The Revolutionary Communist Party of America - thoughts?

[bluemangroup]

I was just wondering what people on this forum think of the Revolutionary Communist Party of America (RCPUSA for short).

I did go down to one of their party-run bookstores though and ended up buying a copy of Fanshen by William Hinton (a great book btw). I was struck by how blatantly they promoted their chairman Bob Avakianto an almost obsessive and cult-like degree.

Is anyone a part of the RCPUSA on this forum? If so, what have been your experiences with the party?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I do not think anyone on RevLeft is a RCPUSA member. My thoughts? They are a cult which has made themselves the laughing stock of the Maoist movement for their blatant revisionism (as seen through Mr. Avakain's so-called "New Synthesis").

For a more detailed critique see here: "Nine Letters to Our Comrades" (http://kasamaproject.org/kasama/4345-9-letters-to-our-comrades).

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The Revolutionary Communist Party is a revisionist organization whose role in the RIM is generally thought to have been the reason why the organization disintegrated, and the disintegration of that organization is often given as a reason for the degeneration of the Nepalese Revolution. They aren't only wrong, they are down right counter-revolutionary.



I do not think anyone on RevLeft is a RCPUSA member. My thoughts? They are a cult which has made themselves the laughing stock of the Maoist movement for their blatant revisionism (as seen through Mr. Avakain's so-called "New Synthesis").

For a more detailed critique see here: "Nine Letters to Our Comrades" (http://kasamaproject.org/kasama/4345-9-letters-to-our-comrades).

This polemic is ultimately a correct one, however as the Afghan Communists note, it is somewhat right wing in asserting that the fault of the RCP USA is its cult of personality when it's chauvinism, wrecking behavior, and most importantly its failure to endorse the 1993 statement of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, is the primary reason why they are counter-revolutionary.

The polemic written by the Afgan comrades:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?5j1w4ymjc58rcpe

This is also a collection of documents written by various Maoists engaging in armed conflict against the state, in response to Avakianism and the general Post-Maoist trends. It's under "Against Avakianism" in the journal.

http://thenaxalbari.blogspot.ca/2013/07/naxalbari-issue-no-4.html

[Fred]

I feel I can offer some thoughts on the RCPUSA as I have been around a long time, know some people that had been cadre, long ago, and know something of the history of the group. The caveat here is that I am a Trotskyist, so I strongly disagree with much of what they have to say.

The RCP has its roots in a caucus in SDS, RYM II (Revolutionary Youth Movment). They were the Maoist, non-Progressive Labor wing of SDS. The third major grouping in SDS in the late sixties was the Weathermen faction. Avakian was one of the leaders of the RYM II faction, along with Mike Klonsky and others. After SDS fractured, two major US Maoist parties emerged, Avakian's Revolutionary Union (later the RCP) and Klonsky's October League (later the Communist Party Marxist Leninist). The CPML got the "China Franchise," and the RU/RCP supported the Gang of Four.

The CPML became thoroughly irrelevant after Deng's rapprochement with the US (I'm pretty sure they ceased to exist). And if I recall in late 1977 the RCP had a significant split, although I don't really remember what it was about -- maybe about whether to continue to support the GO4.

The RU/RCP has always been about bluster -- they try to have the most macho and intense sounding slogans -- which are empty as can be. Around 1980, they made a big push to have a May Day general strike. I mean to the extent that they pulled comrades out of industrial jobs where they had years of seniority so that they could be fired the day after they didn't show up and alas, there was no general strike.

Very bad history on questions of homosexuality and the family. The had a position for decades that homosexuality (and pornography) were anti-working class because it weakened the family unit. Gays were not allowed to be members of their organization. Around 2000 or so, they changed this position -- I presume because it became pretty hard to recruit young people to a group that sounded like far-right wingers on these questions.

And yes, it has always been a cult around Avakian. I don't really understand this, as he seems to me to be about as charismatic as a baked potato, but he must have something going on to have attracted some smart people around him. His writing is about as pedestrian as it is unmarxist.

Of course, I think Maoism and Marxism-Leninism are simply variants of Stalinism, of which I take a dim view. There are different flavors -- whether they include Albanian, Chinese or Cuban nationalism, to name a few.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I was struck by how blatantly they promoted their chairman Bob Avakianto an almost obsessive and cult-like degree.

