RW: Walking On the Path of the Vanguard

[Skeptic]

Hello All: People on the bottom of society can understand science, analyze it and should be encouraged to participate in politics. Tell me what you think about this article. You can read more at it at: http://rwor.org/
"Walking on the Path of the Vanguard"

Viewing Chairman Avakian's speech in the heart of the barrio

Revolutionary Worker #1243, June 13, 2004, posted at http://rwor.org"This was a great event: to hear the words of the leader who speaks to us with the truth, who takes things apart with such a clear analysis, who teaches us with a science that advances our understanding." So it was described by an organizer of the May Day showing of the video clip.On May 1st, in a restaurant in the Pico-Union section of Los Angeles, a group of a dozen Latino proletarians and others gathered to watch the video clip of the historic speech by Chairman Avakian, "Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About." The event was sponsored by Libros Revolución. There were immigrants from Mexico and Central America, some of whom heard about it at the earlier Immigrant Workers March. There were revolutionary communists and members of La Resistencia. One woman makes a living as a street vendor, and stayed up the night before to study the speech excerpt that was in the Obrero Revolucionario . An African American nurse who attended was thrilled by the multi-national gathering.After the clip was over, an immigrant woman from Mexico rose to her feet and spoke from her heart: "When was I ever going to meet up with an analysis that made me feel sane and whole? The things you think and feel weigh on your heart because you can't understand: Why do we live in such desperation, without any real reason for the fact that no matter how hard you work, you don't have enough money to survive? You just can't understand why they're fighting this senseless war, where they're killing innocent people - for what?"It's here that I can understand and express things. It's this leader and this newspaper that gives me the courage to express things that I'm drowning in. It makes me feel that, yes! we can unite and struggle to seize power and bring about change."An immigrant man from Mexico spoke of the struggle he had with his friend to win him over to come. He almost didn't come because he felt he had nothing to say and that if he were asked a question he wouldn't be able to respond. The man continued, "In this system the common people have no right to speak or have opinions. Supposedly we don't have the intellect to study science. Science is only for the higher classes to own and to use. This leader gives the ability to understand that science is not something unreachable. Like he says, we shouldn't be afraid to use this science and it's important to understand that we have the ability and the right to do it. The people need this so much!"Another immigrant woman rose to her feet, struggling to control the emotion in her voice: "I'm feeling a great emotion, like I feel like I want to cry: to be able to analyze and understand things like, `What is monopoly?' These are words that have to do with a science and yes, we can understand, use and analyze them. When has anyone given us, the ones on the bottom, the chance to understand, analyze and participate in a debate like this? To be able to break things down with a correct understanding fills us with confidence and courage, so that today and even right now we are walking on the path of the vanguard, doing something brand new, something that belongs to the future."Can you hear them? The voices of those forced into the shadows--they long for a leader who can show them the reason for their stolen lives and a path to liberation. When the conscious proletariat hears Bob Avakian they can recognize that he is rare and unique and irreplaceable. Who could argue then that they would not embrace this leader who links their lives to their historic mission to bring about a communist future? Who would call on them to fight for anything less than the liberation of humankind?Listen... they're playing our song. Can you hear it? "The Internationale."... "We have been naught, WE SHALL BE ALL!...We must each one decide our duty, we must decide and do it well..."This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
http://rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497

[redstar2000]

The voices of those forced into the shadows--they long for a leader who can show them the reason for their stolen lives and a path to liberation. When the conscious proletariat hears Bob Avakian they can recognize that he is rare and unique and irreplaceable. Who could argue then that they would not embrace this leader who links their lives to their historic mission to bring about a communist future?

Didn't you notice that we have a new Religion sub-forum for this kind of mindless drivel?

If Mel Gibson sees your post, guess who his next movie will be about?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

I guess I am not a "conscious proletariat." I certainly do not "recognise that he [Avakian] is rare and unique and irreplaceable."

