Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Is anybody here member and if so what is the RCYR all about. I know its connected with the Revolutionary Communist Party here in the U.S. It cought my attention when I was looking threw the LA IMC during the October 22nd Coalition Against Police Brutality a while back and saw the shirts. Then during the August 29th protest I remember seeing their shirts and then today I was watching a video on flag burning at school and one the these guys way back in the day during the 1st Bush brought up the issue of flag burning to the Supreme Court because he got arrested for burning one. Here's a pic from Oct 22.

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/037.jpgl9wkvv.jpg

BYW, BURNING THE US FLAG IS LEGAL, NOT ILLIGAL, BUT LEGAL!!!



--Paz

[dopediana]

they had a tent at the warped tour in 2003. i looked for them again this year but couldn´t find them there. do they have a website? but they are maoist which isn´t really up my lane...

[SonofRage]

you mean the Counter-Revolutionary Authoritarian Sheep Brigadge? :rolleyes:

I know someone online who is a member, and he's a nice guy and all, but why would someone want to be in the youth section of a party who puts so much effort into promoting their "dear leader"?

[leftist resistance]

Ooh,it's legal to burn the US flag?Great :D

[flyby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:17 AM
Ooh,it's legal to burn the US flag?Great :D
Actually it was illegal in many places -- until the arrest of Joey Johnson of the RCYB.


cool picture: http://nwo.media.xs2.net/photos/Sites-Pages/Image25.html

http://nwo.media.xs2.net/photos/Sites-Pages/Image26.html

This case produced a landmark 1989 Supreme Court decision (called Texas v. Johnson) that ruled flag-burning laws unconstitutonal.

http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2003/Johnson.htm

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html

There are also major attempts to re-crimialize it -- uncluding with a constitutional amendment
http://www.esquilax.com/flag/johnson.html

[flyby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:01 AM
why would someone want to be in the youth section of a party who puts so much effort into promoting their leader?
depends on the leader doesn't it?

Some of the most important work that the RCYB does is connecting a whole new generation to the revolutionary communist leadership of Bob Avakian.

Look at the current situation in the world and in AmeriKKKa. And look at what BA is saying! If that isn't important, on time, needed, urgent.... then what is!!

Imagine how different this fucking country would be if ten thousand more youth had checked out and grasped this, had raised their consciousness in this way, had built unity on such a high and revolutionary basis!!

And imagine a youth group that has this (not petty reforms, or voting, or blah blah business as usual) as its goal and lifes work!!

http://rwor.org/s/brigade.jpg

[flyby]

here is an example of their politics and line:

http://rwor.org/a/1247/rnc_protest_rcyb_call.htm

http://rwor.org/photos/rncrcyb.jpg

[redstar2000]

There's a pretty interesting history in Leninism about the relationship between "youth groups" and their adult counterparts.

The way it's supposed to work is that there will be one or two party members in their late-20s or even early 30s who will "guide" the youth group in such a way as to make sure its activities follow the party's line.

But there've actually been occasions when youth groups "got out of hand" and took a public position sharply to the left of the adult party...and this was especially likely to happen during periods of mass upheaval.

The kids were drawn to "the action" inspite of the adult party's more conservative line.

If I'm not mistaken, it's also happened in anarchist groups and even bourgeois liberal groups. Students for a Democratic Society was actually set up as a "youth group" for the reformist "League for Industrial Democracy"...but moved sharply to the left in the period 1962-65.

It would certainly be interesting to examine the dynamic between the RCP and the RCYB...but the necessary information to do that is unlikely ever to become public.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[flyby]

The logic here is false.

YOu can't understand the RCYB and what it is about by looking at the "histories" of other "leninist youth groups" (whatever that means).

You think the dynamics surrounding RCYB is ANYTHING like the decrepit CP's youth groups? Or PLP's youth group in the 60s? Or some social-democratic "league for industrial democracy" from the 1950s that lost control of the 60s generatin?

Puleeez! The world has rolled on. This is not nostalgia time. A new generation is on the stage and finding its voice. New paths are being carved. Get out of your cramped quarters!

This talk of "all leninism is the same, so we can know about the RCP by looking at histories of other groups" is just a way of saying "I don't know anything about our topic, but I want to squeeze in my prejudices and negativity anyway."

This is not a scientific or principled method of examining line or practice.

If you don't know shit about the RCYB in the real world. If you have never been to a rally or a meeting, or haven't sat a long afternoon and wrangled with one of their members face to face, or haven't read their chapter statements, or don't know their history... or anything..... then why are you wasting our time?

Leave it to those who bother to actually investigate something.... and have a clue.

As for the Brigade, its line and practice are (in fact) very public.

Its relationship to the RCP is also equally public -- The Brigade follows the political and ideological line of the RCP, and its members participate (in various ways) in the creation and summation of that line (as the debates over the new Draft Party Programme showed).

It is about time for some Brigaders to speak in this thread, huh?

[NovelGentry]

This is not a scientific or principled method of examining line or practice.

Yeah... who the hell basis their ideas and theories on something as crazy as history!
Whoever would do that would probably be a communist of sorts, I heard that bastard Karl Marx used something called historical materialism to defend his communist propaganda, let's not fall into that trap!

.... for those of you who don't know me, I'm novelgentry, and this message has been brought you by sarcasm.

[flyby]

I agree: history is important. But it has to be the history of the topic under discussion.

I would be interested in seeing (and participating) in a discussion of the history of the RCYB (and its party the RCP etc.)

Or of the real history of the revolutionary movement in the U.S., which provides the context for today's RCYB. Or of the actual struggle in the U.S. to create a revolutionary youth movement -- and what the real world contradictions have been in that.

But this bogus method of "We are discussing the RCYB, so let me draw half-baked arguments out of the history of youth groups attached to reformist parties" -- that is not a historical materialist method.

It is a misleading method of conflating things -- of arguing that "all leninist groups are the same" (without any distinction between revisionism and real marxism) and so (with that method) there is no need to examine the particularity of contradiction.

With this sloppy method someone can proceed from undigested prejudice and vague generalities, and avoid any "concrete analysis of concrete conditions."

How can we get insight from such a method?

Mao said "No investigation, no right to speak."

Lets dig into some real history and real politics -- lets work to uncover some real truth about some real contradictions. And lets actually prepare to "change the world" (not just pontificate about it based on nothing).
:P

[NovelGentry]

Flyby, if you realize the importance of history then you should realize that it's rather foolish to dismiss it so easily as saying "this is something new." I would argue it's particularly applicable to Leninists, as the mindset doesn't really seem to change.

Reading Redstar's point he makes quite clear that he is using the history of leninist youth parties, his later examples of dissent in reformist parties were helping to outline a more general rule that the youth seems to lean more left than the adult counterparts. So the method you outline is hardly the method he used.

As far as Leninist groups being "all the same"... well I would ague that is what at least allows them all to be called Leninist. With respect to revisionism, no self-respecting Leninist group would ever consider revisionists Leninists, and with in respect to REAL marxism, I would never call Leninists having understood such a thing. So you see this conflicting view is not really conflicting at all, it's actually quite favoriable for the conditions of being ALL THE SAME, because if you do differ to the Leninists you're not Leninist.

[flyby]

Novelgentry writes: "Flyby, if you realize the importance of history then you should realize that it's rather foolish to dismiss it so easily as saying "this is something new." I would argue it's particularly applicable to Leninists, as the mindset doesn't really seem to change."

Ah, my friend, that is exactly the point. The RCYB has a very very different "mindset" from groups that redstar considers "leninist" -- including both the decrepit YCL of the CP, but also earlier communist youth groups.

