Bob avakian

[iamthewalrus]

what are your feeling on bob avakian, chairman of the Revlutionary Communist Party U.S.A.?

[h&s]

T W A T

*Edit*
Suppose I should add some substance to this;
He's just another uber-vanguardist who wants to be a leader and do everything for the people. He has no intention of giving people the power and taking it away from the state- he just wants it for himself.

Edit again -
I just added that before I read your post.

[Guest1]

While I sympathize, he did ask a serious question and deserves a serious answer.

[RedAnarchist]

Although not American and not very knowledgable about this Avakian guy, from all the info i know about him my opinion on him would be that he is power-mad and, like Stalin, wishes to abuse and exploit Communism for his own personal and selfish gain.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Bob Avakian is a very important figure in the U.S. (and indeed, the world) today because of his contributions to the revolutionary movement. He is the leader of the only party within the U.S. that is seriously setting it sights on revolution and has been building amongst the masses for years. He has led the RCP and the international Communist movement through many twists and turns, helping to uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the face of the revisionist coup in China in 1976, defending Marxism against revisionism time and time again, and making further developments in understanding the historical experience and contributions of socialism. He is a creative and wide-ranging thinker who, at the same time, maintains a profound sense of the actual struggles, trends and sentiments among the masses, the movements of opposition, and society broadly. He is one of those truly rare individuals who emerge only occasionally as an especially concentrated expression of the very best of what the revolutionary people and their struggles can forge and bring to the forefront at certain junctures in history.

Even in the face of intense persecution (Chairman Avakian has been forced to flee the country before), he has still continued to lead the RCP along the revolutionary road and bring sharp, powerful analysis and guidance to the revolutionaries here in the U.S. and around the world. I honestly urge anyone who has hostility to Bob Avakian to actually sit down and LISTEN to (and read) what Bob Avakian has to say before you judge him- cuz believe me, in a time where the Bush clique is spreading war across the world and Communism is proclaimed as "dead", we need people to hear this kinda stuff.

http://bobavakian.net/

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bob Avakian is just another leader wannabe. Ignore him, unless his drones try to get you to join their little club. Then you can tear them to shreds.

And tho thpeakth the great communitht theoritht Bob Avakian.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Crap, for the communist message to spread we don't need to listen to Bob Aviakan. It's probaly the worst thing you can do, rather then reading and listening to him, think for yourself.

Down with the vangaurd! Down with the personal cults!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Andrei Mazenov
He is one of those truly rare individuals who emerge only occasionally as an especially concentrated expression of the very best of what the revolutionary people and their struggles can forge and bring to the forefront at certain junctures in history.

This is quite "restrained" by RCP standards.

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

Given my own well-known verbosity, I shouldn't be the one to say it: but Avakian is very long-winded. Some have suggested that he doesn't really "write" at all...he talks into a recorder and someone else simply transcribes what he says.

Thus his "writings" ramble on at tremendous length.

Since he evidently wishes to be known as a "modern master of the dialectic", he is careful to discuss all of the possibilities of a given situation -- probable or otherwise. He can never be "wrong" because whatever happens, he will have discussed it ahead of time.

For the most part, reading Avakian is a frustrating, not to say exhausting task. His criticisms of capitalism are generic...things that all of us and many others have said. His prescriptions for revolution and post-revolutionary society are generally fuzzy and vague. He is, if memory serves me, somewhat critical of Lenin and especially Stalin...and he even drops occasional hints that Mao wasn't "above reproach".

But all he really says about the RCP "in power" is that it will be a "benevolent despotism" that "will" gradually be relaxed as the people become "fit to rule themselves".

This is, in and of itself, unusually honest for a Leninist...most of them these days would rather not talk about that sort of thing at all.

Avakian and the RCP's basic message to the working class is that despotism is "inevitable"...and we should choose a "benevolent despotism" over the rapacious bastards we have now.

I think we can do better than that...a lot better!

:redstar2000:

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

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

NoXion:

You claim that Bob Avakian is just another "leader wannabe", and that he is full of shit. But have you actually ever heard his talks- especially on religion? I encourage anyone who is an Atheist to check out bobavakian.net , where there are two AWESOME talks about religion and how revolutionaries should approach it.


He's just another uber-vanguardist who wants to be a leader and do everything for the people. He has no intention of giving people the power and taking it away from the state- he just wants it for himself.

This is a rather ignorant statement, imo. In this week's Revolutionary Worker, there is an excerpt from a talk by Bob Avakian that gets into this very matter- how to break down the contradictions between leadership and led and how to give more and more power to the people as we march forward to communism. You can read the whole thing here: http://rwor.org/a/1260/avakian-democracy-dictatorship.htm

Here are some good quotes from it:


Now, what do I mean by that--a relative sense and not an absolute sense, and not static but in motion? This means that so long as society is on the socialist road, is carrying out the transition toward communism that Marx talked about, toward the abolition or transformation of the four alls--as long as that is the case, this will find expression in the masses of people being more and more drawn into all these different spheres of society, and having more and more of a role in these things. It's impossible to continue advancing on that road without that. If you don't do that, and you try to rely on a handful, you will inevitably be forced back into the bourgeois way of doing things. Even on the level of the economy, you will be forced to calculate according to the principle of profit in command in the economy, with commodity relations dominating the economy. Because if you don't build, and transform, the economy by unleashing the conscious initiative and activism of the masses to actually determine what should be produced and in what proportions and all these other things, then you have to fall back on some other mechanism for doing that, or the whole thing will come unraveled. And the only mechanism you could fall back on is the capitalist mechanism of calculating according to production for profit, and letting commodity production determine the direction of things.

So, in order to even advance on the socialist road, you have to consciously strive to do things in a different way, by bringing into play the conscious initiative of the masses of people. Even on the level of the economy, how could you possibly calculate what should be produced in what proportion and how it should be exchanged if you don't involve the masses of people in that? Unless you are going to fall back on capitalist principles, how could you possibly do that, other than by relying on and increasingly involving the masses and their conscious initiative?


