To all communists... What do you think of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA

[Omegared]

I recently noticed literature posted by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA in my area. I checked out the website and found that they meet not far from me. There seems to be not much more than a newspaper and books distributed by the chairman bob avakian and a few others.

Do any of you know much more about this org and pro/cons of involvement.

[Anaximander]

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group with emphasis on the theories of their Chairman, Bob Avakian, particularly his "new synthesis."

Many claim it is cult-like, due to the emphasis on Avakian himself.

[ellipsis]

Doesn't have a great reputation on this forum. I would check out the meetings and see if it is up your alley. They run cool book stores but I was not all that impressed with the meeting that I went to.

[Ol' Dirty]

RCP meeting:

Membeber #1: Bob Avakian.
Member #2: Bob Avakian.
Member #3: Bob Avakian?
Member #2: Robert Avakian!
Member #1: Mmm-hmm, Avakian.
#4: Bob, Bob A-VAY-KEE-YAN!
In unison: Bob Avakian! YAAAAY!
Rational non-RCP cult member: Wait, how come you guys have this weird personality cult around Bob Avakian? He's alright, but we should probably do some union organizing or something. Could we at least do a trite protest?
(Awkward, eerie pause)
#2: Reactionary!
#'s1&3: REACTIONARY!
In unison: REACTIONARY!
(#4 stabs non-cult member in face)

The RCP are kind of like the Manson family... without the stabbings and LSD.

[Bill Hadnot]

I believe that what Bob Avakian has concentrated into a body of works represents the most in-depth and correct understanding of the nature of the capitalist system and what needs to be done to eliminate it. It's far above and beyond anything else....but...there are some serious problems that have led to the party not building a base that I don't believe are totally wrapped up in how they frame the leadership, but can't positively identify. I have my suspicions. Definitely go to the meetings and bring your toughest questions.

[Communist]

>>I recently noticed literature posted by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA in my area. I checked out the website and found that they meet not far from me.<<

Where was this literature posted in your area? Is there someplace where radical parties 'post' things? If so, and if any other parties post there as well, I recommend you notice their literature before the RCP's.

>>I believe that what Bob Avakian has concentrated into a body of works represents the most in-depth and correct understanding of the nature of the capitalist system and what needs to be done to eliminate it. It's far above and beyond anything else<< (post # 1)

Just as I suspected.
:laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm from a different political tradition and I disagree with many of their political positions but I would suggest reading some of their information online and if you totally agree, go to a meeting or order some of their lit. If you have questions about what they are saying or want to know what counter-arguments other groups or political traditions have, as other people or bring up your questions here.

You will probably get better answers if you have specific political questions about their politics rather than what people here think of any political group as a whole.

[Kassad]

I've heard that they eat the body and blood of Chairman Avakian at all meetings to be one in being with the Chairman.

[Delenda Carthago]

watch?v=OxG98hNSDQI

I dont know if they have anything to do with that guy,but if they do,AVOID THEM!

I believe than especially in countries like USA where there ain none much moving,people should get together,but this guy has the political IQ of a five year old!!!Even a retard like Beck makes him look stupid.

[Durruti's Ghost]

watch?v=OxG98hNSDQI

I dont know if they have anything to do with that guy,but if they do,AVOID THEM!

I believe than especially in countries like USA where there ain none much moving,people should get together,but this guy has the political IQ of a five year old!!!Even a retard like Beck makes him look stupid.

That's Sam Webb, chairman of CPUSA. He's not a communist. At best, he's a left-wing social democrat. He has nothing to do with the RCP, though.

[Delenda Carthago]

I see.Which of both parties has the bigger impact and social influence?

[red cat]

To the OP: Whatever be the current state of the RCP, atleast you can become familiar with some basic Maoist methods of organization and agitation by joining it. Don't hesitate to ask questions and debate. There are other Maoist groups also that criticize the shortcomings of the RCP, and you can always join one of these later if you are not satisfied with the RCP's line.

[redwinter]

I would suggest that people check out the documents of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, the newspaper Revolution (www.revcom.us (http://www.revcom.us)), and the works of Bob Avakian to familiarize themselves with the RCP,USA and its political line.

Some key documents:
* "Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage, a Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html) -- this document plays a similar role to the original Communist Manifesto, putting forward the new synthesis of Bob Avakian and the new conception of revolution and communism upheld by the party.
* "The Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://www.revcom.us/Constitution/constitution.html)" -- goes without saying. The appendix "Communism as a science" is very polemical as well. This gives more of an idea of the RCP,USA's conception of what being a revolutionary communist party is (and what living up to what all three of those words means)

I would also point people to Bob Avakian's talk "Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About" online at www.revolutiontalk.net (http://www.revolutiontalk.net) to watch the entire speech, and go to http://www.revcom.us/avakian/index.html for a fuller listing of his written works and talks.

In regard to the RCP,USA's position on Bob Avakian and how they (as well as others in the revolutionary communist movement) view him:
An Open Letter to the Revolutionary Communists and Everyone Seriously Thinking About Revolution: On the Role and Importance of Bob Avakian (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html)

[Wanted Man]

I recently noticed literature posted by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA in my area. I checked out the website and found that they meet not far from me. There seems to be not much more than a newspaper and books distributed by the chairman bob avakian and a few others.

Do any of you know much more about this org and pro/cons of involvement.

If they meet near you, you can always go there and see what's what. Probably better than asking for advice on Revleft.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I would suggest that people check out the documents of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, the newspaper Revolution (www.revcom.us (http://www.revcom.us)), and the works of Bob Avakian to familiarize themselves with the RCP,USA and its political line.

Some key documents:
* "Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage, a Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html) -- this document plays a similar role to the original Communist Manifesto, putting forward the new synthesis of Bob Avakian and the new conception of revolution and communism upheld by the party.
* "The Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://www.revcom.us/Constitution/constitution.html)" -- goes without saying. The appendix "Communism as a science" is very polemical as well. This gives more of an idea of the RCP,USA's conception of what being a revolutionary communist party is (and what living up to what all three of those words means)

I would also point people to Bob Avakian's talk "Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About" online at www.revolutiontalk.net (http://www.revolutiontalk.net) to watch the entire speech, and go to http://www.revcom.us/avakian/index.html for a fuller listing of his written works and talks.

In regard to the RCP,USA's position on Bob Avakian and how they (as well as others in the revolutionary communist movement) view him:
An Open Letter to the Revolutionary Communists and Everyone Seriously Thinking About Revolution: On the Role and Importance of Bob Avakian (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../a/159/BA_Appreciation-en.html)

They talk like this in real life too :laugh:

[CELMX]

CPUSA?!?! AHHHHHHHHHH

*runs away*

no seriously: avoid them. anything BUT revolutionary. turning into "social democrats" *bleh*

just a suggestion: if you want to join something, i recommend IWW, SLP, or something like that, but NOT CPUSA or SPUSA

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I was a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade from 2002-2008. I don't regret my time with the RCP/RCYB at all, and I really came of age politically there... but I am glad I got out when I did, because the cult has really gotten out of hand and they really push their cadre and supporters to promote the cult to the point of personal burn-out.

I'm kinda an independent renegade Maoist right now, although I identify with the Kasama Project a good bit and believe that the 9 Letters is the best criticism of the RCP's currently decrepit line. You can read the Kasama Project vs. RCP polemic here:
9 Letters to Our Comrades (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/pamphlets/9-letters/)
RCP Response to the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/rcp-response-to-9-letters/)
The RCP's Response: The Inventing of a Strawman (response to RCP's Response) (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/sam-s-the-strawman-within-the-rcp-response/)
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/zerohour-on-the-rcp-response-getting-ahead-of-itself-behind-the-curve/


Their bookstores are still wonderful though.

[bailey_187]

How big is RCP membership?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yeah I always got the impression they had quite a large membership, I know they've got a lot of people in Chicago and NYC, and they have bookshops all over the United States, Atlanta, Seattle, Boston, even Hawaii. I also heard you are not allowed to drink or smoke or something if you're a member. What's up with that?

[bailey_187]

They even have members here.

I met some American member at the Historical Materialism thing at SOAS and saw another American member at Marxism 2009.

[Kassad]

Yeah I always got the impression they had quite a large membership, I know they've got a lot of people in Chicago and NYC, and they have bookshops all over the United States, Atlanta, Seattle, Boston, even Hawaii. I also heard you are not allowed to drink or smoke or something if you're a member. What's up with that?

That was one of the biggest reasons I was turned away from them when I was searching for a party myself. :laugh:

[gorillafuck]

You're not allowed to drink or smoke if you're a member?

I guess they're puritan Maoists.

[ellipsis]

They have something about presenting a good face for the party iirc.

[Taboo Tongue]

I worked with the RCP for about 6 months. And I can't suggest you do. I have a lot more respect, and feel you can learn a lot more from members of our class, and writers other than Avakian; than you can through the RCP, and Avakian's writings.
If you live in an isolated area, work with them with equal numbers.

I would suggest that people check out the documents of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, the newspaper Revolution (www.revcom.us (http://www.revcom.us))
Don't waste your time with the newspaper. "Setting the Record Straight" is alright, it's a series of articles from awhile ago.


* "Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage, a Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html) -- this document plays a similar role to the original Communist Manifesto, putting forward the new synthesis of Bob AvakianThe fact Avakian was just equated with Marx. Or as one member told me "Avakian is to New Communism, what Marx is to Old Communism." Is telling. Not that Marx is a god, but he is much more of an important read, and to them Marx is 'too old,' HA!


"The Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://www.revcom.us/Constitution/constitution.html)" -- goes without saying.If you want to read this, I have a .doc version that I footnoted. It brings out some weak points I found. I gave it to some of the members I liked before leaving.