Sounds like you have a solid head on your shoulders.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Avakian or die, RCP gang, Golf Wang, KTA, WWOTWU, People's War mothafucka.

I agree with others, RCP is weird and became a cult of personlity (which isn't necessarily bad) but that weirdo went to France and said he was exiled or some shit like no one would know. Imho, you're better off fuckin with Kasama.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

I heard that the RCP=CIA.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I heard that the RCP=CIA.I heard Obama was a socialist.

People should read their materials if they are interested. See for yourself, does it make sense, do you agree, do you think their practice and politics would be helpful for rebuilding class and revolutionary movements.

They are not popular on the Left, some of this is shallow IMO, but some of this they (and their political ancestor the RU) brought on themselves through sectarian practices etc.

Yes, like many people I think their promotion of a single "leader" who has "internatlized the lessons of the revolutionary movement" (um, what revolutionary movement) is odd. But really it's secondary to me, and a symptom of a view of revolution where workers and the oppressed seem to play supporting, not leading roles, in creating a new society. Anyway, this is the impression I got from speaking to some of their members - who were actually very reasonable seeming and not culty at all... I just don't agree with their politics.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

They have a fucking book around their cult leader called BAsics (BA for Bob Avakian) which is structured like the bible so that you can quote it's passages more easily. It's nothing more than a maoist-derived religion centered around a homophobic man's unmarketable face. They don't even participate in pro-working class political endeavours - they just hold seminars where everybody claps and cheers at Avakian and his mundane opinions, hanging onto his every word as if he was the fucking dalai-lama.

They're about as communist as Jim Jones and his suicide cult were: Lefty rhetoric, no action, cultist fanaticism and silencing criticism. All they'd need is an enclave in Guyana and a few grams of Cyanide, and they'd be repeating history. Fuck them.

[Fred]

I heard that the RCP=CIA.

Don't do that, comrade. CIA baiting a left group on hearsay is totally fucked up. The RCP is part of the left -- albeit not a great part. I will never, for the life of me, understand the appeal of Chairman Bob, but that doesn't really matter. And Jimmie, why give a shit about a groups "popularity" on the left?

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

Don't do that, comrade. CIA baiting a left group on hearsay is totally fucked up. The RCP is part of the left -- albeit not a great part.

The defunct Maoist International Movement made some pretty convincing arguments, methinks. Perhaps someone should forward this work to the RIM, see if they would agree it explains their behavior, lmao.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And Jimmie, why give a shit about a groups "popularity" on the left?As a way to maybe contextualize why people are going to talk shit about them for the rest of the thread. I don't agree with their politics, but it would be better if there was a member here to address it rather than people throwing around CIA charges and such.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's hard to address the politics of a group that has operated in an essentially nonpolitical manner for some time now. I mean, their "politics", as far as I can tell, is a combination of certain M-L-M positions, opportunistic policies hidden in texts so dense they make Slaughter look like light reading, and the most disgusting sort of ultraconservative family-mongering. But the cult of personality of chairman Bob and his BAsics sort of eclipses all of their political errors. I mean, you can find parties whose politics are basically as shitty as those of the RCPUSA, but without chairman Bob and his Lenin complex.

And the RCPUSA wasn't simply anti-LGBT, their programme actually called for gay people to be sent off to concentration camps. Their subsequent "reversal" of this policy is one of the best example of an "apology" that apologises for nothing and ends up defending the things that they are allegedly apologising for.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Of course, I think Maoism and Marxism-Leninism are simply variants of Stalinism, of which I take a dim view. There are different flavors -- whether they include Albanian, Chinese or Cuban nationalism, to name a few.

To be fair, I think that's an unfair assessment of contemporary Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, with the contemporary parties waging people's wars (the CPI (Maoist) in India, the "dash Maoists" in Nepal, the Communist Party of the Philippines . . .) hardly resembling, in theoretical terms, much of the hodge-podge that has been labeled Maoist pre-1990s.

In North America, I think the PCR-RCP (Canada) are the most interesting/active organization in the contemporary MLM sense. In the U$, I feel like I'd almost look more toward the FRSO/OSCL (the freedomroad.org group) in terms of carrying out mass work, etc. than to the RCP(USA). Though, uh, there's maybe some opportunism in that camp - I dunno, I'm at a pretty comfortable distance.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Interestingly enough, I think one of the organisations that founded the FRSO was the Revolutionary Workers' Headquarters, a sort of "RCPUSA without Avakian". The freedomroad.org group is the one that is not affiliated with Ludo Martnes's seminar, right? They seem to treat the proletariat as simply one of the oppressed groups - which might be some people's cup of tea I guess.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

FRSO/OSCL has apparently abandoned their "Left Refoundation" line for now. They apparently are concentrating on "mass work" now, all 25 of them.