The point is that Mao was trying to find new ways to do this. And it wasn't just all from the top down. One of the things that Mao said at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution was: In the past we tried to find a form which would enable us to address these problems (that these inequalities were being reinforced, and the old ways of thinking were being reinforced), but we didn't find a form and a means for the masses of people to address our dark side from below. What he meant by "our dark side" was the part of the Chinese Communist Party that was taking the revisionist road, and the policies that were embodied in that. There was not a way that they were able, before the Cultural Revolution, to bring forward, from below, mass criticism--and not just mass criticism but also mass struggle--against all these things, and therefore, he said, it didn't go anywhere. There would be criticism from the top, they would have education movements to bring out the need to change things, but they didn't go anywhere, because, as Mao said, before the Cultural Revolution, we never found a form in which the people could rise up and criticize us and struggle against these things, from below, and in a mass way.

I don't know about you, but I don't think a guy who was just power-hungry and just wanted to take power away from the people would say things like that...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You claim that Bob Avakian is just another "leader wannabe", and that he is full of shit. But have you actually ever heard his talks- especially on religion? I encourage anyone who is an Atheist to check out bobavakian.net , where there are two AWESOME talks about religion and how revolutionaries should approach it.

Well, I wouldn't use such strong terminology, unless somebody tried to convert me to Avakianism. The mp3s are a bit much for my dialup, and I get the feeling I've heard it all before - it's easy to criticise capitalism, but much harder to discuss a viable replacement that doesn't involve being ruled over bossa nova similis bossa seneca.
As for the atheism thing, don't you rather think that's preaching (Haha!) to the choir?

[redstar2000]

You would not believe how sensitive the RCP folks are about Bob Avakian.

Here is part of a post I had to make a few days ago at the Another World Is Possible board...

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


Originally posted by flyby+--> (flyby)this talk that mockingly suggests Bob Avakian's death wouldn't matter (!!!) -- really boils down to saying "Throw this leader to the fucking dogs, I don't care!"

To be blunt: this is simply reactionary, vicious and intolerable.

Redstar. You have crossed a line here -- in a way that is sinister. And we will not tolerate it.[/b]


Originally posted by Andrei_X+--> (Andrei_X)To say that the death of important revolutionary theoreticians and/or leaders isn't important...is indeed very reactionary in times like these!

Statements like "Chairman Avakian's death would be meaningless" only gives strength to the enemy, and are extremely dangerous.[/b]


Originally posted by iskra
Clearly, redstar2000 is spouting some counterrevolutionary bullshit. And losing Chairman Avakian would be a terrible blow. Would it mean we'd never make revolution? I hope not, but it would be a major setback. Why the hell would anyone want to downplay that?

Ok, now what did I actually say?


[email protected]
No, the masses of people in the U.S. will make revolution even if Chairman Avakian dies in obscurity and all his writings are utterly lost.

Did I ask you or tell you "not" to "defend your leader"? I did not.

Did my statement "call for his assassination"? (I assume that's what's meant by the use of the word "sinister".) It did not.

Would I personally "take a bullet" for Bob Avakian? Perhaps you would; I certainly wouldn't.

Iskra, of course, grasped my point even while disagreeing with it. The American working class will make a proletarian revolution regardless of the presence or absence of any given individual.

In fact, iskra "got it right" all the way...


iskra
although, if he himself doesn't grasp the importance of Chairman Avakian then I guess it would make sense that he wouldn't see losing him as any kind of big deal, right?

Exactly.

Recall that my remark was made in the context of an entire post discussing the role of the individual in history...and that my view is quite different from yours.

If you find it "intolerably different" then you know what to do.

Meanwhile, consider the implications of your hysterical over-reactions to a commonplace observation. What kind of "Marxists" are you that you explode at the very mention of Avakian's mortality?

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...899956&start=75 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&num=1067899956&start=75)

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

I think it very sad that otherwise intelligent people -- who are, I think, sincerely committed to proletarian revolution -- have gone so far "off the tracks".

At such time that the RCP, under instructions from Avakian, blunders badly, these people are going to be devastated...just psychologically crushed!

As are all those who follow "redeemers".

:redstar2000:

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

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Perhaps it would be useful to mention that the vast majority of the American working class isn't even aware that Bob Avakian exists...

Here's a simple advice for all comrades: Argue with each other less, talk to the actual working class more.

[iamthewalrus]

I live in the U.S. and recently have been visiting a communist bookstore near my house that strongly supports the RCP and Avakian. Ive listened to parts of his speeches on the website, and i have seen part of the Revolution video. I agree that they are lengthy and dont seem to really contain any groundbreaking material (to someone educated about communism). But on the other hand, im not aware of many other people or organisations that are really bringing out communism in the U.S. I have participated in some "demostrations" i guess you could call them, with the revolutionary communist youth brigade. We basically went to poorer parts of our area and handed out papers to the proletariat. It was after the elections and the papers were presenting the idea that the proletariat can resist the oppresion that the U.S. government is putting on them. I think that it is important that RCP and Avakian are encouraging this. I don't think that Avakian is a heroic figure who will lead the revolution in the U.S., but i belive that he and the RCP are helping to bring the revolution. So i would have to agree with Edric O in saying:

Here's a simple advice for all comrades: Argue with each other less, talk to the actual working class more.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by iamthewalrus
But on the other hand, I'm not aware of many other people or organizations that are really bringing out communism in the U.S. I have participated in some "demonstrations" I guess you could call them, with the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade. We basically went to poorer parts of our area and handed out papers to the proletariat.

A rather unimaginative tactic -- the wacko religious groups do the same thing -- but no one is criticizing the RCP for doing what it can to reach the working class.

It's their ideas about revolution and communism that are dubious...to be charitable about it.

Does the working class "need" a "Bob Avakian" in order make a revolution?

Will the working class be "fit to rule" after a revolution or will it "need" a "benevolent despotism" ruled by a vanguard party and a "great leader"?

