On the Revolutionary Road with Chairman Avakian

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

On the Revolutionary Road with Chairman Avakian

A contribution to the conversation on the unique and irreplaceable contributions of our Chairman: a few thoughts on approach and method
by Lenny Wolff

Revolutionary Worker #1224, December 28, 2003, posted at rwor.org (http://rwor.org/)

Lenny Wolff is the author of the book, The Science of Revolution,an introduction to basic principles, analyses and methods of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

I

In recent months I've had occasion to return to What Is To Be Done? and--coupled with study and reflection on some other points as well, including the campaign to promote and popularize our Chair-- it's led me to a renewed appreciation for the almost gravitational pull of spontaneity: no matter how high you aim to fly, if you don't fight the pull, you'll come back down. It's worth thinking about the huge percentage of one-time revolutionaries--both parties and individuals--who've come crashing down on those rocks. They almost all came into things with genuine revolutionary convictions. But one day, after years or even decades of battle, they somehow find their name at the bottom of a contract for a sell-out, maybe without even being conscious of how they got to that point, or even having signed it. That's the strength of spontaneity--quite apart from your convictions, unless you find the ways to divert the natural stream of things, you're gonna end up drifting downstream to a place you once swore you'd never go.

I think one earmark of our Chairman's approach has never been to rest content with what we've accomplished. He ceaselessly interrogates the whole party and he interrogates himself: Are we doing everything we can to make revolution? Are we focusing on the right questions? Are we pushing hard enough--or in the right direction--on the limits of the possible? Are we looking enough at things from our final goal back, and are we forging strong enough links between that goal.and the many pressing tasks of today? Are we approaching things enough from a thoroughly internationalist standpoint and situating all our work in this belly of the beast from the needs and struggles of the people worldwide? Are we thinking rigorously enough about the points raised by people who don't agree with us on strategy, but who may be on to something we need to learn from nevertheless (a case in point on this: the Chair's writings on George Jackson[1] a few years ago)? Are we settling for easy answers or facile approaches to complex questions? Are we doing enough to bring forward critical sections of our base, to develop (and learn from) the youth around the Party, to engage with others who are out there trying to do something positive?

This orientation of the Chairman's, I think, is one very decisive reason why our Party has been able to not just stay on the revolutionary road in this country, but to actually advance on it.

to continue this article, please see: http://www.rwor.org/a/1224/lennywolff.htm

[redstar2000]

In recent months I've had occasion to return to What Is To Be Done? and--coupled with study and reflection on some other points as well, including the campaign to promote and popularize our Chair[man] -- it's led me to a renewed appreciation for the almost gravitational pull of spontaneity...

Emphasis added...as it must be, of course.

Why does this group need "a campaign to promote and popularize" Bob Avakian?


I think one earmark of our Chairman's approach has never been to rest content with what we've accomplished.

And do they "mark your ears"? Because Leninist parties are voluntarist, you can "never do enough" to "make revolution"...even if you give up eating, sleeping, etc. and work 24/7/365 for the party.

If you positively "flourish" under a regime of constant nagging, here is a "church" for you.


Anyway, we were discussing one or another of the Chairman's talks from the early '90s and she remarked that whenever she reads one of the Chair's talks, she feels as if she's being invited in to grapple with and contribute to helping solve and answer the problems and questions that he's raising.

As opposed, of course, to actually being "invited in". She's fully aware that Chairman Bob is not going to telephone her in the next few days and anxiously inquire into her crucial opinions.

But, what's the harm? Everyone could use a little fantasy in life, right?


I do think that the Chair has further extended the philosophical contributions of Mao in particular into something of a higher synthesis.

I think the author is looking for a job. That line reads like something out of Dilbert.


This is really good stuff--and really something new!

It's re-warmed Leninism...and it tastes like just what you think.


If you have a half-formed insight, a question, a disagreement--if you are thinking out loud and trying out a new idea--the Chairman will listen with a fully open ear and then he'll challenge you to develop that insight, question, thought, or disagreement as much as you can; he'll prod you to draw out the further implications as fully as you can, he'll encourage you to take the time (and the responsibility) to think it through as rigorously as possible.

And if he likes it, he'll claim it for his own. That's what really successful bosses do.


Another point on approach: the Chairman is what I would call a comprehensive and far-reaching thinker--a mix of being wide-ranging and all-embracing and at the same time very open to the new and unexpected. There's an approach of ranging widely and making connections (connections that sometimes seem unlikely at first glance)--of being very lofty and very grounded in the real deal, simultaneously--and of doing all that in the service of confronting the hardest problems.

In his spare time, he should compile a Lexicon of Shameless Flattery...he must hear plenty of it if this piece is any example.

Well, there's more...go check out the whole piece if you want to see it. It basically makes no real political points at all...just fuzzy platitudes.

I sort of feel sorry for the guy that wrote it; can you imagine the "demons" that must haunt his poor brain that he felt "compelled" to churn out this exercise in naked servility?

Can you imagine, for that matter, how Marx and Engels would have responded to such grotesque self-abasement? Are you fluent in 19th century German profanity?

:redstar2000:

If you have a taste for this kind of "thing", by the way, here's some more...

St. Avakian's First Church of Mao (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6377&s=)

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

I would like to read Chairman Avakian's book 'Bullets', I went on their site but could not find a copy of it.

Why does this group need "a campaign to promote and popularize" Bob Avakian?

He is the leader and the greatest intellect in the movement. Increase in his popularity increases the popularity of the movement.

If you positively "flourish" under a regime of constant nagging, here is a "church" for you.

Everyone excels by being monitered and pushed so that they can achieve their best. This is the case in education and work. People need external input from those more experienced and educated than them.


It is a positive thing for oneself to praise others for their achievements and skills. This piece will benefit the whole movement and aid others in improving theirselves under Avakian's education and guidance.

Redstar2000, I think you reject outright any kind of authority because perhaps you feel it diminishes your own creativity and independence as an individual person (and the same for all individuals). Is this right?

[SonofRage]

This reminds me of something David McReynolds (http://votesocialist.org/mcr2000/bio.html) once wrote that I found kind of amusing:


Originally posted by "David McReynolds"

Maoists in this country are lost groups - the RCP, which has lots of energy, is working in NION ("Not In Our Name"), and supports the Shining Path in Peru. In their political view they are out of touch, given to slogans, and still pledge allegiance to their "leader" Avakian who is suffering terribly from exile - he "has to live in Paris" (poor man!).

[redstar2000]

He is the leader and the greatest intellect in the movement.

How can you write something like that without choking?

Andrei Mazenov has actually posted two good articles on this board from the RCP--neither of which were written by Avakian and either of which probably contain more sensible statements that all of Avakian's Maoist babble combined.

Greatest intellect? Poo!

And "he is the leader"? Yeah, "salute him", as the Italian fascists used to say whenever Mussolini entered the room.


Increase in his popularity increases the popularity of the movement.

Why not just change the name then? Who needs "revolutionary communism" when you can join the Bob Avakian Fan Club?


Everyone excels by being monitored and pushed so that they can achieve their best. This is the case in education and work.

Did you know that in the old South (U.S.), there were actual "instruction manuals" published on how to productively manage slave labor? They believed in "monitoring" and "pushing" too...not to mention an occasional touch of the whip.


People need external input from those more experienced and educated than them.

And so, "by Mao", they're going to get it whether they want it or not. (!)


It is a positive thing for oneself to praise others for their achievements and skills. This piece will benefit the whole movement and aid others in improving themselves under Avakian's education and guidance.

Good grief!!!


Redstar2000, I think you reject outright any kind of authority because perhaps you feel it diminishes your own creativity and independence as an individual person (and the same for all individuals). Is this right?

This is not "any kind" of authority. It is a grotesque "personality cult" and utterly repugnant to anyone with even the most minimal commitment to communism!

The very fact that Avakian would tolerate or, for all we know, initiate this kind "idol worship" conclusively demonstrates that he is not any kind of "communist" whatsoever!

He's running a church; that is, a racket.

As to the remainder of your question, I do not acknowledge any kind of abstract "virtue" in "authority" as such. To me, it is always a matter of "authority over who?" and "authority to do what?".

Your conception of authority as being somehow "good" and "needed" in and of itself is completely unMarxist and a-historical.

Communists always insist on knowing the details.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Redstar2000, could you possibly think about breaking down your actual disagreements with the Chairman and the article, rather than flinging the same insult after insult out there and the same accusations? It seems much of your argument isn't an argument at all, but petty mudslinging.

There is nothing wrong with supporting a leader, in my opinion. Your attempts at insult by calling is a 'cult of personality' fall flat, and echo a long standing bourgeois attack on all revolutionary thinkers and leaders from Marx onward.

The point is that Communists see the need for both collectivity and leadership. And the RCP is very fortunate to have someone as sharp, deep, and inciteful as Bob- cuz without a revolutionary leadership, you ain't gonna have a revolutionary movement!

Listen to what the man has to say about the world and how to change it. And I don't mean just an article. Read some of his writings or listen to the CD interview- that is powerful stuff. And it is direly needed in this world today.

[Morpheus]

The article doesn't have an arguement, it's just hero worshipping. I prefer to think for myself instead of letting "great leaders" do all my thinking for me. If they have some good ideas use them, but throw out any bad ideas they may have. The kind of hero worship we see in this article should not be applied to anyone, not Avarkian, Marx, Chomsky, Bakunin or anyone else.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I agree that we must not worship leaders or conform dogmatically to their ideas. But lemme put it how I've heard it said- people will give greater weight to the ideas of people who have proven themselves to be great and capable leaders in any movement or institution. We should never ever follow someone blindly because they are in authority, but we should look up to and celebrate leaders who have given great contributions to our cause, who have led us through difficult struggles, and who during key times took up the banner of truth & liberation. These people are going to be given a certain authority and are going to be seen as critically more important than someone who is a beginner or is inexperienced.

Another thought that I've heard from some people: We SHOULD have pictures of our leaders, but not as a means of worship. A lot of people largely look at these pictures of revolutionary theorists, leaders, etc., not from some metaphysical way, not a praising way, but in these people they see their revolutionary potential, they see a role model and they see themselves. This is what I want to see, and I want to see more of it. Why is this so "bad"?

(BTW: Morpheus, do you post on the Flag bulletin boards @ http://flag.blackened.net/ ? I posted there as "Engel242" back when I was an Anarchist, and I'm a friend of Edo's. Your name struck me as familiar...)

[Morpheus]

people will give greater weight to the ideas of people who have proven themselves to be great and capable leaders in any movement or institution

Only if they aren't capable of thinking for themselves. And if they follow these leaders around we'll just end up creating a new system of domination, with a new set of tyrants on top. The working class has made far greater contributions to our cause then any leader. And I couldv'e sworn Avarkian was a homophobe.


Another thought that I've heard from some people: We SHOULD have pictures of our leaders, but not as a means of worship. A lot of people largely look at these pictures of revolutionary theorists, leaders, etc., not from some metaphysical way, not a praising way, but in these people they see their revolutionary potential, they see a role model and they see themselves. This is what I want to see, and I want to see more of it. Why is this so "bad"?

Because it's identical to religion and because it reproduces oppression. If the Avarkian worshippers took Mao's "self-criticism" bit seriously they wouldn't be engaged in the kind of hero worship we see in the article you posted. Think for yourself, don't follow leaders.

Yes, I'm the same Morpheus from flag.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Only if they aren't capable of thinking for themselves.

I don't think that people should ignore their own ideas, or not think for themselves. Nor do I think that we should take up the line of a leader uncritically. That's not what I'm arguing or the article is arguing at all.


And if they follow these leaders around we'll just end up creating a new system of domination, with a new set of tyrants on top.

Why? What says that leaders have to become tyrants and exploiters? Is this some magical law of the universe?


The working class has made far greater contributions to our cause then any leader.

Communists realize that it is the masses, and the masses alone, who make history. Nevertheless, the people won't just get correct ideas out of some spontaneous, random, decentralized actions. Nor will correct ideas come out of the blue. Correct ideas come from an objective, scientific analysis of society and putting forward and collective, unified strategy that will WIN. That is what, to me, a leadership does. And this leadership cannot be divorced from the masses, it cannot "come down from the sky" to act as "condescending saviors" (as The Internationale says). The main thing about leaders is not that they are above the masses, but that they are the of the most class-conscious of the proletariat (and its allies) who have taken the responsibilty to lead and organize revolution- as well as to bring for the masses to become leaders themselves. This is how I view leaders- not above the working class, but PART of the working class.


And I couldv'e sworn Avarkian was a homophobe.

Firstoff, there is no record of Bob Avakian ever saying anything upholding the persecution or oppression of GLBT comrades.
Second, as a non-heterosexual and a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, I would definitely not call the RCP "homophobic". There are (and have always been) GLBT members of the RCP and RCYB, and the RCP has never has advocated the persecution or oppression of non-heterosexual people. However, it is true that during the 1980's and early 1990's the RCP had an incorrect and erroneous line concerning homosexuality and how it would fit into Socialist society.

Thankfully, the RCP-USA has corrected this line in its new Draft Programme, which can be found at http://2changetheworld.info/
as well as in a special position paper, On the Position on Homosexuality in the New Draft Programme (which can be found at http://2changetheworld.info/docs/h-02-fulltext-en.php as well). To quote the Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA itself:

As for intimate relations, socialist society will promote values of, and create the conditions for, personal, family, and sexual relations based on mutual love, respect, and equality.

The revolutionary proletariat is staunchly opposed to the attacks on homosexuality by reactionary forces such as religious fundamentalists, and to all physical assaults on, discrimination against, and government repression of homosexuals, which is so widespread and vicious in the U.S. today. In the new society, discrimination against homosexuals will be outlawed and struggled against in every sphere of society, including personal and family relations. (p. 22)


***************

Sexual and intimate relations between men and women in bourgeois society are largely reflective of and dominated by the ideology of male supremacy and "male right"; they exist within and are influenced by the overall framework of social relations in which the oppression of women is an integral and fundamental part. All this is something that the proletariat will be mobilizing the masses to radically transform in the process of uprooting the oppression of women and all oppression and exploitation. In the realm of intimate relations, socialist society will encourage people to strive for standards that are consistent with and contribute to uprooting the oppression of women.

Homosexuality

Under socialism people will not be stigmatized because they are homosexuals or because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination will not be tolerated, and the repression and violence against homosexuals that has been so prevalent in capitalist society will be firmly opposed and dealt with.

At the same time, it is important to grasp that same sex relations do not escape and do not exist outside of the prevailing family and sexual relations and the corresponding ideology of male supremacy that oppress women in this society. In many ways the outlook that characterizes male gay culture in bourgeois society is not a departure from--and in fact there are elements in which it is a concentration of--male right. Lesbianism is in many ways a response to the oppression of women in class society, but in and of itself it is not a fundamental solution to this oppression.

The outlook that one partner in an intimate relationship must be devalued, dominated, abused, or owned is a reflection of the oppression of women in society; and forms of male right, in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, will be targets of criticism and transformation. (From the appendix "The Proletarian Revolution and the Emancipation of Women," p. 106 )

I hope this clarifies any questions anyone might have about the RCP's line concerning Homosexuality.

Nevertheless, I digress.


Because it's identical to religion and because it reproduces oppression.

How is it identical to religion? I put up pictures of my family, of my friends, of my pets, of my favorite bands and celebrities, etc. all over my house. Is that idolatry? Is that "worshipping" them? I don't think so. I dont see how putting up a picture of a leader implies worship any more than putting up pictures of friends or family would imply worship like an Eastern Orthodox icon of Jesus.

And if we put up pictures of people we respect, admire, and recognize as having done great things, how does that reproduce oppression? In my belief, if what they stood for was oppression, then yes, it will reproduce oppression! But what if what they stand for reproduces liberation?...


If the Avarkian worshippers took Mao's "self-criticism" bit seriously they wouldn't be engaged in the kind of hero worship we see in the article you posted.

I take criticism and self-criticism very seriously. I'm sure that Comrade Wolff and Chairman Avakian do too. Since this is true, and since I am not a dogmatic, mechanical drone (and I am certain Wolff isn't one either- I have read his book The Science of Revolution, which is as undogmatic, critical, and scientific as you can get), I see no hero worship involved- only recognition of the ideological contributions of one man. I also do not consider myself an Avakian worshipper. I worship no one.


Think for yourself, don't follow leaders.

Why can't I do both? Why can't I follow and uphold the ideas of a leader (who, if I may say so myself, I choose to follow on my own will) and yet still think critically about what he's saying? I think it is good for Communists to question things, and they should constantly question themselves and question their leaders! I don't see how I have stopped thinking for myself simply because I support Bob Avakian's theories and analysis.

Lemme put it this way- Comrade Morpheus, would you find it "bizzare" and "religious" if someone wrote an article praising the contributions of Mikhail Bakunin to Anarchist theory? Should this (http://struggle.ws/pdfs/RBR6.pdf) Anarchist zine issue, which contains an article analyzing and discussing the contributions of an Anarchist leader, be considered "religion"? In this light, is Wolff's article really that "worshipping" in its tone? I personally do not think so.