[Hate Is Art]

who is this Avakian bloke?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

He is the leader of the RCP and thinks he is Marx's best gift to Communism :rolleyes:

[RosaRL]

Actually if you really want to see some of what he is about then you can check out this -- http://www.rwor.org/a/1238/introbaspeech.htm -- its actually some excerpts from the talk in the article.

[Skeptic]

Another person, Kasama, pointed out on the 'Another world is possible' website about the 'Walking On The Path of the Vanguard article' (here is the link) http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1086876527 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=politix&action=display&num=1086876527) that:

"This is a deep and important thread. It deals with an issue that may be the single most important one at the moment: actually getting many more people to understand who chairman Avakian is, what his leadership means, and what he has been charting.

It is no surprise that some people "on the left" think Chairman Avakian and his leadership are topics that should be (almost literally) banned or hushed up.

The Chairman concentrates everything they want run out of the peoples movement -- a clear vision of classless society and how it can be reached, a fierce open dedication to training the most visionary and dedicated fighters as a hard-core communist vanguard, an intense anti-patriotic internationalism, a sense of Marxism as a LIVING developing worldview and science... and so much more.

This is supposed to be shut up, ignored, dissed. And what do they propose instead? lowered sights, "the movement is everything, the final goal is nothing", and even "anybody but bush."

The same folks who generally want to stop us from putting up our leaders picture -- are quite eager to put up *other* less revolutionary (and even bourgeois) leaders (from Chomsky, to SubComandante marcos, to even Jesse Jackson or Kerry!)

So, ok, let's get it on. Lets dig into this.

do we need leaders? Yes.
Do we have a leader who of the caliber and vision needed to make a revolution, and push the whole world movement to a new level? Yes, rare as that is, we do.

Some people think we should put up Marx (or Lenin, or Mao) but think we cannot promote our foremost leader of today. What kind of an argument is that?

Did our class produce a Marx, and then go sterile?
Are our glory days behind us?
Are we just to poke through old writings, and ignore Chairman Avakian as he forges forward TODAY?

And what would that mean?

It would mean nothing less than throwing this precious leader to the dogs!

Wouldn't it be a crime if our oppressors were MORE AWARE of our leadership than the masses?

If his writings, his work, his approach were unknown? And if the people were unable to appreciate, and DEFEND, him as a person?

It is about whether we are going to be communists, if we are going to make that living link between our struggles today and a radically different future society without oppression.

Chairman Avakian has forged that "living link" -- his work, his very life, is about connecting us (today, here, in this hellhole society) with what is possible (a revolutionary future of liberation and communism).

From all sides, our oppressors tell us this is impossible, and undesirable, and not allowed.

Fine! What do we expect from them?

but this is all the more reason for us to be really firm, utterly firm on this.

Sure anarchists think leaders aren't needed. Sure all kinds of dogmatists think Marxism stopped with Marx. Sure lots of "leftists" think we can't really talk about communism, revolution, atheism, internationalism, our party and our leader.

but so what? Who gave them a veto over what communists say and believe?

And just as Rosa's post (very very correctly!) pointed out: the people (the oppressed, those at the bottom, those eager for hope and a way out) want leaders, they are looking for a leader who won't sell out, who has charted a course out of capitalism.

The message of chairman avakian is powerful and much needed.

I have seen parts of his new video -- and let me just say it was both electrifying and mind-blowing. Without hype, or rhetoric, in words we can understand and apply -- the most urgent issues and truths of our times are dug into, with humor and heart.

don't take my word for it. check it out. Take it out.
This is what it means to be a communist today. In a world, that desperately needs us to really be communists doing communist political work. Preparing minds and organizing forces for revolution!" [End of Kasama's statement]


.

[redstar2000]

Do we need leaders? Yes.

No.


Do we have a leader who of the caliber and vision needed to make a revolution, and push the whole world movement to a new level? Yes, rare as that is, we do.

No, you don't.