When the RCP tells people this stuff, are they really promoting education about communism or just turning people off to the whole idea?

:redstar2000:

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

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 04:04 PM
When the RCP tells people this stuff, are they really promoting education about communism or just turning people off to the whole idea?
That depends on a case by case basis, obviously. Some people will like what they hear, others will be turned off the whole idea.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Edric O
That depends on a case by case basis, obviously. Some people will like what they hear, others will be turned off the whole idea.

That's rather evasive unless you mean to imply a 50-50 split or something close to that.

I think the proposition that we should be ruled by a "benevolent despotism" will turn off 90% or more of the people who hear of the idea.

And that's a conservative estimate...it might approach 99%.

:redstar2000:

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

[iamthewalrus]

from my experience the people were very open to the idea. And im not suggesting that Avakian is some herioc figure that will guide the revolution and be a great leader afterwards. I just think that he is encouraging people to go get the topic and possibilities of communism out there. Although i have heard the response (from an non-communist) of Avakian being sort of a "cult leader" type of figure, which i dont agree with but can see where that would come from. So i can see where a relation between the RCP and a whacko religious group could be made, from someone who is not familiar with the orginization.

[redstar2000]

I think that you, iamthewalrus, need to come over to the Another World Is Possible board for a month or two and see for yourself the tone that the RCP projects about Avakian.

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

True, I could put up a bunch of quotes...but I don't think even that would really convey the almost theological awe with which they view Avakian. You really need to see it in the context of political discussions there.

They really believe that he is "a living Marx". :o

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

Avakian is a bit like the Jerry Falwell of Maoism.

[h&s]

This is a rather ignorant statement, imo ..... I don't know about you, but I don't think a guy who was just power-hungry and just wanted to take power away from the people would say things like that...
True, I should have put that differently. The fact remains though that the guy wants to take power, to take some sort of personal control over the state, which to me is wrong.


I've just been searching for stuff on Chairman Bob (what a name!) out of curiosity;
In 1981 Avakian was forced into exile in France because of his revolutionary activities. There he demanded, but was denied, status as a political refugee. He continues to lead the RCP from exile today.
Is he still in exile?

[leftist resistance]

I 've never heard of him until i stumble into this thread.I dunno him but it is inspirational to know that someone is openly leading a communist party(rite?)in a capitalist head empire

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:27 AM
I 've never heard of him until i stumble into this thread.I dunno him but it is inspirational to know that someone is openly leading a communist party(rite?)in a capitalist head empire
he fled the country...

[1949]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:10 PM
he fled the country...
People tend to flee countries for reasons, Son.


The U.S. ruling class responded by trying to destroy the revolutionary leadership of the RCP,USA. At the 1979 Deng demonstration, Chairman Avakian had been arrested, along with others who became known as the Mao Tsetung Defendants. And the government threatened him with several lifetimes in prison on trumped-up charges--forcing him into exile in 1980.
The Towering Crimes of Deng Xiaoping (http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/890-899/896/dengba.htm)

[SonofRage]

I'd like to see someone show the public records of those charges. From what I hear, they have since been dropped.

[flyby]

i think this is a very important topic. And as a follower of Bob Avakian I have some things to say about all this.

I think that Bob Avakian is saying things that need to be said and understood.

http://bobavakian.net
http://http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm

********

For thirty years, he has fought to uphold Marxism and communist revolution -- in the face of enemies of many kinds, who said that revolution is an illusion, or a disaster. (Including under intense personal conditions -- attack, threats, arrest, exile, etc.)

He has analyzed the experience and history of socialism -- digging deep -- refuting the lies of the anti-communists, but also trying seriously to understand what mistakes were made and what needs to be done better.

some people think it is religious to imply that Avakian may be making theoretical contributions on the level of a Marx or a Lenin.

And in this thread it is said go to http://awip.proboards23.com and check out the tone of discussion about him.

Well, ok, go to http://awip.proboards23.com -- but don't just dig into "tone" -- dig into the real issues about revolution and liberation. Let's dig into the lives of the people, and the need to move all of society (worldwide!) to a whole new level of organization, without classes, or money, or male supremacy, or national dominations.

Let's dig into the real issues of our times, and what Chairman Bob Avakian says about them!

Is it "religious" to suggest that new communist theory is being developed? Did the world stop when Marx died? Is it inconceivable that a new communist leader could be making contributions on that level?

Or to be even sharper: is it conceivable that we can do what we need to do, WITHOUT someone stepping forward to synthesize and analyze the summations and developments of our world -- and LEAD US (like marx or lenin or mao did before) in new leaps, new sumations, new challenges, new ways of seeing and doing?

Now to people who approach Marxism as a religious dogma, it is unthinkable that there could be new leaders on that level.

They act like "Marx and Lenin laid it all down." Like Marxism is a religious "revealed truth" (not a scientific ideology that is living and in constant change!) Asif all we have to do is "apply it."

And to people who are pessmistic, it is unthinkable that a leader today could actually be leading the world communist movement to PREPARE THE NEXT STAGE OF COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONS. In their despair, they insist that even talking about that is fantasy or madness.

But is that really true? Who is really applying a "religious" outlook toward marxism and leaders??!!

Marx has been dead over a century. Lenin has been dead over eighty years. Mao has been dead over twenty-five.

And the list of burning issues of communist theory TODAY is very real:

We need to deeply understand the process of capitalist restoration.

We need to deeply understand "revolution as a world process" -- and the complex interactions between revolution in the third world and rev in the imperialist countries, or the relationship between socialism in one-or-two countries and revolution in the rest of the world.

We need to look deeply at "getting over the first hump" -- of seizing power and starting communist transformation in one country, including particularly a country like the U.S. And we need to look deeply at "getting over the second hump" -- moving from one or two socialist countries to a world that is more and more becoming socialist (and then communist) in a complex process.

