Life in the Revolutionary Communist Party (U.S.)

[redstar2000]

For seven years I was one of the principle organizers for the October 22 Coalition in a major US city. I was also a RCP [Revolutionary Communist Party U.S.] supporter during that time. Recently, it has become clear that the RCP has summed up the work we did in October 22, and the mass work in general in the city that I live in, as having been basically led by a revisionist line. Apparently some of the things that I wrote on the 2changetheworld website regarding the mass line are being taken as concentrations of the revisionist line that predominated in the RCP’s mass work (in my city) during that period. There has been a turn to greater emphasis on paper selling and promoting Avakian as part of the shift away from and rectification of the sort of mass work we did when I was a supporter of the RCP.

Those here who followed the mass line and related debates on 2changetheworld might remember that, except at the very end, both I and those I was debating with on the mass line and other issues believed we were upholding the RCP’s line on the mass line. That is because I was running the line I was trained in by the RCP. During that whole time, I was working closely with the RCP and never received any indication that the line I was putting out on the website was considered wrong at all. In fact, all of the comrades in my (younger) age group who read the debate concurred that what I was saying represented what we had been trained in, and there was no feedback from older comrades.

It has come to my attention that the RCP is going around telling people, including people close to me, that I am a revisionist. If the RCP is going to do this, it should tell me so outright, and should take responsibility for training me in a revisionist (or ‘revisionist’) line. I do not expect people here to be able to address the particular errors being made by people who call one a revisionist behind one’s back but don’t say anything to your face.

But since I have never received a response to the dozens of papers I have written up for the RCP over the years, the only way to have any dialogue about this and to find out more about how the RCP is summing up the whole period of the 1990s mass initiatives, is to raise the issue for public discussion. And perhaps that is better. After all, these are life and death issues of revolution, even if part of my motivation here is to make better sense of what I was doing for 7 years of my life. In my opinion, the RCP has a responsibility to make an explicit summation of the work it did during that period.

What little discussion I have been able to have with RCP supporters on this topic has been contradictory. One local person described the work we had done as a “bridge to nowhere,” while someone at the O22 national office said that was an incorrect summation, but didn’t elaborate.

I really want to understand the thinking behind the RCP’s shift and what it is thinking about all the work that we did during the 1990s.

That said, I have some trepidation about entering into debate on this website. During the final period of the 2changetheworld debates, I think that the team that was putting forward the RCP’s line on that website took a basically dishonest turn in how they handled people who disagreed with them. One example of this is that, when I pointed out what I felt were factual inconsistencies between Dolly Veale’s description of some things STORM (or STORM supporters) had written and the actual written document, I was accused of having an identity politics line. Now, in my opinion, if Veale disagreed with me, she should have written out why she thought I was wrong, and how what she wrote was actually consistent with the original document. Instead, I was accused of having an identity politics line. As a European-American who spent years where much of my main work involved being the lone representative of the RCP’s line in situations where I was the only European-American around for miles (i.e. going to investigate police murders in Black and Latino neighborhoods, going to meetings of revolutionary nationalist groups to unite in struggle against police brutality, trying to win family members of police murder victims and the unjustly incarcerated to take up aspects of MLM and the RCP’s line, etc.), I find it incredible that I was accused of identity politics. That is exactly what identity politics says I should not have been doing, and I stand by much of that practice.

So, like I said, I have some trepidation about re-entering web-based dialogue with RCP supporters, given the attitude that was taken toward contrary opinions during the final period of the 2changetheworld debates. But I don’t think there is any other forum available for getting into these issues, so I suppose I have to keep my fingers crossed and hope that you all will be principled and thoughtful.

This is the full text of a post by Lurigancho at the AnotherWorldIsPossible board.

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi

But you do not need to bother with clicking the link...you won't find it there. It was posted in the AWIP Introductions forum yesterday morning (Thursday, August 26th) and then deleted by the "global moderator" RosaRL (a passionate supporter of the RCP and Bob Avakian and also a member of Che-Lives). When I discovered the deletion (last night), I reposted it in the AWIP Theory forum...and it was deleted again this morning.

Instead, there was a pm from RosaRL in my inbox...


I msg'd Luri about the post that he made. This is not the appropriate forum for this. Please do not repost this again.

There are obviously a whole bunch of questions involved here, both of "line" and of "methods of struggle".

The "mass line" is a Maoist "buzzword" -- it means simply whatever the main focus of the party's agitation is at any given moment.

So, in the 1990s, this guy Lurigancho spent seven years carrying out the RCP's "mass line" -- which evidently involved trying to organize people of color against police terrorism.

Now, he's a "revisionist" -- practically a "capitalist-roader" -- for doing what the RCP told him to do.

For seven years, no one in the RCP leadership criticized his work and suddenly *abracadabra!* he's a "revisionist".

Which raises another question. Who was responsible for this "revisionist mass line"?

We know that in RCP circles, it is ***BOB AVAKIAN*** that has the final say on everything of importance -- other RCP members not only admit that but boast of it. One of them recently posted: We are not just following Bob Avakian's ideas, we are following HIM.

If the RCP's "mass line" of the 1990s was "revisionist", it could only come from one source: Bob Avakian himself.

The "Great Leader" fucked up!

Faced with the ultimate embarrassment, how do RCP supporters respond?

By suppressing discussion of the entire matter!

There was a thread once at AWIP where I was arguing with RCP supporters about the stifling internal life of Leninist parties...and was informed in no uncertain terms that as I had no first-hand information on the internal life of the RCP, I was not entitled to speak on the matter.

So, enter comrade Lurighango who does have first-hand knowledge of the matter...and his testimony is suppressed.

Fortunately, there is Che-Lives...where the politically embarrassing behavior of "left" groups and individuals is routinely dragged out in the open for all to see...and criticize.

Oh, by the way, I have tendered my resignation as a moderator of the AWIP board...for obvious reasons.

:redstar2000:

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

[Raisa]

I get the impression that Bob Avakian is held really high by the RCP, in general. Which sort of bothers me because the struggle is not about one man or one party.
Plus if we constantly rever men and not ideas, what is going to happen when Bob Avakian is dead?

[Valkyrie]

From what I understand, Raisa, The RCP, IS Bob Avakian.. as far as I know, he created it, organized it.... and those fawns belong to him also. I might be wrong.. But,that's always the impression I got from visiting that site of his. Though I've never looked into it farther, where the origins are from. I've read some of his inflated auto-bio. on there and his connection to the BP and I think Ramparts. I don't know.. I have vague memories of it.. That's how impressive it/he was on me!!!