I would also point people to Bob Avakian's talk "Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About" online at www.revolutiontalk.net (http://www.revolutiontalk.net) Don't waste your time there either. Instead check out http://bobavakian.net/more.html#god the bottom 3 "God Doesn't Exist," "Elections Democracy and Dictatorship," and "Christianity and Society," while they do suffer in some weak points, for the most part are good. And I really enjoyed them when I first heard them.

And they definitely can drink and smoke tobacco, they're just not supposed to hustle and do "illegal" drugs I believe.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Don't waste your time with the newspaper. "Setting the Record Straight" is alright, it's a series of articles from awhile ago.

Revolution/Revolutionary Worker used to be an honestly great newspaper, but now it's got this terribly sensationalistic tabloid feel to it. Now it's rare to find any substantial analysis in it (outside of Bob Avakian being the humanity's only hope for salvation).


The fact Avakian was just equated with Marx. Or as one member told me "Avakian is to New Communism, what Marx is to Old Communism." Is telling. Not that Marx is a god, but he is much more of an important read, and to them Marx is 'too old,' HA!

You know, it's funny- supposedly, upholding Avakian's "New Synthesis" is the dividing line between revisionism and revolution... but if you ask any RCP supporter for a substantial description of what exactly this new synthesis IS, you can't really get anything out of them. And if you're in those circles and you raise contradictions about such an issue, your seriousness about revolution is questioned and you're guilt-tripped into taking it up without question. Their idea of engagement with opposing viewpoints is "fire your ideas, hire ours", or at best "we preach, you listen".

Oh yeah, and don't read Badiou, Zizek, Chomsky, Prachanda, Sison, Gramsci, Fanon, Sartre, or any other radical theorist for that matter. All that matters is Avakian. If "engaging with other ideas" is so important to the RCP, why do they refuse to do so?

Like I said, I don't regret my time in RCP circles, but I'm glad that I'm an independent Communist now. Even Marx had to go renegade at times to further the struggle.

[bailey_187]

Besides all the criticisms on the way the party is run and parts of their ideology, does anyone else really enjoy listening to Bob Avakians "7 Talks" and his Revolution DVD? I do. His autobiography was also quite interesting.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Dude, the Revolution DVD box set is fucking awesome- I still watch it and show it to friends. Also, From Ike To Mao is a very insightful read: it's a pity everything he's written since 2006 is utter shit.

Personally, I still like the following Avakian books:
-Phony Communism Is Dead... Long Live Real Communism!
-Could We Really Win?
-Conquer The World? The Proletarian Must, Can, & Will
-Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?
-Mao Tse-Tung's Immortal Contributions
-"MLM Vs. Anarchism"
-the K. Venu polemic

[Agnapostate]

Regardless of the nature of the RCP itself, their reputation is not high within the socialist movement. Being associated with the PSL et al., I've really encountered nothing but disdain for the RCP, although I still attend some of their functions. I've certainly heard Avakian decried as a cult figure plenty of times. I've not gained much from him in terms of ideology, though he did inspire my analysis into the idea of there being "Christian terrorism" more potent than alleged "Islamic terrorism" that manifested itself through fundamentalist/evangelical influence on rightist U.S. political regimes, which in turn manifested itself through those regimes' foreign policy.


That's Sam Webb, chairman of CPUSA. He's not a communist. At best, he's a left-wing social democrat. He has nothing to do with the RCP, though.

It's been said plenty of times before, but Webb's endorsement of mainstream political candidates in a "lesser of two evils" strategy doesn't have much relevance to his underlying ideological views, as is the case with Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, I'd argue.


I guess they're puritan Maoists.

IIRC, they dropped their anti-homosexuality sentiments well into the politically incorrect phase. :confused:


Besides all the criticisms on the way the party is run and parts of their ideology, does anyone else really enjoy listening to Bob Avakians "7 Talks" and his Revolution DVD?

I turned it off when he started singing. :\

[Kassad]

Besides all the criticisms on the way the party is run and parts of their ideology, does anyone else really enjoy listening to Bob Avakians "7 Talks" and his Revolution DVD? I do. His autobiography was also quite interesting.

Definitely. I've listened to his 7 talks and the 'Revolution' talk he gave in 2003 that the RCP has been promoting lately. His writings are pretty decent in a lot of aspects, though I definitely disagree with him on some issues of national liberation (specifically Islamic movements) and state capitalism. The guy deserves tremendous respect for everything he's done, but that doesn't mean that a revolution in the United States is impossible unless following his new synthesis.


Regardless of the nature of the RCP itself, their reputation is not high within the socialist movement. Being associated with the PSL et al.,

Seeing that the PSL and the RCP are two of the largest Marxist-Leninist parties in the country, and two of the most, if not the most visible parties out there, the assumption that we have a bad reputation in the socialist movement is ridiculous. If anything, anarchist groups are regarded as a bunch of kids in Iron Maiden t-shirts with mohawks who go around causing problems. I know that to be untrue, but stereotypes are not what we're about.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Seeing that the PSL and the RCP are two of the largest Marxist-Leninist parties in the country, and two of the most, if not the most visible parties out there, the assumption that we have a bad reputation in the socialist movement is ridiculous.

I didn't read Agnapostate's post that way. I thought the modifying clause "being associated with the PSL" was applying to the subject "I," not the object "RCP." In other words: "In my encounters with members of the PSL etc., I've heard nothing but disdain for the RCP." I could be wrong, though.

[Agnapostate]

Yes, I participate with the PSL, and they dislike the Maoist RCP's focus on Avakian, which contrasts sharply with their democratic centralism and that of Workers' World.

And yeah, that participation seems to erode the latter portion of your post somewhat too. :cool:

[RED DAVE]

Just as a question, what activities are the RCP involved in inside the working class? I've been in the labor movement on and off for more than 40 years (5 different unions), and I have never seen any signs of the RCP.

RED DAVE

[Kayser_Soso]

You might want to look into this party: http://americanpartyoflabor.org/

It's new of course, but at least you won't have to deal with CPUSA's disintegration into a Democratic party front organization, or a leader cult as in the RCP.

Personally I liked Avakian's talks, save for the fact that they should have been broken up better(I would hate to be in the audience!), but he really ought to encourage his members not to build up this cult around him.

[redSHARP]

i avoid them...
i rather hang out with the CPUSA and SPUSA, at least they were cool

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Just as a question, what activities are the RCP involved in inside the working class? I've been in the labor movement on and off for more than 40 years (5 different unions), and I have never seen any signs of the RCP.

RED DAVE

Red Dave, the RCP is not involved in the labor movement. Their line is that participation in economic struggles is always economist, i.e., tailing the masses. They made some attempts at organizing among workers in the 70s/80s but it didn't really turn out for them, and they abandoned it. Their idea was that the traditional American working class had been bought off by capitalism and had become a labor aristocracy of sorts, making it so the real proletariat in the United States was "lower and deeper". They transitioned a lot of their organizing to the inner cities, among the un/underemployed and lumpen, as well as among immigrant circles. This is pretty visible if you look at their newspaper throughout the economic crisis as there has been almost no coverage of the economy at all, save for one cover feature on home foreclosures. They're very visible in police brutality struggles and anti-war shit though.

Also, I'll concur with my comrade Taboo Tongue that RCP members ARE allowed to drink in moderation but not allowed to use any illegal drugs, including marijuana. Getting drunk or high violates the membership points of discipline, which are visible here: http://revcom.us/a/ideology/discip-e.htm

To Bailey_187, the official membership of the RCP is kept secret, and so nobody outside the party really knows how many members it has, neither should we waste our time speculating about it. There was a party purge a few years back where members of the party opposed to Avakian's line were forced out, but there's no information about how many left and how many remain. The party calls this its "cultural revolution". Ha.

[Kayser_Soso]

Red Dave, the RCP is not involved in the labor movement. Their line is that participation in economic struggles is always economist, i.e., tailing the masses.

They should talk with their collaboration in the World Can't Wait movement. Where the hell did that go anyway? I guess the world CAN wait for Obama apparently.

[Kassad]

They should talk with their collaboration in the World Can't Wait movement. Where the hell did that go anyway? I guess the world CAN wait for Obama apparently.

They're still active and they're a good group of individuals, but unfortunately, they haven't been able to muster any kind of mass demonstrations or actions and their means of protest has basically turned into wearing orange jumpsuits in public. Though it's a pretty powerful scene and I know they've made an impact in the past, they're becoming outdated because they focused so much on Bush that now that he is gone, they have really nothing left. They haven't really had any of the massive walk-outs they organized back in 2004-2007 that got them a lot of attention. Still, we (in ANSWER) work with them a lot.

[redwinter]

Definitely would have to recommend that for anyone: if you want to learn about a political trend, read their literature (and talk with them, and go to discussions etc). Not having a "good reputation" is not necessarily a reason to avoid political engagement. One good place to start checking out what Bob Avakian and the revolutionary communists have to say is at Revolution Books which exist in 10 cities in the USA, from Massachusetts to Honolulu, where you can find the newspaper Revolution (or Revolución - every issue is 12-20 pages and published in separate Spanish and English editions) and important communist and other literature. The paper is also distributed in many other places around the country by RCP supporters and others, and I've heard it is distributed internationally as well from Afghanistan and South Asia to Europe and Latin America (on the web look at the contact page on revcom.us: http://revcom.us/a/online/contac_e.htm).

And as some have pointed to the party is indeed involved in movements of resistance around police brutality, opposing imperialist war, immigrant rights, in the University of California student struggle going on right now, etc. More importantly though I think is their role in projecting the new synthesis of Bob Avakian among the masses and fighting to forge a new generation of revolutionary communists based in advanced theory, struggling both within the intelligentsia and on elite college campuses as well as in the projects, barrios, trailer parks, and in prisons with those with "nothing to lose but their chains."

