This Avakian chap

[CubanFox]

Forgive me, comrades, but I have absolutely no idea who this Bob Avakian chap is, aside from the fact he's the head of some Maoist organisation in the US.

Can someone elaborate?

I get the impression he isn't too widely liked.

[Louis Pio]

Well I never heard about him untill I saw some strange cult members posting praises of him on different messageboards.
I later found out he is the head of a group called RCP that uses most of their time praising him because noone else can see why he is so great, probably because he never archived anything

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe Redtsar2000 has had some experiences with Avakian's followers.

Just another example of cargo-cult Leninism

[RosaRL]

Who is Bob Avakian?

He is the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP). He is a veteran of the revolutionary upsurges of the 1960's and 1970's who worked closely with the Black Panther Party and was a major figure in the debates within the Students for a Democratic Society. he was instrumental in moving many activists towards Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and linking up with the working class.

By the mid 70's, Avakian emerged as the foremost Maoist revolutionary in the United States. Today he heads the only party in the U.S. seriously working towards the overthrow of U.S. imperialism and its replacement by proletarian rule -- socialism.

As a revolutionary theoretician, Bob Avakian has given himself to solving the burning issues of making revolution. He has written numerous books and articles which have addressed such questions as: the relation of Black people's struggle in the U.S. to proletarian revolution; the question of who in U.S. society really represents a base for revolution and how political work can be conducted in a way that will prepare the ground and many other pressing issues.

Certain individuals come forward at decisive hours to defend and uphold the banner of revolution. Bob Avakian is such a leader and thinker.

In 1976, when the forces opposed to Mao Tsetung seized power in China, Avakian exposed that coup and made a thorough groundbreaking analysis of the causes and lessons of this counter-revolution and how what was happening was bound to lead to the restoration of capitalism in that former stronghold of revolution -- this cut through a time of great confusion, disorientation and disarray in the international revolutionary ranks.

When the exploiters and reactionaries claimed the 'death of communism', Avakian again stepped forward to face the difficult questions of the day and to chart the path forward.

On a number of other occasions, Bob Avakian has been able to steer the revolutionary forces away from potentially deadly mines appearing in the form of economism, reformism of various sorts, adventurism, social chauvinism and various other forms of capitulation to the overt enemy or to counter revolutionary political lines and trends emerging within the ranks of the revolution.

he did this by systematically and consistently wielding his particular ability to distill and concentrate the lessons of history and to apply the basic principles and scientific methodology of MLM to the analysis of ever changing objective and subjective conditions, including the developing requirements of the revolutionary movement.

And there have been only a few extraordinary leaders and Chairman Avakian is one of those leaders! They are very rare and there is not always someone who is dealing with the knotty problems in front of us on the level that he can -- that to quite literally HAVE a living leader that is on the level of Marx is not something that just happens every day. Its not something that everyone just has. This makes him all the more precious to the masses. In fact before him, there has NEVER been such a leader in the U.S.

And when there are such leaders as Chairman Avakian, its right to promote them.

Its right to share that understanding that they have and who they are -- to take that out to the masses who desperately need to know that there is a way out -- that there can BE real liberation.

In fact it is only through bringing him and his understanding to the masses that it is possible to raise their level and their vision so that they can lift their heads and bring this system down once and for all.

If you would like to know more about what he has to say and who he is check out -- http://www.rwor.org/chair_e.htm

[CubanFox]

Hmm. He has at least one fan here.

Coulds someone who doesn't think so highly of the man give me their opinions?

[RosaRL]

NoXion:

If you would like to see those exchanges you (and others) are welcome to drop by and take a look or join in the discussion. There has been some pretty extensive debate over Bob Avakian, questions of leadership and the role of the vanguard with RS2000 at http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi

[Funky Monk]

Is there any possibility of getting an opinion that doesnt look like its just been copied down from a fansite?

[Louis Pio]

Is there any possibility of getting an opinion that doesnt look like its just been copied down from a fansite?

Nope, nobody else bothers with him.

[canikickit]

Try this Funky Monk:

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...ighlite=avakian (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=b02e0311169ff6df91a67efe1d318560&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=avakian)

[RosaRL]

Funky Monk said: "Is there any possibility of getting an opinion that doesnt look like its just been copied down from a fansite?"

and

CubanFox said: "Coulds someone who doesn't think so highly of the man give me their opinions?"

This is rather fascinating. Why is it that the only opinions that are considered valid are those that are either negative or those that do not speak very highly of Chairman Avakian? Why are the opinions of those who love and respect him less worthy of consideration?


Just a thought :)

[Funky Monk]

Cheers mate

[Louis Pio]

This is rather fascinating. Why is it that the only opinions that are considered valid are those that are either negative or those that do not speak very highly of Chairman Avakian? Why are the opinions of those who love and respect him less worthy of consideration?


Because nobody ever hears about him exept from when people from your group post semi-religious articles about him. People are always cautious to belive in people using all their time praising a obscure guy, who haven't proven much in the labour movement but seems more interested in getting a cult going around his person.
Im sorry if this might sound harsh but that's what the whole RCP attitude accomplishes.

[redstar2000]

St. Avakian's First Church of Mao (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083550128&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

There are more collections on my site dealing with the Avakian version of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism".

And, to get a flavor of how they discuss things, you should visit Another World Is Possible (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi) and read some of the threads in the Theory and Politix forums.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

Why is it that the only opinions that are considered valid are those that are either negative or those that do not speak very highly of Chairman Avakian? Why are the opinions of those who love and respect him less worthy of consideration?

Because, Rosa, as I have tried over and over to explain to you folks, people don't believe in "great leaders" anymore.

Experience has taught us that the more a "leader" is hyped, the more likely it is that the scandal -- when it is revealed -- will be a big one!

With Lenin, it was Kronstadt. With Stalin, it was the 1939 pact with the Nazis. With Mao, it was the pact with Richard Nixon and U.S. imperialism.

Paradoxically, the more you tell us how "great" Bob Avakian is ("a living Marx" no less), the more confident we are that a political scandal is in the making.

I don't mind -- and I suspect most people don't really mind -- if on those occasions when you think Chairman Bob has said something useful on a subject, you want to quote him as the authoritative voice of your party and invite response.

But the hype must stop...or, in the end, no one will take you seriously at all.

:redstar2000:

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

[Louis Pio]

From Redstars page:


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


quote:

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



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

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

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

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

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


:D
Goddamn! I thought the RCP was a bit "off" before, but now am starting to see were the basis for this semi-religion lies.

[RosaRL]

Teis said: "Because nobody ever hears about him exept from when people from your group post semi-religious articles about him. People are always cautious to belive in people using all their time praising a obscure guy, who haven't proven much in the labour movement but seems more interested in getting a cult going around his person"

I gave a brief outline of just a few of the contributions that Comrade Avakian has made, however it is interesting that in your reply you focus in on 'the labour movement' although it is not exactly clear what you mean by that.

However, it is all too common that what is seen as 'communist work' is little more than social democratic trade-unionism. Lenin's heavily criticized that approach in 'what is to be done' and his criticisms stand true today.

The economists who Lenin was debating against were saying that "political agitation must follow economic agitation," that the task at hand was "lending the economic struggle itself a political character" and that in any case 'the economic struggle is the most widely applicable means' of drawing the masses into political struggle."