But, if you don't do "concrete analysis of concrete conditions" then you won't discover this, which is (again) exactly my point.

Novelgentry writes: "The method you outline is hardly the method he used."

I have the pleasure of knowing redstar well. The method i outlined is always the method he uses. He claims to be for empirical observation, but he rarely does his homework. He uses a few old recollections from the past to dazzle the naive and novice.

But it gets tiresome. Especially when we have real and urgent problems to solve.

And his verdicts (that what we do doesn't matter, that change is not likely, that there is no fascist threat, that all existing groups suck, that we don't need leadership, etc. etc.) are verdicts that are EXACTLY wrong for us and for this moment. And so, in a comradely way, I struggle with him and with that.

Novelgentry writes: "As far as Leninist groups being "all the same"... well I would ague that is what at least allows them all to be called Leninist. With respect to revisionism, no self-respecting Leninist group would ever consider revisionists Leninists, and with in respect to REAL marxism, I would never call Leninists having understood such a thing. So you see this conflicting view is not really conflicting at all, it's actually quite favoriable for the conditions of being ALL THE SAME, because if you do differ to the Leninists you're not Leninist. "

In fact many reactionary forces are called "leninist" (including by Redstar).
That is the "conflating" i referred to. Often he will criticize some bullshit that some decrepit revisionist did, and then assume that this is what revolutionary communists MUST be doing (since arent they all "leninists"??!!)

It is not analysis, it is sleight of hand. And it won't do.

The revolutoinary communists of today have made (and are making) some profound and new analyses of past communist practices. They are seeking to develop new ways of working, of uniting, of struggling, of wrangling over truth and line. If we don't succeed in such breakthroughs, if we just operate as lefitsits have operated in the past (including even the BEST of the past) -- then we won't accomplish what we need to accomplish.

So the whole point of the RCYB's politics is a new and living synthesis -- standing on what is best of the past, but daring to look truth in the face, daring to raise new methods and insights.

And if someone says "They are just more of the same, after all, they are 'leninists.'" .... well, that is (a) based on a profound lack of knowledge of what the RCYB is actually doing and saying, and (b) a way of hiding/ignoring/dissing some very exciting political developments.

[flyby]

I guess another way of saying it is this:

The RCP and RCYB are not Leninists or even Maoists, in some fixed way. There is nothing "orthodox" about their trend -- when it is at its best.

They are trying to be followers of Avakian -- with all the change, re-thinking, synthesis, self-interrogation, straining, wrangling and truly COMMUNIST far-sightedness that this demands.

It is invigorating, mind-blowing and much needed (in a world where communism has been far too long associated with a rigid mindset.)

[NovelGentry]

Ah, my friend, that is exactly the point. The RCYB has a very very different "mindset" from groups that redstar considers "leninist" -- including both the decrepit YCL of the CP, but also earlier communist youth groups.

My argument is geared towards that Leninists will not necessarily agree with it being Leninist. If there is any group that has done more to define the strict and never changing ideas of Leninist thought, it is the Leninists, not those who critique this broken record of Leninist revolution. If they are truly different enough to be set aside from other Leninists, maybe they're not Leninist? In which case it would just be a misunderstanding by Redstar, aswell as myself, and anyone else who believes they are Leninist based on the idea that they should know what they believe in more than we do, since we're not a part of their organization. Given this, if they want to differentiate themselves from Leninists in their actions, maybe they should stop giving the impression that they are Leninist.


And his verdicts (that what we do doesn't matter, that change is not likely, that there is no fascist threat, that all existing groups suck, that we don't need leadership, etc. etc.) are verdicts that are EXACTLY wrong for us and for this moment. And so, in a comradely way, I struggle with him and with that.

While I wouldn't agree that what they do strictly doesn't matter, I wouldn't deem it necessary, and if I'm not mistaken Redstar and I very much share this view. While such "leadership" my progress the views of some and truly create revolutionary people it is also a hive for reactionary following. There's no one I would trust more in making someone revolutionary than that person themself -- and in the end this is always the case, whether or not that revolutionary mindest was facilitated by leadership. Thus while it may help it is hardly necessary. And to reiterate it also opens a door for very reactionary people who are simply looking to be a part of this (for whatever foolish and reactionary reason).


In fact many reactionary forces are called "leninist" (including by Redstar).

Maybe that is because as I noted in my previous replies, such groups open the door to reactionary forces.


The revolutoinary communists of today have made (and are making) some profound and new analyses of past communist practices.

I would agree completely, but this says nothing about the state of reactionaries within so-called revolutionary parties. This is one of my biggest issues with parties to begin with it is an automatic call for those who wish to follow (for whatever reasons, reactionary or otherwise) to fall in line... and they will fall in line, and those who are revolutionary will push that line in new directions, but the rest of the line will simply follow.


If we don't succeed in such breakthroughs, if we just operate as lefitsits have operated in the past (including even the BEST of the past)

I'm not sure I would say that people just operated as "leftists" in the past, the party paridigm has existed since Marxism and it has always been focused on succeeding in what you consider these breakthroughs. There is nothing new in the general sense of what is being done, it's the same old story with different names, locations, and a few bigger words.

Edit: I do apologize on this one, I misread your statement as trying to say that people operated as single leftists, not in the senes of "as leftists did in the past" which would include old and outdated paradigsm.... sorry, still a bit sleepy.


-- then we won't accomplish what we need to accomplish.

It is not we, as in me and you, or even "we" as in the sense of any given party who need to accomplish it. It is the working class people as a whole, and they will accomplish it not because we lead them into it, but because they lead themselves. Once the working class is at this point where they are able to lead themselves, then and only then can "leaders" or the vanguard fullfill it's primary function, which is the organization and solidarity of the movement. This is a lot different from the Leninist idea where the vanguard in essence is the desired meat to make the revolution happen -- the people have to be that meat, we as communists are only distinguished from the rest of the proletariat by the Marxist terms:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

If you read these points carefully you should take note that it has little to do with actually leading these people into revolution and a whole lot more to do with being followed by these people within revolutionary context.


daring to raise new methods and insights.

New methods and insights are what distinguish different ideologies -- so we will come to an agreement then, they are not Leninist.

[flyby]

I think your last post is a great and living example of what I'm arguing against.

anyone reading your argument can see that it proceeds from general categories, not from reality.

There is nothing in your post, either, about the topic at hand. You think you can analyze a particular and specific and concrete political movement (i.e. the RCYB) without knowing or mentioning anything about them. Because (in your method) they belong to a category, and you already know about that category, and so you can deliver verdicts by looking at the idealist "category" and not at the thing.

But we can't actually understand something, in the real world, without analyzing it in the real world (its history, dynamics, context, components, features etc.).

________________________________

Let me put it another way:

I hear a kind of argumentation all the time. It runs like this.

"This group XXX uphold stalin. So they are stalinist. Stalin did the following things yyy and zzz. So, since XXX is stalinist they must uphold yyy and zzz."

There was a whole discussion by Serivian about the RCP, where he held them responsible for (real or imagined) errors by Stalin and Mao on matters of birth control and abortion.

And all this was insisted on, even though the RCP has a remarkable and completely clear history on these matters -- and has been in the forefront of the struggle to defend abortion rights (for thirty years!)

But if you argue from categories, with this kind of false logic, you can prove literally anything -- and can't possibly get at the truth of anything.

"If A = B, and B looks like C, and C believes in D, then A believes in D."

But actually the world doesn't work like that. And so we can't actually get at truth with that method.

And your long post relies on such formal categorical (and ultimately, bourgeois) "logic" to prove a point that is something like this: All leninists inevitably make the same mistakes and have the same results.