Hey RS, NOW can you see some people's hesitation (DaCuban, Myself, included) of aligning to any Party or Joining any organization???? Ya join and you practically, if not actually, sign over you life, mind, autonomy completely. As for myself.. I consider myself loosely affiliated to all Leftist organizations and in solidarity with all, but I geneally stop at joining The Party. But, as far as agitating and propagandizing, I like to retain my free will to do it the way I want. That's why I am an anarchist.

Next.. are you implying that you are a moderator at that board? Treasonous! :lol:


I was so pissed, I got to the Capitalist roadster part and I couldn't even finish reading the message and already posted this one. Well, now I read it.... Yeah, good idea.. you should resign! :P

Shit like that makes me furious -- Party control and machinations. and there's always a scapegoat. Ugggh...

Why did the Oct 22 decide to merge with Avakian?

[Valkyrie]

Ahhh, you got me going now. so furious.

But, I don't understand.. what is wrong with the previous "mass line" besides the obvious--- that it's a Party-oriented mass line.. But what was wrong with the tactic of organining people of color against police terrorism, that it is now deemed as revisionist?

[Valkyrie]

WEll, here's a little snip off that board that tells what they're all about --- promoting the Chairman!


>>>>Congrats to the RCP sector in NY for the vigirous work in promoting the Chairman, and getting people not just aware of this event, but coming in closer and closer to the Million men and women in the streets of NYC to give the RNC a NO&#33; Uniting various sects in the name of anti-imperialism and standing against neo-fascism. <<<<<

[Valkyrie]

hmmmm. I was just thinking.... I posted something in the Practice forum about the protest and a group called the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade that was going to protest in Central Park re: the permit against Peace and Justice group. I wonder now.. if they are part of the RCP??

[redstar2000]

hmmmm. I was just thinking.... I posted something in the Practice forum about the protest and a group called the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade that was going to protest in Central Park re: the permit against Peace and Justice group. I wonder now.. if they are part of the RCP??

They certainly are&#33; It&#39;s the RCP&#39;s "youth group".

Meanwhile, here is a post of mine at AWIP...which they deleted:
__________________________________


And I (personally) have a great deal of confidence (even without the details) that if a post was removed, it was for good reason. And I&#39;m sure the moderators are debating any controversies among themselves.

The real moderators "may" be furiously exchanging pms...who knows? But up until this morning, I was a moderator and was not consulted on either deletion.


On another point: let me just say that I do not want to be part of a gossip forum... where unverifiable rumors and supposed "internal" details of revolutionary organizations are circulated for all kinds of purposes. This is not "questions" or principled politics.

The deleted post, "gossip" aside, did raise principled questions:

1. Was the RCP&#39;s "mass line" in the 1990s "revisionist"?

2. Why?

3. Who was responsible for that?


And let&#39;s develop, train and support a core moderator team that can do this -- since you precisely DON&#39;T want to publish every outrageous charge and potential police plant publicly for EVERYONE to debate its veracity.

"Potential police plant"? I saw some of those things during the COINTELPRO years...the deleted post bore no resemblance whatsoever to that old crap.

The general tone, in fact, was one of bewilderment...a guy spends seven years busting his ass for the RCP and finds himself labeled a "revisionist"...and wants to know "what did I do that was wrong?"

Well, what did he do "that was wrong"?

Is it simply a matter of when the RCP line changed, he didn&#39;t change with it? Or change "fast enough"? Or show any genuine enthusiasm for the change?


We are on the eve of the RNC.

Indeed we are. I, however, live more than a thousand miles from New York...and while I will follow developments with interest, I do not think it&#39;s the "eve of the revolution" and that all other controversies must be "set aside" for the duration.


And for those who aren&#39;t trying to accomplish something politically (i.e. in the real world), this framework I&#39;m discussing may seem unnecessary and unfair. But that itself is part of the point. Because the point of our discussion (to me, and to many others) is precisely to "change the world", not to idly flap our gums around issues of common intellectual (or even E&#33;-style personal gossip entertainment) curiosity.

"Changing the world" is a multi-dimensional project. It&#39;s not just a matter of having "the correct line".

Living, breathing revolutionaries, especially those with experience in the struggle, are your most precious resource...and you squander them at your peril.

If this guy Lurigancho ends up in some reformist crapola (or worse&#33;), who is really responsible for that?
----------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on August 27, 2004
Deleted by the moderators on August 28, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, here is something on RCP practice in the 1990s that I was able to turn up...


I know the exact day that the insufficiency of the RCP&#39;s method became clear to me. It was one week before 20,000 students engaged in the largest anti-capitalist demonstration New York has seen in decades on March 23, 1995. It was when the student movement at the City University of New York (CUNY) began to take on a mass character in opposition to budget cuts. The activists, a diverse lot - though primarily people of color and working class - had fought hard for weeks over two basic questions: "Do we target the Republican state administration or capitalism/neo-liberalism," and "Do we unite with the Democrats and their flunkies or attempt to "divert" the spontaneous movement towards more revolutionary and anti-capitalist positions?"

Needless to say, these were hotly contested questions. And guess what? The revolutionaries won. They didn&#39;t just win a show of hands. They won scores of other people from numerous explicit and implicit political trends over to the more radical politics.

Immediately a NEW two-line struggle broke out: Do we have a big, permitted mass rally - or do we engage in this "new" thing called "direct action?"

At the particular mass meeting I had my RCP epiphany, about 150 activists were present and the room was wild. It was the kind of scene that taught me revolution really is possible.

Anyway, after months of organizing, the RCP finally got around to showing up. It wasn&#39;t worth the wait.

While we were having a heated debate about issues of legality, this 45-year-oldish white RCYB member got up, lifted his arm and held the Revolutionary Worker aloft. There was a gleam in his eye.

"All this talk isn&#39;t going to get you anywhere if you don&#39;t &#39;get down&#39; with what RCP Chairman Bob Avakian has to..." He didn&#39;t get to finish his sentence because EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE ROOM began heckling and yelling so loudly that he had to slink out with his tail between his legs.

http://2changetheworld.info/disc/view.php?...&key=1059994009 (http://2changetheworld.info/disc/view.php?site=changetheworld&bn=changetheworld_natop&key=1059994009)

Makes you shake your head in disbelief, doesn&#39;t it?


Hey RS, NOW can you see some people&#39;s hesitation (DaCuban, Myself, included) of aligning to any Party or joining any organization????

I not only see it, I share it&#33; From time to time, people here have asked me about various groups that they are considering joining. And I&#39;ve always responded the same way: check them out face to face, see what they&#39;re like "close up", how they "operate" with each other, etc. They may say all kinds of "revolutionary" stuff...but the reality may well turn out to be just another shitty underpaid job&#33;

Or worse, a cult&#33;

And what happens with terrible frequency is that people spend years in such an environment and, when they realize they&#39;ve been used by their "great leader", respond with a positive hatred of all communist politics. Sometimes, they even turn right-wing because of their disgust with the "left".