Yes, I'm the same Morpheus from flag.

Awesome. It's been a while- I remember you being a very intelligent and interesting contributor to debate. It's good to see yah. :cool:

[redstar2000]

Redstar2000, could you possibly think about breaking down your actual disagreements with the Chairman and the article...?

I thought I made myself pretty clear, but let me spell it out: I am opposed to leader-worship as a matter of communist principle! No fucking exceptions!

Therefore, it does not matter to me what "the Chairman" says about anything. The willing participation in an admitted campaign to popularize himself puts him on the same level as any other sleazy bourgeois political hack.


There is nothing wrong with supporting a leader, in my opinion. Your attempts at insult by calling it a 'cult of personality' fall flat, and echo a long standing bourgeois attack on all revolutionary thinkers and leaders from Marx onward.

Horseshit! The reason the bourgeoisie attack "revolutionary leaders" is that they are competing for market-share. The bourgeoisie love personality cults and always have. Who put Hitler in power, for crying out loud?!

Nothing "wrong" with "supporting a leader"? How about "nothing wrong" with a self-inflicted pre-frontal lobotomy?!

(And the implication that Marx or Engels would have tolerated this kind of crap is as gross an insult to them as anything the bourgeoisie ever said about them.)


The point is that Communists see the need for both collectivity and leadership.

Oh? Perhaps in the dusty halls of the Lenin Wax Museum...not in the real world and certainly not in the way you're using the word leadership--an iconic father-figure who will "take care of us".


And the RCP is very fortunate to have someone as sharp, deep, and insightful as Bob- cuz without a revolutionary leadership, you ain't gonna have a revolutionary movement!

Sharp? Deep? Insightful? How is recycling Leninist-Maoist platitudes in an advanced capitalist country evidence of any of those "sterling qualities"?

You just did it yourself, by the way. "...Without a revolutionary leadership, you ain't gonna have a revolutionary movement."

Who "led" the great February 1917 revolution in Russia? Who "led" the French General Strike of 1968? Who "led" the workers of Barcelona when they defeated the fascists in 1936? Who "led" the Paris Commune?


Listen to what the man has to say about the world and how to change it. And I don't mean just an article. Read some of his writings or listen to the CD interview- that is powerful stuff. And it is direly needed in this world today.

Here are "the Chairman's" own words...


The point is that in class society and with the division of labor (or significant remnants of the division of labor) characteristic of class-divided society, it is the case that certain individuals come to "represent the truth" in a concentrated way (as others do the false). This, of course, is not a "once-and-for-all, lifetime-guaranteed" thing - and there is always the danger that building up such people could turn into a very bad thing if they no longer did "represent the truth" after a certain point. But even if there remains the real possibility that the individual may thus change, there will also remain the need for building up others who do continue to stand for the truth in a concentrated way. In any case such people play their role as leaders of a class...and thus there is, as Mao described it, the combination of the role of the individual (in particular in this context the individual leader) and collective leadership.

This is gross metaphysical idealism and, inspite of some terminological similarities, has as much in common with Marxism as the works of Plato!

Look at that "reasoning"! As a consequence of the division of labor (???), "certain individuals" "come"(???) to "represent" the "truth"(???).

Division of labor certainly exists. How it goes about concentrating "truth" in some individuals and "lies" in others...well, "it just does that, we don't know why". (!)

And, suggestively, he adds that what division of labor "giveth" it can also "taketh away". The "representation of truth" (the Chinese called it "the mandate of Heaven"!) can pass (by some unspecified mechanism) from one individual to another, even while the initial individual is still alive.

Dammit, this is not Marxism, it's fucking theology! And, like all theologies, it is at root a rhetorical cover for the desire to either maintain an existing ruling class or create a new one.


...people will give greater weight to the ideas of people who have proven themselves to be great and capable leaders in any movement or institution.

Oh, and how have they "proven" themselves to be "great and capable"? By initiating campaigns to "popularize" themselves? By saying, over and over again, "I am both great and capable" until people think it must be "true"?! By surrounding themselves with a coterie of sycophants who will repeat that message to anyone who will listen?

I quite agree that in class society most people have been thoroughly conditioned to look up to "leaders", to defer to their majestic opinions, to celebrate their brilliant ideas, etc.

It is the task of revolutionaries to smash that crap...not try to "use it" to "build ourselves up".


Another thought that I've heard from some people: We SHOULD have pictures of our leaders, but not as a means of worship. A lot of people largely look at these pictures of revolutionary theorists, leaders, etc., not from some metaphysical way, not a praising way, but in these people they see their revolutionary potential, they see a role model and they see themselves. This is what I want to see, and I want to see more of it. Why is this so "bad"?

Because it is worship, regardless of any verbal gymnastics you use to disguise it.

If you want to be a Marxist, to learn to look at social reality the way he did, a picture of the old buzzard won't help! You actually have to read and study his work, his methods, the criticisms that were made of him and how he responded, etc.

The same thing is true of any human being who has ever lived. If you have the (unfortunate) desire to be the "next Lenin" or the "next Stalin" or the "next Mao", you actually have to study what they wrote and did. Pictures on the wall are irrelevant.

Except, of course, for those who are simply replacing old icons (Jesus, Mary, etc.) with new ones. "Hail the Chairman, full of grace, the truth is with thee, blessed art thou amongst leaders..."

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

Forgive me, I must quote from my day-to-day flip calendar of the Stupid History of the World in responce to this:


people will give greater weight to the ideas of people who have proven themselves to be great and capable leaders in any movement or institution.

"If fifty million poeple say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-Anatole France

Hero cults are foolish, and thus it doesnt matter how popular your great chairman is, it is still foolish what you are trying to do.

-Pete

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I thought I made myself pretty clear, but let me spell it out: I am opposed to leader-worship as a matter of communist principle! No fucking exceptions!

Me too. Shake hands.


Therefore, it does not matter to me what "the Chairman" says about anything. The willing participation in an admitted campaign to popularize himself puts him on the same level as any other sleazy bourgeois political hack.

I don't know where it said that Bob Avakian was necessarily part of the campaign to popularize him.


Nothing "wrong" with "supporting a leader"? How about "nothing wrong" with a self-inflicted pre-frontal lobotomy?!

Petty mudslinging and snide comments. Moving on.


(And the implication that Marx or Engels would have tolerated this kind of crap is as gross an insult to them as anything the bourgeoisie ever said about them.)

This kind of thinking smacks of dogmatism, in my opinion. Also, I think that Marx and Engels recognized the need for leaders within a movement, if I'm correct... To understand what I mean by that, see my reply to Morpheus.


Oh? Perhaps in the dusty halls of the Lenin Wax Museum...not in the real world and certainly not in the way you're using the word leadership--an iconic father-figure who will "take care of us".

Who's livin' in a wax museum? And who said I wanted an iconic father-figure to "take care of me"? I certainly don't want one.


Sharp? Deep? Insightful? How is recycling Leninist-Maoist platitudes in an advanced capitalist country evidence of any of those "sterling qualities"?

Avakian didn't just "recycle" Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory in his writings and speeches- he brought many new summations into the International Communist Movement through his books Mao Tse-Tung's Immortal Contributions, Conquer The World?, and Phony Communism Is Dead... Long Live Real Communism! Wolff also makes this point further in the article itself:

I do think that the Chair has further extended the philosophical contributions of Mao in particular into something of a higher synthesis. For one thing, much of Mao's later and most provocative philosophical thoughts--as captured in the various unofficial collections of speeches and comments made after 1949--as well as the philosophical implications of some of Mao's pathbreaking political analyses and some of what was brought forward in the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (e.g., class struggle under socialism, continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the role of consciousness and the superstructure, overcoming bourgeois right, the role of the Party under socialism, etc.)--never were synthesized into a coherent whole until Bob Avakian wrote Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions.

While that would be significant enough in itself, the way in which the Chair has summed up, further developed and applied these insights actually amounts to a further contribution to Marxist philosophy. This goes from Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions through the short essay back in '81 on the "philosophical basis of proletarian internationalism," "Conquer the World" and the many discussions through the years on questions of dialectics and method all the way up to the recent talk on "Grasp Revolution, Promote Production"--where he takes a concept and "praxis" originally developed to apply to the economy in China and draws from it philosophical and methodological implications that range over the relationship between chance and causality and accident and necessity, the universal Marxist method and particular areas of human endeavor, learning and leading, leading and unleashing, economics and politics, etc. etc., all in the context of humanity's epochal struggle to understand and transform the world. This is really good stuff--and really something new![/u]

"Grasp Revolution, Promote Production" (http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#grasp) isn't just a recitation of some things Mao said- it takes Mao's idea of "Grasp revolution, promote production" and other ideas centered around this and takes them even further- and brings them into a modern day light with new ideas!


Who "led" the great February 1917 revolution in Russia?

Many people, in many different places- from Anarchists to Socialist Revolutionaries to God know what other parties were out there at the time. To say it was leaderless would be ludicrous.


Who "led" the French General Strike of 1968?

No one, and that's the reason that I think it was defeated without going to "all-the-way" revolution (although only the most pathetic revisionist hack could call it a "failure" or a "bad thing"- it was a GREAT thing!). A good Maoist summation of those wonderful Days of May is at http://rwor.org/a/v20/960-69/961/fran68.htm


Who "led" the workers of Barcelona when they defeated the fascists in 1936?

They had leaders within their ranks, but unfortunately the lack of an organized and coherent leadership and the lack of a proper strategy eventually led the Spanish Republic and the Anarchist Communes to a crashing defeat in 1939.


Who "led" the Paris Commune?

Ummm, who were the Communards and such (and even then, remember that the Paris Commune had a lot of shortcomings- but this is understandable considering it was the first time the proletariat had ever seized power in one place)?


This is gross metaphysical idealism and, inspite of some terminological similarities, has as much in common with Marxism as the works of Plato!

And... umm, how?


Look at that "reasoning"! As a consequence of the division of labor (???), "certain individuals" "come"(???) to "represent" the "truth"(???).

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.


Division of labor certainly exists. How it goes about concentrating "truth" in some individuals and "lies" in others...well, "it just does that, we don't know why". (!)

And, suggestively, he adds that what division of labor "giveth" it can also "taketh away". The "representation of truth" (the Chinese called it "the mandate of Heaven"!) can pass (by some unspecified mechanism) from one individual to another, even while the initial individual is still alive.

Dammit, this is not Marxism, it's fucking theology! And, like all theologies, it is at root a rhetorical cover for the desire to either maintain an existing ruling class or create a new one.

It doesn't "just happen" and nowhere does Avakian argue that. What Avakian is really arguing is elaborated even further in another work:

In the course of making this point about truth often being in the hands of the minority and people having to go up against convention and the established norms and authorities in forging new ideas or making innovations and grasping certain aspects of reality that weren't previously recognized, Mao makes the statement that people should follow whoever has the truth in their hands. If a peasant has the truth, you should follow him. You shouldn't blindly follow any authority or follow people simply because they are in authority--which of course is profoundly true and a very important principle.

But, here again, we have another unity of opposites. On the one hand, there is a legitimate and real basis for why certain people's ideas and thinking and arguments are given more weight than others, and on the other hand, the fundamental and essential principle here--and the ultimately principal and decisive aspect of this contradiction--is that truth is an objective thing, that reality exists objectively, and that correctly reflecting reality is what constitutes truth.

Truth is not the property of any individual or party or group, but exists objectively, and whoever has the truth in their hands, has it. You should recognize the truth no matter who puts it forward--even if it's put forward by people who oppose what you are all about. Even if the truth about something is put forward by people who are opposed to everything we stand for, we still have to acknowledge that truth. And this is certainly no less so when we're dealing not with an enemy but perhaps someone among the people who is not accorded, generally speaking, the same kind of authority as a leader in a society, group, or party--and may even be opposing those who are in positions of authority within that society, group, or party--it can be the case that in the particular instance the truth is in their hands. You have to take up the truth, whoever brings it forward.

This can be a very acute contradiction, especially if people who are "invested" with a certain authority don't have the truth in their hands and come up with wrong lines. And, more generally, in the working out of the leadership/led contradiction, this will also be another aspect in which things can get acutely posed--this contradiction that some people are legitimately accorded more authority while at the same time, objectively, reality is reality, truth is truth, and all ideas, regardless of who puts them forward, have to be evaluated according to the same standard, with the same scientific approach and method.

I don't see how this is considered metaphysical. It's not theology, it simply recognizes truth and objective reality. If you don't like the fact that truth and objective reality exist, you're just promoting petty relativism.


Oh, and how have they "proven" themselves to be "great and capable"? By initiating campaigns to "popularize" themselves? By saying, over and over again, "I am both great and capable" until people think it must be "true"?! By surrounding themselves with a coterie of sycophants who will repeat that message to anyone who will listen?

No.


I quite agree that in class society most people have been thoroughly conditioned to look up to "leaders", to defer to their majestic opinions, to celebrate their brilliant ideas, etc.

It is the task of revolutionaries to smash that crap...not try to "use it" to "build ourselves up".

Like I asked Morpheus, why not? If those leaders represent something entirely different from class society... and represent liberation from exploitation, oppression, and class division... then why not build them up, spread their ideas, uphold their positive contributions (while discarding their negative ones)? By the logic you're using, we should reject Marx and hate him because he supposedly "told the workers what to do!"


Because it is worship, regardless of any verbal gymnastics you use to disguise it.

See my reply to Morpheus.


If you want to be a Marxist, to learn to look at social reality the way he did, a picture of the old buzzard won't help! You actually have to read and study his work, his methods, the criticisms that were made of him and how he responded, etc.

Good call, but I have already answered the question of "Pictures" in my response to Morpheus.


The same thing is true of any human being who has ever lived. If you have the (unfortunate) desire to be the "next Lenin" or the "next Stalin" or the "next Mao", you actually have to study what they wrote and did. Pictures on the wall are irrelevant.

Of course you have to study what they wrote and did. But as I said to Morpheus, I put up pictures of my family, of my friends, of my pets, of my favorite bands and celebrities, etc. all over my house. Is that idolatry? Is that "worshipping" them? I don't think so.


Except, of course, for those who are simply replacing old icons (Jesus, Mary, etc.) with new ones. [i]"Hail the Chairman, full of grace, the truth is with thee, blessed art thou amongst leaders..."

Like I asked before, can you, redstar2000, write anything in a non-hostile, non-insulting, non-condescending manner? Or do you feel some strange need to inflate your posts with mudslinging and sectarian, snide, smart-allecky remarks?

[redstar2000]

I don't know where it said that Bob Avakian was necessarily part of the campaign to popularize him.

Quite true; the article said this...


...including the campaign to promote and popularize our Chair [Avakian]...

Now, do you wish to seriously suggest that Avakian does not approve? Thinks it's a horrible idea? Is exerting every ounce of his strength to put a stop to it? Has threatened to sue anyone who publishes an iconic photograph of him?

While you're at it, do you wish to seriously suggest that there really "is" a Santa Claus?


This kind of thinking smacks of dogmatism, in my opinion.

It is dogmatic. When I say that I am opposed to "leader worship" as a matter of communist principle, I am asserting a dogma...a matter over which no compromise is possible.


I think that Marx and Engels recognized the need for leaders within a movement...

Indeed they did, as does any sensible person. They did not recognize the "need" for leader worship. Had you presented them with a proposal to "promote and popularize" them as individuals, they would have had you bodily thrown from their chambers.

As would any real communist.


Mao makes the statement that people should follow whoever has the truth in their hands.

No! No! No! People should not follow. People should examine that "truth" and if it is indeed "true" then they must appropriate it.

I agree that there is objective truth and that it is knowable. I agree that in the beginning only a small minority know it.

What does that minority do with it?

The Leninist says to the working class: "We have the truth; follow us to victory."

The real communist says "Here is the truth, see it for yourselves, handle it, taste it, grasp it and make it your own...and victory will be yours."

That is a hell of a difference.


On the one hand, there is a legitimate and real basis for why certain people's ideas and thinking and arguments are given more weight than others...

Yes, self-promotion campaigns being far from the least of the factors involved.

But, much more important than that is the fact that the working masses have been taught to despise their own capabilities; they have been conditioned for their entire lives to "defer to expert authority".

What all the variants of Leninism (including Avakian's) propose is a project to convince the working masses to "switch alligience"...to defer to new so-called "revolutionary experts" and abandon their deference to the old ruling class "experts".

Like switching from Coke© to Pepsi©. (!)

Instead of "President Bush knows what he's doing", you propose (with Avakian's blessing) to substitute "The Chairman knows what he's doing".

Only real communists and the "class-struggle" anarchists tell the working class to "take matters into your own hands...you can do it yourselves."

Or, as "the old buzzard" said: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.


If those leaders represent something entirely different from class society... and represent liberation from exploitation, oppression, and class division... then why not build them up, spread their ideas, uphold their positive contributions (while discarding their negative ones)?