As you write: "There is nothing new in the general sense of what is being done, it's the same old story with different names, locations, and a few bigger words."

And how, in fact, can you know there is nothing new without investigation? Isn't that a rather rigid, dogmatic, and mechanical approach to reality.

We are dealing with real movements and real people in the real world, not some preordained unfolding of "paradigms."

And in fact, your point actually does not apply to the particular RCYB.

*************

Some comrades started this thread to learn about the RCYB.

But the method you and redstar apply leads you to answer their questions WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE BRIGADE ITSELF -- isn't that revealing??!!

It is as if you think we can learn what we want about them by looking somewhere else, because the world is (supposedly a nestled series of categories).

I want to struggle with you (and redstar) to consider actually communist methods of analysis -- materialist dialectical methods.

And also to dig into some basic facts about the Brigade -- since that is what we are trying to discuss.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[NovelGentry]

You think you can analyze a particular and specific and concrete political movement (i.e. the RCYB) without knowing or mentioning anything about them. Because (in your method) they belong to a category, and you already know about that category, and so you can deliver verdicts by looking at the idealist "category" and not at the thing.

This is in fact the complete opposite of what my last post represented, my last post represented an openness that quite possibly they are not Leninist, I'm willing to admit I know absolutely nothing about the RCYB, but from what you proclaim their ideas are not the normal "same old leninism", thus they are not the "same old leninism." In the end I didn't proclaim to know what they were, simply that they are not Leninist.

So I am completely willing to take them in whatever context they truly are, and completely willing to admit that context might not be Leninist, what I am not willing to do is begin redefining words to mean something different. Are their ideas Leninist or aren't they?

If they are, they are Leninist, if not, they are not, it's that simple. You tell me. (I thought I made this point clear in my last statemen)


"This group XXX uphold stalin. So they are stalinist. Stalin did the following things yyy and zzz. So, since XXX is stalinist they must uphold yyy and zzz."

Yes, this is how we human's define things. This is why we separate Marxists from Marxist-Leninists, because the ideology was changed in various positions and added to in others. If they are changing and addint to Leninist theory then they are forking to a new ideology, Leninist-? (Call the ? what you will, Avakianist? heheheh).

Yes they are just labels, but they are labels that allow us to reference a certain ideology without having to explain it every time. It is the entire foundation that language is based on, or at least language beyond single-syllable words.

Point, that argument makes perfect sense, if you are a Stalinist you uphold Stalin's ideas/principles, that's what makes you a Stalinist, if you don't, don't call yourself Stalinist. What is so difficult to understand about that?

The problem as I see it is that people want to bend words so they can fit in to whatever category. I consider myself a Marxist, however, Vlad has claimed that I have some new and downright crazy aspects to my ideology, thus he calls me gentist. Since then I have used the word on repeat occasions when referring to ideas that I think may not be accepted as Marxism. While I truly believe that my ideas are completely in line with Marxism, I'm not going to try and fool a general public who thinks otherwise, afterall the ultimate definition of a word comes from a general conensus on it's meaning, that is the nature of language and it's arbitrary form.


There was a whole discussion by Serivian about the RCP, where he held them responsible for (real or imagined) errors by Stalin and Mao on matters of birth control and abortion.

This is extremely different from what Redstar and I have done. For starters the theoretical aspects of an ideology should always be held completely separate from practical errors, unless of course those errors are derived from the theoretical aspect, either way, blaming them for the errors of other people is wrong, theorizing that they will commit the same errors if they indeed follow that ideology is not. The question is, of course, how well do they follow that ideology?


"If A = B, and B looks like C, and C believes in D, then A believes in D."

If you truly think this is the logic that I am using here then I think you need to reexamine what I've said. What I am saying is very simply "If B follows A, and A did C based on what it believed, then B will also do C"... the conditional of course in both yours and mine is whether or not A and B are comparible. If A is Leninist, and B is the RCP/RCYB and they are not comparible then B doesn't really follow A, now does it?


All leninists inevitably make the same mistakes and have the same results.

Once again, if the mistakes are based on the flaws in the ideology itself, then yes, they will make the same mistakes. Some people don't see Lenin's revolution as a mistake, others do. Some don't see a Leninist vanguard as a bad thing, others do. This is why some people are NOT Leninists. I see fundamental flaws in Lenin's revolution and his idea of a vanguard, if you are a Leninist you should be believing in these things (if you're not, then you're not really a Leninist eh? You might be a Leninist-? -- but you're not really a Leninist alone). So once again, my logic without alphabet characters this time. If the RCP/RCYB follows Lenin, and Lenin's idea of a vanguard is wrong, the RCP/RCYB's idea of a vanguard is wrong and flawed in the same exact ways.


And how, in fact, can you know there is nothing new without investigation? Isn't that a rather rigid, dogmatic, and mechanical approach to reality.

Well first off, looking at the quote out of context doesn't help. If you didn't notice I added a little Edit saying that I misread what you said, thus that response applies to how I read it. Which was in the sense that you were using "leftists" to mean that past movements were created by individual leftists and not parties, which is true in some cases, but not all.

You also fail to quote the sentence before that in which I say such parties have always been looking at succeeding with breakthroughs. In the end however it's always the same story once again, and that story is revolution. The question is not revolution or no, it's how do we go about revolution, and those are the details (implied by names and locations) as names and locations are details in a story. It's somewhat of a broken metaphor, but still a metaphor and a valid one.


But the method you and redstar apply leads you to answer their questions WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE BRIGADE ITSELF -- isn't that revealing??!!

Would you prefer I just quoted things off websites which are widely available through google. I don't assume people here are too stupid to use a search engine, The link you initially provide is hardly telling of the true nature of a beast in the same way that reading how the revolution happened in the USSR isn't going to tell you that much about the true nature of communist revolution. If you're trying to turn the board into a search engine rather than a platform whereby we attempt to discuss the validity of these things, then I'm not sure you are making any attempt to teach the person who started the thread anything.


It is as if you think we can learn what we want about them by looking somewhere else, because the world is (supposedly a nestled series of categories).

It is as if I think we SHOULD learn by discussing the reasoning behind their actions rather than just blurting out their actions. Looking at what various "revolutionaries" have done in the past is a lot different than looking at why they did it and how it applies today. One is superficial another is progressive.

[flyby]

Well, I'm tempted to leave you with the last word on this -- since I think most people can see that your post confirms my argument.

So I won't argue further on categorical and idealist thinking -- and just urge people to re-read my previous post.

On the whole issue of "leninism" let me say that the way you use that term is completelty different from how I (and revolutionary communists in the RCYB) use it.

Marxism is not simply "what marx said." That may seem like an obvious definition to you -- but that is exactly my point, the world is not organized by simple and categorical definitions of "paradigms."

Marxism is a scientific method and a worldview -- it is a living, dynamic and changing synthesis (like any scientific body of knowledge has to be!)

There are, for example, many things in modern Marxism that contradict and reverse what Marx said and assumed.

Leninism is (similarly) not defined as "whatever lenin said" -- like some religious text of revealed truth.

Leninism is marxism synthesized with the understandings that became possible in the earliest twentieth century, with analysis of the development of imperialism, the innovations on vanguard party that Lenin developed, and some initial views on the transition to socialism.

In that light, Leninism is not something fixed either. Marxism (including Leninism) is a scientific ideology that is inherently NOT FIXED, exactly because it is scientific.

To be a leninist today means to uphold the revolutnoary core of Lenin's work and experience and insights, but it also includes having (from our time and perspective) a critical appraisal of key points based on that overall upholding.

