RCP to Hold Web-a-Thon

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

To all those who attended the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA's Memorial Day conferences (http://www.revleft.com/vb/attend-rcps-memorial-t135592/index.html?t=135592), thank you! They were a huge success!

Over the last year, the RCP has been building a movement for revolution with a campaign centered around spreading the message and call, "The Revolution We Need... The Leadership We Have" (http://www.revcom.us/a/170/Revolution_we_need-en.html). (Speaking of which, Carl Dix was interviewed by a Washington DC news outlet in March on the subject. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XFlvDfNcrc)) We who work with the RCP, USA are aiming to re-orient the world communist movement around the radical new synthesis that Bob Avakian has brought forward. (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html) Since our all-out May Day mobilization in particular, both here and around the world, this campaign has been making qualitative advances. Another immediate goal of this campaign is that we are also aiming to put communist revolution on the map here in the U.S. (and namely in Detroit) at the earliest time possible by establishing a base area of independent people's power.

The RCP recently held Memorial Day conferences at its Revolution Bookstores around the country in order to get a broad range of input on both the successes of the campaign and the challenges it has faced to date, and to gather up creative new ideas for how to confront those challenges and make further advances in building this revolutionary movement. One of the important new ideas that came forward was the need to develop a culture of fund-raising so that we can further expand the work we're doing. In that connection, I'd like to highlight a major fund-raising effort that the RCP will be doing all next week, but especially on Sunday, June 20th: (http://www.revcom.us/a/203/campaign-fundraising-en.html) a long-running web-a-thon. On the 20th in particular there will be the following:




There will be, in connection with the webcast, special programming for people to listen to and take part in: special reports from Revolution newspaper reporters from the catastrophe in the Gulf, an important speech on the environment by Raymond Lotta, a recent speech by Alan Goodman on the massacre of internationals bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza by the Zionist State of Israel, developments in Arizona including reports from youth going to Arizona for the summer to stop the fascist laws scheduled to go into effect on July 29, Sunsara Taylor, a report from Carl Dix on the U.S. Social Forum and putting revolution on the map in Detroit—with a major saturation to take place in the city as a whole and at the U.S. Social Forum—and more.

The webcast will also have coverage of the impact of getting the statement out there and pictures of the graphic image of Bob Avakian going up around the country. In fact, one of the things we will be fund-raising for that Sunday will be to put this up on billboards and as huge murals on walls that we are able to get with permission or rent in Detroit and New Orleans and Arizona.


Just thought I'd give you all the heads up on that and invite you all to tune in to revcom.us (http://www.revcom.us/index.html) on June 20th especially for this major event. http://forums.matrixfans.net/images/smilies/cool.gif And if you'd like to be a part of actively building this movement for revolution, please get in contact with the RCP! (http://www.revcom.us/a/online/contac_e.htm)

[KC]

We who work with the RCP, USA are aiming to re-orient the world communist movement around the radical new synthesis that Bob Avakian has brought forward. (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html)

:rolleyes:

[RED DAVE]

The webcast will also have coverage of the impact of getting the statement out there and pictures of the graphic image of Bob Avakian going up around the country. In fact, one of the things we will be fund-raising for that Sunday will be to put this up on billboards and as huge murals on walls that we are able to get with permission or rent in Detroit and New Orleans and Arizona.

If there are YouTube videos of people wearing the image of Bob Avakian shirt or displaying the poster—and those same people testifying as to why they are doing so—be sure that these are being sent into Revolution newspaper so that some of the best of these can be played that day—no matter where you are, in a major city or small town or an outlying area of the revolution—you can be part of this—it will be a nationwide collective event. If you would like to film a special report of key advances in the saturation from the city where you are—you can film these and send them in also.http://www.rwor.org/a/203/campaign-fundraising-en.html

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

RED DAVE

[Barry Lyndon]

http://www.nudecelebritydeathsuv.com/jim-jones.jpg

http://hootingyard.org/archive/Stalincult.jpg

http://warhistorian.org/images/hitler-poster.jpg

http://worldmeets.us/images/kimilsung.poster_pic.gif

[Red Conall]

We who work with the RCP, USA are aiming to re-orient the world communist movement around the radical new synthesis that Bob Avakian has brought forward.

I stopped reading at this point.

[#FF0000]

Let's try to keep this constructive, now.

[Maksym]

This is really disappointing if after a year of focusing all energies on the "The Revolution We Need....The Leadership We Have" campaign, the best idea to come up was holding a web-a-thon.

I remember being around the RCP when the police committed a brutal murder of a man named Brownie Polk in East Oakland. The RCP's quick response to rally against police brutality won a lot of support, at the time, with the community and people were being mobilized to stand up against police brutality. I was never able to see the end result of this action because I left for home to another country. Disappointingly, it appears the RCP only took up this action to push the campaign around Avakian, which happened to be starting up at the time, rather than to build a revolutionary movement of the people by empathizing with the issue at hand. The RCP is not a vanguard party of the working class, but views themselves above the people because they hold an "advanced" revolutionary line synthesized by Bob Avakian. If anything, I had this feeling at the time, the murder of Brownie Polk was just a rallying point to sell their newspapers, push the DVD, raise money and advocate the "precious leadership" of Bob Avakian.

The RCP is more concerned with winning respectability for Avakian's thought among university academics because they are cut from the same cloth. This is just the 1960's student movement, that leached off the Black Panthers and other organic movements of the working class, in its complete disintegration because it always viewed itself above the working class and not apart of the working classes Praxis.

[RED DAVE]

Let's try to keep this constructive, now.http://i50.tinypic.com/3449ifa.jpg

RED DAVE

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Carl Dix on the U.S. Social Forum and putting revolution on the map in DetroitWhat the hell has the RCP done in Detroit? Do they seriously think they can just come here and "put revolution on the map"?

[Universal Struggle]

Hey

my name is Bob Avakian,i like to say i have advanced marxism leninism maoism, when in fact, i have not.

Look he is a good marxist, but he aint the ressurection of MAO

And al;ot of you RCPUSA people freak me out.

Its worse than the manson family with the cultish wierdness.

That aside though, i do like avakian as a speaker, its not his fault he is held up as a messiah.

But it is his fault he fucks off to france and spends all his time in self imposed exile, like he is sooo important.

[Wanted Man]

We who work with the RCP, USA are aiming to re-orient the world communist movement around the radical new synthesis that Bob Avakian has brought forward. (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html)

The world communist movement thanks you for your effort, but has to decline politely.

[Palingenisis]

How long before this thread gets trashed?

[chegitz guevara]

It was trashed in the first post.

[Martin Blank]

Wow. Between the USSF and the RCP, Detroit's going to be a complete circus that weekend.

[RED DAVE]

To be fair:


A NEW STAGE

A Manifesto from
 the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

September 2008

Despite what is constantly preached at us, this capitalist system we live under, this way of life that constantly drains away—or in an instant blows away—life for the great majority of humanity, does not represent the best possible world—nor the only possible world. The ways in which the daily train of life has, for centuries and millennia, caused the great majority of humanity to be weighed down, broken in body and spirit, by oppression, agony, degradation, violence and destruction, and the dark veil of ignorance and superstition, is not the fault of this suffering humanity—nor is this the “will” of some non-existent god or gods, or the result of some unchanging and unchangeable “human nature.” All this is the expression, and the result, of the way human society has developed up to this point under the domination of exploiters and oppressors...but that very development has brought humanity to the point where what has been, for thousands of years, no longer has to be—where a whole different way of life is possible in which human beings, individually and above all in their mutual interaction with each other, in all parts of the world, can throw off the heavy chains of tradition and rise to their full height and thrive in ways never before experienced, or even fully imagined.(emph orig)

218 words; 3 sentences: requires editing.

http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Thanks for all the constructive contributions folks. Really, I post an update suggesting that we're making real headway in building a movement for revolution and get compared to Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Manson. And then come critiques of long sentences. Man, I love all this serious discussion going on.

The fact that the RCP recognizes and upholds the valuable leadership it has in Bob Avakian doesn't signify that it's a "cult". That suggestion is just a cop-out; a way of avoiding any real discussion of the theoretical content BA is bringing forward. The opponents of the RCP accordingly rely on that allegation very heavily. Surely we should be able to get beyond that level of "discussion".

[Palingenisis]

The fact that the RCP recognizes and upholds the valuable leadership it has in Bob Avakian doesn't signify that it's a "cult". That suggestion is just a cop-out; a way of avoiding any real discussion of the theoretical content BA is bringing forward. The opponents of the RCP accordingly rely on that allegation very heavily. Surely we should be able to get beyond that level of "discussion".

Okay seriously can you explain to me simply what is the New Synthesis and why it is a majior dividing line in the world communist movement?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well I can, but why not simply read the manifesto for yourself? I've already linked to it after all.

[Barry Lyndon]

Thanks for all the constructive contributions folks. Really, I post an update suggesting that we're making real headway in building a movement for revolution and get compared to Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Manson. And then come critiques of long sentences. Man, I love all this serious discussion going on.

The fact that the RCP recognizes and upholds the valuable leadership it has in Bob Avakian doesn't signify that it's a "cult". That suggestion is just a cop-out; a way of avoiding any real discussion of the theoretical content BA is bringing forward. The opponents of the RCP accordingly rely on that allegation very heavily. Surely we should be able to get beyond that level of "discussion".

I have had way-too-long discussions with RCP acolytes about this 'New Synthesis', and basically it seems to come down to the principle of "a solid core with a lot of elasticity"(which is basically another word for democratic centralism), as well as a vague promise that the revolution will be nicer to artists and intellectuals, this time around. The rest is long ramblings on the last 150 years of Marxist history.
It's hard to discuss BA's content because there's barely any content to discuss.

[Wanted Man]

And then come critiques of long sentences. Man, I love all this serious discussion going on.

Well, it does help if people can understand what the hell you're saying. Even if you're a party with a deep-seated resentment against the workers of the world for their failure to follow your leader.

[robbo203]

Thanks for all the constructive contributions folks. Really, I post an update suggesting that we're making real headway in building a movement for revolution and get compared to Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Manson. And then come critiques of long sentences. Man, I love all this serious discussion going on.

The fact that the RCP recognizes and upholds the valuable leadership it has in Bob Avakian doesn't signify that it's a "cult". That suggestion is just a cop-out; a way of avoiding any real discussion of the theoretical content BA is bringing forward. The opponents of the RCP accordingly rely on that allegation very heavily. Surely we should be able to get beyond that level of "discussion".

A polite suggestion - dont follow leaders. Only sheep need leaders and they generally only end up being fleeced by them

[Palingenisis]

Well I can, but why not simply read the manifesto for yourself? I've already linked to it after all.

Because the manifesto is long, complicated and rambling...Also it would be good to know if RCP members or supporters actually understand it themselves...So could you please explain simply why is the New Synthesis so important to the lives of working people that it is a dividing line in the global workers' movement and what exactly it is?

[Palingenisis]

I have had way-too-long discussions with RCP acolytes about this 'New Synthesis', and basically it seems to come down to the principle of "a solid core with a lot of elasticity"(which is basically another word for democratic centralism), as well as a vague promise that the revolution will be nicer to artists and intellectuals, this time around. The rest is long ramblings on the last 150 years of Marxist history.
It's hard to discuss BA's content because there's barely any content to discuss.

Does everyone else agree thats basically it?

How on earth is that a dividing line?

[Saorsa]

Does everyone else agree thats basically it?

Yup.


How on earth is that a dividing line?

It isn't.

[Palingenisis]

It isn't.


Why do they claim it is than?

Ive talked to other people and they have told me when they have asked RCP to explain it to them they have always been just refered to the manifesto?

Do most RCP understand it themselves?

[bots]

A bit off topic, but what is the relationship between RCP-USA and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada?

[Saorsa]

Why do they claim it is than?

The best answer I can give is that they're a degenerate, crazy cult of their dear leader Avakian and in the (hopefully) brief time before they disintegrate into nothing, they're devoting as much energy as they can to promoting this rather uninspiring individual to the rather uninspired masses.

I really can't explain it. It makes no sense to anyone other than them. I really don't know.


Ive talked to other people and they have told me when they have asked RCP to explain it to them they have always been just refered to the manifesto?

I've experienced the same thing. I'm yet to see a clear, concise explanation that you could give to a worker on the shop floor about why the New synthesis is so important.


Do most RCP understand it themselves?

Avakian and his top disciples probably do. I doubt most of the grassroots cadre do.

[Maksym]

A bit off topic, but what is the relationship between RCP-USA and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada?

I'm not a member of either, but I doubt there is anything connecting the two organizations. RCP-OC upholds MLM, PPW in Canada and supports the revolution in Nepal.

Also, from what I understand, the RCP bookstore in Montreal printed the works of Jose Maria Sison and had an event surrounding it. This might be an indication the RCP-OC is taking the experience of the New Peoples' Army as a guideline rather than Bob Avakian's New Synthesis.

[scarletghoul]

Hate to jump on the bandwagon, but the RCP really do have problems. I will try to participate in the 'web-a-thon' because it may be interesting, and there are some great sides to the RCP like their bookstores seem cool, however these problems must be addressed.
The 'New Synthesis' is impossible to grasp (this is why no members are able to explain it), because it is really just a load of vague musings with no concrete ideas.. The works of Avakian are alright, but a large part of them is just him going "these are some real contradictions we need to grapple with" and so on. Coupled with all this painfully vague 'elasticity' is the adherence to a deformed postmaoish dogmatism, with the cult of the useless leader aswell as complete rejection of 'revisionist' Cuba, DPRK, and notably the Nepali Maoists. They are all capitalists apparently. It's terrible that they have just refused to publish a word on the Nepal Maoists since they fell out with them.

So yeah, there are 2 things that make the RCP bad -

1. An vague assertion of the need to be 'fresh' but with no clear idea of how.
2. A dogmatic clinging to Avakian as a great leader despite his having no real groundbreaking ideas, and a rejection of all socialists who dont agree with them/him.

These 2 problems combine to form a party that will never connect with the working class because it is just weird.

[this is an invasion]

inb4bucketsofwater lolololol

[Revy]

All hail the New Synthesis of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Avakianism! Bob Avakian for President 2012!













:lol:

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think this says enough for the RCP when it comes to their position & the revolutionary struggle against Capitalism:


I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.

To Be Attacked by the Enemy Is Not a Bad Thing but a Good Thing (May 26, 1939), first pocket ed., p. two. *

Does the RCP really cause any commotion from the Capitalist elites, or even the mainstream media?

[Saorsa]

^ No more than any other group. The RCP is an embarrassment really, particularly to the Maoist movement which the RCP was once an important and productive part of.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that, out of all the birdcage liners out there, (er, sorry..."revolutionary newspapers") REVOLUTION may be the most boring. They used to give it away for free at my old college, which was giving it to people for more than it was worth. I'd much rather slam my skull against my physics textbook for two hours than read REVOLUTION.

That's pretty much the only contact I've had with the RCP, though. I've never actually met an RCP member. Probably for the best.

[hardlinecommunist]

Could someone form the RCP Please explain to me and everyone else what is the New Synthesis.

[Obs]

All hail the New Synthesis of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Avakianism! Bob Avakian for President 2012!













:lol:

Man, can you imagine how long the names of some tendencies will be in, like, a thousand years?

[Saorsa]

We'll probably use abbreviations. For example, Peruvian Maoists used to refer to 'MLM Gonzalo Thought' rather than Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Gonzalo Thought.

[scarletghoul]

In the future, proletarian martians will seek liberation via MLMAZGJUᶼSᶓٌ‼ᶔ[ﭿ£FIἡὴEM♥╖V♫UeRGí₢íúW~, Likschmunge Thought.

Either that, or they will realise that ideas are bigger than people, and stop giving their lines stupid titles.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't know...what constructive thing can be said if there just seems to be so much wrong with the RCP's attitude perspective?

I mean...


The webcast will also have coverage of the impact of getting the statement out there and pictures of the graphic image of Bob Avakian going up around the country. In fact, one of the things we will be fund-raising for that Sunday will be to put this up on billboards and as huge murals on walls that we are able to get with permission or rent in Detroit and New Orleans and Arizona.

If there are YouTube videos of people wearing the image of Bob Avakian shirt or displaying the poster—and those same people testifying as to why they are doing so—be sure that these are being sent into Revolution newspaper so that some of the best of these can be played that day—no matter where you are, in a major city or small town or an outlying area of the revolution—you can be part of this—it will be a nationwide collective event.

Seriously?

The RCP writes stuff with soo much unwarrented self-importance when in reality they're so fucking irrelevant that it's surreal.

I have not met anyone in real life who knows the RCP and much less Avaikian. The RCP/Avaikan is more like an inside joke among the left.

[Martin Blank]

Could someone form the RCP Please explain to me and everyone else what is the New Synthesis.

I'm not in the RCP, but I can summarize the "New Synthesis" in four sentences:

1. The revolution is not inevitable and not a linear process.

2. Internationalism is more than being a cheerleader for a "socialist motherland".

3. The petty bourgeoisie needs to be given the "elasticity" and freedom to act as the de facto ruling class.

4. Revolutionary consciousness has to be a mass phenomenon in order for the revolution to succeed.

Points 1, 2 and 4 are more or less what every self-described revolutionary organization has said for ages. Point 3 is what all petty-bourgeois socialist groups practice, but few actually own up to.

In other words, there is nothing "new" in the "New Synthesis" ... except to the members of the RCP.

[Saorsa]

3. The petty bourgeoisie needs to be given the "elasticity" and freedom to act as the de facto ruling class.

I'm not a defender of the NS, but why do you argue this?

[Wanted Man]

He doesn't. He says that it's a characteristic of all petty-bourgeois socialist groups, though not all of them admit it as openly.

It is a point that always struck me about Avakian, how he keeps saying that far-reaching criticism and self-criticism (and serious engagement with petty-bourgeois critics) is necessary, "even to the point of risking losing the revolution" (or at least, that's how I remember it, correct me if I'm wrong). It seems like little more than a rhetorical trick to appeal to radical liberals. Let a hundred flowers blossom!

[Martin Blank]

I'm not a defender of the NS, but why do you argue this?


He doesn't. He says that it's a characteristic of all petty-bourgeois socialist groups, though not all of them admit it as openly.

Actually, I can argue it. Quite easily. Well, actually, I can just let the RCP's words speak for themselves:


Bob Avakian has recognized and emphasized the need for a greater role for dissent, a greater fostering of intellectual ferment, and more scope for initiative and creativity in the arts in socialist society. He has criticized the tendency toward a “reification” of the proletariat and other exploited (or formerly exploited) groups in society.... This, in turn, has gone along with tendencies — which were a marked element in the Soviet Union but also in China when it was socialist — toward the notion of “class truth,” which in fact is opposed to the scientific understanding that truth is objective, does not vary in accordance with differing class interests, and is not dependent on which class outlook one brings to the pursuit of the truth....

As a related part of the new synthesis, Bob Avakian has criticized a one-sided view in the communist movement toward intellectuals — toward seeing them only as a problem, and failing to give full recognition to the ways in which they can contribute to the rich process through which the people in society overall will come to a deeper understanding of reality and a heightened ability to carry out an increasingly conscious struggle to transform reality in the direction of communism.

We all know who the RCP means when they say "intellectuals" and "artists". It doesn't refer to workers who educate themselves in communist theory and philosophy, and it doesn't refer to working people who are artistically inclined. They are referring to professional academics and artists. They have consciously turned toward the petty bourgeoisie and are advocating giving them the "elasticity" to dictate the course of their revolution. That is, they are giving them the freedom to act as the de facto ruling class.

This is also why these elements are being given the power to criticize actions of a hypothetical RCP-led "socialism", "even to the point of risking losing the revolution". A class that can dictate and criticize to the point where what they advocate could overturn a government is a class that has state power. After all, who would cause the RCP to "lose the revolution"? What armed bodies would carry out that "loss"?

Now, yes, I do think it is a characteristic of all petty-bourgeois socialist groupings. Just look at the language you use about these elements. The "official Communists" appeal to the "anti-monopoly people's front". The Trotskyists talk about the petty bourgeoisie as a "necessary yeast" for growing their movement. The Maoists have the "bloc of four classes" (and the people's front, and the peasant-based revolution, etc.). The democratic socialists speak of "fusion" and "coalitions". And all of these trends back it up with allowing these elements into their parties and organizations without asking them to break materially from their non-proletarian past and integrate into the working class. They buy into the Weberian lie that one can stand outside of the social relations of class society -- i.e., be "de-classed". But over a century of experience has proven that as much as these elements can call themselves "de-classed", society has something else to say about it.

Marx was right: social being determines consciousness. If you have an organization full of petty-bourgeois, especially in the roles of "theoretician" and "leader", you should expect that the organization will reflect their consciousness, not that of another class. Composition matters -- at all levels. It's not the only thing, but it is a fundamentally necessary thing.

[Wanted Man]

I misunderstood Alastair's post. I thought he was saying that you agreed with the RCP on this topic, so I wanted to correct him. But I was the one who was mistaken; he already knew. Thanks for the further explanation, in any case.

[chegitz guevara]

Man, can you imagine how long the names of some tendencies will be in, like, a thousand years?

If we're still at this in a thousand years, give up.

[Wanted Man]

So anyway, I still haven't seen one single reason to wear a shirt with the picture of Bob "blame the masses" Avakian on it.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Alright, well as the sinister RCP supporter here, I think some clarification is necessary.