First of all, your premise is extremely dubious. 20th century Leninism did not represent something "entirely different from class society", etc. In practice, the Leninist parties in power created state-monopoly capitalist despotisms which, in the due course of time, devolved into ordinary monopoly capitalism.

Secondly, what is the purpose of "building them up"? Have I conveyed to someone anything useful by telling them that "Marx was one of the greatest thinkers of his era."? If I were to "summarize" his "accomplishments", would anyone learn how to do Marxism from my summary?

Marx's writings are extant and available for free on the internet. Anyone who wants to know what he did can go and look for themselves.

Marx doesn't need "building up".

On the other hand, those possessed of vaulting ambition to be "the next Mao" need all the help they can get. Large poster photos, t-shirts, coffee-mugs, place-mats, action figures (I hope you're making notes here), etc. I note that Avakian already has a CD out...how about a music video? (!)


...I put up pictures of my family, of my friends, of my pets, of my favorite bands and celebrities, etc. all over my house. Is that idolatry? Is that "worshiping" them? I don't think so.

Perhaps not. Family, friends, pets and even bands and celebrities are not, in most cases, seekers of state power over the working class.

"The Chairman" wants a lot more from you than a can of cat food or a ticket to another movie.


Like I asked before, can you, redstar2000, write anything in a non-hostile, non-insulting, non-condescending manner? Or do you feel some strange need to inflate your posts with mudslinging and sectarian, snide, smart-allecky remarks?

You had no complaints about my posts when I praised two articles from the RCP that you posted.

But the answer to your question--do I feel "some strange need" to be extremely hostile--is yes, I certainly do!

I am 100% hostile to "great leader worship" and the despot-wannabes who promote it.

Any time that you or anyone else from the RCP brings up that kind of crap on this board, I will roll out the heavy artillery and blast you as best I can.

That's a promise!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Andrei [email protected] 8 2004, 09:14 PM

Who "led" the workers of Barcelona when they defeated the fascists in 1936?

They had leaders within their ranks, but unfortunately the lack of an organized and coherent leadership and the lack of a proper strategy eventually led the Spanish Republic and the Anarchist Communes to a crashing defeat in 1939.

Be careful at how you use words. A 'leader' to an anarchist implies someone with some sort of authority over another, or the authority to make a decision over others. Someone higher up on a hierarchy. You would be better to say 'anarchists with great influence', but there was in fact no-one with too much influence, so you can barely name an anarchist from Spain between 1936 to 1939. It was in fact a revolution initiated by the workers themselves, via participation in direct democratic non-hierarchical structures. That's what a revolution should look like.

'The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.' I wonder what kind of nutball wrote that!

The 'lack of organised and coherent leadership' argument is, of course, flawed. Well, just have a look at you vanguardist revolutions, all of which have gone back to capitalism, except one -- Cuba -- which is on its way out.

That argument is flawed for another reason: the revolution would have failed anyway. They were outnumbered and outgunned (literally, there were barely any guns, and the ones they had were worn out) by the fascists, even when part of the 'united front' containing the Republicans, the 'Trotskyists', and the Communist Party.

But if you want to wonder who actually really crushed the revolution -- who really put the 'icing on the cake', if you like -- was the Communist Party. They were under heavy influence of the USSR, and they only wanted Spain to become a bourgeois democracy, which was also the Republican position. The 'Trotskyists', who really didn't follow Trotsky all that well, as George Orwell pointed out, were the only others to truly side for the anarchists -- to fight for the revolution.

Of couse, the USSR sent in arms to the Communist Party, and this in turn gave them heavy influence on the provisional government. When they finally got a stranglehold on the provisional government, the government immediately declared the 'Trotskyist' POUM illegal (declaring it as 'fascist'!), and proceeded to attack anarchist strongholds, such as the telephone service, which is one of note.

Meanwhile, there was a large facsist army to fight off, with the backing of the powerful fascist nations of Italy and Germany.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

No! No! No! People should not follow. People should examine that "truth" and if it is indeed "true" then they must appropriate it.

I agree that there is objective truth and that it is knowable. I agree that in the beginning only a small minority know it.

What does that minority do with it?

The Leninist says to the working class: "We have the truth; follow us to victory."

The real communist says "Here is the truth, see it for yourselves, handle it, taste it, grasp it and make it your own...and victory will be yours."

That is a hell of a difference.

You say Communists should say to the working class- "Here is the truth, see it for yourselves, handle it, taste it, grasp it and make it your own...and victory will be yours." This is something very interesting- and something profoundly true! It should be the job of revolutionary leaders to bring forth truth out into the forefront, put it into the hands of the masses, and ultimately transform the people into revolutionary leaders. Communist leaders should always be pulling the people into the forefront, and training them as revolutionary leaders. Their role is to bring forth the masses into revolutionary struggle and revolutionary consciousness and to bring the masses forth as leaders themselves.

I think what's great about Avakian is that he does that same thing: He challenges us to see the truth, take it up, wrangle with it, grasp it, and make it our own... and I think that is why his line is so "fresh" and "dynamic" compared to all the other leftist theorists out there today.

Lemme go back to the original article itself and touch on a point that Comrade Wolff made about Lenin:

"Yet you don't get the feeling that Lenin opened up these questions of method and philosophy to other leaders of the Party and "took them with him" on this... Of course, he may not have had the freedom to do this, but in any event you don't get the sense that he was able to make this method--which was the Marxist method but which he was, again in my opinion, re-thinking and more or less re-fashioning after his re-reading of Hegel--the common property of the leadership and, through them, the ranks of the entire party."

This is something that Lenin didn't do but Avakian does: he takes this knowlege, these questions of method and philosophy that he wrangles with, and he gives it to us to think about and wrangle around along side him. And he doesn't just do this with the inner ranks of the Party: he asks all who read his works to, again, "see it for themselves, handle it, taste it, grasp it and make it their own" in a way that contributes to overall understanding of these things. It also allows us to debate these points amongst ourselves, and think critically and deeply about what this guy is saying- that's something you rarely find in the movement these days. That's why I think Lenny Wolff wrote this article- to get deep into how Avakian does this and why he does this.

Let's go back to what Wolff said himself: "I've been mulling this exchange about the Bolsheviks for a while and, as I've been mulling it, I've gone back to something a comrade said to me some years ago. This comrade, due to objective problems, had been forced to cut back her participation in Party life (including discussions), and this situation was hard for her. Anyway, we were discussing one or another of the Chairman's talks from the early '90s and she remarked that whenever she reads one of the Chair's talks, she feels as if she's being invited in to grapple with and contribute to helping solve and answer the problems and questions that he's raising. I think that's really true--and part of "his approach"--and on further reflection I'd add that he's also "taking us along" with him, giving us the opportunity to wrangle with and wield and in so doing absorb the method that he's developing (and to deepen it as well). This is a point that has been well- made before--I am only elaborating on it a little here. But I think that this "praxis" of the Chair's has tremendous importance in light of the history of our movement, including some of our movement's weaknesses."

Also, I think it is profound that Avakian "ceaselessly interrogates the whole party and he interrogates himself: Are we doing everything we can to make revolution? Are we focusing on the right questions? Are we pushing hard enough--or in the right direction--on the limits of the possible? Are we looking enough at things from our final goal back, and are we forging strong enough links between that goal.and the many pressing tasks of today? Are we approaching things enough from a thoroughly internationalist standpoint and situating all our work in this belly of the beast from the needs and struggles of the people worldwide? Are we thinking rigorously enough about the points raised by people who don't agree with us on strategy, but who may be on to something we need to learn from nevertheless (a case in point on this: the Chair's writings on George Jackson a few years ago)? Are we settling for easy answers or facile approaches to complex questions? Are we doing enough to bring forward critical sections of our base, to develop (and learn from) the youth around the Party, to engage with others who are out there trying to do something positive?" and other similar questions. Indeed, the fact that he asks suchs questions, and encourages such questions to be asked, is a trait that is unlike any type of megalomaniacal leader that is out to bring in new "worshippers". Clearly, if that was his intention, he would not use such a method of leadership and method of overall work at all.

[redstar2000]

At the risk of seeming to "flog a dead horse" (it's not dead and it is rabid), a few additional points need to be made.


What says that leaders have to become tyrants and exploiters? Is this some magical law of the universe?

Which ones didn't, when they had the chance?

Well, there's Fidel and then, maybe, Ho Chi Minh, and then...? And then...???

If you dare to say Mao, your tongue will rot and fall out of your mouth.

The person who said that leaders "have" to become "tyrants and exploiters" was, of course, Karl Marx.

Being determines consciousness--does the phrase ring a bell?

If you function as a boss, if that's what your daily activity consists of, then over the course of time you begin to think like a boss. The people under you are not your "comrades"; they're lazy fuckoffs who have to constantly be whipped into line...otherwise they'll sit around with their thumbs up their butts and look at the pretty clouds. Or, some of them are maneuvering to get your spot on top and have to be discredited from time to time in order to remain useful to you. And some of them are just fucking thieves...stealing what belongs to you.

When you fulfill the functions of a boss, and learn to think like a boss, then...hell, why shouldn't you own whatever it is that you're boss of?

Why, indeed. There's no "magic" involved here...simply a very straightforward transition from material conditions to living consciousness.

In addition, if there is a "campaign" to "build you up" and "popularize" you as a "great leader", that just reinforces the natural trend of things. Your sense of "self-importance" and "indispensability" bloats like a hog being fattened for the slaughter. When everyone around you is telling you that the sun shines out of your ass, you start to believe it!

Like a gambler on a winning streak, you start to think "you can't lose--you will keep winning forever."

You know what happens after that.


Nevertheless, the people won't just get correct ideas out of some spontaneous, random, decentralized actions. Nor will correct ideas come out of the blue. Correct ideas come from an objective, scientific analysis of society and putting forward and collective, unified strategy that will WIN. That is what, to me, a leadership does.

Yes, this is the "Leninists as social engineers" theory of revolution. With their "scientific grasp" of Marxism, they "correctly analyze" current society and formulate a "unified strategy" which leads to victory.

What an absurd caricature of both Marxism and revolution.

First of all, neither Marxism nor anything else is capable of predicting the future in useful detail. Marxism is not a set of railroad timetables or airline schedules. You can use it to tell you something about broad social trends...but it will not tell you when to strike.

After you launch an uprising (win or lose), it may tell you some interesting things about why the outcome was as it was.

But Marxism is not a "crystal ball". Every uprising is a gamble and the outcome cannot be foretold in advance. To suggest otherwise is to run a scam, to pretend to "social expertise" that not only do you not possess but that does not exist.

Secondly, great revolutions--those that really involve enormous masses of people--are spontaneous events. Such "leadership" that exists does come "out of the blue"--ordinary people that "no one ever heard of". Yes, there may be advocates of various political ideas present, doing their best to persuade the masses to adopt their various perspectives. They probably play some role in the course of events. They certainly played some role in the spreading of the general idea that revolution is a desirable thing to happen.

Nevertheless, for Marxists, history is made by the masses regardless of the "will" of those who seek to "direct events".

Attempting to "lead" a revolution--a real one--is about on the same level as attempting to "lead" a hurricane.

The Leninist pretense that "they and only they" can "do that" is preposterous.


The main thing about leaders is not that they are above the masses, but that they are the of the most class-conscious of the proletariat (and its allies) who have taken the responsibility to lead and organize revolution- as well as to bring for the masses to become leaders themselves. This is how I view leaders- not above the working class, but PART of the working class.

How can they be "part" of the working class if they're telling people what to do...being a boss? When an ordinary worker becomes a foreman or a trade union official or (in Germany) a member of the board of directors, what happens to his/her political consciousness? How does it change under these new material conditions?

If you really wanted a leadership that was part of the working class, then your party would rotate its leaders out of office every year. (And no coming back; one term and that's it!) A wordy bastard like Avakian (or me!) could still write stuff, could still advocate strategy, etc., etc. But he would lack the power of command...he would not be a boss. In fact, with no permanently entrenched leadership, your party would more or less be "boss-less"...the people who were the nominal leaders at any given moment would hardly enjoy much more influence than the average active member of your party. All anyone could do would be attempt to persuade the party that one strategy is better than another. The party membership would decide.

That would be real collective leadership...and there's about as much chance of the RCP going in that direction as there is of George Bush converting to Islam.

Do I have to add that the shape of your party determines the kind of social order that you will establish if you win?


Why can't I follow and uphold the ideas of a leader (who, if I may say so myself, I choose to follow on my own will) and yet still think critically about what he's saying? I think it is good for Communists to question things, and they should constantly question themselves and question their leaders!

A pious Catholic could say the same thing; he "chooses" to follow John Paul II but not uncritically.

And you and the god-sucker are in precisely the same position: he can't dethrone the pope and you can't dethrone Avakian.

If you decide that Avakian is fucked up for any reason, your only real option is to quit the party--there is no realistic mechanism for removing a bad leader. The same is true for the pious Catholic; he can only wait for the pope to die and hope the College of Cardinals picks a better one to replace him.

There was a time when quitting the Catholic Church was a prelude to being principal attraction at a human barbecue; there have been times when quitting a Leninist party was a prelude to ten or twenty years of a really lousy job.

At the moment, neither of those dire consequences prevails (outside of North Korea)...so you are free to quit without worrying about the consequences.

But you understand that's all you can do. Whatever energies and intellectual/emotional resources you have devoted to "building the party" and "publicizing Avakian" will have all become a great waste.

Since that is an unpleasant prospect, you must continue to insist that you've "picked a winner" regardless of any real evidence to the contrary. Only when things get so bad that you simply can't ignore the truth any longer will you finally quit in bitter disillusionment and feelings of betrayal.

And then, if you follow the traditional path, you'll probably get a job with Fox News. Ex-Leninists make superb reactionaries.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

The RCP is rediculous. Can you say dogmatic? I've tried to chat with a few of them, and the only arguement they give me is an article written by their beloved "chairman". I've had conversations with them, and as soon as I didn't agree with something that the chairman said, (in my case I disagreed with the Black Nationalist Movement and I was against women having abortions if the father wanted to keep his kid) I was branded as a counter-revolutionary and collectively banned by the entire RCP lot. I would love to see the formation of a new blanket communist party to try and get past all the sectetarianism and leader worship that has plauged other past communist parties. I would call this party the International Communist Unity Party, and the only restrictions would be...
1. No capitalists
2. No racists
3. No nationalists
4. No "chairman", the only party leadership is a politboro of no less then 25 people, and of course, the party members themselves as a whole.
5. ANY form of Marxists are allowed. Stalinists, Trotskiests, Maoists, Leninists, you name it.
6. The party DOES NOT take an issue on any factionalizing decision, such choises are made secretariat members appointed by the members of the ICUP.
We will never acheive anything as factionalized as we are. We need to unify to acheive anything. There is no way we can fight capitalists when we are too busy fighting with each other!

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:53 PM
I've tried to chat with a few of them, and the only arguement they give me is an article written by their beloved "chairman".
I've had that experience as well. While at times they will give you their own arguments, I'd have a good chunk of change if I had a dollar for every time I was told something like "Let me refer to this part of the RCP Draft Programme..."

Also, a lot of his articles that I have read have logic that basically works like "While some people think this to be true, they are actually wrong, because they are wrong. Plus it's not dialectic...or something."

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Andrei [email protected] 8 2004, 02:40 AM
The main thing about leaders is not that they are above the masses, but that they are the of the most class-conscious of the proletariat (and its allies) who have taken the responsibilty to lead and organize revolution- as well as to bring for the masses to become leaders themselves. This is how I view leaders- not above the working class, but PART of the working class.
That's not how Lenin viewed things:

"The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." - Essential works, p. 74-75 “What is to be Done” section II, A

[Morpheus]

And the implication that Marx or Engels would have tolerated this kind of crap is as gross an insult to them as anything the bourgeoisie ever said about them.

Aren't you don't the same thing (hero worship), on a smaller scale, by calling yourself a Marxist?

[redstar2000]

Aren't you doing the same thing (hero worship), on a smaller scale, by calling yourself a Marxist?

I suppose someone who was unfamiliar with my views might leap to such an erroneous conclusion.

But, I have rejected "dialectics" entirely...which would have distressed both Marx and Engels, no doubt.

The idea of a "transitional workers' state"--whatever their conception of that entity might have been--does not seem to me to "make sense" in the advanced capitalist countries now, much less in the future. (I can see why they thought it justified in the second half of the 19th century.)

And I've already started, of course, a thread on the current problems with the "labor theory of value".

By "hero-worshiping" standards, I'm rather heretical...at least, many of those who treat the works of Marx and Engels as scripture would certainly think so.

I try, to the best of my admittedly limited abilities, to look at things the way I think that Marx and Engels would look at them if they were alive today.

I think class analysis and historical materialism make better sense than anything else I have come across...if you want to see "the big picture".

In that sense, I think of myself as a "real Marxist" and a "real communist".

But, you know, it is not only me that suffers from the muddle of historical terminology and the promiscuity of names.

Are you really willing to take responsibility for all who travel under an "anarchist" passport?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:23 PM


This is not "any kind" of authority. It is a grotesque "personality cult" and utterly repugnant to anyone with even the most minimal commitment to communism!