So with that as an intro, let me say that the RCP (and the RCYB) are not "the same old Leninism" (as you put it) exactly because to rigidly cling to every detail that once passed as "leninism" wouldbe to violate the content, method and scientific essense of what Leninism is.

Similarly: To be a DArwinian biologist today does not mean (and cannot mean!) upholding every thought, theory, verdict and speculation of Darwin.

Today's Darwinians (like Gould for example) must, in order to be scientific, both have a living critique and an overall upholding of Darwin.

So your assumptions of what the word "leninism" means is itself categorical, mechanical and dogmatic, and very un-leninist.

The RCP and the RCYB uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism -- which is not the mechanical "sum of what Marx and Lenin and Mao said". MLM is a modern synthesis, a very current, contemporary and dynmic world view that includes upholding the essense of a long work of communist thinking, but also necessary critiques of particular summations by Marx, Lenin and Mao.

One way of saying this is: Bob Avakian's life work has been to make a modern synthesis of communist theory which is called Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

I assume (and anticipate) that this may be strange and even incomprehensible to you. But that is in part because it is (for you) a new way of looking at Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. And because you approach theory as a nestled series of dogmas, not as a living scientific inquiry filled with fresh thinking, self-critical appraisal, interrogations, and new insights.

We need THAT SCIENTIFIC LIVING NON-DOGMATIC KIND OF Marxism-Leninism-Maoism -- so we can "know the world to change the world."

Anything else, especially the dogmatic "revealed truth" approach to communist theory is (as Mao said) "more useless than shit, since you can at least use shit as fertilizer."

YOur assumption, in your post, that dealing with the details of the RCYB would mean regurgitating what google.com produces is itself revealing. No, my friend, actual analysis of a political trend does not flow from a googling. There are people on this list who actually are involved in the real world, know real people, connect with real struggles, have real experiences, base real summations on real facts.

When I talked about actually discussing the RCYB I meant actually referring to events and trends and people in the real world. Not playing a shell game with categories, definitions and web-derived search engines.

Hope that helps as well as provokes.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[NovelGentry]

Marxism is not simply "what marx said." It is a method and a worldview -- a scientific synthesis. There are many things in modern Marxism that contradict what Marx said.

I'm well aware of this, this, however, does not justify the flaws of Leninism, nor does it mean I should be accepting of an ideology with obvious flaws that directly contradict things in Marxism that have yet to be proven flawed.


Leninism is not "what lenin said" -- it is marxism synthesized with the understandings possible in the earliest twentieth century, with analysis of the development of imperialism, the innovations on vanguard party that Lenin developed, and some initial views on the transition to socialism.

Leninism: The ideas and theories put across by V.I. Lenin -- it is not indead what he said, it's what he thought, it's also what he practiced. There are both theoretical aspects and practical aspects to Leninism, in the context the practical aspects make far more sense than the theoretical ones (within or without the context of society in that location during that period of time).


In that light, Leninism is not something fixed. Marxism is a scientific ideology that is inherently NOT FIXED, exactly because it is scientific.

I disagree. Marxism as a scientific ideology makes some sense, but it is also a philosophical one, not to mention economical (although some people would place that under scientific). It is indeed fixed, and this is why we have terms like neo-marxism, etc..etc. The same goes for Lenin, why would the modern changes or ideas placed fourth by anyon else be Leninism? By that logic then Leninism would not be Marxism-Leninism or even Leninism, it would simply be Marxism. This is an extremely revisionist approach to looking at these ideologies, and it pains me to continue to see people who are that focused on the idea that Marxism has to change with time.

I tend to attribute this to the same fear I spoke about earlier in the very same thread. These people want to be a part of something, they are not willing to say they deviate from Marxism as they hold it as a holy doctrine -- I myself am guilty of this. But there is a difference between different interpretations of Marxism and trying to outright consciously change what Marxism stands for. There are aspects of Marxism we know to be wrong, for example many of the ideas put across in Kapital and in general a lot of Marxist Economics are not actually applicable today. We don't then redefine Marxist Economics to make it applicable to today, we simply say Marxist Economics are wrong (not completely wrong, but not completely right eitehr)... we admit that Marx was a product of his time, thought the way he did, and that Marxism is his ideas... we as future communists should not look to change the definition of Marxism so that we can always consider ourselves Marxist, we should look to change it with the addition of ideas, just as Lenin did, and realize that these ideas are new and applicable in our contemporary environment.

From this we should see that the addition or changes to the ideology are not Marxist ideology, they may use a very Marxist method of justification, however, they are not the ideology itself. Marxism uses, dialectical reasoning, historical perspective/materialism, and all combinations thereof of that reasoning and that perspective. You can dervie at ideas the same exact way, but just because you derive at them using the same means does not make them Marxism.


So with that as an intro, let me say that the RCP (and the RCYB) are exactly not "the same old Leninism" (as you put it) exactly because to rigidly cling to every detail that once passed as leninism wouldbe to violate the content (and essense!!) of what Leninism is.

This is a horrible response which implies I attacked their ideolgoy as same old Leninism, when what I said was that you were proclaiming they were not, I've yet to say anything about my belief as to what they are. In fact, from what I knew they were not just Leninist but considered themselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

Flyby, it's funny that you bring this point up, cause I actually just got done reading a small piece by Avakian -- and if you ask me his ideas on constantly "revolutionizing" the state and the idea that Leninism is not static sounds like a basterdized version of Trotskyism coming from a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist who's afraid to admit some of Trotsky's better modifications to strict Leninism and instead rewords a lot and coins it for himself.... that's what I really think, since you want to know.


To be a biologist today and a DArwinist does not mean (and cannot mean) upholding every thought, theory, verdict and speculation of Darwin. Today's Darwinians (like Gould for example) must, in order to be scientific, both have a living critique and an overall upholding of Darwin.

I'm not sure anyone would consider themselves a Darwinist today given many of the flaws found in his research. Once again, this is why we have terms like Neo-Darwinism, Contemporary Darwinism, etc..etc.


So your view of what "leninism" means is itself categorical, mechanical and dogmatic, and very un-leninist.

You didn't have to subvert us to arguments for revisionism just to tell me that I'm un-leninist, I would have told you I'm not a Leninist from the start if you bothered to ask.


One way of saying this is: Bob Avakian's life work has been to make a modern synthesis of communist theory which is called Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

And it can rightfully be called Avakianism if that is the case (which I'm sure there's nothing he would like more). There is no need to see it as a revision of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, because it's not. These ideologies stand on their own and in combination, as would Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Avakianism (since they are all based on one another from the start) as would Avakianism on it's own, as only the synthesis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Why does what Bob Avaikian says have to be taken as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.... I don't believe it does have to, nor do I believe it should. If it is indeed new, it will stand on it's own as being founded on those previous ideologies.


But that is inpart because it is a new way of looking at it

No, it's not, this is looking at it from the same perspectives of any other revisionist. Same story, different names and places. And if you want my general take on it I would classify Avakianism as a form of revisionism.


And because you approach theory as a nestled series of dogmas, not as a living scientific inquiry filled with fresh thinking, self-critical appraisal, interrogations, and new insights.

Yes, and this all contributes to communist theory, not ideologies. I don't know why people cannot see the difference. You can make a contribution to communist theory which is indeed scientific, self-critical, and very actively changing...Marx goes as far as to address this point directly in the communist manifesto. You cannot however make a contribution to Leninist Theory, the only person with the right to do that is Lenin. It's not that difficult to understand... just try it, really, it doesn't hurt.


We need THAT KIND OF Marxism-Leninism-Maoism -- so we can "know the world to change the world."

There is only one kind of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism... however, if you replace Marxism-Leninism-Maoism with Communism in your statement, I agree, and I'm 100% for it. They will contribute their ideas, I will contribute mine, and we'll all live happily ever after.