How do we break with the dogmatic and "know-it-all" views of Marxism (and MLM) in the past? How do we develop a lively, scientific, self-interrogating revolutionary communist ideology that ACTUALLY can understand the world -- in its complexity and real motion -- so that we can ACTUALLY change that world on the basis of such scientific knowledge?

How will we dig into those things?

These are exactly some of the themes that Avakian has dug into -- where he has carved new paths and new summations.

We can't just re=chew Marx or Lenin (as if the answers to everything modern was already discussed in their works -- cuz the answers aren't all there.)

Bob Avakian's method is to defend (militantly) the revolutionary heart of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat and the historical experience of socialism (especially in the USSR and China) -- But then ON THAT BASIS to undertake some profound, unique and pathbreaking analysis.

Before Bob Avakian developed the approach of "create public opinion seize power" -- no one had started to unravel how to make revolution in a country like the U.S. His work on economism and class analysis in imperialist countries is essential for understanding how to do it.

Avakian has done pathbreaking work on the experience of socialism -- including penetrating criticisms of Lenin, Stalin and Mao, based on a long range view.

So much of the discussion of the Soviet Union and China runs around in circles, like dogs biting their tails. Poking at old incidents -- but not viewing it all from the high plane of the global transition to communism and the profound transformations involved ("eliminating the 4 alls" and how that is done.)

These are not just issues for one country, but for the whole international communist movement. These are issues that decide whether we advance or lose in this intense round of clashes and crises.

Some people think "there is nothing you can do."
Some people think "we don't need parties or leaders."
Some people think "If this is fascism in the U.S., then we are just screwed, so let's not talk about what we should do?"
Some people think "Even if you are right, why should anyone care or listen or unite?"

Ok.... these are pessimistic, defeatist, armchair views. They are exactly wrong.

but for those of you who want to fight, and want to win, and want to liberate humanity, and actually want a revolution that reaches COMMUNISM (not some new grey oppressive revisionist monstrocity sooner or later) -- well, then let's dig into the REAL ISSUES TOGETHER!! And one important starting point -- an essential point!! -- is the work, approach and method that is being fought for by Bob Avakian.

Here is my point, or at least part of it:

It is not "religious" to think we need a Marx for our times. It is scientific. We need new breakthroughs ON THAT LEVEL. And I think we have one. I think the developments of marxism made by Avakian are on that level.

If you don't agree, that is fine.

But at least agree or disagree based on some knowledge. Do it on the basis of line, of investigation. Not on knee-jerk pessimism and cynicism.

Someone claims that Avakian's followers are "religious" etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. We uphold Avakian because he is FIGHTING for a scientific, clear-eyed, creative, wrangling Marxism. To reject and shed dogma and religious thinking (within marxism!! And there is a LOT!) We are upholding Avakian because he is daring to dig into the truly global, world historic questions we face.

(Someone said he found Avakian to be "rambling" -- and I only had to laugh. If someone serialized Marx's Capital as it was being written for the first time, what would this person say? "Too hard to understand?" or "too dense and intellectual?" or "too divorced from the immediate issues of my social movement?"

A lot of time, I feel like people have a rich and nourishing meal set in front of them, and can't even enjoy it -- because their attention is distracted and their expectation are far far too low.

Some people think if you are talking about revolution and the problems of reaching communism that you are nuts!

Well, we all need to be more nuts then!

This is not an abstract question:

Events are moving quickly. Issues are sharpening up.

We need a strong, militant communist core and communist movement.
And we need to unite broadly in resistance that can help prepare for revolution.

We need to go from hundreds to thousands.

And there are littlerally millions of people in motion -- disturbed, disgruntled, even desperate and angry -- over the developments (horrific developments) in the U.S. and the World.

We need to reach them, and help them connect with the answers and visions concentrated in the message of Chairman Avakian.

If it is OK to talk about Marx and Marxism for a hundred years, why is it wrong to connect people with the leader who today is on that cutting edge?

Brothers and sisters: Think about it. Check it out. Wrestle with how to advance our revolutionary struggle and cause! And lets debate all this some more -- in a comradely, lively, heart-to-heart wrangling way!

http://bobavakian.net

http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm

As chairman avakian says: "FEAR NOTHING! BE DOWN FOR THE WHOLE THING!

[CaptinAnarchy124]

I ran into some member of the RWP outside of a Michael Moore pro-Kerry rally (I just went because it was something to do) and they gave me their paper and Avakian's 3 cd spoken word. It was interesting, although he tried to use Chomsky, a libertarian socialist to support his ideal of a "Dictator of the proles". I agree with his anti-imperialist, anti-police brutalirty, anti-hobophobic stuff, but I don't see how a dictator will work to change that. The dictator would just turn and oppress the masses, just like Lenin, Mao and Stalin (men who, excluding Stalin support for some odd reason). But as much as I disagree with him, he should be heard. And he did say some very cool things; the "support the soldier, not the war" is kind of like "support the rapist, not the rape" and his quote on democracy and how it will usually only serve their class.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

flyby

You just typed 2 pages of text. I read it - unfortunatly.

2 pages! I don't mind if it has a message. But you could sum it up all up in two lines:

Bob Aviakan does groundbreaking work, we all need read and listen to him. Communism is not impossible and Bob will lead us to victory.

Big Woohoo!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
Is it "religious" to suggest that new communist theory is being developed? Did the world stop when Marx died? Is it inconceivable that a new communist leader could be making contributions on that level?

1. No.

2. No.

3. No...but you actually have to demonstrate that those "contributions" are both "new" and "true".

Avakian's version of Maoism is fundamentally orthodox -- he proposes a "benevolent despotism" of the "vanguard party" following proletarian revolution in the U.S.

His followers propose that Avakian himself should be the new "Mao" in that despotism.

The RCP promises that they will gradually relax this despotism as the masses become "fit to rule".

Genuinely new and useful developments in communist theory are both desirable and necessary -- but the RCP simply offers what they claim is, in effect, a "kinder, gentler, more compassionate Leninism."

And worse, neither Avakian nor his supporters ever say how they plan to make their Leninism-Maoism "better" than earlier versions of this ideology. They offer platitudes...but nothing of substance.