Lenin replied by showing that, in fact, the arena of politics and social life in general, the conflict between different class forces in all spheres of society -- political, cultural, scientific, etc., as well as economic -- provide the means or basis for what must be the heart of communist work that is

comprehensive exposure of the system, around all major social questions and events, instilling in the masses a clear sense of class outlooks, interest and forces involved.

The economic struggle is by no means the most widely applicable means, Lenin argued, it is only the most widely applied, which itself is a reflection of the influence of economism.

It is true that Bob Avakian isn't leading a 'labour movement' or some 'movement for democratic rights' or whatever and in fact would not reduce communist work to such. He is the leader of a revolutionary party, a communist not a social democrate, reformist or revisionst.

[Louis Pio]

I gave a brief outline of just a few of the contributions that Comrade Avakian has made, however it is interesting that in your reply you focus in on 'the labour movement' although it is not exactly clear what you mean by that.


What im saying is that Avakian has only accomplished building a rather small cult around his own person. Rather than spreading the ideas of marxism in the working class it seems you are more bend on spreading the vision of Bob. Which I might add writes in a way most ordinary people have a hard time grasping because it's so pseudointellectual.


It is true that Bob Avakian isn't leading a 'labour movement' or some 'movement for democratic rights' or whatever and in fact would not reduce communist work to such.


Of course nobody would that, except for reformists or careerists. But when has the RCP and Bob stopped the person cult for a moment and started the slow work of spreading marxism (not that I think your religion has anything to do with Marx) among the most class conscious in for example the unions? It's fucking hard work but the only way forward. Do your group regularly participate in labour disputes as rank and file and not with the aim of glorifying Bob?


However, it is all too common that what is seen as 'communist work' is little more than social democratic trade-unionism. Lenin's heavily criticized that approach in 'what is to be done' and his criticisms stand true today.


Trade union work is of course only a part of it. But the other part is not to creat a person cult. Lenin was against personality cultism and still you mock his legacy by paying lip service to his ideas, while using your time building a cult around Bob.

My point is that if Bob is so "great and precious" events will surely put him in a leading role at a point because he have the correct ideas. Not because his followwers shamelessly try to make a cult out of him. Look at the bolshevic party, they didn't promote personality cults before after Stalin. But it seems like all you are doing.

[RosaRL]

Teis said: "What im saying is that Avakian has only accomplished building a rather small cult around his own person. Rather than spreading the ideas of marxism in the working class it seems you are more bend on spreading the vision of Bob."

Actually this is an attack based on no real knowledge of what the RCP and Bob Avakian has done or is doing. The RCP has a long and consistent history of being out there and in the for front. Even the RCP's detractors have been forced to admit that 'they have done outstanding work in the anti-war movement and in the movement against police brutality' for example and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Bob Avakian himself is a leading figure in the international communist movement.

And to top it off, the central task of the RCP-USA is "Create Public Opinion, Seize Power! Prepare Minds and Organize Forces for Revolution."

The RCP's draft programme describes this as:
"This process and this struggle has a definite aim—simply put, we are working to bring the masses to the position where they are willing and determined to put everything on the line for revolution, where they grasp both the necessity and the possibility for this. This, in essence, is the “public opinion” we are creating.This should not be understood as a process of “patient education.” It is an all-around process with different dimensions—it encompasses mass struggles in various forms and building organization, both the Party itself and mass organizations of various kinds, as well as exposing the system, bringing to light its ugly features, its utter worthlessness, and the necessity of overthrowing it. And all this goes into preparing the masses and the Party itself for the all-out struggle to seize power." http://2changetheworld.info/docs/part2-03-central-task-en.php#_top

As far as your comment about 'spreading the vision of Bob', what's wrong with that? As I said before, nothing is wrong with that.

In fact if we want to seriously make revolution then we need to popularize the highest understanding that we have available to us. Bob Avakian is a living, breathing person capable of making analysis of the current moment -- right now -- in the midst of the challenges we are facing and helping to forge the road forward to revolution. Marx cant do that. That's just a fact.

However, on a side note, the great thing about having dead and enshrined leaders is that they can't challenge you or point out where you are going wrong.

[Louis Pio]

Even the RCP's detractors have been forced to admit that 'they have done outstanding work in the anti-war movement and in the movement against police brutality' for example and this is only the tip of the iceberg.


Quite good, if you dropped the cultist features more people would probably take you serious then.


Bob Avakian himself is a leading figure in the international communist movement.


Nope he's unknown even among the maoists here. And I guess those are the only true communists in your oppinion.


As far as your comment about 'spreading the vision of Bob', what's wrong with that? As I said before, nothing is wrong with that.


It's a personality cult alien to marxism. It's the way you do it. You use semi-religious language and distance yourself from others by it. There's nothing wrong in thinking someone is a exellent theoritician, but you don't put him forward as a "übermensch" like your doing.



In fact if we want to seriously make revolution then we need to popularize the highest understanding that we have available to us. Bob Avakian is a living, breathing person capable of making analysis of the current moment -- right now -- in the midst of the challenges we are facing and helping to forge the road forward to revolution.

In my time as a communist I have encountered several people highly capeable of making anaysis. But they don't build a cult around themselves.



However, on a side note, the great thing about having dead and enshrined leaders is that they can't challenge you or point out where you are going wrong.


But since Bob has gone into hidding who can be sure if it is his points that get forward?

There's many people I have respect for politically who are not death. And I might add people more capeable than Bob of analysing the last 50 years developments. But I don't feel a need to make a cult around them. You on the other hand seem to have a need for organising in a semi-religious fashion. And you have all the traits of a cult: strange language nobody else can understand, uncritically devotion to one man.
That's the crux of it all and the end of the discussion.

[RosaRL]

Actually I suspect this is not the end of it at all but rather just the very surface which we have barely scratched.

The real issue, I suspect, is a disagreement over the need for strong communist leadership and a reaction to seeing such strong leadership such as Comrade Avakian and the party he leads put forward! You call that cultish...

I am aware that anti-communism is such a strong stink in the air that people actually get angry and offended if we talk about building communist leadership, and a vanguard party.

But I really don't care if we have to "go against the tide" of this defeatism and cynicism.

There can be no revolution without revolutionary organization and theory. People won't just "figger it out" in big consensus meetings -- we are facing and fighting U.S. imperialism, with all its agents, and armed forces. We have to get serious.

And we have to find and uphold and support those parties and leaders who have worked to identify the way forward (our strategies, alliances, ideologies, forms of organization, demands, stages of struggle, pitfalls etc.) Let's not start blind again!!

[Louis Pio]

The real issue, I suspect, is a disagreement over the need for strong communist leadership and a reaction to seeing such strong leadership such as Comrade Avakian and the party he leads put forward! You call that cultish...


No, im all for leadership but not in concentrating powers in the hand of one man. Or by using all time praising him. If he is so great people will find out.


I am aware that anti-communism is such a strong stink in the air that people actually get angry and offended if we talk about building communist leadership, and a vanguard party.


Now you pull the old one of anti-communism. PERSONAL CULT HAS NEVER BEEN COMMUNIST. And it will not be just because you proclaim it.
But I guess your fetich for personal cult is due to the fact that your party adheres to the legacy of Stalin and Mao, the people who introduced the concept.