I know this won't help, but surely provoke.

[flyby]

thanks.

I think we have clarified our differences. And can leave it there.

On the question of Avakianism: You claim he would want that, but based on no information whatsoever.

In fact Avakian thinks we should increasingly call it "communist theory" and leave the lengthening name alone.

As for trotskyism: I find it to be someof the most mechanical and categorical thinking there is. Trotskyism's method is often starkly unscientific, assuming principles and concepts in an "a priori" way (divorced from analysis of reality), approaching ideology as "political traditions" in a rudely religious way, and so on.

I find nothing in common between Avakian's approach and conclusions (on one hand) and the essential method of trotskyism on the other. And I find your comparison to be another example of approaching ideas in a categorical way, associating them by superficial features and externals (not by their essence).

Now, perhaps we can also allow people to go back to discussing the RCYB (which you admit you have no knowledge of.)

In some ways you are lucky! Your ideology allows you to comment on things you know nothing about. Mine is far more restrictive.

[NovelGentry]

In fact Avakian thinks we should increasingly call it "communist theory" and leave the lengthening name alone.

This is easy to say to dispell ego, it does not make it true, Then again, the same argument could be used for when I justified it, but then again, I don't have a huge following that could immortalize my name in history -- so I doubt I have any reason to say it other than for altruistic reasons, the same cannot be said about Avakian.

But if he truly does believe this and not just says it, right on. Because I am personally sick and tired of having to explain the differences between ideologies and theories, too many people think they're one in the same.


I find nothing in common between Avakian's approach and conclusions (on one hand) and the essential method of trotskyism on the other.

I'll admit I'm not regular reader of his work, but I've read several papers in which I've never found scientific backing for what he's saying. At least no where near the level of Marx. He uses a lot of quotes from earlier writers to justify some of his logic, and those earlier writers appear more scientific but tend to still have flawed ideas when you hold it up to the light of Marx's outlook. Communist theory in general, while scientific, will always be linked both directly and indirectly with it's philosophical upbringings from early Marxism, thus it is near impossible to prove as purely scientific, although that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Marx himself tried very hard with Capital, and made some very good points, and some very poor ones that are not scientific at all.


And I find your comparison to be another example of approaching ideas in a categorical way, associating them by superficial features and externals (not by their essence).

I wasn't aware ideas had superficial features. An idea is an idea... if Trotsky puts across his ideas of permanent revolution which very much include the idea of constantly revolutionizing in order to adapt with time/history and Avakian puts them across the very same way using different wording they can indeed be the same idea. In fact I would argue it is their "essence" whatever that be that makes them one in the same and the superficial is in the wording alone.


Now, perhaps we can also allow people to go back to discussing the RCYB (which you admit you have no knowledge of.)

In some ways you are lucky! Your ideology allows you to comment on things you know nothing about. Mine is far more restrictive.

Perhaps.

In case you forgot to read the fine print, I never actually made any comment on the RCYB. My initial statement was one of sarcasm which I used to show the hipocracy of you dismissing basing Redstar's critique on what history has shown us. Since that I've yet to make a single argument on the RCYB, I did however make arguments against Avakian based on what I had read by him. What would you want me to make those arguments on, what you tell me he's like? If anything I would say yours is far less restrictive if such a basis is acceptable in your view.

Edit: what I think you mistook for "arguments" against the RCYB was actually my questioning your stance on what defines an ideology, Leninism was the one I used, however, it could be replaced with any other ideology and the statements remain true. I never once said that the RCYB was Leninist or would fall on Leninist flaws... I did however say that if they were Leninist they would.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
Its relationship to the RCP is also equally public -- The Brigade follows the political and ideological line of the RCP, and its members participate (in various ways) in the creation and summation of that line (as the debates over the new Draft Party Programme showed).

I think, if you'll pardon the expression, that all Leninist parties have had a formula along those lines.

As you know, official formulas rarely tell us anything useful or even interesting.

As I noted, the real dynamics between the RCP and the RCYB would be interesting and possibly very instructive...but they are unlikely ever to be made public.

So what you did expect us to talk about besides that which has been learned from previous Leninist "youth groups"?

Oh, yours is "different"?

How???


If you don't know shit about the RCYB in the real world. If you have never been to a rally or a meeting, or haven't sat a long afternoon and wrangled with one of their members face to face, or haven't read their chapter statements, or don't know their history... or anything..... then why are you wasting our time?

To provoke you or another RCPer or someone from the RCYB into saying something informative, of course.

Chapter statements? Links???

Oh, and just as a side point, you took it upon yourself to run your mouth at the AWIP board about SDS -- in which I was a participant for seven years while you have zero first-hand knowledge -- so I'm sure you'll agree that you have waived your right to challenge me for saying anything even indirectly about the RCYB.


This talk of "all leninism is the same, so we can know about the RCP by looking at histories of other groups" is just a way of saying "I don't know anything about our topic, but I want to squeeze in my prejudices and negativity anyway."

This is not a scientific or principled method of examining line or practice.

Very well, what would be a "scientific or principled method of examining line or practice"?

Must one actually join the RCYB and actively participate for a year or two (or more?) before one is "allowed" to comment?

As you well know, I have never argued that "all Leninism is the same"...a nonsensical statement that you choose to attribute to me for reasons of your own.

The RCP/RCYB is Leninist-Maoist...it is firmly committed to the "leading role" of the "vanguard party". As such, it demonstrates characteristics that are historically comparable to such parties in the past...not least of which, I might add, is the irrational devotion to a "great leader".

Slapping a "new & improved" label on yourself does not make you either "new" or "improved".

In case folks are not aware of this, I've probably read more of Avakian's material than anyone who's not actually a member of the RCP/RCYB -- they post it and link to it constantly at the AWIP board.

And I've never run across anything from Avakian that is not "orthodox" Leninism-Maoism. He tinkers around the edges and implies that improvement is needed...but no "breakthroughs".

There's just nothing new there at all.

Well, there's one thing that is "new" -- Avakian on at least one occasion said honestly what his goal is: a proletarian revolution that would establish a "benevolent despotism" of the "vanguard party" and its leadership.

That's not new but the honesty is refreshing. Most Leninist parties talk a lot about communism before the revolution and then give us socialism -- a despotism -- after the revolution on the grounds that "it's the best we can do".

I think we can do better than that.


Your ideology allows you to comment on things you know nothing about. Mine is far more restrictive.

:lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[flyby]

hmmmm.

Let me say a few things:

1) First I don't want this to get personal. I have always found debating Redstar interesting because (unlike far to many "leftists") he actually cares about the issues of getting to communism (not just getting the next reform or using the people as a pressure group.)

There are many things we disagree on -- including analytical method, science, the need for a vanguard, the nature of socialism etc. -- but at least these are important issues to dig into.

2) Redstar writes that he commented without information in order "To provoke someone from the RCYB into saying something informative, of course."

Well that's a charitable justification. hehehehe. Since it has been hard to keep on that topic, since so many of the "comments" attempted to reach verdicts without information. Just re-read the thread!

Redstar writes: "Chapter statements? Links??? " Well, here is some info on the RCYB -- for the last years it has been very heavily focused on work within proletarian communities, where the web is not (yet) a key form of communication. Perhaps that is why so little about them is online. This is a situation where, if you want to know more, you have to get off line (unless one of the online Brigaders wants to fill in some gaps.)

3) Redstar then plops in a little "side point": "you took it upon yourself to run your mouth at the AWIP board about SDS -- in which I was a participant for seven years while you have zero first-hand knowledge -- so I'm sure you'll agree that you have waived your right to challenge me for saying anything even indirectly about the RCYB."