I also tell people are who already in some group that if they start getting "bad vibes" from the group they&#39;re in, take a walk & don&#39;t look back&#33;

There is much talk in Leninist parties about "principled struggle" -- forget it&#33; It doesn&#39;t happen. Even the smallest doubt of the leadership is grounds for an escalating "war of nerves" that will end in your expulsion. Don&#39;t beat your head against a wall, trying to make them "see reason". They are blind in that portion of the spectrum.

If you are going to spend a lifetime in radical politics, then you must learn as early as possible that bullshit is not to be "tolerated", period.

There are good people out there to work with...seek them out and don&#39;t settle for "working" with assholes because "there&#39;s no one else". If you can&#39;t find any right away, you&#39;re better off reading some books while you wait for the good guys to appear. When the time comes, you&#39;ll have a better theoretical foundation for your work...and even less tolerance for bullshit.

Finally, I&#39;ve invited Lurigancho to participate at the Che-Lives board and I really hope he accepts the invitation.


But what was wrong with the tactic of organizing people of color against police terrorism, that it is now deemed as revisionist?

Beats the fuck out of me&#33;

And the RCP has refused to discuss it.

Not the least bizarre aspect of this whole affair.

:redstar2000:

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

[Valkyrie]

Re-reading Lugigancho&#39;s post becomes increasing disturbing. So, it seems the RCP wants to distance itself/himself from helping the oppression of minorites and those particular social problems and so resort in labeling it "identity politics", I don&#39;t really see how helping minorites is revisionism and a radical departure of Marxism, or for them Maoism--- MLM. Just lame.

Seems they don&#39;t care about the issues of the 21st century, but only about their purist ideology and their megalomanic leader. nor seems they have the integrity to even say they have changed course, but blaming it on one of their workers is just despicable. And he probably came from the ranks of the Youth Brigade, as he mentions his young age. Following Avakian though, they might as well be following Jim Jones.

their mantra written largely on their site, states:

Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

Our Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party

Our Leader is Chairman Avakian

This may shed some light on why they are backpeddeling on the minority issues:

>>>>Wherever they line up in the debates, thinkers agree that the notion of identity has become indispensable to contemporary political discourse, at the same time as they concur that it has troubling implications for models of the self, political inclusiveness, and our possibilities for solidarity and resistance.<<<<

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/


Yeah, I hope Lurigancho takes you up on the invite and gets away from those people.

The thing about joining groups.. especially political ones and even more so revolutionary ones, is that it&#39;s hard to leave--- you may know way too much sensitive information that makes it impossible to do so even if you don&#39;t agree with their direction anymore. It&#39;s like the mob or something. You know the old saying.. if three people have a secret--- you&#39;ll have to kill two of them.

It&#39;s much better to be a freelance revolutionary and work directly with the proletariat. Fuck the vanguard.

well, I better get some sleep. I&#39;m starting to refer to Lurigancho as Luigi. This thread kept me up all night in a rage&#33;

[Valkyrie]

What really bothers me is how Avakian controls things and doesn&#39;t seem to allow the "party" much discretion in matters -- the very definition of a "party" is the whole participation and unity in principle and decision makig. Rather it seems, he gets a group of people who will carry out his diabolical plan to become leader of the communist world.

:lol:

[redstar2000]

This thread kept me up all night in a rage&#33;

My apologies. :P

But, yeah, this is really some incredible shit, ain&#39;t it?

Skeptic is an RCP "supporter" (I now have the impression that whenever someone uses the phrase "RCP supporter", you should read that as member) and I have posted in two of his threads in Politics directing him to this thread and asking him to respond.

We&#39;ll see if he does.


Wherever they line up in the debates, thinkers agree that the notion of identity has become indispensable to contemporary political discourse, at the same time as they concur that it has troubling implications for models of the self, political inclusiveness, and our possibilities for solidarity and resistance.

I completely agree, of course...it is the largest "can of worms" in the American left.

And much as I like to write "as if I had all the answers"...I have written very little about this subject because I don&#39;t have any answers to speak of.

In fact, all I can offer is something along the lines of "white revolutionaries should respect the wishes of people of color unless those wishes are clearly and openly reactionary". Piss-poor, I know, but none of the Marxist analyses that I&#39;ve run across seem to address reality.

Meanwhile, I "await developments".


What really bothers me is how Avakian controls things and doesn&#39;t seem to allow the "party" much discretion in matters -- the very definition of a "party" is the whole participation and unity in principle and decision making. Rather it seems, he gets a group of people who will carry out his diabolical plan to become leader of the communist world.

There is a ton of posts on the AWIP board glorifying Avakian -- "a living Marx", etc. -- but, when you get right down to it, everything Avakian actually says about post-revolutionary society is vague as hell.

Frankly, I think the "devil" would come up with a better plan. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[PRC-UTE]

They&#39;ve deleted three topics I started, and on one of them I was having a conversastion with SonofRage who also posts on this board, so he can verify what I&#39;m talking about.

They also mutiliated one of my posts after I responded to the accusation that I don&#39;t know about real struggle&#33; :lol:

All of this happened after I criticized their Dear Leader&#33; :rolleyes:

I wouldn&#39;t go to their poxy little site, they&#39;re a middle class cult led by the son of a judge&#33; :blink: Reminds me of the SWP.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:55 AM
It&#39;s much better to be a freelance revolutionary and work directly with the proletariat. Fuck the vanguard.
I understand and share your doubts about some revolutionary organizations, but not this sentiment. Being a "freelance revolutionary" doesn&#39;t work. For the radical left, to abandon political organizing is to disappear into obscurity and insignificance. Our strongest weapon in the class war is our ability to organize together and use our power of numbers. A lack of hierarchy does not mean a lack of organization.

Fuck the vanguard indeed, but don&#39;t abandon organising.

There are many revolutionary organizations with decentralized, non-hierarchical structures of voluntary federation and cooperation. The best way to give a big "fuck you" to the vanguard is to find those alternative organizations and work with them. Support Anarchist organizations, rather than isolating yourself from the movement.