Just flipping through the revcom.us website I can see that some of the key spokespeople around the RCP like Raymond Lotta, Carl Dix and Sunsara Taylor have been involved in campus speaking tours on communism and symposia on the Cultural Revolution attended by thousands of students around the country in the past several months (including at top campuses like NYU, University of Chicago, UCLA and UC Berkeley among other places). Similarly the Party supported and helped initiate actions around the country on October 22 (about six weeks ago) for the fourteenth-annual national day of protest against police brutality where thousands mobilized nationwide in a couple dozen cities and continuing to build up political bases among the masses (on a revolutionary and communist basis, and not on an economist/reformist one). They write about some of this in the newspaper Revolution, where you can read correspondence from people organizing revolutionary circles in prisons or among immigrants and in other sections of society, providing organizing tips for others scattered around the planet.

Good that someone mentioned this--as far as the labor movement goes, Avakian in "The Basis, the Goals, and the Methods of Communist Revolution" wrote that the "the separation of the communist movement from the labor movement" was itself part of a necessary rupture with economism and revisionism (check it out at http://revcom.us/avakian/basis-goals-methods/).

And in the talk "Out into the World--As a Vanguard of the Future" the point is made:



As the communist movement and the struggle for socialism went forward after that experience—and in particular as the focal point of that shifted to China and more generally toward the Third World—there was clearly a move away from communism being based in the trade unions and the labor movement. It’s not that communists no longer did any work within the trade unions and among the workers in those unions, but clearly what Mao brought forward—and specifically the strategy of protracted people’s war—represented a very different strategic orientation than one of pivoting work in the trade unions. Now, it is worth recalling that Mao’s development of the strategy of protracted people’s war in China was, in no small part, based on summing up some devastating experience where the communists were among the trade unions, and were organizing workers in industry in the large cities, and they got slaughtered by Chiang Kai-Shek’s forces in 1927. Again, we don’t have time now to go into all that history,4 (http://revcom.us/avakian/Out%20into%20the%20World/Avakian_Out_into_World_pt4-en.html#_ftn4) but the essential point is that the development by Mao of the strategy of protracted people’s war represented a decisive breakthrough, a whole new approach, in how to make revolution in a country like China, and protracted people’s war involved a profound separation between the communist movement and the struggle for revolution, on the one hand, and the trade unions and the labor movement on the other hand, in terms of what was the focal point and pivot of revolutionary work. And this has generally been the case with regard to serious attempts at revolution in the Third World since that time.



But it’s not only in the Third World that this historical separation (the separation of the communist/revolutionary movement from the labor movement) has application and importance. Once again, it is not a matter of whether, particularly among the lower, deeper sections of the proletariat, it is important to be involved in trade union struggles and to build organization among workers in those arenas—while fundamentally approaching all this as part of building a revolutionary, and not an economist, movement. That is important. But the question is: How do you identify what the core and essence of the struggle is about, and how are you going to get to revolution?

(Source: http://revcom.us/avakian/Out%20into%20the%20World/Avakian_Out_into_World_pt4-en.html)
So yeah, it's not cut and dry....not to say that involvement in any trade union struggles, especially within the lower/deeper sections of the proletariat, would be an economist mistake. But more importantly I think it's about whether that involvement is one of the most important levers for revolutionary communists to be concentrating on in a given time and situation. Particularly looking at China where the revolution was made with not much involvement from the labor movement on a relative basis compared to the peasantry, and the demographic shifts and changes all over the planet as well as developments in the world capitalist-imperialist system, we need to in fact embrace this "separation of the communist movement from the labor movement" as Avakian suggests here...

(sorry to go off a little tangentially...but i thought the discussion was going in a good direction...)

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

RedWinter actually put forward some good points- if I recall, only like 10% of who Marx & Engels would consider the proletariat are actually part of organized labor in the US. To become union-centred again would be just fetishizing the past, and would not bring us to the most fertile sections of the masses that we need to be connecting with at this point in history. I think that is one of the most important lessons I've taken out of my years as a supporter of the RCP, and think that it's something we all must learn from.

[ellipsis]

Redwinter- I met up with the CP-USA at their store in honolulu and although they were really nice and had snacks at their weekly reading circle, the "culture of appreciation" was readily apparent and sort of annoying. I wanted to volunteer without joining the party but they told me that promoting the paper was a requisite part of volunteering. It was although I couldn't be a non-party member ally/comrade without avakians pyschobabble, which I think alienates them from a lot of people. During the reading circle we read about the new synthesis and something about a "elastic core" or "core of elasticity," which seemed an very similar to a vanguard. One member commented about how "we would comprise that core." My thought was at the time was "How convenient that the party would also be the vanguard of the revolution.:rolleyes:" I appreciated what they were doing but it wasn't for me, especially after learning more about their platform. After this I pretty quickly had a bad reputation among the left.

[Kayser_Soso]

Redwinter- I met up with the CP-USA at their store in honolulu and although they were really nice and had snacks at their weekly reading circle, the "culture of appreciation" was readily apparent and sort of annoying. I wanted to volunteer without joining the party but they told me that promoting the paper was a requisite part of volunteering. It was although I couldn't be a non-party member ally/comrade without avakians pyschobabble, which I think alienates them from a lot of people. During the reading circle we read about the new synthesis and something about a "elastic core" or "core of elasticity," which seemed an very similar to a vanguard. One member commented about how "we would comprise that core." My thought was at the time was "How convenient that the party would also be the vanguard of the revolution.:rolleyes:" I appreciated what they were doing but it wasn't for me, especially after learning more about their platform. After this I pretty quickly had a bad reputation among the left.

Uh yes, revolutions and other big endeavors are usually spurred on and lead by small groups.

[ellipsis]

It was more that they beat around the bush, first by giving vanguardism a new name to make it seem like a new idea and second by not directly saying that the party is the vanguard, despite the fact that it is clear what they meant.

[Kayser_Soso]

It was more that they beat around the bush, first by giving vanguardism a new name to make it seem like a new idea and second by not directly saying that the party is the vanguard, despite the fact that it is clear what they meant.


Regardless of what they call it, any kind of revolution would be led by some sort of vanguard. If a group of anarchists somehow made a revolution by convincing the workers of one geographical area to join them and implement their ideas in the real world, that group would be playing the role of a vanguard. I think people often get upset about the use of the term vanguard because they mistake the concept of leadership and command, and they believe that the Russian "vanguard" and all those patterened on it were all about command. In fact they were forced to take up that role due to external realities, not because Lenin or Stalin just happened to be really power-hungry.

[redwinter]

Redwinter- I met up with the CP-USA at their store in honolulu and although they were really nice and had snacks at their weekly reading circle, the "culture of appreciation" was readily apparent and sort of annoying. I wanted to volunteer without joining the party but they told me that promoting the paper was a requisite part of volunteering. It was although I couldn't be a non-party member ally/comrade without avakians pyschobabble, which I think alienates them from a lot of people. During the reading circle we read about the new synthesis and something about a "elastic core" or "core of elasticity," which seemed an very similar to a vanguard. One member commented about how "we would comprise that core." My thought was at the time was "How convenient that the party would also be the vanguard of the revolution.:rolleyes:" I appreciated what they were doing but it wasn't for me, especially after learning more about their platform. After this I pretty quickly had a bad reputation among the left.

i think the problem is more that you didn't really understand what you read about the "solid core with a lot of elasticity" conception of both a vanguard party (both before and during the socialist transition to communism) and the socialist state itself during that transitional period. maybe explain a little more about what your thinking is on that concept? is your problem with "vanguardism"? don't know if you're an anarchist but either way we can get into it...

and why not promote revolution newspaper? you just too shy to talk to people in public or something like that?

[ellipsis]

i think the problem is more that you didn't really understand what you read about the "solid core with a lot of elasticity" conception of both a vanguard party (both before and during the socialist transition to communism) and the socialist state itself during that transitional period. maybe explain a little more about what your thinking is on that concept? is your problem with "vanguardism"? don't know if you're an anarchist but either way we can get into it...

From what I understood, it was basically to act as a vanguard but also to protect/building communism in post revolutionary society. Correct me if this is wrong. I don't agree with any one party, especially ones lead by/based around one person to be the vanguard of the revolution, or to establish a true dictatorship of the proletariat and not form a dictatorship of the party or dictatorship of his holiness chairman Bob Avakian. Vanguard politics are a concept with which I agree to some extent but have some reservation about due to the influence of anarchism on my views (I am not an anarchist, or at least do not identify as such).

In addition to my general disagreement, it denounce Avakian for constructing a huge theoretical pretense for installing himself as the leader/chairman of a post-revolutionary society. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was interesting to read his ideas but as with all things I read them critically.


and why not promote revolution newspaper? you just too shy to talk to people in public or something like that? No, I would gladly sell a paper which I would a)buy myself b) agreed with most of content and c) was produced by a party or organization of which I am a member. TBH the paper appeared to me to be written for party members, not to make their ideas desirable and accessible to the majority of the working class. When I told them that I thought their paper was too high-brow/dense/inaccessible to the working class they said "how do you know that?" Being a member of the working class who went to college and studied marxist theory, I could barely make sense of it. The bookstore clerk told me, in a rather admiring way that Avakian has his own unique writing style which can be hard to follow.
I mean the new synthesis is a single sentence filled with clauses and commas that probably has more words in it than this entire post. In one sentence. And that literary obstacle course is your party's mission statement. In one, five hundred plus word sentence.