[Fred]

I think the RWH may have been born of the 1977 split. Whatever. Maoism, modern or not is based on the teachings of Mao, no? A nationalistic, Stalinist, bureaucrat. Granted, he led a revolution that overthrew capitalism in (most of) China. He seemed to do it reluctantly, but Chaing really gave him little choice. Not to minimize the achievement, btw. But his domestic and international policies were frequently horrible/anti-proletarian. Why not go back to Lenin -- where there was none of that? I will admit that I have not read much from Maoist since the 1980s -- it seemed so not worthwhile compared to other approaches.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think most modern "Maoism" is "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism", which owes just as much to Sendero Luminoso's chairman Gonzalo (who also suffered from ego inflation somewhat, though he didn't go as far as Bob) as to Mao. I think they are relevant primarily in an empirical sense since they are currently waging a guerrilla struggle in several countries - Nepal, India, the Philippines, maybe Peru? So, alright, I don't think they'll be able to form a healthy workers' state (and I don't think they'll accomplish much at all if they are unable to link to the urban proletariat), but it's a sort of an empirical test for a lot of theories - New Democracy and continuous revolution and the protracted people's war versus the permanent revolution, for example.

[RedBen]

The had a position for decades that homosexuality (and pornography) were anti-working class because it weakened the family unit.
i attended a "stop patriarchy" rally and they railed against pornography. at first i thought it was a feminist movement. they called themselves "the abortion rights freedom riders". it seems to be a branch of rcp. i was given a copy of the "revolution" newspaper which had a picture of someone at that rally in it. makes sense in hindsight, seemed like an attempt to reach a broader audience. i respect that they were so pro woman's rights and that the vast majority of the people were women, young and old, and that they were unapologetically demanding rights to "abortion on demand and without apology". i must give them credit there. i have had no dealings with the party outside of that rally. the people were very nice to my girlfriend and i, but there definitely was slight "we'd like to speak to your about our lord and savior bob avakian" going on. i haven't read any of their literature outside that one copy of their paper, but i have heard alot of boogie man stories about them. i'd say give em a day in court. decide for yourself, just keep your ears open and don't blindly drink the cool aid.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Concerning chairman Bob and pornography, I think Young Spartacus put it best:

Ordering his acolytes once more unto the breach, Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) leader Bob Avakian has anathematized Playboy, porn shops, strip clubs, Xtube and 50 Shades of Grey. These puritanical Maoists, steeped in reactionary “family values” moralism, have taken an outlandish turn with their “End Pornography and Patriarchy: The Enslavement and Degradation of Women” campaign.
Since 2012, the RCP has despicably used International Women’s Day, a proletarian holiday, as a platform to march through New York and other cities, shrieking at billboards that “objectify women” and protesting sex shops and local strip clubs. Giving the evangelicals some stiff competition, RCPers can be found on street corners and college campuses handing out palm cards that order people to “STOP WATCHING PORN” because it “corrupts the humanity of those who watch it.” RCP proselytizers are known for urging male fighters for women’s rights (e.g., abortion clinic defense guards and abortion rights demonstrators) to confess to their past porn-viewing habits and sin no more.
The meat of the “End Pornography” campaign, which is spearheaded by RCP spokeswoman Sunsara Taylor, is laid out in a 2011 “Call to Action.” In this call they ludicrously claim that pornographic images are the cause of rape, murder and other violent crimes against women. They posit that there is a “culture of rape and pornography” that is reinforcing the “enslavement and degradation of women.”
Keeping abreast of the latest developments, they claim U.S. culture has recently been “pornified,” as evidenced by the national phenomenon of (gasp) teen sexting and women taking pole-dancing classes at gyms! Underlying this patronizing absurdity and holier-than-thou mentality is the age-old “women are victims and can’t possibly enjoy sex” (or porn) garbage. For these neo-Victorian morality police, the “new” offenses in porn include depositing seminal fluid on a lady’s visage, penetrating orifices in a sequence not to the RCP’s liking, and other sexual practices they decry in lurid detail.
What kind of a sick cat does one have to be to determine (with some precision, mind you) which positions, organs, orifices and/or exchanges of bodily fluids are degrading and abusive rather than based on “mutual love and respect”? A very sick one, indeed. In fact, what’s truly obscene in all this is Bob Avakian’s diktats on “normalcy.” If they would just keep it to themselves in their prayer halls, with the membership kneeling at the altar of the mind-numbing, 6-hour-plus documentary of Avakian’s preachings, we wouldn’t be compelled to comment on it. But the RCP’s proselytizing plays right into the hands of a very real anti-sex witchhunt by the very real capitalist state.
In his tirades against pornography, Avakian trivializes not only the horrific crime of rape but also America’s racist history of murders of black men by the Ku Klux Klan. Speaking of the photo postcards of lynchings that KKK supporters circulated in the early 20th century, Avakian outrageously claims that pornography “is the equivalent of those ‘Postcards of the Hanging.’ It is a means through which all women are demeaned and degraded.” These words inspired Avakian’s followers to produce a grotesque poster that equates images of Jim Crow lynchings with pornographic stills and a Dolce & Gabbana fashion advertisement! This shows a contemptuous disregard for KKK terror; you don’t have to be a Marxist to find this absolutely repulsive.