But I really don't care if we have to "go against the tide" of this defeatism and cynicism.


It's defeatism putting the faith of the revolution in the hands of one man.
Im not defeatist at all, I just hate when strange sects blacken the name of communism by pulling crazy stunts like idolising one man.


There can be no revolution without revolutionary organization and theory.

Of course not, but I don't think the RCP's mishmash of ideas will lead forward to the revolution.


And we have to find and uphold and support those parties and leaders who have worked to identify the way forward (our strategies, alliances, ideologies, forms of organization, demands, stages of struggle, pitfalls etc.)

And in my oppinion Chairman Bob is not one of those...
Btw how are people ever supposed to meet him and finding out? As far as I heard only special people from your group is allowed talking to him

[autocritique]

[Bob Avakian is] unknown even among the maoists here.

This is absurd. How can you say this? Which Maoists (or "Maoists") are you talking about? Is "here" Che-Lives.com? Who are these people?


And I might add people more capeable than Bob of analysing the last 50 years developments.

Again, who do you have in mind?

[autocritique]

It's defeatism putting the faith of the revolution in the hands of one man.
Im not defeatist at all, I just hate when strange sects blacken the name of communism by pulling crazy stunts like idolising one man.

I don't know if it's defeatism or what it is. I think it's something else, I don't know the name for it. In any event, that's not the RCP line! No one is suggesting we put the revolution in the hands of one man (Avakian). At the same time, it would be a huge setback if we were to lose Chairman Avakian.

RCP supporters don't "idolise" Chairman Avakian, we simply uphold him as a great revolutionary leader! Strange that this accusation would arise on a site named "Che Lives"...


Of course not, but I don't think the RCP's mishmash of ideas will lead forward to the revolution.

Which "mishash" are you talking about? It's one thing to have an honest disagreement, it's another to just hurl these scattered accusations.

Here, it's The Draft Programme of the RCP, USA (http://www.rwor.org/s/programme_e.htm). Check it out.


Btw how are people ever supposed to meet him and finding out? As far as I heard only special people from your group is allowed talking to him

Do you need to meet Marx to grasp the brilliance of his work? I hope not, because he's not available right now.

I wish we could all go and hang out with Bob Avakian. I've never met him myself, I wish I could! There are lots of people I'd like to go meet.

Would you need to "meet Lenin" to support the Bolshevik Party?

[Skeptic]

I've noticed in this discussion the 'cynicism and defeatism' that Rosa brought up. The denigrating of the good work of the RCP in organizing, fighting police brutality, standing up for need for armed revolution against wrong lines like 'permanent revolution' or the work that BA had done analyzing the contributions of Mao and the way forward after the re-establishment of Capitalism in China. This talk that 'people will just find out' about this leader or that party if it is so good is errant. The forces of reaction are doing everything in their power to obscure and obstruct. 'The Revolution will not be televised' slogan was invented for a good reason, because revolutionary ideas are purposely kept out of the media, especially the electronic media. On the organizing end its difficult spreading a particular message or popularize a leader, much work needs to be done. What does this say about the noisy people who try to throw cold water on important struggle and tear down good organizing right from the beginning?

The worst things I've noticed are the dirty tactics in this discussion like resorting to false claims of 'religion' or 'cultism,' words like 'strange sects' in attempt to win an argument and put an end to debate.

I see a lot of 'put downs' and 'flames' from one side. I don't see this coming from Rosa.

Leadership is a precious part of organizing a movement, especially in these nadir times where Revolution has been beaten back from much of the gains it had made historically in the last century. The defeatists were out in full force in 1905, for example and Lenin struggled against them with the correct line. We have the successes and leadership from the past to build on.

In this period Bob Avakian's analysis has been important to moving socialism forward.
--Skeptic

[Louis Pio]

This is absurd. How can you say this? Which Maoists (or "Maoists") are you talking about? Is "here" Che-Lives.com? Who are these people?


Am talking about 1. maoists peruvians. I used to get there magazine. Avakian was never mentioned 2. a group that sprang from them called Organisation fir the refoundation of the danish communist party, they never mention avakian either.
Actually it's normally only RCP members that mention him.


Which "mishash" are you talking about? It's one thing to have an honest disagreement, it's another to just hurl these scattered accusations.


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

Your great chairman is here abandoning marxism in favour of idealism.
That's mishmash.


The worst things I've noticed are the dirty tactics in this discussion like resorting to false claims of 'religion' or 'cultism,' words like 'strange sects' in attempt to win an argument and put an end to debate.


I call things what they are and quite frankly you are a cult. You bring up avakian in every discussion and you use words to describe him that could have been used by a church in describing a saint.

Am perfectly aware that none of you will ever see this. It's just a shame the rest of us have to listen to it.
It's a matter of what kind of approach you take to people. Your group seems to go out and use every excuse to talk about avakian, instead of reaching people from the level they are on.

[filimarxist]

:lol:

[CubanFox]

Thank your for your input, Filimarxist. <_<

This Avakian chap seems to have built a personality cult around himself, either that or he has surrounded himself with sycophants.

I appreciate neither one.

And aside from sitting around "being amazing", has he actually done anything of interest?

[filimarxist]

I love Mao Tse Tung, I adore and respect his work and I believe his ideas on how the dictatorshup of the proletariat should be carried out on a daily basis is the most viable theory of revolutionary change. However I&#39;ll have to admit that it was the fact that he built a personality cult around him that lead to his downfall and the setbacks in china. A communist movement cannot, and should not rely on the will of an individual. Just because they make great contributions to the theoretical development, doesn&#39;t mean we should bring them forward as individuals. Promote their ideas, yes, but the individual should receive no more credit than applause at a public appearance and his or her name on the cover of books, pamphlets, and other writing. Thanking the guidance of a chairman for a successful protest or other event or thing is cultish. Success comes from being able to act upon the objective conditions with the correct analysis and plan, anyone with the proper training can do this. The fact that the RCP presents Bob the bacon as a unique individual that is somehow "gifted" enough to see the things he sees, and say the things he says, truly reflects the RCP&#39;s cultish leaning. Here&#39;s a revolution in the contrary. The Philippines, the CPP/NPA is also a maoist group, one that has been around longer than the RCP. They grew directly out of the contradictions sharpened by the brutal Marcos dictatorship. From day one they have pretty much been in a revolutionary war, to rid the beureaucrat capitalists&#39; semi-feudal/semi-colonial rule in the country. All along this time they have had the experience and development tempered by the fire of being in the stage of armed struggle. One of the most important and unique feature of the CPP is their emphasis on the movement not being leader oriented. One of the most important thing a comrade said to me is, the reason why the agents of the state wouldn&#39;t dare kill our leader is because three more will step in the place of each leader that is kiled. If the they kill the chairman of the CPP, the revolutionary forces can pick any random peasant from the countryside, who has received and completed the party&#39;s most intense political training courses and go on to fill in the duty of a central commitee member.

[autocritique]

Ah, much to reply to but very little time... so I&#39;ll just address a few of Teis&#39; objections and be on my way.


Am talking about 1. maoists peruvians. I used to get there magazine. Avakian was never mentioned 2. a group that sprang from them called Organisation fir the refoundation of the danish communist party, they never mention avakian either.
Actually it&#39;s normally only RCP members that mention him.