They "recognize" the problems with the old regimes...but nothing is said
concretely about what will actually be done differently.


...is it conceivable that we can do what we need to do, WITHOUT someone stepping forward to synthesize and analyze the summations and developments of our world -- and LEAD US (like Marx or Lenin or Mao did before) in new leaps, new summations, new challenges, new ways of seeing and doing?

Well, sure. New "leaps, summations, challenges, and ways of seeing and doing" are not necessarily the work of a single individual.

What usually happens is that a single genius (Newton, Marx, Darwin, Einstein) constructs a fresh paradigm...a whole frame-work for looking at some major phenomenon "in a new way".

Then the "talented" (as Engels referred to himself) take over to explore the multitude of fresh problems that this new paradigm has opened up.

Engels thought social democracy would raise the working class to power...but that didn't work.

Lenin thought a vanguard party would do the trick, but that also failed.

Mao thought peasant revolution would do it...it didn't.

All of those guys were intelligent and dedicated communists who were trying to "develop Marxism"...but they were wrong.

Avakian is also wrong.

Can there be new ways to "develop Marxism" that won't be wrong? I think so.

That won't happen by following strategies that have already demonstrated their inadequacy.


Some people think "we don't need parties or leaders."

Guilty. We've tried "parties and leaders" and they just landed us in the shit.


Some people think "If this is fascism in the U.S., then we are just screwed..."

Since the last election, the RCP has been "dropping hints" that open fascism is "on the agenda".

I don't, as it happens, agree with this perspective. But I did suggest that if you really do think that open fascism is about to be installed in the U.S., then we "are screwed".

But, to be honest, I wonder if the RCP is not "crying wolf"...attempting to "energize" its present and potential supporters with "the imminent threat of fascism"?

My own analysis is that the U.S. will continue its drift (not drive) into fascism that's been going on since 1945.

And further, that it is successful imperialist war that fuels this drift -- a significant defeat of U.S. imperialism in Iraq or elsewhere will slow the drift and may even temporarily reverse it.

The best way to "fight fascism" is to build a much stronger anti-imperialist movement in the United States.


It is not "religious" to think we need a Marx for our times.

No, but it is at least quasi-religious to anoint someone with the "title" without justification.

It would be like the supporters of George W, Bush claiming that he is "the Washington of our era". :lol:


Someone said he found Avakian to be "rambling" -- and I only had to laugh. If someone serialized Marx's Capital as it was being written for the first time, what would this person say? "Too hard to understand?" or "too dense and intellectual?" or "too divorced from the immediate issues of my social movement?"

It was me :P -- as you well know.

Capital probably would get rough treatment from reviewers if it were published today for the first time. The 19th century English (translated from the 19th century German) is indeed very "dense" to the modern reader.

In fact, I think a new edition of Capital in modern English (and edited heavily to concentrate on the "meat") would be enormously useful for modern communists.

But there was much else written by Marx and Engels that remains very accessible to the modern reader...a good deal of it could have been written yesterday. This is quite a contrast with most serious 19th century writing...which is very awkward for the modern reader.

Meanwhile, let's face it. Avakian rambles. :D


If it is OK to talk about Marx and Marxism for a hundred years, why is it wrong to connect people with the leader who today is on that cutting edge?

But that is what is in dispute, flyby. You folks claim that Avakian is "on the cutting edge" -- my view is that he is curator-designate of a Leninist-Maoist museum.

By contrast, Marx himself remains on the "cutting edge" even after 150 years.

That's how good he was! :)

:redstar2000:

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

[no_logo]

Well, the man runs a maoist party (or at least it was conceived as a maoist party), and I never particularly found mao to be an effective "leader". I personally do not believe in the least that communism needs any singular figure-head in order to function and, as such, i wholly disapprove of the notion that his party is meaningful in terms of radical revolution. Mao waged war on birds, encouraged non-skilled farming communities to smelt iron in their fields... i mean the man was a mess.

Avakian is probably a great guy - if only by comparison - but i don't trust him to "lead" a revolution... as far as i can tell, his crowning achievements are major contributions to the National United Workers Organization and the Unemployed Workers Organizing Committee... and now these same organizations are behind John Kerry... BAH!

If i had to compare him to someone i know better, he's america's tommy douglas, which is a good thing. Only thing i disapprove of is the maoism... maoists SUCK (there i said it).

[LSD]

If i had to compare him to someone i know better, he's america's tommy douglas, which is a good thing. Only thing i disapprove of is the maoism... maoists SUCK (there i said it).

That is a ridiculous comparison.

At least Douglas made productive practical changes, name one useful thing that Avakian has ever done.

Canadians needed medicare, no one needs Leninism!

[no_logo]

in retrospect, it was a dumb comparison, but to be fair Avakian lives in exile, so it's a bit hard for him to DO anything within the United states... but if you would like some concrete examples of things he has done... read my last post... anyhow, i admit tommy douglas was way better... i just cant think of another figure head to compare avakian to within the context of social change in north america... he's no Che...

[flyby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 08:13 AM
in retrospect, it was a dumb comparison, but to be fair Avakian lives in exile, so it's a bit hard for him to DO anything within the United states...
This is a little confused (to say the least).

Avakian went into exile in the early eighties (when facing assassination danger and 241 years in felony charges.)

But while it has been hard for him (difficult conditions, distance, etc.) he has continued to lead the revolutionary movement. He has remained the chairman (and leader) of the Revolutionary Communist Party, played a central role in regrouping the international communist movement within the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), and has produced a vast body of Marxist theoretical work which has also been central in the guiding and forming of the communist revolutionary effort.

http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm11.htm

What he has done (wherever he is, and under whatever difficult conditions the oppressor has imposed) is LEAD.

http://rwor.org/a/1248/avakian_lotta_learning.htm

You also wrote "he's no Che..." This is true, but I imagine not in the way you might have meant.