[RED DAVE]

So yeah, it's not cut and dry....not to say that involvement in any trade union struggles, especially within the lower/deeper sections of the proletariat, would be an economist mistake. But more importantly I think it's about whether that involvement is one of the most important levers for revolutionary communists to be concentrating on in a given time and situation. Particularly looking at China where the revolution was made with not much involvement from the labor movement on a relative basis compared to the peasantry, and the demographic shifts and changes all over the planet as well as developments in the world capitalist-imperialist system, we need to in fact embrace this "separation of the communist movement from the labor movement" as Avakian suggests here...(emph. added)

Tells you everything you need to know.

RED DAVE

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Avakian


^^^lol. He's clearly written that himself:lol:

[IsItJustMe]

I don't mean to run them down... For all I know they do a lot of good work. But there are a couple of points that seem pretty salient to me:

1. A proletarian revolution is not going to be made without the proletariat. It's first and foremost a labor struggle. If you don't know how to win workers over to your cause, you better learn or give up.

2. The cult of personality around Bob Avakian seems to me to be very problematic. Of course there is the public relations angle: It's a disaster in that respect. But the larger point is that the RCP is obviously nowhere near achieving revolutionary success. As a result, it's going to have to change and change again in order to get where it needs to be. And a cult of personality around one particular leader who is touted as being almost infallible seems to me like it's going to inhibit that process very considerably. Particularly when that leader is, in my opinion, pretty well unproven.

Mao deliberately cultivated a cult of personality around himself at one time for carefully enumerated reasons. I think he was wrong, but at least it was someone who had proven his revolutionary genius by actually leading a revolution.

But, you know, all that said, there isn't a communist organization in the United States that doesn't have a long way to go in my opinion. Though I'd say one of the FRSOs is ahead of them.

[ellipsis]

(emph. added)

Tells you everything you need to know.

RED DAVE

Do you mean that you agree with this statement or it is so ridiculous as to discredit the party?

[IsItJustMe]

Do you mean that you agree with this statement or it is so ridiculous as to discredit the party?

Separating the communist movement from the labor movement? I mean, what do you think?


It is the duty of any party wishing to join the Communist International to conduct systematic and unflagging communist work in the trade unions, co-operative societies and other mass workers’ organisations. Communist cells should be formed in the trade unions, and, by their sustained and unflagging work, win the unions over to the communist cause. In every phase of their day-by-day activity these cells must unmask the treachery of the social-patriots and the vacillation of the “Centrists”. The cells must be completely subordinate to the party as a whole.

The notion of abandoning unions is very, very strange.

Ultimately, Marxists at least should be able to agree that it is the working class and no other which will lead the revolution... And though I fear honestly that American "Marxists" aren't capable of agreeing even on that point, I can't imagine that the RCP would exactly disagree.

[Intelligitimate]

I haven't had extensive dealings with the RCP-USA, but I've been to their Chicago bookstore a few times and been around them during protests.

They most definitely are a cult. I have walked into their store to be literally greeted with the phrase "Have you heard about Bob Avakian?" The poor girl did it in sort of a high-school ditzy voice, which caused me to laugh in her face. She seemed rather upset, and didn't talk to me anymore. I was there to pick up the rest of the 4 volumes of Mao's Selected Works, which they sell for dirt cheap. A program by Bob Avakian was playing in the background about Stalin.

Their book stores are great places to get Marxist-Leninist classics. I don't believe they value these books anymore, which is why they are so cheap. I routinely 'raid' their store every time I'm in Chicago, and get one of the managers to give me a 'comrade' discount, lol (which is usually just a buck or two).

Intereacting with them in protests is another matter. I've been told before, but experiencing it myself, I'm convinced they have some sort of policy of harassing other Leftist groups. My friend was called a revisionist by them, and was visibly upset. I myself had to put up with a ridiculous 30 minute conversation about why Chavez is bad because of some stupid Raymond Lotta article in their Revolution newspaper. The reasoning this girl gave me was that "Chavez is still part of the imperialist system because he sells oil to capitalist countries." I pointed out that USSR under Stalin, which they claim to uphold, also traded with the West. She then basically just skipped on to another point about how Venezuela ". . . can't sustain its own agriculutral needs. They import most of their food. They need to become self-reliable in order to get out of the imperialist system." I goaded her into accepting statements that could be reflected into support for the Juche idea, and then I asked her what she thought about the DPRK. She went into a bourgeois-liberal rant about how they oppress their people and shit, and then she and her friend finally walked away from me.

Which leads to their line: it is incredibly hostile in that old dogmatic Maoist way to the existing socialist countries. They are hostile to Cuba, the DPRK, Chavez, etc. I personally can't tolerate that kind of shit with a group claiming to be Marxist-Leninist. That they also call other groups "revisionist" is the height of hypocrisy, given how much they promote Avakian's "New Synthesis" (though without ever really talking about what exactly it is). They also promote a terrible, ultra-Left line on the labor movement, as is being discussed here. Ultra-Leftist errors are always just excuses not to do anything. They are essentially the same as right-opportunist lines in the end.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate:
Intereacting with them in protests is another matter. I've been told before, but experiencing it myself, I'm convinced they have some sort of policy of harassing other Leftist groups. My friend was called a revisionist by them, and was visibly upset. I myself had to put up with a ridiculous 30 minute conversation about why Chavez is bad because of some stupid Raymond Lotta article in their Revolution newspaper. The reasoning this girl gave me was that "Chavez is still part of the imperialist system because he sells oil to capitalist countries." I pointed out that USSR under Stalin, which they claim to uphold, also traded with the West. She then basically just skipped on to another point about how Venezuela ". . . can't sustain its own agriculutral needs. They import most of their food. They need to become self-reliable in order to get out of the imperialist system." I goaded her into accepting statements that could be reflected into support for the Juche idea, and then I asked her what she thought about the DPRK. She went into a bourgeois-liberal rant about how they oppress their people and shit, and then she and her friend finally walked away from me.You portray all this as inconsistent. Without even being a party member, I can see the consistency. Venezuela is a dependent semi-colony. The Soviet Union was not. Where is the inconsistency? North Korea is an oppressive semi-colony. The RCP doesn't support that set-up. Where is the inconsistency?


That they also call other groups "revisionist" is the height of hypocrisy, given how much they promote Avakian's "New Synthesis" (though without ever really talking about what exactly it is). They also promote a terrible, ultra-Left line on the labor movement, as is being discussed here. Ultra-Leftist errors are always just excuses not to do anything. They are essentially the same as right-opportunist lines in the end.Complete bullshit. Having followed their newspaper for more than a year, I've yet to see a demonstration of their recoiling at serious theoretical discussion (unlike the author of the post being quoted) or of avoiding active resistance or of at all opposing participation in trade unions. (They simply don't formulate their efforts as a "labor movement" and place their emphasis on the extraordinary sufferings of people under this system rather than on the everyday grind, believing this to be what inspires people to rebel. In this they draw upon the Chinese experience as having major lessons universally (http://www.revcom.us/avakian/Out%20into%20the%20World/Avakian_Out_into_World_pt4-en.html).) If it's info on Avakian's synthesis you're looking for, a substantial amount can be located here (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html). They regularly call people to active resistance against the crimes of the system. Recently they were active in the March for Equality, the October 22nd National Day of Protest, various actions against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, etc. etc. etc. What you portray here as ultra-leftism doesn't strike me as ultra-leftism at all. Neither does the fact that the RCP isn't an eclectic body dedicated to "setting aside differences" in any way suggest they're an ultra-left group of dogmatists whose body of work should be dismissed out of hand.


Have you heard about Bob Avakian?" The poor girl did it in sort of a high-school ditzy voice, which caused me to laugh in her face. Oh I see and am deeply impressed.


Their book stores are great places to get Marxist-Leninist classics. I don't believe they value these books anymore, which is why they are so cheap.Oh my god, not affordable prices! ;) Well that clinches it.

Just my thoughts.

[Intelligitimate]

You portray all this as inconsistent. Without even being a party member, I can see the consistency. Venezuela is a dependent semi-colony. The Soviet Union was not. Where is the inconsistency? North Korea is an oppressive semi-colony. The RCP doesn't support that set-up. Where is the inconsistency?

I understand the "consistency" of this line. It's pure ultra-Left anti-communism, but the girl was trying to portray it to me in another way. Indeed, people trying to make sense of the RCP-USA's line as far as "consistency" goes end up thinking they are crypto-Trotskyites.


Complete bullshit. Having followed their newspaper for more than a year, I've yet to see a demonstration of their recoiling at serious theoretical discussion (unlike the author of the post being quoted) or of avoiding active resistance or of at all opposing participation in trade unions.

This has absolutely nothing to do with how they hypocritically call people "revisionists." They themselves are openly revisionist, and they openly advocate not working primarily in the trade unions. That is open revisionism, as has been demonstrated by other posters here.


(They simply don't formulate their efforts as a "labor movement" and place their emphasis on the extraordinary sufferings of people under this system rather than on the everyday grind, believing this to be what inspires people to rebel.

That much is evident, and I don't necessarily fault them for it, if they're doing good work (though it doesn't appear to be the case they are to me). But it is very clear, as always has been, the the primary agent of change in any society is the working class. To abandon this principle is a form of revisionism.


What you portray here as ultra-leftism doesn't strike me as ultra-leftism at all.

They're ultra-Left because they basically abandoned the working class as not being revolutionary enough for them. They also do crap like promote a militant form of atheism, which serves no real purpose other than to further alienate themselves from the working class. Ultra-Leftism is characterized by using revolutionary phraseology to either pursue a rightist agenda or to basically not have to do anything at all, and this is what RCP basically does: nothing at all.


Oh I see and am deeply impressed.