Note: You go from "even the Maoists here haven&#39;t heard of him" to "[some magazine which shall remain nameless] did not mention him" as if they&#39;re one in the same. I have never heard of "Organisation For The Refoundation Of The Danish CP", I have no reason to assume they&#39;re Maoist besides the fact that you seem to think so. Again, where is "here"? (I am genuinely curious.)

Then, in response to that Avakian quote that you and redstar2000 keep repeating, for some reason:


Your great chairman is here abandoning marxism in favour of idealism.
That&#39;s mishmash.

How/why it&#39;s "mismash" is, of course, left up to the reader&#39;s imagination. The bottom line seems to be that you don&#39;t understand what the Chairman is getting at, therefore it&#39;s "mismash". If you want to actually debate the merits of the statement, let&#39;s do that. I sent you a link to the Draft Programme for you to get into that, too (since you were talking about RCP "ideas"... thought that might be a good start).

Seriously, people are more than happy to have a principled debate on these questions. But if it&#39;s a question of "no, YOU&#39;RE mismash&#33;&#33;&#33;" I think a certain trend is going to be noticably absent.

[RosaRL]

Ties said: "Am perfectly aware that none of you will ever see this. It&#39;s just a shame the rest of us have to listen to it.
It&#39;s a matter of what kind of approach you take to people. Your group seems to go out and use every excuse to talk about avakian, instead of reaching people from the level they are on."

This is a very odd statement to make in a thread called "This Avakian Chap, Who is he?", dont you think? I would hope the discussion would be about Bob Avakian and if you look around you will find that there are many other issues that have been discussed on http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi and in fact before I posted in this thread the last thread I was in was about Ronnie Ray-gun in the opposing ideologies forum and even in this discussion I have gone beyond just discussing the Chairman. (see the post on the RCP&#39;s central task)

It is not correct to characterize those posting here as &#39;using every excuse to talk about Bob Avakian&#39; -- or the RCP for that matter -- if you want to see the wide range of things that they talk about see http://rwor.org

However, it is my feeling that Chairman Avakian is far from talked about enough&#33;

Now, I have no intent to &#39;reach people from the level they are on&#39;. It is not correct to water down and cover over what communist have to say to make it palpable and acceptable to the most people. That&#39;s not going to get anywhere unless all you are interested in is building some kind of movement for short term, gains or reforms. Sure, you may mobilize a large number of people, but what will you really be mobilizing them for?

We need to be absolutely clear with people as to what we are about and what its going to take to get to revolution. We have to actually build a revolutionary movement, not a movement to just stop the war or to just gain this or that crumb from the table of the slave masters. To do that we need a revolutionary party, a revolutionary people and to get there we need revolutionary leaders.

Now on to what filimarxist raised about the replaceability of leaders. Its a nice thought but it doesn&#39;t correspond to reality. But there is uneven development in all processes and things, including people and this is true among the vanguard forces and among the masses of people in general. How could it be otherwise? But this unevenness is itself a source of growth and development and a catalyst for advance.

You do have people, given their own circumstances, that have gained much more experience than others in the struggle and have proven their selves over time to be able to apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to guide us forward.

but to get into this issue of replaceability more let me end with a quote from
Chairman Avakian that digs into it on a very deep level.

" Here it seems important to speak to another practice of the Paris Commune that Marx identified as a matter of decisive importance: the "replaceability" or "revocability" of leaders. Once again the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat has shown that it has not been possible to apply this principle in the strict sense in which Marx spoke of it, drawing from the Paris Commune, where officials were elected by the masses and subject to recall by them at any time.It must be said straight-up that it does not get to the essence of things if the masses have the formal right to replace leaders, when the social conditions (contradictions) are such that some people are less "replaceable" than others. To give an extreme example, if the masses in socialist China had had the right to vote Mao out of office, and if they had exercised that right foolishly and voted him out, they would have been confronted with the stark fact that there wouldn&#39;t have been another Mao to take his place. In reality, they would find themselves in a situation where someone would have to play a role which, from a formal standpoint, would be the same as that of Mao; that is, someone would have to occupy leading positions like that, and the division of labour in society - in particular between mental and manual labour - would mean that only a small section of people would then be capable of playing such a role. Voting Mao out of office would only mean that somebody less qualified--or, even worse, someone representing the bourgeoisie instead of the proletariat - would be playing that leadership role. You can&#39;t get around this, and adhering to the strictures of formal democracy would be no help at all.3

This, of course, does not mean that the division between masses and leaders should be made into an absolute, rather than being restricted and finally overcome; nor still less does it mean that the leaders and not the masses should be seen as the real masters of socialist society. In revolutionary China great emphasis was given to the role of the masses in criticizing and in an overall sense supervising the leaders. And this found expression on a whole new level through the Cultural Revolution, which, Mao stressed, represented something radically new--"a form, a method, to arouse the broad masses to expose our dark aspect openly, in an all-round way and from below." (Mao, cited in Report to the Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China , Peking: Foreign Languages Press [FLP], p. 27) Yet, as important and pathbreaking as this was, the fact remains that throughout the socialist transition there will not only be the need for leaders-- and an objective contradiction between leaders and led--but there will be the possibility for this to be transformed into relations of exploitation and oppression.
Given the contradictions that characterize the transition from capitalism to communism, worldwide, if the party did not play the leading role that it has within the proletarian state, that role would be played by other organized groups--bourgeois cliques-- and soon enough the state would no longer be proletarian, but bourgeois. It must be said bluntly that, from the point of view of the proletariat, the problem with the ruling parties in the revisionist countries is not that they have had a "monopoly" of political power but that they have exercised that political power to restore and maintain capitalism. The problem is that they are not revolutionary, not really communist--and therefore they do not rely on and mobilize the masses to exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat, and to continue the revolution under this dictatorship.

As spoken to above, through the Cultural Revolution in China new means and methods were developed for attacking the differences and inequalities left over from the old society-- means and methods for restricting bourgeois right to the greatest degree possible at any given time in accordance with the material and ideological conditions. Yet it will remain a fundamental contradiction throughout the socialist transition period that there are these underlying differences and inequalities and their expression in bourgeois right, which constitute the material basis for classes, class struggle and the danger of capitalist restoration. This is a problem that cannot even be fundamentally addressed, let alone solved, by a formalistic approach. It has to be addressed through waging class struggle under the leadership of revolutionary communists--making this the key link--and in no other way. And this is exactly how it was approached under Mao&#39;s leadership.

Specifically with regard to income distribution, through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution a basic orientation and, flowing from it, concrete policies were adopted to gradually narrow wage differentials--in accordance with the development of common affluence and mainly by raising the bottom levels up. As an important part of this, there was an orientation of keeping the difference in pay between government officials and ordinary workers as little as possible--the fundamental spirit of the Paris Commune on this was proclaimed and upheld in practice--although such pay differences still existed and were viewed as something that had to be further reduced. But, once again, as important as it was to apply such principles, in correspondence with the actual conditions at any given time, this could not change the essential fact that, for a long historical period, there will persist differences and inequalities in socialist society which contain within them the potential to develop into class antagonism if a proletarian line is not in command in dealing with them."
http://www.rwor.org/a/1243/ba_democracy_pt3.htm

[redstar2000]

Since I&#39;ve already written a response to this Avakian excerpt, I will just re-post it here...


