Here's a picture of the Chairman of the Refauxlutionary Communist Party from the 80s, doing "Blue Steel" at the Wall of Communards in France.

"There's got to be more to life than just being really, really, ridiculously good looking"

I was down with the RCP for like a year and a half and even in that short time, I noticed the cult of Avakian go from bad to worse, and now it's just creepy. The RCP is digging its own grave. BA has absolutely NO legitimate reason to be in exile. Nobody is chasing him. Nobody is targeting him. He is not a threat to the US government. No, instead I think that Boston Globe somebody linked was dead on: BA doesn't have to answer to anybody, he doesn't have to do interviews, he doesn't have to be under scrutiny. And even more than that, he doesn't have to face the ego bubble-bursting of nobody caring enough to want an interview or put him under scrutiny. It's the creation of the mythical, everywhere-and-nowhere figure.