First of all, "solid core with a lot of elasticity" does not mean simply democratic centralism. The RCP aims to build a party of a new type. I'd emphasize "a lot" in that formulation, meaning that it goes beyond just discipline and inner-party democracy, but rather aims to also institutionalize mass criticism and input and such right into the framework of how the party functions in a new and correct way yet to be discovered, without sacrificing the discipline and the democracy of democratic centralism. And yes it's also an appropriate analogy for the whole new way we aim to construct socialism and make revolution: in a way that is yes proletarian, but which also relates much more positively to intellectuals namely, as part of that. For example, BA has described the aim of having both yes official news accounts and also providing space for dissenting, even non-socialist views on the airwaves; subsidizing programs sort of like Democracy Now. This is in recognition of the fact that even more reactionary elements can have valuable nuggets of truth that we need to be digging into and not just rejecting out of hand because of the source, as there's been a tendency for the communist movement to do in the past. Just so you can get a clearer idea of what this means. It's an expansion on the concept of the Cultural Revolution that recognizes Chiang Ching's role in crafting model revolutionary works of art for example as immensely positive and ground-breaking, but also one-sided. We aim to bring a fully dialectical approach to this so that we can better get to the truth of things and, as a result, develop our science more correctly in an ongoing way.

The RCP also supports, in connection to the international question that's been brought up, the building of a real international and the understanding that the international arena is key and should be the direction in which the thrust of our efforts in a socialist society should go (without, of course, just building a Trotskyist permanent war economy dependent on foreign bailouts). As in we in a socialist society, need to focus on supporting revolutionaries abroad to a qualitatively greater degree than in the past. And it also means we need to break with this whole patriotism thing that's been part of the communist movement for far too long now.

But BA has also made other major breakthroughs. One of the most important to me has been in relation to the woman question and namely the recognition that the past positions of the communist movement supporting a more traditional, patriarchal outlook toward women as breeders of children...that that needs to be ruptured with, and without lapsing into liberalism like so many other 'communist parties' have and embracing shit like pornography and other 'modern' forms of degradation of women.

These are just some of the elements to the new synthesis. BA has also done a lot more work, including developing a new revolutionary strategy for making revolution in imperialist countries like the United States. So those are just a few of the elements that can be distinguished from classical Maoism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Didn't you want to join MonkeySmashesHeaven at one time?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I flirted with the idea for a couple of weeks a while ago, but decided against it for a number of reasons. I provided some of those reasons both on my blog and on the relevant thread in the Maoist forum.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I flirted with the idea for a couple of weeks a while ago, but decided against it for a number of reasons. I provided some of those reasons both on my blog and on the relevant thread in the Maoist forum.

At least you left those revisionists.

[Barry Lyndon]

Alright, well as the sinister RCP supporter here, I think some clarification is necessary.

First of all, "solid core with a lot of elasticity" does not mean simply democratic centralism. The RCP aims to build a party of a new type. I'd emphasize "a lot" in that formulation, meaning that it goes beyond just discipline and inner-party democracy, but rather aims to also institutionalize mass criticism and input and such right into the framework of how the party functions in a new and correct way yet to be discovered, without sacrificing the discipline and the democracy of democratic centralism. And yes it's also an appropriate analogy for the whole new way we aim to construct socialism and make revolution: in a way that is yes proletarian, but which also relates much more positively to intellectuals namely, as part of that. For example, BA has described the aim of having both yes official news accounts and also providing space for dissenting, even non-socialist views on the airwaves; subsidizing programs sort of like Democracy Now. This is in recognition of the fact that even more reactionary elements can have valuable nuggets of truth that we need to be digging into and not just rejecting out of hand because of the source, as there's been a tendency for the communist movement to do in the past. Just so you can get a clearer idea of what this means. It's an expansion on the concept of the Cultural Revolution that recognizes Chiang Ching's role in crafting model revolutionary works of art for example as immensely positive and ground-breaking, but also one-sided. We aim to bring a fully dialectical approach to this so that we can better get to the truth of things and, as a result, develop our science more correctly in an ongoing way.

The RCP also supports, in connection to the international question that's been brought up, the building of a real international and the understanding that the international arena is key and should be the direction in which the thrust of our efforts in a socialist society should go (without, of course, just building a Trotskyist permanent war economy dependent on foreign bailouts). As in we in a socialist society, need to focus on supporting revolutionaries abroad to a qualitatively greater degree than in the past. And it also means we need to break with this whole patriotism thing that's been part of the communist movement for far too long now.

But BA has also made other major breakthroughs. One of the most important to me has been in relation to the woman question and namely the recognition that the past positions of the communist movement supporting a more traditional, patriarchal outlook toward women as breeders of children...that that needs to be ruptured with, and without lapsing into liberalism like so many other 'communist parties' have and embracing shit like pornography and other 'modern' forms of degradation of women.

These are just some of the elements to the new synthesis. BA has also done a lot more work, including developing a new revolutionary strategy for making revolution in imperialist countries like the United States. So those are just a few of the elements that can be distinguished from classical Maoism.

You just described democratic centralism, with some fairly obvious points about intellectuals tacked on as some sort of afterthought.

How can you be internationalist if you do not even work with the Maoists in Nepal? Don't you think they would know a bit more about revolution then you, given that they are, you know, actually having one?

And what are you talking about regarding women's rights? Every major socialist revolution(Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba), has seen major advances in the emancipation of women- the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to have birth control and full divorce rights for women, and had a Ministry of Womens Affairs, run by Alexander Kollontai who was in the politburo-this when women in the United States could not even vote!! Plenty of communist leaders and movements have not seen women primarily as 'breeders of children'. International Women's Day was started in 1911 by Rosa Luxemburg and Carla Zetkin for Pete's sake! Of course sexist attitudes from the Old Regime persisted and a lot more needs to be done, but you cannot simply flat out deny the progress that was made. BA is so egotistical he has deny the past achievements of communists so he can appropriate them and make himself look better.

BA hasn't done jack shit for 30+ years besides fleecing his followers.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You just described democratic centralism, with some fairly obvious points about intellectuals tacked on as some sort of afterthought.

How can you be internationalist if you do not even work with the Maoists in Nepal? Don't you think they would know a bit more about revolution then you, given that they are, you know, actually having one?

And what are you talking about regarding women's rights? Every major socialist revolution(Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba), has seen major advances in the emancipation of women- the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to have birth control and full divorce rights for women, and had a Ministry of Womens Affairs, run by Alexander Kollontai who was in the politburo-this when women in the United States could not even vote!! Plenty of communist leaders and movements have not seen women primarily as 'breeders of children'. International Women's Day was started in 1911 by Rosa Luxemburg and Carla Zetkin for Pete's sake! Of course sexist attitudes from the Old Regime persisted and a lot more needs to be done, but you cannot simply flat out deny the progress that was made. BA is so egotistical he has deny the past achievements of communists so he can appropriate them and make himself look better.

BA hasn't done jack shit for 30+ years besides fleecing his followers.

Not to mention the Soviet Union saw the birth of the one the first feminist organizations take place - the Zhenotdel.

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/110/l_5ca9ddce398b45be87230d78d23d8e43.jpg

[RED DAVE]

(without, of course, just building a Trotskyist permanent war economy dependent on foreign bailouts)Huh?

RED DAVE

[Wanted Man]

Alright, well as the sinister RCP supporter here, I think some clarification is necessary.

First of all, "solid core with a lot of elasticity" does not mean simply democratic centralism. The RCP aims to build a party of a new type. I'd emphasize "a lot" in that formulation, meaning that it goes beyond just discipline and inner-party democracy, but rather aims to also institutionalize mass criticism and input and such right into the framework of how the party functions in a new and correct way yet to be discovered, without sacrificing the discipline and the democracy of democratic centralism. And yes it's also an appropriate analogy for the whole new way we aim to construct socialism and make revolution: in a way that is yes proletarian, but which also relates much more positively to intellectuals namely, as part of that. For example, BA has described the aim of having both yes official news accounts and also providing space for dissenting, even non-socialist views on the airwaves; subsidizing programs sort of like Democracy Now. This is in recognition of the fact that even more reactionary elements can have valuable nuggets of truth that we need to be digging into and not just rejecting out of hand because of the source, as there's been a tendency for the communist movement to do in the past. Just so you can get a clearer idea of what this means. It's an expansion on the concept of the Cultural Revolution that recognizes Chiang Ching's role in crafting model revolutionary works of art for example as immensely positive and ground-breaking, but also one-sided. We aim to bring a fully dialectical approach to this so that we can better get to the truth of things and, as a result, develop our science more correctly in an ongoing way.

So yeah, basically as has already been summarised in this thread. Of course, it's old wine in new bags.


The RCP also supports, in connection to the international question that's been brought up, the building of a real international and the understanding that the international arena is key and should be the direction in which the thrust of our efforts in a socialist society should go (without, of course, just building a Trotskyist permanent war economy dependent on foreign bailouts). As in we in a socialist society, need to focus on supporting revolutionaries abroad to a qualitatively greater degree than in the past. And it also means we need to break with this whole patriotism thing that's been part of the communist movement for far too long now.

You're having a laugh, aren't you? The RCP leadership had theoretical disagreements with the Nepalese maoists (who, unlike the RCP, are faced with the practical considerations of making revolution every day), so they simply cancelled all solidarity with them and even stopped posting updates on the Nepalese situation for years. We also haven't heard much about the RIM recently.

Conclusion: RCP internationalism is phony internationalism.


But BA has also made other major breakthroughs. One of the most important to me has been in relation to the woman question and namely the recognition that the past positions of the communist movement supporting a more traditional, patriarchal outlook toward women as breeders of children...that that needs to be ruptured with, and without lapsing into liberalism like so many other 'communist parties' have and embracing shit like pornography and other 'modern' forms of degradation of women.

Yeah, Bob Avakian ("BA") introduced feminism in the communist movement. You've got to be joking.


These are just some of the elements to the new synthesis. BA has also done a lot more work, including developing a new revolutionary strategy for making revolution in imperialist countries like the United States. So those are just a few of the elements that can be distinguished from classical Maoism.

Well, evidently, he hasn't been doing a very good job. Developing a revolutionary struggle is rather difficult when you're abroad, divorced from practice in self-imposed exile, running what looks like a one-man worship-me cult to outsiders.

In every RCP discussion, their supporters have consistently failed to address the fact that leadership does not come from some guy who stands up and says, "I'm the next Lenin/Mao; follow me!" but from the practice of class struggle. Why would anyone listen to this guy?

[chegitz guevara]

But BA has also made other major breakthroughs. One of the most important to me has been in relation to the woman question and namely the recognition that the past positions of the communist movement supporting a more traditional, patriarchal outlook toward women as breeders of children...that that needs to be ruptured with, and without lapsing into liberalism like so many other 'communist parties' have and embracing shit like pornography and other 'modern' forms of degradation of women.

Wow, so BA's major break through was to get to where Marxists like Zetkin and Kollantai were one hundred years ago. That's impressive.

[Revy]

Actually, I can argue it. Quite easily. Well, actually, I can just let the RCP's words speak for themselves:



We all know who the RCP means when they say "intellectuals" and "artists". It doesn't refer to workers who educate themselves in communist theory and philosophy, and it doesn't refer to working people who are artistically inclined. They are referring to professional academics and artists. They have consciously turned toward the petty bourgeoisie and are advocating giving them the "elasticity" to dictate the course of their revolution. That is, they are giving them the freedom to act as the de facto ruling class.

This is also why these elements are being given the power to criticize actions of a hypothetical RCP-led "socialism", "even to the point of risking losing the revolution". A class that can dictate and criticize to the point where what they advocate could overturn a government is a class that has state power. After all, who would cause the RCP to "lose the revolution"? What armed bodies would carry out that "loss"?

Now, yes, I do think it is a characteristic of all petty-bourgeois socialist groupings. Just look at the language you use about these elements. The "official Communists" appeal to the "anti-monopoly people's front". The Trotskyists talk about the petty bourgeoisie as a "necessary yeast" for growing their movement. The Maoists have the "bloc of four classes" (and the people's front, and the peasant-based revolution, etc.). The democratic socialists speak of "fusion" and "coalitions". And all of these trends back it up with allowing these elements into their parties and organizations without asking them to break materially from their non-proletarian past and integrate into the working class. They buy into the Weberian lie that one can stand outside of the social relations of class society -- i.e., be "de-classed". But over a century of experience has proven that as much as these elements can call themselves "de-classed", society has something else to say about it.

Marx was right: social being determines consciousness. If you have an organization full of petty-bourgeois, especially in the roles of "theoretician" and "leader", you should expect that the organization will reflect their consciousness, not that of another class. Composition matters -- at all levels. It's not the only thing, but it is a fundamentally necessary thing.

How many early Marxists were factory or farm workers? It seems to me a great many of them were "professional academics/intellectuals and artists".

[Martin Blank]

How many early Marxists were factory or farm workers? It seems to me a great many of them were "professional academics/intellectuals and artists".

If you go through the documents of the Communist League and the International Working Men's Association, you'll find that most of them were. For example, the original Central Committee of the Communist League was composed of Karl Schapper (typesetter), Heinrich Bauer (shoemaker, employed), Joseph Moll (watchmaker, employed), Wilhelm Wolff (teacher), Marx and Engels. The International was much stronger on the class question, even requiring membership quotas for sections.

But this is also not 1850 or 1870. This is 2010, and social relations have continued to develop from the time when the Communist Manifesto and other classical works were written. At some point, that process of transformation that Marx and Engels wrote about in 1848 had to end, and the final forms that class would take would become dominant. We are left with the implications and consequences of that transformation.

So, no, it doesn't phase me when someone whines, "Well, Marx and Engels weren't working class". No, and a Chrysler ain't a horse and buggy, neither. That doesn't mean I should support letting today's petty bourgeois and bourgeois into a workers' organization any more than it means I should invest in buggy whips or wooden wagon wheels for my car.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How many early Marxists were factory or farm workers? It seems to me a great many of them were "professional academics/intellectuals and artists".

"Citizen Marx has just been mentioned; he has perfectly understood the importance of this first congress, where there should be only working-class delegates; therefor he refused the delegateship he was offered in the General Council." - James Carter, Geneva Congress of the First International.

"...Victor Le Lubez ... asked if Karl Marx would suggest the name of someone to speak on behalf of the German Workers.' Marx himself was far too bourgeois to be eligible so he recommended the emigre tailor Johann Georg Eccarius..." - Karl Marx: A Life, Francis Wheen.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

You're having a laugh, aren't you? The RCP leadership had theoretical disagreements with the Nepalese maoists (who, unlike the RCP, are faced with the practical considerations of making revolution every day), so they simply cancelled all solidarity with them and even stopped posting updates on the Nepalese situation for years. We also haven't heard much about the RIM recently.

Conclusion: RCP internationalism is phony internationalism.

Not only that, but the RCP doesn't give updates on the revolutionary movements in the Philippines or in India, didn't post anything about the Red Shirt uprising in Thailand or the uprising in Kazakhstan, hasn't said a word about the mass demonstrations in Greece, the popular movements in Venezuela and the rest of Latin America, the mass strikes in Puerto Rico, the Cochabamba environmental conference, etc. In fact, just for shits and giggles, I went to the RCP home page, and noticed that out of the entire page, there was only ONE article about the happenings in another part of the world (a recent article on Gaza). I then looked through the summary of the past few issues, and with the exception of an occasional article on the wars, there has been jack squat on int'lism. Isn't internationalism about showing solidarity with the struggles of other people? I feel like the RCP wouldn't show solidarity with the popular movement of another country unless their vanguard party made Avakian their chairman too.

RDR, without getting too much off topic here, you wrote that traditional views of women "[need] to be ruptured with, and without lapsing into liberalism like so many other 'communist parties' have and embracing shit like pornography and other 'modern' forms of degradation of women." I was curious though if you felt that pornography was necessarily degrading to women, or if it simply was as a result of it being produced under capitalism, which reinforces patriarchy and male privilege. Is it your contention that, no matter how it is made, pornography must degrade women? Or is it simply your contention that pornography, as it exists under capitalism, is generally degrading to women? I just don't see how pornography can be viewed as incapable of overcoming gender bias and patriarchy, unless you feel that sex is an act that inherently victimizes/objectifies women, or that pornography can't find a female audience and therefore has to cater to aggressive, repressed male desires.

[Palingenisis]

The real question is how is this all a dividing line in the Workers' movement...Sometimes the International Communist Current want to make me tear my hair out with the dividing lines that they draw but I can understand why they draw them...Whether Bob Avakian is a genius or not means nothing to the average girl in Tallaght or Boy in Ballymurphy...And the idea of discussing all this with them is weird...And they would think I am an absolute weirdo...The RCP need to cop on to themselves and calm down.

[Palingenisis]

Discussing the nature of Trade Unions or National Liberation means something.

Bob needs to drop the narcissism.

[Obs]

RDR, without getting too much off topic here, you wrote that traditional views of women "[need] to be ruptured with, and without lapsing into liberalism like so many other 'communist parties' have and embracing shit like pornography and other 'modern' forms of degradation of women." I was curious though if you felt that pornography was necessarily degrading to women, or if it simply was as a result of it being produced under capitalism, which reinforces patriarchy and male privilege. Is it your contention that, no matter how it is made, pornography must degrade women? Or is it simply your contention that pornography, as it exists under capitalism, is generally degrading to women? I just don't see how pornography can be viewed as incapable of overcoming gender bias and patriarchy, unless you feel that sex is an act that inherently victimizes/objectifies women, or that pornography can't find a female audience and therefore has to cater to aggressive, repressed male desires.

Incidentally, does gay porn degrade women?

[Palingenisis]

Incidentally, does gay porn degrade women?

Gay porn still turns people into objects.

[Obs]

Some may. However, if you're going to argue that all pornography objectifies people, then so does any depiction of any person doing anything.

[Saorsa]

I think the point is that video footage of people having sex is not inherently oppressive.

[The Vegan Marxist]

In fact, if paid properly that is equal to their labor, I would say it is quite the opposite - very productive.

[Revy]

So, no, it doesn't phase me when someone whines, "Well, Marx and Engels weren't working class". No, and a Chrysler ain't a horse and buggy, neither. That doesn't mean I should support letting today's petty bourgeois and bourgeois into a workers' organization any more than it means I should invest in buggy whips or wooden wagon wheels for my car.

I think the key factor in being "bourgeois" is not just the fact that they own the means of production, but that they have an exploiting relationship to the means of production. I think the "petty bourgeois" would be small business owners and entrepreneurs, who obviously would have no interest in being in a revolutionary workers' party.

You're not saying that party members can't be workers and hobby artists, but if they manage to make a living out of their art and become successful, that's when they become a problem? I guess you would rather them be a Van Gogh than a Pablo Picasso (Picasso was a communist).

I still don't think self-employment is exploitation anymore than masturbation is sex. Who is being exploited for capital by this person? Themselves? Yet they are dependent on their own labor, which they sell to others through their work. Sounds more proletarian than bourgeois to me.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Well I can, but why not simply read the manifesto for yourself? I've already linked to it after all.

Why not break into Fort Knox? There are surely fewer obstacles to that than getting through the manifesto's jungle of inapt phrasing and inept thought.

(I'll do my best though.)



This, in turn, has gone along with tendencies — which were a marked element in the Soviet Union but also in China when it was socialist — toward the notion of “class truth,” which in fact is opposed to the scientific understanding that truth is objective, does not vary in accordance with differing class interests, and is not dependent on which class outlook one brings to the pursuit of the truth....

This is a straw man. Picking out one article from Beijing Review and beating the dead body of poor Trofim Lysenko is not honest argumentation. "Truth is class-based" is probably nonsense. "Knowledge is class-based" is not. But instead of considering a more sophisticated formulation, the manifesto just goes on to kick the straw man down and scream "truth is truth!" like the Ayn Rand people. The manifesto makes all kind of claims to be preserving, or rescuing, dialectics. But really it's arguing against dialectics and for a naive positivism - strike that, it's asserting naive positivism, because there's really no argument made for it.

It's clear on reading the treatment of dialectics that the author, and those who approved it, have never in their lives cracked a single page of Hegel, nor have they given more than a cursory glance, if that, to Anti-Duhring or Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

Case in point: in order to refute the idea that revolution is inevitable, "negation of negation" gets thrown out. Is that a joke? Seriously. At least part of the motivation for taking a naive positivist line seems to be RCP's new emphasis on anti-clericalism, which is always the favorite stomping grounds of bourgeois pseudo-socialists (e.g. Orwell).



But BA has also made other major breakthroughs. One of the most important to me has been in relation to the woman question and namely the recognition that the past positions of the communist movement supporting a more traditional, patriarchal outlook toward women as breeders of children...

So after 40+ years of development of the theory and practice of women's struggle, RCP takes a courageous stand against the Cult of Soviet Motherhood. Brav-frickin-o. Again, how is one supposed to take this seriously?

If you take the manifesto as a whole, there's a refutation of stagism, or inevitablism or whatever, which throws dialectics under the bus. There's some utterly conventional endorsement of feminism. There's more pee dumped on dialectics, "truth is truth and science is science dammit!" Something about internationalism I can't make head nor tails of its practical import.

It's all either useless or liberal. Because I don't think even the RCP would bother issuing a useless document, I'll go with liberal.


It's an expansion on the concept of the Cultural Revolution that recognizes Chiang Ching's role in crafting model revolutionary works of art for example as immensely positive and ground-breaking, but also one-sided. We aim to bring a fully dialectical approach to this so that we can better get to the truth of things and, as a result, develop our science more correctly in an ongoing way.

Just saying that something is one-sided is not dialectics. In fact, it's a refusal of dialectics. It's a convenient way to acknowledge-but-also-dismiss something without seriously engaging its virtues, flaws and contradictions.