Did our class produce a Marx, and then go sterile?

Marx was not a proletarian. Nor did he ever advance any preposterous claims about his "leadership".

And there have been many people who have contributed, positively and negatively, to a Marxist understanding of social reality.

There may be some today that no one knows anything about yet.

The idea that "revolutionary wisdom" is concentrated in one guy is a grotesque caricature of Marxism.


It would mean nothing less than throwing this precious leader to the dogs!

Bark! :lol:


And just as Rosa's post (very very correctly!) pointed out: the people (the oppressed, those at the bottom, those eager for hope and a way out) want leaders, they are looking for a leader who won't sell out, who has charted a course out of capitalism.

Yes, when people first move into opposition to the prevailing social order, they often still think within the habitual patterns of the old order. Having been betrayed or worse by capitalism's leaders, they often do seek a "proletarian Moses" to "lead them to freedom".

Look at all the people who once hailed Jesse Jackson, for example, as such a "Moses"?

The history of 20th century revolutionary movements is full of people who were hailed as a "proletarian Moses" and even more who unsuccessfully advanced their claims to the title.

But real Marxists understand that the revolutionary overthrow of class society does not come from "picking the right leader"...it is a product of the revolutionary masses emancipating themselves!

It can't happen any other way!

When people say "lead us", we have to patiently explain to them that they must learn to lead themselves...it can't be done "for them".


I have seen parts of his new video -- and let me just say it was both electrifying and mind-blowing. Without hype, or rhetoric, in words we can understand and apply -- the most urgent issues and truths of our times are dug into, with humor and heart.

Movie review. *yawns*

Put it on the back cover of the DVD.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[RosaRL]

In the excerpt that I posted a link to, Bob Avakian addresses many of the questions about leadership that are being raised in this thread.

RS2000 argues against the need for any type of leadership and in my exchanges with him elsewhere he has been quite clear in his feelings that leadership holds people back despite the fact that this goes completely against historical experience. On the other hand he characterizes Maoists as having the view that the people must be lead as if they were passive sheep when in fact Maoists believe that we must rely on the masses and unleash them to carry out the radical transformation of society.

Bob Avakian says in the excerpt: "The masses of people can and will take all this up and become masters of all these spheres and parts of society and of society and the world as a whole. But to do that, when we are starting out with a whole legacy and tradition of tremendous inequality, brought about through hundreds of years of capitalist exploitation and thousands of years of oppression and the force and dead weight of oppressive tradition - to overcome that requires and can only be done with the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leadership of the proletariat's vanguard party. It is this which will make it possible for the masses of people to more and more consciously and confidently take up and conquer all the different spheres of society and to continue advancing towards the point where everyone can really take up and take part in all this on an equal basis." http://www.rwor.org/a/1238/introbaspeech.htm

However to be able to do that and to be able to overcome the inequality from this society strong experienced leadership is necessary. In fact without it you wont get very far at all. he goes on to say later (and you might want to look at this in context as he goes much deeper into the issues than i am presenting here) -

"Without a communist vanguard - even if we could imagine that somehow a revolution could be made, which in reality it could not, even then -- given the great inequalities that you would be inheriting, what you would have once again would be a situation where those who were formerly on the bottom of society would find themselves once more on the bottom, lorded over and bossed around by people with more privilege and the advantages that go with that. And/or you would have a situation where out of anger and frustration, those who have been on the bottom would blindly strike out, seeking revenge against anyone who had anything that had been denied to them, including people they should be uniting with. In any case, what you would soon get is a return to a society based on exploitation and oppression.It is only with the leadership of a vanguard, basing itself on the communist outlook and methodology, that these problems and contradictions can be handled correctly and overcome. That the situation can be brought into being in which the proletariat, together with its allies making up the great majority, actually rules and revolutionizes society, and in which the inequalities left over from the old society can be overcome in a way that embraces and more and more involves the great majority of people in consciously and voluntarily carrying forward this revolutionary process, and which leads, finally, to the emancipation of humanity as a whole from all relations of oppression and exploitation."