The very fact that Avakian would tolerate or, for all we know, initiate this kind "idol worship" conclusively demonstrates that he is not any kind of "communist" whatsoever!



Is this a 'cult of personality'? Absolutely!

Not only is it, we need more of this. We need more people to get to know who Bob Avakian is and to know his works - to really dig in and see what he has to say.

Why? because if we dont have that, then how can we possible do what is necessary? How can we get to the point that we NEED to be at?

Also, having Bob Avakian is like having a living breathing Marx - having someone that can dig into things and break them down - today - not 150 years ago and that is important. In fact, its critical.

I have no trouble saying that this is someone that I love and deeply respect. He's someone that I'm willing to defend because I know what having someone like this means to the masses - someone that has such a deep love and committment!

In fact, revolutionaries like him are precious to the people. So if you think that sounds like a 'church' well all i have to say to that is that the movement needs spirit and vision like like this.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

*Hack-Ptooie!*

It's Leninism dressed up in fancy new words :angry:

[FAB]

what a bull shit. bob avakian and his rim-church. his writings are so stupid...

today chairman bobby is everywhere in france hidden by the fbi. i hope the get him and stop him from writing. :P

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 10:28 PM

Also, having Bob Avakian is like having a living breathing Marx - having someone that can dig into things and break them down - today - not 150 years ago and that is important. In fact, its critical.
That's an insult to Marx


:ph34r:

[redstar2000]

Is this a 'cult of personality'? Absolutely!

Not only is it, we need more of this. We need more people to get to know who Bob Avakian is and to know his works - to really dig in and see what he has to say.

Why? Because if we don't have that, then how can we possibly do what is necessary? How can we get to the point that we NEED to be at?

If I had made up something like that quote, people would assume that it was either satire or slander.

If we don't know "Bob Avakian and his works" then we can't possibly "do what is necessary". We "can't" get to the point that we "NEED" to be at.

Without St. Avakian to guide us, we're fucked!

Does one laugh...or weep?

RosaRL, you are, in all honesty, one of the saddest cases I've seen in years. You obviously think of yourself as hopelessly incompetent to think through any question of politics "on your own"...only "Bob" can "save" you from miserable ineptitude.

You are as far away from a real communist attitude as it is possible to get; your "god" lives and breathes and walks the earth clad in mortal flesh and from his mouth comes nothing but divine revelation.

I see nothing but catastrophe in your future...you are already brain-dead.


Also, having Bob Avakian is like having a living breathing Marx - having someone that can dig into things and break them down - today - not 150 years ago and that is important. In fact, it's critical.

Yes, that is an insult to Marx...but I don't think it would bother him all that much. It's sort of like being "insulted" by a devout Catholic...doesn't mean much.

On the other hand, it would be fun to see Marx sue St. Avakian for the wrongful use of his name and the damage to his reputation. :lol:


I have no trouble saying that this is someone that I love and deeply respect. He's someone that I'm willing to defend because I know what having someone like this means to the masses - someone that has such a deep love and commitment!

Yes, the masses have always been instructed to look for someone that "loves" them...and then "faithfully follow" that person.

That strategy always lands them in the shit.

Marx had a different view: the emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves.

Not a word about following anyone just because they say they "love" you.

How could he have overlooked such a "critical" point? :lol:


In fact, revolutionaries like him are precious to the people. So if you think that sounds like a 'church' well all I have to say to that is that the movement needs spirit and vision like like this.

Your "movement" is one of redemption.

A communist movement for proletarian revolution has different requirements.

Much different!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Although they have obviously considered things deeply enough to figure out that Bob Avakian is correct.

You obviously think of yourself as hopelessly incompetent to think through any question of politics "on your own"

Everything Avakian says will be thought through. This isn't hopeless incompetence. People value what he has to say, no doubt when they read what he says they analyse it and are critical of it. He is considering political questions and answering them, I imagine if he consistently made decisions people did not agree with then they would start to criticise what he is saying.

[SonofRage]

The type of leader worship they promote would lead them to assume that Avakian must be right and their doubts are incorrect. When Avakian dies, I except RCP membership to plummet at least 50%. This would bring their membership at five. :D

[RosaRL]

Did humanity become sterile after Marx's death? Seriously, was Marx all that and then it was over? I dont think so.

I belive humaity is capable and I belive we are capable of having leaders of the caliber of Marx. The exciting thing is that we have one like that Right Now, and we really do Need that. The people have Bob Avakian and many more need to get to know him.

[RosaRL]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:34 AM
*Hack-Ptooie!*

It's Leninism dressed up in fancy new words :angry:
Actually, he goes beyond Leninism.

Bob Avakian has made very real groundbreaking contributions that have furthered Marxism - such as - for example - he has summed up and sythesized the contributions of Mao.

Much of what he has done is very new stuff. The article mentions how he has gotten into 'Grasp Revolution, Promote production' and that in itself is a leap.

If you want to actually check some of this out it can be found here http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm

I know when I came across Bob Avakian's works I had never seen anything like it anywhere - and I still havent. His works have a depth and vision you cant find anywhere else today.

[redstar2000]

I know when I came across Bob Avakian's works I had never seen anything like it anywhere - and I still haven't.

I know how you feel; I've rarely seen anyone say nothing at greater length myself.

Consider this sparkling excerpt...


Related to this, I want to talk about the relation between reverence and irreverence. These things are contradictory, they form a contradiction with each other (a unity of opposites). For example, reverence--if it means, as it sometimes does, worshiping someone or something, then obviously that has no part in what we're all about and is something we have to work to overcome. So that's on the one hand--we don't want reverence in that sense. On the other hand, to really revere someone or something, to respect them for things they've done and what they represent, is a part of what we're about and should be part of how we're leading the masses--to respect people who have made contributions, to respect the Party for what it represents, to revere it in a certain sense--yes, we do need that. Not only is that not wrong, that's important, that's a positive thing. So there's a fine line there between uncritically following, on the one hand, and on other hand following with your mental faculties working. Reverence, correctly understood, is a question of respecting, even revering, but not worshiping, those people and things that are deserving of this. Those things that deserve to be respected should be respected. Those things that don't deserve to be respected should not be. But nothing should be worshiped. Nothing should be uncritically followed. Nothing should be blindly carried out.

If irreverence means, as I was just saying, that you don't worship things, that you don't blindly follow people, that you critically think about everything, that you challenge anything or anyone if you think they're wrong--whether you have a developed basis for thinking that, or even if it's just your impression--irreverence in that sense is very necessary and vital for what we're all about. To defer to people simply because they have more experience, or because in an overall sense they may actually know more than you, or because they've made more contributions than you--to just blindly defer to people for those reasons-- that's wrong and can be very harmful.

http://rwor.org/a/1204/bareach9.htm

If that tidal wave of blather doesn't serve to intimidate you, then you have clearly "failed to grasp the dialectic". :lol:

You see, it's a matter of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand". On the one hand, we should be "irreverent". On the other hand, we should be "reverent". We "shouldn't worship" but we should "respect".

But when do you do the one and when do you do the other? How are you supposed to tell the difference in a practical way?

(Hint: check with your "great leader" first...he'll let you know which approach is appropriate.)

That is the "utility" of the "dialectic", by the way. It allows you to "justify" any position on anything without having recourse to the laborious tedium of argument and evidence. Marx and Engels spoke a great deal in favor of the "dialectic"...but when they actually wanted to convince people, they went to work with argument and evidence.

Like real scientists.


His [Avakian's] works have a depth and vision you can't find anywhere else today.

Yes, rather like what people say about those rivers in the upper midwest: a mile wide and a foot deep.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

That is a wonderfully appropriate quote that you pulled! Especially when there are people on this thread that think that it is just outrageous that I should even compare Bob Avakian to Marx!

How dare I do such a thing?

Because its true.

but even more, you have demonstrated what he thinks about blindly following someone in his own words -


To defer to people simply because they have more experience, or because in an overall sense they may actually know more than you, or because they've made more contributions than you--to just blindly defer to people for those reasons-- that's wrong and can be very harmful.

I dont think you disagree with that, do you?

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

The book that really contributed to my understanding of Marxism the most is probably Phony Communism Is Dead... Long Live Real Communism! by Bob Avakian. Bob wrote it after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a summing up of the fall and an analysis of the world as it was in 1992 when the capitalists were really coming out and saying "Communism is dead". Bob Avakian countered this with this powerful and mindblowing book (it's a GREAT handbook for defending Communism in general- it's comparable to the Anarchist FAQ)- it was basically saying "FUCK YOU! Only the PHONIES are dead- REAL Communism is marching closer to victory every fuckin' day and you pigs are gonna have to face it!" If you're wondering about questions about economics, international policy, human nature, philosophy, or just a good basic intro to Marxism... this is the book you're lookin' for.

Seriously, I don't think any other book has helped me more in my understanding of politics today. That's why I love Bob Avakian- he exposed the phoneys and showed the real Reds!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:05 PM
That is a wonderfully appropriate quote that you pulled! Especially when there are people on this thread that think that it is just outrageous that I should even compare Bob Avakian to Marx!

How dare I do such a thing?

Because its true.

but even more, you have demonstrated what he thinks about blindly following someone in his own words -


To defer to people simply because they have more experience, or because in an overall sense they may actually know more than you, or because they've made more contributions than you--to just blindly defer to people for those reasons-- that's wrong and can be very harmful.

I don't think you disagree with that, do you?
Of course I don't disagree with it, Rosa. I'm sure that there are abundant excerpts from St. Avakian that I would agree with...since he takes all sides of every question.

By the "law of large numbers", I'm sure I could compile a carefully selected and edited version of "The Thought of Chairman Bob" that would correlate very highly with my own views.

But then there'd be all that other stuff...what am I supposed to do about that?

Ignore it? How can I? It's all mixed in with the stuff that I would agree with.

And what about praxis? Bob says A and he also says B...which one will he choose to implement?

And what happens if he decrees A--which I happen to know is really fucked up--instead of B, which is clearly the only correct option?

You already know (or you will painfully discover) that when "The Chairman" speaks, the discussion is over. It's either "carry out your instructions" or out the door you go.

Has anyone in the RCP ever argued a serious point with "The Chairman", won the party to their position through ideological struggle, and actually imposed their views against the will of "The Chairman"?

My theory of Leninism says that can't happen. Can you offer evidence to the contrary?

(By the way, it did happen at least once in Lenin's own party. Trotsky's "no war, no peace" plan for dealing with the Germans actually won out over Lenin's position of signing a peace treaty.)

Since I'm pretty confident that the RCP has never been anything but Avakian and his disciples, his words about "irreverence" are simply rhetoric. They are not meant to be taken seriously except by outsiders...who may be attracted to the party because of such words, but who will quickly learn the "facts of life" once they've signed up.

If it makes you feel better to compare Avakian to Marx, Rosa, who am I to be so churlish as to distract someone from their fantasies?

I could but wish you would consult Marx himself, instead of the "Marx doll" that Avakian has created.

I don't think, though, that there's much chance of that.


The book that really contributed to my understanding of Marxism the most is probably Phony Communism Is Dead... Long Live Real Communism! by Bob Avakian.

Frankly, I don't think Avakian could tell real communism from rheumatism, myself.

If you want to learn something about real communism, why don't you try Marx's The Civil War in France? Or Engels' Anti-Duhring?

You may find, dare I say it, a revelation.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

First, with your challenge to get into Marx, thats a good thing. People should get into Marx and Engles and grapple with that.

For me it was putting Marx and his works side-by-side with Avakian that really made it stand out. YES! This is the same method, this is the same thing- only much much more! (and quite frankly I am NOT an easy person to convince - as you will see :)

Now, having said that (and I'm not going to adress you point for point) I want to bring up something that I touched on earlier when I said, yes, we do need a cult of personality.

I think the main truth we grapple with is that revolutionary Marxism needs to gain much more influence these days, and that there is significant work to do to make the leading Marxists better known broadly (including contending in varous spheres theoretically with non-marxists.)

I also thing that revolution has "the dignity of actuality" -- powerful theoretical work helps give rise to powerful revolutinary movements, and (at the same time) powerful revolutinary movements put their MLM leadership "on the map" (including outside the ranks of conscious revolutionaries.)

Of course, I'll give you this - If you are not serious about revolution - if all you really want to do is talk about revolution (or just build some amorphous movement), then you dont need a leader and you dont need to strive to get his message out to the masses because you are not going anywhere anyway.

If you dont have a team, why the fuck you need a coach? Your not playing anyway, so why worry about what it takes to win? You dont need any real idea of how to get from here to there, you dont really NEED anything.

But if you are serious about revolution, they you better be trying to figure out what it does take.

[redstar2000]

I think the main truth we grapple with is that revolutionary Marxism needs to gain much more influence these days, and that there is significant work to do to make the leading Marxists better known broadly (including contending in various spheres theoretically with non-marxists.)

How does your second sentence have anything to do with your first sentence?

Marxism is, I think, making something of a "come-back"...though it's pretty marginal thus far.

But the only "leading Marxists" I know of are Marx and Engels--who are pretty well known. It's their ideas that mostly remain unknown, not their identities as "leading Marxists".

If Bob Avakian becomes a celebrity, then, no doubt, a certain small group of "hip" people (some of them fairly wealthy) will buy his books and display them casually on their coffee-tables.

I do not see such things as having much impact or influence on the working class.


I also think that revolution has "the dignity of actuality" -- powerful theoretical work helps give rise to powerful revolutionary movements, and (at the same time) powerful revolutionary movements put their MLM leadership "on the map" (including outside the ranks of conscious revolutionaries.)

"The dignity of actuality"--a truly impressive phrase...do you think it has any meaning?

In any event, you are confusing the idea of "putting your leadership on the map" with the actual spread of revolutionary ideas.

If 100,000,000 Americans voted for Bob Avakian for president in 2004, that would not mean that they had become communists or anything even close to that; it would simply mean that he had become incredibly famous as a leader "who really cares".

That's not good enough.

It's not even close to being good enough.


Of course, I'll give you this - If you are not serious about revolution - if all you really want to do is talk about revolution (or just build some amorphous movement), then you don't need a leader and you don't need to strive to get his message out to the masses because you are not going anywhere anyway.

If you don't have a team, why the fuck you need a coach? You're not playing anyway, so why worry about what it takes to win? You don't need any real idea of how to get from here to there, you don't really NEED anything.

But if you are serious about revolution, then you better be trying to figure out what it does take.

The argument of "lack of seriousness" is predicated on a number of assumptions...which are in dispute.

1. That without a leader, you're not serious.

2. That unless you're trying to spread the leader's message "to the masses", you're not serious.

3. That class struggle is "like" a sporting event with contesting teams.

4. That if you don't have a "team"--presumably a party is meant by this--then you're not serious.

5. That a team "NEEDS" a coach.

6. That "amorphous" (non-Leninist) movements are unserious and not worth building.

And so on. All of which are, in my view, entirely mistaken.


...and quite frankly I am NOT an easy person to convince - as you will see.

I have already seen, Rosa, and I believe you. But don't you think you ought to at least attempt to respond to my actual arguments?

Each time I respond to your points and you just ignore mine and launch into another panegyric of Avakian.

Is there anyone in the RCP who can actually develop a political argument?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

But the only "leading Marxists" I know of are Marx and Engels--who are pretty well known. It's their ideas that mostly remain unknown, not their identities as "leading Marxists".

Marx and Engels are not leading anything and havent lead anything for a very long time. The only Marxists that are capable of leading are those that are alive.

Bob Avakian is one such Marxist, btw and if Marxism is going to become more known, and it needs to become more known, then Bob Avakian will also have to become more known.

And as far as your comment about ellections goes, Marxism isnt about ellections, its about revolution - so yes you are correct - that would NOT be enough.

'If voting changed things, it would be illegal'

As far as 'dignity of actuality' is a phrase that lenin used and it does have a meaning. I think that is fairly clear (the meaning) from the context of the argument.

As far as my not responding to you 'point by point' - many of your 'points' have been low level personal stabs and this is not a discussion of my character but a discussion around Bob Avakian, thus they are off topic from the thread :)

[RosaRL]

You seem to have missed the point. However.


1. That without a leader, you're not serious.

actually, you might be very serious but that doesnt mean that you can get there. Also, not all leaders or for that matter coaches are equal. Some are just plain crappy and have no clue as to what they are doing - others are known for their experience and skill. Bob Avakian iis one such Marxist leader known for that skill and ability.


2. That unless you're trying to spread the leader's message "to the masses", you're not serious.

what good is a leader if you dont get his message out? (once again you can be serious about anything but that doesnt mean that you are building for revolution)


3. That class struggle is "like" a sporting event with contesting teams.[quote]

There are very real parrallels here. Of course if yu dont see yourself as being up against the rulling class but rather as trying to appeal to some section of it, then those parrallels wont make sense.

[quote]4. That if you don't have a "team"--presumably a party is meant by this--then you're not serious.

actually our 'team' is the international prolitariate.