[Valkyrie]

;)

abandoning political organizing is not what I said or even alluded to.:(

If you want to present your view, you certainly don&#39;t have to rebound it off mine setting up some insubstantial strawman argument. I guess I have to go through the pretentions of having to explain myself. Firstly, I only support grassroots ground-up organizational efforts. Secondly, If you read what I wrote in the context it was conferred, you could see that I said "It is much better to be a freelance revolutionary and work directly with the proletariat. Fuck the vanguard." That is hardly isolating oneself from the movement or advocating abandoning political organizing. The MOVEMENT TO ME IS THE PROLETARIAN and to organize with the them --- NOT these fucked up pseudo-organizational vanguards that aren&#39;t doing shit because they can&#39;t get their ego out of their ass.

Organizing has NOTHING at all to do with with joining a political party or political organization. Neither do Grassroots Collectives and cooperatives. Those are direct actions that are proactive.

Yes, unity and power in numbers is great and the ability to assemble is made possible with the Internet. But both protests and revolutionaries are still too few and far between, and it&#39;s up to yourself to go out there sometimes as a sole foot soldier and bring revolution into your community.


haa&#33; you make me feel like a ***** today. :)

[Valkyrie]

ekk. double post.

Anyway.. Che-y. I base this on pure experience... I&#39;ve been doing this for a long time and have joined organizations before with near-disasterous results.

good link to that article, RedStar. I guess others are also not too pleased with the RCP&#39;s delivery.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 28 2004, 12:35 PM
I understand and share your doubts about some revolutionary organizations, but not this sentiment. Being a "freelance revolutionary" doesn&#39;t work. For the radical left, to abandon political organizing is to disappear into obscurity and insignificance. Our strongest weapon in the class war is our ability to organize together and use our power of numbers. A lack of hierarchy does not mean a lack of organization.

Fuck the vanguard indeed, but don&#39;t abandon organising.

There are many revolutionary organizations with decentralized, non-hierarchical structures of voluntary federation and cooperation. The best way to give a big "fuck you" to the vanguard is to find those alternative organizations and work with them. Support Anarchist organizations, rather than isolating yourself from the movement.
I agree and have to say that I am often frustrated by how often my fellow Anarchists seem to want to leave everything up to spontaneity. We in the Industrial Workers World had a great action today in NYC against Starbucks and at least 100 other Anarchists came out to support it. I did find myself wondering why these people are not joining the IWW

We need to organize&#33; When we organize as a class in our workplaces and in our communities, we&#39;ll really have some power to fight back.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:12 PM
Organizing has NOTHING at all to do with with joining a political party or political organization. Neither do Grassroots Collectives and cooperatives. Those are direct actions that are proactive.
:huh:

No, those are political organizations. Anyways, I reckon our views are not as different as I originally perceived.

And I agree with you SonofRage, I wish more people should join the IWW. I am currently doing my best to learn about it, because I may want to become a member soon as well. I&#39;ll land myself a job first though :P

[redstar2000]

Check this out...

Revolution - the techno-ambient mix

http://homepage.mac.com/xiaodi/Stuff/FileSharing4.html

The file to download is "El Día Que Naceremos."

It&#39;s Avakian set to music. :lol:

6.4 megabytes, unfortunately...too long to download for dial-up.

Enjoy. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[Valkyrie]

I have dial up too. :(


Che-y. I&#39;m not trying to be anal.. becauase I&#39;m not. But a true political organization or one calling themselves that, non-profit or not.. know that they are filing taxes. Collectives and cooperatives, atleast anarchist and revolutionary ones,at this current time during the struggle, will not be and absorbed the costs, or get them through undocumented donations or elsewhere, therefore they are Movements, rather than Political Organizations. I know. it seems like a moot point..




you can join the IWW for &#036;6 a month, unemployed or as a student.


1) I am a student and/or I am unemployed; can I still be an IWW member?

Yes. According to the IWW Constitution, under Article II (Membership), Section 1(b):

No unemployed or retired worker, no working-class student, apprentice, home- maker, prisoner or unwaged volunteer on a project initiated by the IWW or any subordinate body thereof shall be excluded from membership on the grounds that s/he is not currently receiving wages.

http://iww.org

[SonofRage]

I really do hope people seriously consider joining. At every protest I see so many Red and Black flags. If these people joined the IWW, we&#39;d be so much stronger.

[Guest1]

I know I can join, though I have no job. My point was, I can&#39;t join till I get a job. In other words, I&#39;m pretty strapped for cash right now :P

As for "political organization", you&#39;re speaking of petty bourgeois bullshit organizations, such as an electoral party or the sierra club. To me, an organization that is political, is a political organization. Irrespective of their tax status, or whether they are "official", or a loosely affiliated group of people with a common goal.

[Valkyrie]

Untechnically, yes. But, I know what you mean.

Though, Political Organizations will have financial disclosure. Some are petty bourgeois, some not so. Like United For Peace and Justice, the organization that is doing the huge protest in NYC. Amnesty International, Green Peace, etc. Check out the huge spreadsheet below. But, The Elf on the otherhand, does not file taxes or disclosures. Such is the litmus test to determine the radicalness of an organization.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1762



Concede, Concede&#33; :P

STill moot point.

Truce&#33; No antagonism between anarchs&#33;

Peace&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

RCP..I fucked off a few years around those silly cats 15 years ago.

Avakian is nothing but a windbag.

I am re-posting this article on that site; just for the fuck of it.

Hello Bobby&#33; (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1093755013)

[Valkyrie]

:o

I feel the shit hitting the fan with this thread.

:lol:

Good thing you thought to keep a copy of that memo, Red Star.

Avakian seems like a paper-shredder to me&#33;

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:29 AM
Check this out...

Revolution - the techno-ambient mix

http://homepage.mac.com/xiaodi/Stuff/FileSharing4.html

The file to download is "El Día Que Naceremos."

It&#39;s Avakian set to music. :lol:

6.4 megabytes, unfortunately...too long to download for dial-up.

Enjoy. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
His voice sounds different then I thought it would.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2004, 11:36 PM
RCP..I fucked off a few years around those silly cats 15 years ago.

Avakian is nothing but a windbag.

I am re-posting this article on that site; just for the fuck of it.

Hello Bobby&#33; (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1093755013)
RAF, from what I can tell, it&#39;s already been deleted. (&#33;)

You might share it with us, of course. :D


I feel the shit hitting the fan with this thread.

I certainly hope so, Valkyrie.

It&#39;s so rare that we get a chance to examine a living specimen of one of these outfits...usually, it&#39;s only after they die that we get to "autopsy the corpse".

And by that point, the people who were involved are no longer entirely rational on the subject; like as not, they&#39;ve "coped" with their blasted hopes by asserting that "Marxism = cultism" or some such nonsense.

I would like this thread to serve as a vaccination for young revolutionaries against infection by these pseudo-revolutionary "communists" who behave in such an unprincipled fashion that Marx and Engels would be disgusted...as would any real communist.