Also! For those of you who do not live in the early '70's, note that MRD is referring to Jiang Qing. Why does RCP continue to use the orientalist Wade-Giles transliteration when the rest of the world has moved to the Pinyin system developed by the Chinese themselves? One more example of RCP's studied ignorance about intellectual developments. Also, arguably, racist.


So those are just a few of the elements that can be distinguished from classical Maoism.

Basically 100% of RCP's current line can be distinguished from Maoism. You are no longer a Maoist party.

[Martin Blank]

Note to Self: I really need to save the content I post in these kinds of discussions, since the same arguments seem to come up over and over and over again. Sigh!


I think the key factor in being "bourgeois" is not just the fact that they own the means of production, but that they have an exploiting relationship to the means of production.

This statement is vague and misleading. It is not the means of production that are exploited, but those working the means of production. What makes the bourgeoisie is that they own the means of production (capital) and they can extract surplus value (profit) from the production of commodities by using collective labor-power purchased through the payment of wages. This differentiation between your definition and mine is important.


I think the "petty bourgeois" would be small business owners and entrepreneurs, who obviously would have no interest in being in a revolutionary workers' party.

The petty bourgeoisie is larger than just small business owners and entrepreneurs. It also includes managers, independent producers (artists, farmers, other small business types, etc.), bureaucratic officials, the officers of the state (police, sheriffs, bailiffs, prison guards, military officers and NCOs, etc.) and independent professionals (doctors, lawyers, consultants, technicians, etc.). These other elements are the organizers and administrators that facilitate the extraction of surplus value; their skills and abilities to aid in the maximizing of this extraction and accumulation process for the bourgeoisie are their means of production. All sectors of the petty bourgeoisie own their means of production and utilize them to extract their own small-scale surplus value.

This is fundamentally different from the proletariat, which has no means of production from which to extract surplus value. Indeed, they have only their labor-power (their ability to work means of production owned by others), by which they extract surplus value for others, receiving only a fraction of the full value they produce in the form of wages.


You're not saying that party members can't be workers and hobby artists, but if they manage to make a living out of their art and become successful, that's when they become a problem? I guess you would rather them be a Van Gogh than a Pablo Picasso (Picasso was a communist).

Calling it a "problem" is placing the question on a moralistic level, to which I will not condescend. What I will point out is that from the moment that a proletarian is placed in a fundamentally different social being -- in this case, that of a petty bourgeois professional artisan -- a contradiction begins to develop between their new social being and their longtime consciousness. Eventually, this contradiction will be resolved in one of two ways: the old consciousness will be replaced by a new consciousness based on the current social being, or the new social being will be abandoned in favor of the old. The former is the unconscious transformation that accompanies "class mobility"; the latter is the conscious rejection of "class treason".


I still don't think self-employment is exploitation anymore than masturbation is sex. Who is being exploited for capital by this person? Themselves? Yet they are dependent on their own labor, which they sell to others through their work. Sounds more proletarian than bourgeois to me.

You're concentrating on the forms, not the content. Exploitation is the form which extraction of surplus value takes under definite conditions. The real issue, as shown above, is the extraction of surplus value itself. On this basis, the difference between the bourgeois and petty bourgeois is more quantitative than qualitative, whereas the difference between either of these classes and the proletariat is vastly qualitative.

[Robocommie]

Calling it a "problem" is placing the question on a moralistic level, to which I will not condescend. What I will point out is that from the moment that a proletarian is placed in a fundamentally different social being -- in this case, that of a petty bourgeois professional artisan -- a contradiction begins to develop between their new social being and their longtime consciousness. Eventually, this contradiction will be resolved in one of two ways: the old consciousness will be replaced by a new consciousness based on the current social being, or the new social being will be abandoned in favor of the old. The former is the unconscious transformation that accompanies "class mobility"; the latter is the conscious rejection of "class treason".

That really strikes me as a long winded, perhaps overly verbose way of saying, "Some folks make it big and then they sell out."

[Martin Blank]

That really strikes me as a long winded, perhaps overly verbose way of saying, "Some folks make it big and then they sell out."

Well, yeah. I can accept that critique. The point, though, was to remove the argument from a "good/bad" or "problem/not-problem" dichotomy and put it on the basis of material conditions.

[Robocommie]

Well, yeah. I can accept that critique. The point, though, was to remove the argument from a "good/bad" or "problem/not-problem" dichotomy and put it on the basis of material conditions.

Fair enough, my apologies if my wording was too harsh.

[Martin Blank]

Fair enough, my apologies if my wording was too harsh.

Harsh?! What harsh?! I self-criticize harsher than that! :D

[Saorsa]

Me and the comrades were making some placards for a protest last year. I wasn't in charge of spelling, but this is still pretty funny :-)

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs029.snc1/4294_103794429133_617774133_2689665_1815257_n.jpg

[Chimurenga.]

Me and the comrades were making some placards for a protest last year. I wasn't in charge of spelling, but this is still pretty funny :-)

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs029.snc1/4294_103794429133_617774133_2689665_1815257_n.jpg

Avarkian, lol. This is great.

[x371322]

The petty bourgeoisie is larger than just small business owners and entrepreneurs. It also includes managers, independent producers (artists, farmers, other small business types, etc.), bureaucratic officials, the officers of the state (police, sheriffs, bailiffs, prison guards, military officers and NCOs, etc.) and independent professionals (doctors, lawyers, consultants, technicians, etc.). These other elements are the organizers and administrators that facilitate the extraction of surplus value; their skills and abilities to aid in the maximizing of this extraction and accumulation process for the bourgeoisie are their means of production. All sectors of the petty bourgeoisie own their means of production and utilize them to extract their own small-scale surplus value.

I agree with almost everything here. Almost. Not all "independent professionals" own any means of production. What about day laborers, tradesmen, etc. who sell their labor power on a job by job freelance basis? They're self employed, yet own nothing but their own labor power. Lets say, for example, I made my living by taking freelance PC repair jobs. (I don't, far from it, but I do actually do this on the side) Anyway, even though I'd be an "independent professional", and apparently not working class, I'd still be selling my labor power to make a living, just like every other worker, only on a job by job basis. Would I be allowed in your organization in this example?

Also, what about workers who work in a CoOp? They're self employed, and actually own their own means of production, so would they be written off as petty-bourgeois and rejected? And what about unionized workers who own stocks as part of their benefits package?

I confess I don't really see much difference between someone who paints a picture and sells it, and someone who sells their labor power. In both cases you've got someone selling something they posses to make a living. As long as they're not exploiting others, I don't see the problem, so why exclude them?

[Martin Blank]

I agree with almost everything here. Almost. Not all "independent professionals" own any means of production. What about day laborers, tradesmen, etc. who sell their labor power on a job by job freelance basis? They're self employed, yet own nothing but their own labor power. Lets say, for example, I made my living by taking freelance PC repair jobs. (I don't, far from it, but I do actually do this on the side) Anyway, even though I'd be an "independent professional", and apparently not working class, I'd still be selling my labor power to make a living, just like every other worker, only on a job by job basis. Would I be allowed in your organization in this example?

If this was your means of living, and not just a side job to make ends meet (i.e., not your primary social being), then you have a small business. Your tools and skills are your means of production and you extract surplus value by renting out access to your means of production on contract to your customers. Now, yes, the amount of surplus value you accumulate may be a pittance compared to that of Fortune 500 corporations, and your small business may operate on the margins of the economy (i.e., outside of business tax, incorporation and licensing laws), but the facts remain.

If you were in the working class for a lifetime and began this recently to survive, and generally as a temporary measure until you could find a real job, then your past social being would be enough to allow for membership. However, if this is what you've been doing since you entered the economy and took your place in the mode of production, then we would see you as a petty bourgeois; you could be a supporter, but not a member.


Also, what about workers who work in a CoOp? They're self employed, and actually own their own means of production, so would they be written off as petty-bourgeois and rejected? And what about unionized workers who own stocks as part of their benefits package?

The unionized worker who has had their pensions put into the stock market (which accounts for 99.9 percent of workers who "own stocks") do not hold any kind of ownership stake in anything. Most of the time, what they have is "non-voting stock", which is nothing more than a piece of paper that has a dollar amount attached to it -- a miniscule fraction of the corporation's assets. This is given in exchange for the money they would have otherwise received as part of their retirement pension. The form is different, but the content is essentially the same.

Co-op employees need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, IMO. Co-operatives range from those that are such in name only to those that should rightly be called venture-capital partnerships. The specific circumstances and relations within each need to be examined. (Incidentally, this is also why a blanket call in support of co-ops is unprincipled for communists. The term, under capitalism, has become too vague.)


I confess I don't really see much difference between someone who paints a picture and sells it, and someone who sells their labor power. In both cases you've got someone selling something they posses to make a living. As long as they're not exploiting others, I don't see the problem, so why exclude them?

It's the question of ownership. Communists seek to abolish private ownership of the means of production and distribution. Not just "big business" private ownership, but all private ownership of capital, including that capital owned by the petty bourgeoisie. An artist who sells their paintings is able to extract surplus value (profit) from what they produce, because they own their own means of production. A worker cannot extract surplus value from what they produce, because a worker does not own anything other than their labor-power (i.e., their ability to work and produce) and has to sell that labor-power for wages to someone who does own means of production.

Exploitation, being a form of extraction of surplus value for large-scale production, is not the line of demarcation for communists because it is merely the form. It is the extraction of surplus value (profit) that is the dividing line -- the class line.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So what exactly is the difference between, say the painter again, selling his commodity, for where he owns his means of production, & extracts surplus value, compared to an industry where the workers own the means of production & are going down the same line? Would surplus value still be created? And would they be similar?

[Martin Blank]

So what exactly is the difference between, say the painter again, selling his commodity, for where he owns his means of production, & extracts surplus value, compared to an industry where the workers own the means of production & are going down the same line? Would surplus value still be created? And would they be similar?

Before I answer this, can you clarify what you mean by "[and] are going down the same line"? Also, are you talking about a co-op when you say "an industry where the workers own the means of production", or an ESOP, or something else? In any event, let me know and I'll answer this when I return tomorrow.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Before I answer this, can you clarify what you mean by "[and] are going down the same line"? Also, are you talking about a co-op when you say "an industry where the workers own the means of production", or an ESOP, or something else? In any event, let me know and I'll answer this when I return tomorrow.

Co-op, & that was just a repeat of what I said before it lol, I'm tired. meaning the workers selling their commodities, in which they own the means of production. sorry bout that.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Nearly all working artists are proletarian. They are wage employees who do graphic design etc.

The number of people whose primary income comes from selling paintings at art galleries is vanishingly small. Double digits at best. And they usually depend on one or two major patrons, so the relations of production are basically feudal - like nuns or tenure-track professors.

[x371322]

If this was your means of living, and not just a side job to make ends meet (i.e., not your primary social being), then you have a small business. Your tools and skills are your means of production and you extract surplus value by renting out access to your means of production on contract to your customers. Now, yes, the amount of surplus value you accumulate may be a pittance compared to that of Fortune 500 corporations, and your small business may operate on the margins of the economy (i.e., outside of business tax, incorporation and licensing laws), but the facts remain.

But how is that any different than what the working class does? They also own "skills" after all. Not to mention that a lot of companies hire their workers on a contract basis. What about those workers? It seems to me that you're being so anal (for lack of a better word) about how you define the means of production. Let me say that as a computer nerd, you don't really need any tools. A screwdriver is all you need (and usually not even that these days). So now anyone who owns their own screwdriver and a little know-how is no longer working class? That's messed up.

If you asked me, I'd say anyone who genuinely works for a living, and does not exploit others, should be considered. Labor is labor, whether I'm selling it to a jerk of a boss, or doing it on my own.

I wish the WPA all the success in the world, I really do. But I think it's safe to say I'll pass on ideological grounds.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

(I'm not answering for Miles here, but simply providing an answer on my own.)

I hear this sort of thing a lot. It's fine and dandy to talk vaguely about class on the left, but once you start actually drawing class lines -- which show many that their family, friends and *gasp* even they don't belong to the proletariat -- you're told that you're being anal or pedantic, or that you're just plain wrong.

"What do you mean I'm not exploited?," I hear. "I work 50 hours a week in my store, and I barely make enough to pay the taxes and the bills!"

No one said self-employed workers don't work or anything like that. It's about position in society, which is determined by one's position in relation to the means of production, and class interests.

Small business owners have the tools and/or skills to make a living on their own. But their work often isn't glamorous or easy. The only way they can escape from this toil is to hire others to do the work for them. The petty bourgeois shop keeper moves forward by exploiting other people.

The working class does not own or control any means of production, and thus has no way to survive other than to sell their labor power to someone who does, for a wage. The only way workers can escape from this wage-slavery is to abolish property in the means of production (to transform it into something owned by no one, and use by everyone). The worker moves forward by eliminating all exploitation.

[x371322]

(I'm not answering for Miles here, but simply providing an answer on my own.).

But you didn't really answer my questions at all. I already understand everything you just explained, and I agree... But what about workers who work on a contract basis? Also, every worker has "skills" which according to Miles are to be considered means of production, (even though I thought "means of production" had to be something physical). So where do we draw the line? I just think the WPA will suffer as a result of policies like this. You have the right to deny certain groups into the party, don't get me wrong, I just believe you might be being a little too picky here. But maybe that's just me. *shrugs*

Also, on the point of accepting the aforementioned "petty bourgeois" example as a WPA supporter, but not a member? Personally I think that if you're willing to accept "petty bourgeois" money, then you should be willing to accept "petty bourgeois" members. (although to be fair I'm sure most other parties do

(to be clear, I don't make a living fixing computers. I'm simply unemployed, still living at home, and currently seeking a job, which right now is easier said than done :()

Anyway, good luck guys. I appreciate the discussion.

[bots]

So what's the WPA's stance on agorism?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's not as difficult as some try to make it.

1. Lots of people work on contract. They only belong to the working class if they neither own or control means of production, and thus have no way to survive other than selling their labor power to someone who does; being exploited in the process.

2. Everyone has "skills" of some type or another. The question is whether those skills and their situation allow them to make a living without having to sell their labor power to someone else.


Also, on the point of accepting the aforementioned "petty bourgeois" example as a WPA supporter, but not a member? Personally I think that if you're willing to accept "petty bourgeois" money, then you should be willing to accept "petty bourgeois" members.I believe the point is to not allow them any influence in the party, in line with what Engels said:

“It is an unavoidable phenomenon, well established in the course of development, that people from the ruling class also join the proletariat and supply it with educated elements. This we have already clearly stated in the Manifesto. Here, however, two remarks are to be made:

“First, such people, in order to be useful to the proletarian movement, must bring with them really educated elements…

“Second, when such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. …in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time.

“In any case, the time seems to have come.”

[The Vegan Marxist]

Workers in a capitalist system do not own their skills. Yes, they have the ability to show such skills, but they're not gathering the equal labor to such skills. The skills is being used by companies in order to reek profit, in which does not go to the worker. Which means, instead of the workers being the owners of the means of production, the bosses or company do.

[Martin Blank]

Prefatory Note: It was not my intention for this to become about the WPA's position on class when I posted my comments on the RCP's "New Synthesis". And as much as this discussion on class needs to happen among self-described socialists and communists, the phrase "there is a time and place for everything" keeps going through my head. This seems like neither the time nor the place for it. On the other hand, the WPA user group is the perfect place for it, and in there is all the time in the world. So, while I am going to answer the several comments made on what I've said so far in here, any follow-ups should be posted in the WPA group. (And, hey, there are other interesting articles you might want to comment on as well.)


So what exactly is the difference between, say the painter again, selling his commodity, for where he owns his means of production, & extracts surplus value, compared to an industry where the workers own the means of production & are going down the same line? Would surplus value still be created? And would they be similar?


Co-op, & that was just a repeat of what I said before it lol, I'm tired. meaning the workers selling their commodities, in which they own the means of production. sorry bout that.

In response to THC, I had said that co-ops need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. This is because the term has become so vague as to include almost every conceivable model of factory or shop. Some self-described co-ops, for example, are nothing of the sort. The extent of "ownership" is akin to the unionized worker holding stock certificates in place of their pensions; they have an "ownership stake" that effectively takes the place of a severance or pension, and they cannot convert it to money or other capital until they choose to retire or quit. These kinds of co-ops also have a class-based owner-manager-worker structure that is virtually indistinguishable from "traditional" capitalist enterprises.

On the other end, there are co-ops that are run more collectively, where the employees have ownership and control over all aspects of the production process, administration and management, etc. Personally (i.e., not speaking for the WPA, since we as a party have not made a formal decision on this -- it's a "cross that bridge when we come to it" discussion), I have a hard time seeing these co-op employees as workers per se, since they are partners in owning a small business.

As I said before, the fundamental dividing line among classes within the capitalist mode of production is the ability to extract surplus value from the production of commodities as a means of accumulating capital. These co-op partners, as owners of their means of production, can extract surplus value from their production of commodities and accumulate capital for themselves. The proletarian cannot; they can only sell their labor-power to a capitalist, who then uses that power to extract surplus value and accumulate capital for themselves.

[Martin Blank]

Nearly all working artists are proletarian. They are wage employees who do graphic design etc.

The number of people whose primary income comes from selling paintings at art galleries is vanishingly small. Double digits at best. And they usually depend on one or two major patrons, so the relations of production are basically feudal - like nuns or tenure-track professors.

For the most part, this is true. With the constant revolutionizing of productive forces -- from industrial to mass production to computerized -- many of the old professions have been proletarianized. Clerks, secretaries, tax preparers, accounts payable/receivable, general office workers, graphic designers, some categories of computer programmers, cooks, teachers, nurses, etc., have all been moved from the "independent professional" to the "skilled worker" category in the last century.

At the same time, some of the old proletarian occupations that were tossed aside in favor of more modern methods of production -- barrel making, woodworking (excluding millwright), smithing (tin and steel), leatherworking, etc. -- have become "boutique" occupations that more or less require one to start a small business in order to do it.

[Martin Blank]

But how is that any different than what the working class does? They also own "skills" after all. Not to mention that a lot of companies hire their workers on a contract basis. What about those workers? It seems to me that you're being so anal (for lack of a better word) about how you define the means of production. Let me say that as a computer nerd, you don't really need any tools. A screwdriver is all you need (and usually not even that these days). So now anyone who owns their own screwdriver and a little know-how is no longer working class? That's messed up.

That's not what I'm saying. It's not about simply owning your own screwdriver and having a little know-how, it's about having the ability to make a profit off of what you're doing. That's what extraction of surplus value means. A worker with their own tools going to work on a job for a wage is not able to make a profit for themselves. TVM actually nailed that one on the head: the worker bring the potential with them, but it is through the work-for-wages relationship they enter into with the capitalist that turns potential into a tangible process of extraction and accumulation. The petty professional, on the other hand, does not work for wages. They can set prices and make a profit (extract surplus value). That is the key difference here.


If you asked me, I'd say anyone who genuinely works for a living, and does not exploit others, should be considered. Labor is labor, whether I'm selling it to a jerk of a boss, or doing it on my own.

Then you're not really interested in abolishing private ownership in the means of production. You're only interested in abolishing the most exploitative and egregious elements. But small-scale capital accumulation -- small-scale profit making -- appears to be completely acceptable to you, as long as they are not "exploiting others". This is the petty-bourgeois radical viewpoint, and it is fundamentally incompatible with communism.


I wish the WPA all the success in the world, I really do. But I think it's safe to say I'll pass on ideological grounds.

I think the feeling is mutual, based on the above.


But you didn't really answer my questions at all. I already understand everything you just explained, and I agree... But what about workers who work on a contract basis? Also, every worker has "skills" which according to Miles are to be considered means of production, (even though I thought "means of production" had to be something physical). So where do we draw the line? I just think the WPA will suffer as a result of policies like this. You have the right to deny certain groups into the party, don't get me wrong, I just believe you might be being a little too picky here. But maybe that's just me. *shrugs*

Most workers who are considered "contract workers", like temporary workers, have no more control over what they receive from the capitalist they contract with than a "permanent" employee. They are as much "contract employees" (in the petty-bourgeois sense of the term: "independent contractors") as relatively privileged workers are part of the "middle class".


Also, on the point of accepting the aforementioned "petty bourgeois" example as a WPA supporter, but not a member? Personally I think that if you're willing to accept "petty bourgeois" money, then you should be willing to accept "petty bourgeois" members. (although to be fair I'm sure most other parties do)

Quid pro quo? No thanks. Besides, non-proletarians who sign up to be supporters of the Workers Party know in advance what they're getting into.

[Martin Blank]

Workers in a capitalist system do not own their skills. Yes, they have the ability to show such skills, but they're not gathering the equal labor to such skills. The skills is being used by companies in order to reek profit, in which does not go to the worker. Which means, instead of the workers being the owners of the means of production, the bosses or company do.

I'm glad TVM put this out there. This is something Marx repeatedly emphasizes in his manuscripts for and in the volumes of Capital: the difference between potential and actual ability. He saved me the trouble of having to explain it, so a thanks for that.

[Martin Blank]

So what's the WPA's stance on agorism?

No formal position is taken, but I think it's safe to say that we'd all oppose such anarcho-capitalist horseshit.