Of course, whenever laws against pornography are enacted, they are used disproportionately against gay people, but I doubt chairman Bob loses any sleep over that.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

I heard Bob has sex with Sunsara Taylor.

That the NAMBLA-Trots would undoubtedly hate RCP=CIA's line on porn shouldn't surprise anyone though.

[Rafiko Bingo]

It's nothing more than a maoist-derived religion centered around a homophobic man's unmarketable face. They don't even participate in pro-working class political endeavours - they just hold seminars where everybody claps and cheers at Avakian and his mundane opinions, hanging onto his every word as if he was the fucking dalai-lama.

I find this quite funny, coming from a Stalinist.

[bluemangroup]

Maoism, modern or not is based on the teachings of Mao, no? A nationalistic, Stalinist, bureaucrat. Granted, he led a revolution that overthrew capitalism in (most of) China. He seemed to do it reluctantly, but Chaing really gave him little choice. Not to minimize the achievement, btw. But his domestic and international policies were frequently horrible/anti-proletarian. Why not go back to Lenin -- where there was none of that? I will admit that I have not read much from Maoist since the 1980s -- it seemed so not worthwhile compared to other approaches.Specifically, Maoism is based on the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (hence the ponderous term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism).

Furthermore, Mao was a nationalist only insofar as he was determined to make a strong China which could stand up to the west and, later, to Japan.

Philip Short, in his biography Mao: A Life (paraphrasing from memory, as I don't have the book with me right now) clearly illustrates Mao's determination first as a young, idealistic student inspired by the May Fourth Movement and later as a seasoned Marxist revolutionary to put China on equal footing with the country's European (historical) colonizers.

He was also more akin to Lenin then Stalin considering his views on the masses and how they related to the vanguard party; he criticized many Stalinist practices in the Soviet Union when Stalin was still alive but scrutinized Khrushchev and the Secret Speech for being too rabidly dogmatic in its attempt to vilify the controversial Stalin-era with all of its flaws, contradictions, and successes.

He considered the USSR under Stalin a genuine proletarian dictatorship, although one that was deeply flawed in-practice.

As for his one "horrible" domestic policy (which might also include the Cultural Revolution depending on who you ask), the infamous Great Leap Forward, it is worth mentioning that before the 1949 Chinese Revolution famines were common and worse on account of the fact that the vast majority of the poor and landless peasantry had nothing; the 1949 Revolution had given the peasants land, housing, farming equipment, etc. which prevented the controversial famine under Mao from occurring again.

"Why not go back to Lenin" strikes me as an idealistic statement, if only because Lenin IMHO was not too far removed from Stalin or Mao if we compare his rule to the rule of Stalin or Mao.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head, if only because I felt it prudent to clear up a few misconceptions about Mao and Maoism.

[Fred]

I heard Bob has sex with Sunsara Taylor.

That the NAMBLA-Trots would undoubtedly hate RCP=CIA's line on porn shouldn't surprise anyone though.