Of course this doesn't comply with the image of communist leadership that is usually presented to people by the bourgeoisie and other forces hostile to communist revolution -- it goes directly up against it.

But it also start to give you just a glimpse of what Bob Avakian is about and who he is.

He is the complete opposite of a bourgeois leader. He has put serving the people above all else in his life actually living for the masses of people. He has never backed down, given up or sold out even while being hounded and threatened by the enemy.

His position of leadership has not given him a swollen head and he has never lost his basic love for the people not forgotten that a revolutionary leader -- and the revolution itself -- are only as good as and far reaching as the people who bring them forth.

[redstar2000]

RS2000 argues against the need for any type of leadership and in my exchanges with him elsewhere he has been quite clear in his feelings that leadership holds people back despite the fact that this goes completely against historical experience.

The "value" of "leadership" depends on what you want to accomplish.

If you want to set up an army, for example, then you need trained officers...it's not possible for every soldier to decide on his/her own what s/he will do from moment to moment.

Most armies have senior officers appoint junior officers; in revolutionary armies, soldiers elect (and depose) their officers.

But in either case, being an officer implies the power of command. Once you acknowledge "officer-ship", you implicitly agree to carry out his/her orders.

A "good officer" consults with those under his/her command; a "bad officer" usually doesn't bother. But such consultation is not required; it's optional.

This is one of humanity's oldest forms of social organization, going all the way back to the "warrior chieftain" and the transition from savagery to barbarism.

It's where the idea of "leadership" really comes from. (There is actually a modern "businessman's guide" in print that is titled, if memory serves me, Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun.)

Concentrating decision-making power in the hands of a few or even one individual "gets things done". The Leader commands and the followers obey...and if you have the right technology on hand, you can build anything from a great pyramid to a moon rocket.

It "works".

But it's not cheap...the method comes with a hefty price tag.

What is lost is the potential creative power of all those who are not designated "leaders".

And everything rides on the Leader himself...if he fucks up or is even just unlucky, all is lost.

It was a common assumption in the last century that "leadership" was "vital" to the potential success of any conceivable revolutionary movement.

The initial successes of Lenin, Tito, Mao, and Castro reinforced that assumption. If you had the "right kind" of "really good" Leader, you would win.

What is discretely overlooked is that for every Lenin or Mao, there were hundreds of "Marxist"-Leninist "leaders" who accomplished nothing but "leading" their "vanguard parties" right into the ditch.

Thus, the fundamental dilemma of the "leadership paradigm": how do you tell if you've picked a good one in advance?

The odds against you are overwhelming...perhaps one chance in a thousand or more.

Then there is the problem of succession...leaders are not immortal. Even if you did pick a "really good" Leader, he's going to die...and what will you do then? The "glory days" of Lenin and Mao are now just fading photos in dusty albums and their enemies have triumphed. Whatever their positive achievements, they now exist only in memory.

So the dilemma of leadership is even more distressing: once you've picked your first "really good" Leader, how do you know he (or you) will pick another "really good" Leader to follow him? If my estimate (1 in 1,000) is "in the ballpark", your chances of two "really good" Leaders in a row is 1 in 1,000,000!

Given these practical considerations, I think we as communist revolutionaries must entirely reject all of the traditional concepts surrounding "leadership" as a model.

For better or worse, decision-making power must be in the hands of the working class...though we are free to give as much "good advice" as people are willing to listen to.

Will they fuck up? Sure. Will they fuck up so badly as to turn revolutionary victory into defeat? It could happen...in fact, it has happened.

Nevertheless, I would rather "bet on the revolutionary masses" and take those risks than sign on with some guy whose message is little more than "follow me and I'll set you free".

Especially considering the fact that those who made that promise and won...didn't deliver on their promise.


[Avakian's] position of leadership has not given him a swollen head...