5. That a team "NEEDS" a coach.

Of course. :)


6. That "amorphous" (non-Leninist) movements are unserious and not worth building.

Once again, you can be serious about just about anything. Some people are serious about building support for Dean. (go figgure) The question is, what are you serious about? are you serious about revolution? What will that take? (Its going to take a lot more than an amorphous movement.)

[DRAGOON]

What an interesting discussion.
Its an interesting mix of serious arguements and not so serious snide remarks. I hope that we can focus up

I wanna throw out some thoughts on why Bob Avakian deserves the respect that he gets, why extremely intelligent communists like Lenny Wolff so much respect for him and why people say that criticisms like "cult of personality" fall flat.

I think its important to be serious about overthrowing the oppressor. I think to do so its important for people to look at the world and see how to win large enough numbers of people to do this. And I think to do that you need to understand where people are at, ideologically, and then ideologically unite with what is correct in their thinking, and struggle with what is incorrect, with the aim of bringing them closer to seeing the need for revolution. To, in essence, answer the questions the masses have that keep them from making revolution to overthrow their oppressors.

Since the formation of the RCP, and before it, Bob Avakian has done just that, and always in relation to the pressing issues of the day. I will not list the artcles he has written, but I think its important to see that the RCP is today, a revolutionary organization with its eyes constantly on the future. There is no other organization in the US that has taken the issue so seriously and developed such serious documents about how to fight and win. Bob Avakian has led the party to this place, its the only communist group in the US that is serious.

I think communist like Lenny Wolff give props to the Chair because they can see how their own revolutionary ideology was developed and maintained, significantly by the Chairs' insights on revolution (in this non-revolutionary situation, particularly), the Party he leads and the methodology to understanding the world he applies.

I personally am glad that the RCP is promotoing their Chair. Their is nothing wrong with promoting ideological influences, and leadership. I think its important for revoluionary ideas to be out there among the people, being discussed and looked into.

I think its foolish to think that leadership will disappear. It is dialectical, like all things. First of all it is one of the fundamental class contradictions, leadership/led.
Second of all, it is contradictory because there is the ability within leadership for corruption or capitulation, and many times in history this can be seen. But you will notice that the revolutionary leaders the RCP primarily looks to did not do this. Marx Lenin and Mao. None of them did this. It is no surprise that Bob has not sold out either. In fact we are very lucky that he was recognized as the person best able to lead a vanguard in the US.

Many people argue that what this respect amounts to is a cult of the personality, and that this is evidence that this leader should not be promoted. OK fine, libertarian and social democratic forces ideologically oppose leadership. They also oppose real collectivity. In reality, people have heroes, and their is nothing basically wrong with having them. People they want to emulate. People whose lives they wanna have their own be like. This is not always good, I agree, like the youth who want to emulate pimps. Thats fucked up and a part of the oppressive and exploitative nature ofthis system. Thousands and thousands of young boys think it would be cool to grow up as a pimp, and slap women around, making money off their bodies.

I think these youth need real heroes. Like Zapata, Marx, Fred Hampton, Edith Lagos, Lenin, Norman Bethune, Mao TseTung, and others. I also don't think that people need to be constrained to only view dead people as heroes. What is wrong with the living heroes, like Bob Avakian, who has, at great personal sacrifice, dedicated his life to revolution. And advanced our understanding on how to make revolution, and on how to have socialism.

Or think about the large numbers currently inspired bu Osaxma Bi*n La^den, because he openly targetted the USA. These people need real heroes, not motherfuckers like that guy.

If the best arguement you have is about how the RCP trusts in the leadership that they selected, well then, you arguemnts are really weak. Of course they trust him! Otherwise he would not be their leader.

In fact I think that it is uncommunist to not promote leadership, and in the USA it is uncommunist to not promote this leader. Communism and communists must keep their feet on the ground, always attempting to recognize the concrete conditions of the world. In doing so they don't make theory and practice based on how they want the world to be, but how it is. They recognize the need for a leadership that can lead a revolution and then help develop a new state that is ruled by the masses, and in the interests of the masses. (As opposed to some libertarian, me first). The Party itself is necessary as the organization of the most revolutionary segements of the populace, where those with the self-sacrifice necessary to change the world gather and do just that, change the world, and lead others to see that they must be a part of this process.

On a basic level, and as a sidenote, i think it is important to understand what I meant when I said that some forces oppose real collectivity. A vanguard applies democratic centralism as an organizational method in its ranks. That means that decisions are made by collectives. After a decision is made, everyone in these collectives are then responsible to
follow the collective descisions. They can, and should, discuss and struggle to unite around difference in that collective, however externally they are to take out the collectives decision as it is their own. This is real collectivity, acting as a united collective. There is more to democratic centralism than this, there are different levels of responcibilty, and their memeber are selected from below. The lower levels are subject to the collective decisions of the upper. This is how real collectivity is performed with a huge collective, that wants to get soemthing done this done in this lifetime. Like I said, this is a basic look at democratic centralism.

[redstar2000]

I am absolutely stunned by such breath-taking audacity. You folks really believe that Bob Avakian is Moses, if not Jesus H. Christ Himself!

Have you nothing to offer but "the image of the redeemer"?

Look at the kinds of things you are saying...


The only Marxists that are capable of leading are those that are alive.

Bob Avakian is one such Marxist, btw and if Marxism is going to become more known, and it needs to become more known, then Bob Avakian will also have to become more known.

That is utterly preposterous! The path to Marx lies through the fame of Bob Avakian???


Also, not all leaders or for that matter coaches are equal. Some are just plain crappy and have no clue as to what they are doing - others are known for their experience and skill. Bob Avakian is one such Marxist leader known for that skill and ability.

Do you imagine that if you repeat that in public often enough that people will think it is true?

I have no particular reason to believe that he is capable of finding his own ass in the dark with both hands and a flashlight.

Good grief, what do you people imagine that you're doing?

This isn't politics; it's the fucking Spice Girls...an artificially constructed image of revolutionary politics.


There are very real parallels here .

Absolutely bizarre! Workers Upset Bosses 24-21 in Triple Overtime--Avakian 46-yard field-goal wins game


...actually our 'team' is the international proletariat.

Did you get a good contract? Signing bonus? Incentives?

Do you have the remotest idea of how unserious you sound?


...are you serious about revolution? What will that take? (It's going to take a lot more than an amorphous movement.)

A momentary interruption of the nonsense to actually ask a serious question...if not to answer it.

We actually know what it takes for a genuine revolution to occur...many millions of people have to want to do it. At such time as that happens, the old order--for all its apparent strength--is utterly helpless and disintegrates with only weak and sporadic resistance, if even that.

Does the desire for revolution originate outside the working class...from a vanguard party, for example?

Clearly that cannot be the case. Small and tightly-disciplined political groups can have an influence, even a disproportionate influence, on events (sometimes).

But it is the masses that decide if and when.

The Leninist conceit that revolutions can be "made to order" (like pizzas) by a vanguard party with a correct leadership has been falsified by historical experience.

In no advanced capitalist country did any of the Leninist/Stalinist/Trotskyist/Maoist parties ever seriously threaten a capitalist ruling class.

There is no reason to believe they ever will.


There is no other organization in the US that has taken the issue so seriously and developed such serious documents about how to fight and win. Bob Avakian has led the party to this place, it's the only communist group in the US that is serious.

All of the other Leninist parties make the same claim, substituting their own leadership for yours. There's a bit more to revolutionary politics than the clamor of commercials.

In fact, the RCP seems to be the only group that puts forward the icon of its leader as in and of itself a sufficient recommendation of "seriousness"--all the other parties appear to be more modest in that respect.

I will grant that some of you are capable of producing credible Marxist analysis (haven't noticed any in this discussion). But other parties can also do that, now and then.

The "toolbox" of Marxism is in the public domain, and anyone with a bit of practice and diligence can use those tools and produce a decent analysis...as long as they don't muddle their efforts with Leninist dogma.

But that's a rare occurrence in the "Leninist universe". Most of the time, the dogma is mixed in with the good stuff...and who's got the time or the energy to filter out the noise?


I personally am glad that the RCP is promoting their Chair. There is nothing wrong with promoting ideological influences, and leadership. I think it's important for revolutionary ideas to be out there among the people, being discussed and looked into.

Even though you make it sound "as if" the third sentence "justifies" the first two sentences, there is, in fact, no connection between them.

I'm starting to sense a pattern here. You folks make some wild claim about Avakian and then add a sentence that no one would disagree with...as if the "aura" of the correct sentence will somehow "cover" the wild sentence.

You are "glad" that the RCP is "promoting Avakian". You are "glad" that it is "promoting" leadership.

Presumably you have your reasons.

I remain convinced that it's a grotesque personality cult...and I'm never "glad" to see that at all. It's almost always a clear sign of reactionary backwardness, excusable perhaps in peasant revolutions, but completely unacceptable in advanced capitalist countries.


I think its foolish to think that leadership will disappear. It is dialectical, like all things. First of all it is one of the fundamental class contradictions, leadership/led.

Second of all, it is contradictory because there is the ability within leadership for corruption or capitulation, and many times in history this can be seen. But you will notice that the revolutionary leaders the RCP primarily looks to did not do this. Marx Lenin and Mao. None of them did this. It is no surprise that Bob has not sold out either. In fact we are very lucky that he was recognized as the person best able to lead a vanguard in the US.

The first paragraph is noise; it doesn't say anything that we don't already know.

The second paragraph is more problematical, for several reasons. It's quite true that Marx never "sold out". But Lenin made a "heroic effort" to secure foreign investment in the infant USSR. As it happened, no foreign capitalists were interested...but what do you think would have been the outcome if they had been interested?

And Mao? Well, we have his "historic alliance" with the infamous war-criminal Richard M. Nixon; we have his failure to support the Shanghai Commune; we have the military conflict between China and Vietnam; we have Chinese support for Pol Pot...give me some time and I could probably put together a pretty long list. A long list that wouldn't be very pretty, for that matter.

Most damning, of course, was that the party that Mao built was evidently rotten with corruption. Mao's corpse wasn't cold when the turn towards restoring capitalism was begun.

Will Bob Avakian "sell out" or "capitulate"? Who knows?

But if he does, you will be devastated. Instead of a party capable of dealing with corruption or capitulation, you have "put all your chips" on Avakian's number. If it loses, you have lost everything.

Which is why, even within the confines of Leninism, you shouldn't do that. You have entrusted your fate to one guy...and if he fucks up, you and your party are just so much roadkill.

I know, you think that will "never happen", that you are and will remain "lucky".

We'll see.


In reality, people have heroes, and there is nothing basically wrong with having them.

Yes, actually there is something deeply wrong with "having heroes"...especially in the context of class society.

The emergence of "heroes" in class society is a reflection of the alienation that people have from their own lives. Feeling that they are powerless to change things, they look for a "hero" who appears "stronger" and "smarter" than they are. They look for a "redeemer" who will "lead them out of bondage".

They never find one...because there's no such thing.

Redeemers--"heroes"--may indeed, on rare occasions, strike the chains from your body. But it is not until the chains in your mind have been broken that you are truly emancipated. That's something no one can do "for you".

All of our lives we have been told in a million ways (obvious and subtle) that we are "not good enough" to make our own decisions about things, to figure things out for ourselves, to take control of anything more important than which commodity to buy next, etc.

We have been told that "authority knows best", that the rich and famous are "special" and "naturally superior" to us, that we have no right to question "experts" much less fail to abide by their opinions, etc., etc., etc.

What is your message but a variation on the same theme?

"Trust in Bob--he will provide."


If the best argument you have is about how the RCP trusts in the leadership that they selected, well then, your arguments are really weak. Of course they trust him! Otherwise he would not be their leader.

When, exactly, did they "select" Bob? Do they ever get a chance to change their minds? What happens if they do?

My argument is not that it's simply a bad thing to "trust Bob"...it is a bad thing to substitute trust for revolutionary political consciousness.

Which is what you are obviously doing!


In fact I think that it is uncommunist to not promote leadership, and in the USA it is uncommunist to not promote this leader.

And I think that is idiotic statement!


They recognize the need for a leadership that can lead a revolution and then help develop a new state that is ruled by the masses, and in the interests of the masses.

You don't even trust your own party to rule itself (see below)...and you expect me to believe that you would trust the masses to rule your new state?

Like all Leninists, you want to "set up shop" as a new ruling class.


...I think it is important to understand what I meant when I said that some forces oppose real collectivity. A vanguard applies democratic centralism as an organizational method in its ranks. That means that decisions are made by collectives. After a decision is made, everyone in these collectives are then responsible to follow the collective decisions. They can, and should, discuss and struggle to unite around difference in that collective, however externally they are to take out the collective's decision as it is their own. This is real collectivity, acting as a united collective. There is more to democratic centralism than this, there are different levels of responsibility, and their members are selected from below. [b]The lower levels are subject to the collective decisions of the upper. This is how real collectivity is performed with a huge collective, that wants to get something done in this lifetime. Like I said, this is a basic look at democratic centralism.

Emphasis added. The real power is in the highest collective...and guess who decides what the highest collective will "decide"?

It has about as much to do with "real collectivity" as American "democracy" has to do with real democracy.

As Bob Avakian has about as much to do with Marx as Bob Dylan.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

You say that marx can still lead. I find that very funny actually. Here are a few things Marx simply CANT do because he isnt alive!

Repeatedly and over 3 decades, Bob Avakian has provided timely and decisive analysis and guidance to the whole Party and through the Party, to the masses, at every major turning point. Some historical moments where he gave righteous leadership to the Party and masses are:

* waging a fierce struggle to build the RCP, its revolutionary line and organization. Many other groups (who no longer exist today) fought against forming a Party, saying it wasn’t necessary or wasn’t the time to do so.

* analyzing and defending Mao’s legacy in theory as well as in the streets (in the face of tremendous confusion/demoralization after the capitalist coup there). This was bitterly attacked by the U.S. rulers who tried to jail our Chairman for 241 years. The 2-line struggle to defend Mao and revolution led to a split in our Party.

* defending the heroic Iranian peoples’ upsurge up against mad U.S. jingoism/patriotism

* the fight to reclaim May Day as a revolutionary holiday of our class in this country

* upholding the beautiful 1992 L.A. rebellion

* analyzing and exposing the collapse of phony communism in the former Soviet Union and taking on the defense of real communism in the face of assaults/rantings about “the death of communism”

* he’s provided political analysis/guidance on the U.S. imperialist’s juggernaut of “open ended war and repression” since 9/11 (see “The New Situation and The Great Challenges” http://www.rwor.org/A/V23/1140-1147/1143/b...ewsituation.htm (http://www.rwor.org/A/V23/1140-1147/1143/ba-newsituation.htm) in 3/17/2002 RW, as well as “Bob Avakian Speaks Out” http://www.rwor.org/A/V24/1151-1160/1155/b...bainterview.htm (http://www.rwor.org/A/V24/1151-1160/1155/bainterview.htm)
in RW#1155 and 1156 – June 16 and June 23, 2002)

Over and over, he has shown a profound ability to combine/connect a deep grasp of historical sweep/vision with a living sense of the sentiments of the masses in solving the complex and practical problems of the revolutionary movement.

In other words, I feel we need THIS chairman for our revolution. And before we start toying abstractly about getting people in and out of power, I suggest you do two things:

1) really check out what he’s said AND done;

2) think seriously over what it’ll take to seize power in a country like this and measure his leadership up against THAT problem.

Bob Avakian is not only the leader of the RCP, he is also a foremost MLM theoretician in his own right. He is loved and respected by revolutionaries all over the world – which is why he was invited to contribute a major article to “A World To Win” magazine (#17) on “Democracy: More Than Ever We Can and Must Do Better Than That”.

[SonofRage]

Repeatedly and over 3 decades, Bob Avakian has provided timely and decisive analysis and guidance to the whole Party and through the Party, to the masses, at every major turning point. Some historical moments where he gave righteous leadership to the Party and masses are:

* waging a fierce struggle to build the RCP, its revolutionary line and organization. Many other groups (who no longer exist today) fought against forming a Party, saying it wasn’t necessary or wasn’t the time to do so.

What exactly has he done to "build" the RCP? The RCP is tiny both in membership and in influence.





* analyzing and defending Mao’s legacy in theory as well as in the streets (in the face of tremendous confusion/demoralization after the capitalist coup there). This was bitterly attacked by the U.S. rulers who tried to jail our Chairman for 241 years. The 2-line struggle to defend Mao and revolution led to a split in our Party.

He defended it in the streets...by running away to Europe!



* defending the heroic Iranian peoples’ upsurge up against mad U.S. jingoism/patriotism

That is hardly a unique position.




* the fight to reclaim May Day as a revolutionary holiday of our class in this country

Again, this is not a unique position at all.



* upholding the beautiful 1992 L.A. rebellion

Are you talking about the L.A. riots? The riots where people destroyed and looted their own community? The riot where people were attacked just because they were white? The riot where Korean immigrants were targetted and attacked for no reason other than the fact that they were Korean? Good job Chairman Bob! :rolleyes:



* analyzing and exposing the collapse of phony communism in the former Soviet Union and taking on the defense of real communism in the face of assaults/rantings about “the death of communism”

Again, this is another example of a position that was widely held on the Left that Avakian's followers like to claim is this profound analysis on the part of their chairman.