[The Vegan Marxist]

A thanks from Miles! Well, if I can't get a autograph by Marx, himself, this is good enough! :D

[Martin Blank]

A thanks from Miles! Well, if I can't get a autograph by Marx, himself, this is good enough! :D

If I keep getting responses like this, I'll have to start buying a second seat on the bus for my ego. :thumbup1:

[x371322]

Workers in a capitalist system do not own their skills. Yes, they have the ability to show such skills, but they're not gathering the equal labor to such skills. The skills is being used by companies in order to reek profit, in which does not go to the worker. Which means, instead of the workers being the owners of the means of production, the bosses or company do.

This clears things up a bit. Thanks.

[x371322]

Remember guys I'm still somewhat new to Communist thinking, only having been learning for the last year or so now. Hell, I've only recently started reading Capital. Just bare with me here... :)

[Robocommie]

My main concern though with the outright dismissal of the petit bourgeois is how it reflects on my own personal concerns. My grandfather was a hog farmer for most of his life. He owned a small farm, raised pigs and sold them at market - though some he slaughtered to be able to literally bring home the bacon. The thing is, technically speaking my grandfather owned the means of production, as he owned the livestock, he owned some farming equipment (which were practically museum pieces by the time I knew him) and some barns - though he never owned any land to actually grow crops on, and he always had to rent land if he was going to plant corn. But he was poor his whole life, and he worked very hard - in fact, so hard that his health was significantly affected later in life - just so that he could stay at that level of poverty he was at.

My grandfather was the last of a dying breed of American farmers - the exact same kind of people written about in The Grapes of Wrath. My mom always told me that my grandfather knew as early as the 1960s that the small farm would be crushed by large scale commercial farming, the big corporate run latifundia which drive the price of agricultural goods down and put small farmers out of work, while also abusing the land and exploiting hired hands. It was something he resisted his whole adult life, and it was only because he put so much of himself into his farm that he was able to until his health deteriorated till he was too sick to work.

I never considered my grandfather anything but working class, and I don't see why the fact that he owned a tractor and a truck which both dated from the 1950s, and a couple dozen hogs should invalidate his hardships from capitalism.

[Palingenisis]

My main concern though with the outright dismissal of the petit bourgeois is how it reflects on my own personal concerns. My grandfather was a hog farmer for most of his life. He owned a small farm, raised pigs and sold them at market - though some he slaughtered to be able to literally bring home the bacon. The thing is, technically speaking my grandfather owned the means of production, as he owned the livestock, he owned some farming equipment (which were practically museum pieces by the time I knew him) and some barns - though he never owned any land to actually grow crops on, and he always had to rent land if he was going to plant corn. But he was poor his whole life, and he worked very hard - in fact, so hard that his health was significantly affected later in life - just so that he could stay at that level of poverty he was at.

I never considered my grandfather anything but working class, and I don't see why the fact that he owned a tractor and a truck which both dated from the 1950s, and a couple dozen hogs should invalidate his hardships from capitalism.

I dont think that working farmers are "petit-bourgious" as such...They are in a catergory of their own.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

My main concern though with the outright dismissal of the petit bourgeois is how it reflects on my own personal concerns. My grandfather was a hog farmer for most of his life. He owned a small farm, raised pigs and sold them at market - though some he slaughtered to be able to literally bring home the bacon. The thing is, technically speaking my grandfather owned the means of production, as he owned the livestock, he owned some farming equipment (which were practically museum pieces by the time I knew him) and some barns - though he never owned any land to actually grow crops on, and he always had to rent land if he was going to plant corn. But he was poor his whole life, and he worked very hard - in fact, so hard that his health was significantly affected later in life - just so that he could stay at that level of poverty he was at.

I never considered my grandfather anything but working class, and I don't see why the fact that he owned a tractor and a truck which both dated from the 1950s, and a couple dozen hogs should invalidate his hardships from capitalism.

That's a common problem among leftists.. a "What about me and mine?" moment.

No one said he didn't go through hardships. Many self employed people do.

The point is that they don't belong to the proletariat, which because of its unique position in society, is the only truly revolutionary class today, i.e. the only class which can eliminate property in the means of production.

See this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1768089&postcount=83).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Remember guys I'm still somewhat new to Communist thinking, only having been learning for the last year or so now. Hell, I've only recently started reading Capital. Just bare with me here... :)

It should be coming in clear in a few months. I've known about Communism for a year now too. Just a bit more actually, but not long.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Hate to jump on the bandwagon, but the RCP really do have problems. I will try to participate in the 'web-a-thon' because it may be interesting, and there are some great sides to the RCP like their bookstores seem cool, however these problems must be addressed.
The 'New Synthesis' is impossible to grasp (this is why no members are able to explain it), because it is really just a load of vague musings with no concrete ideas.. The works of Avakian are alright, but a large part of them is just him going "these are some real contradictions we need to grapple with" and so on. Coupled with all this painfully vague 'elasticity' is the adherence to a deformed postmaoish dogmatism, with the cult of the useless leader aswell as complete rejection of 'revisionist' Cuba, DPRK, and notably the Nepali Maoists. They are all capitalists apparently. It's terrible that they have just refused to publish a word on the Nepal Maoists since they fell out with them.

So yeah, there are 2 things that make the RCP bad -

1. An vague assertion of the need to be 'fresh' but with no clear idea of how.
2. A dogmatic clinging to Avakian as a great leader despite his having no real groundbreaking ideas, and a rejection of all socialists who dont agree with them/him.

These 2 problems combine to form a party that will never connect with the working class because it is just weird.

As the most reasonable Marxist - Leninist - Kim lover type on these boards, I have to ask: aren't you a little freaked out by the RCPs tenancy to make billboards with Avarkians face on them?

[RED DAVE]

A ll we need to know:


so you have this highly socialized production but, as marx pointed out, very acutely in contradiction to that, you have private appropriation of what is socially produced. In other words, let's say you are working as a farmworker. Your family is hungry, living in a shack -- and this is not any exaggeration. Or maybe your family is in mexico and you are living in a shack with fourteen other people -- and, again, i am not exaggerating -- working, picking vegetables or fruits in the san joaquin valley of california, a rich, fertile, agricultural area. But you are working for corporations, or you are working for farmers who are beholden to corporations, who are in debt to corporations for all the equipment and everything else, and ultimately you are working for that corporation in a real sense. You can be hungry or thirsty, but you can't take that fruit and eat it, or drink the juice out of it, squeeze the juice out of it and drink it. No, that doesn't belong to you. You are working with others to pick all this fruit, others have planted it, and others are using machinery to prepare the ground for it, and then perhaps others use machinery to pick it -- that's also an innovation of the last few decades -- and it goes to someplace else and then you have to get whatever little meager wage you get and go over to some other place owned by some other capitalist to buy the food that you might have literally picked. But it doesn't matter whether you picked it or somebody else did. It all goes into the wealth that is accumulated by a small class of capitalists.RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

Gay porn still turns people into objects.

I am an object. I exist independently of other people and not simply in someone's mind.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I've been pretty busy the last several days, so I'm just now catching up on this thread. Sorry about the long interlude!

Anyhow, I'll just address a couple subjects:

ON THE UCPN(M):

First of all, as I've written on many times now, as far as I'm concerned the UCPN(M) is a revisionist organization at this point. It may be beyond hope now in terms of getting back on the revolutionary road. If to you being "genuinely internationalist" means that I must support what's transparently reformism, then I don't think you're serious. I've discussed this already on my blog, on the Maoist forum, and on more than one thread in the Nepal forum.

ON THE WOMAN QUESTION:

Simply pointing out the yes real advancements that women were able to make in socialist societies in the past doesn't mean there weren't any shortcomings. I was simply pointing out a historical area of shortcoming that BA has synthesized correctly and immediately everyone attacked me for it. That's the record. So let's keep that straight.

What I referred to were the views historically put forward regarding the need for women to reproduce the next generation in great measure after WW2 for example, and the whole idea that was widely circulated under Stalin at the time for example that it was just "natural" for women to want to be mothers. You can understand why this happened in context (they'd just lost like 10 or 20 percent of the population in the war!), but it was still really a patriarchal outlook nonetheless. Some of this was also continued under Mao in China. Just so we're perfectly clear on what I was speaking to.

On pornography, I think it's worth drawing a distinction between pornography, which is a word that refers to the portrayal of harlotry or some other exploitative relationship, and eroticism on the other, which refers to a love-based relationship. I could've predicted that I'd get branded a prude the instant I brought up the woman question. That's the usual pattern when it comes to the opponents of women's lib. Hilariously, on another thread, I was recently instead branded a liberal advocate of casual sex for writing this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=978) on my blog. Make up your minds folks: which is it?! ;)

Anyhow, OF COURSE I'm not opposed to portrayals of people in sexual embraces per se. But pornography (as I've just defined it, that is), however, is something entirely opposed to everything communist revolution is about. My strong suspicion is that, with regard to most people here, our difference on this issue is mainly a difference of labeling. What you would call "good porn" is what I might instead call eroticism, which I differentiate from pornography.

[S.Artesian]

Alright, well as the sinister RCP supporter here, I think some clarification is necessary.

First of all, "solid core with a lot of elasticity" does not mean simply democratic centralism. The RCP aims to build a party of a new type. I'd emphasize "a lot" in that formulation, meaning that it goes beyond just discipline and inner-party democracy, but rather aims to also institutionalize mass criticism and input and such right into the framework of how the party functions in a new and correct way yet to be discovered, without sacrificing the discipline and the democracy of democratic centralism. And yes it's also an appropriate analogy for the whole new way we aim to construct socialism and make revolution: in a way that is yes proletarian, but which also relates much more positively to intellectuals namely, as part of that. For example, BA has described the aim of having both yes official news accounts and also providing space for dissenting, even non-socialist views on the airwaves; subsidizing programs sort of like Democracy Now. This is in recognition of the fact that even more reactionary elements can have valuable nuggets of truth that we need to be digging into and not just rejecting out of hand because of the source, as there's been a tendency for the communist movement to do in the past. Just so you can get a clearer idea of what this means. It's an expansion on the concept of the Cultural Revolution that recognizes Chiang Ching's role in crafting model revolutionary works of art for example as immensely positive and ground-breaking, but also one-sided. We aim to bring a fully dialectical approach to this so that we can better get to the truth of things and, as a result, develop our science more correctly in an ongoing way.

The RCP also supports, in connection to the international question that's been brought up, the building of a real international and the understanding that the international arena is key and should be the direction in which the thrust of our efforts in a socialist society should go (without, of course, just building a Trotskyist permanent war economy dependent on foreign bailouts). As in we in a socialist society, need to focus on supporting revolutionaries abroad to a qualitatively greater degree than in the past. And it also means we need to break with this whole patriotism thing that's been part of the communist movement for far too long now.

But BA has also made other major breakthroughs. One of the most important to me has been in relation to the woman question and namely the recognition that the past positions of the communist movement supporting a more traditional, patriarchal outlook toward women as breeders of children...that that needs to be ruptured with, and without lapsing into liberalism like so many other 'communist parties' have and embracing shit like pornography and other 'modern' forms of degradation of women.

These are just some of the elements to the new synthesis. BA has also done a lot more work, including developing a new revolutionary strategy for making revolution in imperialist countries like the United States. So those are just a few of the elements that can be distinguished from classical Maoism.


Well, if BA has done all that, does anybody else in the RCP do anything? Does everybody just live off and take direction from the chemical scents secreted from BA as if he were the QA [Queen Ant]?

Is there anybody else in the RCP who has ever had a breakthrough-- other than a personal one?

Is there any party activity that amounts collectively to any "breakthrough"?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Well, if BA has done all that, does anybody else in the RCP do anything? Does everybody just live off and take direction from the chemical scents secreted from BA as if he were the QA [Queen Ant]?

Is there anybody else in the RCP who has ever had a breakthrough-- other than a personal one?

Is there any party activity that amounts collectively to any "breakthrough"?

RCP most def. chose the wrong guy for a personality cult. Should have gone for Carl Dix.

http://rwor.org/a/carldix/wall2.jpg

I'd have no objection to wearing this guy's t-shirt.

[S.Artesian]

RCP most def. chose the wrong guy for a personality cult. Should have gone for Carl Dix.

http://rwor.org/a/carldix/wall2.jpg

I'd have no objection to wearing this guy's t-shirt.


The only T shirt I'll wear indicating my particular political allegiance is the one that says:

I'm With Stupid and has the arrow pointing straight up at my chin.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well today's the day for the fundraising web-a-thon at revcom.us (http://www.revcom.us/), folks. Some info on today's broadcast schedule can be found here (http://revolutiononthemapwebcast.blogspot.com/). If you're not already a part of this, be sure to tune in!

On Ts: Yeah, people wear Ts of the progressive-minded people that inspire them all the time, probably including a lot of you folks. You see Noam Chomsky Ts, Che Ts, Mao Ts, etc. So I really don't see what the big ordeal is against Bob Avakian Ts.

On what RCP people do: As I've shared elsewhere, we're presently working to save the Gulf (http://www.revleft.com/vb/help-us-save-t137214/index.html?t=137214), resolve a case of police murder in Detroit, and gearing up for the U.S. Social Forum being held in Detroit in couple days, among other things. Today's web-a-thon, in fact, will discuss a lot of these efforts to kick the revolutionary movement we're building into high gear.

[Chimurenga.]

On Ts: Yeah, people wear Ts of the progressive-minded people that inspire them all the time, probably including a lot of you folks. You see Noam Chomsky Ts, Che Ts, Mao Ts, etc. So I really don't see what the big ordeal is against Bob Avakian Ts.

Lets see, Che and Mao led actual revolutions. Noam Chomsky is one of the best American intellectuals on the Left in the past hundred years. Bob Avakian has lived in "exile" in France for almost thirty years and is, in turn, divorced from the people in his party. He has not led any revolution. He is certainly not an intellectual. Bob Avakian has virtually done nothing.

That said, I'll be checking this out at some point today.

[redwinter]

Lets see, Che and Mao led actual revolutions. Noam Chomsky is one of the best American intellectuals on the Left in the past hundred years. Bob Avakian has lived in "exile" in France for almost thirty years and is, in turn, divorced from the people in his party. He has not led any revolution. He is certainly not an intellectual. Bob Avakian has virtually done nothing.

That said, I'll be checking this out at some point today.

So you are upholding Mao, Che and Noam Chomsky t-shirts because you think their politics are ok, but you disagree with Avakian so it's not cool if people wear his picture on a shirt (though it seems you've never read any of his works, yet feel qualified to make idiotic statements like "he is certainly not an intellectual").

Also if you think Chomsky is "one of the best American intellectuals on the Left in the past hundred years," I want nothing to do with your "Left": you can keep voting Democrat every election and supporting reformist imperialist politicians while denouncing every socialist revolution in history. I mean seriously, if you claim to be revolutionary there should be a clear dividing line and your politics should be a lot closer to Bob Avakian's than Noam Chomsky's, no matter even if you're an anarchist (or even a clueless PSL supporter like proletarianrevolution who apparently doesn't know anything about his own group's line).

Also, for those who think the RCP "doesn't do anything," I don't know what you're smoking but it's gotta be what's messing up your ability to think rationally. Right now as we speak, they are leading three major political interventions on the Gulf Coast (the Gulf Emergency coalition hosting yesterday an emergency summit in New Orleans with activists, scientists, and local workers and businesspeople), in Detroit (organizing in the oppressed communities in the wake of the police murder of a 7-year-old girl there, as well as bringing together oppressed masses and activists during the USSF, putting up billboards in downtown Detroit), and in Arizona (organizing against the Nazi-style immigration laws, and building a political base there). In addition they are in the midst of a campaign, and just finished getting out about 200,000 flyers in ten days around the country (see here: http://revcom.us/campaign/index.html) -- pretty good that a group can blanket three major cities (NY, LA, and SF bay area) alone with 40,000 flyers each in a little over a week, plus ten other major cities with at least a few thousand...

Again, is this "not doing anything," right now, on some key political faultlines of society? Who is doing anything remotely similar to this, on this scale and with this revolutionary message? And if you support this revolutionary movement, what would be wrong with promoting the person leading it, Bob Avakian?

The opposition to BA is a question of line -- you might disagree with what he says, or some leftist sectarian from another trend talks some shit about him that you never bother to investigate for yourself. But I've never seen really anyone, even anarchists, seriously and equally reject promoting anyone as a leader or having a t-shirt with their picture (even of Subcomandante Marcos which I saw someone had on a shirt at a bar last night). We could say a lot of negative things about him, or Obama, or Nader, Che, Chomsky, whatever -- but I've never heard people say "it's bad to have t-shirts with people on them" as general principle.

It's particularly dishonest and just straight-up sectarian bullshit that some on the left will talk so much shit about Avakian shirts as "cultish," all the while wearing a Che shirt (and for some of them, an Obama pin). Just drop it, I'd be much more interested in hearing real political criticisms if they are substantive at all.

[RED DAVE]

Also, for those who think the RCP "doesn't do anything," I don't know what you're smoking but it's gotta be what's messing up your ability to think rationally.Let's see what this revolutionary organization of the working class is doing.


Right now as we speak, they are leading three major political interventions on the Gulf Coast (the Gulf Emergency coalition hosting yesterday an emergency summit in New Orleans with activists, scientists, and local workers and businesspeople)(1) Activists, (2) scientists, (3) local workers and (4) businesspeople. Kind of says it all about the petit-bourgeois orientation of the RCP. Number 3 for the workers. Not cool for Marxists.


in Detroit (organizing in the oppressed communities in the wake of the police murder of a 7-year-old girl there, as well as bringing together oppressed masses and activists during the USSF, putting up billboards in downtown Detroit)Unemployment in Detroit is about as high as in Gaza and this is what the RCP organizes about.


and in Arizona (organizing against the Nazi-style immigration laws, and building a political base there).In which unions or workplaces are you "building a political base"?


In addition they are in the midst of a campaign, and just finished getting out about 200,000 flyers in ten days around the country (see here: http://revcom.us/campaign/index.html) -- pretty good that a group can blanket three major cities (NY, LA, and SF bay area) alone with 40,000 flyers each in a little over a week, plus ten other major cities with at least a few thousand...Population figures: New York, 9 million, LA 4 million, Bay Area 7 million. Total: 20 million. RCP leaflets: 200 thousand. So, one leaflet for each 100 people. That's a mighty thin blanket, Comrade.


Again, is this "not doing anything," right now, on some key political faultlines of society?What about the major faultline according Marxists: the class faultline. Not much being done there.


Who is doing anything remotely similar to this, on this scale and with this revolutionary message?Considering the petit-bourgeois nature of these actions, probably no one.


And if you support this revolutionary movement, what would be wrong with promoting the person leading it, Bob Avakian?Because it's cultish and immature.


The opposition to BA is a question of line -- you might disagree with what he says, or some leftist sectarian from another trend talks some shit about him that you never bother to investigate for yourself.It's mostly line. His politics are about as dumb as his cult.


But I've never seen really anyone, even anarchists, seriously and equally reject promoting anyone as a leader or having a t-shirt with their picture (even of Subcomandante Marcos which I saw someone had on a shirt at a bar last night).Watch the posts. You'll see all the rejection you want.


We could say a lot of negative things about him, or Obama, or Nader, Che, Chomsky, whatever -- but I've never heard people say "it's bad to have t-shirts with people on them" as general principle.As a general principle, it's bad to have a t-shirt with the picture of the obscure leader of a tiny political sect on it.


It's particularly dishonest and just straight-up sectarian bullshit that some on the left will talk so much shit about Avakian shirts as "cultish," all the while wearing a Che shirt (and for some of them, an Obama pin). Just drop it, I'd be much more interested in hearing real political criticisms if they are substantive at all.Make sure to wear your t-shirt while you blanket some more cities.

RED DAVE

[Wanted Man]

So you are upholding Mao, Che and Noam Chomsky t-shirts because you think their politics are ok, but you disagree with Avakian so it's not cool if people wear his picture on a shirt (though it seems you've never read any of his works, yet feel qualified to make idiotic statements like "he is certainly not an intellectual").

Absolutely, a Chomsky shirt is about as dumb as an Avakian one. Of course, there is a major difference. As far as I know, there are no US organisations using Chomsky shirts for the purpose of "promotion and popularisation" of Chomsky as the only man qualified to lead the way to socialism. Even if they existed, they would probably not make bold claims like, "The leadership is already there, but the masses are failing to follow him", or "The dividing line between being a communist and revisionist is the question of whether you accept Chomsky's leadership."

I've honestly never seen a t-shirt with Chomsky on it, by the way, but if some idiot liberal wants to do that, what can anyone do about it? Even if I cared, he doesn't post on Revleft claiming to be a "revolutionary", so I can't contact him and object to him. On the other hand, the RCP are using the shirts to actively organise the ludicrous worship of a man who has nothing to add. There are a few RCP supporters here, so I can identify and object to them.

Anyway, it's nice to hear that you're doing a lot, but revisionists like the CPUSA can probably also boast that they are "building a political base" in trade unions with thousands of flyers P&Ping for Obama. Also, since you guys are the ones working your asses off with flyers while BA sips champagne, why don't you wear a t-shirt with your own picture on it? You seem to attach more importance to these token activities than to class struggle, so you might as well.

[Robocommie]

Absolutely, a Chomsky shirt is about as dumb as an Avakian one. Of course, there is a major difference. As far as I know, there are no US organisations using Chomsky shirts for the purpose of "promotion and popularisation" of Chomsky as the only man qualified to lead the way to socialism. Even if they existed, they would probably not make bold claims like, "The leadership is already there, but the masses are failing to follow him", or "The dividing line between being a communist and revisionist is the question of whether you accept Chomsky's leadership."

I mean frankly, based on what I know about Chomsky and how he comes off to me, he doesn't seem like someone who would WANT to lead.