Cripes, what tool. Listen, that kind of baiting adds less than nothing to the political conversation. You have a POLITICAL argument against the RCP or any other group, make it, otherwise please keep it to yourself. CIA baiting or name calling wastes everybody's time -- including yours. It is the hallmark of someone without a real argument.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I ran into some members before at a protest. They were nice enough people, we talked for a little bit like real people about stuff then they'd go on a pre-planned speech about the new synthesis by Bob Avakian. Which is when I got disinterested. I took a newspaper from them and lucky me, it was the special edition with quotes from Bob Avakian from his book Back to BAsics on every other page.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

Cripes, what tool. Listen, that kind of baiting adds less than nothing to the political conversation. You have a POLITICAL argument against the RCP or any other group, make it, otherwise please keep it to yourself. CIA baiting or name calling wastes everybody's time -- including yours. It is the hallmark of someone without a real argument.

Seems to be more Bob-defenders here than I thought! lmao

Where does even one begin to 'argue against' the RCP=USA? The organization is so vile and horrible, one should sooner waste one's time thinking about why such an organization even exists, rather than engaging with its "politics."

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

Hilarious video.

bxI_Upjq8HU

[Fred]

Specifically, Maoism is based on the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (hence the ponderous term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism).

Furthermore, Mao was a nationalist only insofar as he was determined to make a strong China which could stand up to the west and, later, to Japan.

Philip Short, in his biography Mao: A Life (paraphrasing from memory, as I don't have the book with me right now) clearly illustrates Mao's determination first as a young, idealistic student inspired by the May Fourth Movement and later as a seasoned Marxist revolutionary to put China on equal footing with the country's European (historical) colonizers.

He was also more akin to Lenin then Stalin considering his views on the masses and how they related to the vanguard party; he criticized many Stalinist practices in the Soviet Union when Stalin was still alive but scrutinized Khrushchev and the Secret Speech for being too rabidly dogmatic in its attempt to vilify the controversial Stalin-era with all of its flaws, contradictions, and successes.

He considered the USSR under Stalin a genuine proletarian dictatorship, although one that was deeply flawed in-practice.

As for his one "horrible" domestic policy (which might also include the Cultural Revolution depending on who you ask), the infamous Great Leap Forward, it is worth mentioning that before the 1949 Chinese Revolution famines were common and worse on account of the fact that the vast majority of the poor and landless peasantry had nothing; the 1949 Revolution had given the peasants land, housing, farming equipment, etc. which prevented the controversial famine under Mao from occurring again.

"Why not go back to Lenin" strikes me as an idealistic statement, if only because Lenin IMHO was not too far removed from Stalin or Mao if we compare his rule to the rule of Stalin or Mao.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head, if only because I felt it prudent to clear up a few misconceptions about Mao and Maoism.

I absolutely agree that the Chinese Revolution was a huge victory for the Chinese Masses and the world proletariat. The Chinese Revolution, btw, is another event showing the validity of the Permanent Revolution.

He was much more akin to Stalin in his role in the CCP. What can you tell me about factions in the CCP after 1927? Or open political disagreements? Lenin's role as a leader of the Bolsheviks was vastly different from Stalin's or Mao's. There were political disagreements and Lenin sometimes was on the losing side. But the biggest difference was INTERNATIONALISM. A very short and incomplete list of some key betrayals of internationalism by Mao:

Having the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) politically support Sukarno -- leaving them prostrate when Army led by Suharto staged a coup -- the largest CP outside of the USSR/East Bloc and China was crushed -- the rivers ran red with blood.

Supporting the reactionary UNITA who, backed by South African troops and the CIA fought against the MPLA.

Clinking Toasts with Henry Kissinger while Hanoi was being bombed in 1972.

Failing to create any kind of international organization to spread revolution.

Mao ascribed to Stalin's profoundly anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist position of building socialism in one country.

The Great Leap Forward was a fiasco, it is true, but you are also quite correct that famine was not a stranger to China before that. While the knuckleheaded polices of the CCP exacerbated the problem significantly, there were also several years of drought prior to the outbreak of famine that, even I can't blame on the Chinese bureaucracy. It is important to point this out because a lot of reactionary pundits and historians when coming up with a total of people "killed" by Mao, include the deaths during this famine. This is, of course, ludicrous.