* he’s provided political analysis/guidance on the U.S. imperialist’s juggernaut of “open ended war and repression” since 9/11 (see “The New Situation and The Great Challenges” http://www.rwor.org/A/V23/1140-1147/1143/b...ewsituation.htm (http://www.rwor.org/A/V23/1140-1147/1143/ba-newsituation.htm) in 3/17/2002 RW, as well as “Bob Avakian Speaks Out” http://www.rwor.org/A/V24/1151-1160/1155/b...bainterview.htm (http://www.rwor.org/A/V24/1151-1160/1155/bainterview.htm)
in RW#1155 and 1156 – June 16 and June 23, 2002)


Oh, since 9/11 eh? Funny, because Noam Chomsky and many others have been talking about this for decades!




Over and over, he has shown a profound ability to combine/connect a deep grasp of historical sweep/vision with a living sense of the sentiments of the masses in solving the complex and practical problems of the revolutionary movement.

In other words, I feel we need THIS chairman for our revolution. And before we start toying abstractly about getting people in and out of power

:blink:



I suggest you do two things:

1) really check out what he’s said AND done;

He's said things that have been said by others earlier and more articulately



2) think seriously over what it’ll take to seize power in a country like this and measure his leadership up against THAT problem.

Of course, who would think that the workers could emancipate themselves! :rolleyes:



Bob Avakian is not only the leader of the RCP, he is also a foremost MLM theoretician in his own right. He is loved and respected by revolutionaries all over the world

and we all know how well MLM theory has worked in the real world...



– which is why he was invited to contribute a major article to “A World To Win” magazine (#17) on “Democracy: More Than Ever We Can and Must Do Better Than That”.


Yes, it's certainly a big achievement for Chairman Bob to be invited to write a "major article" for a magazine that is run by his own supporters! :rolleyes:

[Pete]

That reply was very RS2000-esque.

That's all I have to say, I'm enjoying reading both sides here.

[Saint-Just]

The RCP and Bob Avakian seem to have done rather a lot actually. This is from Red Encyclopedia.

Revolutionary Communist Party: Founded as the Bay Area Revolutionary Union (BARU) in the early 1970's by Maoist Bob Avakian. Avakian's Revolutionary Union was one of the factions of Students for a Democratic Society who opposed the Progressive Labor Party. Since 1975, Avakian has created a web of youth/minority/worker protest groups, all quietly commanded by the RCP. These front groups would include Refuse & Resist (founded by RCPer Clark Kissinger), the Committee to Support the Revolution in Peru, Mumia 911, and many others. The popular radical rock band Rage Against the Machine supports the RCP and many of its measures (including the right to burn the American flag). The black radical and deathrow inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal is also an RCP supporter, though probably not a member.

The RCP publishes a newspaper, the Revolutionary Worker. The RCP also has an international federation, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), which includes the Communist Party (Shining Path) of Peru and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Chairman Avakian is currently in "exile" in France, hiding from the FBI.

[SonofRage]

Of course, you did not give the full description from the Red Encyclopedia and edited out negative portions. Here is the full text for those who are interested with the edited portion bolded:



Revolutionary Communist Party: Founded as the Bay Area Revolutionary Union (BARU) in the early 1970's by Maoist Bob Avakian. Avakian's Revolutionary Union was one of the factions of Students for a Democratic Society who opposed the Progressive Labor Party. Since 1975, Avakian has created a web of youth/minority/worker protest groups, all quietly commanded by the RCP. These front groups would include Refuse & Resist (founded by RCPer Clark Kissinger), the Committee to Support the Revolution in Peru, Mumia 911, and many others. The popular radical rock band Rage Against the Machine supports the RCP and many of its measures (including the right to burn the American flag). The black radical and deathrow inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal is also an RCP supporter, though probably not a member.

Though very convinced it has the right answers to problems of minorities in America, the RCP has been blasted by groups such as the Black Autonomy Network for being a mostly white, mostly middle-class (yuppy) radical organization. Also, until very recently, the RCP took up the Maoist idea that homosexuality is "bourgeois decadence"; they finally came around to changing this in 2001 (just barely beating Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson at coming to this conclusion). The RCP publishes a newspaper, the Revolutionary Worker. The RCP also has an international federation, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), which includes the Communist Party (Shining Path) of Peru and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Chairman Avakian is currently in "exile" in France, hiding from the FBI. Overall, the RCP is a very centralized and authoritarian group. RCP email address.

[RosaRL]

SoR said: Are you talking about the L.A. riots? The riots where people destroyed and looted their own community? The riot where people were attacked just because they were white? The riot where Korean immigrants were targetted and attacked for no reason other than the fact that they were Korean? Good job Chairman Bob!

I really think you need to look at this and get a better picture of what happened in LA.

http://rwor.org/a/v24/1148-1150/1148/lareb_1148.htm

[SonofRage]

Wow. What a nutty and completely out of touch article that is. "Electronics, furniture, and other things that people were otherwise too poor to afford were liberated from the shelves." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's just pure propaganda.

[RosaRL]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:31 PM
Wow. What a nutty and completely out of touch article that is. "Electronics, furniture, and other things that people were otherwise too poor to afford were liberated from the shelves." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's just pure propaganda.
We are kinda getting off the topic of the thread but -

Woa dude, I thought you didnt like any kind of authority. You cant be afraid of the masses rising up or condem them when they do and expect to have a revolution one day.

The people in LA stepped up and drove the pigs out and helped themselves to a lil of the goods... so what? This was an uprising of the masses - it was also multination. It also spread. Its was a beautiful thing.

[SonofRage]

The thing is, the didn't really riseup. Yes, the initial anger was against the system, that is true. However, what happened is that a bunch of opportunist decided it was a good chance to grab shit for themselves and they ended up destroying their own community and practicing racism themselves by attack whites and Koreans. There is nothing "beautiful" about that. It's disgusting. So close to Dr. Martin Luther King day, I'd think people would realize how utterly stupid things like the L.A. riot are.

EDIT: and another thing, being against unjust authority does not give people the right to make themselves an unjust authority and not respecting the liberty of others by taking away their lives.

[RosaRL]

SoR said:EDIT: and another thing, being against unjust authority does not give people the right to make themselves an unjust authority and not respecting the liberty of others by taking away their lives.

The people drove out an occuping army for a few days. The only 'liberty' they were oppressing was the liberty of the oppressors and exploiters.

Also- those communities where never 'theirs'. These are the hell-holes this system forces people to live in.

I'm not looking for more of the same thing we already have - I'm looking for something radically different and liberating. In the process of revolution - some shit is gonna get torn up (and while this was a rebellion it wasnt even close to being a revolution)

after all 'revolution aint a dinner party'

anyway- here is some of what Bob Avakian had to say about the LA rebellion - this is from -
http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/900-905/903/baob3.htm

In '92 there was the beauty of the spectacle of the ruling class scrambling to get on top of and suppress the rebellion, while also politically maneuvering in relation to it. And, of course, an essential similarity is that, as its "bottom line," the ruling class responded to the rebellion, as it has to every major rebellion, with the armed force and violence of the state.

But sometimes the masses don't appreciate their own achievements. So we should take time, not only to appreciate them ourselves, but to remind the masses of their own achievements--in order to raise their morale, but also to give them a sense of their own revolutionary potential. Sometimes the masses miss this, and we should bring this to them.

In 1992 we had this beautiful spectacle of the head of state of U.S. imperialism, George Bush, having to get on the TV--CNN and what all--and everywhere in the world you could watch George Bush quiver and quake and talk out of both sides of his mouth and temporarily retreat and back-step even while he was brandishing his sword. This was a really beautiful spectacle. Beauty is also a class question, and to the proletariat all over the world this was a truly beautiful spectacle. And obviously the '92 L.A. rebellion had a tremendous impact on every strata and all aspects of U.S. society and the world, in at least as powerful a way as any of the rebellions in the '60s.

Again, it's important for the masses to take account of their own achievements. Look at all the effects of this rebellion. First of all, the Police Chief, the notorious Gates, is gone. He wasn't replaced by anybody better, but so what, he had to go. The Mayor had to go. The system was forced to hold a federal trial of the cops who beat Rodney King for civil rights violations--and Powell and Koon were found guilty and had to do a little time. Then when they got around to having the first O.J. Simpson trial, the reason they had it in downtown L.A.--and therefore got the kind of jury they did--was they were afraid of the consequences coming off the rebellion if they had it out in Santa Monica or whatever.

A lot of times the masses don't even have the sense of what they have achieved, or they get worn down by bourgeois propaganda offensives and are made to forget their tremendous achievements. They may forget--or not have a clear enough sense of how they made George Bush get up there and talk out of both sides of his mouth and shake and quiver even while trying to bluster and threaten.

The ruling class did have to talk in terms of concessions for awhile, but on the other hand, they didn't come across with even the same kind of concessionary things that they did in response to the Watts Rebellion and other urban rebellions in the '60s. At that time, they did a lot of talking and they made a lot of promises that they didn't fulfill, of course, but although a lot of it was empty talk, they did do some concessionary things--qualitatively more than they did in relation to the '92 L.A. rebellion. And the concessions they made in response, not just to the '65 Watts rebellion, but to the many, many urban rebellions of that time and more broadly to the '60s upsurges overall, had a lot to do with building up the Black middle class. But this time around, they have not come across with the same kinds of concessions. (They brought out this fossil, Peter Ueberroth, ran him around talking out of the side of his mouth about the "Rebuild LA" project and all this kind of stuff, but nothing really came of it. "Rebuild LA" just kind of fizzled, because there wasn't the material basis, and therefore there wasn't the political intent and will on the part of the ruling class, to even carry out that kind of program.)

[redstar2000]

I want to speak first of all to the strategic dimension involved in the current and developing situation since September 11. I think we have to look at it in terms of a very wide range of possibilities connected with what the imperialists are up to and the whole cauldron of contradictions that are involved. To put it in stark terms, the range of possibilities involves everything from, on the one hand, on the negative side, devastating defeats for the proletariat and the proletarian revolution internationally, of a character that would set us back for decades. It could even lead to devastation organizationally, if not politically, for the international communist movement and its vanguard forces, and at the same time to very great advances and consolidations by the imperialists, the U.S. imperialists in particular.

Or, on the other extreme, on the positive side - and this too is possible - the whole course that the imperialists are embarking on could turn into its opposite for them in a profound, and perhaps even an unprecedented, way - it could lead to tremendous advances for the revolutionary struggle of the people all over the globe, for the world proletarian revolution - it could even lead to the possibility of a revolutionary situation and a successful revolution coming into being within what's now the United States. That's how we have to view the range of possibilities and the depth of the contradictions that are at play here and are being further unleashed and accentuated by what the imperialists are doing. One of those two extremes or the other, and everything in between, is possible as a resolution of - as what results or comes to the fore through - this whole cauldron of contradictions.

http://www.rwor.org/A/V23/1140-1147/1143/b...ewsituation.htm

Emphasis added.

The remainder of the piece elaborates--at unbelievable length--on the theme of "anything is possible".

Well, yes, that's certainly true...but not very helpful.

Much of it summarizes and criticizes various bourgeois viewpoints...that adds to the length of the piece. But there's nothing there that is noticeably "fresh" or "insightful".

And Avakian's prose style is, frankly, dreadful...a brain-numbing combination of Mao and the "Comintern-speak" of the 1930s. I cannot imagine that there are more than a few hundred people in North America with the patience to "plow" through this "mud".

Granted that politics (and its material foundations) is a complicated subject, it puts me in mind of a science writer I read once: if you really understand a complicated idea, then you can explain it so that others who are not experts can also understand it.

Avakian's approach seems to be "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" until the reader unconditionally surrenders.

The Germans have an idiomatic expression regarding deliberately obscure texts that is very appropriate for Avakian's writing: "It does not permit itself to be read."

This guy needs an editor.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

Actually Bob Avakian's works are very accessible. He has a way of explaining things and breaking them down so that it is easier for people to grasp very complex issues of theory. This is one of the things about him and his style that is absolutely amazing.

But also, learning revolutionary theory takes work - it's challenging- you have to be willing to dig in. There is no 'quick and easy fix' for learning Marxist theory - so despite that you are sure to run into new ideas that will challenge you.

As far as your complaint about that paragraph - the world is contradictory; the future is not set in stone. (We dont live in a world where we can just wait around for capitalism to collapse - for example) Understanding that contradictory nature is very important as is being able to grasp what the main contradictions are within any given situation - so Bob Avakian's writing ISNT the usual one sided stuff you see out there. He does approach a given problem from different sides and he gives you a picture of what is going on and what the possibilities are.

If it was one sided it might be a lot 'easier' but it wouldn't be revolutionary, it wouldn't be insightful, it wouldn't be able to get to the heart of the matter.

(I'm just curious - do you feel the same way about Das Capital or the German Ideology?)

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:41 PM
SoR said:EDIT: and another thing, being against unjust authority does not give people the right to make themselves an unjust authority and not respecting the liberty of others by taking away their lives.

The people drove out an occuping army for a few days. The only 'liberty' they were oppressing was the liberty of the oppressors and exploiters.

Also- those communities where never 'theirs'. These are the hell-holes this system forces people to live in.

Do you get dizzy from all that spin? :D Of course the community was "theirs" as far as the fact that they lived there. If you live in a hole in the ground, it's still your home regardless of whether you own it or whether you enjoy living there. This doesn't change the fact that they attacked innocent whites and Koreans just because of the color of their skin. That is racism, no matter who does it. You seem to keep ignoring this fact and dancing around it.

There was nothing beautiful about what happened in L.A. in 1992 and I think it's disgusting that Chairman Bob twists the facts and uses such an event as a means to his own ends.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:17 PM
Actually Bob Avakian's works are very accessible. He has a way of explaining things and breaking them down so that it is easier for people to grasp very complex issues of theory. This is one of the things about him and his style that is absolutely amazing.

But also, learning revolutionary theory takes work - it's challenging- you have to be willing to dig in. There is no 'quick and easy fix' for learning Marxist theory - so despite that you are sure to run into new ideas that will challenge you.

As far as your complaint about that paragraph - the world is contradictory; the future is not set in stone. (We don't live in a world where we can just wait around for capitalism to collapse - for example) Understanding that contradictory nature is very important as is being able to grasp what the main contradictions are within any given situation - so Bob Avakian's writing ISN'T the usual one sided stuff you see out there. He does approach a given problem from different sides and he gives you a picture of what is going on and what the possibilities are.

If it was one sided it might be a lot 'easier' but it wouldn't be revolutionary, it wouldn't be insightful, it wouldn't be able to get to the heart of the matter.

(I'm just curious - do you feel the same way about Das Capital or the German Ideology?)
Clearly, Rosa, we have very different standards for judging such matters.

But, since you asked, I think Marx was generally a "model of clarity" by German philosophical standards.

Nevertheless, Hegel was a very bad influence on him and a substantial portion of Das Kapital is a great deal more obscure than it should have been.

Matters are not helped by the fact that the translations we possess in English are, in fact, Victorian English...needlessly difficult for the modern reader. (Try reading Charles Darwin, for example, to get a flavor of 19th century scientific writing.)

A translation of Capital into modern English by a trained Marxist economist willing to re-write the most convoluted sections and use modern evidence to buttress Marx's case...would be welcome indeed.

As to The German Ideology, Marx's own verdict on that work--"we abandoned it to the criticism of the mice"--has been justified by history, I think.

Some people have made a great fuss about "the early Marx" and the "wisdom" contained therein...but I don't see it myself. I think the "decisive moment" in Marxist theory was Marx's decision to collaborate with Engels in the writing of the Communist Manifesto...everything before that is interesting in a way--because you see the pieces slowly accumulating and being put together into a whole new way of looking at the world. But the Manifesto was the "flash of lightning" that illuminated social reality in a way that had never happened before.

While much of it is antiquated now, there are many crucial portions that still read as if they were written yesterday. The bourgeoisie and their lackeys have been telling us that "Marx is dead" for more than a century...and yet his ideas go marching on.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:47 PM
Of course, you did not give the full description from the Red Encyclopedia and edited out negative portions. Here is the full text for those who are interested with the edited portion bolded:
I listed all that was necessary to answer the question. The rest of it is irrelevent and stems from his political beliefs. He is a Trotskyist.

[RosaRL]

RS2000 said: Some people have made a great fuss about "the early Marx" and the "wisdom" contained therein...but I don't see it myself. I think the "decisive moment" in Marxist theory was Marx's decision to collaborate with Engels in the writing of the Communist Manifesto...everything before that is interesting in a way--because you see the pieces slowly accumulating and being put together into a whole new way of looking at the world. But the Manifesto was the "flash of lightning" that illuminated social reality in a way that had never happened before.