[S.Artesian]

/l\
l
l
I'm With Stupid

[Chimurenga.]

So you are upholding Mao, Che and Noam Chomsky t-shirts because you think their politics are ok, but you disagree with Avakian so it's not cool if people wear his picture on a shirt (though it seems you've never read any of his works, yet feel qualified to make idiotic statements like "he is certainly not an intellectual").

I don't give a shit if people wear a shirt with Bob Avakian's face on it. People still wear Ronald Reagan shirts. It has nothing to do with me and I pay little to no attention to it.


Also if you think Chomsky is "one of the best American intellectuals on the Left in the past hundred years," I want nothing to do with your "Left": you can keep voting Democrat every election and supporting reformist imperialist politicians while denouncing every socialist revolution in history.

Name a more influential writer/speaker/thinker in the US in the past one hundred years that is a supposed "Leftist". I can guarantee you that you cannot. Chomsky's personal politics I don't agree with. I really don't know why you would assume that I blindly follow everything he says. I can, however, tell that you will blindly follow whatever "Chairman Bob" has to say.



I mean seriously, if you claim to be revolutionary there should be a clear dividing line and your politics should be a lot closer to Bob Avakian's than Noam Chomsky's, no matter even if you're an anarchist (or even a clueless PSL supporter like proletarianrevolution who apparently doesn't know anything about his own group's line).

My tendency, I think it says clearly enough, that you conveniently disregarded says "LENINIST". Just because I recognize that Chomsky is incredibly influential, doesn't mean I am an Anarchist. "Clueless PSL supporter". LOL.. says the Avakianite.


Also, for those who think the RCP "doesn't do anything,"

When did I EVER say that the RCP, in general, does nothing. I simply said (and I really stress simply) "Bob Avakian has done nothing". If I'm wrong, what has he done? He leads a party while he is in another continent. Like I said, he is completely divorced from the members of his party. I never said that the RCP doesn't do anything. For example, I acknowledge that Sunsara Taylor, Carl Dix, and Raymond Lotta, are always doing speaking engagements. You have taken me completely out of context on almost ever argument.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most workers who are considered "contract workers", like temporary workers, have no more control over what they receive from the capitalist they contract with than a "permanent" employee. They are as much "contract employees" (in the petty-bourgeois sense of the term: "independent contractors") as relatively privileged workers are part of the "middle class".

This is most obvious in the tax treatment of "contract workers"; faux "self-employed" folks aren't entitled to the usual tax deductions enjoyed by the self-employed or the small-business petit-bourgeoisie.


I dont think that working farmers are "petit-bourgious" as such...They are in a catergory of their own.

Farm workers toiling in industrial farms and such are proletarians proper.

[S.Artesian]

This is most obvious in the tax treatment of "contract workers"; faux "self-employed" folks aren't entitled to the usual tax deductions enjoyed by the self-employed or the small-business petit-bourgeoisie.



Farm workers toiling in industrial farms and such are proletarians proper.


There's a big difference between "working farmers" and farm workers. The latter sells his labor to the former.

[Chimurenga.]

What would be on said billboard that they are trying to put up?

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's a big difference between "working farmers" and farm workers. The latter sells his labor to the former.

Of course. My apologies for not fully reading the quote Palin responded to.

[Adi Shankara]

Well I can, but why not simply read the manifesto for yourself? I've already linked to it after all.


Okay, I read everything your website had to offer, and I can only come to one conclusion:

it smells like a cult, and he seems to use failed Authoritarian Pol Pot as his role model.

okay, any revolutionary idea that builds so heavily around the personality of a single individual, propogated by that very same individual (like Mao, for example) is a cult to me. Bob Avakian is self promoting, and reminds me of Pol Pot more than anything, who himself was a Maoist, and who called himself "Angkar" and thought he and the Khmer Rouge Party were one in the same thing. They are not (or at least, weren't supposed to be). the Angkar was meant to be the people of Cambodia; Pol Pot was supposed to be chairman of the vanguard. both turned out badly, and I see Avakian uses them as a role model.


Also concerning, and drawing correlation with Pol Pot, is the fact that he quotes himself as completely original; no where can I see him give credit to Marxist predecessors, strictly, himself. he only gives himself credit for ideas that Marx, Trotsky, Bakunin, Engels, Mao, and Luxemburg have discussed ad nauseum for the last 160 or so years.

also concerning and correlating to Pol Pot (I keep seeing similarities, does anyone else?) is the fact that he keeps himself and details regarding his life a mystery; there are almost no photos of him, and the ones that do exist, look like staged publicity stunts; god pray that he never gains the following "Brother no. 1" did.

[Adi Shankara]

Also of note, your "party preamble" is nothing more than old Marxian ideas spliced together with different vocabulary:

"All previous states have served the extension and defense of relations of exploitation; they have enforced the domination of exploiting classes, and have fortified themselves against any fundamental changes in these relations. The dictatorship of the proletariat, by contrast, aims at the eventual abolition of the state itself, with the abolition of class distinctions and all antagonistic social relations leading to exploitation, oppression, and the constant regeneration of destructive conflicts among people. And, in order to continue advancing toward that objective, the dictatorship of the proletariat must increasingly draw the masses of people, from many different sections of society, into meaningful involvement in the process of running society and carrying forward the advance toward the ultimate goal of communism throughout the world."

Now I'm not going to go through the trouble of finding the corresponding quotes, as I hope all true communists/socialists know these by heart. but see what I mean? he is crediting himself with ideas that have existed for longer than before his grandmother was even born; not cool :mad:

[Adi Shankara]

an old Khmer war song I found, worshiping Angkar (Pol Pot): I just replaced the word "Angkar" with "Bob Avakian" and you get the idea: :laugh:


After one thousand years4[4] the mighty Nation has now liberated the people held in
darkness…5[5]men and women have been liberated completely.
Because the revolutionary Bob Avakian is robust, it has led us to persevere together
to fight against the evil capitalist regime.
To indoctrinate the ideology of great revolution; the political consciousness of Bob Avakian
strategy; with sturdy hands in every respect.
Revolutionary Bob Avakian understands and knows clearly the friend and enemy; knows good
and bad, knows wrong and right; revolution reveals the great prosperous road.
Furthermore, Bob Avakian has torched the blazing hot fire6[6] in which to battle, to fight the
capitalists until it collapses; its servants big and small are to be destroyed completely.
The successful fallen year7[7] is continued by Bob Avakian; to indoctrinate and solidify; the
revolution is prepared to fight.
Be careful, do not be careless, you must be precise; support the working class; everyone
must be committed forever.
Bob Avakian raises…self reliance is good in every respect; self supporting self and the people; our
high honor is above servant status.
The economic road is developed successfully for double effectiveness; an agricultural
foundation is thoroughly successful, abundant fish and fish products build a new
Revolutionary society.
The road of revolutionary Bob Avakian has a glorious light; it liberated us to a bright road and
sacrificed lives for…
The youth are committed forever to following the people’s leader, Bob Avakian; in the successful
direction of revolution.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Oh aren't you clever, Mr. Thomas, you whose signature quotes the Bible and yet claims that I am a dogmatic follower. Neither does your ability to slander Pol Pot and edit historical songs so they (allegedly) mock Bob Avakian even come close to the making of a serious argument. It just shows you're childish and petty. I don't mind telling you that I once associated myself with the Socialist Equality Party (more than two years ago now), but left for elsewhere as a direct result of the kind of immaturity displayed in your above comments.

I've already pointed out on this thread (I believe on page 3) several of the ways in which the new synthesis is, in fact, distinct. You might consider those points. Or actually try reading over the manifesto without determining your conclusions in advance.

[Adi Shankara]

Oh aren't you clever, Mr. Thomas, you whose signature quotes the Bible and yet claims that I am a dogmatic follower. Neither does your ability to slander Pol Pot and edit historical songs so they (allegedly) mock Bob Avakian even come close to the making of a serious argument. It just shows you're childish and petty. I don't mind telling you that I once associated myself with the Socialist Equality Party (more than two years ago now), but left for elsewhere as a direct result of the kind of immaturity displayed in your above comments.

I've already pointed out on this thread (I believe on page 3) several of the ways in which the new synthesis is, in fact, distinct. You might consider those points. Or actually try reading over the manifesto without determining your conclusions in advance.

1.) I'm not a Christian, I just liked the quote because it's one of the few qutoes I can find myself enjoying from the bible

2.) pretty much, Pol Pot deserves to be seen as a monster. there is no "slander". it's pretty 100% clear that he killed innocent farmers and peasants and accused them of being counter-revolutionaries, when they were just starving proletariat. if Bob Avakian uses him as a role model, that's disgusting.


3.) wow, you sure do take it personally, don't you? I never met someone who wasn't in a cult defend someone so...viciously? wow.

4.) I can sum up Sankara thought and Trotskyism up for you very briefly...can you sum up this "New Synthesis" for me?

[Wanted Man]

Thomas, I hate to be annoying here, but a lot of criticisms of the RCP can also be made of SEPtic. I guess one difference is that you guys don't have shirts with David North/Green on them. Why not? Lord knows, he can afford it.

[Martin Blank]

Thomas, I hate to be annoying here, but a lot of criticisms of the RCP can also be made of SEPtic. I guess one difference is that you guys don't have shirts with David North/Green on them. Why not? Lord knows, he can afford it.

Because you can't put a decent-sized image on either a dress shirt or silk necktie, and corduroy sport-coats don't take screen printing too well.

[bailey_187]

also concerning and correlating to Pol Pot (I keep seeing similarities, does anyone else?) is the fact that he keeps himself and details regarding his life a mystery

Er....he wrote a fucking autobiography.



there are almost no photos of him, and the ones that do exist, look like staged publicity stunts; god pray that he never gains the following "Brother no. 1" did.

What, so you want more "natural" pictures (why do we even need Bob Avakian pics?), like Avakian sitting at a desk writing pretending not to notice the camera, or discretly sitting in a cafe in Paris? wtf?

[scarletghoul]

This discussion doesn't interest me too much, but I just have to correct this bullshit regarding the Khmer Rouge. No doubt I'll be accused of 'defending Pol Pot' by certain people on here, but I am just correcting mistaken facts. It's important to understand the objective truth before you make these strange remarks.


Okay, I read everything your website had to offer, and I can only come to one conclusion:

it smells like a cult, and he seems to use failed Authoritarian Pol Pot as his role model.
What do you mean by 'Authoritarian' ? Every revolution is 'authoritarian' is it not ? How else does the revolutionary class seize and consolidate power ? Lenin was highly 'authoritarian'; why not compare Avakian to Lenin ??


okay, any revolutionary idea that builds so heavily around the personality of a single individual, propogated by that very same individual (like Mao, for example) is a cult to me. I, and most others here, agree that the personality cult is not good, and it's something I dislike about Mao and Stalin (though Stalin certainly disapproved of his cult. it was not his own idea). However, to completely discard every idea and theory that someone has to offer, just because of some personality cult, is stupid. Maoism does not 'build so heavily around the personality' of Mao, it's built around the ideas and experience of Mao,, the cult of personalty was really a side effect.

Though I'm not a big fan of Avakian, and think the RCP's approach about him is silly and alienating, everyone must recognise that Avakian does have some ideas and that there is more to the RCP than the Avakian cult.


Bob Avakian is self promoting, and reminds me of Pol Pot more than anything, who himself was a Maoist, Err, not reallllyy... He was certainly influenced a lot by Mao in terms of Peoples' War and allied with him against Vietnam/USSR. Oh and the Khmer Rouge clothing was like the Maoist fashion but with a stylish Khmer twist. But they certainly were not Maoist. Their documents talk about Marxism-Leninism but not Mao Zedong Thought. Just about every revolutionary communist movement in post-war Asia is influenced by Maoism, that doesn't make them Maoist.


and who called himself "Angkar" and thought he and the Khmer Rouge Party were one in the same thing. What ? This is complete crap. Pol Pot didn't call himself Angkar. Angkar was the name given to the ruling authority of the Khmer Rouge regime. Its meaning was vague but meant something like 'the Organisation' and orders were given collectively by the Khmer Rouge leaders under the name of Angkar. It did not refer to any one person, but the general Khmer authority.

It operated quite secretively and the name 'Pol Pot' did not actually become known to most Khmers for over a year after he took power. Until then he was known publically as just 'Brother Number 1'. This was not an 'orwellian' name, rather it was part of a numerated system by which the Communist Party ranked its top officials. Brother Number 1 was not at all synonymous with Angkar, and he did not become known as Pol Pot until later. The Pol Pot personality cult did not emerge until later still. Pol really didn't like the idea of a personality cult, or even the idea of his personality being known at all. He always preferred secretive, anonymous style organisation. However he was persuaded to attempt the cult as a method of keeping the country together under a unifying leader. But this was only really during the last part of the Khmer Rouge rule.

And there's no such thing as the the ' Khmer Rouge Party '


Pol Pot was supposed to be chairman of the vanguard.Actually he was General Secretary.


both turned out badly, and I see Avakian uses them as a role model.There's a massive differance between the two, even in just narrow terms of personality cult. Pol Pot only attempted a personality cult towards the end; until then he was thoroughly secretive and anonymous, using about a million psuedonames not being known to people even when ruling Kampuchea for a year. Avakian on the other hand has a cult around him before even coming anywhere close to power. This is a big differance.


also concerning and correlating to Pol Pot (I keep seeing similarities, does anyone else?)No, this is really lame.

is the fact that he keeps himself and details regarding his life a mystery; there are almost no photos of him, and the ones that do exist, look like staged publicity stunts; god pray that he never gains the following "Brother no. 1" did.Avakian has written an autobiography. I found it quite boring but it exists nonetheless. He's nowhere near as secretive as Pol Pot.

These are really strained and weak attempts to draw similarities where they do not exist. We should debate Avakian as Avakian and on his own merits or demerits, not try to compare him to the most evil 'failed authoritarian' you can think of

[Adi Shankara]

Er....he wrote a fucking autobiography.

Exactly. he wrote an autobiography--considering his track record for honesty (almost non-existent) and his predisposition to self promotion, why should anything he says be believed? What purpose does he have for a biography if he accomplished nothing but created some Kim-Il-Sungesque sounding "Revolutionary New Synthesis Thought"? not even Che had an autobiography...and he was a REAL revolutionary.




What, so you want more "natural" pictures (why do we even need Bob Avakian pics?), like Avakian sitting at a desk writing pretending not to notice the camera, or discretly sitting in a cafe in Paris? wtf?

How about a picture of him just being normal? such pictures exist of Trotsky, Marx, Che, Castro, Sankara, Ortega, Ho, etc...it's only when you get some despotic authoritarian when you get these publicity photos where they're surrounded by smiling children as Avakian teaches them the gospel according to Avakian...only despots like Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, and Stalin etc. do things like that.

I'll tell you what it is though; it's a man who is desperately afraid of having someone see him as "normal", because he knows his highly controlled image is all he has going for him; without that, without the romantic mystique of "exiled revolutionary", he is just another average American with too much time on his hands, with little to no substance in a track record (still waiting for that revolution he promised).

if his image is gone; Avakian will be revealed for the fraud he is to his most ardent and loyal supporters. Thus, he creates this image of secrecy meant to bolster his image of a revolutionary, when in fact, it's not that hard to go into self imposed exile--I do it every summer vacation from school ;D

[Adi Shankara]

Thomas, I hate to be annoying here, but a lot of criticisms of the RCP can also be made of SEPtic. I guess one difference is that you guys don't have shirts with David North/Green on them. Why not? Lord knows, he can afford it.

I'm only loosely associated with the Socialist Equality Party as far as it's community action is concerned, otherwise, I think they make a very loose interpretation on Trotsky--however, I'm still in the learning process, and the more I learn about Thomas Sankara, the more I feel like I want to disown the label of "Trotskyist" completely and just declare myself non-secretarian (seeing as no one else really has come close to capturing the essence of Sankara's beliefs).

[S.Artesian]

Exactly how does one slander Pol Pot? That there's even that possibility boggles the mind.

I mean if somebody says "Pol Pot dined on the intestines and brains of Cambodian people" does that amount to a slander.... or an understatement?

[Adi Shankara]

This discussion doesn't interest me too much, but I just have to correct this bullshit regarding the Khmer Rouge. No doubt I'll be accused of 'defending Pol Pot' by certain people on here, but I am just correcting mistaken facts. It's important to understand the objective truth before you make these strange remarks.

I understand that, nor do I think you are trying to defend Pol Pot.


What do you mean by 'Authoritarian' ? Every revolution is 'authoritarian' is it not ? How else does the revolutionary class seize and consolidate power ? Lenin was highly 'authoritarian'; why not compare Avakian to Lenin ??

But Lenin didn't attempt to build a personality cult around himself. that was mostly done by the Soviet Regime, but not by Lenin's own hand; nor did he say that following Lenin was the only path to communism.

Also, you should read up on Rosa Luxemburg--she says that communism need not be authoritarian, but it can also be democratic.


Though I'm not a big fan of Avakian, and think the RCP's approach about him is silly and alienating, everyone must recognise that Avakian does have some ideas and that there is more to the RCP than the Avakian cult.

his "ideas" consist little more of taking old Marxian thought, adding some new words, calling it "New Synthesis" or whatever, and hoping no one notices enough to ask what that even means.



Err, not reallllyy... He was certainly influenced a lot by Mao in terms of Peoples' War and allied with him against Vietnam/USSR. Oh and the Khmer Rouge clothing was like the Maoist fashion but with a stylish Khmer twist. But they certainly were not Maoist. Their documents talk about Marxism-Leninism but not Mao Zedong Thought. Just about every revolutionary communist movement in post-war Asia is influenced by Maoism, that doesn't make them Maoist.

but the party officials, like Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, etc. were heavily influenced in Maoism; during the civil war against Lon Nol's government, they went to schools and villages and taught the works of Mao, but instead, changed the name to Angkar.
(I know we disagree on this, but there are many accounts of Pol Pot being synonomous with Angkar and Communism itself, and if not that, then the 5-10 people who consisted of the council)

Pol Pot was also heavily into the Maoist belief that Peasants and farmers were some how more worthy of leading the proletariat than urban dwellers and factory workers, and in fact, that's what probably garnered him the most support for his campaign against GRUNK and the Lon Nol Government.


What ? This is complete crap. Pol Pot didn't call himself Angkar. Angkar was the name given to the ruling authority of the Khmer Rouge regime. Its meaning was vague but meant something like 'the Organisation' and orders were given collectively by the Khmer Rouge leaders under the name of Angkar. It did not refer to any one person, but the general Khmer authority.

considering that there were only about a few people who were in direct command of Angkar, with Pol Pot at the top, it is synonymous these days and was back in the day.




Actually he was General Secretary.

but he was still De Facto head of the party, so it's safe to say that he was in control, thus was the Chairman of the vanguard (that vanguard, being the Khmer Rouge)



but he panders to the same type of people, and to the same myths of persecution and triumph that wannabe dictators do; I haven't read the entire thing, but I read some of it at a book fair before, and he talks about his glorious birth, how he is on the run from the US government because they're afraid of his revolutionary prowess, etc. how can you not see the correlation between him and Pol Pot, or at least, Kim Il Sung?

In the end, I guess we'll just have to disagree; I concede that maybe I was a little too harsh to judge based on outward appearances, but the fact that he still nonetheless brings to memory failed dictators from the past, is a bit disturbing, irregardless of what else he may have.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Not that it's really even worth my time to respond to any more of the infantile bullshit being propagated on this thread (e.g. the notion that writing an autobiography is a heinous crime against humanity or the foundation of a religion or something), but I see that it falls to me to wage the principled defense of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.

This (http://www.rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm) is probably the best article on the subject I've yet read. It was written at the time of Pol Pot's famous trial in the jungle for the Revolutionary Worker (the predecessor to Revolution newspaper) by none other than Mike Ely, eventual founder of the Kasama Project and the idol of half of the RevLeft community as such. I think it adequately addresses all the main criticisms (including the "genocide" charges) people draw up against the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, while not being uncritical.

Mr. Thomas here says in his profile that he supports such ordinary reformists as Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez as representing his principle idea of socialism. In consideration of the fact that he also denounces serious historical revolutionaries like Mao and Pol Pot, perhaps we can see right through the rest of his revisionist BS.

[Obs]

This (http://www.rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm) is probably the best article on the subject I've yet read.

So basically, Pol Pot made rash, irrational decisions as the leader of a country which was already in deep crisis, which caused numerous preventable deaths, and was also a racist. But all of that's okay, because he kicked out the US.

[Kassad]

This (http://www.rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm) is probably the best article on the subject I've yet read. It was written at the time of Pol Pot's famous trial in the jungle for the Revolutionary Worker (the predecessor to Revolution newspaper) by none other than Mike Ely, eventual founder of the Kasama Project and the idol of half of the RevLeft community as such.

...Are you kidding? I think Mike Ely has one of the worst political lines I've ever seen. I've never had problems talking to him, nor do I think he's a terrible person or communist, but he's definitely not my "idol." Sorry, I'm not like members of your party that need someone to idolize to give credence to their ideology.

[Robocommie]

Not that it's really even worth my time to respond to any more of the infantile bullshit being propagated on this thread (e.g. the notion that writing an autobiography is a heinous crime against humanity or the foundation of a religion or something), but I see that it falls to me to wage the principled defense of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.