With all due respect, Rosa, I don't see any way that you could possibly know this.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gaf]

sciences are not a privilege. the one who believe in it. is a fuckin' fasciste
and leadership is nothing .(only because people are used to it, doesn't mean ,it must be).Awareness of yourself is a way to understand it

[redbhoy59]

I've got a couple of serious questions for the RCP folks on the board. And just for the record I actually have many friends that are RCP cadre and have a lot of respect for your party as a whole. I would just like to hear some serious responses. With that said:

!) Do you feel that in the Bob Avakian zeal that has guided your party until now do you feel that this may:
A. cause the party to loose legitimacy with the masses due to the common belief that the RCP is just a "cult of personality"?
B. Stifle the development of other party leaders due to his control of the ideological direction? I know that decent is frowned on.

2) Do you think that Bob looses legitamacy with people because he (as far as I know and understand) only gives interviews and can only be questioned by your own spokesperson Carl Dix?

3) Do you really feel that Bob's(and the partys) view on homosexuality has legitimatly changed or was that a reacent development that was implimented due to pressure from other left groups?

Just looking to hear insiders views on these things. The RCP comrades that I know tend to avoid these questions.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:06 PM
I've got a couple of serious questions for the RCP folks on the board. And just for the record I actually have many friends that are RCP cadre and have a lot of respect for your party as a whole. I would just like to hear some serious responses. With that said:

1) Do you feel that in the Bob Avakian zeal that has guided your party until now do you feel that this may:
A. cause the party to loose legitimacy with the masses due to the common belief that the RCP is just a "cult of personality"?
B. Stifle the development of other party leaders due to his control of the ideological direction? I know that dissent is frowned on.

2) Do you think that Bob loses legitimacy with people because he (as far as I know and understand) only gives interviews and can only be questioned by your own spokesperson Carl Dix?

3) Do you really feel that Bob's (and the party's) view on homosexuality has legitimately changed or was that a recent development that was implemented due to pressure from other left groups?

Just looking to hear insiders views on these things. The RCP comrades that I know tend to avoid these questions.
You might get a quicker response if you posted your questions at this board...

Another World Is Possible (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi)

In fact, there's even a thread that duplicates this one...

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1086876527 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=politix&action=display&num=1086876527)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Raisa]

I understand the need for a vanguard movement, but I am very much opposed to personality cults. That contradicts the point, because it turns people into gods and that belittles the wrest of us.

If any oen ever makes me a leader of anything, please dont do that to me. :(

[Skeptic]

Redbhoy59 asked these questions a short while ago:

"I've got a couple of serious questions for the RCP folks on the board. And just for the record I actually have many friends that are RCP cadre and have a lot of respect for your party as a whole. I would just like to hear some serious responses. With that said:

!) Do you feel that in the Bob Avakian zeal that has guided your party until now do you feel that this may:
A. cause the party to loose legitimacy with the masses due to the common belief that the RCP is just a "cult of personality"?
B. Stifle the development of other party leaders due to his control of the ideological direction? I know that decent is frowned on.

2) Do you think that Bob looses legitamacy with people because he (as far as I know and understand) only gives interviews and can only be questioned by your own spokesperson Carl Dix?

3) Do you really feel that Bob's(and the partys) view on homosexuality has legitimatly changed or was that a reacent development that was implimented due to pressure from other left groups?

Just looking to hear insiders views on these things. The RCP comrades that I know tend to avoid these questions."

Redbhoy here are some replies from the 'Another World Is Possible' site posted by Kasama:

« Reply #1 on: Today at 2:44pm »
I think it is valuable to discuss Bob Avakian, his role, and the views the RCP has about his importance and role.

Here is how I would rephrase that set of questions:

How can we better connect broad numbers of people with the leadership of the Revolution -- chairman Bob Avakian, so that people can learn directly from his example, his body of work, his method and approach? And actually understand what he represents and be prepared to defend him from the attacks of our oppressors?