Che did not support the building of revolutionary parties (his approach was focoism -- armed groups of militants in the countryside fighting in alliance with large corrupt revisionist parties in the cities). Che did not solve the key theoretical and strategic questions facing the revolution (on the crucial ideological struggles of the communist movement, Che fundamentally sided with the revisionist forces in the Soviet Union who were restoring capitalism, and his strategic views of making revolution, in latin america and elsewhere were wrong, and even disasterous).

Avakian is a communist and a leader in ways that Che precisely was not.

[flyby]

The importance of Bob Avakian and his leadership is brought out strongly here

THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT FROM HERE FORWARD! (http://rwor.org/future/)

I urge everyone to read this carefully.

Every part of this crackles with controversy and some profound insights.

And the connection is made between resisting and beating back all the reactionary maddness that is eminating from the ruling class and the White House -- and the preparations for revolution. It connects the hatred of this moment and this society -- with the need for a radically new world, and the vision (concentrated in the work of our main man) of what this world can be like.

The ins and outs of this analysis are also being discussed here: in a thread called
THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT FROM HERE FORWARD! (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31263&st=0&#entry480827)

And a discussion of what to do about all this has been posted here: on the
Another World is Possible (awip) (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi? board=articles&action=display&num=1102702818) message board

Times are intense! The stakes are high! The possiblities are both real but often unsceen!

Let's dig in together, brothers and sisters! Let's dare to struggle!

[CaptinAnarchy124]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:26 PM
The importance of Bob Avakian and his leadership is brought out strongly here

THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT FROM HERE FORWARD! (http://rwor.org/future/)

I urge everyone to read this carefully.

Every part of this crackles with controversy and some profound insights.

And the connection is made between resisting and beating back all the reactionary maddness that is eminating from the ruling class and the White House -- and the preparations for revolution. It connects the hatred of this moment and this society -- with the need for a radically new world, and the vision (concentrated in the work of our main man) of what this world can be like.

The ins and outs of this analysis are also being discussed here: in a thread called
THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT FROM HERE FORWARD! (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31263&st=0&#entry480827)

And a discussion of what to do about all this has been posted here: on the
Another World is Possible (awip) (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi? board=articles&action=display&num=1102702818) message board

Times are intense! The stakes are high! The possiblities are both real but often unsceen!

Let's dig in together, brothers and sisters! Let's dare to struggle!
I still don't understand the dictatorship of the proles ideal. To save the people, you oppress them and force them to do what you wish them to do? I don't quite understand that reasoning.

[flyby]

The point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not to "oppress" the people.

It is the necessary form that liberation takes. And it is the nature of society in transition to classless (and stateless) communism.

An important discusison is here: http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#onproletarian

[refuse_resist]

The RCP and Bob Avakian and very well known and popular amongst leftists here, especially since this is where they first started off. Before they were called the RCP they were called the Bay Area Revolutionary Union. In all honesty, people should look more into them before they start rushing to conclusions because of what a few people say about them.


Down with the vangaurd!
:angry:

[Hiero]

Where does Bob Avakian live and where was this 1979 Deng protest at.

[RagsToRevolution]

You also wrote "he's no Che..." This is true, but I imagine not in the way you might have meant.

Che did not support the building of revolutionary parties (his approach was focoism -- armed groups of militants in the countryside fighting in alliance with large corrupt revisionist parties in the cities). Che did not solve the key theoretical and strategic questions facing the revolution (on the crucial ideological struggles of the communist movement, Che fundamentally sided with the revisionist forces in the Soviet Union who were restoring capitalism, and his strategic views of making revolution, in latin america and elsewhere were wrong, and even disasterous).

As a young, inexperienced revolutionary, one of the first places I put my support in was the RCP. Though I am not totally sure on how the vanguard should be handled (I prefer a much differnet system than Soviet Russia, a system that prevents such things, I think the example of Cuba can be examined and refined to reach something better.)

However, I greatly admire Che, and I think of Avakian not as the next Che, Lenin, or Mao. Avakian has not really contributed any truly original or really made an attempt to refine Marxist-Leninist-Maoist philosophy. Neither has Che, but that isn't my point. Avakian can be compared to Stalin in this manner, that he followed a basic theoretical practice (Leninism) but had slightly refined his practical theory (which is known as Stalinism.)

Your interpretation of Che's legacy however I find misinformed. Che did ask for the support of local communist parties, who eventually moved to the path of Soviet "revisionists" (I do not like that term, it espouses the thought that the refinement and progression of an ideology is counter-revolutionary, however, even if it is not 'pure', revisionism must be reviewed impartially so we may better socialism in general). Using the example of Bolivia, Che eventually decided that they were not interested in being a vanguard that served the people, and was unsatisfied with them. That is why they did not give any support to Che and his revolutionaries when he was hounded by the Bolivian military.

One of Che's reasons for leaving Cuba lies in the fact that he opposed bourgeosie, bureacratic Soviet Russia and its interference in the Cuban Revolution, at least from what I gathered.

And I fully disagree with you saying that his fostering revolution in Africa and Latin America was useless. I believe they will be the next Asia, this is where the revolution must focus, the true victims and oppressed of the imperialist powers. They are the most deserving, if nothing else.

Though if you can disprove me with any rebuttal, I would appreciate it, better to know you are wrong then to think you are right.

[RagsToRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:20 PM
I still don't understand the dictatorship of the proles ideal. To save the people, you oppress them and force them to do what you wish them to do? I don't quite understand that reasoning.
According to some of interpretations of Marxist-Leninist ideology, Lenin is said to have mentioned that every government is a dictatorship, as even democracy has power of the people, and the power to dictate his will. Thus, a dictatorship is a State, dictatorship of the proletariat is the temporary system of Socialism, before True Communis is found.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by refuse_resist
In all honesty, people should look more into them before they start rushing to conclusions because of what a few people say about them.

I agree that "rushing to conclusions" is generally a poor way to proceed. Nor would I ask anyone to "decide" what to think about Avakian solely on the basis of what I've written about his ideas.