Here it seems important to speak to another practice of the Paris Commune that Marx identified as a matter of decisive importance: the "replaceability" or "revocability" of leaders. Once again the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat has shown that it has not been possible to apply this principle in the strict sense in which Marx spoke of it, drawing from the Paris Commune, where officials were elected by the masses and subject to recall by them at any time.--emphasis added.

If Marx was right about the "decisive importance" of this principle, then what could possibly be meant by the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" in its absence?

If workers did not have the right to give their leaders the boot at any time for any reason, how can Avakian speak of "the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat" at all?

There wasn&#39;t any&#33;

What there was was a bunch of guys who claimed to represent the "most advanced" interests of the working class.

Were their claims justified?

You know they weren&#39;t. Not only did they do nothing to promote the transition to communism but ended up restoring capitalism.


It must be said straight-up that it does not get to the essence of things if the masses have the formal right to replace leaders, when the social conditions (contradictions) are such that some people are less "replaceable" than others.

This is just metaphysical "great leader" crapola.


To give an extreme example, if the masses in socialist China had had the right to vote Mao out of office, and if they had exercised that right foolishly and voted him out, they would have been confronted with the stark fact that there wouldn&#39;t have been another Mao to take his place.

The masses must be protected from the consequences of their hypothetical "foolishness".

Or, they are unfit to select their own leaders and therefore "good leaders" must be imposed upon them...at gunpoint if necessary.

Well, guess what? Sure, they couldn&#39;t "foolishly" depose Mao...and they couldn&#39;t depose the capitalist-roaders that replaced him either&#33;

So they landed in the shit.


Voting Mao out of office would only mean that somebody less qualified--or, even worse, someone representing the bourgeoisie instead of the proletariat - would be playing that leadership role.

Oh? Mao was "the best they could do"? There were no working class intellectuals who could possibly have replaced him? Perhaps, being younger and more vigorous, done a better job of fighting the capitalist-roaders?

I suggest at the very least that Avakian is offering a grossly un-Marxist reading of the Chinese situation.


...nor still less does it mean that the leaders and not the masses should be seen as the real masters of socialist society.

What, in a platonic sense? In the realm of objective reality, the masses in the "socialist countries" had the same amount of real political power as they have in bourgeois countries...none&#33;

In the Paris Commune, the masses did have the power. There is at least the possibility that something like that was also emerging in the Shanghai Commune...and Mao wanted none of that&#33;


Yet, as important and pathbreaking as this was, the fact remains that throughout the socialist transition there will not only be the need for leaders-- and an objective contradiction between leaders and led--but there will be the possibility for this to be transformed into relations of exploitation and oppression.--emphasis added.

Possibility? Thus far, the historical experience has been 100% certainty&#33;


...if the party did not play the leading role that it has within the proletarian state, that role would be played by other organized groups--bourgeois cliques--and soon enough the state would no longer be proletarian, but bourgeois.

Presuming the masses had the freedom to elect and depose their leaders (as Marx suggested), why should they choose to be ruled by "bourgeois cliques"? In fact, why would they even permit "bourgeois cliques" to stand for public office at all? Why would they even permit bourgeois elements to exist?

After all, the whole purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to repress the bourgeoisie...not elect it to office&#33;


It must be said bluntly that, from the point of view of the proletariat, the problem with the ruling parties in the revisionist countries is not that they have had a "monopoly" of political power but that they have exercised that political power to restore and maintain capitalism.

What else could the revisionists be expected to do? If you have a monopoly of political power, what do you do with it except enrich yourself, your family, your friends and colleagues, your lackeys, etc.? Why wouldn&#39;t you see restoring capitalism as "the way forward"? Who&#39;s in any position to stop you?

Certainly not the masses...they have no rights at all.


This is a problem that cannot even be fundamentally addressed, let alone solved, by a formalistic approach.

Fuck off, Marx, you formalistic bastard&#33;


...this could not change the essential fact that, for a long historical period, there will persist differences and inequalities in socialist society which contain within them the potential to develop into class antagonism if a proletarian line is not in command in dealing with them.

The proposition that material "contradictions" can be overcome by "line" is fundamentally idealist and not materialist.

And that "long historical period"? Sounds like a perfect recipe...for a dynasty.

(First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on June 24, 2004.)

:redstar2000:

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

[filimarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 02:57 PM
Ties said: "Am perfectly aware that none of you will ever see this. It&#39;s just a shame the rest of us have to listen to it.
It&#39;s a matter of what kind of approach you take to people. Your group seems to go out and use every excuse to talk about avakian, instead of reaching people from the level they are on."

This is a very odd statement to make in a thread called "This Avakian Chap, Who is he?", dont you think? I would hope the discussion would be about Bob Avakian and if you look around you will find that there are many other issues that have been discussed on http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi and in fact before I posted in this thread the last thread I was in was about Ronnie Ray-gun in the opposing ideologies forum and even in this discussion I have gone beyond just discussing the Chairman. (see the post on the RCP&#39;s central task)

It is not correct to characterize those posting here as &#39;using every excuse to talk about Bob Avakian&#39; -- or the RCP for that matter -- if you want to see the wide range of things that they talk about see http://rwor.org

However, it is my feeling that Chairman Avakian is far from talked about enough&#33;

Now, I have no intent to &#39;reach people from the level they are on&#39;. It is not correct to water down and cover over what communist have to say to make it palpable and acceptable to the most people. That&#39;s not going to get anywhere unless all you are interested in is building some kind of movement for short term, gains or reforms. Sure, you may mobilize a large number of people, but what will you really be mobilizing them for?

We need to be absolutely clear with people as to what we are about and what its going to take to get to revolution. We have to actually build a revolutionary movement, not a movement to just stop the war or to just gain this or that crumb from the table of the slave masters. To do that we need a revolutionary party, a revolutionary people and to get there we need revolutionary leaders.

Now on to what filimarxist raised about the replaceability of leaders. Its a nice thought but it doesn&#39;t correspond to reality. But there is uneven development in all processes and things, including people and this is true among the vanguard forces and among the masses of people in general. How could it be otherwise? But this unevenness is itself a source of growth and development and a catalyst for advance.

You do have people, given their own circumstances, that have gained much more experience than others in the struggle and have proven their selves over time to be able to apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to guide us forward.

but to get into this issue of replaceability more let me end with a quote from
Chairman Avakian that digs into it on a very deep level.