How shall I put this: Dude, chill! Do your investigation first.

I was in SDS. I worked with them in more than one city. And observed the Columbia SDS takeover. (So much for "zero first hand knowledge.")

But on a more important and methodological point:

First hand knowledge is not the key to correct summation. All knowledge ultimately is rooted in direct experience (observation, action, production, experiment etc.) But most summation and learning is on the basis of INDIRECT experience -- summing up the broader experiences of many people to make a synthesis.

This is an important point. Here are some examples of why:

a) first if first hand experience was everything -- then "grownups" would be right whenever they told kids "Shut up you don't know everything." Adults have more first hand experince with many things in life, but often they are wrong on key issues (more conservative, etc.)

b) The argument that direct experience is principle of indirect experience is at the heart of "identity politics" and its method of shutting down debate. "If you are not a woman, you can't discuss the problems of women. You just can't really know." "If you are not a Black person, you have no right to speak on our experiences and struggle." Etc.

There is more to say about that.... but my basic point is: Dude, don't make a fetish about direct personal experience -- it is quite possible for thenew generation to deeply udnerstand and sum up the SDS experience, even if they were not there.

[NovelGentry]

then "grownups" would be right whenever they told kids "Shut up you don't know everything."

They are right, no one knows everything... it's just at the time we're kids and generally too stupid to say the same back to them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
I was in SDS. I worked with them in more than one city. And observed the Columbia SDS takeover. (So much for "zero first hand knowledge.")

Well, I'll be damned! I apologize profusely...but in my defense, you never made any reference to your experiences and, consequently, I assumed that you were much younger than you are.

So you must be in your 50s, eh? Not many of us left. :lol:

Columbia was certainly one of SDS's "great moments"...though, like many, I never could figure out how a neanderthal like Mark Rudd ever rose to prominence.

Media creation?


First hand knowledge is not the key to correct summation. All knowledge ultimately is rooted in direct experience (observation, action, production, experiment etc.) But most summation and learning is on the basis of INDIRECT experience -- summing up the broader experiences of many people to make a synthesis.

A truism...but the fact of personal experience weighs heavily on any "summing up" that we might make. In the paradigm of bourgeois "scholarship", we are supposed to be "disinterested", "objective", and "set aside" our personal biases/experiences.

You know that doesn't really happen with them; why should it be any different with us? I think that information from a participant in a struggle or movement is inherently more likely to be reliable than from someone who just "read about it".

"More likely" is not the same as "certain". of course. Participants can misunderstand what they see around them...or generalize their personal experience in ways that are really unjustified.

Your analysis of SDS is very different from mine...and there are others "out there" that I disagree with vehemently. But I would love to read an account of Columbia from your hand.


... it is quite possible for the new generation to deeply understand and sum up the SDS experience, even if they were not there.

Maybe...but I'm skeptical.


Well, here is some info on the RCYB -- for the last years it has been very heavily focused on work within proletarian communities, where the web is not (yet) a key form of communication. Perhaps that is why so little about them is online. This is a situation where, if you want to know more, you have to get off line (unless one of the online Brigaders wants to fill in some gaps.)

Well, you see where that leaves us...in order to actually know anything about the RCYB, you have to go to a city where they exist, find them, and get them to talk to you -- presuming they are even willing to do that. Or (somehow!) find an RCYBer who's willing to speak candidly on the internet about his/her group...and you see that none have shown up here so far.

So, by your own admission, we can't say anything about the RCYB...and, therefore, should just "shut up" on the topic???

:redstar2000:

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

[praxis1966]

I hate to say this Flyby, but nearly every post I've read of yours so far sounds like a recruiting pamphlet. I have yet to hear anything of real substance, which is I think what Redstar (if I may be so bold) is on about. Take this, for instance. You could very well be trying to get people to attend a Baptist church, as I have heard similar talk from their youth brigades.


They are trying to be followers of Avakian -- with all the change, re-thinking, synthesis, self-interrogation, straining, wrangling and truly COMMUNIST far-sightedness that this demands.

It is invigorating, mind-blowing and much needed (in a world where communism has been far too long associated with a rigid mindset.)

Simply substitute Christ for Avakian and Christian or Christianity for communism and there you have it.

Oh, and to address your assertion that the RCP/RCYB are not Leninist or Maoist in any fixed way I decided to take a gander at your party website. Right underneath the picture at left is a statement in big bold letters which reads, "Our ideaology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." I'm not really sure what "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" as a doctrine entails, but that seems pretty fixed, especially when the next two lines, "Our vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party" and "Our Chairman is Bob Avakian" are considered.

[Skeptic]

Absolutely dynamite discussion guys. The best I've read in some time. I'm learning a lot from it. Props to the RCP. Props to the RCYB. And thats for your wrangling too NG.

[DRAGOON]

http://rwor.org/photos/say_no/revolutionary_communist_you-th.jpg

RCYB Points of Orientation (from the Youth Brigade Organizing Kit)
They Fight Their Way, WE FIGHT OUR WAY

In order to carry out our revolutionary tasks we have to rely on what we've got going for us; our ideology - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; the masses of people; and our vanguard party. Our style of work and our methods of work have to come from who we serve. Our way of fighting means:

1) Everything we do is based on preparing the people, and ourselves, for revolution.

2) Political and ideological line is decisive. Use the Revolutionary Worker newspaper as a collective organizer and distribute it among the people. Work closely with the Party.

3) Sum up the mood and questions of the masses; study and apply Mao's contribution of the Mass Line as explained on page 118 in the Silver Book (Bullets)

4) Serve the People, Love the People. Fear Nothing, Be Down For the Whole Thing. Based on that, rely on the people when we have problems. Build the Youth Brigade and also work together with all who can be united with.

5) Apply the Maoist "4 Point" Method of work:
[1] Make Plans
[2] Carry them out
[3] Sum them up
[4] Make new plans

6) "We should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously" (Mao). We don't talk to the pigs. We expose attacks on the Party, the RCYB and the people and mobilize the people to combat the enemy's attacks. And, while we are in the oppressor's face, we contribute to the Party's work of building revolutionary organizations "so wisely and so well that the enemy and his sell-out perpetrating snitches and brutalizing enforcers cannot destroy it"

"...It will come to this: We will have to face [the enemy] in the trenches and defeat him amidst terrible destruction but we must not in the process annihilate the fundamental difference between the enemy and ourselves. Here the example of Marx is illuminating: he repeatedly fought at close quarters with the ideologist and apologists of the bourgeoisie but he never fought them on their terms or with their outlook; with Marx his method is as exhilarating as his goal is inspiring. We must be able to maintain our firmness of principles but at the same time our flexibility, our materialism and our dialectics, our realism and our romanticism, our solemn sense of purpose and our sense of humor."
-Chairman Bob Avakian, Bullets (the Silver Book), page 101

[DRAGOON]

http://rwor.org/photos/1/f15-images/8.jpg

RCYB Principles of Unity (from the RCYB Organizing Kit)

We are the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade. We are living, fighting and putting it all on the line for a better world, a world of for-real Communism. A world where a few rich nations don't oppress and dominate the globe, where whites don't lord over nonwhites; where men don't dominate over women; and where one class of people doesn't exploit the rest. We are fighting to break all the chains that hold our people back. We refuse to accept the oppressor's view of our youth: We are not criminals or gangsters. Our ideology is that of the proletariat - those who have nothing to lose but our chains, and we are fighting for the wretched to be wretched no more. To free the earth we need a revolution. We need power. Today we fight the power and get ready to seize the power through mass armed revolution. The RCYB/BJCR is the youth group to the Revolutionary Communist Party, the vanguard of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. and a participant in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. We love the people and we serve the people. There is no greater love than that.