Because THOSE QUESTIONS are tied with whether or not we will succeed in creating a genuine communist movement, a genuinely revolutinary people among the masses, and whether they will actually be able to make revolution when the opportunity arises.

Much much more needs to be done, to connect the advanced revolutonary analysis and method of Bob Avakian with the masses of people (including growing numbers of people looking for radical solutions in the middle of this world crisis.) And it is also important to help people understand the rare and unique nature of Bob Avakian as a person and as a leader.

How will people protect their leadership if they don't understand his importance?

And how will we make revolution, if growing numbers of people are not connected with this leader who has press so far in charting the uncharted course, and is actually LEADING the movement for revolution?

So these are some really SERIOUS questions worth debating.

« Last Edit: Today at 3:00pm by kasama » Logged
"Fierce-browed I face a thousand pointing fingers, head bowed like a willing ox I serve the children."


kasama


Redbhoy here is another longer reply to your questions from Kasama:

« Reply #2 on: Today at 2:55pm »
As for these questions themselves, I thinkthey kinda miss the main point here.
here are some quick answers;


1) Do you feel that in the Bob Avakian zeal that has guided your party until now do you feel that this may cause the party to loose legitimacy with the masses due to the common belief that the RCP is just a "cult of personality"?

Actually the masses of people, especially proletarian people, have a very deep sense that they need leaders, and that their oppressors go for "decapitation."

Peole are generally excited to hear about Avakian, and eager to dig into who he is and what he stands for.

Here are two helpful reports that give a sense of that:
http://rwor.org/a/1243/border_rcyb.htm
http://rwor.org/a/1243/mayday_picounion_video.htm

There is a particular politcal current (more middle class, anarchist influenced radical democrats) who think you don't need leadership or a vanguard to make revolution, and think the biggest thing is to be "an individual". (Welcome to the illusions and backwardness of political life in modern Amerikkka!!)

Such forces are sometimes loud and arrogant -- and their anti-communist views have sometimes had the "left arena" to themselves in some places -- but generally their views are far more backward than the masses generally -- certainly than the masses of proletarian people, but also than the growing numbers of new activists and radicals among students etc.

And even those who are backward in their understanding of what Bob Avakian stands for and his importance for the revolution -- they also can be won over -- especially once they actually start to engage with his works (and if his followers bring these burning issues to people throughout society).

B. Stifle the development of other party leaders due to his control of the ideological direction? I know that dissent is frowned on.

Bob Avakian has trained the "other party leaders." at the same time he has developed profound works on the revolutonary road. On one hand, the RCP is a movement rich in leaders and experience, but Bob Avakian is the leader who is head and shoulders above the other.

The development and initiative of other party leaders are strengthened by his work and example -- and stifled when his work and example are not taken as a central starting point.

Is "dissent frowned on"? Where?

Look, the RCP is a revolutoinary, communist vanguard party. It is not a playground or a chat room. People who are in that party are serious revolutoinary communists. so in that sense, people with other views and lines are not expected to be in the party.

At the same time, everyone knows that NO ONE is more eager to engage and debate different political views that the RCP supporters. They believe in BIG DEBATES, and BIG WRANGLING -- not suppressing discussion by organizational means.

but they do believe in arguing FOR revolutoinary politics, MLM and their Chairman -- and what would you expect of a revolutonary communist party?

No one makes revolution by being wishy washy.

2) Do you think that Bob looses legitamacy with people because he (as far as I know and understand) only gives interviews and can only be questioned by your own spokesperson Carl Dix?

This is confused at best. First Bob Avakian has done literally hundreds of interviews -- including on radio and TV. (Get a tape of his appearance on the late night talk show with TOM SNYDER -- it is a riot, and very deep! I loved it.)