If you support Pol Pot, then it doesn't take your reverence of Great Leader Bob Avakian to show what a crackpot organization you are. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam saved Cambodia from Pol Pot.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Actually the Vietnamese communists opposed the revolutionary war in Cambodia for half the time it was being fought (they were too busy appealing to the country's monarch for assistance to support his overthrow), then, practically as soon as it was initially won, began plotting to invade and conquer the country, which they ultimately did. The Cambodia of today is the glorious result. Perhaps you'd like to defend that? The monarchy is back. Buddhism is back. Sweatshop labor for foreigners is back. Yeah, there's a lot worth defending there.

You see, during the course of the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese communists were struggling to determine whether they should align with the China or with the Soviet Union. They eventually went with the latter. The conquest of Cambodia by Vietnam was, for the latter's part, acting as foot soldiers for the Soviet Union.

Not that I'm seeking to unduly assail Ho Chi Minh, who yes was a genuine revolutionary and communist (albeit one who made many mistakes, such as attempting to subjugate the Cambodian revolutionary effort to Vietnam's needs and timing). But it really is important to get the historical record straight on this. They may not have done an ideal job, but the Khmer Rouge (overall anyway) were serious about revolution and about bringing in socialism. They were unambiguously on Mao's side of the historic split between China's socialism and the Soviet Union's imperialism. They kicked out the imperialists and implemented yes tough (and, as pointed out, sometimes wrong and sometimes inconsistent) policies aimed at getting more food circulating amidst the crisis engineered by the United States, and moreover attempted (albeit prematurely and with some mechanically-minded misconceptions) to do so in a socialist way. Essentially, it's for this that you all condemn them. At least they tried.

Now as far as Bob Avakian goes, you folks can invent mock titles and mock songs on the subject all you want and it won't get anywhere with me. I'm not impressed or amused or whatever it is you all seem to believe I should be. Sorry, but you'll have to engage with the content of the new synthesis if you expect me to debate further on this topic.

[RED DAVE]

[Y]ou'll have to engage with the content of the new synthesis if you expect me to debate further on this topic.Since we believe in the unity of theory and practice, I would assume that the content of the new synthesis includes a provision for Bob Avakian t-shirts.

Seriously, though, if you want people to take the content seriously, you have to address the fact that that content seems to embrace, directly or indirectly, a cult of personality, which is very disturbing politically for all the right reasons.

I was in the Revolution Bookstore in New York last week, and practically the first thing the woman behind the counter asked me was, "What do you think of Bob Avakian?" I am not bullshitting. This was the first political thing she said after, "Hi, good morning. How can I help you?" This is not a good sign.

RED DAVE

[ChrisK]

Now as far as Bob Avakian goes, you folks can invent mock titles and mock songs on the subject all you want and it won't get anywhere with me. I'm not impressed or amused or whatever it is you all seem to believe I should be. Sorry, but you'll have to engage with the content of the new synthesis if you expect me to debate further on this topic.

You give us a serious problem. You will only debate if we engage with the content of the new synthesis. Now, how do you expect us to do that when it has no content?

[Robocommie]

Actually the Vietnamese communists opposed the revolutionary war in Cambodia for half the time it was being fought (they were too busy appealing to the country's monarch for assistance to support his overthrow), then, practically as soon as it was initially won, began plotting to invade and conquer the country, which they ultimately did. The Cambodia of today is the glorious result. Perhaps you'd like to defend that? The monarchy is back. Buddhism is back. Sweatshop labor for foreigners is back. Yeah, there's a lot worth defending there.

Oh, I'll go further, and say that it's unfortunate they didn't go in a lot sooner, because otherwise a lot of the deaths and destruction that the Khmer Rouge caused could have been prevented. I won't say anything about your anti-religious elitism in regards to Buddhism, because that's always a dead end road.

Pol Pot was not a socialist, he was an absurd quasi-primitivist and mass murderer, and you can stick that in your Year Zero pipe and smoke it.



Now as far as Bob Avakian goes, you folks can invent mock titles and mock songs on the subject all you want and it won't get anywhere with me. I'm not impressed or amused or whatever it is you all seem to believe I should be. Sorry, but you'll have to engage with the content of the new synthesis if you expect me to debate further on this topic."The content of the new synthesis" has already been mentioned, addressed and dismissed. Those of us who don't take your party seriously don't take your line seriously either, and we simply won't just because you insist we should.

[JacobVardy]

Monkey, i had been laughing off this debate as one of the foibles of Marxists - the idea of some one who calls them self a Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, or Trotskyist calling someone else a cultist is really rather amusing. However, to to join in the spirit of internecine cult fighting, why do you have black-and-red stars in your sig? You can't have them, they're an anarchist symbol. And we would never ever engage in cult worship.

[Robocommie]

Monkey, i had been laughing off this debate as one of the foibles of Marxists - the idea of some one who calls them self a Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, or Trotskyist calling someone else a cultist is really rather amusing. However, to to join in the spirit of internecine cult fighting, why do you have black-and-red stars in your sig? You can't have them, they're an anarchist symbol. And we would never ever engage in cult worship.

Though I'd like to point out to you, that you can't exactly compel her NOT to use them, being an anarchist. ;):D

[Martin Blank]

Well, I'll be damned. They did it. As I was driving my wife to work this morning, I saw one of the RCP billboards. It looked like this (I didn't have time to grab a photo, unfortunately):

http://revolutionbookscamb.org/media/links/REVTALK.jpg

For those in the Detroit area, it's at the corner of Michigan Ave. and M-10 (the Lodge Freeway), across from the MGM Grand Casino and the IRS building. It's not the best place for it, but it is there.

[Adi Shankara]

The Cambodia of today is the glorious result. Perhaps you'd like to defend that? The monarchy is back. Buddhism is back. Sweatshop labor for foreigners is back.

The sweatshops and labor existed back then in the Khmer rouge days, the only difference was it was for the elite's benefit, not for foreigners, and you could get shot in the back for questioning why you are working for no pay and rice gruel.

the Cambodia of today was almost entirely created by Pol Pot; without the Vietnamese forces, Cambodia would be alot worse; the low literacy and education attainment rate? Pol Pot believed education was "bourgeoisie". (he turned a high school into a prison camp, for god sakes)
the homeless street children and high rate of families without grandparents and parents? the Khmer Rouge killed those who questioned him.

The poor infrastructure? hell, the only infrustructure that exists was built by the Vietnamese in the 80's; Pol Pot ordered all the previous factories, hospitals, high schools, etc. destroyed because he wanted to turn the clock to "year zero" and start over again for Cambodia; it's a wonder how he didn't destroy the Angkor Wat and Bayon complexes.

P.S: those monks in Cambodia were heroes; they pretty much kept the culture of Cambodia alive during the slaughter that was Pol Pot's glory days...

[Adi Shankara]

And here, have one more nice "token", from a former prisoner of Tuol Sleng: THIS WASN'T WESTERN PROPOGANDA: THESE DRAWINGS WERE COMMISSIONED TO BE DRAWN BY PRISONER VANN NATH BY COMRADE DUCH, CAPTAIN OF TUOL SLENG PRISON COMPLEX IN AN "EFFORT" TO RECORD THE REVOLUTIONARY ACTIVITIES GOING ON AT THE FACILITY:

http://dougfurtek.com/Cambodia/TuolSlengPaintingcopy.jpg

what sick son of a ***** would order his troops to do this to babies and children? Pol Pot, Duch, and Ieng Sary were sinful bastards who deserved to be tortured for the rest of their lives, if only they didn't get off so easily by "western justice" and peacefully passing away:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_76xUgRgjZYM/SS12aiSpRWI/AAAAAAAAJTU/R7T4eVtM6dw/s400/Tuol+Sleng+-+Nameless+Victim+02+%28Sean+Paul+Kelley%29.jpg

http://www.reyum.org/media/english_articles/1999_12/02.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6StljjaC0uA/R4Ru89AuqII/AAAAAAAAA1U/UWNrt9w4pZ4/s400/507.jpg


because babies and 5-9 year olds can be "counter-revolutionaries" am I right? if you still think Pol Pot was okay after seeing these...then you are a sick son of a *****, and I spit on you.

[Obs]

But he kicked out US imperialism and you're trying to slander him and you're just a liberal who doesn't recognise how Pol Pot was simply willing to do what it took to jfklsahgwajkfbbjvaejehjlbfjkauwiiqh

[Glenn Beck]

Vietnam invading Cambodia and stopping the massacres was a diabolical act of social-imperialism. China subsequently invading Vietnam and killing thousands to assert its dominance over S.E. Asia was simply a responsible and principled thing to do; any communist worth his salt can see that.

The Khmer Rouge were freedom fighters who proudly stood up to imperialism in all its forms. The fact that they kept the King around as a mascot and figurehead was just smart P.R. The same goes for the fact that their existence was entirely propped up by the joint efforts of China and the U.S., who made sure they remained officially considered the legitimate government of Cambodia even after getting kicked out of the country and generously kept them afloat with aid. That just showed that they were such cunning strategists they could even manipulate the imperialists.

:thumbup1:

[Adi Shankara]

Vietnam invading Cambodia and stopping the massacres was a diabolical act of social-imperialism. China subsequently invading Vietnam and killing thousands to assert its dominance over S.E. Asia was simply a responsible and principled thing to do; any communist worth his salt can see that.

The Khmer Rouge were freedom fighters who proudly stood up to imperialism in all its forms. The fact that they kept the King around as a mascot and figurehead was just smart P.R. The same goes for the fact that their existence was entirely propped up by the joint efforts of China and the U.S., who made sure they remained officially considered the legitimate government of Cambodia even after getting kicked out of the country and generously kept them afloat with aid. That just showed that they were such cunning strategists they could even manipulate the imperialists.

:thumbup1:

People need to learn you can't win a war against the Vietnamese. I don't think they've ever lost a war when led under Red forces.

[Wanted Man]

This (http://www.rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm) is probably the best article on the subject I've yet read. It was written at the time of Pol Pot's famous trial in the jungle for the Revolutionary Worker (the predecessor to Revolution newspaper) by none other than Mike Ely, eventual founder of the Kasama Project and the idol of half of the RevLeft community as such. I think it adequately addresses all the main criticisms (including the "genocide" charges) people draw up against the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, while not being uncritical.

How fucking dumb is this? Some people on Revleft happen to appreciate the stuff on Kasama. So what? Who has ever "idolised" Ely? The opinion of "half of the Revleft community" is probably that he is a good writer, but also has a problematic political line (most of the problems coming from his RCP baggage, I might add). This is just pure projection. You are the only ones who think that to agree with a marxist author means having to worship or idolise him. Not me, not Ely himself, not the people with Kasama, not Kassad, Sankara or Glenn Beck, nobody else. You.

I absolutely think that his article on Pol Pot represents some of the worst RCP stuff. The fact that Ely wrote it says everything about Ely and the RCP in 1997. If he still holds that position, that's a terrible shame; one should certainly criticise him for holding on to old dogma despite all the talk of the need for critical self-reflection. But perhaps someone could, y'know, ask him if he still has the exact same opinion as he did 13 years ago instead of just assuming he does. Ever thought of that?

[Adi Shankara]

Now as far as Bob Avakian goes, you folks can invent mock titles and mock songs on the subject all you want and it won't get anywhere with me. I'm not impressed or amused or whatever it is you all seem to believe I should be. Sorry, but you'll have to engage with the content of the new synthesis if you expect me to debate further on this topic.

So question: what is the New Synthesis, how is it "new", and how does it defer from Marx? can you tell me without referring me to the manifesto, which rambles on and on and can't be followed?

Einstein once said, if you can't explain an idea to a layman, you can't explain the idea to yourself (basically saying, you don't know what the New Synthesis is either)

[Saorsa]

It's possible to not support the Khmer Rouge while still supporting the struggle of the Cambodian people against US imperialism.

It's possible to oppose US imperialism in Cambodia without supporting the Khmer Rouge.

It's possible to question what took place in Cambodia, and in particular to question the portrayal of what took place given by the bourgeois media and bourgeois academia, without denying that the Khmer Rouge were murderous and horrible.

That is all.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Look, no one whose one-sidedly expressing their support for the conquest of Cambodia and lamenting the harsh measures that the Khmer Rouge took is seriously engaging with the history of the situation. The yes excessive crackdowns that did come down from above under Pol Pot weren't just conducted arbitrarily, but for a reason. The reason was that the country, on one level or another, was almost continually under siege throughout the period in question, and part of that included infiltration of the government by elements from the CIA, the KGB, and yes the Vietnamese secret police. Hence Vietnamese interference in Cambodia's internal affairs was itself an indirect cause of the crackdowns being discussed. That doesn't justify the methodological errors that were made, but it is a crucial part of understanding why those errors were made in the first place. ...Well, it's just a thought.

As for the tough work standards that some have pointed to, once again I'll highlight the fact that there was no remaining industry to speak of by the end of the revolutionary war, that the country was on one level or another almost constantly under siege throughout the ensuing four years, and that a million people or so were bound to starve under such conditions, as the U.S. itself admitted, being the principally responsible party for the said scenario. This not only explains, but quite frankly justifies, many of the tough work policies that were enacted under the Khmer Rouge. For example, people often lament the policy of 12-hour agricultural work shifts during this period. What they conveniently forget is that this was objectively necessary in order to increase food production under the said conditions of mass starvation so that as many people as possible would eat. Less agricultural work in this context meant that more people would starve. Is that what you'd be advocating? Likewise, people often lament policies like execution for picking fruit enacted during this period. Again, highlighting the food situation, picking food beyond your designated amount might very well have meant not only stealing, but effectively sentencing someone else to death. The punishment was hence probably proportionate to the crime.

POINT: All the main arguments against Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge rely on divorcing the tasks undertaken from their historical context...or, in other words, from reality.


Robocommie wrote:
I won't say anything about your anti-religious elitism in regards to Buddhism, because that's always a dead end road.Buddhism is Cambodia's state religion. Sorry for opposing theocracy.


JacobVardy wrote:
Monkey, i had been laughing off this debate as one of the foibles of Marxists - the idea of some one who calls them self a Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, or Trotskyist calling someone else a cultist is really rather amusing. However, to to join in the spirit of internecine cult fighting, why do you have black-and-red stars in your sig? You can't have them, they're an anarchist symbol. And we would never ever engage in cult worship.I'm done arguing on the "cult" allegations, so that aspect of your post will be ignored. As to the meaning of the stars in my signature, everything about my RevLeft profile is symbolic. Regarding the stars in my signature, the outlined one in the center symbolizes the central role of communist leadership. All six outlying stars symbolize elements of the revolutionary masses. The black and red star, it's worth noting, doesn't historically symbolize anarchist syndicalism exclusively. A lot of less advanced revolutionary elements have embraced similar 'coloration schemes'. For example, here is the historical flag of the Khmer Rouge. (http://theora.com/images/KhmerRougeFlag.jpg) You'll likewise notice the color choices on the flag of the Zapatistas. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_the_EZLN.svg/450px-Flag_of_the_EZLN.svg.png) The stars in my signature, in other words, can be considered as degrees of revolutionary consciousness. Plus, I just think it (including red and black) looks cool. :thumbup1:

My user name is also symbolic, even while sort of intended to be kind of humorous. "Monkey" refers to a kind of funny quote from a Red Guard pamphlet: "We revolutionaries are monkey kings. We will turn the world upside down -- the messier, the better." And dragons, as positive creatures, are generally thought of as sort of emblematic on a certain level of the Far East, or even China specifically. Hence one possible political reading of my user name would be "China during the Cultural Revolution". But it also has alternate political meanings. For example, "Monkey" also refers to the Tet Offensive, which was launched at the start of the Vietnamese Year of the Monkey. Dragon-riding is also an element of some of my all-time favorite video games (e.g. the Panzer Dragoon titles), so it's also a reference to my personality in that way. Plus "Monkey Riding Dragon" just sounds kind of wacky and funny to the ear and it grabs your attention. :D This is how I think.

As for the new synthesis, I've already explained its contents enough times (including, again, on this very thread) and see no need to fruitlessly repeat myself. Read what I've already posted on the subject. If you're unwilling to or have decided to dismiss it, then I don't know what you expect of me. This will probably be my final post on this thread.

[Adi Shankara]

As for the new synthesis, I've already explained its contents enough times (including, again, on this very thread) and see no need to fruitlessly repeat myself. Read what I've already posted on the subject. If you're unwilling to or have decided to dismiss it, then I don't know what you expect of me. This will probably be my final post on this thread.


Putting your rather pathetic defense of genocide aside, I looked up what you previously said on it, and it consists mostly of "Look up the new synthesis on the website, read the manifesto" when all I asked for was the New synthesis in your own words. By you saying "This will be my final post on the thread", it sounds like you're afraid to answer me. :confused:


The stars in my signature, in other words, can be considered as degrees of revolutionary consciousness. Plus, I just think it (including red and black) looks cool.

So you're basically that hipster at the mall who wears potent symbols of revolution because they "Look cool"?

[Kassad]

So you're basically that hipster at the mall who wears potent symbols of revolution because they "Look cool"?

No. She wears Bob Avakian shirts to look cool.

[Robocommie]

Buddhism is Cambodia's state religion. Sorry for opposing theocracy.

Yeah well, 95% of Cambodia practices Buddhism, so sad for you. Incidentally, Denmark has an official state religion as well, Lutheranism, and yet somehow I don't think Denmark constitutes a theocracy. Nice use of buzz words, though.

[Adi Shankara]

Yeah well, 95% of Cambodia practices Buddhism, so sad for you. Incidentally, Denmark has an official state religion as well, Lutheranism, and yet somehow I don't think Denmark constitutes a theocracy. Nice use of buzz words, though.

What she also fails to realize is that, in a Cambodian context, "state religion" doesn't mean that Buddhism is compulsory, or atheism or other religions are outlawed; (in fact, Cambodia has a large minority of Cham muslims and Khmer hindus) All it means is that buddhism, since it is followed by 95 out of every 100 Cambodians, receives official state support for the upkeep of temples, religious buddhist holidays are observed, etc.

[Adi Shankara]

here is the historical flag of the Khmer Rouge. (http://theora.com/images/KhmerRougeFlag.jpg)

actually, it's funny you should say that, because for all your anti-buddhist, pro-Pol Pot rhetoric, THIS was the flag of the Khmer Rouge:

"Article 16 The design and significance of the Kampuchean national flag are as follows:
The background is red, with a yellow three-towered temple in the middle.
The red background symbolises the revolutionary movement, the resolute and valiant struggle of the Kampuchean people for the liberation, defense, and construction of their country.
The yellow temple symbolises the national traditions of the Kampuchean people, who are defending and building the country to make it ever more prosperous."


That's right! it was a RELIGIOUS FLAG! :laugh: and it looked like this:


http://www.historyguy.com/khmer%20_rouge_cambodia_flag.gif

I'm going to assume that 'National Traditions" refer to the Buddhist religion, since the flag is of a religious nature, as it has a temple on it. So this then makes the Khmer Rouge one of two things:

1.) they were schizophrenic at best, for while persecuting buddhists, they propped up Buddhist symbolism and claimed to "honor" it's religious past, or;

2.) Pol Pot was a liar, and never really had anything against religion to begin with.

considering the nature of the Khmer Rouge, I'll go with #1.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Thomas_Sankara wrote:
Putting your rather pathetic defense of genocide aside, I looked up what you previously said on it, and it consists mostly of "Look up the new synthesis on the website, read the manifesto" when all I asked for was the New synthesis in your own words. By you saying "This will be my final post on the thread", it sounds like you're afraid to answer me. :confused:Since you can't seem to find page 3, I'll link you directly to my post on this thread in which I lay out some of the distinct aspects of the new synthesis: here you go (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1767192&postcount=47). I've also addressed the matter on a number of other threads, so here's a sample post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1629148&postcount=59) where I discussed some of the distinct tenets of the new synthesis on another thread as well. And yes you can also look up the manifesto itself at the link I provide on page 1 of this thread or via the link in my signature.

ON RELIGION: The point I was making was that Buddhism, as a state religion in Cambodia, receives special treatment from the state. Theocracy (however designated), the monarchy, and imperialist domination of Cambodia were swept away under the Khmer Rouge and restored by the country's subsequent rulers, who were installed by the Vietnamese occupiers whom you all support. That's the bottom line. You all are supporting an imperialist and even apparently pro-theocracy position. It's obviously regrettable that a million or so Cambodians starved whilst the Khmer Rouge was in power, but once again that's because of the conditions that had been forced on them from the outside, and mainly from the U.S. You can call that a pro-genocide position all you want, but it won't change the historical reality or justify the invasion and occupation of the country.

It may not have helped that Pol Pot was excessively ambitious in terms of what, in the sense of building socialism, could be immediately accomplished, and that he had a tendency toward simplistic, mechanical solutions to dynamic problems (like religion, for example...and yes, religion is a problem in itself), but these sorts of things are (in context anyway) what are called methodological errors, not fundamental revisionism.

[Adi Shankara]

Since you can't seem to find page 3, I'll link you directly to my post on this thread in which I lay out some of the distinct aspects of the new synthesis: here you go (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1767192&postcount=47). I've also addressed the matter on a number of other threads, so here's a sample post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1629148&postcount=59) where I discussed some of the distinct tenets of the new synthesis on another thread as well. And yes you can also look up the manifesto itself at the link I provide on page 1 of this thread or via the link in my signature.

Yeah, I read this, and I said that it is nothing new, for most of it was plagarized from Marx, Bakunin, and Luxemburg (specifically, the part about opposing view points).

not trying to be rude, but honest question: have you ever read "Das Kapital, Vol I" or "The Communist Manifesto"?

and apologies, but I phrased my original question the wrong way: what I meant to ask, is "what makes the New Synethesis new, as opposed to a bunch of ideas already discussed by Marx and other philosophers, spliced together, and explained in BA vocabulary?"