Members of the RCYB grapple with and fight for these Principles of Unity:
1. Proletarian revolution is the only solution. A revolution of the proletariat (those with nothing to lose but our chains), the dictatorship of the proletariat and worldwide Communism is the only solution to this madness. It is the only future worth fighting for.
2. Proletarian Internationalism is the outlook of those with nothing to lose, all over the world. The USA is not our country. Our flag is the red flag of world revolution. We oppose wars of plunder by the imperialists and reactionaries, and welcome their defeat at the hands of the people. We welcome the defeats suffered by "our own" rules; and will use such defeats, which weaken our oppressor, to prepare for revolution. We support revolutionary struggle in every country.

3. Revolutionary people's war, when a revolutionary situation develops, is the only way to overthrow this system. "...Revolutionary war is a war of the masses. It can only be waged by mobilizing the masses and relying on them."

4. Continuing the revolution after the seizure of power is the way to prevent the rise to power of a new bourgeoisie. Phony communists (revisionists) have seized power back from the people in the Soviet Union and China. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution led by Mao Tsetung was a revolution within a revolution It showed the way for the people to prevent the restoration of capitalism. MAO MORE THAN EVER!

5. We study Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the most radical and liberating ideology on the planet. It is our science, our weapon, our guide. "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement" (Lenin)

[redstar2000]

Thank you, DRAGOON, for the "official version".

Do you have any personal observations to add, based on your own experiences with the RCYB and the dynamics of its relationship with the RCP?

:redstar2000:

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

[flyby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:47 AM
I hate to say this Flyby, but nearly every post I've read of yours so far sounds like a recruiting pamphlet.
Well, what would be so wrong with that.

Let me be explicit!

I think everyone reading this should get down with the RCYB. Dig into the need for revolutionary politics. Dedicate your life to the people! Find those who are straining, body and soul, to make a difference. Throw yourself into the fight for a broad, deep, active, visionary revolutionary movement.

And when you have made up your mind -- get to work -- passionately recuriting more. feverishly studying the world, coolly fighting for scientific clarity.

Study the works, the method and the approach carved out by Bob Avakian -- but this will help you shape yourself as an all-the-way revolutionary communist. As someone trained to see the path to a communist world within the muck and maddness of Bablyon.


You quote this "They are trying to be followers of Avakian -- with all the change, re-thinking, synthesis, self-interrogation, straining, wrangling and truly COMMUNIST far-sightedness that this demands. It is invigorating, mind-blowing and much needed (in a world where communism has been far too long associated with a rigid mindset.)"

And then you say: "Simply substitute Christ for Avakian and Christian or Christianity for communism and there you have it."

Oh really? Christianity believes in change and rethinking? in self-interrogation? in truly communist far-sightedness?

Obviously not. What we are saying, and Bob Avakian is saying is nothing like Jesus, or submissive religion or blind obediance. open your eyes.

Let me give me an example of the logic you use.

Some (me for example) says: "Modern biology explains how life came to be and changes."

You say "subsitue the Bible for biology here, and there you have religion."[/b]

But does that mean my statement is wrong? no. it is the substituting that is wrong.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:01 AM
you mean the Counter-Revolutionary Authoritarian Sheep Brigadge? :rolleyes:

As a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, I find it very uncool and just plain unprincipled to just simply called the RCYB names and then leave it like that.

I don't see how the RCYB- being supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party- are counter-revolutionary, authoritarian, or "sheep".

The RCYB has consistently and steadfastly stood for ending all domination of men over women, whites over nonwhites, imperialist countries over oppressed countries, and bosses over workers for over 25 years. It has helped build powerful resistance against all kinds of attacks by the enemy against the masses, actively helped support the people in their struggles against oppression and exploitation, and is constantly seeking to grasp a better understanding of the world and how we can liberate once and for all.

We aren't just "sheep" that dogmatically and mechanically apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in a commandist or forcefully coercive way- we seek to creatively unleash the masses and unleash ourselves in learning about how we can create a world worth living in- one where we're truly FREE. And learning from and gaining inspiration from leaders like Bob Avakian- who has a consistently revolutionary and scientific analysis of how we can move forward to communism- is part of that.

Do you dream of a world where there is no more oppression, exploitation, and tyranny? Do you want a world where we don't have imperialism, or war, or fascism (the world that Bush is giving us)? That's the vision we have. The RCYB is made up of youth who are dreamers, fighters, and who have a steadfast love and devotion to the people. If you love the people and are down with a vision of liberation, check out the RCYB and join in the great dialogue on how to build for resistance and revolution.

Like we say, "FEAR NOTHING- BE DOWN FOR THE WHOLE THING!"

[praxis1966]

I suppose what I should have said was substitute Christ for Avakian, Christian for communist, and Christianity for communism.

And as per usual you've totally missed the point. Your rhetoric has undeniably evangelical overtones, whether you want to admit it or not. And to suggest that my eyes are closed because I don't agree with you is simply insulting. Who died and made you the ultimate authority on what being a revolutionary means?

Furthermore, the praise of Mao's Cultural Revolution in the official party literature is thoroughly abhorrent. The fact is, no matter what the logic, there is no excuse for the outright murder of millions of people. And before you deny that this happened, let me say that to do so is on the level of denial only found when speaking to neo-Nazis about whether the Holocaust ever occured.

You ask what is so wrong with sounding like a recruiting pamphlet. Well, here it is. To simultaneously deride and preach without use of anything close to commonly accepted debate etiquette simply turns me off to the nth degree. Nevermind the fact that I have yet to hear you say anything of real substance. Get down with that whole thing.

[DaCuBaN]

To anyone this offends, I'm really, really sorry: I'm 21 years old, so I doubt I'm outwith the parties "scope" - let me tell you though, I'm "turned off" already:


a world of for-real Communism

:( :lol: :blink:

Ya mean it's for-real? Groovy!

<_<

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I suppose what I should have said was substitute Christ for Avakian, Christian for communist, and Christianity for communism.

Except for that we seek a scientific, non-dogmatic, materialist understanding of the world, we don&#39;t want to wait for some "God" to save us, don&#39;t want people to simply bow unquestioningly to what we say, don&#39;t want to kill millions of people simply because of their beliefs, don&#39;t want to become the world&#39;s largest oppressive and corporate entity...

Please. Comparing Marxism to Christianity is utterly outrageous. And to accuse the RCP, RCYB, or Chairman Bob Avakian of being "dogmatic" is quite wrong- in fact, Flyby did a very good post about how in fact Chairman Avakian is helping to BREAK with a lot of the rigidity, dogmatism, drone-like, and mechanical methods that have been great barriers within the International Communist Movement. Here, check it out if you already haven&#39;t: http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...pic=30597&st=20 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30597&st=20)


And as per usual you&#39;ve totally missed the point. Your rhetoric has undeniably evangelical overtones, whether you want to admit it or not.

I don&#39;t think Flyby is being evangelical, he&#39;s simply struggling for what is objectively correct, and he is firm and open about this. What&#39;s wrong with that?


Furthermore, the praise of Mao&#39;s Cultural Revolution in the official party literature is thoroughly abhorrent. The fact is, no matter what the logic, there is no excuse for the outright murder of millions of people. And before you deny that this happened, let me say that to do so is on the level of denial only found when speaking to neo-Nazis about whether the Holocaust ever occured.