Avakian seems like a paper-shredder to me&#33;

Well, his disciples certainly are&#33; :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Louis Pio]

I found this on the RCP site.
http://www.rwor.org/a/firstvol/825/revolut..._leadership.htm (http://www.rwor.org/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership.htm)

"Bob Avakian Is This Leader
of the Leaders of our Party
Of all the leaders of our Party, Bob Avakian is the individual leader the Central Committee deems:

best able to lead the collectivity of the Central Committee and its Standing Bodies and, in this way and through the collective structures of the Party and its leading bodies, lead the Party and the masses.
best able to draw on the Party&#39;s collectivity to distill and concentrate what has come up from below, from the masses of people inside and outside the Party.
best able to distill and concentrate the lessons of history and of the revolutionary struggle of the international proletariat in particular.
best able to distill and concentrate the most fundamental political, ideological and organizational principles of MLM to date, and to lead in applying them.
best able to grasp and consciously wield the key scientific method that is dialectical and historical materialism with regard to every sphere of social practice and theory, in order to chart the uncharted path and continually bring revolutionary work into closer concordance with the objective interests and overall strategic objectives of our class.
best able to combine and connect great historical sweep and vision and a developed ideological and methodological grounding with a real sense of the sentiments of the masses and a deep understanding of the problems of the practical revolutionary movement.
best able to lead the revolutionary forces of our Party in two-line struggle against revisionism and opportunism and in going against all incorrect tides.
best able to set a standard for genuine proletarian internationalism and to lead our Party in carrying out its internationalist responsibilities as one contingent of the international communist movement, as one part of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.
"

An idea like this leaves no room for criticism of the line put forward by the Chairman. It seems Bob can never make any mistakes and thus he is the lifetimeleader of the party. That must be a killer of internal debate and the right to criticise work, internal life of the party etc etc

[redstar2000]

This morning, I received this email from Lurigancho...


I have to say I&#39;m pretty disappointed by how people on the Che Lives website responded to your re-post of my piece for AWIP. I had hoped for a thoughtful and helpful back and forth with RCP supporters on some issues that are of great concern to me. Instead, my comments were taken by a bunch of anti-communists as the basis to make incoherent and petty attacks on communism, the concept of the vanguard party, the RCP and Bob Avakian. While I obviously have my contradictions with the RCP, I have a lot of respect for the organization as a whole. I also have tremendous respect for Bob Avakian, even though I think the way in which they are promoting him these days makes it less likely rather than more likely that people will engage his work. In fact, I think that the RCP needs to learn more from Avakian, and that if it did so, some of the cultish elements of how he is promoted would disappear.

After reading the comments on Che Lives, I have to say that I think the moderators on AWIP were correct to delete my post, if that was the sort of stuff it was going to give rise to. I can&#39;t post on Che Lives, since I don&#39;t have an identity there, so please put my comments in the thread there.

I do appreciate your own thoughtful response to my post and your sympathy for my situation.

This was my response...

I will be glad to post your comments, of course.

But I must add that while I too hoped for a more thoughtful and extensive response to this thread, I do not think it fair/accurate to consider the responses "anti-communist" in tone or content.

What I think people were trying to express is their sense that "personality cultism" is in and of itself anti-communist...regardless of any other considerations.

As you know, both Mao and Avakian take the position that "personality cults" can be "good" or "bad"...depending on the "line" followed by the particular personality in question. If the "line" is "good", then a cult of that particular personality is "good".

On a theoretical level, the objection to this proposition is that it&#39;s a-historical. It neglects the inevitability of human error...that the "good" personality will not always "be good" because his line will not always be "correct".

What I think most of the responses at Che-Lives reflected was a "gut reaction" to such propositions...one of indignant rejection.

Not only does that not make them "anti-communist", they are very much within the outlook of Marx and Engels themselves (even if they don&#39;t know it)...who consistently rejected a whole series of 19th century "personality cults" (Proudhon, Duhring, Lasalle, etc.) including early efforts to make a cult out of them -- Engels in a letter to the young Karl Kautsky: "Stop calling me teacher&#33; My name is Engels&#33;"

I&#39;m disappointed that you now think it was "correct" for RosaRL to delete your post at AWIP...I think their flat refusal to discuss the questions you raised suggests, at the very least, a serious theoretical inadequacy -- a "gap" between the abstractions about the "mass line" in the RCP&#39;s draft program and the reality of their actual practice. Flyby and RosaRL did start a thread about the "mass line" at AWIP -- but again, it was entirely limited to abstractions so vague and fuzzy that even I could find nothing to "criticize".

It seems to me that the RCP simply doesn&#39;t want to deal with "the hard questions" that might prove "embarrassing". Perhaps they&#39;re "leaving it all to Bob" to figure out.

And perhaps Bob is "on vacation"...&#33;

:redstar2000:

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

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I had a listen to Bobby there and my God have I not heard as much rhetoric in such a short space of time in my life.

[Saint-Just]

It neglects the inevitability of human error...that the "good" personality will not always "be good" because his line will not always be "correct".

A "good" personality should take the inevitability of human error into consideration when making their decisions. Mass line itself can be quickly described by quotes from Quotations from Mao Zedong:

The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.

We should go to the masses and learn from them, synthesize their experience into better, articulated principles and methods, then do propaganda among the masses, and call upon them to put these principles and methods into practice so as to solve their problems and help them achieve liberation and happiness.

These ideas realise that to best form decisions and to create goals to achieve, one must engage in debate, and take their ideas from, the masses and of course party members. Cult of personality says that a particular group of people and at its top a specific person can best (from Teis&#39;s post) able to distill and concentrate the lessons of history and of the revolutionary struggle of the international proletariat in particular.
best able to grasp and consciously wield the key scientific method that is dialectical and historical materialism with regard to every sphere of social practice and theory, in order to chart the uncharted path and continually bring revolutionary work into closer concordance with the objective interests and overall strategic objectives of our class.

Not that I have any particular affinity with RCP or have read a large amount of their material. I follow a similar line to MIM. Neverthess, there are some points to be made here.

[redstar2000]

A "good" personality should take the inevitability of human error into consideration when making their decisions.

Maybe they "should"...but they don&#39;t.

Indeed, how could they? After you&#39;ve been told by your followers over and over again that "the sun shines out of your ass", how could you entertain even the abstract possibility that you "might be wrong"? Your head is so swollen that you can&#39;t get through a standard-sized doorway&#33;


The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.-- Mao

So he says...but what did he do?

Here is a critique that I posted at AWIP last week of Mao&#39;s (and Avakian&#39;s) "take" on the Shanghai Commune...