ON RELIGION: The point I was making was that Buddhism, as a state religion in Cambodia, receives special treatment from the state. Theocracy (however designated), the monarchy, and imperialist domination of Cambodia were swept away under the Khmer Rouge and restored by the country's subsequent rulers, who were installed by the Vietnamese occupiers whom you all support.

Probably because the Vietnamese knew that the religious people were the ones who needed revolution the most, so to demonize/execute them would've been redundant...besides, at least in Vietnam you had the freedom to practice religion as you please.

[Kassad]

Sorry, but you can go off about the "new synthesis" all day, but RCP members tend to fail pretty badly when you bring up a number of questions. If you can answer all of these questions honestly and directly without the usual RCP fallacies and talking points, maybe we can have a legititmate discussion:

1. Has there ever been a point where the RCP has realized that Bob Avakian has been wrong? Does any criticism of him ever exist in party discussions, because as ex-party members have stated, there tends to be none. It is a matter of why what Bob Avakian says is right, as opposed to why it is right.

2. Why were supporters of the World Can't Wait not allowed to attend the national conference in the last couple of years due to their decision to leave the RCP, since WCW claims to be a broad coalition of people, even Republicans, who are opposed to Bush's policies?

3. Why has your party completely stopped work in unions and the labor movement? Is it because you believe workers are ignorant and no longer relevant? Is it because Bob Avakian's promotion is too much of a priority?

4. What happens when Bob Avakian dies? Aside from the fact that, and I mean this in all honesty, I expect the party to fragment, what is the party's plan?

If you can answer these questions, then you're probably the only RCP member I've ever talked to who can. I'm very interested in your response.

[Adi Shankara]

3. Why has your party completely stopped work in unions and the labor movement? Is it because you believe workers are ignorant and no longer relevant? Is it because Bob Avakian's promotion is too much of a priority?

Probably because the struggling proletariat are not REALLY socialist, but capitalist charlatans who don't recognize the glorious thought of revolutionary new synthesis under the wise leadership of Revolutionary Chairman Bob Avakian, who spends his time in exile fighting the US government and battling imperialists everywhere as he prepares for glorious revolution :rolleyes:


What happens when Bob Avakian dies?

REAL communists everywhere will breathe a sigh of relief.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

And at the RevLeft community's proverbial (and fortunately premature) dancing on Bob Avakian's grave, I request this thread be closed by whoever is in a position to do so. That kind of shit is just flaming. This topic obviously isn't going anywhere good.

[Adi Shankara]

And at the RevLeft community's proverbial (and fortunately premature) dancing on Bob Avakian's grave, I request this thread be closed by whoever is in a position to do so. That kind of shit is just flaming. This topic obviously isn't going anywhere good.


We wish death on people reactionary enemies all the time, so why is this bothering you?

Bob Avakian is a loser (unless you consider living off donation funds "highly achieved"). face it. He isn't special. there are many other thinkeres who have done triple the writing and contribution to communist theory, and have led actual revolutions. I suggest you read into Thomas Sankara, Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Rosa Luxemburg.

[Chimurenga.]

And at the RevLeft community's proverbial (and fortunately premature) dancing on Bob Avakian's grave, I request this thread be closed by whoever is in a position to do so. That kind of shit is just flaming. This topic obviously isn't going anywhere good.

So I take it you're going to ignore the questions presented to you at the top of the page?

[Martin Blank]

And at the RevLeft community's proverbial (and fortunately premature) dancing on Bob Avakian's grave, I request this thread be closed by whoever is in a position to do so. That kind of shit is just flaming. This topic obviously isn't going anywhere good.

I can close this if you really want me to, but before that I'd like to say a few things.

First, I'm not going to indulge in the speculation about what might happen when Avakian dies, because it is a rather immature argument and does lend itself to premature grave dancing. It might be something that's done idly, in the spare moments of time between more pressing matters, but it really doesn't belong here.

Second, I think that the issue that is underlying throughout this discussion is this: We are expected to "engage" Avakian as if he is already an accepted institution and revolutionary icon outside of the RCP's circles of influence, yet he is not expected to "engage" any of us to prove he is deserving of even a fraction of those accolades. More to the point, the comrade seems to refuse to interact with anyone other than the top echelons of the RCP, and that, in my view, is not only inherently unhealthy, it has lent itself to a distorted and one-sided view of and from Avakian.

If he had been willing to "engage" others, Avakian might have learned that many of the points of his "New Synthesis" are not actually new, but have been a part of the broader movement (just not his/your part of it) for decades. Moreover, such an "engagement" could have brought him to this conclusion many years before he actually got there ... and taken him beyond it. For our part, it is one thing to "engage" a disembodied concept only seen on a piece of paper or Internet website; it is another matter entirely to "engage" the actual human being in a dialogue. Right now, "engaging" with Bob Avakian is like "engaging" with the automated directory at the phone company: a series of pre-selected responses based on which buttons are pushed.

Quite simply, if the comrade wants people to "engage" him, he needs to go where the people are -- in person, or in persona (in the case of doing so online). Mike Ely, for all the differences I have with him, is willing to "engage" directly. He's on Facebook, RevLeft, Kasama and other sites. There is no reason why Avakian could not "engage" similarly. None at all, except that he chooses not to.

Until he is willing to go forth among the masses he wishes to lead -- including all of us knuckleheads -- you should expect that the calls to "engage" the comrade will likely continue to fall on deaf ears.

[Adi Shankara]

If he had been willing to "engage" others, Avakian might have learned that many of the points of his "New Synthesis" are not actually new, but have been a part of the broader movement (just not his/your part of it) for decades.

Also not new: Avakian's book "away with all gods", which is more or less based almost entirely on Mikhail Bakunin's 1870's work "God and the State".

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Miles wrote:
Quite simply, if the comrade wants people to "engage" him, he needs to go where the people are -- in person, or in persona (in the case of doing so online). Mike Ely, for all the differences I have with him, is willing to "engage" directly. He's on Facebook, RevLeft, Kasama and other sites. There is no reason why Avakian could not "engage" similarly. None at all, except that he chooses not to.There are no comparable threats on Mike Ely's life. BA left the country for a reason: because he was facing the immediate-term prospect of arrest or assassination by the U.S. government. The RCP believes in protecting its leadership. Lenin too lived in exile for a long time and engaged with the Bolsheviks and the Russian masses in a similar way until after the February Revolution made the conditions for his return manifest. What's your point?

I've put forward that people should engage with the basic line questions he's put forward. Visit the Revolution Books in your area, come join with us as we resistance the crimes of this system and engage with us there, or keep an eye out for the reportedly forthcoming RCP message board, for example. And there are also some people like myself and redwinter here on RevLeft who attempt to advance and discuss the political position the RCP represents.

[Adi Shankara]

There are no comparable threats on Mike Ely's life. BA left the country for a reason: because he was facing the immediate-term prospect of arrest or assassination by the U.S. government.

You really believe the United States politicians would put their jobs on the line and create a national scandal by assassinating a US citizen so minor and unimportant, that most people wouldn't even know he was dead if he was gone? Why would they assassinate him? what for? what immediate threat does he (or has ever) pose?

I mean one thing to assassinate non-US citizens--most american politicians think they're trash anyways. but to assassinate an AMERICAN CITIZEN? Do you know how much deep shit the government would be in over something like that?

No one cares who Bob Avakian is! hell, they'd assassinate Michael Moore before they assassinate Bob Avakian--at least people actually listen to him and know who he is.

If you ask me, it sounds like he left the country to raise this revolutionary mystique about his character, getting people like you to believe he actually risked assassination, when these days, most people don't give a shit about Bob Avakian (considering they know who he is, which not even most Communists know who he is)

[Chimurenga.]

BA left the country for a reason: because he was facing the immediate-term prospect of arrest or assassination by the U.S. government. The RCP believes in protecting its leadership. Lenin too lived in exile for a long time and engaged with the Bolsheviks and the Russian masses in a similar way until after the February Revolution made the conditions for his return manifest. What's your point?

Wow. I had always heard that RCP members compare Avakian to Lenin but never have I seen it with my own two eyes. :laugh:

[Martin Blank]

There are no comparable threats on Mike Ely's life. BA left the country for a reason: because he was facing the immediate-term prospect of arrest or assassination by the U.S. government. The RCP believes in protecting its leadership. Lenin too lived in exile for a long time and engaged with the Bolsheviks and the Russian masses in a similar way until after the February Revolution made the conditions for his return manifest. What's your point?

Satellite Internet access. IP and GPS masks. Secure firewalls. This is the second decade of the 21st century, not the turn of the 20th century. If Avakian can make the odd semi-public appearance (which he does), he can surely have a secured Internet connection and get online to converse with the rest of us. In fact, given that he has made the odd semi-public appearance, I would think that, in fact, he would be safer sticking to an online presence.


I've put forward that people should engage with the basic line questions he's put forward. Visit the Revolution Books in your area, come join with us as we resistance the crimes of this system and engage with us there, or keep an eye out for the reportedly forthcoming RCP message board, for example. And there are also some people like myself and redwinter here on RevLeft who attempt to advance and discuss the political position the RCP represents.

Press * to repeat this message. Press # to return to the main menu.

[Barry Lyndon]

There are no comparable threats on Mike Ely's life. BA left the country for a reason: because he was facing the immediate-term prospect of arrest or assassination by the U.S. government. The RCP believes in protecting its leadership. Lenin too lived in exile for a long time and engaged with the Bolsheviks and the Russian masses in a similar way until after the February Revolution made the conditions for his return manifest. What's your point?

The point is that if you seriously think BA is as important as one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century, you are a drooling lunatic completely disconnected from reality.

I'm not even going to address your bullshit about Pol Pot. Iv'e even met Maoists who concede that the man was a monster.

[Obs]

There are no comparable threats on Mike Ely's life. BA left the country for a reason: because he was facing the immediate-term prospect of arrest or assassination by the U.S. government. The RCP believes in protecting its leadership. Lenin too lived in exile for a long time and engaged with the Bolsheviks and the Russian masses in a similar way until after the February Revolution made the conditions for his return manifest. What's your point?

The Russian masses knew and cared about Lenin. No-one, anywhere, except the RCP, gives a dog's dick about BA.

[Kassad]

Apparently Monkey Riding Dragon is too afraid to answer my questions. I'm not surprised.

[Adi Shankara]

Apparently Monkey Riding Dragon is too afraid to answer my questions. I'm not surprised.

Or if she does, she'll just refer you to some blanket manifesto and expect you to make sense of all the purple prose.

[scarletghoul]

Miles actually makes a great point about Avakian should be using the internet to talk to people directly. The campaign to get people to 'engage Bob Avakian' is completely the wrong way round; Avakian should be engaging with the people. If he started a blog or a FaceBook or Youtube or something, he could become much more well known aswell as respected. Because at the moment, as you can see, even leftists are dismissing him as an out of touch cult leader.

The insulting tone of many replies to this thread is not good, but I hope you can register the general reasons behind it, and feed it back to the Party.. maybe suggest to them the idea of Avakian trying to engage the people ? Or get him to join RevLeft, that would be cool :lol:. The RCP has a lot of potential so as a communist I really do hope they can correct their flawed approach to the people..

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I've already answered most of these questions many times before, including from Kassad himself and he knows it. But allow me to (probably fruitlessly) try again:


Kassad wrote:
1. Has there ever been a point where the RCP has realized that Bob Avakian has been wrong? Does any criticism of him ever exist in party discussions, because as ex-party members have stated, there tends to be none. It is a matter of why what Bob Avakian says is right, as opposed to why it is right.I'd think the fact by itself that the party has changed positions on so many issues over the years would by itself be testament to the fact that yes even the best leadership can be wrong and that we fully recognize that. BA himself has obviously recognized this and been self-critical with regard to his own past in a large array of areas. I mean this, I'm sorry, is just moronic. You're reaching for an argument and you know it.

You may not have figured this out yet, but yes I as well have certain disagreements with our current tactics in regards to some issues. (Pretty secondary ones though). And I certainly am not under the illusion that the new synthesis, in its current form, is even close to being as advanced as it needs to be; it's still being developed obviously. And all the people I've met from the RCP have been perfectly willing to admit being wrong on a given issue if it could be shown they were. The importance of open debate is one of the very most central and defining aspects of the new synthesis, in fact; it's stressed much more in the new synthesis than it has been in the past by the communist movement more generally. A distinction between the outlook of the RCP on this question and that of other 'Marxist' parties in America for example would be that the new synthesis advances the position that criticism of the socialist state, including its leadership, should be not just passively tolerated, but actively encouraged in order that we can get to the truth of things better. The RCP is the most serious party I know of in regards to its dedication to fostering ferment.


2. Why were supporters of the World Can't Wait not allowed to attend the national conference in the last couple of years due to their decision to leave the RCP, since WCW claims to be a broad coalition of people, even Republicans, who are opposed to Bush's policies?To tell you truth Kassad, I haven't heard anything about the event in question. The RCP still very much seems to support the WCW as far as I can tell. Hell, I attended their events in Detroit just yesterday, and I got the info on them from the Revolution web site!


3. Why has your party completely stopped work in unions and the labor movement? Is it because you believe workers are ignorant and no longer relevant? Is it because Bob Avakian's promotion is too much of a priority?Well, it's not "my party" yet, to once again clarify that, as I have elsewhere. I'm a Revolution distributor, not a party member.

But on your question itself, yeah that's exactly what Mao's opponents always said of him when he led the CPC in initially largely pulling out of trade union work: that he was ignoring the proletariat and leading a different kind of revolution (merely populist). In reality, he was leading the party in shifting the focus of developing a primary fighting force (as contrasted with a motive-force, which remained the proletariat) toward the principle base of society, which under feudalism is the peasantry. The RCP has, through experience, come to the realization that certain important lessons from the Chinese experience apply universally, including the line on the unions. We still do trade union work, but it's indeed viewed as very secondary. Our position on union work is that we need to oppose collective bargaining itself and advance that position. But let's be honest: overwhelmingly, the union workers aren't ready for that kind of message yet. Only about 12 percent of workers in the U.S. are even union members at all at this point, and most of those that still are are the ones who make $60,000 a year or more. Not exactly the principle social base for revolution.

Now we shouldn't be (and aren't!) distancing ourselves from the proletariat. But yeah, we indeed should be focused more on the super-exploited proletariat and the most oppressed people in America than on doing union work right now. In the future, as we build up our ranks and our support, then we'll be in more of a position to expand and increase our union work, but right now the unions are pretty completely in the hands of the labor aristocracy to a degree we can't really contest. We need to focus our efforts where they can bear more fruit.


4. What happens when Bob Avakian dies? Aside from the fact that, and I mean this in all honesty, I expect the party to fragment, what is the party's plan?On this point, I'll once again point you to BA's still fairly recent talk Unresolved Contradictions (http://www.revcom.us/avakian/driving/index.html), beginning with the section "Vanguards and individual leaders: real contradictions, and the decisive importance of line" and continuing through "Ideology and Organization, Centralization and Decentralization". There, BA addresses precisely this question. To sum it up, the essential point is the advancement of the political line. The key is for the line to survive the passing of the current leadership (which, let's be honest, mostly consists of '60s era radicals) and continue to develop, rather than being abandoned for revisionism. There is no simple and guaranteed formula for ensuring that that becomes reality; it's a continual struggle. And we're continuing to develop and and more fully uncover correct methodology for keeping the party a revolutionary and communist party as we go, but the question of maintaining a revolutionary and communist line and continuing to develop that line will always be complex and dynamic.

ON THE INTERNET: I don't want to say too much on this sensitive subject, but to point this out, I've said nothing in regards to whether BA uses the Internet to communicate directly with the ordinary masses. It would be wrong of me to discuss the subject further. Some matters we only talk about on an in-person basis, rather than publicly on forums monitored by the FBI.

[RED DAVE]

Holy Shit!


The RCP has, through experience, come to the realization that certain important lessons from the Chinese experience apply universally, including the line on the unions.What is the nature of this experience? As far as I know, the RCP has engaged in very little union work over the past two decades.


We still do trade union work, but it's indeed viewed as very secondary.What do you view as primary?


Our position on union work is that we need to oppose collective bargaining itself and advance that position.You're going to get real far inside the working class with that. That's even dumber than the anarchosyndicalist line on Starbucks.


But let's be honest:Indeed.


overwhelmingly, the union workers aren't ready for that kind of message yet.My guess is that workers won't be ready for abandoning collective bargaining until the point of the overthrow of capitalism. What do you propose in the meantime? That workers passively accept what the bosses have to offer?


Only about 12 percent of workers in the U.S. are even union members at all at this point, and most of those that still are are the ones who make $60,000 a year or more. Not exactly the principle social base for revolution.The percentage is probably about right, but the money is bullshit. Only in a few categories, mostly professional, do organized workers reach $60K. The link below gives the figures. Remember that the $60+ figures for legal workers, etc., are median figures, which means that half the workers in those categories are below those figures.

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff5.cfm


Now we shouldn't be (and aren't!) distancing ourselves from the proletariat.Oh really? And where are you working with the proletariat?


But yeah, we indeed should be focused more on the super-exploited proletariat and the most oppressed people in America than on doing union work right now.What is the theoretical basis for this? And where and under what program and strategy will you do this work?


In the future, as we build up our ranks and our support, then we'll be in more of a position to expand and increase our union work, but right now the unions are pretty completely in the hands of the labor aristocracy to a degree we can't really contest. We need to focus our efforts where they can bear more fruit.Translation: it's too hard to do union work. It involves commitment over years, decades even, and Bob doesn't like it.


On this point, I'll once again point you to BA's still fairly recent talk Unresolved Contradictions (http://www.revcom.us/avakian/driving/index.html), beginning with the section "Vanguards and individual leaders: real contradictions, and the decisive importance of line" and continuing through "Ideology and Organization, Centralization and Decentralization". There, BA addresses precisely this question. To sum it up, the essential point is the advancement of the political line. The key is for the line to survive the passing of the current leadership (which, let's be honest, mostly consists of '60s era radicals) and continue to develop, rather than being abandoned for revisionism.By abandoning work inside the unions, among the most highly conscious and active workers, you have guaranteed revisionism.


There is no simple and guaranteed formula for ensuring that that becomes reality; it's a continual struggle. And we're continuing to develop and and more fully uncover correct methodology for keeping the party a revolutionary and communist party as we go, but the question of maintaining a revolutionary and communist line and continuing to develop that line will always be complex and dynamic.Suggestion on methodology: Move to France. It works for Bob and the healthcare benefits there are better. So's the wine if you indulge.

RED DAVE

[Obs]

Suggestion on methodology: Move to France. It works for Bob and the healthcare benefits there are better. So's the wine if you indulge.
No no, he's in POLITICAL EXILE!!!!!1

[x371322]

I'd think the fact by itself that the party has changed positions on so many issues over the years would by itself be testament to the fact that yes even the best leadership can be wrong and that we fully recognize that. BA himself has obviously recognized this and been self-critical with regard to his own past in a large array of areas.

This, to me, sounds like you're basically saying that the party recognizes Bob Avakian has been wrong, when Bob Avakian says he's wrong. So, in other words, you're still agreeing uncritically with whatever he says. The question here should be about openly disagreeing with current party line.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Czad wrote:
This, to me, sounds like you're basically saying that the party recognizes Bob Avakian has been wrong, when Bob Avakian says he's wrong. So, in other words, you're still agreeing uncritically with whatever he says. The question here should be about openly disagreeing with current party line.Well I can only speak for myself, but as for me, while I definitely support the radical re-envisioning of socialism that Bob Avakian has done, I do have certain, fairly significant disagreements with the RCP's tactics. Some of these are so significant that I personally don't employ the 'official' line. (Which is one part of why I'm not yet joining formally.) Namely, there really is some truth to the allegations that at present RCP people are expected mostly to simply reiterate scripts and yell at people in terms of how we engage with the masses. We need to break out of that; it's much more effective to talk to people in a more natural, less scripted way, I find, and I try to do so myself.

More substantially, let's just say that there are those of us who think that the printed newspaper and bookstores should be discontinued and that we should instead go online in an infinitely heavier way because we can actually reach far more people (including yes far more people here in America specifically) and gather far more resources that way probably. And also, redwinter and I have been discussing ideas like establishing dual power by moving people back into homes they've been evicted from and providing alternative work and so forth...and in that way establishing the foundation more materially on which people's power can be built.

I would also add that I don't particularly promote the REVOLUTION talk these days that the RCP is except when highlighting certain specific things. That's because I don't think it's really the right talk to be promoting so heavily right now. It advances outdated positions the RCP no longer holds in a number of areas, including on the "CPN(M)" and on our revolutionary strategy itself, which has since been rethought. (Check out this 2007 article (http://www.rwor.org/a/102/possibility-en.html) regarding an overhaul of our revolutionary strategy, for example.)

So don't be led to believe that RCP people are incapable of critical thinking or whatever.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Let's talk about Bob Avakian, in a thread dedicated to his life as a revolutionary and Marxist theorist, or not as the case may be. Also, the RCP itself and their role within the revolutionary activity in America.

I have a few questions that I think should be answered objectively, the first is: is Bob Avakian's "New Synthesis" a new addition to Marxist theory in its own right? Or is merely a bulked out version of points already established by historical Marxist thinkers?

The second: has the RCP established a personality cult around Bob Avakian? Are there critics of the leader within the party? If he does have a certain personality cult, does it reflect on his own achievements as a revolutionary?

Third: what are Bob Avakian's achievements as a revolutionary? Has he a genuine need to be exiled and in hiding, or is this merely an arrogant move? What are the reasons for his continued exile/why has he not returned home?