I agree with the sentiment you raised about 'the early Marx' and in fact over the years his ideas developed and became much deeper and fuller. He broke with Hegalian dialectics, for example.

However,I feel that Marx and Engels were only the starting poing for Marxism and in fact there were places where Marx has been proven wrong over time through practice.

A huge contribution that Bob Avakian has made is summing up much of the historical practice and development of Marxism ;)

[redstar2000]

...and in fact there were places where Marx has been proven wrong over time through practice.

No question about it...and that even happened in their own lifetimes.

They were mortal men...and not "gods".

But I think it's often interesting to look at the various criticisms of Marx or "proofs" that Marx was wrong about something...and see what sorts of conclusions were and are being drawn.

For example, bourgeois historians and even some bourgeois sociologists "use Marxism" in a non-revolutionary way--stripped of its revolutionary content, Marxism remains useful for analyzing class societies past and present...certainly superior to anything they have ever come up with. (They do this without ever mentioning Marx by name, of course.)

Some "left-Keynesian" bourgeois economists are not above borrowing from Marx as well.

And the apparent failure of Marx's prediction of the "immiseration of the proletariat" at the beginning of the 20th century laid the ideological foundation for the collapse of Social Democracy at the beginning of World War I.

What they all had/have in common is the rejection of Marx's revolutionary conclusions as "falsified by history".

Without victorious proletarian revolutions in several advanced capitalist countries, revolutionary Marxism remains a hypothesis which those folks would very much like never to be tested.

Of a somewhat different character is the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist critique: that "proletarian" (really peasant) revolutions must take place throughout much of the underdeveloped world before the advanced capitalist countries will be sufficiently weakened to make proletarian revolution possible there.

This critique looked fairly robust in the 1960s and 1970s--"The East Wind Prevails Over the West Wind", and all that.

It looks pretty anemic now; the "west wind" is prevailing more than ever before. The U.S. imperialists and their lackeys don't have "everything" their own way, of course. There is scattered resistance on every continent, of various and even conflicting ideological tendencies. Anti-globalizationists in Europe and Muslim fundamentalists don't have much in common...except a determination to resist American hegemony.

But, for the moment, the enemies of the empire remain weak and divided.

I can see the appeal of the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist critique of Marxism to revolutionaries that actually live in underdeveloped, colonialized countries. Right or wrong, it puts them "center-stage" in the global revolutionary process.

What is more difficult for me to understand is why "western" Marxists find that thesis so seductive. Does it serve as kind of a "historical excuse" for the failures of western revolutionaries? Do western Marxists "feel guilty" because they haven't "lived up" to Marx's expectations?

Whatever the reasons, the thesis provides no strategy or even the possibility of strategy for western revolutionaries except as "support groups" for distant revolutions. In the U.S. today, you can easily find a "support group" for whatever distant revolution you personally admire...from southern Mexico to Nepal, with many intermediate stops.

A "support group", of course, is not really a political group in the Marxist sense at all. It is a kind of "progressive charity" with a much smaller bureaucracy than traditional bourgeois charities.

It also has the character of a lobbyist or "pressure group" in the bourgeois political landscape. On the one hand, we have the "We Hate Fidel" Gusano Political Association and, over here on the other hand, we have the "We Love Fidel" Solidarity With Cuba Association...and these groups compete with each other for attention in the bourgeois media and influence with bourgeois politicians.

What seems to be missing from Marxism in the west is an actual attempt to apply it to class struggle at home. It's embarrassing to admit, but even some of the anarchists are at least trying to participate in and radicalize class struggle in some western countries...where are the real communists?

It's a puzzle...and I think Marx would have found it as puzzling as I do.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

=RosaRL,Jan 15 2004, 10:20 AM] You seem to have missed the point. However.


1. That without a leader, you're not serious.

actually, you might be very serious but that doesnt mean that you can get there. Also, not all leaders or for that matter coaches are equal. Some are just plain crappy and have no clue as to what they are doing - others are known for their experience and skill. Bob Avakian iis one such Marxist leader known for that skill and ability.


2. That unless you're trying to spread the leader's message "to the masses", you're not serious.

what good is a leader if you dont get his message out? (once again you can be serious about anything but that doesnt mean that you are building for revolution)


3. That class struggle is "like" a sporting event with contesting teams.

There are very real parrallels here. Of course if yu dont see yourself as being up against the rulling class but rather as trying to appeal to some section of it, then those parrallels wont make sense.


4. That if you don't have a "team"--presumably a party is meant by this--then you're not serious.

actually our 'team' is the international prolitariate.


5. That a team "NEEDS" a coach.

Of course. :)


6. That "amorphous" (non-Leninist) movements are unserious and not worth building.

Once again, you can be serious about just about anything. Some people are serious about building support for Dean. (go figgure) The question is, what are you serious about? are you serious about revolution? What will that take? (Its going to take a lot more than an amorphous movement.)
Leaders....pfft. A communist "leader" just uses the poor, and the working class movement as nothing more as shoulders to stand on. I agree certain leaders have done alot of good, e.x. Castro, however, I think the movement in general would be much better off without them. There are some serious flaws to having a leader. Should such a leader get into power, and really have a not-so-communist agenda like Pol Pot or Miloshevik, the entire revolution goes down the drain because of one man. Also, the movement is much to great to be personalized by one person any more. The only leadership that people need are the representatives of the Communist Party. I agree that some form of central management is needed, but its not to be done by A leader.

[RosaRL]

RS2000,

I'm not sure what to say to your last post. It seems that you have the RCP and Bob Avakian confused with MIM.

In fact, I had noticed through much of this debate you have not been debating against the positions that I put forward but against some idea you have of what you think my position must be.

I really think that you should check out the RCP's draft programme - if for no other reason than to know what it is you are debating agaist.


http://2changetheworld.info/docs/docs-en.php

[redstar2000]

I'm not sure what to say to your last post. It seems that you have the RCP and Bob Avakian confused with MIM.

Not at all. The Maoist Internationalist Movement are widely understood to be "comic book Maoists", more interested in spelling reform (humyn, etc.) and "revolutionary chastity" than in anything real.

If you think that I have misrepresented the essential Maoist hypothesis, tell me wherein I have erred.

Or answer a simple question:

Does the RCP accept Marx's hypothesis that proletarian revolution will first take place in the advanced capitalist countries?

Or does it accept Mao's hypothesis that anti-imperialist revolutions must first sweep the underdeveloped world and weaken the advanced capitalist countries to the point where proletarian revolution can take place there?

It's a pretty clear choice between the two and leads to radically different strategies within the advanced capitalist countries.

The Marxist hypothesis leads to a strategy of attempting to build support for proletarian revolution "at home".

The Maoist hypothesis leads to "support groups" for distant revolutions.

Of course, there's nothing that says you "have to decide"--and my limited knowledge of Chairman Bob's methods suggests he will probably lay some chips on both numbers.

But, for want of a better way to put it, I think your "heart" is in one place or the other.

If you fundamentally perceive your own exploitation and oppression as primary, then "revolution at home" will be your focus.

If you think--in a sort of half-conscious way--that others are far more exploited and oppressed than you are, then you will be inclined to "cheer-lead" for those distant revolutions. Their "need" is "greater" than "yours".

The history of the "revolutionary" left in the advanced capitalist countries has mostly been one of "cheer-leading"...going all the way back to 1918 but especially after 1960 or thereabouts.

It's understandable...people want to go "where the action is" if only in their heads. Every month or two on this board, some young lad will post to the effect that he intends to go "join some guerrilla group" as soon as he's old enough...and which one would we recommend.

As you've probably gathered, I think that's a bad idea.

What's a good idea? Did you know that "platformist anarchists" in Montpelier, Vermont, are trying to organize "one big union" for the whole city? They have quite a few workers signed up already. They've won the support of the United Electrical Workers union. They reject the apparatus of the National Labor Relations Board...in favor of direct confrontation between workers and bosses.

That doesn't mean they reject solidarity with the exploited and oppressed in other places...it means they think that the best way to show real solidarity is to directly attack the common enemy, the capitalist class.

I don't mean to exaggerate this effort; Montpelier is a very small city and Vermont is a very small state...and they haven't won much of anything yet (one small contract, I believe).

But you can easily see where something like this might lead someday.

A good place to go to.


In fact, I had noticed through much of this debate you have not been debating against the positions that I put forward but against some idea you have of what you think my position must be.

Be specific; if I have misunderstood you or carelessly distorted your real position, tell me and I will respond with a more pertinent post.

You understand, of course, that there's not much I can say when you go off on a rhapsody about Chairman Bob.

I don't worship at that church.


I really think that you should check out the RCP's draft programme - if for no other reason than to know what it is you are debating against.

As you know, it is a massive document and time is always short.

And there is so much to read...

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 12:00 AM

I really think that you should check out the RCP's draft programme - if for no other reason than to know what it is you are debating against.

Yeah, there is nothing like having all your positions on all topics already chosen for you by your favorite Bob Avakian. Thank goodness you didn't have to do all that thinking yourself!

[DRAGOON]

Interting back and forth and I am sure that everyone lurking this is enjoying the perspectives thats are being tossed around.

In many ways what we have is an anarcho-revisionist line, represented by redstar2000, debated by a What is to be Done'ist line (represented by AndreiX and Rosa).

We should remeber that there is nothing communist about the ideology or method of redstar2000, who has basically thrown out the basis of communism, materialist dilaectics. Instead rs2000 demands the ability to be a cynic with the ability to quote Communist leaders, all the while attacking leadership.

Lets keep a couple of things in mind when we talk about this.

The communist perspective is that leadership is necessary to end classes, Communism 101. They have come to this perspective because they live in the world as it is, not as they want it to be. In order to uproot the basis of a need for leadership, one must surpass classes, a process that requires leadership. This is a real contradiction, like many things, that has to be looked at scientifically. For in stance to end unjust wars, once and for all, we need revolutionary wars to sweep the planet. A similar contradiction. Because it is contradictory, some would argue that armed revolution will not help. They are wrong, completely wrong.

We recognize the need for leadership.


Also people should look at method. The communists here try to address to thoughts and ideas of redstar and others, while rs2000 attacks the ideas of the MLMists. There is nothing rdical or communist in conceitedness.

I find it revealing that SofR and RS2000 have little idea of what was going on in LA, and what LA represented. Yes it was a contradictory situation (there ar no exceptions to contradiction), there were some things that were excessive happening, but so the fuck what? That is a part of revolt, an undeniable part that has been part of every revolt in history. To demand a situation without this is to demand that revolt and revolution never happen. (Do you support the Palestinian struggle...following this idealistic logic then you do not.)

The lack of understanding around this basic question reveal the vast petite bougeois influence that RS2000's line contains.

"Proper limits have to be exceeded in order to right a wrong, or else the wrong cannot be righted." Mao Tsetung's report on a violent peasant uprising in China, 1927

RedStars' obvious lack of putting much importance on "what it’ll take to seize power in a country like this" is also indicative of a less than revolutionary ideology, where RS2000 basically puts discussing the ability to win in a second place to discussing what is 'wrong' with the masses rising up as they did in LA.

What kind of puicture does this portray of RedStar2000, but of a petit-bourgeois critic, sitting on the sidelines criticizing everything, and doing nothing.

For redstar2000s sake I hope that he takes up a communist perspective some day, and for communists sake, I hope he stop pretendign to be a communist until he does in fact become one.

[DRAGOON]

I really think that you should check out the RCP's draft programme - if for no other reason than to know what it is you are debating against.

Yeah, there is nothing like having all your positions on all topics already chosen for you by your favorite Bob Avakian. Thank goodness you didn't have to do all that thinking yourself!

In fact it is nothing like learning from a collectivity of revolutionaries who have an expressed ideology. Learning about the ideology that they hold dear and live their lives by. (And I am sick of anarchists saying these hypocritical remarks when many anarchists quote people all the time (just different people) and always send people to the Anarchist Faq)

Its old and boring and weak to say that all communists think a like when it is obviously not true.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Jan 17 2004, 04:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Jan 17 2004, 04:58 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 05:47 PM
Of course, you did not give the full description from the Red Encyclopedia and edited out negative portions. Here is the full text for those who are interested with the edited portion bolded:
I listed all that was necessary to answer the question. The rest of it is irrelevent and stems from his political beliefs. He is a Trotskyist. [/b]
I actually know the guy who wrote it. He&#39;s not a Trot.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:18 AM
Interting back and forth and I am sure that everyone lurking this is enjoying the perspectives thats are being tossed around.

In many ways what we have is an anarcho-revisionist line, represented by redstar2000, debated by a What is to be Done&#39;ist line (represented by AndreiX and Rosa).

We should remeber that there is nothing communist about the ideology or method of redstar2000, who has basically thrown out the basis of communism, materialist dilaectics. Instead rs2000 demands the ability to be a cynic with the ability to quote Communist leaders, all the while attacking leadership.

Lets keep a couple of things in mind when we talk about this.

The communist perspective is that leadership is necessary to end classes, Communism 101. They have come to this perspective because they live in the world as it is, not as they want it to be. In order to uproot the basis of a need for leadership, one must surpass classes, a process that requires leadership. This is a real contradiction, like many things, that has to be looked at scientifically. For in stance to end unjust wars, once and for all, we need revolutionary wars to sweep the planet. A similar contradiction. Because it is contradictory, some would argue that armed revolution will not help. They are wrong, completely wrong.

We recognize the need for leadership.


Also people should look at method. The communists here try to address to thoughts and ideas of redstar and others, while rs2000 attacks the ideas of the MLMists. There is nothing rdical or communist in conceitedness.

I find it revealing that SofR and RS2000 have little idea of what was going on in LA, and what LA represented. Yes it was a contradictory situation (there ar no exceptions to contradiction), there were some things that were excessive happening, but so the fuck what? That is a part of revolt, an undeniable part that has been part of every revolt in history. To demand a situation without this is to demand that revolt and revolution never happen. (Do you support the Palestinian struggle...following this idealistic logic then you do not.)

The lack of understanding around this basic question reveal the vast petite bougeois influence that RS2000&#39;s line contains.

"Proper limits have to be exceeded in order to right a wrong, or else the wrong cannot be righted." Mao Tsetung&#39;s report on a violent peasant uprising in China, 1927

RedStars&#39; obvious lack of putting much importance on "what it’ll take to seize power in a country like this" is also indicative of a less than revolutionary ideology, where RS2000 basically puts discussing the ability to win in a second place to discussing what is &#39;wrong&#39; with the masses rising up as they did in LA.

What kind of puicture does this portray of RedStar2000, but of a petit-bourgeois critic, sitting on the sidelines criticizing everything, and doing nothing.

For redstar2000s sake I hope that he takes up a communist perspective some day, and for communists sake, I hope he stop pretendign to be a communist until he does in fact become one.
Wow, quite a harsh analysis of Redstar2000, coming from a man with 2 posts&#33; :lol:

[FAB]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 04:18 PM

What kind of puicture does this portray of RedStar2000, but of a petit-bourgeois critic, sitting on the sidelines criticizing everything, and doing nothing.

Criticism is important. Criticism helps us. Marx and Engels practiced its life long sharp Criticism to everything and everyone.

[DRAGOON]

Criticism is important, and as you can teel, I am criticizing. The point is that it is one thing to criticize, and another to be to conceited and full of one self. To sit and criticize, and yet offer no fruitful analysis to learn from. I am glad that redstar is bringing his analysis to the discussion, but I am not happy he is carrying a red flag to fight the red flag. I also do not view his analysis to be very on point, and his masquearding as som,ething new and different is very comical. Many revisionists have taken up an anarchistlike line. Its what happens when one unites with marxism though rose-tinted glasses.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Jan 20 2004, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SonofRage @ Jan 20 2004, 06:07 PM)
Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 17 2004, 04:58 PM

[email protected] 16 2004, 05:47 PM
Of course, you did not give the full description from the Red Encyclopedia and edited out negative portions. Here is the full text for those who are interested with the edited portion bolded:
I listed all that was necessary to answer the question. The rest of it is irrelevent and stems from his political beliefs. He is a Trotskyist.
I actually know the guy who wrote it. He&#39;s not a Trot. [/b]
Yes, it would seem odd that he would be a Trot given some of his positive comments on various Maoist and anti-Revisionist groups. But he certainly favour the Trotskyist parties and repeats a lot of Trotskyist lies. It was assumption that he was a Trotskyist.

He has done some very good work. But I doubt some of his member statistics, how could he know such things?&#33;?&#33;

[SonofRage]

As far as the membership numbers go, all that information is out of date. I know he spent a lot of time on that site and he got a ton of hate mail from just about every group. I know he did a lot of research, and likely got his numbers directly from the organizations (although some don&#39;t want to share that information).

[Saint-Just]

I know he did a lot of research, and likely got his numbers directly from the organizations (although some don&#39;t want to share that information).

Certainly in Britain organisations such as this are very reluctant to share this information because most of these groups are rather small. I once asked the a party secretary of the Communist Party of Britain how many members they have and he said it was not important.