" Here it seems important to speak to another practice of the Paris Commune that Marx identified as a matter of decisive importance: the "replaceability" or "revocability" of leaders. Once again the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat has shown that it has not been possible to apply this principle in the strict sense in which Marx spoke of it, drawing from the Paris Commune, where officials were elected by the masses and subject to recall by them at any time.It must be said straight-up that it does not get to the essence of things if the masses have the formal right to replace leaders, when the social conditions (contradictions) are such that some people are less "replaceable" than others. To give an extreme example, if the masses in socialist China had had the right to vote Mao out of office, and if they had exercised that right foolishly and voted him out, they would have been confronted with the stark fact that there wouldn&#39;t have been another Mao to take his place. In reality, they would find themselves in a situation where someone would have to play a role which, from a formal standpoint, would be the same as that of Mao; that is, someone would have to occupy leading positions like that, and the division of labour in society - in particular between mental and manual labour - would mean that only a small section of people would then be capable of playing such a role. Voting Mao out of office would only mean that somebody less qualified--or, even worse, someone representing the bourgeoisie instead of the proletariat - would be playing that leadership role. You can&#39;t get around this, and adhering to the strictures of formal democracy would be no help at all.3

This, of course, does not mean that the division between masses and leaders should be made into an absolute, rather than being restricted and finally overcome; nor still less does it mean that the leaders and not the masses should be seen as the real masters of socialist society. In revolutionary China great emphasis was given to the role of the masses in criticizing and in an overall sense supervising the leaders. And this found expression on a whole new level through the Cultural Revolution, which, Mao stressed, represented something radically new--"a form, a method, to arouse the broad masses to expose our dark aspect openly, in an all-round way and from below." (Mao, cited in Report to the Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China , Peking: Foreign Languages Press [FLP], p. 27) Yet, as important and pathbreaking as this was, the fact remains that throughout the socialist transition there will not only be the need for leaders-- and an objective contradiction between leaders and led--but there will be the possibility for this to be transformed into relations of exploitation and oppression.
Given the contradictions that characterize the transition from capitalism to communism, worldwide, if the party did not play the leading role that it has within the proletarian state, that role would be played by other organized groups--bourgeois cliques-- and soon enough the state would no longer be proletarian, but bourgeois. It must be said bluntly that, from the point of view of the proletariat, the problem with the ruling parties in the revisionist countries is not that they have had a "monopoly" of political power but that they have exercised that political power to restore and maintain capitalism. The problem is that they are not revolutionary, not really communist--and therefore they do not rely on and mobilize the masses to exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat, and to continue the revolution under this dictatorship.

As spoken to above, through the Cultural Revolution in China new means and methods were developed for attacking the differences and inequalities left over from the old society-- means and methods for restricting bourgeois right to the greatest degree possible at any given time in accordance with the material and ideological conditions. Yet it will remain a fundamental contradiction throughout the socialist transition period that there are these underlying differences and inequalities and their expression in bourgeois right, which constitute the material basis for classes, class struggle and the danger of capitalist restoration. This is a problem that cannot even be fundamentally addressed, let alone solved, by a formalistic approach. It has to be addressed through waging class struggle under the leadership of revolutionary communists--making this the key link--and in no other way. And this is exactly how it was approached under Mao&#39;s leadership.

Specifically with regard to income distribution, through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution a basic orientation and, flowing from it, concrete policies were adopted to gradually narrow wage differentials--in accordance with the development of common affluence and mainly by raising the bottom levels up. As an important part of this, there was an orientation of keeping the difference in pay between government officials and ordinary workers as little as possible--the fundamental spirit of the Paris Commune on this was proclaimed and upheld in practice--although such pay differences still existed and were viewed as something that had to be further reduced. But, once again, as important as it was to apply such principles, in correspondence with the actual conditions at any given time, this could not change the essential fact that, for a long historical period, there will persist differences and inequalities in socialist society which contain within them the potential to develop into class antagonism if a proletarian line is not in command in dealing with them."
http://www.rwor.org/a/1243/ba_democracy_pt3.htm
Heh, spoken like a typical RCP member, no wait "supporter." It would be easier to believe this cultish dribble if there wasn&#39;t another party out there with a maoist line who has had more success and experience than the RCP. The CPP/NPA has the opposite orientation when it comes to leadership. It&#39;s true that the more advance forces of revolution should be in a position of leadership, but the way the RCP treats avakian as if he&#39;s a unique individual who is capable of just looking at a situation like some sort of super-commie and then just magically shit out a badass plan of action is ridiculous. YOU SHOULDN&#39;T BE PROMOTING THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT INSTEAD THE ORIENTATION AND POLITICAL TRAINING THAT CREATED THE INDIVIDUAL. That is how you make a revolutionary party safe and sound, that is how you ensure that a revolution will not go the revisionist way, when the disparity in political training between the masses and the party members have been eliminated or at least sought to be eliminated. As far as replacability requiring certain social conditions, the bullshit, there&#39;s no other way to put it. Replacability in leadership is required the moment contradictions sharpen into a revolutionary situation. Why is this so, you ask? Well because of the very obvious fact that human beings can be killed. I agree that the replacability of leaders shouldn&#39;t be formed on the basis that it should be done when the masses have the slightest contention with a leader. After all, if there is disagreement, it needs to be brought forward, exposed, and struggled against by the proletariat and the party leadership. In order to sharpen the people&#39;s minds and prepare them to take the helm of being master of production. But in the context of a revolutionary struggle against the bourgeois state, replacability would be desirable, nay... COMPULSORY&#33;&#33;&#33; In order to assure the survival of the revolutionary leadership and therefore, the movement itself. This, as I had said comes from the objective fact of human mortality. Bob Avakian will not live forever, and he can be killed, :o did i just say that? Yes I did, sorry to burst your cult&#39;s bubble. When the leader of the Philippine party, Jose Maria Sision was captured and arrested by bourgeois state, did the philippine movement come to a grinding halt? No, in fact it&#39;s numbers grew even larger than before, this is because when the party interacts with the masses, they bring forward the ideological outlook of MLM for the people to absorb, and not the "unique" and "special" ability of a leader to intelletually masturbate. There is an old philosphy in regards to organizing the masses that the party utilizes. It came from the revolutionary movement of the Katipunan. A movement formed to free the Philippines from the yoke of spanish colonization. It&#39;s a called the kang kong orientation. The kang kong is a type of vegetable that is common in the Philippines, and is a staple food for the poor and peasant people of the country. Two of the unique features of this vegetable that makes it easy to grow all over the country are it&#39;s adaptiveness to different soil and weather conditions, and the fact that when a stalk is severed, three new one will grow in it&#39;s place. The CPP/NPA has taken this concept to heart when it comes to organizing. Like the seed of a kang kong plant a party member can be thrown anywhere, and with their standardized training in condunting social investigation, can adapt to any type of social setting. They can work in said conditions, analyzing, making plans of action, summing up, and carrying out more plans based on the aforementioned summary. And like the stalk of a kang kong plant, the party member should also bring forward the political training (not the individual) to the masses, so in the event of his or her death or incapacity, three more will stand in their place. I don&#39;t even see the remotest resemblance to this in the RCP, their members fanatically quote bob, and carry his "silver book". A paperback collection of rants and quotes from the chairman, kept in a vinyl silver sleeve. Which in my opinion, comes off as some sort of childish attempt to emulate Mao Tse Tung&#39;s redbook. "Quit copying me, I&#39;m gonna tell mommy marx&#33;&#33;&#33;" the great helmsman would say. I leave with this question, what would the RCP do if Bob Avakian died?

[elijahcraig]

Nope he&#39;s unknown even among the maoists here.

I HIGHLY doubt this.

On Avakian:

I really don’t care much for him, and tend to think he is treated too much as a “great theoretician” when in fact he IS NOT. I don’t think he is trying to build a “cult” or that his followers consider him in a “cultish” manner. I also think the RCP to be one of the best US parties available.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:06 PM
It&#39;s true that the more advance forces of revolution should be in a position of leadership, but the way the RCP treats avakian as if he&#39;s a unique individual who is capable of just looking at a situation like some sort of super-commie
hmm...