However the GPCR -- was basically the product of a faction fight between Mao and the more "pragmatic" wing of Chinese Stalinism. After the Great Leap, Mao lost much of his authority in the upper echelons of the party. Mao used his base in the People's Liberation Army and the disgruntled idealistic youth, to fight his way back into power. There was a tremendous amount of collateral damage for the great helmsmen to get back on top.

[Fred]

Seems to be more Bob-defenders here than I thought! lmao

Where does even one begin to 'argue against' the RCP=USA? The organization is so vile and horrible, one should sooner waste one's time thinking about why such an organization even exists, rather than engaging with its "politics."

Do you not get that simply asserting something is bad is utterly pointless? If you want to ponder the great existential question of WHY the RCP exists, knock yourself out. I don't support them at all -- but cop baiting and CIA baiting is poison. If you actually have evidence -- let us know, that would be useful. If not, put a lid on it.

[Audeamus]

The defunct Maoist International Movement made some pretty convincing arguments, methinks. Perhaps someone should forward this work to the RIM, see if they would agree it explains their behavior, lmao.

From what I remember of the MIM they accused pretty much everyone of either being either secret CIA front groups or crypto-fascists/Trotskyists. Not that an ostensibly revolutionary socialist organization being set up by agents of capitalist regimes is unprecedented or anything, see the defunct and exposed Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands, but throwing around such accusations based solely on speculation is not a principled manner of criticism.

As for the RCP, as others have noted (and it is usually the first thing said about them) they have something of a cult surrounding their leader Bob Avakian, which has from my observations has only been steadily growing over the years. Some years ago it wasn't quite as apparent but now? Go to their website and the first thing you are confronted with is a painting of Chairman Bob himself with a caption extolling him as the 'leadership and vision for a new stage of communist revolution'. This 'vision' and 'new stage of communist revolution' is wrapped up in what the RCP considers Avakian's major contribution to Marxist-Leninist ideology: the New Synthesis. What is the New Synthesis? Good question. I have no idea. And I've yet to meet an RCP member who can really articulate what it is and what is so novel and revolutionary about it. Ultimately all of this serves to deflect any kind of revolutionary consciousness among the members of the RCP as it becomes less about mobilizing the proletariat and promoting class consciousness and more about promoting Avakian. One wonders exactly what the RCP will do once the man dies.

[Fred]

From what I remember of the MIM they accused pretty much everyone of either being either secret CIA front groups or crypto-fascists/Trotskyists. Not that an ostensibly revolutionary socialist organization being set up by agents of capitalist regimes is unprecedented or anything, see the defunct and exposed Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands, but throwing around such accusations based solely on speculation is not a principled manner of criticism.

As for the RCP, as others have noted (and it is usually the first thing said about them) they have something of a cult surrounding their leader Bob Avakian, which has from my observations has only been steadily growing over the years. Some years ago it wasn't quite as apparent but now? Go to their website and the first thing you are confronted with is a painting of Chairman Bob himself with a caption extolling him as the 'leadership and vision for a new stage of communist revolution'. This 'vision' and 'new stage of communist revolution' is wrapped up in what the RCP considers Avakian's major contribution to Marxist-Leninist ideology: the New Synthesis. What is the New Synthesis? Good question. I have no idea. And I've yet to meet an RCP member who can really articulate what it is and what is so novel and revolutionary about it. Ultimately all of this serves to deflect any kind of revolutionary consciousness among the members of the RCP as it becomes less about mobilizing the proletariat and promoting class consciousness and more about promoting Avakian. One wonders exactly what the RCP will do once the man dies.
I think the cult stuff has been going on for decades -- maybe it is more crass than it was earlier. Imagine, a Stalinist group with a cult of personality. Who ever heard of such a thing?:grin:

[Audeamus]

I think the cult stuff has been going on for decades -- maybe it is more crass than it was earlier. Imagine, a Stalinist group with a cult of personality. Who ever heard of such a thing?:grin:

I'm inclined to agree, the expression of their cultish nature has just become more evident since the whole New Synthesis thing. Now it's more and more books and newspapers and DVDs all about "promoting BA" as though he were the Mao of our era. Hell that 'Back to BAsics' book of theirs seems to aspire to be The Little Red Book: Bob Edition.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I find this quite funny, coming from a Stalinist.

