New Synthesis

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What's it all about y'all?

[Loony Le Fist]

Do you mean from an economic or biological perspective?

Biologically the term refers to merging together all the information about natural selection into a single coherent scientific consensus. From an economic perspective it means the merging of neo-Keynesian ideas with neo-Classical ones.

Or are you referring instead to the book on sociobiology, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Wilson?

[Ele'ill]

you mean the user synthesis?

[Ele'ill]

in the off chance that you are not talking about the user synthesis i went ahead here and selected a few entries from the wiki on both the biological and economic definitions, these are only partial and should be easy browsing



New neoclassical synthesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New neoclassical synthesis or new synthesis is the fusion of the major, modern macroeconomic schools of thought, new classical and new Keynesian, into a consensus on the best way to explain short-run fluctuations in the economy.[1] This new synthesis is analogous to the neoclassical synthesis that combined neoclassical economics with Keynesian macroeconomics.[2] The new synthesis provides the theoretical foundation for much of contemporary mainstream economics. It is an important part of the theoretical foundation for the work done by the Federal Reserve and many other central banks.[3][page needed]

Prior to the synthesis macroeconomics was split between new Keynesian work on market imperfections demonstrated with small models and new classical work on real business cycle theory that used fully specified general equilibrium models and used changes in technology to explain fluctuations in economic output.[4] The new synthesis has taken elements from both schools. New classical economics contributed the methodology behind real business cycle theory[5] and new Keynesian economics contributed nominal rigidities (slow moving and periodic, rather than continuous, price changes also called sticky prices).[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Four elements
2 Five principles
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
Four elements[edit]
Goodfriend and King proposed a list of four elements that are central to the new synthesis[6][page needed]: intertemporal optimization, rational expectations, imperfect competition, and costly price adjustment (menu costs).[7] Goodfriend and King also find that the consensus models produce certain policy implications[6][page needed]. In contradiction with some new classical thought, monetary policy can affect real output in the short-run, but there is no long-run trade-off: money is not neutral in the short-run but it is in the long-run. Inflation has negative welfare effects. It is important for central banks to maintain credibility through rules based policy like inflation targeting.

Five principles[edit]
More recently, Michael Woodford attempted to describe the new synthesis with five elements. First, he stated that there is now agreement on intertemporal general equilibrium foundations. These allow both short-run and long-run impacts of changes in the economy to be examined in a single framework and microeconomic and macroeconomic concerns are no longer separated. This element of the synthesis is partly a victory for the new classicals, but it also includes the Keynesian desire for modeling short-run aggregate dynamics.[8]

Second, the modern synthesis recognizes the importance of using observed data, but economists now focus on models built out of theory instead of looking at more generic correlations.[9] Third, the new synthesis addresses the Lucas critique and uses rational expectations. However, based on sticky prices and other rigidities, the synthesis does not embrace the complete neutrality of money proposed by earlier new classical economists.[10]

Fourth, the new synthesis accepts that shocks of varying types can cause economic output to fluctuate. This view goes beyond the monetarist view that monetary variables cause fluctuations and the Keynesian view that supply is stable while demand fluctuates.[11] Older Keynesian models measured output gaps as the difference between measured output and an ever growing trend of output capacity.[5] Real business cycle theory did not consider the possibility of gaps and used changes in efficient output, caused by shocks to the economy, to explain fluctuations in output. Keynesians rejected this theory and argued that changes in efficient output were not large enough to explain wider swings in the economy.[12]

The new synthesis combines elements from both schools on this issue. In the new synthesis, output gaps exist, but they are the difference between actual output and efficient output. The use of efficient output recognizes that potential output does not grow continuously, but can move upward or downward in response to shocks.[5][11] Finally, it is accepted that central banks can control inflation through the use of monetary policy. This is partly a victory for monetarists, but new synthesis models also include an updated version of the Philips curve that draws from Keynesianism.[13]

See also[edit]
Neoclassical synthesis
New classical macroeconomics
Neo-Keynesian economics
General:

History of macroeconomic thought
Mainstream economics
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Mankiw 2006, p. 38.
^ Jump up to: a b Mankiw 2006, p. 39.
Jump up ^ Mankiw 2006.
Jump up ^ Blanchard 2000, p. 1404.
^ Jump up to: a b c Kocherlakota 2010, p. 12.
^ Jump up to: a b Goodfriend & King 1997.
Jump up ^ Snowdon & Vane 2005, p. 411.
Jump up ^ Woodford 2009, p. 269.
Jump up ^ Woodford 2009, pp. 270–71.
Jump up ^ Woodford 2009, p. 272.
^ Jump up to: a b Woodford 2009, pp. 272–73.
Jump up ^ Kocherlakota 2010, p. 10.
Jump up ^ Woodford 2009, pp. 273–74.
References[edit]
Blanchard, Olivier (2000), "What Do We Know About Macroeconomics That Fisher and Wicksell Did Not?", Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (4): 1375–1409, doi:10.1162/003355300554999.
Goodfriend, Marvin; King, Robert G (1997), "The New Neoclassical Synthesis and the Role of Monetary Policy", NBER Macroeconomics Annual, NBER Chapters (National Bureau of Economic Research) 12: 231–83, JSTOR 3585232.
Kocherlakota, Narayana R (May 2010), "Modern macroeconomic models as tools for economic policy" (PDF), The Region, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, pp. 5–21.
Mankiw, N Gregory (14 December 2010), "New Keynesian Economics", The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty.
Snowdon, Brian; Vane, Howard (2005), Modern Macroeconomics, Cheltenham: E Elgar, ISBN 978-1-84542-208-0.
Woodford, Michael (2009), "Convergence in Macroeconomics: Elements of the New Synthesis", American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 1 (1): 267–79, doi:10.1257/mac.1.1.267.
Categories: Macroeconomics
Navigation menu
Create accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Nederlands
Slovenčina
Edit links
This page was last modified on 25 February 2014 at 21:35.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Modern evolutionary synthesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
Evolutionary biology

Diagrammatic representation of the
divergence of modern taxonomic
groups from their common ancestor.
Key topics[show]
Processes and outcomes[show]
Natural history[show]
History of evolutionary theory[show]
Fields and applications[show]
Social implications[show]
Portal icon Evolutionary biology portal
Category Category Wikipedia book Book
Related topics
v t e
The modern evolutionary synthesis is a 20th-century union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution. It is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis or the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

The synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the consensus about how evolution proceeds.[1] The previous development of population genetics, between 1918 and 1932, was a stimulus, as it showed that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradual evolution. The synthesis is still, to a large extent, the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.[2]

The modern synthesis solved difficulties and confusions caused by the specialisation and poor communication between biologists in the early years of the 20th century. At its heart was the question of whether Mendelian genetics could be reconciled with gradual evolution by means of natural selection. A second issue was whether the broad-scale changes (macroevolution) seen by palaeontologists could be explained by changes seen in local populations (microevolution).

The synthesis included evidence from biologists, trained in genetics, who studied populations in the field and in the laboratory. These studies were crucial to evolutionary theory. The synthesis drew together ideas from several branches of biology which had become separated, particularly genetics, cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology and paleontology.

Julian Huxley invented the term, when he produced his book, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942). Other major figures in the modern synthesis include R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, E. B. Ford, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, Sergei Chetverikov, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.

Contents [hide]
1 Summary of the modern synthesis
2 Developments leading up to the synthesis
2.1 1859–1899
2.2 1900–1915
2.3 The foundation of population genetics
3 The modern synthesis
4 Further advances
5 After the synthesis
5.1 Understanding of Earth history
5.2 Symbiotic origin of eukaryotic cell structures
5.3 Trees of life
5.4 Evolutionary developmental biology
5.5 Fossil discoveries
5.6 Horizontal gene transfer
6 See also
7 References
8 Notes
9 External links
Summary of the modern synthesis[edit]
The modern synthesis bridged the gap between the work of experimental geneticists and naturalists, and paleontologists. It states that:[3][4][5]

All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrast with the saltation theory of Bateson (1894).[6]
Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
The idea that speciation occurs after populations are reproductively isolated has been much debated. In plants, polyploidy must be included in any view of speciation. Formulations such as 'evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another' were proposed rather later. The traditional view is that developmental biology ('evo-devo') played little part in the synthesis,[7] but an account of Gavin de Beer's work by Stephen J. Gould suggests he may be an exception.[8]

Developments leading up to the synthesis[edit]
See also: History of evolutionary thought and The eclipse of Darwinism
1859–1899[edit]
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was successful in convincing most biologists that evolution had occurred, but was less successful in convincing them that natural selection was its primary mechanism. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, variations of Lamarckism, orthogenesis ('progressive' evolution), and saltationism (evolution by jumps) were discussed as alternatives.[9] Also, Darwin did not offer a precise explanation of how new species arise. As part of the disagreement about whether natural selection alone was sufficient to explain speciation, George Romanes coined the term neo-Darwinism to refer to the version of evolution advocated by Alfred Russel Wallace and August Weismann with its heavy dependence on natural selection.[10] Weismann and Wallace rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, something that Darwin had not ruled out.[11]

Weismann's idea was that the relationship between the hereditary material, which he called the germ plasm (German, Keimplasma), and the rest of the body (the soma) was a one-way relationship: the germ-plasm formed the body, but the body did not influence the germ-plasm, except indirectly in its participation in a population subject to natural selection. Weismann was translated into English, and though he was influential, it took many years for the full significance of his work to be appreciated.[12] Later, after the completion of the modern synthesis, the term neo-Darwinism came to be associated with its core concept: evolution, driven by natural selection acting on variation produced by genetic mutation, and genetic recombination (chromosomal crossovers).[10]

1900–1915[edit]
Gregor Mendel's work was re-discovered by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns in 1900. News of this reached William Bateson in England, who reported on the paper during a presentation to the Royal Horticultural Society in May 1900.[13] It showed that the contributions of each parent retained their integrity rather than blending with the contribution of the other parent. This reinforced a division of thought, which was already present in the 1890s.[14] The two schools were:

Saltationism (large mutations or jumps), favored by early Mendelians who viewed hard inheritance as incompatible with natural selection[15]
Biometric school: led by Karl Pearson and Walter Weldon, argued vigorously against it, saying that empirical evidence indicated that variation was continuous in most organisms, not discrete as Mendelism predicted.
The relevance of Mendelism to evolution was unclear and hotly debated, especially by Bateson, who opposed the biometric ideas of his former teacher Weldon. Many scientists believed the two theories substantially contradicted each other.[16] This debate between the biometricians and the Mendelians continued for some 20 years and was only solved by the development of population genetics.