Fourth: is the RCP cult-like in its tactical approach to socialism, does it play a good role in class-struggle, what is its relationship with the working class and finally, is Bob Avakian a good leader, or should the party look towards getting a new one?

I'd like to see some people from the RCP answer, but also opponents and critics. I am not entirely clued up on American revolutionary parties, so this thread is designed for people like me to see a debate on the question of this party and its leader, as they have attracted much controversy within our community.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

This thread definitely seems to have been inspired by the ongoing discussion in the "RCP to Hold Web-a-Thon" thread. Truthfully, I've been posting there so continually in the last couple days that I'm exhausted of doing so. I've JUST gotten through answering all of the above questions on that thread for the umpteenth time now and am getting tired of repeating myself endlessly. Therefore, for the sake of my own convenience, I'll link below to some directly related posts that I think collectively answer at least most the above question from my POV...

This entry discusses most of the above questions. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1785696&postcount=177)

Here I pointed out a few of the distinct aspects of the new synthesis. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1767192&postcount=47)

Here, on a different thread, I discussed the new synthesis further. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1629148&postcount=59)

You can click on the link to the manifesto in my signature ("RCP, USA Program") for the official description of the new synthesis and here (http://revcom.us/a/129/New_Synthesis_Speech-en.html) you can find a more at-length look at the contents of the new synthesis. HINT: This latter link is the most comprehensive and exhaustive on the subject. If you can read that article and come out without any clue as to what the new synthesis represents, I'll be stunned.

I'd like to start this topic out on that foundation and move from there.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Recently there have been about 2/3 RCP threads each week. None of them have ended well. The consensus seems to be;

1.) The RCP is, or is rapidly becoming, a Bob Avakian cult. The BA T shirts weird people out.

2.) They have some good activists but overall they are not oriented to labor struggles.

3.) BA sometimes says some interesting things. Otherwise his "writings" other than his autobio, are basically dreck.

4.) Other than a member and sympathizer, no one on revleft can figure out exactly what BA's "New Synthesis" is. According to some it seems to be a restatement and "synthesis" of Marx, Luxemburg, Hilferding, and Bukharin, stuff written around 100 years ago.

5.) The RCP wants us to "engage with Bob" but Bob is in France. You know when the Rolling Stones made "Exile On Main Street" in a cool villa in the South of France? Bob's doing the same thing, only he doesn't sing nearly as well as Mick or Keith. The Stones, for all their pretentiousness, had better social commentary.Bob could be making youtube videos, speak at left venues., etc.He's not engaging us.

4.) RCP supporters say we should keep an open mind and read Bob instead of being abusive and expressing hostility. Opposition to the RCP and Bob should be based on their political line and activism, not personality cult stereotypes.

That's my summary of the previous threads.I hope I've nipped this one in the bud.

[Kassad]

I'm just going to merge this with the RCP Web-a-Thon thread because Monkey Riding Dragon addresses a lot of these questions already throughout the thread. If threads like this keep popping up, I'm honestly going to request that we have a sticky RCP thread because discussion about the party and Bob Avakian seems to be growing pretty rapidly. Threads merged.

[it_ain't_me]

I have a few questions that I think should be answered objectively, the first is: is Bob Avakian's ''New Synthesis'' a new addition to Marxist theory in its own right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6BJ3CvPLhs

[Adi Shankara]

I have a question for OP:

If he is in "exile", why does he go to an equally opressive, capitalist state like France? why not Cuba? I heard they actually accept revolutionaries who are worth their salt, but then he'd have to prove he wasn't living in luxury, which is probably why he doesn't go there.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

The unfortunate "consensus" Lenina describes is, I think, a direct result of the fact that the RCP at present is doing almost no online work. Think: redwinter and myself are the only RCP people here, despite the fact that Revolution site gets like 150,000 to 200,000 hits per issue and despite the fact that we're distributing paper issues by the hundreds of thousands these days. As stated earlier on this page, it's my opinion that we (RCP people) need to focus much more on Internet activity, including on message boards like this (as well as perhaps one of our own). The "consensus" here on RevLeft, in other words, merely reflects the RCP's present low level of online activity; something that should, I hope, change in the near future because we're more politically active these days than I can recall ever being up to this point.

Mostly the reason there's been so much discussion of the RCP of late I think has to do 1) with that increased activity, and 2) because people like myself and redwinter have been more active lately in attempting to foster debate on stuff like the new synthesis and discussion of our initiatives.

[Robocommie]

OH SHIT, it's Chuck D son!

[Adi Shankara]

The unfortunate "consensus" Lenina describes is, I think, a direct result of the fact that the RCP at present is doing almost no online work. Think: redwinter and myself are the only RCP people here, despite the fact that Revolution site gets like 150,000 to 200,000 hits per issue and despite the fact that we're distributing paper issues by the hundreds of thousands these days. As stated earlier on this page, it's my opinion that we (RCP people) need to focus much more on Internet activity, including on message boards like this (as well as perhaps one of our own). The "consensus" here on RevLeft, in other words, merely reflects the RCP's present low level of online activity; something that should, I hope, change in the near future because we're more politically active these days than I can recall ever being up to this point.

Mostly the reason there's been so much discussion of the RCP of late I think has to do 1) with that increased activity, and 2) because people like myself and redwinter have been more active lately in attempting to foster debate on stuff like the new synthesis and discussion of our initiatives.

Nice job avoiding my question...

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I've been answering your unlimited lineup of rather secondary questions continually for two days now and wasn't trying to avoid anything. My cable went out for a long time after I finished the previous post and when it went back in I pressed Submit Reply. Sorry I missed your latest post, which was added in the interim. Now you asked...


If he is in "exile", why does he go to an equally opressive, capitalist state like France? why not Cuba? I heard they actually accept revolutionaries who are worth their salt, but then he'd have to prove he wasn't living in luxury, which is probably why he doesn't go there.I don't know, dude. Does it even matter? From the RCP's standpoint, Cuba isn't a socialist country, but an oppressed capitalist country dependent on exporting sugar much like it was before 1959. Maybe he didn't want to give Castro's false claims to be a communist legitimacy. Or maybe there was some other reason. I've only been studying the RCP's history and body of work for two years now. And I'm not even an RCP member. The RCP doesn't discuss sensitive topics like BA's location publicly. So I don't know everything. Again, does it even matter? What bearing does any of this have on the political line he's putting forward?

[Obs]

What bearing does any of this have on the political line he's putting forward?

Well, for one, consider how many people would proclaim themselves Leninists if all Lenin had ever done was hang out in, say, Norway and write about how great he was and getting people to walk around with pictures of his face, all while Russia remained a semi-feudal empire.

The point is that, no matter how revolutionary and/or mind-blowingly amazing your writings are (BA's are neither), if you don't do jack shit to actually help a socialist cause, no-one's gonna care about you.

[Barry Lyndon]

Another thing indicates how slavish the RCP is about following everything BA says.

Avakian, throughout the Bush years, was giving his followers this whole scary story about how the 'Bush Regime' was pushing the United States towards becoming a fascist Christian theocracy. It's not that the Christian Right is not a menace, it was then and continues to be now. But this whole notion that the ruling class, in the abscence of a revolutionary political climate, was just going to throw away 200 years of bourgeois 'democracy' and opt for a highly divisive religious fascism that would imperil their own rule enormously was just a totally sensationalistic and an utterly non-Marxist analysis of fascism. Worse, if imminent fascism from the GOP is coming, then that becomes a justification to align with the Democrats-the kinder, gentler imperialists(*sarcasm*). I suggest that the RCPer's read Leon Trotsky's 'Fascism: What it is and how to fight it' so that they don't make this mistake again.

The bottom line is that BA was utterly wrong about the direction of American politics and was taken totally offguard by the Obama phenomenon. But do we read a retraction by either him or the RCP? No, we hear nothing. BA was totally wrong in his bullshit predictions, so its just swept under the rug and ignored.

[Adi Shankara]

Maybe he didn't want to give Castro's false claims to be a communist legitimacy.

Or maybe a geniune leader and patriot like Castro didn't want to soil his good name by being associated with a fake communist like Bob Avakian? I don't even know how Bob Avakian is a communist...
And of all places, France. capitalist, bourgeoisie France. why not go to a place where the proletariat need him most, like Central Africa? Rural Cambodia? Hell, the Balkans? shit, this BA sounds worthless as hell. Not only doesn't he engage with American communists, he totally disregards ones around the world as well. he only stays in France I bet because he can live a posh lifestyle there.


Mostly the reason there's been so much discussion of the RCP of late I think has to do 1) with that increased activity, and 2) because people like myself and redwinter have been more active lately in attempting to foster debate on stuff like the new synthesis and discussion of our initiatives.

Or maybe we want to hold the cult of Bob Avakian accountable, thus we are asking why we should follow a man who berates anyone who doesn't worship the ground he walks on as "capitalist fascist?"

Bob Avakian is the capitalist fascist; not Castro, not the good people in Nepal, not the citizens of Mozambique, but Bob Avakian.

[Obs]

And of all places, France. capitalist, bourgeoisie France. why not go to a place where the proletariat need him most, like Central Africa? Rural Cambodia? Hell, the Balkans?
Shit, the last thing the proletariat of Central Africa need is some pretentious bourgeois "intellectual" telling them they're doing it all wrong.



Bob Avakian is the capitalist fascist;
Woah there

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I think the RCP has a tendency to take right wing propaganda at face value. During the 80s there was a lot of bizarre, lunatic rhetoric from the Reagan Adm. about a "roll back" of the Soviet Union. The RCP's line was that the world was on the brink of a nuclear war and that a revolution was necessary to prevent this. Their slogan at the time was "An end to the horror or a horrible end". There's a C. Clarke Kissinger speech about this somewhere.

More recently, during the reign of Dubya, their line was that the US was on the verge of "Christian fascism". I'm certainly no fan of Xtian fundies, but in both cases the RCP was misreading the situation. (Although some of their satire articles about this were pretty good.) The Bushies had to throw the fundies some red meat; restricting abortion,abstinence only sex ed,etc, but the ruling class never wanted Xtian fascism. As Barry said they weren't going to throw away 200 + years of bourgoiuse science and culture. "Christian fascism" threatened to block new sources of capital accumulation in biotech and elsewhere. The Falwells, Dobsons, Sarah Palins, are for the masses. Nio one takes them seriously as players. When they step out of line they get there plug pulled, rapidly.

I'm not a Maoist, I feel the RCP's approach is petty bougoiuse, and the "culture of appreciation" strikes me as unhealthy, but I don't hate the RCP. If their approach works,hey, more power to them.

[Kassad]

Thomas_Sankara, some of your attacks on Avakian are becoming quite petty. Avakian is not a "fake communist" or a "capitalist" by any means, and the fact that you can't muster one shred of evidence to the contrary makes that quite apparent. Either formulate assertions and back them up or I'm going to start giving you infractions for trolling.

[Barry Lyndon]

I have to to back up Kassad on this one. I'm a very harsh critic of the RCP, but Avakian is not a 'capitalist', much less a 'fascist'. I think you started out ok but this is beggining to sound a little ridiculous.

[Adi Shankara]

Thomas_Sankara, some of your attacks on Avakian are becoming quite petty. Avakian is not a "fake communist" or a "capitalist" by any means, and the fact that you can't muster one shred of evidence to the contrary makes that quite apparent. Either formulate assertions and back them up or I'm going to start giving you infractions for trolling.

My mistake then. apologies.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Barry Lyndon wrote:
Worse, if imminent fascism from the GOP is coming, then that becomes a justification to align with the Democrats-the kinder, gentler imperialists(*sarcasm*). I suggest that the RCPer's read Leon Trotsky's 'Fascism: What it is and how to fight it' so that they don't make this mistake again.
Thomas_Sankara wrote:
Bob Avakian is the capitalist fascist; not Castro, not the good people in Nepal, not the citizens of Mozambique, but Bob Avakian.Now what was it people here were originally accusing the RCP of in terms of politics? Oh yes, purist ultra-leftism. Unable to substantiate that claim, they now turn to allegations that the RCP is instead somehow a right wing party. Debating such obvious fabrications is beneath me. Therein we see just how pathetically desperate people are to discredit real revolutionaries.


Barry Lyndon wrote:
The bottom line is that BA was utterly wrong about the direction of American politics and was taken totally offguard by the Obama phenomenon. But do we read a retraction by either him or the RCP? No, we hear nothing. BA was totally wrong in his bullshit predictions, so its just swept under the rug and ignored.Nothing is being "swept under the rug and ignored". The RCP continues to uphold (and rightly so) the understanding that the Republican Party is essentially a fascist organization today. You can see the ongoing relevance of this formulation in a wide range of areas (not least of which in Arizona and Utah these days). But here, for example, is a fairly recent commentary Bob Avakian made on, among other things, the Texas textbook battles that shows you this correct formulation hasn't been "swept under the rug and ignored". (http://www.revcom.us/avakian/culture_wars/index.html) (Its contents also go to discredit the lie forwarded recently by Barry that the RCP has adopted the social-imperialist "united front against fascism" position.)


Lenina Rosenweg wrote:
I think the RCP has a tendency to take right wing propaganda at face value. During the 80s there was a lot of bizarre, lunatic rhetoric from the Reagan Adm. about a "roll back" of the Soviet Union. The RCP's line was that the world was on the brink of a nuclear war and that a revolution was necessary to prevent this. Their slogan at the time was "An end to the horror or a horrible end". There's a C. Clarke Kissinger speech about this somewhere.The fact that the RCP didn't anticipate the Soviet Union's collapse from internal crisis was hardly anything exceptional. Almost no one did. That's because the Soviet Union was the first empire in history to collapse outside the context of war. And yes, in the early '80s things clearly were sharpening up toward war with between the two superpowers.

[Barry Lyndon]

Now what was it people here were originally accusing the RCP of in terms of politics? Oh yes, purist ultra-leftism. Unable to substantiate that claim, they now turn to allegations that the RCP is instead somehow a right wing party. Debating such obvious fabrications is beneath me. Therein we see just how pathetically desperate people are to discredit real revolutionaries.

Nothing is being "swept under the rug and ignored". The RCP continues to uphold (and rightly so) the understanding that the Republican Party is essentially a fascist organization today. You can see the ongoing relevance of this formulation in a wide range of areas (not least of which in Arizona and Utah these days). But here, for example, is a fairly recent commentary Bob Avakian made on, among other things, the Texas textbook battles that shows you this correct formulation hasn't been "swept under the rug and ignored". (http://www.revcom.us/avakian/culture_wars/index.html) (Its contents also go to discredit the lie forwarded recently by Barry that the RCP has adopted the social-imperialist "united front against fascism" position.)

Stop conflating me with Thomas Sankara, we are not the same people. I and others called him out on his hyperbole and he apologized. Address my actual arguments.

Plus, you have not answered what I was saying. Whether the Republican party is or is not a fascist organization is another issue(I personally don't think it is, but I do think it contains fascistic elements). BA repeatedly alleged, in numerous articles, that the Bush administration was going to install religious fascism in a few years, even that this fascist coup would touch off a second US civil war, which DID NOT OCCUR. The RCP has never retracted those thoroughly false claims, because BA never retracted them, and the RCP slavishly follows everything that BA ever says as if it is gospel.

You still haven't explained to me why the American ruling class would resort to fascism when there is no threat of a socialist revolution on the horizon, either during the Bush years or today. Every fascist takeover has been in the context of working class unrest that the capitalist class can no longer control through conventional 'democratic' means-Germany, Italy, Indonesia, Chile, etc.

Your evasiveness is very annoying.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I wasn't really trying to evade anything, but to answer several remarks within a period of 10 minutes. But anyway, I don't have much time now either, but I'll try to sum this up.

BA never claimed the ability to predict the future. He simply assessed the logical trajectory of what the Bush regime was aiming for. It remains our assessment that the GOP continues to aim for fascism and that the danger of fascism is real and that that fate, one way or another, is all but unavoidable save for communist revolution coming forward. Nothing about the RCP's line in this area has essentially changed since Bush left office.

BA has also addressed why this would be done. I don't have time to get into all that atm, but it has to do with major differences over the question of how to resolve some of the major contradictions plaguing American the American ruling class today (such as the question of black people, for example).

[dutch master]

I bought a Bob Avakian t-shirt at the US Social Forum. The RCP is crazy.

[Robocommie]

I bought a Bob Avakian t-shirt at the US Social Forum. The RCP is crazy.

Hah, ironic cult of personality ftw. ;)

Listen, Monkey Dragon Rider, obviously you and I disagree about a lot, but I will give you credit for this; sincerely; you've been keeping up this argument for a long time when there's almost nobody else on your side of the argument. That has got to be fucking infuriating. So, kudos to you for having the determination to keep it up, even if I do disagree with you.

[Adi Shankara]

Hah, ironic cult of personality ftw. ;)

Listen, Monkey Dragon Rider, obviously you and I disagree about a lot, but I will give you credit for this; sincerely; you've been keeping up this argument for a long time when there's almost nobody else on your side of the argument. That has got to be fucking infuriating. So, kudos to you for having the determination to keep it up, even if I do disagree with you.

seconded; you at least have the conviction to stand up for what you believe in, without crumbling, something many cannot do.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

First, before I exhaust any more time, I'll finish my reply to Barry from earlier by posting the two links I didn't have time to look up before:

1. A 2006 article that answers many of your questions. (http://revcom.us/a/029/avakian-civil-war.htm) Check out the section under the heading "Why Would 'They' Do That?" in particular.

2. An examination of how this pyramid of power understanding applies to the recent health care reform bill and the reaction to its passage (http://www.revcom.us/a/197/health-en.html), for example.

Hope that adequately answers your questions!

Robocommie, Thomas, and Lenina:

Well, I'll take any compliments from this community I can get at this point. ;):lol: But in all seriousness, there are plenty of other people "on [my] side of the argument". Hundreds, if not thousands, in this country, and many more abroad. I've met lots of them. It's just that they don't frequent RevLeft (yet...which, again, is something I hope will change in the near future). But yeah, I have to admit that it does get kind of frustrating to rarely get anything but hostility when I visit here, so I do genuinely appreciate even the least vote of sympathy, however cynical it may be.

[dutch master]

RCP is anti-Cuba and anti-DPRK. Fuck them.

[Adi Shankara]

RCP is anti-Cuba and anti-DPRK. Fuck them.

Why do you care about the DPRK? they themselves say they aren't communist anymore.

[dutch master]

Why do you care about the DPRK? they themselves say they aren't communist anymore.

Where do they say anything to the effect they aren't communists? Answer: no where, you just pulled this from your ass.

[Adi Shankara]

Where do they say anything to the effect they aren't communists? Answer: no where, you just pulled this from your ass.

"...Current North Korean leader Kim Jong-il (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il) officially authored the definitive statement on Juche in a 1982 document titled On the Juche Idea. After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union), North Korea’s greatest economic benefactor, all reference to Marxism-Leninism was dropped in the revised 1998 constitution. But Marxist-Leninist phraseology remains in occasional use. Kim Jong-Il incorporated the Songun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun) (army-first) policy into Juche in 1996."

[dutch master]

Removing some references to Marxism-Leninism does not equal them saying they are not communist.

[Adi Shankara]

Removing some references to Marxism-Leninism does not equal them saying they are not communist.

notice it didn't say "some", but rather, it said "all", as in "every single one".

[dutch master]

So fucking what? Lots of commies use front groups that don't mention anything about Marxism-Leninism, socialism, etc. They probably made the decision for diplomatic reasons.

[Robocommie]

So fucking what? Lots of commies use front groups that don't mention anything about Marxism-Leninism, socialism, etc. They probably made the decision for diplomatic reasons.

How does that make sense? "We'll stop talking about Marxism and communism and eventually they'll forget we're Marxist, and then they'll all like us again."

[JacobVardy]

I'm done arguing on the "cult" allegations, so that aspect of your post will be ignored. As to the meaning of the stars in my signature, everything about my RevLeft profile is symbolic. Regarding the stars in my signature, the outlined one in the center symbolizes the central role of communist leadership. All six outlying stars symbolize elements of the revolutionary masses. The black and red star, it's worth noting, doesn't historically symbolize anarchist syndicalism exclusively. A lot of less advanced revolutionary elements have embraced similar 'coloration schemes'. For example, here is the historical flag of the Khmer Rouge. (http://theora.com/images/KhmerRougeFlag.jpg) You'll likewise notice the color choices on the flag of the Zapatistas. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_the_EZLN.svg/450px-Flag_of_the_EZLN.svg.png) The stars in my signature, in other words, can be considered as degrees of revolutionary consciousness. Plus, I just think it (including red and black) looks cool. :thumbup1:

Sorry Monkey, i guess i was not clear. I was not mocking you. I was mocking everyone else on this thread. For people who identify as Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists or Maoists to call anyone else 'cultish' is a bit hypocritical. Same goes with my comment about stars.

[RED DAVE]

It remains our assessment that the GOP continues to aim for fascism and that the danger of fascism is real ... .Would you care to give some evidence for this extravagant claim? Consider that fascism is "the fighting weapon of the bourgeoisie" and that the bourgeoisie is firmly in control of society as a whole and of the state. Why then would fascism be on the current agenda of the ruling class?

RED DAVE

[Prometeo liberado]

I dont wanna go to the place with the scary clown!

[The Douche]

I dont wanna go to the place with the scary clown!

Holy necro, batman.

[Robespierre Richard]

Wow, a lot of people have been banned since June 5, 2010. Could this thread be to blame?