In the city of Shanghai, which was a stronghold of the Cultural Revolution, there was a mass uprising of more than a million people.

Yes, there was. A genuine proletarian revolution...China&#39;s first one.


So they had this mass upheaval in Shanghai, and in the initial stages, after they overthrew the old ruling committee in the city, they established for a brief time what was called the Shanghai Commune...And one of the things they did in the Paris Commune was that all officials were elected by direct popular vote, and could be recalled by direct expression of the masses in a popular referendum. And so they implemented policies of this kind in the Shanghai Commune, modeling themselves after the Paris Commune.

The "spectre" of communism made its first real appearance in China.


Mao came forward with a statement that, under the circumstances, the Shanghai Commune was not the appropriate form in which to exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Not "appropriate"? Marx and Engels thought otherwise...but what did they know?


[Mao] said: "I&#39;m afraid that this commune form is not strong enough to suppress counter-revolutionaries." And he also said, "What are we going to do about international relations -- what about all the ministers we have that are like the foreign minister, who is going to appoint the foreign minister? I&#39;m afraid all these other countries wouldn&#39;t recognize the ministers that would be appointed in this way."

Is this crap or is it really crap?

The Shanghai Commune had just suppressed the counter-revolutionaries who were running the city&#33;

Too bad their "reach" did not extend to Peking&#33;

And other countries do not, as it happens, give a fucking rat&#39;s ass "how you appoint your foreign minister".

One possibility is that Mao told the Commune to dissolve themselves or the army would come in and dissolve them...and the Commune did not wish to share the fate of their Parisian ancestors.

But there could be another explanation: after two plus decades of disgusting leader-worship, the Commune was dismayed that Mao did not support them&#33;

They really believed that Mao would support them, poor bastards&#33;


If you have everybody taking part in these elections, directly choosing all the political representatives in that way, then bourgeois forces are going to come to dominate these elections, and we&#39;re going to get representatives of the bourgeoisie elected.

Instead of doing it "properly" -- having representatives of the bourgeoisie appointed by the Communist Party of China&#33;


Because people who ruled in the old society and people they link up who want to go back to the old society have tremendous advantages over the masses of people because of the inequalities that existed for centuries that the revolution was only beginning to address and overcome.

Centuries? Come on, any "advantage" that someone from the old order can have is limited to their actual life-span and the experiences thereof.

"Class superiority" is not genetic.


...because you are not going to be able to free up everybody to spend the time that is necessary to go into these different realms and really learn to immerse themselves in these spheres and begin to master them.

Well, they could have started with a measure recommended by Marx and Engels -- the shortening of the working day -- back in 1847.


What Mao was saying is this: If you just have direct elections and direct recall of all officials, what you&#39;re going to have is a situation where people who have more facility with ideas and can articulate things better will come to dominate this process, or else you&#39;ll have people who don&#39;t know enough to actually deal in the realms that have to be dealt with to keep society going and keep the revolution going forward, and we&#39;ll lose it that way. So this is not a form we can adopt now.

Or ever&#33;


Instead, Mao proposed and popularized a form that...brought forward what were called revolutionary committees, which combined representatives of the masses with representatives of experts and party members in various forms to actually be the administrative body in all the different institutions...This is something that we can actually implement which will keep power in the hands of the masses of people...

A fucking lie&#33;

Those "three-in-one committees" were actually overseen by army officers to make sure that the masses "didn&#39;t get out of hand".


If we overstep that, then we&#39;re going to get thrown back -- back into the horror of the old society.

Which is exactly what happened...thanks be to Chairman Mao&#33;

It is no wonder that the Shanghai Commune is a standing embarrassment to "MLM" -- these utterly pathetic excuses combined with the counter-revolutionary outcome of Mao&#39;s response reveal Maoism as nothing more than a shabby caricature of Marxism.

We know Marx&#39;s response to the Paris Commune...and here and now we know Mao&#39;s and Avakian&#39;s response to a similar event.

Need more be said?

The Paris Commune lasted 80 days. Thanks to Chairman Mao, the first Shanghai Commune lasted 18 days.

There will be a second.

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1093397092 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1093397092)

---------------------

So compare: Mao&#39;s "formal statement" of "humility" and his real line: despotism&#33;

Note that Avakian completely agrees with Mao&#39;s real line.

Ask yourself honestly: of what value are statements about "learning from the masses" when, if you dislike the "lesson", you suppress it?

Whether it&#39;s the "unruly" working class of Shanghai or a sharply critical post at AWIP, "learning from the masses" clearly has its limits for Avakian and the RCP.

Very narrow limits.

:redstar2000:

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

[Saint-Just]

It was a party directive (called the sixteen point decision of the Central Committee) signed by Mao that set up the Shanghai Commune. One of the reasons in the directive was to suppress counter-revolutionary forces inside and outside of Shanghai. But yes, you are correct redstar2000 that Mao changed his mind and decided that they would not be strong enough to oppose counter-revolutionary forces. I don&#39;t think it is true to suggest that he was against the commune from the very beginning.

[redstar2000]

It was a party directive (called the sixteen point decision of the Central Committee) signed by Mao that set up the Shanghai Commune.

Can you provide some links for this, as it is "news" to me.

What would be of interest is the text of that decree and the circumstances of its issue.

For example, we know that Lenin&#39;s land-reform decree immediately following the October coup was, in fact, a ratification of what already existed.

It seems to me quite possible that this "16-point decision" was an initial ratification of a situation that already existed.

I&#39;ve never run across any contention that the Shanghai Commune came into existence "because" of a Central Committee decision.

But, as always, I&#39;m willing to be corrected. :P

:redstar2000:

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

[Invader Zim]

Having briefly look at the site, I have come to the conclusion (possibly incorrect conclusion) that the site is riddled with "marxist leninists". People called "ShineThePath" and "StalinRevolution" stick in my mind.

This combined with Redstars revelations about their deleteing information they do not agree with, leads me to the conclusion that the site is... not suitable.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 01:24 AM

Can you provide some links for this, as it is "news" to me.

What would be of interest is the text of that decree and the circumstances of its issue.

For example, we know that Lenin&#39;s land-reform decree immediately following the October coup was, in fact, a ratification of what already existed.

It seems to me quite possible that this "16-point decision" was an initial ratification of a situation that already existed.

I&#39;ve never run across any contention that the Shanghai Commune came into existence "because" of a Central Committee decision.