T. H. Morgan began his career in genetics as a saltationist, and started out trying to demonstrate that mutations could produce new species in fruit flies. However, the experimental work at his lab with Drosophila melanogaster, which helped establish the link between Mendelian genetics and the chromosomal theory of inheritance, demonstrated that rather than creating new species in a single step, mutations increased the genetic variation in the population.[17]

The foundation of population genetics[edit]
The first step towards the synthesis was the development of population genetics. R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright provided critical contributions. In 1918, Fisher produced the paper "The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance",[18] which showed how the continuous variation measured by the biometricians could be the result of the action of many discrete genetic loci. In this and subsequent papers culminating in his 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Fisher was able to show how Mendelian genetics was, contrary to the thinking of many early geneticists, completely consistent with the idea of evolution driven by natural selection.[19] During the 1920s, a series of papers by J.B.S. Haldane applied mathematical analysis to real world examples of natural selection such as the evolution of industrial melanism in peppered moths.[19] Haldane established that natural selection could work in the real world at a faster rate than even Fisher had assumed.[20]

Sewall Wright focused on combinations of genes that interacted as complexes, and the effects of inbreeding on small relatively isolated populations, which could exhibit genetic drift. In a 1932 paper he introduced the concept of an adaptive landscape in which phenomena such as cross breeding and genetic drift in small populations could push them away from adaptive peaks, which would in turn allow natural selection to push them towards new adaptive peaks.[19] Wright's model would appeal to field naturalists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky and Ernst Mayr who were becoming aware of the importance of geographical isolation in real world populations.[20] The work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright founded the discipline of population genetics. This is the precursor of the modern synthesis, which is an even broader coalition of ideas.[19][20][21] One limitation of the modern synthesis version of population genetics is that it treats one gene locus at a time, neglecting genetic linkage and resulting linkage disequilibrium between loci.

The modern synthesis[edit]
Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Ukrainian emigrant, who had been a postdoctoral worker in Morgan's fruit fly lab, was one of the first to apply genetics to natural populations. He worked mostly with Drosophila pseudoobscura. He says pointedly: "Russia has a variety of climates from the Arctic to sub-tropical... Exclusively laboratory workers who neither possess nor wish to have any knowledge of living beings in nature were and are in a minority."[22] Not surprisingly, there were other Russian geneticists with similar ideas, though for some time their work was known to only a few in the West. His 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species was a key step in bridging the gap between population geneticists and field naturalists. It presented the conclusions reached by Fisher, Haldane, and especially Wright in their highly mathematical papers in a form that was easily accessible to others. It also emphasized that real world populations had far more genetic variability than the early population geneticists had assumed in their models, and that genetically distinct sub-populations were important. Dobzhansky argued that natural selection worked to maintain genetic diversity as well as driving change. Dobzhansky had been influenced by his exposure in the 1920s to the work of a Russian geneticist named Sergei Chetverikov who had looked at the role of recessive genes in maintaining a reservoir of genetic variability in a population before his work was shut down by the rise of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union.[19][20]

Edmund Brisco Ford's work complemented that of Dobzhansky. It was as a result of Ford's work, as well as his own, that Dobzhansky changed the emphasis in the third edition of his famous text from drift to selection.[23] Ford was an experimental naturalist who wanted to test natural selection in nature. He virtually invented the field of research known as ecological genetics. His work on natural selection in wild populations of butterflies and moths was the first to show that predictions made by R.A. Fisher were correct. He was the first to describe and define genetic polymorphism, and to predict that human blood group polymorphisms might be maintained in the population by providing some protection against disease.[24]

Ernst Mayr's key contribution to the synthesis was Systematics and the Origin of Species, published in 1942. Mayr emphasized the importance of allopatric speciation, where geographically isolated sub-populations diverge so far that reproductive isolation occurs. He was skeptical of the reality of sympatric speciation believing that geographical isolation was a prerequisite for building up intrinsic (reproductive) isolating mechanisms. Mayr also introduced the biological species concept that defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that were reproductively isolated from all other populations.[19][20][25] Before he left Germany for the United States in 1930, Mayr had been influenced by the work of German biologist Bernhard Rensch. In the 1920s Rensch, who like Mayr did field work in Indonesia, analyzed the geographic distribution of polytypic species and complexes of closely related species paying particular attention to how variations between different populations correlated with local environmental factors such as differences in climate. In 1947, Rensch published Neuere Probleme der Abstammungslehre: die Transspezifische Evolution (English translation 1959: Evolution above the Species level). This looked at how the same evolutionary mechanisms involved in speciation might be extended to explain the origins of the differences between the higher level taxa. His writings contributed to the rapid acceptance of the synthesis in Germany.[26][27]

George Gaylord Simpson was responsible for showing that the modern synthesis was compatible with paleontology in his book Tempo and Mode in Evolution published in 1944. Simpson's work was crucial because so many paleontologists had disagreed, in some cases vigorously, with the idea that natural selection was the main mechanism of evolution. It showed that the trends of linear progression (in for example the evolution of the horse) that earlier paleontologists had used as support for neo-Lamarckism and orthogenesis did not hold up under careful examination. Instead the fossil record was consistent with the irregular, branching, and non-directional pattern predicted by the modern synthesis.[19][20]

The botanist G. Ledyard Stebbins was another major contributor to the synthesis. His major work, Variation and Evolution in Plants, was published in 1950. It extended the synthesis to encompass botany including the important effects of hybridization and polyploidy in some kinds of plants.[19]

Further advances[edit]
The modern evolutionary synthesis continued to be developed and refined after the initial establishment in the 1930s and 1940s. The work of W. D. Hamilton, George C. Williams, John Maynard Smith and others led to the development of a gene-centered view of evolution in the 1960s. The synthesis as it exists now has extended the scope of the Darwinian idea of natural selection to include subsequent scientific discoveries and concepts unknown to Darwin, such as DNA and genetics, which allow rigorous, in many cases mathematical, analyses of phenomena such as kin selection, altruism, and speciation.

In The Selfish Gene, author Richard Dawkins asserts the gene is the only true unit of selection.[28] (Dawkins also attempts to apply evolutionary theory to non-biological entities, such as cultural memes, imagined to be subject to selective forces analogous to those affecting biological entities.)

Others, such as Stephen Jay Gould, reject the notion that genetic entities are subject to anything other than genetic or chemical forces, (as well as the idea evolution acts on "populations" per se), reasserting the centrality of the individual organism as the true unit of selection, whose specific phenotype is directly subject to evolutionary pressures.

In 1972, the notion of gradualism in evolution was challenged by a theory of "punctuated equilibrium" put forward by Gould and Niles Eldredge, proposing evolutionary changes could occur in relatively rapid spurts, when selective pressures were heightened, punctuating long periods of morphological stability, as well-adapted organisms coped successfully in their respective environments.

Discovery in the 1980s of Hox genes and regulators conserved across multiple phyletic divisions began the process of addressing basic theoretical problems relating to gradualism, incremental change, and sources of novelty in evolution. Suddenly, evolutionary theorists could answer the charge that spontaneous random mutations should result overwhelmingly in deleterious changes to a fragile, monolithic genome: Mutations in homeobox regulation could safely—yet dramatically—alter morphology at a high level, without damaging coding for specific organs or tissues.

This, in turn, provided the means to model hypothetical genomic changes expressed in the phenotypes of long-extinct species, like the recently discovered "fish with hands"' Tiktaalik.

As these recent discoveries suggest, the synthesis continues to undergo regular review, drawing on insights offered by both new biotechnologies and new paleontological discoveries.[29] (See also Current research in evolutionary biology).

After the synthesis[edit]


The structure of evolutionary biology.
The history and causes of evolution (center) are subject to various subdisciplines of evolutionary biology. The areas of segments give an impression of the contributions of subdisciplines to the literature of evolutionary biology.
There are a number of discoveries in earth sciences and biology which have arisen since the synthesis. Listed here are some of those topics which are relevant to the evolutionary synthesis, and which seem soundly based.

Understanding of Earth history[edit]
The Earth is the stage on which the evolutionary play is performed. Darwin studied evolution in the context of Charles Lyell's geology, but our present understanding of Earth history includes some critical advances made during the last half-century.