I'm sure if you're into the RCP-USA, maybe this doesn't strike you as odd behavior. It looks creepy and ridiculous to outsiders.


Oh my god, not affordable prices!

In my opinion, it is the best thing about the RCP-USA. I hope they keep selling these books for dirt cheap, alongside Avakian's overpriced stuff that no one buys.

[IsItJustMe]

I understand the "consistency" of this line. It's pure ultra-Left anti-communism, but the girl was trying to portray it to me in another way. Indeed, people trying to make sense of the RCP-USA's line as far as "consistency" goes end up thinking they are crypto-Trotskyites.

You know, this is a very good point... First world communists in particular seem to me to have a really important obligation of solidarity to revolutionaries in the third world. Their Maoist line is no excuse for their failure here.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate:
They're ultra-Left because they basically abandoned the working class as not being revolutionary enough for them.Dude, it's just like I'm talking to the wall! The RCP has never argued, as you imply, for a separation of the communist movement from the proletariat. Once again, they simply draw a distinction between the concept of a "labor movement" and a genuinely proletarian movement. As you should have read in both the articles I provided, they in fact point to the proletariat as the main force in their revolutionary strategy (though not the exclusive force). They focus in, as their highest priorities, on the most super-exploited and heavily oppressed sections of the population (e.g. black people, immigrants, women). This all seems very correct to me.


They also do crap like promote a militant form of atheism, which serves no real purpose other than to further alienate themselves from the working class.Surely you jest. What would be your alternative? Ignoring these illusions? Regarding them as irrelevant? Promoting a scientific outlook on the world has everything to do with advancing the cause of communism! The RCP doesn't argue against unity with those who have religious illusions and might take up the fight for justice, but rather, in respect to such people, takes up the position of struggling while uniting. This also seems very correct to me.


...this is what RCP basically does: nothing at all.I'm still talking to the wall, I see. If you'll endeavor to actually read my previous post, you will see multiple, recent examples to the contrary of this statement.

EDIT:

Actually, as an addition to my previous comments, I would add that I don't think this simplistic formulation is entirely correct:


But it is very clear, as always has been, the the primary agent of change in any society is the working class.Your formulation is correct in that revolutions everywhere should feature revolutionary, communist leadership together with the proletariat. However, from a Maoist standpoint, I don't think it's correct to say that the proletariat "in any society" necessarily must, should, or even can successfully constitute the main fighting force in the immediate revolutionary war. It depends on what the prevailing mode of production is, I think. In feudal society, for example, the base of society is the peasantry, not the proletariat. Thus the peasantry has to play the main fighting role in such a scenario.

[ellipsis]

Rdr- interesting thoughts on Maoism, gave me some perspective. I still don't like the rcp.

[IsItJustMe]

They focus in, as their highest priorities, on the most super-exploited and heavily oppressed sections of the population (e.g. black people, immigrants, women). This all seems very correct to me.

But that's only correct to the extent that the most heavily oppressed sections of the population are proletarians. I mean, a revolutionary party has to organize the proletariat.

If that's what they're doing, great. If it's not... Well, they should change.


Surely you jest. What would be your alternative? Ignoring these illusions? Regarding them as irrelevant? Promoting a scientific outlook on the world has everything to do with advancing the cause of communism! The RCP doesn't argue against unity with those who have religious illusions and might take up the fight for justice, but rather, in respect to such people, takes up the position of struggling while uniting. This also seems very correct to me.I think that attacking religion as such is sometimes a very inefficient way of going about promoting a scientific world outlook. In my experience, anyway. I don't say it doesn't need to be done. But it absolutely can be overdone. Whether or not RCP does that, I don't know. But if Intelligitimate, who I know from my days on an atheist discussion board, says they overdo it, I'm inclined to think they probably do.

That's complicated. That's subtle. But that's dialectics. Revolution is not just a matter of reading and repeating the Marxist classics, it's a matter of applying them correctly to complicated situations.


Your formulation is correct in that revolutions everywhere should feature revolutionary, communist leadership together with the proletariat. However, from a Maoist standpoint, I don't think it's correct to say that the proletariat "in any society" necessarily must, should, or even can successfully constitute the main fighting force in the immediate revolutionary war. It depends on what the prevailing mode of production is, I think. In feudal society, for example, the base of society is the peasantry, not the proletariat. Thus the peasantry has to play the main fighting role in such a scenario.If we are talking about the United States, as in RCP USA, then we are talking about a revolution against capitalism. That is going to have to be led by the proletariat. Anything else is class substitionalism and it is doomed. I don't say that the RCP is guilty of class substitionalism. I just am a little wary that you may not grasp this point.

[Intelligitimate]

I just read the manifesto of the party, to see if I could figure out what is special about this "New Synthesis" of Avakian's. In reality, there isn't anything really "new" about it. It is mostly just commentary on alleged problems of the communist movement, such as, apparently, not being nice enough to intellectuals. When it isn't crap like this, it is basically about turning Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao into midgets for the Giant Avakian to stand on, in order to bolster Avakian as the new would-be Lenin. In reality, it's basically just a repacking of the same old bad Maoist lines.

There is also plenty of hilarity about Christian Fundies apparently waiting around the corner to shove creationism done your throat. It's really quite a ridiculous document in that regard.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by IsItJustMe:
But that's only correct to the extent that the most heavily oppressed sections of the population are proletarians. I mean, a revolutionary party has to organize the proletariat.Yes, but no. Yes the party needs to organize the proletariat and to place a particular emphasis on that (as I attempted to point out the RCP does). But no, the proletariat isn't, as you seem to suggest, the only force the party should be organizing and establishing leadership of. All the progressive forces should be a part of the revolutionary united front under the leadership of the proletariat. We shouldn't be ceding the various middle forces to the enemy.


If we are talking about the United States, as in RCP USA, then we are talking about a revolution against capitalism. That is going to have to be led by the proletariat. Anything else is class substitionalism and it is doomed. I don't say that the RCP is guilty of class substitionalism. I just am a little wary that you may not grasp this point.We are, in fact, talking about the USA. Moreover, I would argue that any communist revolution, if it is a genuinely communist revolution, must be led by the proletariat, including in feudal countries. But I differentiate, in the case of feudal society, between the necessary leadership (the proletariat) and what has to be the main fighting force in the immediate revolutionary war (the peasantry). In other words, you never separate from the proletariat, even under feudal conditions. You consistently have to be led by the communist outlook and methodology. So you're fighting a proletarian revolution, but, again specifically in the case of feudal society, you have to have the peasantry as the main fighting force because it forms the base of society. Now here in the United States it's obvious that the peasantry doesn't form the base of society, but rather the proletariat does. Hence the proletariat in America has to be the main fighting force. (Though not the exclusive force for revolution. You still can't succeed without an alliance of all positive factors.) I hope that clarifies my position.

Intelligitimate:

The RCP indeed regards Avakian's synthesis as a qualitatively new level of Marxism, logically analogous to Lenin's work in What is to Be Done?, which developed Marxism further as to be applicable to the imperialist era. In fact, Revolution newspaper articles occasionally describe Avakian's synthesis as "modern day What is to Be Done-ism". Since you apparently missed Bob's qualitatively new contributions to Maoism, allow me to point out a few:

-The core premise, as the program's title clearly indicates, is that we are at the beginning of a new historical stage of communist revolution. The previous stage, argues Avakian, began with the foundation of communism in 1848 and concluded with the counterrevolution in China in 1976, since which point there have been no genuinely socialist countries remaining. It is on the foundation of this premise that everything else in the new synthesis is built. It is argued that Avakian's synthesis corresponds to these historical developments. This is why the RCP considers Bob's work "modern day What is to Be Done-ism".

-Avakian argues that, even in revolutionary China, there were major elements of pragmatism, instrumentalism and dogmatism that need to be fully ruptured with. In terms of how this would apply in socialist society, Bob has pointed to the example of how certain aspects of the Cultural Revolution were led, particularly under Chiang Ching with the model revolutionary works, as not reflecting a very dialectical outlook. Avakian argues in respect to art and culture, for example, that socialist society should feature a dialectical relationship between model revolutionary works and other works that aren't calibrated by the party. Even just in mentioning this one example, I think you can begin to see how this different outlook does, in fact, represent a qualitative re-envisioning of what socialism looks like and what our revolution is really all about.

-Bob further argues that there's a need for communists to rupture with all nationalist conceptions of revolutionary internationalism. Now previously in the communist movement you often saw the promotion of various conceptions of patriotism. Even Mao did this from time to time. Avakian argues that this is a wrong vantage point to be coming from that that the international arena should be seen as overall principle. In application, this means that the socialist country should be seen as a revolutionary base area in a single, integrated world process of revolution, not as a separate victory from others. (In relation to this, Avakian contends that it is quite likely that socialism in particular countries is bound to be reversed unless further advances are made in the world arena.) Yes this does in part go back on Stalin's version of socialism in one country in order to more highly emphasize the central importance of the international arena over the national one. This is why some people describe the synthesis as "crypto-Trotskyism". But it is not a reversal of the 'socialism in one country' verdict. Bob maintains that the world revolution as a whole will consume an entire historical epoch, not a short matter of years or decades, that it will tend to occur on a country-by-country basis, and that you can't simply wait around for major improvements in the international arena before going ahead with qualitative revolutionary advances in the national one. In all these ways, the RCP's line differs from Trotskyism. Bob contends, in other words, that a dialectical relationship needs to exist between the revolutionary processes occurring at the national level and those occurring at the world level, but again not with the national arena being seen as the overall principle or with these two arenas being seen as equal priorities, but rather with the international arena being seen and approached as the more important one. This constitutes a qualitative re-envisioning of revolutionary internationalism and world revolution.