But, as always, I&#39;m willing to be corrected. :P

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
These are not all that specific in terms of what happened.

http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/zcq.html

In October 1966, Zhang became deputy head of the Cultural Revolution Group, headed by Jiang Qing and Chen Boda, which directed the violent developments in the first half of the Cultural Revolution Together with Jiang, Wang Hongwen and Yao Wenyuan, Zhang would form what became know as the Gang of Four. He was one of the initiators of the demonstrations that led to the founding of the Shanghai Commune, of which he was the chairman and Wang Hongwen the second-in-command. The organization was reorganized into a revolutionary committee on Mao&#39;s orders, but Zhang remained in charge. In the poster below, the second small photo from the left shows Zhang delivering a speech.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samsupp/suppress/suppr05.htm

Lin Piao, and the others among the left, strongly favored the Paris Commune-type of state which, as we said earlier, was validated in the Sixteen-Point Decision of the Central Committee and not only endorsed by Mao but in all probability written by him.

As early as Nov. 3, 1966, Lin Piao at a mass rally in Peking stated, "The broad revolutionary masses of our country have created the new experience of developing extensive democracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat. By this extensive democracy, the Party is fearlessly permitting the broad masses to use the media of free airing of views, big-character posters, great debates, and extensive exchange of revolutionary experience to criticize and supervise the Party and government, leading institutions and leaders at all levels. At the same time, the people&#39;s democratic rights are being fully realized in accordance with the principles of the Paris Commune. Without such extensive democracy, it would be impossible to initiate a genuine Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution ... eradicate the roots of revisionism, consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, and guarantee the advance of our country along the road of socialism and communism."

According to Han Suyin, as we stated earlier, Mao became apprehensive of the Commune type of state. According to Han, he called in Yao Wen-yuan and Chang Chun-chiao from Shanghai and persuaded them to abandon the Shanghai Commune in favor of the Triple Alliance. While this might have appeared to be a mere administrative and organizational change, in reality it was of momentous political significance. For under the Triple Alliance a coalition from the top was forged of three component elements: mass organizations, army, and cadres..



http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Other/GLB78.html

When we study the "Sixteen-Point Decision" adopted on August 8, 1966, by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, we see that one of the fundamental aims it proclaimed was to promote the development of a political line that would enable the masses to express themselves freely, without being subjected to constraint when expressing minority views, "even if the minority is wrong" (point 6 of the "Sixteen-Point Decision"). The activity of the masses was to be allowed to assume many different organizational forms and to lead to the formation of organs of power in the factories, mines, and enterprises, in the various quarters of the cities and in the villages, in the state organizations, and in educational establishments. All this activity was to culminate in "a system of general elections like that of the Paris Commune." The elected members were to be continuously criticized by those who had elected them, and could be replaced or recalled by the masses (point 9). This aim was not seen as being merely provisional in character, for its "great historic importance" was emphasized. An essential principle was also recalled (since it had not been honored in the preceding period), namely, that "the only

page 41

method is for the masses to liberate themselves, and any method of doing things on their behalf must not be used"; the masses must educate themselves in the movement" (point 4). In accordance with this principle, the party can play its role only by not hesitating to promote the activity of the masses. The party leaders at every level must therefore encourage the masses to criticize the shortcomings and mistakes in their own work (point 3).


The Sixteen point decision was finished on the 1st August 1966. The Shanghai Commune was set up in February 1967. The Sixteen point agreement had outlined the kind of organisational ideas that governed the Shanghai Commune and various people responsible for much that occurred in the cultural revolution were present in Shanghai, organising demonstration and conspiring together. That is, largely, the story that these links present.

[redstar2000]

CM, you really had me worried there for a second...I thought I was going to have to do a (choke&#33;) self-criticism. :P

What really concerned me was the possibly that I had entirely misjudged the mass character of the Shanghai Commune...and I do now think that it was not as politically advanced as the Paris Commune.

But in one of your links, I found this...

The Shanghai Commune: The Theoretical and Practical Implications of Its Rapid Disappearance

Here we must go back in time. This is all the more necessary because the Shanghai Commune tends to be passed over, whereas it possesses considerable importance, both theoretical and practical. I shall first recall certain facts.

From November 1966 onward Shanghai (as well as some other industrial towns, notably Tientsin and places in the Northeast) saw a multiplication in the number of factory committees devoted to the Cultural Revolution. These committees established "dual power" in the enterprises. They were a development ratified by a twelve-point directive from the central group of the Cultural Revolution.

In the factories of Shanghai, the power of the Cultural Revolution committees was thus established alongside that of the production groups, which were made up primarily of cadres. At the end of December the latter disintegrated, while the factory committees developed into mass revolutionary organizations (called "headquarters"). Although these had difficulty in agreeing among themselves, they all challenged the authority of the existing municipal council, which they accused of revisionism. In early January 1967, after meetings which over a million workers attended, the municipal council collapsed.

On January 9, thirty-two organizations jointly issued what was called an "urgent notice" which set forth a series of rules and apparently prepared the way for a new form of governing authority. The whole of the Chinese press published this document, and it was held up as a model by Mao Tse-tung himself. Jen-min Jih-pao of January 22, commenting on it, noted: "Of all the ways for the revolutionary masses to take their destiny into their own hands, in the final analysis the only way is to take power&#33; Those who have power have everything; those who are without power have nothing...We, the worker, peasant, and soldier masses, are the indisputable masters of the new world&#33;" On the walls of the city appeared the slogan: "All power to the Commune&#33;"

Nevertheless, developments took their time. It was not until February 5 that the commune was proclaimed, at a meeting attended by a million workers. The speakers declared that "the municipal party committee and the city council of Shanghai had been destroyed and that a new organ of power had been established, in keeping with the doctrines of Chairman Mao and the principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat..."

However, the Shanghai Commune was not hailed in the central press, any more than was the formation of communes in other cities, such as Taiyuan. Without being officially repudiated, the commune was not, so to speak, "recognized" by the central authority. Some twenty days afterwards, it ceased to exist, with the birth of the Shanghai Revolutionary Committee, presided over by Chang Chun-chiao, who had taken part in the work of the Shanghai Commune, in accordance with the suggestion of the central group and with the approval of all the founding organizations.

Thus, in Shanghai as in other cities, the commune form, though it had been mentioned in the sixteen-point declaration, was dropped and replaced by that of the revolutionary committee.

No real argument justifying this change has ever been set forth. A variety of reasons have been given, mainly in Chang Chun-chiao&#39;s speech of February 24, in which he alluded to Mao Tse-tung&#39;s remarks on the creation of the Shanghai Commune. According to Chang, Mao Tse-tung did not question the principle of the commune, but he did question whether the correct procedure had been followed in forming it. He doubted, moreover, whether the model inspired by the Paris Commune could be adopted anywhere but in Shanghai, China&#39;s most advanced working-class center. He also wondered about the international problems that would result from the proclamation of communes all over China. These observations were not very convincing, and took the form of questions rather than arguments. In any case, they did not lead to a condemnation of the commune, but were only an appeal for caution and prudence.