Nevertheless, I may well have read more of his material than anyone who is not actually a member of the RCP...and I've written quite a few posts in response.

I hope you will find them instructive.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=U...tcapitalism.net (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Bob+Avakian&btnG=Go&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fredstar2000papers.fightcapita lism.net&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fredstar2000papers.fightcap italism.net)

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

And I fully disagree with you saying that his fostering revolution in Africa and Latin America was useless. I believe they will be the next Asia, this is where the revolution must focus, the true victims and oppressed of the imperialist powers. They are the most deserving, if nothing else.

While I don't believe his attempts were useless i think it's a fairly foolish thing to say "They are the most deserving, if nothing else." In fact, I think this showed why Che's idealism eventually led him to his own death bed.

Our revolutions should never be based on who is the most deserving. Che went against his own ideas in that sense with Bolivia (although I'm not sure about in the Congo). He knew very well certain coditions should be met for Guerrilla Warfare, likewise he knew that certain conditions must be met for revolution of any form. Bolivia met few of these conditions.

Che did have "excuses" for such things, saying that certain conditions (but not all) could be created or accelerated by a guerrilla force and revolutionary force -- thus even in some places which lacked these conditions, it could succeed. To my understanding Bolivia never fit this bill. If he thought it did then he was doing little more than fooling himself.

I've also heard that Castro dictated much of where he went. And it was certain that the communist party said they would support it, and then did not. Whether or not Che went on the understanding that Bolivia was ready for revolution or not, is not my point. My point is very simply that from Marx to Subcomandante Marcos and everything in between there SHOULD always be a general understanding of the necessary material conditions.

If we ignore these material conditions (as others have), a number of things can go (and have gone) wrong. Revolutions succeed only to be met with serious opposition. Revolutions fail flat out. Revolutions never really finish, but never really fail. Revolution succeeds and then must meet reactionary demand. Revolution succeeds and collapses decades later.

Indeed the most deserving people do not always meet the material conditions most deserving.

[RagsToRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 07:49 AM
While I don't believe his attempts were useless i think it's a fairly foolish thing to say "They are the most deserving, if nothing else." In fact, I think this showed why Che's idealism eventually led him to his own death bed.

*snip*

Indeed the most deserving people do not always meet the material conditions most deserving.
I was placing my own thoughts into it, because it was personally my belief that, while it may not be fully possible for revolution in Latin America and Africa currently, I was only stating my opinion that Latin America and Africa are more "deserving" because they have been the areas most hurt by the effects of imperialism, not stating a fact that they would be the most "able" to have a fully successful revolution. Especially after reading the points you made.

So I very much agree with you last statement, t hough I never advocated *not* waiting for the correct material conditions, only that by giving an opinion that Che's small guerilla operations in the Congo and Bolivia specifically were important, despite the fact they did not succeed.

I will agree that Guevara's idealism in Bolivia did get him killed. However, you brought up Castro, which I am unsure about, because i had not before heard of this. Do you have any sources? If you want me to provide some myself, I will, but I had just never heard this before, I wondered how you came to that conclusion.

I am sorry if I may have brought hte thread off-topic, but I have little to say on Avakian.

[NovelGentry]

However, you brought up Castro, which I am unsure about, because i had not before heard of this. Do you have any sources? If you want me to provide some myself, I will, but I had just never heard this before, I wondered how you came to that conclusion.

Much of what I heard I can only know to be speculation which people have made according to the conditions and his methods of going to Bolivia. Che actually returned to Cuba before going to Bolivia, however, did so in the same disguise he later used to get into Bolivia. There are several accounts of this. If I'm not mistaken he had come back for a single day, presumably to sort some things with Castro and then he was headed out. Like I said, I have heard this, but where I heard it from (artilcles or othersie) is little more than speculation based on the facts... the facts being, he did return, he did talk to Castro, and also that Castro was supposed to supply some support through the communist party there.

Castro to this day continues to help out movements in various countries. I would not consider him an internationalist in the sense that Che was, but to my understanding Bolivia was very much a similar situation as the Congo (where it was supported largely by Cuba, even if not officially). It was Cuban guerrillas who went there to meet up, Cuban resources who got them there and on their way, etc...etc..

I think ruling out Castros position on this would be a bit dumb. Maybe the word "dictate" was a bit too strong. I did not mean it in the sense that Castro commanded him to go, but that Castro certainly posed where and when. In one of Che's papers he discussed a number of other places where revolution would be possible, if I recall correctly Bolivia was not on his list.

[SonofRage]

When Che was captured, one of the soldiers guarding him asked him why he came to Bolivia if it did not meet the conditions described in his writings as being the type of place for guerilla warfare. Che responded that the decision was made "on other levels." The soldier asked if he meant Fidel, and Che responded "No, on other levels." I wonder if he meant the USSR.

[flyby]

forgive my injection:

but there is constant complaints about the "cult of personality" about Avakian....

but this message board seems heavily weighted towards a "cult of personality" about Che.

It was even named after Che.

If a "cult of personality" is so intrinsically wrong, why doesn't this issue come up in the Ernesto Che forum?

(Imagine if we had a Bob Avakian forum.... wouldn't these same folks say it was unacceptable -- even if it seems rather necessary to me!)

To me, the main issues are two fold:

a) the cult of personality depends on which personality. It is wrong to build a cult around George Bush (cuz he is a reactionary pig) or around Subcomandante marcos (cuz his line isn't revolutionary).

b) it is important to uphold leaders in ways that encorage thinking and analysis (not blind obediance) -- which is (after all) exactly what Bob avakian is fighting for (critical thinking, materialist analysis, daring to look at the real truth about the world etc.)

[Paradox]

If a "cult of personality" is so intrinsically wrong, why doesn't this issue come up in the Ernesto Che forum?

(Imagine if we had a Bob Avakian forum.... wouldn't these same folks say it was unacceptable -- even if it seems rather necessary to me!)