There are many many published transcripts of these interviews -- which were carried out in the course of a national tour in 1979. They are available wherever there are archives of the RW (like Revolution Books). the way he deals with radio dj's, rightwing rush limbaugh interviewers, and all kinds of other interviews is fascinating.

In addition to that, chairman avakian has put out his work, his life and views in great detail. And has in many ways studied the views of the masses of people and party members.

And he calls for opening the party to interrogation and self-interrogating. And certainly he practices that himself.

3) Do you really feel that Bob's(and the partys) view on homosexuality has legitimatly changed or was that a reacent development that was implimented due to pressure from other left groups?

I suggest you read the documents the RCP has developed in the course of studying and wrangling over the questions of intimacy, women's liberation, sexuality and homosexuality. the record is very clear (look at the famous 1988 paper, for example in Revoluton -- and then the current document being discussed: http://2changetheworld.info/docs/h-02-fulltext-en.php

The RCP's position has always been controversial (and since it is a revolutionary communist party, its views will remain controversial.) The RCP did not adopt the stand of identity politics on homosexuality -- and its views will remain controversial among such "left groups."

So no, it is silly to thik that the RCP changes its views because of pressure from reformist forces or identity politics critiques. It studies their criticisms, since even oppoentents can raise true arguments, or useful criticisms.

But anyone who thinks the RCP changes its line bacause of "pressure" (from the bourgeoisie, or from the middle classes, or even from non-communist allies) hasn't been paying attention.
« Last Edit: Today at 3:09pm by kasama » Logged
"Fierce-browed I face a thousand pointing fingers, head bowed like a willing ox I serve the children."

Here is the link to the Another World Is Possible Thread:

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...191714&start=0v (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=politix&action=display&num=1087191714&start=0v)

What do you think Redbhoy? --Skeptic

[redstar2000]

Here is how I would rephrase that set of questions:

How can we better connect broad numbers of people with the leadership of the Revolution -- chairman Bob Avakian, so that people can learn directly from his example, his body of work, his method and approach? And actually understand what he represents and be prepared to defend him from the attacks of our oppressors?

Because THOSE QUESTIONS are tied with whether or not we will succeed in creating a genuine communist movement, a genuinely revolutionary people among the masses, and whether they will actually be able to make revolution when the opportunity arises.

In other words, "Bob rules!" :lol:

Each of us should ask ourselves: "what am I doing to connect broad numbers of people with Bob?" :lol:

The revolution depends on it! :lol: :lol: :lol:


And it is also important to help people understand the rare and unique nature of Bob Avakian as a person and as a leader.

Rare and unique? :huh:

Perhaps in the sense that his head will no longer fit through normal doorways.


And how will we make revolution, if growing numbers of people are not connected with this leader who has press so far in charting the uncharted course, and is actually LEADING the movement for revolution?

Back on earth, the RCP puts out a newspaper and has a website. So do lots of small groups.


So these are some really SERIOUS questions worth debating.

No, there is nothing serious about any of this...it is "revolutionary" politics as "image". Its method is completely bourgeois...copied directly from thousands of old ad-campaigns.

In an age when more and more people are totally cynical about all commercials, one can only wonder why the RCP persists in such a hopeless endeavor.

Nowadays, the more you "puff up" some (any) personality, the more people are certain that there's something rotten underneath.

That's been their experience.

Mine too.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Louis Pio]

Man this is absurd. To the largest extent.

How is Bob Avakian unique? He is a rather obscure leader of a small party and not gennerally known outside of that small circle.

A revolution will always bring forth different leaders after they have been tested in the situation, not because they are proclaimed "unique and great leaders" by RCP or whoever.

Btw why do the RCP people always copy paste in every discussion instead of explaining things with their own words? It would make the discussions more interesting. Instead it seems they have to consult some "oracle" before answering.


No, there is nothing serious about any of this...it is "revolutionary" politics as "image". Its method is completely bourgeois...copied directly from thousands of old ad-campaigns.


Hmm I never thought about it this way before, but I think you are right.