[Louis Pio]

Note: You go from "even the Maoists here haven&#39;t heard of him" to "[some magazine which shall remain nameless] did not mention him" as if they&#39;re one in the same. I have never heard of "Organisation For The Refoundation Of The Danish CP", I have no reason to assume they&#39;re Maoist besides the fact that you seem to think so. Again, where is "here"? (I am genuinely curious.)


Am sorry you feel hurt because most people don&#39;t know Avakian but that&#39;s a fact. He is litterally unknown besides from amongst the RCP periphery.
The maoists peruvians was a group called "the friendship association, Denmark - Peru&#39;s people&#39;s republic under development" (or something along those lines, it&#39;s a bit hard translating it exact from danish). That group was made up of maoists from Peru who had fleed. And they never mentioned Avakian.

The other group you can find here: http://www.ordkp.dk/
They are the official maoists in Denmark and I think they work with the same groups as you. All these groups never mention Avakian instead they mention Charman Gonzalo all the time.

[redstar2000]

As a footnote to this discussion, the RW article praising Avakian was posted by RCP supporters on a half-dozen Indymedia sites...and the comments were almost universally hostile.

I keep trying to tell them that people don&#39;t believe in great leaders anymore...to no avail.

:redstar2000:

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

[SonofRage]

and redstar posted a link to my Super Avakian photochop in response on all those Indymedia stories haha :D

[autocritique]

Here we go again, Teis...


Am sorry you feel hurt because most people don&#39;t know Avakian but that&#39;s a fact. He is litterally unknown besides from amongst the RCP periphery.
The maoists peruvians was a group called "the friendship association, Denmark - Peru&#39;s people&#39;s republic under development" (or something along those lines, it&#39;s a bit hard translating it exact from danish). That group was made up of maoists from Peru who had fleed. And they never mentioned Avakian.

First of all, I&#39;m not "hurt". I&#39;d rather more studied the works of Chairman Avakian, though. Of course, they shouldn&#39;t just study Avakian, they should also study the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist classics and other revolutionary and progressive theory. And I even think people should study Trotskyite writings, if only to learn how to distinguish different lines from one another. Also, sometimes critics are able to point out serious errors, despite their overall (usually) wrong lines.

You assume no one&#39;s heard of Chairman Avakian because they don&#39;t mention him. That&#39;s quite an assumption to make.

Of course, many really haven&#39;t heard of him. The bourgeoisie controls the superstructure and generally does not take it upon themselves to promote Marxist leaders and theoreticians. That&#39;s where we come in.


The other group you can find here: http://www.ordkp.dk/
They are the official maoists in Denmark and I think they work with the same groups as you. All these groups never mention Avakian instead they mention Charman Gonzalo all the time.

That&#39;s interesting. I don&#39;t know what "official Maoist" means, but that&#39;s interesting. People mention Chairman Gonzalo because he&#39;s the Chair of the PCP and a political prisoner subjected to abuse. They should mention him.

But, like I&#39;ve said, I have no idea who ORDKP are or who they represent. So, unlike certain people, I&#39;m not going to comment on a group I know nothing about.

[Louis Pio]

Of course, many really haven&#39;t heard of him. The bourgeoisie controls the superstructure and generally does not take it upon themselves to promote Marxist leaders and theoreticians. That&#39;s where we come in.


But most other maoist groups don&#39;t feel a need to mention him. If he was such a big theoritician they would. Actually they would even translate his texts. But it seems they don&#39;t feel a need for that.


That&#39;s interesting. I don&#39;t know what "official Maoist" means, but that&#39;s interesting. People mention Chairman Gonzalo because he&#39;s the Chair of the PCP and a political prisoner subjected to abuse. They should mention him.


Official is the wrong word. What I meant was that they are pretty close to RIM. So for the secterians in that outfit that would constitute something official.


But, like I&#39;ve said, I have no idea who ORDKP are or who they represent. So, unlike certain people, I&#39;m not going to comment on a group I know nothing about.

What I know about RCP is what I read on their website. So im commenting on the use of words which are semi-religious a bit like the cult in North Korea.

[autocritique]

This is a response to Teis&#39; latest points.


But most other maoist groups don&#39;t feel a need to mention him. If he was such a big theoritician they would. Actually they would even translate his texts. But it seems they don&#39;t feel a need for that.

In Lenin&#39;s time, the vast majority of Marxists initially tended to follow the lead of Kautsky. Lenin was by no means an "accepted and recognised" leader of the ICM. We now know that he had by far the most correct line at that time&#33;

That&#39;s only part of my point. The main point is that, frankly, I really don&#39;t think you know whether or not ORDKP has heard of Chairman Avakian or what they think of him, whether or not anyone&#39;s translated his works etc, etc, etc. You&#39;re making assumptions to back up your point. But an argument with no backing but assumption after assumption is not a very good argument at all.

Earlier, I stated:


But, like I&#39;ve said, I have no idea who ORDKP are or who they represent. So, unlike certain people, I&#39;m not going to comment on a group I know nothing about.

I&#39;ve since done a little research. I still don&#39;t know if they are or are not "close to RIM" but in March 2002 they weighed in against CoRIM with regards to the ROL conterversy in the PCP.

http://www.ordkp.dk/engelsk/eng_0902.htm

I must stress that I speak as "autocritique" and not as a member or supporter of any orgnaisation when I give you my personal opinion on this next point. And that is that, judging from the little bit I&#39;ve read, it does not appear that ORDKP is especially "close to RIM" despite their declared support for the PW in Peru led by the PCP.

Furthremore, I am 100% sure that ORDKP knows who Chairman Avakian is. What they think of him is not exactly clear to me.

[autocritique]

Like I said, you don&#39;t know whether or not Chairman Avakian&#39;s works have been translated into Danish. Neither do I, for that matter.

But I do know that at least one has been translated into Farsi and is available from the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist). Take a look:

http://www.sarbedaran.org/library/index.htm

The last book is Mao Tsetung&#39;s Immortal Contributions by Chairman Avakian.

That page also features two other books by prominent RCP supporters-- The Science of Revolution by Lenny Wolf and And Mao Makes Five, edited by Raymond Lotta.

Revolutionary Worker correspondent Li Onesto witnessed firsthand fighters of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)-led People&#39;s Liberation Army study Chairman Avakian&#39;s work, Phony Communism Is Dead, Long Live Real Communism&#33;

Furthermore, virtually every RIM party with a website links to the RCP paper, the Revolutionary Worker.

They most certainly know who he is.

So, how about some self-criticism?

[Louis Pio]

Like I said, you don&#39;t know whether or not Chairman Avakian&#39;s works have been translated into Danish. Neither do I, for that matter.


They haven&#39;t, if you translate something you get it out.



But I do know that at least one has been translated into Farsi and is available from the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist). Take a look:


Good but not much. I know people who have been translated into farsi, urdu, chinese etc. But I don&#39;t run around calling them leading international communists. And that was the point we were discussing. There&#39;s a very long way from having something translated into claiming they are known over the world and leading communists internationally. So the point is RCP tries to display Bob very pompously even though they don&#39;t have the base for it.


Furthermore, virtually every RIM party with a website links to the RCP paper, the Revolutionary Worker.