-Avakian has also developed a strategy for making revolution in the imperialist countries. This strategy, discussed for example here (http://www.revolutiontalk.net/films/) in the video marked "Session Three" (third video down from the top), revolves around the premise that guerilla warfare isn't an appropriate approach in developed countries (because, so he reasons, such efforts are easily crushed under these conditions), but rather that a flowing process of urban insurrections is the appropriate match for advanced countries. (He retains that people's war remains the correct revolutionary strategy for essentially feudal countries, however.)

-And, as has been discussed here in various capacities, Bob also argues, among other things, that religion is inherently a weight on humanity even when it takes on progressive forms and thus it should be struggled against in the realm of ideas, even while you unite with those progressive forces who hold these illusions.

All of these, among others in the synthesis, are qualitatively new and further developments of Maoism.

(I have described these components to the best of my understanding of them. If I've screwed anything up, I'm sure redwinter can correct me.)

[IsItJustMe]

Red Dragon Rider, I have posted an extensive reply to you here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-synthesis-new-t125062/index.html?p=1629797#post1629797

I am trying to move this discussion to the Theory forum because I think it's really a better fit there and because I would like to have a thread that focuses solely on the New Synthesis.

I hope you'll follow up with it.

[redwinter]

Which leads to their line: it is incredibly hostile in that old dogmatic Maoist way to the existing socialist countries. They are hostile to Cuba, the DPRK, Chavez, etc. I personally can't tolerate that kind of shit with a group claiming to be Marxist-Leninist. That they also call other groups "revisionist" is the height of hypocrisy, given how much they promote Avakian's "New Synthesis" (though without ever really talking about what exactly it is). They also promote a terrible, ultra-Left line on the labor movement, as is being discussed here. Ultra-Leftist errors are always just excuses not to do anything. They are essentially the same as right-opportunist lines in the end.

There are no existing socialist countries today. "Revisionism" refers to revising the revolutionary heart out of marxism -- but not scientific development of communist theory which is ongoing (Lenin, Mao and Avakian's contributions to communist theory all negated some of what Marx said on particulars - and in some ways to overall method and approach - but all still maintained the revolutionary core of the theory).

The New Synthesis has been discussed at length and links have been posted in this thread for your reading, please don't bullshit me here.

And why do you think organized labor is a key section to be focusing on in the USA? There are only slightly over 16 million people in unions out of over 300 million people -- the members are mostly older, more privileged strata (a lot of public sector employees, teachers, postal workers, independent truckers, tradesmen, or heavy-industry -- mainly skilled tho).

I think the backbone of revolutionary struggle in the biggest imperialist power is not going to come from a relatively privileged section (even of the working class) -- however many people from this strata might be won to support revolution or even become revolutionary leaders, etc.

[Ben Seattle]

More cartoons are here (http://struggle.net/ben/2005/cartoon.htm)

http://struggle.net/ben/2005/cartoon/RCP_reformist_cult.gif

[bailey_187]

In 1949 Chairman Mao pronouced the Chinese people, one third of humanity had stood up. The other two third of humanity stood up when Chairman Bob learned to walk.

[ellipsis]

^tripe.

[bailey_187]

i know:blushing:

[Agnapostate]

It was more that they beat around the bush, first by giving vanguardism a new name to make it seem like a new idea and second by not directly saying that the party is the vanguard, despite the fact that it is clear what they meant.

Having subscribed to Revolution for a year, I recall it being bluntly printed "Our vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party" in large bold capital letters in every issue, directly above "Our Leader is Chairman Avakian."

[ellipsis]

Which is different from the party being the vanguard of the revolution. Regardless I never really took a good look at the paper, so I probably missed a lot of their truthspeak.

[redwinter]

Which is different from the party being the vanguard of the revolution. Regardless I never really took a good look at the paper, so I probably missed a lot of their truthspeak.

Probably the reason you don't know anything about it.

You can read Revolution newspaper online at www.revcom.us

BTW-Don't talk about something you don't know anything about. As Mao's followers used to say in revolutionary China, "No investigation, no right to speak."

[ellipsis]

I have investigated it, albeit not very deeply. I have outlined how I came to my conclusions on the party. It is not accurate to say I know nothing about the party, it's platform and its ideology. The more I learn about it, the less I want to learn about it.

The statement "Our vanguard is the RCP" is not the same as "the RCP is the vanguard of the revolution." It doesn't matter how much I know about the group.

Seriously does any political conversation with an RP member not end with "you should read our paper!"?

[redwinter]

theredson: the revolutionary communist party, usa, has been active for decades as the only maoist organization in the united states and one of the few worldwide that has maintained a revolutionary orientation since the death of mao tse-tung. it is currently heavily involved in promoting a new theoretical framework of reenvisioned revolution and communism that Avakian has been developing for years.

whether or not you agree with the new synthesis, your observations amounted to "i walked into their bookstore in honolulu, they had some snacks at their reading circle, but i was annoyed that they promoted their leader." you apparently didn't care enough to even ask about the concepts you didn't understand in the discussion that you bring up ("the solid core with elasticity sounded like a vanguard to me").

in another post you criticize Avakian for using too many clauses or something -- marxist theoreticians are generally writing some pretty complicated things, open up Capital by Marx and see if that reads more like the fifth-graders who post here on revleft.

these so-called criticisms would be a joke if you weren't serious about them. please check yourself comrade, do some more serious investigation and study.

[Valeofruin]

There are no existing socialist countries today. "Revisionism" refers to revising the revolutionary heart out of marxism -- but not scientific development of communist theory which is ongoing (Lenin, Mao and Avakian's contributions to communist theory all negated some of what Marx said on particulars - and in some ways to overall method and approach - but all still maintained the revolutionary core of the theory).

The New Synthesis has been discussed at length and links have been posted in this thread for your reading, please don't bullshit me here.

And why do you think organized labor is a key section to be focusing on in the USA? There are only slightly over 16 million people in unions out of over 300 million people -- the members are mostly older, more privileged strata (a lot of public sector employees, teachers, postal workers, independent truckers, tradesmen, or heavy-industry -- mainly skilled tho).

I think the backbone of revolutionary struggle in the biggest imperialist power is not going to come from a relatively privileged section (even of the working class) -- however many people from this strata might be won to support revolution or even become revolutionary leaders, etc.

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but Bob Avakian didn't envision anything new or brilliant. He's not the only one who knows how to use Dialectical Materialism and present good ideas.

From what I gather in this thread there are correct positions of Chairman Avakian, that I actually drew just fine without having to read his works. The cult of appreciation is rather pointless, and can serve only to hurt the RCP in mass work.

Of course the chairman has been incorrect in places too, just as any cadre would be. Unlike most cadres I know, I doubt hes capable of recognizing and correcting poor work, but meh, to each his own. All in all I wouldn't call Avakian anything special.. hes just another dude getting his voice heard, far from being 'cult' worthy. Not to mention his speeches suck... they are confusing, and rather dull.

Also, I notice there's alot of talk about revolution books.

I recently visited the mothership.. err.. store, in Manhattan, and bought out their entire collection of Stalin.

It consisted of 1.. yes 1.. book. Asked for explanations... got a bunch of crap about how they may have 1 or 2 in the basement but noone really has an interest in Stalin. Then I got a lecture about how Stalin just chopped off heads, and how Bob Avakian can show me the GLORIOUS road to revolution from france, by selling me books containing information I already knew, and explaining concepts I thuroughly understood.

I then proceeded to go home and read some Revolution articles supporting the Imperialist assault on Iran via these recent protests.. kind of tough stuff there..

[redwinter]

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but Bob Avakian didn't envision anything new or brilliant. He's not the only one who knows how to use Dialectical Materialism and present good ideas.

From what I gather in this thread there are correct positions of Chairman Avakian, that I actually drew just fine without having to read his works. The cult of appreciation is rather pointless, and can serve only to hurt the RCP in mass work.

Of course the chairman has been incorrect in places too, just as any cadre would be. Unlike most cadres I know, I doubt hes capable of recognizing and correcting poor work, but meh, to each his own. All in all I wouldn't call Avakian anything special.. hes just another dude getting his voice heard, far from being 'cult' worthy. Not to mention his speeches suck... they are confusing, and rather dull.

So wait, you haven't looked at any of Avakian's works, but you somehow feel qualified to criticize them?



Also, I notice there's alot of talk about revolution books.

I recently visited the mothership.. err.. store, in Manhattan, and bought out their entire collection of Stalin.

It consisted of 1.. yes 1.. book. Asked for explanations... got a bunch of crap about how they may have 1 or 2 in the basement but noone really has an interest in Stalin. Then I got a lecture about how Stalin just chopped off heads, and how Bob Avakian can show me the GLORIOUS road to revolution from france, by selling me books containing information I already knew, and explaining concepts I thuroughly understood.
Of course any party would be more interested in promoting its leadership and the most advanced theory that it has, than to go out of their way to promote out-of-print writings that it feels have grievous shortcomings and mistakes.

[And if it weren't for Lenin showing people in Russia the "GLORIOUS road to revolution" from his self-imposed exile in Switzerland, there wouldn't have been a socialist revolution there in 1917. But you instead want to go on about how much you already seem to know (without, apparently, having to know how to spell "thoroughly").]

Another excellent example of intellectual masturbation by those who are too caught up in their own ignorance to put aside their preconceived notions.



I then proceeded to go home and read some Revolution articles supporting the Imperialist assault on Iran via these recent protests.. kind of tough stuff there..When the masses rise up against fundamentalist Islamic oppression do you believe this is an "Imperialist assault"?