The age of the Earth has been revised upwards. It is now estimated at 4.56 billion years, about one-third of the age of the universe. The Phanerozoic (current eon) only occupies the last one-ninth of this period of time.[30]
The triumph of Alfred Wegener's idea of continental drift came around 1960. The key principle of plate tectonics is that the lithosphere exists as separate and distinct tectonic plates, which ride on the fluid-like (visco-elastic solid) asthenosphere. This discovery provides a unifying theory for geology, linking phenomena such as volcanos, earthquakes, orogeny, and providing data for many paleogeographical questions.[31] One major question is still unclear: when did plate tectonics begin?[32]
Our understanding of the evolution of the atmosphere of Earth has progressed. The substitution of oxygen for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which occurred in the Proterozoic, caused probably by cyanobacteria in the form of stromatolites, caused changes leading to the evolution of aerobic organisms.[33][34]
The identification of the first generally accepted fossils of microbial life was made by geologists. These rocks have been dated as about 3.465 billion years ago.[35] Walcott was the first geologist to identify pre-Cambrian fossil bacteria from microscopic examination of thin rock slices. He also thought stromatolites were organic in origin. His ideas were not accepted at the time, but may now be appreciated as great discoveries.[36]
Information about paleoclimates is increasingly available, and being used in paleontology. One example: the discovery of massive ice ages in the Proterozoic, following the great reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. These ice ages were immensely long, and led to a crash in microflora.[37] See also Cryogenian period and Snowball Earth.
Catastrophism and mass extinctions. A partial reintegration of catastrophism has occurred,[38] and the importance of mass extinctions in large-scale evolution is now apparent. Extinction events disturb relationships between many forms of life and may remove dominant forms and release a flow of adaptive radiation amongst groups that remain. Causes include meteorite strikes (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event; Upper Devonian); flood basalt provinces (Deccan Traps at Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary; Siberian Traps at P–T; and other less dramatic processes.[39][40]
Conclusion: Our present knowledge of earth history strongly suggests that large-scale geophysical events influenced macroevolution and megaevolution. These terms refer to evolution above the species level, including such events as mass extinctions, adaptive radiation, and the major transitions in evolution.[41][42]

Symbiotic origin of eukaryotic cell structures[edit]
Further information: Endosymbiont and Endosymbiotic theory
Once symbiosis was discovered in lichen and in plant roots (rhizobia in root nodules) in the 19th century, the idea arose that the process might have occurred more widely, and might be important in evolution. Anton de Bary invented the concept of symbiosis;[43] several Russian biologists promoted the idea;[44] Edmund Beecher Wilson mentioned it in his text The Cell;[45] as did Ivan Emmanuel Wallin in his Symbionticism and the origin of species;[46] and there was a brief mention by Julian Huxley in 1930;[47] all in vain because sufficient evidence was lacking. Symbiosis as a major evolutionary force was not discussed at all in the evolutionary synthesis.[48]

The role of symbiosis in cell evolution was revived partly by Joshua Lederberg,[49] and finally brought to light by Lynn Margulis in a series of papers and books.[50][51] Some organelles are recognized as being of microbial origin: mitochondria and chloroplasts definitely, cilia, flagella and centrioles possibly, and perhaps the nuclear membrane and much of the chromosome structure as well. What is now clear is that the evolution of eukaryote cells is either caused by, or at least profoundly influenced by, symbiosis with bacterial and archaean cells in the Proterozoic.

The origin of the eukaryote cell by symbiosis in several stages was not part of the evolutionary synthesis. It is, at least on first sight, an example of megaevolution by big jumps. However, what symbiosis provided was a copious supply of heritable variation from microorganisms, which was fine-tuned over a long period to produce the cell structure we see today. This part of the process is consistent with evolution by natural selection.[52]

Trees of life[edit]
Further information: Last universal ancestor and Phylogenetic tree
The ability to analyse sequence in macromolecules (protein, DNA, RNA) provides evidence of descent, and permits us to work out genealogical trees covering the whole of life, since now there are data on every major group of living organisms. This project, begun in a tentative way in the 1960s, has become a search for the universal tree or the universal ancestor, a phrase of Carl Woese.[53][54] The tree that results has some unusual features, especially in its roots. There are two domains of prokaryotes: bacteria and archaea, both of which contributed genetic material to the eukaryotes, mainly by means of symbiosis. Also, since bacteria can pass genetic material to other bacteria, their relationships look more like a web than a tree. Once eukaryotes were established, their sexual reproduction produced the traditional branching tree-like pattern, the only diagram Darwin put in the Origin. The last universal ancestor (LUA) would be a prokaryotic cell before the split between the bacteria and archaea. LUA is defined as most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend (some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, in the Archean era).[55]

This technique may be used to clarify relationships within any group of related organisms. It is now a standard procedure, and examples are published regularly. April 2009 sees the publication of a tree covering all the animal phyla, derived from sequences from 150 genes in 77 taxa.[56]

Early attempts to identify relationships between major groups were made in the 19th century by Ernst Haeckel, and by comparative anatomists such as Thomas Henry Huxley and E. Ray Lankester. Enthusiasm waned: it was often difficult to find evidence to adjudicate between different opinions. Perhaps for that reason, the evolutionary synthesis paid surprisingly little attention to this activity. It is certainly a lively field of research today.

Evolutionary developmental biology[edit]
Further information: Evolutionary developmental biology
What once was called embryology played a modest role in the evolutionary synthesis,[57] mostly about evolution by changes in developmental timing (allometry and heterochrony).[58] Man himself was, according to Bolk, a typical case of evolution by retention of juvenile characteristics (neoteny). He listed many characters where "Man, in his bodily development, is a primate foetus that has become sexually mature."[59] Unfortunately, his interpretation of these ideas was non-Darwinian, but his list of characters is both interesting and convincing.[60]

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) springs from clear proof that development is closely controlled by special genetic systems, and the hope that comparison of these systems will tell us much about the evolutionary history of different groups.[61][62] In a series of experiments with the fruit-fly Drosophila, Edward B. Lewis was able to identify a complex of genes whose proteins bind to the cis-regulatory regions of target genes. The latter then activate or repress systems of cellular processes that accomplish the final development of the organism.[63][64] Furthermore, the sequence of these control genes show co-linearity: the order of the loci in the chromosome parallels the order in which the loci are expressed along the anterior-posterior axis of the body. Not only that, but this cluster of master control genes programs the development of all higher organisms.[65][66] Each of the genes contains a homeobox, a remarkably conserved DNA sequence. This suggests the complex itself arose by gene duplication.[67][68][69] In his Nobel lecture, Lewis said "Ultimately, comparisons of the [control complexes] throughout the animal kingdom should provide a picture of how the organisms, as well as the [control genes] have evolved."

The term deep homology was coined to describe the common origin of genetic regulatory apparatus used to build morphologically and phylogenetically disparate animal features.[70] It applies when a complex genetic regulatory system is inherited from a common ancestor, as it is in the evolution of vertebrate and invertebrate eyes. The phenomenon is implicated in many cases of parallel evolution.[71]

A great deal of evolution may take place by changes in the control of development. This may be relevant to punctuated equilibrium theory, for in development a few changes to the control system could make a significant difference to the adult organism. An example is the giant panda, whose place in the Carnivora was long uncertain.[72] Apparently, the giant panda's evolution required the change of only a few genetic messages (5 or 6 perhaps), yet the phenotypic and lifestyle change from a standard bear is considerable.[73][74] The transition could therefore be effected relatively swiftly.

Fossil discoveries[edit]
In the past thirty or so years there have been excavations in parts of the world which had scarcely been investigated before. Also, there is fresh appreciation of fossils discovered in the 19th century, but then denied or deprecated: the classic example is the Ediacaran biota from the immediate pre-Cambrian, after the Cryogenian period. These soft-bodied fossils are the first record of multicellular life. The interpretation of this fauna is still in flux.

Many outstanding discoveries have been made, and some of these have implications for evolutionary theory. The discovery of feathered dinosaurs and early birds from the Lower Cretaceous of Liaoning, N.E. China have convinced most students that birds did evolve from coelurosaurian theropod dinosaurs. Less well known, but perhaps of equal evolutionary significance, are the studies on early insect flight, on stem tetrapods from the Upper Devonian,[75][76] and the early stages of whale evolution.[77]

Recent work has shed light on the evolution of flatfish (pleuronectiformes), such as plaice, sole, turbot and halibut. Flatfish are interesting because they are one of the few vertebrate groups with external asymmetry. Their young are perfectly symmetrical, but the head is remodelled during a metamorphosis, which entails the migration of one eye to the other side, close to the other eye. Some species have both eyes on the left (turbot), some on the right (halibut, sole); all living and fossil flatfish to date show an 'eyed' side and a 'blind' side.[78] The lack of an intermediate condition in living and fossil flatfish species had led to debate about the origin of such a striking adaptation. The case was considered by Lamark,[79] who thought flatfish precursors would have lived in shallow water for a long period, and by Darwin, who predicted a gradual migration of the eye, mirroring the metamorphosis of the living forms. Darwin's long-time critic St. George Mivart thought that the intermediate stages could have no selective value,[80] and in the 6th edition of the Origin, Darwin made a concession to the possibility of acquired traits.[81] Many years later the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt put the case forward as an example of evolution by saltation, bypassing intermediate forms.[82][83]

A recent examination of two fossil species from the Eocene has provided the first clear picture of flatfish evolution. The discovery of stem flatfish with incomplete orbital migration refutes Goldschmidt's ideas, and demonstrates that "the assembly of the flatfish bodyplan occurred in a gradual, stepwise fashion".[84] There are no grounds for thinking that incomplete orbital migration was maladaptive, because stem forms with this condition ranged over two geological stages, and are found in localities which also yield flatfish with the full cranial asymmetry. The evolution of flatfish falls squarely within the evolutionary synthesis.[78]

Horizontal gene transfer[edit]
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) (or lateral gene transfer) is any process in which an organism gets genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism.

Most thinking in genetics has focused on vertical transfer, but there is a growing awareness that horizontal gene transfer is a significant phenomenon. Amongst single-celled organisms it may be the dominant form of genetic transfer. Artificial horizontal gene transfer is a form of genetic engineering.

Richardson and Palmer (2007) state: "Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) has played a major role in bacterial evolution and is fairly common in certain unicellular eukaryotes. However, the prevalence and importance of HGT in the evolution of multicellular eukaryotes remain unclear."[85]

The bacterial means of HGT are:

Transformation, the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the introduction, uptake and expression of foreign genetic material (DNA or RNA).
Transduction, the process in which bacterial DNA is moved from one bacterium to another by a bacterial virus (a bacteriophage, or 'phage').
Bacterial conjugation, a process in which a bacterial cell transfers genetic material to another cell by cell-to-cell contact.
Gene transfer agent (GTA) is a virus-like element which contains random pieces of the host chromosome. They are found in most members of the alphaproteobacteria order Rhodobacterales.[86] They are encoded by the host genome. GTAs transfer DNA so frequently that they may have an important role in evolution.[87]
A 2010 report found that genes for antibiotic resistance could be transferred by engineering GTAs in the laboratory.[86]
Some examples of HGT in metazoa are now known. Genes in bdelloid rotifers have been found which appear to have originated in bacteria, fungi, and plants. This suggests they arrived by horizontal gene transfer. The capture and use of exogenous (~foreign) genes may represent an important force in bdelloid evolution.[88][89] The team led by Matthew S. Meselson at Harvard University has also shown that, despite the lack of sexual reproduction, bdelloid rotifers do engage in genetic (DNA) transfer within a species or clade. The method used is not known at present.

See also[edit]
Portal icon Evolutionary biology portal
Book icon
Book: Evolution
Developmental systems theory
Gene-centered view of evolution
History of evolutionary thought
Particulate inheritance theory
Objections to evolution
Polymorphism (biology)
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions". Science and Creationism: a view from the National Academy of Sciences (php) (Second ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences. 1999. p. 28. ISBN -0-309-06406-6. Retrieved September 24, 2009. "The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming."
Jump up ^ Mayr 2002, p. 270
Jump up ^ Huxley 2010
Jump up ^ Mayr & Provine 1998
Jump up ^ Mayr E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution & inheritance. Harvard, Cambs. p567 et seq.
Jump up ^ Bateson, William (1894). Materials for the study of variation. London: Macmillan.
Jump up ^ Smocovitis, V. Betty. 1996. Unifying Biology: the evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. Princeton University Press. p192
Jump up ^ Gould S.J. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard 1977. p221-2
Jump up ^ Bowler P.J. 2003. Evolution: the history of an idea. pp236–256
^ Jump up to: a b Gould The Structure of Evolutionary Theory p. 216
Jump up ^ Kutschera U. 2003. A comparative analysis of the Darwin-Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection. Theory in Biosciences 122, 343-359
Jump up ^ Bowler pp. 253–256
Jump up ^ Mike Ambrose. "Mendel's Peas". Genetic Resources Unit, John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK. Retrieved 2007-09-22.
Jump up ^ Bateson, William 1894. Materials for the study of variation, treated with special regard to discontinuity in the origin of species. The division of thought was between gradualists of the Darwinian school, and saltationists such as Bateson. Mutations (as 'sports') and polymorphisms were well known long before the Mendelian recovery.
Jump up ^ Larson pp. 157–166
Jump up ^ Grafen, Alan; Ridley, Mark (2006). Richard Dawkins: How A Scientist Changed the Way We Think. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 69. ISBN 0-19-929116-0.
Jump up ^ Bowler pp. 271–272
Jump up ^ Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 52:399–433
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Larson, E.J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. ISBN 9780679642886. pp. 221–243
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Bowler Evolution: The history of an Idea pp. 325–339
Jump up ^ Gould The Structure of Evolutionary Theory pp. 503–518
Jump up ^ Mayr & Provine 1998 p. 231
Jump up ^ Dobzhansky T. 1951. Genetics and the Origin of Species. 3rd ed, Columbia University Press N.Y.
Jump up ^ Ford E.B. 1964, 4th edn 1975. Ecological genetics. Chapman and Hall, London.
Jump up ^ Mayr and Provine 1998 pp. 33–34
Jump up ^ Smith, Charles H. "Rensch, Bernhard (Carl Emmanuel) (Germany 1900–1990)". Western Kentucky University. Retrieved 2007-09-22.
Jump up ^ Mayr and Provine 1998 pp. 298–299, 416
Jump up ^ Bowler p.361
Jump up ^ Pigliucci, Massimo 2007. Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution 61 12, 2743–2749.
Jump up ^ Dalrymple, G. Brent 2001. The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved. Special Publications, Geological Society of London 190, 205–221.
Jump up ^ Van Andel, Tjeerd 1994. New views on an old planet: a history of global change. 2nd ed. Cambridge.
Jump up ^ Witz A. 2006. The start of the world as we know it. Nature 442, p128.
Jump up ^ Schopf J.W. and Klein (eds) 1992. The Proterozoic biosphere: a multi-disciplinary study. Cambridge University Press.
Jump up ^ Lane, Nick 2002. Oxygen: the molecule that made the world. Oxford.
Jump up ^ Schopf J.W. 1999. Cradle of life: the discovery of Earth's earliest fossils. Princeton.
Jump up ^ Yochelson, Ellis L. 1998. Charles Doolittle Walcott: paleontologist. Kent State, Ohio.
Jump up ^ Knoll A.H. and Holland H.D. 1995. Oxygen and Proterozoic evolution: an update. In National Research Council, Effects of past climates upon life. National Academy, Washington D.C.
Jump up ^ Huggett, Richard J. 1997. Catastrophism. new ed. Verso.
Jump up ^ Hallam A. and Wignall P.B. 1997. Mass extinctions and their aftermath. Columbia, N.Y.
Jump up ^ Elewa A.M.T. (ed) 2008. Mass extinctions. Springer, Berlin.
Jump up ^ The terms (or their equivalents) were used as part of the synthesis by Simpson G.G. 1944. Tempo and mode in evolution, and Rensch B. 1947. Evolution above the species level. Columbia, N.Y. They were also used by some non-Darwinian evolutionists such as Yuri Filipchenko and Richard Goldschmidt. Here we use the terms as part of the evolutionary synthesis: they do not imply any change in mechanism.
Jump up ^ Maynard Smith J. and Szathmáry E. 1997. The major transitions in evolution. Oxford.
Jump up ^ de Bary, H.A. 1879. Die Erscheinung der Symbiose. Strassburg.
Jump up ^ Khakhina, Liya Nikolaevna 1992. Concepts of symbiogenesis: a historical and critical study of the research of Russian scientists.
Jump up ^ Wilson E.B. 1925. The cell in development and heredity . Macmillan, N.Y.
Jump up ^ Wallin I.E. 1927. Symbionticism and the origin of species. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.
Jump up ^ Wells H.G., Huxley J. and Wells G.P. 1930. The science of life. London vol 2, p505. This section (The ABC of genetics) was written by Huxley.
Jump up ^ Sapp, January 1994. Evolution by association: a history of symbiosis. Oxford.
Jump up ^ Lederberg J. 1952. Cell genetics and hereditary symbiosis. Physiological Reviews 32, 403–430.
Jump up ^ Margulis L and Fester R (eds) 1991. Symbiosis as a source of evolutionary innovation. MIT.
Jump up ^ Margulis L. 1993. Symbiosis in cell evolution: microbial communities in the Archaean and Proterozoic eras. Freeman, N.Y.
Jump up ^ Maynard Smith J. and Szathmáry E. 1997. The major transitions in evolution. Oxford. The origin of the eukaryote cell is one of the seven major transitions, according to these authors.
Jump up ^ Woese, Carl 1998. The Universal Ancestor. PNAS 95, 6854–6859.
Jump up ^ Doolittle, W. Ford 1999. Phylogenetic classification and the Universal Tree. Science 284, 2124–2128.
Jump up ^ Doolittle, W. Ford 2000. Uprooting the tree of life. Scientific American 282 (6): 90–95.
Jump up ^ Dunn, Casey W. et al 2009. Broad phylogenetic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452, 745–749.
Jump up ^ Laubichler M. and Maienschein J. 2007. From Embryology to Evo-Devo: a history of developmental evolution. MIT.
Jump up ^ de Beer, Gavin 1930. Embryology and evolution. Oxford; 2nd ed 1940 as Embryos and ancestors; 3rd ed 1958, same title.
Jump up ^ Bolk, L. 1926. Der Problem der Menschwerdung. Fischer, Jena.
Jump up ^ short-list of 25 characters reprinted in Gould, Stephen Jay 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard. p357
Jump up ^ Raff R.A. and Kaufman C. 1983. Embryos, genes and evolution: the developmental-genetic basis of evolutionary changes. Macmillan, N.Y.
Jump up ^ Carroll, Sean B. 2005. Endless forms most beautiful: the new science of Evo-Devo and the making of the animal kingdom. Norton, N.Y.
Jump up ^ Lewis E.B. 1995. The bithorax complex: the first fifty years. Nobel Prize lecture. Repr. in Ringertz N. (ed) 1997. Nobel lectures, Physiology or Medicine. World Scientific, Singapore.
Jump up ^ Lawrence P. 1992. The making of a fly. Blackwell, Oxford.
Jump up ^ Duncan I. 1987. The bithorax complex. Ann. Rev. Genetics 21, 285–319.
Jump up ^ Lewis E.B. 1992. Clusters of master control genes regulate the development of higher organisms. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 267, 1524–1531.
Jump up ^ McGinnis W. et al 1984. A conserved DNA sequence in homeotic genes of the Drosophila antennipedia and bithorax complexes. Nature 308, 428–433.
Jump up ^ Scott M.P. and Weiner A.J. 1984. Structural relationships among genes that control developmental sequence homology between the antennipedia, ultrabithorax and fushi tarazu loci of Drosophila. PNAS USA 81, 4115.
Jump up ^ Gehring W. 1999. Master control systems in development and evolution: the homeobox story. Yale.
Jump up ^ Shubin N, Tabin C and Carroll S. 1997. Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 388, 639–648.
Jump up ^ Shubin N, Tabin C and Carroll S. 2009. Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature 457, p818–823.
Jump up ^


Bob Avakian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Question book-new.svg
This biographical article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (June 2013)
Bob Avakian (born on March 7, 1943) is Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP), which he has led since its formation in 1975. He is a veteran of the Free Speech Movement and the Left of the 1960s and early 1970s,[1] and was closely associated with the Black Panther Party.[2] He has continually published writings on Marxism and Maoism for over 35 years. He has described his body of theoretical work and everything he does as a communist leader as focused on "developing a scientific understanding of the world and providing leadership in radically transforming it toward the goal of revolution and the final aim of communism."[3] Avakian writes regularly for the newspaper of the RCP, Revolution (formerly titled Revolutionary Worker).

Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 Early life
3 Early political career
4 "Restoration of Capitalism" in China, arrest and self-exile
5 Avakian's "New Theoretical Synthesis"
5.1 Philosophy and method
5.2 Proletarian Internationalism
5.3 On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Socialism as a Transition to Communism
5.4 Strategic Approach to Revolution
6 On Democracy
7 Controversy
7.1 Claims of "Cult of Personality"
8 Selected Works
8.1 Books
8.2 Printed Talks
8.3 Audio
8.4 Video
9 Notes
10 External links
11 Critical opinions
Overview[edit]
Avakian defines the basic aims of the communist revolution as seeking "to make those two radical ruptures of which Marx and Engels spoke: the radical rupture with traditional property relations and with traditional ideas. It seeks not to replace one form of exploitation with another but to do away with all forms of exploitation and indeed ultimately to eliminate all class distinctions."[4]

Over the past 30 years, Avakian has critically examined what he views as the "first stage of the communist revolution"[5] as concentrated in the revolutionary societies in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.[6]

In his body of work, Avakian attempts to excavate, for critical evaluation, not only the practice of these revolutions, but also many of the fundamental theoretical concepts, from Marx, Lenin and Mao, underlying the strategic thinking and first experiences in making revolution and transforming society. While he upholds what he calls the great achievements of these revolutions and what he claims they have proven in terms of the possibility of people being able to create a better world,[7] at the same time Avakian has been developing new thinking which he characterizes as real ruptures with elements of the past understanding and experience, a synthesis which he describes as reviving the "viability and, yes, the desirability of a whole new and radically different world, and placing this on an ever firmer foundation of materialism and dialectics … a source of hope and of daring on a solid scientific foundation."[8] Some of the main elements of this new synthesis address philosophy and method; proletarian internationalism; the character of the dictatorship of the proletariat.[9] and socialist society as a transition to communism; and a strategic approach to revolution, including on the possibility and approach of actually making revolution in a developed country such as the U.S.[10]

A basic premise of his body of work has been that communism is not only a revolutionary political movement, but also a science, a scientific approach and method to understand and change the world. He has spoken of "the importance of the unity between grasping and applying Marxism as a way to engage all of reality, on the one hand, and its particular application to the problems of making revolution, on the other hand."[11] This basic premise, that communism is a science, has historically been a major point of contention with liberal thinkers such as Karl Popper,[12] other communists in the international community, and for a long time, even within the RCP.[13]

While his "new synthesis" is at the heart of Avakian's works, he has written on a variety of other subjects that are related to society and revolution, including extensive radical and provocative critiques of traditional thinking, from democracy to religion. Avakian is an outspoken atheist.

Early life[edit]
Avakian was born in Washington, D.C., and grew up in Berkeley, California. His father, Spurgeon "Sparky" Avakian (1913–2002), the son of Armenian immigrants who settled in Fresno, California, to farm, was an Alameda County judge in Oakland, California, and member of the Berkeley School Board. His mother, Ruth, was from Berkeley.[14]

Avakian describes in his memoir that as a young person, he had passion for music, sports, poetry and literature, and these intersected with his life growing up in the 1950s and 1960s in Berkeley, a city with a mixed black and white population which was marked by discrimination and racism, but a city which was also becoming a center of a developing intellectual, cultural and political ferment (which would have a major impact on the whole country). Growing up and going to school with both black and white friends, singing in doo-wop groups and playing sports, Avakian experienced up close and personal the prevailing segregation and racism in society and the ways it affected his black friends. As a young person, Avakian came to hate racism and would brook no tolerance for white people who were racist or did not uncompromisingly oppose it. He was the quarterback of his high school football team at Berkeley High. In his memoir he recounts the experience of a late night bus ride after a game,

On the way back after the game I was sitting with some Black friends of mine on the football team, and we got into this whole deep conversation about why is there so much racism in this country, why is there so much prejudice and where does it come from, and can it ever change, and how could it change? This was mainly them talking and me listening. And I remember that very, very deeply – I learned a lot more in that one hour than I learned in hours of classroom time, even from some of the better teachers.[15]

His early passion for sports in general, but especially basketball, could have led his life in an entirely different direction. As he explains in his memoir,

I always thought that if I hadn't ended up being a communist, maybe I would have been a high school basketball coach – but I was feeling that my life should be about something more than sports, as much as I still had real passion about that. I felt that there were so many big things going on in the world, I wanted to do something with my life that would mean something or, to use the phrase of the time, be relevant and not just be a personal passion for me.[16]

Going into college he had yearned to learn multiple languages, to study literature and philosophy, and to play football. He started school at the University of California at Berkeley in the fall of 1961, and was trying out for Cal’s freshmen football team, but was forced to leave school when he faced a life-threatening health problem, which kept him in and out of the hospital for months, and out of school for one year, and which did not resolve completely for at least three years.

Early political career[edit]
It was at Berkeley through his involvement with the Free Speech Movement that Avakian took his first steps into political activism. Avakian, in different ways, and over a period of time, became deeply engaged in the movements of the times: the anti-war movement, the student movement, the black liberation movement, the developing women’s movement and the incipient new communist movement in the U.S. Avakian's ideological and political development can be traced through these rebellious times, as he developed political relationships and friendships with many of the key figures of that era, engaging in many debates with the various trends in the movement, including working closely with the Black Panther Party, particularly Huey P. Newton and Eldridge Cleaver.[17] Through his writing for the newspapers The Black Panther[18] and Ramparts magazine,[19] his work in Students for a Democratic Society and with the Peace and Freedom Party, and his participation in the many struggles of the time, Avakian began to develop as a revolutionary and seriously consider what kind of revolution and revolutionary leadership was needed.[20]

In 1967 Avakian moved to Richmond, California, and started a collective "to integrate with the proletariat and take radical politics to the proletariat."[21] It was in this period that Avakian and others began to more seriously study some of the "classics" of Marxism, as well as the writings of Mao Zedong, and to more seriously engage and explore a theoretical framework for their developing revolutionary inclinations.

In 1968 Avakian played a central role in uniting a number of revolutionary collectives into the Bay Area Revolutionary Union, with the view that this would be one organization among many (such as the Black Panther Party as well as other organizations and collectives) which at some point would build ideological and political unity as the basis for a new multi-national communist party.[22]

Into the 1970s these organizations continued to develop their positions on important questions related to revolution and communism, questions such as: If you are going to be for revolution, what kind of revolution? How can you make that revolution? What kind of leadership do you need? What kind of program do you need? What kind of forces do you need to mobilize and unite?[23]

While fierce in his condemnation of all inequality and oppression and an ardent supporter of those who genuinely fight for their liberation,[24] he sought to understand the dynamic underpinnings of society which give rise to inequality and oppression. This investigation along with the debates and ferment of the times led him to view Marxism as the theoretical framework that most scientifically synthesized an understanding of the world.[25]

Through his writings in the Red Papers, the theoretical journal of the Revolutionary Union,[26] Avakian began to develop a method and approach with which to examine many of the key historical questions of the communist movement and theory, as well as the sharp and controversial issues of the day. These issues included whether the Soviet Union was still a socialist country or whether Mao Zedong’s theses of "capitalist restoration" in the Soviet Union was true;[27] whether China, under Mao, was a revolutionary socialist country; what was the character of the oppression of black people in the U.S. and the relation of this to revolutionary strategy,[28] and other contested issues.

Through a very protracted process, which included theoretical debate around the critical issues of what kind of revolution is needed, issues of revolutionary strategy, and very closely linked to these issues, the question of what comprises revolutionary leadership, Avakian played a key role in the development of a new communist party in the U.S. In 1970 the Bay Area Revolutionary Union became a national organization (renamed the Revolutionary Union); this organization itself went through splits over positions in relation to the above questions.[29] This process involved debates and sharp ideological struggles among revolutionary and communist organizations (and individuals) throughout the country, and culminated, in 1975, in the formation of the RCP.[30] At its founding congress, Avakian was elected chairman of its central committee.

"Restoration of Capitalism" in China, arrest and self-exile[edit]
In 1976, shortly after the death of Mao Zedong, the followers of Mao (known as the "Gang of Four") were arrested and new leadership took over the Communist Party of China. Among communists both within the U.S. and internationally there were major differences on how to understand what had happened in China. Within the RCP, after a process of internal study and debate, the issue came to a head in a meeting of the RCP's central committee, where a majority of the leadership, led by Avakian, in reaction to the events, took up the position that what had occurred in China was a coup that overthrew socialism and was in the process of unleashing capitalism in China. This led to a major split in the RCP with a significant minority who supported the new leaders in China leaving the Party.[31]

In January 1979 a demonstration was held in Washington DC on the occasion of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's meeting with Jimmy Carter to expose what the RCP and Avakian viewed as Deng's "reversal" of the revolution in China. There was a confrontation and the RCP claimed that the police attacked the demonstration, resulting in many in the demonstration injured and many arrested, including Avakian.[32] The federal government brought serious multiple felony charges against seventeen people, including Avakian.[33] The charges against Avakian were dropped in 1982.[34]

While fighting these charges, Avakian went on a national speaking tour in 1979 and while in Los Angeles, gave an interview to an L.A. Times reporter. In her article, the reporter attributed statements to Avakian that were distortions, which the Secret Service then used as a pretext for an investigation. After being threatened with a lawsuit, the L.A. Times printed a partial retraction. The Secret Service investigation was challenged in court, and nothing ever came of this investigation.[35]

In 1980 the RCP faced many arrests and other suppression.[36] At the same time Damián García, who was closely associated with the RCP and who had raised a red flag on top of the Alamo a few weeks earlier as part of building for RCP-sponsored demonstrations on May Day 1980, was murdered in Los Angeles.[37] According to Avakian's memoirs, within this same period there were growing reports of death threats against him from various quarters.[38]

Citing the history in the U.S. of political assassinations of revolutionaries (including Malcolm X and Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton), and the increasing attacks and threats against Avakian, in 1981 Avakian left the country and went into self-exile in France.[39] He has continued to be the Chairman of the RCP.[40]

Many of Avakian's writings and edited transcripts of a number of talks have been published in the RCP’s newspaper, Revolution, and its predecessor, Revolutionary Worker. There are also a number of audio recordings of these talks that have been released. In 2003 Avakian appeared at two speaking engagements (on the East and West Coasts of the United States), delivering a talk “Revolution: Why It’s Necessary, Why It’s Possible, What It’s All About” which is in DVD distribution.[41]

Avakian's "New Theoretical Synthesis"[edit]
Avakian contests the conventional wisdom that the experience of the communist revolutions of the 20th century has proven the failure of communism. Instead, he draws an analogy to Europe in the period between the 15th and 19th centuries during which there were revolutions and counter-revolutions, but nonetheless resulted in the eventual triumph of capitalism and bourgeois democracy and the supersession of the feudal order. He maintains that while the defeats of the revolutions in the Soviet Union and then the People’s Republic of China were painful setbacks, the goals of revolution and communism remain necessary and viable.[42] He further maintains that for communists and communism to move forward from these defeats it is necessary to "scientifically and critically evaluate this first stage of communist revolution", and on this basis further develop the theoretical framework upon which to continue the struggle for revolution and communism.

While providing overall leadership to the RCP, he has, over the last 30 years, applied himself to this theoretical task. Among the works that have been major stepping stones of his evaluation are: Conquer the World? The International Proletariat Must and Will (1981), "The End of a Stage, the Beginning of a New Stage”' (1989), and more recently "Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity", Part 1 and Part 2 (2007). The result of this work has been the emergence of what he has termed a "new synthesis", a further development of the theoretical framework for carrying forward a new stage in this revolution.[43]

Avakian's study has involved the exploration and intellectual interrogation of communist theory and practice in socialist states as well as in the communist movement more broadly; and at the same time Avakian has studied the criticisms, of various kinds and from various standpoints (including from non-communists and those hostile to communism), of that experience. While maintaining that he has proceeded from the basic framework of communist scientific theory building off of the theoretical foundation chiefly developed by Marx, Lenin and Mao in its first stage, Avakian argues that this represents a major theoretical rupture within that framework.[44]

Summing up the experience of the first stage of communist revolution, Avakian argues that "the principal aspect, looking at this with historical perspective, is firmly uphold [the historical experience of socialism]. These were positive, very positive, unprecedented breakthroughs that were achieved in the historical experience of socialism; and, at the same time, there were real and in some cases very serious shortcomings that we don't want to repeat, and should not have to repeat, even with all the necessity we're going to be up against. We ought to be able, at least in crucial spheres, to make leaps and ruptures beyond this."[45]

This new synthesis, in Avakian's words, "involves a recasting and recombining of the positive aspects of the experience so far of the communist movement and of socialist society, while learning from the negative aspects of this experience, in the philosophical and ideological as well as the political dimensions …"[46]

This is a very controversial position in the international communist movement, as there are those who argue that the previous socialist experiences have principally been flawed and there is a need for a whole new theory; and conversely, there are those who argue it is "heresy" to critically evaluate and recast and re-envision the road to socialism and communism.[47]

Philosophy and method[edit]
Avakian argues that what is necessary is a scientific approach to evaluating the experiences of the communist movement and socialist society, both in its practice and in the underlying conceptions, in their philosophical and ideological as well as political dimensions. This premise also challenges traditional thinking within the communist movement, which has tended to see the process of revolution as some kind of linear and almost "fated" development, which imbues the advance of revolution and communism with some kind of "historical inevitability". Avakian traces some secondary shortcomings in this direction all the way back to Marxism at its foundation.[48] Avakian's basic thesis contends that while Marx has scientifically explained how the basic contradictions of capitalist society will give rise, again and again, to the most horrid conditions, and that while these contradictions and horrors can only be resolved through revolution and communism, this resolution is not inevitable. Avakian agrees that the possibility exists of eliminating exploitive production relations and class relations in society and their expression in social relations and ideas.[49] However, he argues that this can only be understood and transformed in the interests of all humanity if consciously approached and understood on a scientific basis – and this is something that can be done, and needs to be done, by all who come to see the need for revolution and communism.[50]

Epistemologically, Avakian has critically examined tendencies in the communist movement to view truth as "class truth". This is the view that truth is dependent on which class outlook one brings to the pursuit of the truth, and includes the notion that there is such a thing as "proletarian truth”.[51] In contrast to this, Avakian has argued that truth is a scientifically-based objective expression or explanation of reality. He has polemicized against the philosophical view of "class truth" (as well as pragmatism, instrumentalism and positivism) and has called on communists "to rupture more fully with instrumentalism – with notions of making reality an 'instrument' of our objectives, of distorting reality to try to make it serve our ends, of 'political truth'."[52] He has emphasized that an important part of the process to communism and an important element of communist morality is the recognition that truth matters. And as he argues, under socialism, this process of getting to truth will involve unleashing all of socialist society, in its various realms, including fostering ferment and dissent in all of this.[52]

In connection to all this Avakian has attached great importance to imagination, maintaining that "there is a unity between a systematic and comprehensive scientific method and outlook for comprehending and transforming reality, and giving flight to the imagination and giving expression to the 'need to be amazed'."[53]

While continuing to adhere to philosophical materialism – a foundation point of Marxism – Avakian has simultaneously argued against a tendency toward mechanical materialism. He has devoted sections of many of his works to further explorations of what he describes as dialectical materialism[54] which is also integral to Marxism.[55] Avakian continues this in his recently published talk, "Birds Cannot Give Birth to Crocodiles, But Humanity Can Soar Beyond the Horizon – Part 1: Revolution and the State".

Proletarian Internationalism[edit]
Avakian has addressed extensively the question of proletarian internationalism, arguing that that the proletarian world revolution must be viewed as a single integrated world process in which the international arena is overall principle; that socialism must in the first place be built as a base area for the world revolution; and that in their approach to revolution, communists must proceed from an understanding of what will advance revolution on a world scale.

Avakian contends that as long as capitalist-imperialist relations of exploitation and production and an oppressive capitalist state still have a foothold in the world, there is the basis for these relations to recreate themselves and spread elsewhere. And that in fact, it is quite likely that socialism in particular countries is bound to be reversed unless further advances are made in the world proletarian revolution. Further, Avakian argues that in an ultimate and overall sense, the development of a revolutionary situation in a particular country is more determined by developments in the world as a whole than by developments in that country – and emphasizes that this understanding must be incorporated into the approach to revolution, in particular countries as well as on a world scale.[56]

Avakian writes:

[T]he achievement of [the necessary conditions for communism] must take place on a world scale, through a long and tortuous process of revolutionary transformation in which there will be uneven development, the seizure of power in different countries at different times, and a complex dialectical interplay between the revolutionary struggles and the revolutionization of society in these different countries … [a dialectical relation] in which the world arena is fundamentally and ultimately decisive while the mutually interacting and mutually supporting struggles of the proletarians in different countries constitute the key link in fundamentally changing the world as a whole.[57]

On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Socialism as a Transition to Communism[edit]
Avakian has argued that while it is true that the proletariat as a class will be the backbone social base which is most strongly compelled to make communist revolution,[58] at the same time, it must be recognized that the process of revolution is a very complicated and difficult process: that increasingly ever larger sections and various strata of society must be drawn into and enthusiastically take up this struggle, or very soon the revolution will fail, that is its communist objectives will be undermined and some form of capitalism will be restored. Related to this, he has argued that while a very crucial task of socialism will be to figure out how to transform the economy in order to employ, feed and house people and in general take care of society’s and people’s material requirements, and while doing all this continue to overcome the scars of the capitalist past, that a new dimension needs to be brought forward (even as compared to the Soviet Union and China during the period when he considered them genuine revolutionary societies) of what socialism will look like:

… opening up qualitatively more space to give expression to the intellectual and cultural needs of the people, broadly understood, and enabling a more diverse and rich process of exploration and experimentation in the realms of science, art and culture, and intellectual life overall, with increasing scope for the contention of different ideas and schools of thought and for individual initiative and creativity and protection of individual rights, including space for individuals to interact in "civil society" independently of the state – all within an overall cooperative and collective framework and at the same time as state power is maintained and further developed as a revolutionary state power serving the interests of the proletarian revolution, in the particular country and worldwide, with this state being the leading and central element in the economy and in the overall direction of society, while the state itself is being continually transformed into something radically different from all previous states, as a crucial part of the advance toward the eventual abolition of the state with the achievement of communism on a world scale.[46]

This approach has been encapsulated in the formulation, "solid core with a lot of elasticity".[59]

Another hallmark of Avakian is his stress on the role of the masses as "emancipators of humanity", where the masses are the conscious driving force of revolution; a revolution that is not about revenge nor about changes of position within the horizons of the existing class framework, but a revolution which is about the emancipation of all humanity.[60]

Strategic Approach to Revolution[edit]
Avakian views the emergence of a "revolutionary situation" – briefly, following Lenin, a situation of major crisis in society and government in which millions of formerly inactive people have taken up political causes and, in specific, have become convinced of the need for revolution – as essential to an actual struggle for power in an advanced country. Avakian has also taken up the position for an orientation of "hastening, while awaiting" the emergence of such a situation – actively attempting to influence public opinion and organize followers to both hasten the emergence of such a situation, shape its character, and prepare to take advantage of it.[61] In the words of the RCP's Constitution, this involves the party hypothetically leading a "whole ensemble of revolutionary preparations", with the party's press and the spreading of Avakian's theory. On that foundation, the mobilization of mass resistance, the raising of consciousness, and the recruitment of new members also goes on.[62]

Avakian has also put forward a strategy of "United Front under the Leadership of the Proletariat." This involves a particular focus on the proletariat, while attempting to influence and mobilize people of many other strata. A critical part of this is the struggle of what the RCP calls "oppressed nationalities" – specifically, African-Americans, Chicanos (or Mexican Americans), Native Americans, Puerto Ricans and others more conventionally grouped under the rubric of "people of color." Speaking specifically of African-Americans, Avakian has written that:

There will never be a revolutionary movement in this country that doesn’t fully unleash and give expression to the sometimes openly expressed, sometimes expressed in partial ways, sometimes expressed in wrong ways, but deeply, deeply felt desire to be rid of these long centuries of oppression [of Black people]. There’s never gonna be a revolution in this country, and there never should be, that doesn’t make that one key foundation of what it's all about.[63]

On Democracy[edit]
Avakian has been a critic of democracy, arguing that democracy cannot be viewed as a universal notion of equality, understood as above or separate from class societies.[64] Avakian takes up the position that in any democracy that exists with different classes, one class will always be able to exploit another class. In his book, Democracy: Can’t We Do Better Than That?, Avakian has developed polemics against Hannah Arendt and the "theory of totalitarianism" as well as other prominent theoreticians of democracy, including Locke and Rousseau. Specifically speaking to the history of the United States, Avakian has recently published Communism and Jeffersonian Democracy, which attempts to deconstruct the philosophical basis, and consequences, of Jeffersonian democracy.

Controversy[edit]
Claims of "Cult of Personality"[edit]
The RCP has been widely criticized on the Left for constructing a cult of personality around Avakian. During an interview with a college radio program in Madison, Wisconsin whether there was a cult of personality being developed around Bob Avakian, Avakian responded "I certainly hope so — we’ve been working very hard to create one."[65]

The debate has taken on renewed life since a prominent fellow affiliate in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), has disassociated themselves from this method of promoting leaders. Avakian contends that there are two mainstays of communist political work: the role of the party press and the 'Appreciation, Promotion and Popularization' of Bob Avakian".

Mike Ely, a founding member of the RCP as well as former editor of Revolution, recently broke with Avakian citing the RCP's position that Bob Avakian's personal status is a "cardinal question".[66]

Selected Works[edit]
Books[edit]
BAsics from the Talks and Writings of Bob Avakian (2011), ISBN 0-89851-010-4
Away With All Gods! Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World (2008), ISBN 0-9760236-8-7
Communism and Jeffersonian Democracy (2008), ISBN 0-89851-004-X
From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist (2005), ISBN 978-0-9760236-2-3
Observations on Art and Culture, Science and Philosophy (2005), ISBN 978-0-9760236-3-0
Marxism and the Call of the Future: Conversations on Ethics, History, and Politics, co-authored with Bill Martin (2005), ISBN 978-0-8126-9579-3
Preaching From a Pulpit of Bones: We Need Morality But Not Traditional Morality (1999), ISBN 0-9760236-4-4
Phony Communism is Dead … Long Live Real Communism! – A Response to the Claims of the "Death of Communism" (1992, 2004), ISBN 0-89851-122-4
Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That? (1986), ISBN 0-916650-29-4
A Horrible End: Or, The End to the Horror? (1984), ISBN 0-89851-070-8
For a Harvest of Dragons: On the "Crisis of Marxism" and the Power of Marxism Now More Than Ever – An Essay Marking the 100th Anniversary of Marx's Death (1983), ISBN 0-89851-065-1
Conquer the World? The International Proletariat Must and Will (1981)
The Immortal Contributions of Mao Tsetung (1979), ISBN 0-89851-046-5
The Loss in China and the Revolutionary Legacy of Mao Tsetung (1978), ISBN 0-89851-017-1
Printed Talks[edit]
"Birds Cannot Give Birth to Crocodiles, But Humanity Can Soar Beyond the Horizon" – "Part 1: Revolution and the State" and "Part 2: Building the Movement for Revolution" (2010)
"Some Principles for Building a Movement for Revolution" (May 2010)
"There is No 'Permanent Necessity' for Things to Be This Way – A Radically Different and Better World Can Be Brought Into Being Through Revolution" (March 2010)
"Unresolved Contradictions, Driving Forces for Revolution" (Fall 2009)
"Ruminations and Wranglings: On the Importance of Marxist Materialism, Communism as a Science, Meaningful Revolutionary Work, and a Life with Meaning" (2009)
"Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity" (2007), "Part 1: Beyond the Narrow Horizon of Bourgeois Right" and "Part 2: Everything We're Doing is About Revolution"
"Bringing Forward Another Way" (2006)
"The Need for Communists to be … Communists (2005)
"The Oppression of Black People and the Revolutionary Struggle to End All Oppression" (2007), Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
"Views on Socialism and Communism: A Radically New Kind of State, A Radically Different and Far Greater Vision of Freedom" (2005)
"The Basis, the Goals, and the Methods of the Communist Revolution" (2005)
"The Coming Civil War and Repolarizing for Revolution in the Present Era" (2005)
"On Truth … On Knowing, and Changing, the World: A Discussion with Comrades on Epistemology" (2004)
"Dictatorship and Democracy, and the Socialist Transition to Communism" (2002)
Audio[edit]
"All Played Out" (available at soundcloud.com/allplayedout)
Seven Talks (available at BobAvakian.net)
"Bob Avakian Speaks Out: On War and Revolution, On Being a Revolutionary and Changing the World", interviewed by Carl Dix, Vol. 1 and 2, on CD (available on BobAvakian.net)
Video[edit]
"Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About", at RevolutionTalk.net
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Unless otherwise indicated, biographical material is drawn primarily from Avakian's memoir, From Ike to Mao and Beyond – My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist, Chicago: Insight Press (2005).
Jump up ^ Black Panthers – Huey!, Agnes Varda's documentary film of the February 17, 1968 rally to free Black Panther Party leader Huey Newton held at the Oakland Auditorium; and archival footage. Avakian was one of the guest speakers at the rally.
Jump up ^ Avakian, "On the Role of Communist Leadership and Some Basic Questions of Orientation, Approach and Method", Revolution No. 156, February 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Avakian, Phony Communism is Dead … Long Live Real Communism!, p. 10.
Jump up ^ COMMUNISM: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE, Sec. III (pp. 17-22 in published version).
Jump up ^ In common with other Maoists in the world, Avakian and the RCP analyze the period when the Soviet Union was a genuine socialist society as being from 1917 through the mid-1950s only (see, for example, Editorial Department of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag), "On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World", Peking: Foreign Languages Press (1964). Avakian and the RCP also point to the period from 1949 through shortly after Mao Zedong's death in 1976 as when the People's Republic of China was genuinely revolutionary (Avakian, The Loss in China and the Revolutionary Legacy of Mao Tsetung).
Jump up ^ Avakian, "Views on Socialism and Communism", first three subsections.
Jump up ^ Avakian, "Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity", end of "Part 1: Beyond the Narrow Horizon of Bourgeois Right".
Jump up ^ Avakian and the RCP define "proletariat" as "an international class which owns nothing yet has created and works these massive socialized productive forces" of today's world. It is also the "first class in history whose emancipation requires the kind of revolution that will sweep away all – not some, but all – exploitative and oppressive relations, and the political structures and ways of thinking that arise from and reinforce these relations" (taken from the Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA). Compare this to the Wikipedia definition at proletariat. Concerning the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", while there are many elements to this in communist theory and controversies surrounding it, in very brief, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the new revolutionary state power that replaces the overthrown state machinery of the old exploiting classes (capitalist-imperialist or in some cases feudal comprador) and is radically different from all previous forms of state which all have been class dictatorships serving exploiting classes and their political domination. This "new state must itself be a transition to a communist society, abolishing all class distinctions and the state itself". (Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA).
Jump up ^ COMMUNISM: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE, Sec. IV (pp. 22-29 in published version).
Jump up ^ Avakian, Observations on Art and Culture, Science and Philosophy, "A Scientific Approach to Maoism, a Scientific Approach to Science", p. 89.
Jump up ^ See, for example, Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2. For an extensive polemic from Avakian on this, see "Marxism as a Science – Refuting Karl Popper", Revolution, No. 110, November 25, 2007.
Jump up ^ COMMUNISM: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE, Sec. V and VI (pp. 30-45 in published version).
Jump up ^ Biographical material on Avakian's early life is drawn primarily from his memoir, From Ike to Mao and Beyond.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, p. 65.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, p. 115.
Jump up ^ Black Panthers – Huey!, Agnes Varda's documentary film of the February 17, 1968 rally to free Huey Newton; and archival footage.
Jump up ^ See, for example, Avakian, "The Democratic Party: Oppressor of the People", The Black Panther, November 2, 1968.
Jump up ^ Avakian was listed as a contributing staff writer to Ramparts from September 1966 through March 1968.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, Ch. 5, 6 and 7.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, p. 152.
Jump up ^ Avakian explains in his memoir why he and many others from the New Left were "overwhelmingly disgusted" with the existing Communist Party, USA, believing that it had given up working for a revolution, and why such forces believed that a new communist party was needed; see From Ike to Mao and Beyond, pp. 149-150.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, Ch. 9 and especially p. 197.
Jump up ^ See, for example, archival footage of Avakian speaking at a Black Panther Party rally in 1969.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, Ch. 9.
Jump up ^ The Revolutionary Union published seven issues of Red Papers between 1969 and 1974.
Jump up ^ See, for example, the 1994 Chinese pamphlet, "On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World".
Jump up ^ Red Papers 5 and 6.
Jump up ^ Red Papers 4 and 6.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, Ch. 14, 15 and 17.
Jump up ^ See the "Introduction" to Revolution and Counter-Revolution: The Revisionist Coup in China and the Struggle in the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. This book contains the major documents of both sides of the dispute.
Jump up ^ Avakian, "Bob Avakian Speaks on the Mao Tsetung Defendants' Railroad and the Historic Battles Ahead", Introduction and pp. 18--21.
Jump up ^ For detailed accounts of this case and its significance from a legal and political repression perspective, including the implications of the severity of the charges that had been leveled against the demonstrators, see Athan G. Theoharis, "FBI Surveillance: Past and Present", Cornell Law Review, Vol. 69 (April 1984); and Peter Erlinder with Doug Cassel, “Bazooka Justice: The Case of the Mao Tse Tung Defendants – Overreaction Or Foreshadowing?”, Public Eye, Vol. II, No. 3&4 (1980), pp. 40--43.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, pp. 364--365, 435--436.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, pp. 402--403.
Jump up ^ For an in-depth picture of repression aimed at the RCP in just one city, Los Angeles in the 1980 period, see the documentation in a series of articles by David Johnston in the Los Angeles Times: "Use of Special Prosecutor in Spy Case Urged" (Los Angeles Times, December 12, 1982) and "New Probe Ordered on Spying by LAPD" (Los Angeles Times, December 15, 1982).
Jump up ^ Henry Mendoza and Tom Paegel, "One Killed, One Hurt at Communist Rally", Los Angeles Times, April 23, 1980.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, Ch. 24.
Jump up ^ From Ike to Mao and Beyond, Ch. 25.
Jump up ^ See "1995 Leadership Resolutions on Leaders and Leadership", Part 1 and Part 2.
Jump up ^ More information about Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About can be found at RevolutionTalk.net.
Jump up ^ Avakian, Phony Communism is Dead … Long Live Real Communism!, Ch. 1
Jump up ^ COMMUNISM: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE, Sec. IV (pp. 22-29 in published version).
Jump up ^ See, for example, Avakian, "Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity", "The New Synthesis", Revolution, No. 112, December 16, 2007.
Jump up ^ Avakian, "Views On Socialism and Communism", " 'Firmly Uphold, But Wouldn't Want to Live There' – Correctly Understood".
^ Jump up to: a b Avakian, "Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity", "The New Synthesis", Revolution, No. 112, December 16, 2007.
Jump up ^ COMMUNISM: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE, Sec. V (pp. 30-33 in published version).
Jump up ^ See, for example, the criticism of Frederick Engels' concept of "negation of the negation" in COMMUNISM: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE, Sec. IV, subsection on philosophy and method (pp. 24-25 of published version).
Jump up ^ Marx summarized in The Class Struggles in France 1848 -1850 that communism can only be reached once the "4 Alls" have been achieved: the abolition of all class distinctions, of all the production relations on which those class distinctions rest, of all the social relations that correspond to those production relations, and the revolutionizing of all the ideas that correspond to those social relations.
Jump up ^ Avakian, "Ruminations and Wranglings", "Communism as a Science – Not a 'Scientific Ideology'", Revolution, No. 174, August 30, 2009.
Jump up ^ See, for example, Point 4 of the "Circular of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party", May 16, 1966, Important Documents on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, Peking: Foreign Languages Press (1970), which criticizes the statement "everyone is equal before the truth" as a "bourgeois slogan" and speaks of "the class nature of truth".
^ Jump up to: a b Avakian, Observations on Art and Culture, Science and Philosophy, "Discussion with Comrades on Epistemology: On Knowing & Changing the World" (p. 54 in published version).
Jump up ^ Avakian, Observations on Art and Culture, Science and Philosophy, "Materialism and Romanticism: Can We Do Without Myth?, p. 42.
Jump up ^ See, for example, " 'Crises in Physics,' Crises in Philosophy and Politics", Revolution, No. 161, April 12, 2009.
Jump up ^ For example, Engels argued, "Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter." Engels, Anti-Duhring, Part 1, "Philosophy", p. 74
Jump up ^ Avakian, "On the Philosophical Basis of Proletarian Internationalism", originally published in Revolutionary Worker, No. 96, March 13, 1981.
Jump up ^ Avakian, "Revolution And A Radically New World: Contending 'Universalisms' And Communist Internationalism", Revolution, No. 157, February 22, 2009.
Jump up ^ Avakian, "Ruminations and Wranglings", Part 6, "The Social Base for Revolution", Revolution, No. 169, June 28, 2009.
Jump up ^ A concise explanation of this formulation "solid core with a lot of elasticity" is given in the RCP's Constitution:
"Applied to socialist society, this approach of solid core with a lot of elasticity includes the need for a leading, and expanding, core that is clear on the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the aim of continuing socialist revolution as part of the world struggle for communism, and is determined to continue carrying forward this struggle, through all the twists and turns. At the same time, there will necessarily be many different people and trends in socialist society pulling in many different directions – and all of this can ultimately contribute to the process of getting at the truth and getting to communism. This will be intense at times, and the difficulty of embracing all this – while still leading the whole process broadly in the direction of communism – will be something like going, as Avakian has put it, to the brink of being drawn and quartered – and repeatedly. All this is difficult, but necessary and a process to welcome." Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, "Appendix: Communism as a Science" (pp. 39-40 in published version)
Jump up ^ Avakian, audio of the talk, "Communism: A Whole New World and the Emancipation of All Humanity – Not 'The Last Shall Be First, And the First Shall Be Last' , available online at BobAvakian.net.
Jump up ^ Avakian, "Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity", Part 2, subsection "Hastening while awaiting – not bowing down to necessity".
Jump up ^ Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, Sec. I, (p. 12 in published version).
Jump up ^ Avakian, "The Oppression of Black People and the Revolutionary Struggle to End All Oppression", Revolution, No. 78, February 2, 2007.
Jump up ^ Avakian, Democracy, Can't We Do Better Than That?
Jump up ^ http://kasamaproject.org/pamphlets/9-letters/letter-8/
Jump up ^ http://kasamaproject.org/pamphlets/9-letters/
External links[edit]
Writings of Bob Avakian
Bob Avakian Speaks
Insight Press
A book review of From Ike to Mao,
Berkeley: Memoir follows author's road to Communism from SFGate.
How Can We Apologize for Taking History into Our Hands by Bob Avakian at archive.org
For the New Socialist Republic in North America
"Birds Cannot Give Birth to Crocodiles, But Humanity Can Soar Beyond the Horizon – Part 1: Revolution and the State"
Critical opinions[edit]

[Five Year Plan]

I think she means Bob Avakian's New Synthesis (tm). It's time you guys went BAck to BAsics.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think she means Bob Avakian's New Synthesis (tm). It's time you guys went BAck to BAsics.

^this is exactly what I mean

[Loony Le Fist]

I think she means Bob Avakian's New Synthesis (tm). It's time you guys went BAck to BAsics.

Tell you what. Give me a crystal fucking ball for next time, bub. :laugh:

[motion denied]

All I know about BA is a leaflet I received last May Day when I passed by their stall.

I was profoundly inspired.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think we all know Chairman Avakian is just the coolest but seriously, wtf is the new synthesis in relation to Mao thought?