But they don&#39;t go out all the time claiming he is the worlds greatest communist. RCP are the only ones doing that. THAT WAS THE POINT WE WERE DISCUSSING&#33;


So, how about some self-criticism?

If you or the RCP comrades had had an ounce of that we wouldn&#39;t have ended up this way.

[Louis Pio]

In Lenin&#39;s time, the vast majority of Marxists initially tended to follow the lead of Kautsky. Lenin was by no means an "accepted and recognised" leader of the ICM. We now know that he had by far the most correct line at that time&#33;


Indeed, but the bolshevics didn&#39;t run around calling him the greatest communist, actually he was in opposition inside the bolshevics alot of the time.

What I have been trying to get at here is that it&#39;s rather cultist trying to portray Bob as wellknown and a leading figure when it&#39;s so far from the truth.


I must stress that I speak as "autocritique" and not as a member or supporter of any orgnaisation when I give you my personal opinion on this next point. And that is that, judging from the little bit I&#39;ve read, it does not appear that ORDKP is especially "close to RIM" despite their declared support for the PW in Peru led by the PCP.


Well it&#39;s along time since I run into them, they are very small.
Probably because they use strange language such as "golden communism" etc.
But no they are not members of RIM, many maoist groups aint.

[autocritique]

Teis says:


...but the bolshevics didn&#39;t run around calling [Lenin] the greatest communist, actually he was in opposition inside the bolshevics alot of the time.

What I have been trying to get at here is that it&#39;s rather cultist trying to portray Bob as wellknown and a leading figure when it&#39;s so far from the truth.

Let me sum up a few points.

1. Many, many people know who Chairman Bob Avakian is.

2. Still, as RosaRL says, he&#39;s not talked about nearly enough&#33; It would be extremely helpful if more people studied his contributions to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

3. RCP supporters (among others) feel that Chairman Avakian has made major contributions to the science of MLM. Whether or not others agree, like him, know who he is, whatever, etc. does not have the slightest relevance to whether or not he&#39;s one of the most important Marxist theoreticians of our time. Line is decisive.

Teis says:


I know people who have been translated into farsi, urdu, chinese etc. But I don&#39;t run around calling them leading international communists.


But they don&#39;t go out all the time claiming he is the worlds greatest communist. RCP are the only ones doing that. THAT WAS THE POINT WE WERE DISCUSSING&#33;

I raised the point about his international prominence to refute your absurd assertion that Chairman Avakian was somehow "unheard of". We were, of course, discussing a multitude of your various assertions, but that was the one I was responding to at that point in time. I hope that clears a few things up.

[Louis Pio]

1. Many, many people know who Chairman Bob Avakian is.


Yes, but he is not wellknown even among activists/socialists etc.
Hardly a leading figure then. There a difference being known by many and to being a famous theoritician quoted and posted by everyone...


2. Still, as RosaRL says, he&#39;s not talked about nearly enough&#33; It would be extremely helpful if more people studied his contributions to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.


Well I wouldn&#39;t say that. I think many of his statements is contradicting and a mishmash.


3. RCP supporters (among others) feel that Chairman Avakian has made major contributions to the science of MLM. Whether or not others agree, like him, know who he is, whatever, etc. does not have the slightest relevance to whether or not he&#39;s one of the most important Marxist theoreticians of our time. Line is decisive.


Yes and frankly I don&#39;t agree with his line but let time tell.


I raised the point about his international prominence to refute your absurd assertion that Chairman Avakian was somehow "unheard of". We were, of course, discussing a multitude of your various assertions, but that was the one I was responding to at that point in time. I hope that clears a few things up.

And the only point I have been trying to make is 1. he is not so famous and akknowlegded as RCP makes him. 2. Semi-religious statements like those on Bob is unmarxist 3. RCP makes themselves look like a cult when using language like that, the man ain&#39;t a saint and communism ain&#39;t a substitute for religion.

And why haven&#39;t you joined RCP then? You agree with their line and defend Bob. If that&#39;s what you feel it should be a duty for you to join them instead of standing on the sideline...

[autocritique]

Teis, we&#39;re getting somewhere now.

And there are contradictions. For example, between "my" points #1 and #2.

Yes, Bob Avakian isn&#39;t a household name. I don&#39;t know about you, but I meet people every day who&#39;ve never even heard of Frederick Engels. Earlier, I covered why this is.

The RCP knows he&#39;s not a household name. At the same time, he&#39;s obviously very well-known in the ICM&#33; He&#39;s very well known by parties actually engaging in People&#39;s War in Nepal, Peru, India, Turkey, etc.

And there are contradictions in Chairman Avakian&#39;s own work? Hell yeah&#33;

The universe is a mass of contradictions and if we&#39;re going to talk about reality we&#39;d better be serious about digging into a few of them&#33;

I don&#39;t think the RCP has a "religious" approach to Chairman Avakian. Then again, I agree with his line and you don&#39;t&#33; Do you think the RCP has a "religious" approach to, say, Marx or Lenin? I doubt it.


And why haven&#39;t you joined RCP then? You agree with their line and defend Bob. If that&#39;s what you feel it should be a duty for you to join them instead of standing on the sideline...

Isn&#39;t that, maybe, my own business? Perhaps I don&#39;t feel like it, perhaps they don&#39;t want me, perhaps if I were to join a revolutionary political party dedicated to overthrowing US imperialism I might not broadcast it over the internet&#33;&#33;? There are a lot of possible reasons, don&#39;t you think? No, I&#39;m not a member but I don&#39;t "stand on the sidelines". I&#39;m not going to go into the details of my political work here, though.

[Louis Pio]

Yes, Bob Avakian isn&#39;t a household name. I don&#39;t know about you, but I meet people every day who&#39;ve never even heard of Frederick Engels. Earlier, I covered why this is.


Yes true but please don&#39;t compare those 2. Avakians influence can&#39;t be compared with his. And Engels is widely known all just considering themselves vaguely left.


The universe is a mass of contradictions and if we&#39;re going to talk about reality we&#39;d better be serious about digging into a few of them&#33;


Bollocks. Quite frankly. He doesn&#39;t even digg into them.
ANd take a look at one of the quotes I posted by him earlier. If you call that marxism then you probably also belives the world is flat.


don&#39;t think the RCP has a "religious" approach to Chairman Avakian. Then again, I agree with his line and you don&#39;t&#33; Do you think the RCP has a "religious" approach to, say, Marx or Lenin? I doubt it.


Now I haven&#39;t seen what they have written on those guys. They seem more occuoied with their master.


Isn&#39;t that, maybe, my own business? Perhaps I don&#39;t feel like it, perhaps they don&#39;t want me, perhaps if I were to join a revolutionary political party dedicated to overthrowing US imperialism I might not broadcast it over the internet&#33;&#33;? There are a lot of possible reasons, don&#39;t you think? No, I&#39;m not a member but I don&#39;t "stand on the sidelines". I&#39;m not going to go into the details of my political work here, though.

Shady, I just got the feeling you were actually amember of RCP, they seem to use discussionforums as their battleground.
But your own choice. And nomatter what you write on the internet the authorities would know you if you posed a treat.

[PRC-UTE]

I wouldn&#39;t have anything to do with the RCP myself. Their poxy website, "another world is possible" practices censorship of communists who don&#39;t believe in hero-worshipping Chairman Bob.