What proof do you have that the recent protests in Iran are in any way part of an imperialist attack, orchestrated by one or more powers? This is falsely claiming someone (in this case an entire mass uprising involving millions) is a government agent.

[ellipsis]

you apparently didn't care enough to even ask about the concepts you didn't understand in the discussion that you bring up ("the solid core with elasticity sounded like a vanguard to me").
I am still waiting for me to explain it to me like you said you would. That meeting I had to leave early for work or gf but I would have stayed. Also I am not interested in getting into an argument with 6 party members against 1 me.


in another post you criticize Avakian for using too many clauses or something -- marxist theoreticians are generally writing some pretty complicated things, open up Capital by Marx and see if that reads more like the fifth-graders who post here on revleft. I know they do, I have read them. And the new synthesis seemed to me to be one paragraph condensed into one sentance seperated by twenty comas. I know it isn't a scathing critisism, I just didn't see the use or the need.

I am not trying to say that the RCP is bad or reactionary, it just wasn't for me, from what i was able to gather. Can you accept that?

[Ben Seattle]

The cult of appreciation is rather pointless, and can serve only to hurt the RCP in mass work.

Actually, at this point it is the glue the holds the group together:

http://struggle.net/ben/2008/cult.gif


I then proceeded to go home and read some Revolution articles supporting the Imperialist assault on Iran via these recent protests

I think you are very much out of touch here.

The Iranian students and people have every right to rise up against the corrupt fundamentalist regime. It is a reactionary fallacy that we must condemn these legitimate mass actions in order to oppose U.S. imperialism.

[redwinter]

BenSeattle of course wants us to follow him and his political line rather than that of Bob Avakian. Unfortunately we can't try to psychoanalyze the "small-group dynamics" of his movement because, well, there isn't one to speak of (interesting how opponents of Avakian will criticize him for not having a big enough movement from their websites dominated by a single lone writer). Please cut down on the huge Windows 3.1 flow-charts tho, they are killing both my bandwidth and my patience...

(also, theredson: i never said i'd spoon-feed you anything, i said i'd discuss it. after you've read and studied a particular document, you can ask me about it and i'd be glad to get into it.)

Since this is in the Practice and Propaganda forum, let me mention something very relevant. Here's something people can do right now to support Revolution newspaper:

Contribute to Send Revolution Reporter to Gaza

Over the winter holiday this year, Revolution correspondent Alan Goodman will be participating in and reporting from the Gaza Freedom March.

We need your financial help to do this.

http://www.revcom.us/a/186/gaza_funds-en.html

[ellipsis]

BenSeattle Please cut down on the huge Windows 3.1 flow-charts tho, they are killing both my bandwidth and my patience...
Yah I don't see the need for making a picture that contains a sentence and do that in every post you do, 2-3 times. I find it VERY annoying. Of course you will probably say something about me not being serious enough for you and you will put me on your ignore list.


(also, theredson: i never said i'd spoon-feed you anything, i said i'd discuss it. after you've read and studied a particular document, you can ask me about it and i'd be glad to get into it.) This question arose after I read and discussed an article in Revolution. So now I am asking you, now for the third time, what is the difference between the traditional vanguard and avakian's idea of a "solid core with lots of elasticity?" If you can not even explain this concept to a non-party member, you need to work on your recruitment/debate skills.

[Comrade Martin]

I recently noticed literature posted by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA in my area. I checked out the website and found that they meet not far from me. There seems to be not much more than a newspaper and books distributed by the chairman bob avakian and a few others.

Do any of you know much more about this org and pro/cons of involvement.

If you enjoy having a "master" who "tells you what to do", they may be perfect for you.

If you like to think for yourself, you will have a very hard time and enjoy little of what you "accomplish" - if that amounts to anything at all.

On the other hand, if doing nothing is something you enjoy, and you would prefer a leader who pretends not to control everything but actually does, there's a lovely RCP breakaway called "Kasama" out there. Check it out!

My advice? Stop looking for a "vanguard" to "lead" you: they're all varying degrees of shit... but sometimes, that's a lesson learned the "hard way."

[Ben Seattle]

Hi theredson,


Yah I don't see the need for making a picture that contains a sentence and do that in every post you do, 2-3 times. I find it VERY annoying.

I appreciate the feedback. I learn what is useful to others on the basis of experience. I had the impression (apparently mistaken) that many readers found my graphics helpful. I will try to keep in mind that many here may have low-bandwidth connections--and post graphics less often and/or use a reduced size with links to the full version.


Of course you will probably say something about me not being serious enough for you and you will put me on your ignore list.

You seem to me to be pretty calm and thoughtful, with a lot to say. The loss would be mine if I filtered out your posts.

Realistically, however, many forums have their share of people who overestimate how well they understand things (many believe I fall into this category). My conclusion is that my effective participation requires that I invest my limited time and attention where it will not be wasted.

Of course I also have the option of putting people on my "ignore list" without announcing it publicly. And I do this also. But when people (two, so far) publicly challenge me in ways that appear to me to be thoughtless or shallow--I believe I owe an explanation to readers as to why I will not be responding to these kinds of challenges (because sometimes reader expect otherwise). And sometimes making this all public may also, in the long run, encourage more thoughtful posts.

Good luck with your conversation with redwinter. You are more patient and skilled at this kind of thing than I am. He advertises a clip titled "youth deserve a better future" and my thought is that he deserves a better future--than to be involved with such a group. But the problem here is that all the groups have very serious problems. We need a mass orgaization which is healthy, which has a revolutionary orientation, etc. Such a group does not exist. Eventually, we will need to create it. Nothing much will change until we do so.

[Wanted Man]

I wonder what happened to the OP of this thread. Did he go to meet them or not, and what did he think of it? It would be interesting to read about these kind of experiences, to find out more about what the RCP does in practice.


More cartoons are here (http://struggle.net/ben/2005/cartoon.htm)

http://struggle.net/ben/2005/cartoon/RCP_reformist_cult.gif

No offense, but that's a pretty crappy "cartoon". No subtlety, and the text of criticism (which makes up most of the "cartoon") would have worked fine without any kind of illustration.

Wow, and what a crap 5,000th post this is proving to be for me.

EDIT:


If you enjoy having a "master" who "tells you what to do", they may be perfect for you.

If you like to think for yourself, you will have a very hard time and enjoy little of what you "accomplish" - if that amounts to anything at all.

On the other hand, if doing nothing is something you enjoy, and you would prefer a leader who pretends not to control everything but actually does, there's a lovely RCP breakaway called "Kasama" out there. Check it out!

My advice? Stop looking for a "vanguard" to "lead" you: they're all varying degrees of shit... but sometimes, that's a lesson learned the "hard way."

Hey, this guy's writing style reminds me of an old user here! I wonder who that could be... Trying too hard, much?

[Comrade Martin]

Wanted Man, except for longer papers or blogs, I find it to be an incredibly effective writing style.

I have some pretty serious criticisms of RS2K... formatting is the least among them.

[redwinter]

So now I am asking you, now for the third time, what is the difference between the traditional vanguard and avakian's idea of a "solid core with lots of elasticity?"

Hey theredson, sorry for taking a while to get around to responding to your question. One of the key things that has been summed up by Avakian from analyzing the previous experience of socialist societies in the Soviet Union as well as China was that, at the pivotal moment when capitalist-roaders within the party seized power, the masses essentially couldn't tell who the capitalist-roaders were and were not able to mobilize to stop this. Now, this is not to say that, if the principles concentrated in the new synthesis had been applied in these societies that it would have absolutely guaranteed against capitalist restoration (there were some big objective conditions which may have meant that it was indeed impossible to continue the revolution at those points in history -- but I don't want to get too deeply into hypothetical scenarios). In fact, in terms of a historical materialist analysis, this new conception of socialism as a transition to communism makes the analogy to the emergence of capitalism as a historic phenomenon that took centuries (from the Middle Ages with the mercantile city-states that lasted decades or even centuries at a time like Venice or the Hanseatic League, up until 1789 when the first bourgeois revolution seized power on a nationwide scale -- but for only a few years until Napoleon's military coup which relied on a mix of classes and not primarily on the bourgeoisie -- see Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/EBLB52.html)).

This dragged out emergence of capitalism was due to material conditions, and so the triumph of socialism on a world scale may likewise take many attempts over a long time (definitely not to say we're passively waiting around for that to happen though) -- but the concept of a "solid core with a lot of elasticity" is meant to encourage the maximum amount of ideological ferment possible in socialist society for the broadest number of the formerly oppressed masses, letting people learn to struggle in the realm of ideas through struggle, and grapple with all kinds of complex issues and thorny problems facing the advance of the socialist revolution as well as all sorts of questions around art, philosophy, science, social relations, etc. This is not just a static process though, it will go through development and periods of relatively more and less elasticity depending on the strength of the communist solid core -- which is broader than just the socialist state or the even the communist party itself (there won't be some neat little group with a label "The Solid Core"/Vanguard that will always be obvious) -- and its relative influence among the masses that it is leading under socialism at any given point.

This comes out of some of the summation and reflection done on the GPCR and how the revolutionary struggle against the capitalist-roaders actually went down in Chinese society and within the Chinese Communist Party, with the emergence of the Red Guard movement and other phenomena among workers and peasants, and how it's going to be necessary to have an ideological framework to better combat capitalist restoration which is going to be led by forces that are going to be organizing within the communist party itself and in fact engendered there. It necessitates bringing the masses more and more into the "we" that rules society, and realizing that just because you send people from a working class or peasant background to college isn't going to automatically make them into a conscious fighter for continuing the proletarian revolution (quite the opposite is the spontaneous tendency).