I don't cheer Stalin or his menagerie of chauvinist opinions. What's the connection? :confused:

Also, I'm loving the amount of idiots defending this stupid cult over 'left unity'. The RCPUSA has nothing to do with the left, and things should damn well stay that way. We need a real working-class movement, not a maoist derived scientology

Just look up some of the shit on youtube they have on Avakian. There's one where he's giving weird speeches about how weed should be legalised but moderated so that it doesn't conflict with the 'revolutionary lifestyle', and everyone in the crowd treats him like the second-coming of Jesus. They scream and cheer when Bob presents an opinion that's supported by the majority of the center-left for decades, laugh dramatically at his bland jokes, and boo while shaking their heads disapprovingly whenever Bob brings up the name of a person they argued with at a rally (usually a union member and a sane human being).

If you defend a completely detached, post-logic and non-marxist personality cult like this, even over the more reformist sections of the left, then you are an uncritical fool who is doing nothing but whitewashing a dangerous religion. There is nothing 'revolutionary' about a communist party who's members walk in a circle at marches with big Avakian posters chanting "You can't change the world if you don't know the BAsics!" I'd support bloody Harpal Brar over these acolytes if I had to make a choice.

[Devrim]

Very bad history on questions of homosexuality and the family. The had a position for decades that homosexuality (and pornography) were anti-working class because it weakened the family unit. Gays were not allowed to be members of their organization. Around 2000 or so, they changed this position -- I presume because it became pretty hard to recruit young people to a group that sounded like far-right wingers on these questions.

There is a blog (http://libcom.org/blog/red-evangelicals-genesis-03092013) on this on Libcom, which quotes extensively from their stuff at the time. It is pretty interesting if you haven't seen what they actually said before.

Devrim

[Tolstoy]

What exactly is the point of being a Maoist in America, we dont have a peasentry

[Fred]

What exactly is the point of being a Maoist in America, we dont have a peasentry
An excellent question. For an answer you need to look back at how and when Maoism took hold in the US. The simplest answer is that Mao and China appeared radical in comparison to the staid bureaucrats of the USSR in the late 50s and early 60s. Plus they had miltarily stood off the US in the Korean War. The tended to put forth a lot of very radical sounding verbiage -- so people that were looking around for something other than the CP began to take notice. That, plus it aligned with the overall anti-Soviet tenor of the times. Of course a peasant/guerilla strategy makes no sense at all in advanced industrial countries. But a lot of young militants bought into Maoism, either through Progressive Labor, or later through various factions in SDS (where PL was also a major player). Once China allied itself with the US against the USSR, the luster wore off very quickly. I can see, in hindsight that if you were a militant in 1965, Maoism might have been very attractive in comparison with the "old left." It seemed more dynamic and radical. This was based on, IMO, a number of very mistaken notions.

The issue of Maoism's development in industrialized nations probably deserves its own thread. There is a lot to say, and it goes a little too far off topic. As for the RCP, I think they are Maoists of a particular weird stripe. On the other hand, Maoism in the US has always been a little otherworldly ("Dig tunnels deep. Store grain everywhere. And never seek hegemony."???)

[bluemangroup]

What exactly is the point of being a Maoist in America, we dont have a peasentry

Maoism, as a sub-ideology of Marxism, was/is primarily rooted in the peasantry (owing to the backward conditions facing, say, China or modern India) but still considered the urban proletariat as the primary force of the revolution.

Unlike Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge movement, the peasantry wasn't put up onto a pedestal; the peasantry was important for the success of the Chinese Revolution insofar as it was the most numerically-strong force in China at the time and thus proved that only through support in the peasantry could the Chinese communist party foment revolution. (the mistake of the early Comintern was to take an orthodox Marxist approach to the Chinese Revolution which completely ignored the rural peasantry in favor of the weak, disorganized, and small urban proletariat)

From my understanding, modern Maoists in first-world countries (the U.S., Western Europe, etc.) in the absence of a peasantry of course focus on the urban working-class which is far stronger in the U.S. or any west European country then in Nepal or India.

Maoism as an ideology stresses the mass line and serving the people as part of the complex process of leading and making revolution; many Maoist principles can be and are applied to first-world nations no doubt.

The RCPUSA-if we are to criticize it (and we should)-lacks an actual strategy for revolution. Its "New" Synthesis is hardly new, and its focus on this cult of personality as if Bob Avakian is Lenin or Mao 2.0 only serves to discredit the budding Maoist movement here in the U.S.