[redstar2000]

We should remember that there is nothing communist about the ideology or method of redstar2000, who has basically thrown out the basis of communism, materialist dialectics. Instead rs2000 demands the ability to be a cynic with the ability to quote Communist leaders, all the while attacking leadership.

You got me&#33; I do indeed have no use for "dialectical" mysticism in any form.

If you think that is the "basis of communism", then you have understood nothing.

Cynic, am I? I have seen much to be cynical about...your post being the most recent example.

I quote from "communist leaders" while "attacking leadership"? You bet&#33;

So what?


The communist perspective is that leadership is necessary to end classes, Communism 101.

Sorry, I decided to pass up that "course".

So why don&#39;t you justify that statement, instead of simply asserting it ex cathedra?


In order to uproot the basis of a need for leadership, one must surpass classes, a process that requires leadership.

A perfect illustration of "dialectical" mysticism in action.

In order to satiate our hunger, we must "eat less".

To quench our thirst, we must "drink less".

To liberate ourselves, we must submit to a draconian dictatorship by self-appointed "great leaders".

Thus, the grotesque caricature of "communism" offered by Leninists.

Hegel would be proud of you.


We recognize the need for leadership.

Whose? Why, yours, of course.

What a surprise.


The communists here try to address to thoughts and ideas of redstar and others, while rs2000 attacks the ideas of the MLMists.

Yes, I am attacking what I consider bad ideas. Isn&#39;t that what communists are supposed to do?


The lack of understanding around this basic question reveal[s] the vast petite bourgeois influence that RS2000&#39;s line contains.

What are you babbling about here? If you&#39;re talking about Los Angeles in 1992, then read the thread before you start posting.

I did not discuss or even mention that event.


RedStars&#39; obvious lack of putting much importance on "what it’ll take to seize power in a country like this" is also indicative of a less than revolutionary ideology, where RS2000 basically puts discussing the ability to win in a second place to discussing what is &#39;wrong&#39; with the masses rising up as they did in LA.

I never said that "the masses were wrong" in LA. I repeat: read the thread before you post&#33;


What kind of picture does this portray of RedStar2000, but of a petite-bourgeois critic, sitting on the sidelines criticizing everything, and doing nothing.

What kind of picture does this portray, but of a dogmatic ignoramus who can&#39;t be bothered to read before he criticizes?


...and for communists sake, I hope he stop[s] pretending to be a communist until he does in fact become one.

Yeah...and I hope someday you&#39;ll learn to read...and type.


The point is that it is one thing to criticize, and another to be to conceited and full of one self.

Yes, I&#39;ve noticed that...in you.


I am glad that redstar is bringing his analysis to the discussion, but I am not happy he is carrying a red flag to fight the red flag. I also do not view his analysis to be very on point, and his masquerading as something new and different is very comical.

I can&#39;t return the sentiment, unfortunately. You made two posts, one of considerable length, without raising a single substantive political point.

I can summarize your view easily: "redstar2000 sucks--don&#39;t listen to him."

Think that will work? :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

Rs2000 said: You got me&#33; I do indeed have no use for "dialectical" mysticism in any form.

Me either&#33; Karl Marx and Engels broke with Hegelian dialectics - it was necessary to go beyond Hegel and idealism in general -- beyond this &#39;dialectical mysticism&#39; you are talking about it for good reason.

However, materialist dialectics( not dialectical mysticism) is the theoretical underpinnings of the Marxist method -- without which Das Capital and the manifesto would have been impossible. Once you have thrown that out, you have no hope of making the type of analysis that Marx and Engels made - which is critical since the world is constantly changing and we have new things to face and understand.

Without materialist dialectics what do you have? Voodoo Marxism?

In fact, it is a bit like upholding science while demanding that the scientific method by which discoveries are made be thrown out -- you would be forever stuck at the current theoretical level of development -- at the current understanding of the world without any real hope of deepening that understanding or even training new people in that method. (and in this case, you are stuck with the level of development around the end of the 1800s&#33;)

Being that you have thrown out the method, I dont find the cynicism surprising at all&#33; What tools you could have had to grab hold of reality and change it you have thrown out the window.

What a shock to you it must be to encounter Bob Avakian&#39;s works when you hold such ideas&#33; Here is someone using that method that is capable of making fresh analysis and deepening the understanding of Marxism. Your beliefs seem to say &#39;but wait, that is impossible&#33;&#39; yet, there he is -- living proof&#33;

Note: The fact that there was a very real development by Marx and Engels beyond Hegelian dialectics often isn&#39;t brought up in philosophy 101 where the professors often put forward crude examples of Hegelian dialectics much like those in your post and put forward that Marx believed the same thing in order to discredit him. The idea they present (philosophy professors and the like) is that dialectics is and has never been anything more than thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Perhaps this is part of the confusion here. (even Hegel had more depth than that&#33;)

[Valkyrie]

bob Avakian seems to be one of those people who puts himself on the scene by association... associated by ambiguity, no less.

Bob Avakian--
"And then a few weeks later one of these guys introduced me to Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, and then the next time I saw them was when I was driving a car late in the night (or early in the morning) with another Black friend of mine with whom I hung out a lot, and we gave them a ride somewhere. And I got into talking with them about some of their political views. So later, when they had formed the Black Panther Party and I came into a more directly political relationship with them, there was already something there, previous to that. It wasn&#39;t just purely a political relationship, if you understand what I&#39;m trying to say."

No comprende.


And how about his Coke Essay? Is not drinking [email protected] , or rather, HIS not drinking coke, really the catalyst to the creating of a vanguard party that will lead the revolution to completion.? Much much too simplistic of an anology and example. LAME, actually.

"Many years ago, in discussing South Africa and the role of the U.S. in relation to it, I pointed specifically to the major role of Coca-Cola in South Africa and told him I had decided not to drink Coke as a personal protest. After that, every time we talked, one of the first things he would ask is: "Are you still not drinking Coke?" Though I eventually gave up this particular form of protest as ineffective, and he understood that, his question still had a much larger meaning, and we both knew that. And, in that spirit, this has remained a question I continue to ask myself, to make sure I can continue to say: No, I&#39;m still not drinking Coke--in the largest sense.
In its larger implications, this is another illustration of the importance of a vanguard party, which is especially crucial in this period--of the fact that, through the whole upsurge of the &#39;60s not just in the U.S. but internationally, and persevering and becoming tempered and steeled through the &#39;70s and into the &#39;80s, there is a leadership actually capable of being the guiding center in preparing for and carrying out the overthrow of U.S. imperialism. There is a party that is not only the vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat in the U.S. but is a part of an international force fighting for the world proletarian revolution, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement." ~ Bob Avakian, interview published 1986.


and his whole Jimi Hendrix interpretation is so bizarre and obnoxious.

http://rwor.org/a/1212/baback.htm


"Chairman Avakian is currently in "exile" in France, hiding from the FBI"

you know what--- They Will never find him either, if his current FBI mug shot looks anything like that deceptive 30-plus-years ago photo he has of himself on his site&#33;&#33;&#33;

[SonofRage]

:blink: wow, the whole Coke thing totally confused the hell out of me

[redstar2000]

However, materialist dialectics (not dialectical mysticism) is the theoretical underpinnings of the Marxist method -- without which Das Kapital and the manifesto would have been impossible.

I disagree.

I think that the "theoretical underpinning" of the Marxist method is historical materialism and that "dialectics"--however useful Marx and Engels might have found it as scaffolding when their theory was still developing--should have been discarded as superfluous.

I contend that you (or anyone) could begin with historical materialism, class analysis, empirical data, and ordinary logic and arrive at a reasonably accurate analysis of any social phenomenon...without bothering with "dialectics" at all.

The fact is, had not Marx grown up in an era in which Hegel "dominated" German philosophy, we would know "dialectics" only from a footnote in "history of philosophy" texts.

Even as you and me, Marx was once young and impressionable.

In my opinion, "dialectics" didn&#39;t "hurt" Marx and Engels; when they went to work, they used the same scientific method that everyone uses...argument and evidence.

After all, asserting that X happened and not Y "because" of the "dialectic" is not any different from saying it happened "because" of "God&#39;s will".

"Dialectics" can&#39;t explain anything in a useful way.

Marx and Engels were sincere and committed revolutionaries.

Others, years later, have made entirely different uses of "the dialectic".

And we have, as I previously noted, a "perfect example" from the "anti-redstar2000 post"...


In order to uproot the basis of a need for leadership, one must surpass classes, a process that requires leadership.

If I were to say to you: "in order to liberate women, we must first oppress them even more than they are now"...what would be your reaction?

From a "dialectical" standpoint, that is just as valid as the statement about leadership.

You see the problem? "Dialectics" is the logical equivalent of arithmetical division by zero. In arithmetic, if division by zero is permitted, then you can "prove" that any number is "equal" to any other number. That&#39;s a useless version of arithmetic...as "dialectics" is a useless "tool" of social analysis--it can be used to "prove" anything.

That slavery is freedom, for example.

That&#39;s the summary of my position. Here&#39;s the "long" version...

On Dialectics--The Heresy Posts (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/theory/show_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1052322305&archive=1054467213&cnshow=news&ucat=>&start_from=)


Without materialist dialectics what do you have? Voodoo Marxism?

Well, you have this...

The Tools of Marxism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6415)


Being that you have thrown out the method, I don&#39;t find the cynicism surprising at all&#33;

I think that "cynicism" is another one of those qualities that&#39;s "in the eye of the beholder". One person&#39;s "cynic" is another person&#39;s "realist".

But one should not forget the word&#39;s origins. The original Greek cynics were corrosive critics of all of the ruling class mythologies of their era.

Not a bad place to start.


What a shock to you it must be to encounter Bob Avakian&#39;s works when you hold such ideas&#33; Here is someone using that method that is capable of making fresh analysis and deepening the understanding of Marxism. Your beliefs seem to say &#39;but wait, that is impossible&#33;&#39; yet, there he is -- living proof&#33;

Fresh analysis? Deepening the understanding of Marxism? Living proof?

We are now on the 8th page of this thread and I just went back and looked at all the previous posts. Both you and I and others have quoted from Avakian&#39;s writings.

I have seen no evidence in the quoted excerpts of anything resembling a "fresh analysis" or a "deepening of the understanding of Marxism".

You may, if you wish, assert that Avakian is the foremost living exponent of Leninism-Maoism. I will not contest that assertion (though rival Leninists certainly will).

I simply don&#39;t think that&#39;s "anything to boast of".

I assert, in fact, that Leninism-Maoism is a demonstrated failure in the advanced capitalist countries...and that a Bob Avakian personality cult will not change that.

Finally, if you are "really serious" about revolution, I think that you must confront--sooner or later--the ultimately reactionary implications of the Leninist paradigm.

Leninism, like Social Democracy, was a wrong turn...an enormous historical blunder which should be placed in a museum and otherwise ignored.

Do we need a "fresh analysis" and a "deeper understanding of Marx"? You bet&#33;

And we&#39;ll get one...eventually.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

While we obviously disagree on many points, it amazes me that you continue to mischaracterize what you are debating against without taking the time to find out what it is. I find it a very dishonest approach and very misleading to those who may be reading this.

Your last couple of posts have been based on the assumption that Maoist belive in some &#39;big dialectic&#39; -

Rs2000 said: After all, asserting that X happened and not Y "because" of the "dialectic" is not any different from saying it happened "because" of "God&#39;s will".
"Dialectics" can&#39;t explain anything in a useful way.

However, on this point that you raised about &#39;the dialectic&#39; it may be just that the only views you have seen on this are the views of revisionists (such as cp-usa and the like) who do put forward this idea of some big fuzzy &#39;dialectic&#39; driving or moving everything forward. Quite frankly that is much like a religious view - as you pointed out - it is mysticism however it has NOTHING to do with Materialist Dialectics. This idea of &#39;one big fuzzy dialectic&#39; indeed has nothing to do with the method of Marx, Engels, Lenin or Mao -- or Bob Avakian for that matter.

[redstar2000]

While we obviously disagree on many points, it amazes me that you continue to mischaracterize what you are debating against without taking the time to find out what it is. I find it a very dishonest approach and very misleading to those who may be reading this.

It&#39;s not sufficient to say that I "mischaracterize" or have a "dishonest approach" without stating the alternatives in a clear way.

I cited a specific example of the "use" of the "dialectic" from someone who supports your party...not a "revisionist".

Here it is again...


In order to uproot the basis of a need for leadership, one must surpass classes, a process that requires leadership.

In plain language, that means that in order to free ourselves, we must submit to the dictatorship of a "vanguard party" and a "great leader". No other meaning is remotely plausible considering the source.

And then I asked you a direct question...


If I were to say to you: "in order to liberate women, we must first oppress them even more than they are now"...what would be your reaction?

You cannot uphold a "general principle" and then balk at its specific applications...if you&#39;re serious.


This idea of &#39;one big fuzzy dialectic&#39; indeed has nothing to do with the method of Marx, Engels, Lenin or Mao -- or Bob Avakian for that matter.

That is "easy" to say. But all the evidence that I&#39;ve seen suggests that fuzzy is exactly the right word. You can use it to "prove" anything you want...which means that, in fact, you&#39;ve proved nothing.

And you&#39;re right back at square one...again.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

I just posted this in the other thread where we are discussing the issue of dialectics - so since the topic has come up in this thread, I will also cross post it here. :)


You would think, reading RS2000, that Marxists who uphold Materialist Dialects only see one contradiction within all of society, indeed - within all the universe&#33; But that is far from the truth.

Contradiction is the key to the existence itself. Every phenomena in the universe is driven forward by its own internal set of contradictions, however this is not obvious on the surface.

Opposing forces within the atom hold it together and at the same time produce its ceaseless motion. If that contradiction where to end, so would the atom. The same can be said for the sun, the solar system, the universe itself.

Even life exist and can only exist through the process of internal contradiction. Every living organism exists and develops through breaking down (or &#39;dividing into two&#39;) certain entities (food, air, carbon dioxide, water, etc), expelling the waste and transforming the rest into new constituents of a new and qualitatively different form. Motion and relative rest, flushing out the dead and reconstituting the new, rapid growth and periods of relative stability - these are all contradictory processes that make the life of any plant or animal.

Societies also advance through the struggle of opposites.

"The history of all hitherto existing (class) society is the history of class struggles," Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto.

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian; lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, in a word, the oppressor and the oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-construction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

Knowledge also proceeds through contradiction - through struggle - not through a gradual accumulation of facts alone.

Einstein&#39;s theory, for example, first overthrew and then subsumed the accepted view of the universe developed by Isaac Newton. The clash between opposite ideas and the struggle to resolve these contradictions is the lifeblood of knowledge.

So, materialist dialectics isn&#39;t at all about one contradiction - about some &#39;dialectic&#39;.

And, although class contradiction would come to an end, contradiction would continue to arise in society - even communist society will be propelled forward by struggle.



as to your specific question If I were to say to you: "in order to liberate women, we must first oppress them even more than they are now"...what would be your reaction?

You want my answer. That is not an application of Dialectical Materialism. At best, it is a very mechanical statement.

I would say that in order for women to be liberated, the source of their oppression must be overcome.

[redstar2000]

I replied to your general remarks on "dialectics" in the thread on that topic.


You want my answer. That is not an application of Dialectical Materialism. At best, it is a very mechanical statement.

And there&#39;s your problem with "dialectics". If you don&#39;t like someone else&#39;s application, then make up your own. All you have to say is "that&#39;s not a real application" and who can deny you? On what grounds?

In fact, any political analysis can be denounced as "mechanical" or praised as "dialectical" on any basis you like...they have no objective, empirical basis at all&#33;


I would say that in order for women to be liberated, the source of their oppression must be overcome.

Now, I like this answer: it suggests a real starting point for investigating the question. What are the sources of women&#39;s oppression? How have they evolved historically? What would have to happen to reduce and ultimately eliminate them? How could it be done?

I take the same approach to proletarian revolution and the establishment of communism. I look at the history of 20th century "communism" with its "vanguard parties", "great leaders", etc., and I conclude that it did not work.

In a fundamental sense, it never could have worked where it was tried--every one of the "socialist" countries was, in fact, at the stage of bourgeois revolution and the rise of capitalism. And, sure enough, that&#39;s what they got. Material conditions prevail.

But I&#39;ve also looked at "vanguard parties" in the "first world"--where, if Leninism was valid, there should have been at least some serious attempts at proletarian revolution that were actually led by such parties.

Nothing&#33; No Leninist party in the "first world" has ever amounted to squat...unless they became de facto social democrats (France, Italy, etc.).

Proletarian revolution? Forget it&#33;

The abortive proletarian revolutions that actually have happened--Petrograd (February 1917), Barcelona (1936), Paris (May 1968)--took place independently of and/or inspite of Leninist parties.

The real evidence is clear and definitive.

Thus, I advocate a "new" and "fresh" approach: if Leninism is wrong, then what would be right?

Meanwhile, let&#39;s not forget how this thread began...in an effort to "justify" a personality cult around Bob Avakian.

You have not done so, nor have any of the other advocates of that "strategy".

How about it?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas