RCP Contradiction

[Ravn]

In the RCP-USA's draft program it states:
"The proletariat has no interest whatsoever in maintaining any aspect of national oppression; on the contrary, it has the most profound interest in destroying white supremacy root and branch, and developing true equality of nationalities."


By proletariat, I take that to mean the working class of all ethnicities. The program also states: "Segregation in neighborhoods, schools, and the like will be banned and inte*gration promoted."


But then they take an incipient separatist line with black people when they talk about "The Black National Question":

"In these conditions, Black people were welded into a nation, with all the essential characteristics of a nation: common territory, common language, common economic life, common culture and psychological makeup. More particularly, they were forged into an oppressed nation, separate from and dominated by the oppressor, European-American nation, in the area of the “Black Belt South” (so-called because of the color of its soil—an area that runs in an arc from parts of Mary*land through northern Florida and as far west as East Texas, and that includes significant parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, the Carolinas, and Virginia)


"... Because of this whole history and present-day reality, the revolutionary proletariat upholds the right of Black people to establish autonomous rule in the Black Belt South, as well as other areas in which they form large concentrations.
In addition to the right of autonomy, for the Black nation there continues to be the right of self-determination, up to and in*cluding secession—that is, the establishment of a separate Afro-American Repub*lic in the Black Belt South. The proletariat does not favor this under now foreseeable circumstances. But upon achieving power, or in the armed struggle to win it, if there are indeed significant forces based among Black people raising this demand, the proletariat will take this into account. It will approach this question in light of the overall situation and the importance of weakening the enemy and strengthening the revolutionary forces—on the basis of revolutionary principle.
Whether to support a particular move for a separate state among black people or to oppose it will depend on all this. But the proletarian state and the proletarian forces nearing power will be firmly opposed to deciding this question through the use of force, as the imperialists do. Rather, the proletariat will rely on the masses, especially in this case the masses of Black people, and will work to resolve the question non-antagonistically and in a way that serves the larger interests of emancipating all the exploited and oppressed."


Wouldn't black people be a part of these proletarian forces in the first place? (& yet these "proletarian forces" are alienated from black people if these "forces" are acting upon blacks as if they are separate from the deciders.) & what about this notion of a European-American nation? Blacks help built the American nation & have been a part of it since its inception. So how can the RCP-USA talk about a white nation, which is what they are really alluding to, given that black people are not necessarily totally African in origin. They are a mixed group of people. They justify all of this with a captive nation theory but a autonomous region or separate nation surrounded by a larger more powerful nation could easily lead to that black nation or region becoming a bantustan under a neo-colonialist guidance of that larger & likely dominant nation.



This all just smacks of more white supremacy.

.

[Lenin/Lennon]

Well, when BA watches Fruitvale station, he can't stop sobbing. So he must really care, i mean really... :laugh:
also he is debating Cornel West in NYC in November. coming out of exile...

[Ravn]

Well, when BA watches Fruitvale station, he can't stop sobbing. So he must really care, i mean really... :laugh:
also he is debating Cornel West in NYC in November. coming out of exile...
He should be challenged to defend his so-called New Synthesis & explain how it isn't just revisionism instead of him wasting everybody's time debating a preacher who is not a Marxist-Leninist.

[Tim Redd]

He [Avakian] should be challenged to defend his so-called New Synthesis & explain how it isn't just revisionism instead of him wasting everybody's time debating a preacher who is not a Marxist-Leninist.

The worst thing about his so-called New Synthesis is that 2 of the 5 points were first developed by me. Avakian is a meglomaniac who will stoop to nearly any dastardly deed to promote himself and fight against anyone else who challenges his wrongful selfish acts.

He only started speaking about "core with flexibility" after he read "Forward with Revolutionary Dialectics" by me published May 2006. In that paper I introduced the concept of polymorphism within the framework of Marxist philosophy. Essentially polymorphism is about different specific things having common feature(s) and being able to use the common feature(s) to leverage the use of the different specific things. From this Avakian made the concept of polymorphism less profound by talking about core with flexibility and claiming that he originated it.

It was myself at African Liberation Day 1977 in Detroit who introduced the concept in the Maoist community that due to global socio-economics the world's national politics and economies are tied together into a global system in which the local affairs of any one country are mainly driven by world affairs. This the major reason the proletarian movement of any one country is subordinate to the global proletarian movement. Avakian admits he was there when I introduced this concept in 1977. Later I wrote the paper "Internationalism and Philosophy: An Overview of Systems & Revolution (http://risparty.org/Int.htm)" (at www.risparty.org (http://www.risparty.org)) to elucidate the concepts.

After that the other parts of New Synthesis are non qualitatively new and nothing that Marxist theory hasn't had for decades. So Avakian is a meglomanical plagiarist who is the last person who should lead a truly communist party and society. It would be Stalin all over again.

[Tim Redd]

Wouldn't black people be a part of these proletarian forces in the first place? (& yet these "proletarian forces" are alienated from black people if these "forces" are acting upon blacks as if they are separate from the deciders.)I'm in the Revolutionary Socialist Internationalist Party (RISP) not the RCP, but RISP having for the most part having adopted the same line and analysis on this question as the RCP, I'll address the OP (original post/poster) issues on that basis. (The RISP has major differences with the RCP and they can be read about at www.risparty.org (http://www.risparty.org).)

In answer to the above question by the OP on whether or not black people are a part of these proletarian forces in the first place, the answer is yes, before the question of separation is addressed the black proletariat wwould be part of the general overall proletarian forces.


what about this notion of a European-American nation? Blacks help built the American nation & have been a part of it since its inception. So how can the RCP-USA talk about a white nation, which is what they are really alluding to, given that black people are not necessarily totally African in origin. They are a mixed group of people. True many if not most blacks are not totally African in origin, but they tend to be a distinct social group based upon the things we know about them as an excluded, super oppressed and super exploited group on the basis of some kind of racially based distinction that is being practiced and enforced in Amerikan civil society,


They justify all of this with a captive nation theory but a autonomous region or separate nation surrounded by a larger more powerful nation could easily lead to that black nation or region becoming a bantustan under a neo-colonialist guidance of that larger & likely dominant nation.But as just as rationally in terms of either proletarian justice, or the fact that parts of the black belt in the south do in fact extend to the sea, a black nation would likely have access to the sea as part of any settlement of the issue.


This all just smacks of more white supremacyI don't see how that would be true given either voluntary separation into a physically separated, black led socialist nation or continued integration of blacks within a mult-nationally led socialist society.

[blake 3:17]

The Black Belt thesis has been around since what? 1928? It was developed by the great African American Communist Harry Haywood. His writings are available here and there, here's his wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Haywood

[Tim Redd]

Well, when BA watches Fruitvale station, he can't stop sobbing.

BA is often against blacks and others in the Marxist/Maoist movement who don't accept his demand to kowtow to his leadership, even though most of the unique aspects of what BA claims as his theoretical contributions are really those of others, in particular those from me, Tim Redd.

Nevertheless, why wouldn't a person who has sympathy for the oppressed and repressed 1) on the one hand weep for the fact that Oscar Grant was murdered to enforce 1% rule by the pigs, and 2) on the other hand want to take a militant stand against the pigs and the 1% oriented system responsible for inducing Oscar's murder?

[PhoenixAsh]

Your website gives me a headache.

That said. The passage is the OP reads lilke some form of comedy.


"... Because of this whole history and present-day reality, the revolutionary proletariat upholds the right of Black people to establish autonomous rule in the Black Belt South, as well as other areas in which they form large concentrations.
In addition to the right of autonomy, for the Black nation there continues to be the right of self-determination, up to and in*cluding secession—that is, the establishment of a separate Afro-American Repub*lic in the Black Belt South. The proletariat does not favor this under now foreseeable circumstances.

It upholds the right but does not favor it...

I rather hope there is some more info.

And what are these foreseeable circumstances?

The above however is less puzzling than this:


But upon achieving power, or in the armed struggle to win it, if there are indeed significant forces based among Black people raising this demand, the proletariat will take this into account.

Aside from the fact that it is ludicrous to pretend to speak for the proletariat considering that they represent only a tiny fraction of the proletariat...I must admit I am also slightly awed by the powers of telepathy. It is also indicative that we can safely conclude from this sentence here that the RCP-USA uses the proletariat interchangeably with the party itself.

Theoretically though...this passage reads like they say that there first must be a revolution in order for there to be a black nation/state. So...in a capitalist state, when it is needed the most, the proletariat doesn't want the black part of the proletariat to do something with their right the proletariat supposedly upholds? But they do in a socialist state...if (and only if) there is significant support for this under the black proletariat...




It will approach this question in light of the overall situation and the importance of weakening the enemy and strengthening the revolutionary forces—on the basis of revolutionary principle.

Seems to me that doing it in a capitalist society would completely satisfy this sentiment as it will weaken the bourgeois and the economic system overall.



Whether to support a particular move for a separate state among black people or to oppose it will depend on all this. But the proletarian state and the proletarian forces nearing power will be firmly opposed to deciding this question through the use of force, as the imperialists do. Rather, the proletariat will rely on the masses, especially in this case the masses of Black people, and will work to resolve the question non-antagonistically and in a way that serves the larger interests of emancipating all the exploited and oppressed."

So basically: "Yes, totally a really awesome plan and we are behind it for the full 100%....but...we are not going to do it."

[Art Vandelay]

most of the unique aspects of what BA claims as his theoretical contributions are really those of others, in particular those from me, Tim Redd.

So what you are saying is that we have you to blame?

[QueerVanguard]

Is anyone here *really* surprised by the RCP support for racial separatism? BO.. I mean BA has a history of marginalizing the LGBTQ struggle, which makes his Sympathize with People of Color from a Safe Distance, liberal racism look positively mild by comparison. If this shitnugget were really so concerned with POCs, why the fuck won't he let one run the RCP for a change? Only white cis males have what it takes to be Revolutionary leaders?? Chairman Bob can go take a flying fuck, as far as I'm concerned.

[Tim Cornelis]

shitnugget

[Tim Redd]

So what you are saying is that we have you to blame?

What is there to "blame" on this question? Further the fundamentals of this line on the black national question originated with between the world wars American Communist Party and Comintern policy.

[Ravn]

Is anyone here *really* surprised by the RCP support for racial separatism? BO.. I mean BA has a history of marginalizing the LGBTQ struggle, which makes his Sympathize with People of Color from a Safe Distance, liberal racism look positively mild by comparison. If this shitnugget were really so concerned with POCs, why the fuck won't he let one run the RCP for a change? Only white cis males have what it takes to be Revolutionary leaders?? Chairman Bob can go take a flying fuck, as far as I'm concerned.

They changed their line about gay people but IMO, that was opportunistic on their part & they have an incipient sex-negative attitude in general. It wasn't very scientific of them to confuse sex orientation with a political outlook & attribute a line to everyone with that sex orientation. They in short scapegoated gay men & their attitude towards lesbians were patronizing. (They claimed that women turn to each other because men are sexist. It was all diabolically stupid.)

I find Avakian's cult of personality he made around himself counter-revolutionary. It's an expression of contempt for people to believe we're all so stupid that we need to be led like lemmings.

There was an article by Majdur Travail (who had similar concerns that you expressed) in Communist Voice #25, Nov 27, 2000. In it he said:


(I pared this down a bit to emphasize the most pertinent points)
"(1) The RCP-USA draws inappropriate lines of struggle and has an inability to maintain a clear and consistent line of demarcation between the exploiter and the exploited and fails to unify the Proletariat on this basis. (Opportunism).
. (a) the RCP-USA commits oppression and exploitation of certain sections of the working-class ....
. (b) has opposition to spontaneous worker and other domestic liberation struggles ....

. (c) the comparison of oppressed ethnic sections of the Proletariat and the establishment of a hierarchy of the oppressed, which causes the Proletariat to struggle against itself, become divided and disorganized. . (2) The RCP-USA exhibits a low theoretical level of Socialism, faulty reasoning, immature polemics, e.g. "I don't want to hear this shit anymore: Black people don't have to work another single day for you bloodsuckers! Let's put it that way." and the eclectic vacillation between revolutionary theories of "general crisis theory," "protracted peoples war," "United Front under the Leadership of the Proletariat," and the "Proletarian Vanguard." (Revisionist Eclectic Economism).
. (3) Opposition to worker's revindication, Unions, and worker movements in general in favor of supporting struggles bases solely on race, sex, nationality, or religion. (Opportunism).
. (4) The RCP-USA makes absolutist either/or predictions which fail to take place, e.g. either the world will be destroyed or the RCP-USA will save it, exemplified by the slogan "No More World War Three!" and "Revolution in the 80's, Go for it!" (Opportunism).
. (5) The RCP-USA by itself and through its sub-body CoRIM (Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) has exhibited hegemonic tendencies, competes with other Left parties, and is preoccupied with gaining authority and obtaining money (Opportunism and Hegemonic Exploitation).
. (6) The RCP-USA lacks an intelligentsia ... [A revolutionary intelligentsia]

[redguarddude]

During the "dialogue" Chairman Bob noted: "Women are Human Beings". For more see:
http://redguarddude.blogspot.com

[Ravn]

During the "dialogue" Chairman Bob noted: "Women are Human Beings".


But what is reflected in the practice of the party? They apparently only have *one* prominent woman as a spokes-person. Recognizing another as human is one thing. Promoting equality is another.

[Tim Redd]

I find Avakian's cult of personality he made around himself counter-revolutionary. It's an expression of contempt for people to believe we're all so stupid that we need to be led like lemmings.

The proletarian movement does require leadership, but it should based upon leaders who have actually done the work they claim to not plagiarizing megalomaniacs like Avakian. Avakian knows that he got the idea of local affairs being subordinate to global affairs from me and I got it about the proletarian movement from Lenin. Also I philosophically placed these ideas on the basis of how the parts of a system are subordinate to the system as a whole. He admits that he got the title names of books like "Mao's Immortal Contributions" from me. He has ripped off more of my intellectual products, but go into later. But again we do require advanced leaders, and leadership parties, just not ones who are attempting to build a personality cult.

[Illegalitarian]

Well, Maoism and its over emphasis on national liberation certainly gives its politics a divisive, racial sting and really had for years now, I guess this is not a shock

[Tim Redd]

Well, Maoism and its over emphasis on national liberation certainly gives its politics a divisive, racial sting and really had for years now, I guess this is not a shock

I'd like to know when Maoist over emphasis on national liberation occurred and how it was a negative force when it occurred. Thanks.

[Illegalitarian]

Maoism today is entirely dominated by third worldist politics and it's ALWAYS had a great emphasis on national liberation, that's not a controversial statement at all I don't think.

It's a negative force because national liberation movements are not inherently communist and, surprise surprise, usually have a reactionary chauvinistic overtone, which many Maoists try and apologize for

[Ravn]

The proletarian movement does require leadership, but it should based upon leaders who have actually done the work they claim to not plagiarizing megalomaniacs like Avakian. Avakian knows that he got the idea of local affairs being subordinate to global affairs from me and I got it about the proletarian movement from Lenin. Also I philosophically placed these ideas on the basis of how the parts of a system are subordinate to the system as a whole. He admits that he got the title names of books like "Mao's Immortal Contributions" from me. He has ripped off more of my intellectual products, but go into later. But again we do require advanced leaders, and leadership parties, just not ones who are attempting to build a personality cult.


A proletarian revolutionary movement requires a proletarian revolutionary vanguard, & that includes a revolutionary proletarian intelligentsia, not intellectuals with a petty bourgeois outlook & sentiment that confuses things & will ultimately capitulate to reaction. (Whatever good their ideas may be are useful, but the rest needs to be flushed down the toilet.) Leadership comes from THAT revolutionary body of people. One of the jobs of those people is to make sure it trains & educates the masses in revolutionary thought as well as learning from the masses. (These two things are not mutually exclusive.) This process does not depend on anybody being considered "precious" above everybody else & relying on some romantic notion that such a personage only shows up in a good while because that is suicidal to the revolutionary movement to depend on. That whole phoney line depends on people being kept ignorant & having things spoon fed to them by some paternalistic demagogue.

So, the primary problem isn't that Avakian plagiarizes things. It's what he does with the ideas he's using whether he plagiarizes them or not.

I think you should be more concerned about the real value of your "intellectual products" rather than the fact that some people may borrow them.

[Tim Redd]

Maoism today is entirely dominated by third worldist politics and it's ALWAYS had a great emphasis on national liberation, that's not a controversial statement at all I don't think.

It's a negative force because national liberation movements are not inherently communist and, surprise surprise, usually have a reactionary chauvinistic overtone, which many Maoists try and apologize for

Most struggles for national liberation strike direct, punishing body blows against the major capitalist centers of global exploitation and oppression. Typically they are a great and effective source of opposition to the rule of capitalism in advanced capitalist centers in one country and against the joint operation of imperialist banks and institutions that operate on a worldwide scale.

Some national liberation groups have a programme of narrow national orientation and struggle. But quite often there are left, nationalist groups that unite with revolutionary Marxist groups in struggles that are waged on several fronts. And those groups tend to be able to support and link up with progressive, revolutionary struggles worldwide. Often, genuine communists operating in/alongside struggles for national liberation from global imperialism are able to move nationalist groups and movements toward a more class based (socialist) orientation. And or they increase class based strategic thinking in the national liberation struggle (perhaps even succeeding in making class based (socialist) approaches and class based strategic and tactical theory predominant in the movement over time. in this regard countries like El Salvador, Columbia and Cuba are examples that come to mind.

[Tim Redd]

A proletarian revolutionary movement requires a proletarian revolutionary vanguard, & that includes a revolutionary proletarian intelligentsia, not intellectuals with a petty bourgeois outlook & sentiment that confuses things & will ultimately capitulate to reaction.

Actually I think the 2 words "intelligentsia" and "intellectuals" are synonyms. Some propositions using either designation can be useful, not so useful, and others anti-useful.


(Whatever good their ideas may be are useful, but the rest needs to be flushed down the toilet.) Leadership comes from THAT revolutionary body of people. One of the jobs of those people is to make sure it trains & educates the masses in revolutionary thought as well as learning from the masses. (These two things are not mutually exclusive.)
So, the primary problem isn't that Avakian plagiarizes things. It's what he does with the ideas he's using whether he plagiarizes them or not. I think you should be more concerned about the real value of your "intellectual products" rather than the fact that some people may borrow them.People generally receive proper accreditation for original contributions in nearly any realm. When the realm is a social science that is studying society in order to eliminate oppression and exploitation in human society (it's a movement that aims for the liberation of humanity by eliminating classes) why shouldn't a person who provides original contributions in that area also be given acknowledgement for their contributions?

Further there is the matter of understanding the history, provenance or lineage of an idea. Understanding the actual, or genuine history, provenance, or lineage of an idea often contributes to a greater understanding of concepts and actions related to and involving that idea.

[Sandy Becker]

Nah, it's not white supremacy, as such. It is a boneheaded application of CI under Stalin's line that blacks in the US constitute a separate nation (this was picked up by Mao and his followers). To the extent that this was arguable in 1930 (although it was probably wrong then), it is absolutely wrong now. Blacks do not have a separate economy, language, culture or geographical area in the US. There are some differences, culturally, perhaps, but there are huge areas of overlap. Blacks are, of course, the most oppressed large segment of the US population based on employment and general demographic data. The RCP was a Maoist outift that coalesced in SDS around Avakian and a few others. After a few splits, the last in the late 70s, Avakian became a cult figure in that org. I've never understood it. He is a crappy, banal writer. Oh, and while I wouldn't accuse the RCP for being racist, they have been anti-gay and pro-family (again, flowing from Stalin and Mao's positions).

[Illegalitarian]

Most struggles for national liberation strike direct, punishing body blows against the major capitalist centers of global exploitation and oppression. Typically they are a great and effective source of opposition to the rule of capitalism in advanced capitalist centers in one country and against the joint operation of imperialist banks and institutions that operate on a worldwide scale.

Some national liberation groups have a programme of narrow national orientation and struggle. But quite often there are left, nationalist groups that unite with revolutionary Marxist groups in struggles that are waged on several fronts. And those groups tend to be able to support and link up with progressive, revolutionary struggles worldwide. Often, genuine communists operating in/alongside struggles for national liberation from global imperialism are able to move nationalist groups and movements toward a more class based (socialist) orientation. And or they increase class based strategic thinking in the national liberation struggle (perhaps even succeeding in making class based (socialist) approaches and class based strategic and tactical theory predominant in the movement over time. in this regard countries like El Salvador, Columbia and Cuba are examples that come to mind.

Can you cite an example of a natlib movement striking "direct, punishing body blows against the major capitalist centers of global exploitation and oppression"?

The only examples I can think of are perhaps China, Cuba, Russia and Venezuela, but they only temporarily disrupted the flow of international capital and eventually fell back in line with it. In the end, what real challenge did they present to the capitalist mode of production?

[Tim Redd]

Can you cite an example of a natlib movement striking "direct, punishing body blows against the major capitalist centers of global exploitation and oppression"?

The only examples I can think of are perhaps China, Cuba, Russia and Venezuela, but they only temporarily disrupted the flow of international capital and eventually fell back in line with it. In the end, what real challenge did they present to the capitalist mode of production?

The at least temporary loss of China, Cuba and Russia to global imperialist economics and politics at their times were indeed body blows to it. Venezuela perhaps less so, but it's a thorn in the side of global imperialism, otherwise the global imperialists wouldn't be so stuck on overthrowing it.