Perhaps we should stop arguing over these people and focus on the real issue... HELPING THE EXPLOITED PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. I don't know much about this Avakian guy, but I listened to one of the talks on democracy at bobavakian.net, and yes, what he talks about needs to be discussed. We do need to fight both the democrats and the republicans, and all those who are against the poor and exploited. I still want to listen to more of those talks, and read some of his writings before I make my opinion about him, but regardless, I will not worship him, or anything like that. Admittedly, I do have some Che shirts. I do admire Che for what he stood for, but I don't worship him as some kind of god. I don't have a problem with you admiring this Avakian guy, but regardless of whether we have charismatic leaders, we need to carry on the struggle, we need to continue to fight. Now I'm not being critical, I'm just saying we focus on more important things than this. As far as Avakian contributing anything "new" to Marxist theory, I don't know about that, seeing that I'm still learning the basics. ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
forgive my injection:

but there is constant complaints about the "cult of personality" about Avakian....

but this message board seems heavily weighted towards a "cult of personality" about Che.

It was even named after Che.

If a "cult of personality" is so intrinsically wrong, why doesn't this issue come up in the Ernesto Che forum?

The reasons are historical, of course.

In the political judgment of the founder of the board, the "image" of Che was thought to be especially appealing to young revolutionaries and potential revolutionaries.

How sound that judgment was is evidenced by the number of registered members and visitors...far greater than any other left message board in the English-speaking world.

But it was never intended to portray Che as "the red sun in our hearts", a "living Marx", a "precious leader", etc. As you well know, Avakian is quoted in posts as an "authority" at the AWIP board in a week more than Che is quoted here in a year.

And, in fact, there have been threads in the Che forum about the undesirability of "worshiping Che".

He became, after his death, an inspiration to many young revolutionaries around the world. I think what people still admire about Che is his rebellious spirit and his revolutionary integrity.

That doesn't look like something that's going to "go away" any time soon.

Meanwhile, we have recently changed the name of the board to RevolutionaryLeft...to better reflect our collective purposes.

And, after a brief discussion, we decided to remove the pictures of all the old revolutionaries from our banner and replace them with a picture of the real makers of history...the revolutionary masses.


Imagine if we had a Bob Avakian forum.... wouldn't these same folks say it was unacceptable -- even if it seems rather necessary to me!

If Bob Avakian attains a "hero's death" in the course of armed struggle against the ruling class, then your proposal would have a chance.

At present, it would be greeted with derisive laughter...as I think you knew when you made it.

:redstar2000:

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

[flyby]

young avakian with 45s

http://www.mclemee.com/id133.html

[flyby]

RS writes: "If Bob Avakian attains a "hero's death" in the course of armed struggle against the ruling class, then your proposal would have a chance."

It is really important that our leaders not suffer "heros' death."

And certainly we should not only promote and discuss those who have died.

We need to keep our best leadership alive, functioning, and connected with the masses (through the instrumentality of revolutionary organization).

And to preserve our leading core, the masses need to know much more about what the revolutinary cores (and the revolutionary leadership of Avakian) are about, what it means for them, what kind of a future that represents.

Bob Marley said "How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand around and look."

and while we are not religious (like marley) and while we are not literally talking about "prophets" (but revolutinary leadership) -- his point is very timely.

Are we really going to uphold those who "die a martyr's death" -- but not uphold the living leadership we have -- which is precious and which can potentially lead a revolution all the way to socialism and beyond? Do we really want to throw that away, and mourn later?

how fucked up is that?

[Paradox]

http://www.mclemee.com/id133.html

From this link:


Chairman Bob is an enthusiast of Doo-Wop recordings.
He also enjoys waffles, and makes them.

Now I'm not trying to be mean here. If you admire this Chairman Bob, go right ahead, it doesn't bother me. But honestly, who the hell cares if "Chairman Bob enjoys waffles!?!" :lol:

[ChairmanArt]

To all of those here that have been accusing Chairman Avakian I encourage everyone here to read the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA position on revolutionary leadership before denouncing him as a cult leader (available at revcom.us). Perhaps you will have a different interpretation of it, but I think this article really affirms Avakian's disapproval of Mao-worship as a setback of revolutionary China and his insistence that he not become the demagogue that Mao did in his leadership of the RCP.

And as a response/additive to all that has been said about the dictatorship of the proletariat and the vanguard party as a Marxist-Lenininst-Maoist, I uphold both of these things as indispensable to not only the success of proletarian revolution in overthrowing capitalism and doing away with all capitalist relations but also preventing capitalist restoration as we saw in the Soviet Union and China in their failed stages of socialist transition. We need dictatorship of the proletariat because the initial revolution will be like putting a lid over a pot of boiling rice- we must ensure a strong centralized force exists to not only overthrow capitalism but keep aggressive efforts by the capitalist ruling class from overpowering the revolution and making it for naught. Just as the capitalists use their fascist police and military might to suppress revolutionaries and other dissenters, so must the People's Army use the dictatorship of the proletariat in ensuring that not only are they deposed, but they cannot return to power no matter how much they try. And, no, this in no way means that there will be some 'totalitarian' society in which people are arbitrarily arrested and murdered under some false pretense of being "enemies of the revolution", but only that there must be a proletariat that is not afraid to deal with those who seek to overturn the revolutionary government after the seizure of power. It is just a fact of life.
And to that effect, the vanguard (party) is necessary because it is important that the proletarian dictatorship be one of organization, in which there is a mass line that the people can unite around at all times to efficiently carry the revolution forward. Now, of course (particularly in the example of China under Mao) these very ideal concepts have been subject to some very concrete limitations, such as backwards (feudal) traditions amongst the peasants that severely impeded Mao's ability to educate and mobilize them around the mass line of the vanguard party, as well as capitalist relations such as commodity exchange and division of labor that are pretty much interwoven into the fabric of all societies nowadays, but the fact remains that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the vanguard party must be a factor of proletarian revolution if it is to work.

[Comrade Krell]

He hides behind his ridiculous Maoist-styled personality cult.