What I just layed out are just a few key elements of it, but there are a couple articles that really concentrate the "solid core with a lot of elasticity" in an in-depth manner:

* "Socialism in the 20th Century, Controversies and Lessons", an interview with Raymond Lotta (particularly part 3: http://revcom.us/a/169/Ray_Lotta_Part_3-en.html) -- look towards the last few questions and answers, on the role of elections, the conception of the vanguard in the new synthesis, and the four main component parts of maintaining a "solid core with a lot of elasticity".

* "Firmness and Flexibility, A Solid Core with a Lot of Elasticity" by Bob Avakian (part 7 of his talk "Dictatorship and Democracy, and the Socialist Transition to Communism": http://revcom.us/a/1258/avakian-democracy-communism-7.htm)

Did this help? Let me know what other questions you might have and I'll try to point you in the right direction.

[ellipsis]

Redwinter-thanks for eluminating it. That makes more sense and I think I tend to agree that such a core is necessary.

[RED DAVE]

From Firmness and Flexibility, A Solid Core with a Lot of Elasticity by Bob Avakian (part 7 of his talk "Dictatorship and Democracy, and the Socialist Transition to Communism"):


And you can go on and on with things in life. If you think about anything, you’ll realize that there are those things where you really should insist that "this is the way it has to be done, and we have to very finely calibrate this," and many, many things in the same process where you not only don’t have to do that, but where you should not do that.(emph original)

http://revcom.us/a/1258/avakian-democracy-communism-7.htm

Most of us would have to work at writing something as boring and platitudinous as this, but for Avakian, it seems to come naturally. ;)

RED DAVE

[Valeofruin]

So wait, you haven't looked at any of Avakian's works, but you somehow feel qualified to criticize them?

Of course any party would be more interested in promoting its leadership and the most advanced theory that it has, than to go out of their way to promote out-of-print writings that it feels have grievous shortcomings and mistakes.

[And if it weren't for Lenin showing people in Russia the "GLORIOUS road to revolution" from his self-imposed exile in Switzerland, there wouldn't have been a socialist revolution there in 1917. But you instead want to go on about how much you already seem to know (without, apparently, having to know how to spell "thoroughly").]

Another excellent example of intellectual masturbation by those who are too caught up in their own ignorance to put aside their preconceived notions.

When the masses rise up against fundamentalist Islamic oppression do you believe this is an "Imperialist assault"?

What proof do you have that the recent protests in Iran are in any way part of an imperialist attack, orchestrated by one or more powers? This is falsely claiming someone (in this case an entire mass uprising involving millions) is a government agent.

1. I said I did not need to read any of Avakians' works to draw some basic conclusions. That's not the same as saying I've never read any of his works. I may turn spell check off from time to time and misspell 'Thoroughly', but that criticism, along with this nonsense of 'intellectual masturbation' seems quite hypocritical coming from someone who did not even think over my post enough to realise what I was actually saying.

2. So, you are saying that since the RCP has criticisms of Stalin, you do not think communists, including members of your party should read and become familiar with his ideas?

Not only is not selling Stalin bad business, but this censorship is harmfull to communists that shop there. If you're going to engage in petty bourgeois activities such as what you have going on with revbooks, you should at least strive for it to be successfull. Ever notice how revbooks is always failing financially? There's a reason for that... and refusing to sell books that aren't written by Bob Avakian or some crusty Maoist economists may be part of the reason why.

You are well within your rights to put forward your views on Stalin of course, as you are your views on Trotsky... but the fact that you are keeping them off the shelves in order to cram a pure dose of Avakian down peoples throats is no good...

I encourage everyone to not just read my criticisms of an author but to pick up their books and make note of the errors in the authors own words.

3. Ok, so Bob Avakian is Lenin, the material conditions in the US today are identical to those in Russia... I understand your point.

4. American politicians are so upset over the use of force in Iran because it is in their best interests for them to fail right?

[Valeofruin]

I think you are very much out of touch here.

The Iranian students and people have every right to rise up against the corrupt fundamentalist regime. It is a reactionary fallacy that we must condemn these legitimate mass actions in order to oppose U.S. imperialism.

What is a 'right'?

In what way is it a reactionary fallacy?

And lastly are you THE Ben Seattle? Weren't you at one time a Hoxhaist?

[Ben Seattle]

Hi Valeofruin,


What is a 'right'?

These are pretty basic topics and I am tired. I assume that there have been many threads here at RevLeft and elsewhere that cover such fundamental topics.

Briefly--it is in the material interest of the Iranian working class and toilers to oppose and rise up against the corrupt fundamentalist regime. The workers and oppressed have every right to defend their material interests.


In what way is it a reactionary fallacy?

It is a reactionary fallacy to believe that our choices are limited to supporting the lesser evil. The Iranian working class has material interests which are independent of both US imperialism and the Iranian bourgeoisie. It has independent class interests.


And lastly are you THE Ben Seattle? Weren't you at one time a Hoxhaist?

I am not aware of any other activist that goes by the name Ben Seattle. So I presume that I am he.

I supported Albania along with my organization (the Marxist-Leninist Party) from approximately 1978 through the early 1980's.

We concluded that the Party of Labor of Albania was making serious nationalist errors relatively early--when some of their statements supported Khomeini. As our analysis deepened--it led us to conclude that the entire international communist movement went off the rails into nationalism, under Stalin's leadership, in the late 1940's. Later, we concluded that the rot began at the time of the 7th Congress (ie: 1935, the Dimitrov "United Front Against Fascism") as a result of our investigation of the degeneration of the CPUSA in the late 1930's. Unfortunately, the MLP disintegrated (1993) before we could get to the root of the problem. My work has been guided by a determination to understand the source and root of the degeneration. I believe I have resolved the matter. Check out my website.

Now--let me ask you something, if I may: from where do you know my name?

[Valeofruin]

Hi Valeofruin,



These are pretty basic topics and I am tired. I assume that there have been many threads here at RevLeft and elsewhere that cover such fundamental topics.

Briefly--it is in the material interest of the Iranian working class and toilers to oppose and rise up against the corrupt fundamentalist regime. The workers and oppressed have every right to defend their material interests.



It is a reactionary fallacy to believe that our choices are limited to supporting the lesser evil. The Iranian working class has material interests which are independent of both US imperialism and the Iranian bourgeoisie. It has independent class interests.



I am not aware of any other activist that goes by the name Ben Seattle. So I presume that I am he.

I supported Albania along with my organization (the Marxist-Leninist Party) from approximately 1978 through the early 1980's.

We concluded that the Party of Labor of Albania was making serious nationalist errors relatively early--when some of their statements supported Khomeini. As our analysis deepened--it led us to conclude that the entire international communist movement went off the rails into nationalism, under Stalin's leadership, in the late 1940's. Later, we concluded that the rot began at the time of the 7th Congress (ie: 1935, the Dimitrov "United Front Against Fascism") as a result of our investigation of the degeneration of the CPUSA in the late 1930's. Unfortunately, the MLP disintegrated (1993) before we could get to the root of the problem. My work has been guided by a determination to understand the source and root of the degeneration. I believe I have resolved the matter. Check out my website.

Now--let me ask you something, if I may: from where do you know my name?

I tend to answer things in order of complexity, so forgive me if I'm working backwards a bit.

Firstly, I know your name as a member of the new Hoxhaist party in the United States. The failure of the MLP is a lesson for us all. Your website has been thoroughly read by modern Hoxhaists but few have gotten a chance to speak to you. I would be lieing if I said opinions of you are positive. Most folks think you went over the deep end, however you have been in the anti revisionist 'camp' before, and no doubt this opinion is not one that suprises you.

That said it is in the 'material interests' of the first world to rise up and defend imperialism as well, I would not call this a 'right'. I would not necessarily say it is the 'right' of the bourgeois to exploit simply because it is in their 'material interests' either. It is in the material interests of the North Korean working class to overthrow that regime as well, I would not call it reactionary to speak out against the imperialist assault on the DPRK, simply because being a colony reliant on the 'western world' may increase their standard of living.

That said, I still must ask what is a 'right'? I don't see any rights, or entitlements, only people taking what actions are necessary to secure their immediate material interests.

[Ben Seattle]

I know your name as a member of the new Hoxhaist party in the United States.

I didn't know that there was a new Hoxhaist party in the U.S. Does it have a website? Any relation to or history with the groups founded by Hardial Bains?


Your website has been thoroughly read by modern Hoxhaists but few have gotten a chance to speak to you. ... Most folks think you went over the deep end ...

I intend, in the period ahead, to go into some of the decisive theoretical issues here on RevLeft--such as the nature of the proletarian dictatorship. If there are any comrades in your group who believe they have the ability to defend their conceptions of this--they will be welcome to take me on. My experience in public confrontations with most cargo-cult Leninists--is that do not want to swim in water that is over their head.

As far as your comments denegrating the just struggles of the Iranian workers and toilers--I have nothing to add.

[Palingenisis]

They are weirdoes based around a cult of personality who used to be actual revoluntionary communists. Avoid.

[Elfcat]

Well, I have gone to a couple of things, and am sending in questions. I went to Sunsara Taylor's presentation in Berkeley. While she was discussing religion with a Moslem woman, I ventured that my understanding from RCP writings was that an objective was to work on a science of leadership, to determine when leaders are succeeding or failing, and to do that means allowing a possibility that Bob Avakian could be determined to fail in leadership and called on it.

I said this about six inches away from Sunsara herself. I do not recall any sharp objects entering my neck nor any shouts of "REACTIONARY" from anyone.

I am cautious about the exhortations to read Avakian's books. I am reading the Shanghai Textbook first. But hell, at worst how different inherently is this from the Tesla Society or the Bertrand Russell Society or any other society associated with a particular person?

[Warboy99]

The Party is dis-organized.