IMHO I would lean more towards the Kasama Project both as a supporter of the project and as someone looking for a radical and revolutionary movement not marked by dogmatism as with the current RCPUSA.

Right Now there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a sustained and powerful Maoist movement in the U.S. (the earliest strong Maoist movement was the Black Panther Party and, later, the RCPUSA before it became a laughing stock in the eyes of the left)

I would consider myself a Maoist, yet one without a true organization as there aren't that many worthwhile groups in existence right now that I would willingly join.

[RedBen]

Hilarious video.

bxI_Upjq8HU

my brain hurts.

[Tolstoy]

Hilarious video.

bxI_Upjq8HU

They really should have conferred with the general protest and been more tasteful about what they were doing. Really, they should have gotten rid of the papers immediatly upon confrontation

[G4b3n]

Everything and everyone is revisionist.
The only true socialism lies within revleft rhetoric, everyone knows that.

[Rafiko Bingo]

I don't cheer Stalin or his menagerie of chauvinist opinions. What's the connection? :confused:

I was actually referring to the fact that Stalin too was pretty much conservative about the homosexuality's question and had an impressive cult around his person. You were bashing it while you were in Stalinism's tendency, I found it contradicting.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Everything and everyone is revisionist.
The only true socialism lies within revleft rhetoric, everyone knows that.

Well at least Revleft rhetoric doesn't do the movement any harm.

I don't see the BA of this board going around threatening people who leave their organisation, or worshiping ugly Jonesites.

[DasFapital]

I used to prank call their book store in Seattle. I also used to prank call the local Scientology church and ironically the Scientologists had a WAY better sense of humor than the Avakianites.

[Fred]

I used to prank call their book store in Seattle. I also used to prank call the local Scientology church and ironically the Scientologists had a WAY better sense of humor than the Avakianites.

Perhaps that is because the scientologists have a much fuller and cleaner delusional system. The RCPers have to deal with many contradictions between the words and deeds of folks like Mao and Stalin (and, gulp, Avakian). That is to say that there are very deep contradictions between, Marx, Engels and Lenin and those other guys. The L. Ron Duhbird followers have no contradictions in their system that magic won't take care of.

[hashem]

this is a criticism of Bob Avakian's New synthesis theory by Ranjbaran [toilers] party of Iran:

IS COMMUNIST UNITY BASED UPON EVOLUTION OR SYNTHESIS? (http://www.ranjbaran.org/01_english/?page_id=116)

[Geiseric]

I do not think anyone on RevLeft is a RCPUSA member. My thoughts? They are a cult which has made themselves the laughing stock of the Maoist movement for their blatant revisionism (as seen through Mr. Avakain's so-called "New Synthesis").

For a more detailed critique see here: "Nine Letters to Our Comrades" (http://kasamaproject.org/kasama/4345-9-letters-to-our-comrades).

Which is funny since they're the largest Maoist group in the Bay area. They might be the largest "communist" group, period, in the country, besides CPUSA. But they spell America with a KKK which immediately makes them look like jokes.

[redguarddude]

If you do a google search for MLM Mayhem, you'll find several articles critical of Avakian and the RCP from a Maoist point of view. In particular look for the critique from the Communist Party (Maoist) Afghanistan, and a Indian Maoist group, whose name I forgot.

Also workers dreadnought, again, google search has an intensive critique of Avakian's "New Synthesis." As a side note extremely important NOT to confuse RCP/Canada with the RCP in the US.

"Birds cannot give birth to crocodiles."-Bob Avakian

[redguarddude]

Fred got it mostly right. The early 1978 split within RCP was over support to the post Mao leadership. The RCP majority supported the so called gang of four. Those that split and formed Revolutionary Workers Headquarters, like the Communist Party Marxist Leninist, supported the post Mao leadership.

Support of China's line, for the CPML met support for the CIA and apartheid South African backed UNITA and FNLA, during the Angolan civil war. The CPML fell apart in 1981. The RWH did survive and helped form Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The leader of the RWH split, Mickey Jarvis died in 2005.

[redguarddude]

The now defunct MIM deserves to be defunct. They had this weird theory, that we were all one big happy middle class family in good ol 'murica, and the true revolutionary vanguard was convicts, drug dealers and street hustlers. This begs the question of which would have the most impact on capitalist profits: a strike by 100 longshoremen or a strike by 1000 petty street hustlers?

[Lenin/Lennon]

Bob Avakian was right! about many things.