Actually, the principal problem raised by Mao was that of the party. He seems to have been very disturbed by the role assigned to the cadres, and by the tendency of some of the rebels to "overthrow all those in responsible positions." He asked the question: "Do we still need the party?" And he answered: "I think that we need it because we need a hard core, a bronze matrix, to strengthen us on the road we still have to travel. You can call it what you like, Communist Party or Socialist Party, but we must have a party. This must not be forgotten."

The question arises as to how the revolutionary leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, who had supported the political form of the commune, went back, in practice, to their previous attitude, claiming that China was not "ready" for this political form. How did they thereby open up a new course, which was to be marked by a series of retreats interrupted by partial, but increasingly less effective, counteroffensives?

In terms of the concrete unfolding of the Cultural Revolution, two sets of facts need to be taken into consideration. First, the various revolutionary organizations (in Shanghai and elsewhere) were apparently incapable of uniting. They tended to clash, often and violently, and to engage in efforts to outdo each other, efforts which risked causing confusion and mass elimination of honest and devoted cadres. Mao Tse-tung described this situation in July 1967, when he remarked on the inability shown by the most militant supporters of the Cultural Revolution to unite and to ally with all those with whom they ought to come to an agreement.

The second set of facts is the negative reaction of the majority of party members at the highest level to the situation that developed at the beginning of 1967. These party members did not, in the main, take up revolutionary positions. Without saying so openly, they were hostile to the Cultural Revolution. And because they were a majority, their calls for "moderation" were listened to: had this not happened, it would have been all over with the unity and even with the very existence of the party.

The attitude of many veterans of the revolution was expressed in Tan Chen-lin&#39;s speech at an enlarged session of the Political Bureau in January 1967, when he said: "Do you still need the leadership of the party? Do you want to destroy all the old cadres? I speak here in the name of all the veterans of the revolution, and I would rather be jailed or beheaded than be a silent witness to the humiliation of so many of our old comrades."

This attitude on the part of most of the old cadres, and the desire to maintain the unity and existence of the party, led the Political Bureau to "narrow the front of attack" and "designate individual targets": Liu Shao-chi, Teng Hsiao-ping, and a few other officials. Another result was that an exceptional role was given to the People&#39;s Liberation Army and its then leader, Lin Piao. Thereafter it was the PLA, operating through its "propaganda teams for Mao Tse-tung Thought," that was to "recognize" the genuinely Left rank-and-file committees, guide them toward unifying action, and with them dominate the whole movement.

These decisions led to the withering away of the mass movement and to an increase in the influence of the PLA leaders in the apparatus of the party and of the state. In 1969, at the Ninth Party Congress, the PLA leaders played a decisive role. Of the twenty-five members elected to the Political Bureau, fourteen were PLA generals. The mass movements characteristic of the first years of the Cultural Revolution were replaced by criticism campaigns organized from above...

http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Other/GLB78.html

------------------------------

So...I must "tone down a bit" my enthusiasm for the Shanghai Commune while still noting that it was far in advance of what preceded it and what followed it.

And I can only wonder: we see that Mao and the party&#39;s leadership endorsed "the principles of the Paris Commune" in theory but "backed off" when confronted with its provisional reality.

Much as Lenin proclaimed "all power to the soviets"...until confronted with the reality of that and what it would mean.

If the "vanguard party" must choose between the masses and the party, it will always choose the party.

:redstar2000:

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

[refuse_resist]

The RCP sure does seem very cultish. A friend of mine used to do work with them, and even he has admitted they&#39;re much like a cult. Someone had asked what would happen to the RCP if Bob Avakian had died and they all got shocked and said that you can stop someone from dying or being asassinated.

[Saint-Just]

Shanghai Commune is quite a complex historical event. I think this paragraph from the section you quoted gives a good idea of some of the problems with the reality of the Shanghai Commune:

In terms of the concrete unfolding of the Cultural Revolution, two sets of facts need to be taken into consideration. First, the various revolutionary organizations (in Shanghai and elsewhere) were apparently incapable of uniting. They tended to clash, often and violently, and to engage in efforts to outdo each other, efforts which risked causing confusion and mass elimination of honest and devoted cadres. Mao Tse-tung described this situation in July 1967, when he remarked on the inability shown by the most militant supporters of the Cultural Revolution to unite and to ally with all those with whom they ought to come to an agreement.

I am not suggesting that a party can necessarily overcome these problems. However, it does present a problem for your Marxian/Anarchist ideas on revolution. Obviously, this was a problem for the Shanghai Commune; that people with different ideas clashed although they all held similar socialist and revolutionary ideas.

[redstar2000]

I am not suggesting that a party can necessarily overcome these problems. However, it does present a problem for your Marxian/Anarchist ideas on revolution. Obviously, this was a problem for the Shanghai Commune; that people with different ideas clashed although they all held similar socialist and revolutionary ideas.

It is or at least can be a problem. From what I&#39;ve read about the "cultural revolution" in general, the "political struggle" often degenerated into little more than gang warfare.

What we would need to know about the Shanghai Commune is the political character of the struggles between the various elements that supported it.

If it was a matter of unprincipled factional quarreling, which Mao implies, that&#39;s one thing. If it concerned matters relating to the shape of the commune and how it should "work", that&#39;s quite another.

I expect a great deal of struggle in the post-revolutionary era...and not just against reactionaries and their lackeys. People are likely to have differing views on "how communism should work" and this is something that cannot be decided from "on high".

Thus a party can (as Mao evidently did) impose the appearance of unity...but that just drives the struggle underground and makes it a matter of intrigue and maneuver rather than something open and clear for all to see -- and even take part in.

Also, in an open struggle, I think it&#39;s easier to see who is being principled and who is simply trying to put together a clique to "seize power".

Let&#39;s face it: some perfectly sincere people who think of themselves as "good communists" are nevertheless going to put forward ideas that would be favorable for the restoration of capitalism in the long run.

Those ideas must be struggled against and defeated...not by a "party directive" but by the response of the working class as a whole.

Remember that the Communist Party of China issued a whole bunch of "directives" against the "capitalist-roaders"...and then promptly took the capitalist road themselves.

We must do things differently.

:redstar2000:

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

[jacobin1949]

Can anyone explain in detail what exactly the mass line is? Is it kind of like direct democracy? What articles did Mao write laying out the theory of the Mass line? How does it relate to New Democracy?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why wouldn&#39;t you start a new post on that question, instead of attaching it to a thread that died 3 years ago?