Actually the GPCR was a very liberating and amazing experience like nothing else in history. While I won&#39;t go into it much in this thread (this is a thread about the RCYB, not about the Cultural Revolution), there is a good article dispelling many lies about the GPCR here: http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism...china_facts.htm (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)

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

...Anyways, I personally think my experience with the RCYB has made me a lot more revolutionary and much more aware of what&#39;s going on in the world today. The RCYB is constantly out in the streets engaging in many struggles such as the anti-war movement, anti-globalization, organizing against police brutality and police repression, defending immigrants rights and fighting against racism, and have been a major part of the struggle to free political prisoners such as Mumia Abu-Jamal, al-Amin, Leonard Peltier, etc.

The RCYB is also very connected with the basic masses. We do mass work amongst the people, learning from them, talking with them, and trying to understand their basic wants and needs. Whenever an outrage occurs, the RCYB goes to investigate and expose what&#39;s going on- whether it&#39;s police intimidation in a proletarian neighborhood, or a labor struggle amongst migrant workers, or a rebellion in a major city... the RCYB, if it can be, is there, and we learn from and fight alongside the masses whenever and wherever we can. Whenever I&#39;m out there doing work with the RCYB, I feel so charged with energy, and within the eyes of the proletarians and oppressed peoples that we work with, I see the fire that has the potential to overflow into a blaze of revolutionary struggle and resistance.

That&#39;s just a LITTLE, TINY bit of why I got down with the RCYB.

[praxis1966]

That&#39;s exactly how I expected you to respond. Once again, you people have trouble with literary analysis and continue to deny the obvious. You don&#39;t want to kill millions of people. :lol: That&#39;s exactly what Mao did, except that he did it in the name of communism instead of the name of God. All of you people need cult de-programming.

In any event, I think the real reason you RCP/RCYBers have trouble with leftists not in your party is due to extreme ego. The words "true" and "revolutionary" in all its various permutations are plastered all over your posts and party website. What you can not handle is the idea that someone may disagree with you and still be a leftist. I, for one, tend to favor syndicalist theory originally layed out by Antonio Gramsci and revolutionary dialogue as described by Paolo Friere. I therefore find it highly arrogant that you should suggest that you have gotten it right and I am wrong, simply because I refuse to sing the "All hail our glorious leader, Bob Avakian" mantra along with you.

[jwijn]

Personally, I don&#39;t see why we are wrangling over an issue that really only boils down to semantics. Some say the RCP is dogmatic, others deny it. Big freaking whoop.

Focus not on your differences, but rather on what you have in common. How can we strive together to achieve our common goals? If people want to join the RCP, that&#39;s fine with me. If people want to join the CWI, I&#39;m fine with that, too. As long as we are not INTERFERING with each other, then we can coexist peacefully. Frankly, I&#39;m sick of having to defend myself against Spartacists attacking my views or watch as ISO members throw insults at RCP people.

[PRC-UTE]

I, for one, tend to favor syndicalist theory originally layed out by Antonio Gramsci and revolutionary dialogue as described by Paolo Friere.

And Irish seperatism?

Sounds like you&#39;re a Connollyite, not a Shinner&#33; ;) Although to be fair, I don&#39;t know who the feck Paolo Friere is. :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by jwijn
Focus not on your differences, but rather on what you have in common. How can we strive together to achieve our common goals?

Sometimes we don&#39;t have "common goals" -- or we have what appear to be "common goals" in words but they are actually different or even opposed goals when translated into the real world.

I agree with you that "petty squabbling" and "trading insults" are useless and even counter-productive activities. They often boil down to little more than ego-trips and trivia games.

But even from the days of Marx and Engels themselves, there&#39;s been a current of communist thought which argues that principles mean something -- revolutionary politics should not be a mirror-image of bourgeois politics...a vulgar scramble for office at any price.

Sometimes it&#39;s hard to tell the difference.

But we should try.

:redstar2000:

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

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Andrei Mazenov+Dec 8 2004, 11:37 AM--> (Andrei Mazenov @ Dec 8 2004, 11:37 AM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 06:01 AM
you mean the Counter-Revolutionary Authoritarian Sheep Brigadge? :rolleyes:

As a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, I find it very uncool and just plain unprincipled to just simply called the RCYB names and then leave it like that.

I don&#39;t see how the RCYB- being supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party- are counter-revolutionary, authoritarian, or "sheep".

The RCYB has consistently and steadfastly stood for ending all domination of men over women, whites over nonwhites, imperialist countries over oppressed countries, and bosses over workers for over 25 years. It has helped build powerful resistance against all kinds of attacks by the enemy against the masses, actively helped support the people in their struggles against oppression and exploitation, and is constantly seeking to grasp a better understanding of the world and how we can liberate once and for all.

We aren&#39;t just "sheep" that dogmatically and mechanically apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in a commandist or forcefully coercive way- we seek to creatively unleash the masses and unleash ourselves in learning about how we can create a world worth living in- one where we&#39;re truly FREE. And learning from and gaining inspiration from leaders like Bob Avakian- who has a consistently revolutionary and scientific analysis of how we can move forward to communism- is part of that.

Do you dream of a world where there is no more oppression, exploitation, and tyranny? Do you want a world where we don&#39;t have imperialism, or war, or fascism (the world that Bush is giving us)? That&#39;s the vision we have. The RCYB is made up of youth who are dreamers, fighters, and who have a steadfast love and devotion to the people. If you love the people and are down with a vision of liberation, check out the RCYB and join in the great dialogue on how to build for resistance and revolution.

Like we say, "FEAR NOTHING- BE DOWN FOR THE WHOLE THING&#33;" [/b]
You follow your dear leader like sheep. You openly support a party which wants to create a "benevolent despotism." If that&#39;s not authoritarian and counter-revolutionary, then what is it? I don&#39;t need anyone to "unleash" me, keep your fucking leash off me.

It&#39;s funny that you call your dear lead "consistently revolutionary." Was he "consistently revolutionary" when RCP&#39;s line was anti-homosexual?

Yes, I do "dream of a world where there is no more oppression, exploitation, and tyranny?" and "...want a world where we don&#39;t have imperialism, or war, or fascism" but RCP doesn&#39;t offer that in anything other than words. You want to set up a dictatorship with Chairman Bob and the RCP at the head.

You&#39;re a nice kid and all, and I hate to say this, but when the revolution comes, you won&#39;t be a comrade of mine. I really do not understand how someone who was once an Anarchist could fall into such a blatantly authoritarian group.

[flyby]

whew, sonofrage.

This is intense.

And I must say, the feelings are not mutual.

I respect you, and your commitment and your insights.

on a factual point;

The RCP was never "anti-homosexual" no matter how many times people repeat it.
Just go read the articles on the sodomy decision of 1984 -- and their defense of the legal rights of gay people. They have struggled to make a new communist analysis (and break with a lot of crap inherited from the old communist movement). And they think their old line and view was wrong... but don&#39;t portray them as anti-homosexual, when they have always defended the legal rights and equality of gay people.

[flyby]

by the way, on the point of "benevolent despotism" -- you need to actually go read what the quote was.

Redstar has (consistently) taken it out of context... even after I pointed out to him that he was mistaken about what it meant.

Avakian is arguing about how to "expand the we" and bring the masses into direct control of their lives and future more and more.

He openly says that the use of the word despotism is NOT meant literally -- and that the socialist revolution is not (in that sense) comparable to european despotism etc.

But he says that at the victory of the revolution, the revolutioanaries have great power, credibioity, and authority -- and much still has to be done (changed) before the masses have rule. And that this is a problem to overcome as quickly as possible.

it is not an argument for "despotism" (whether benevolent or not).

If you don&#39;t agree with his point, fine, but at least don&#39;t misrepresent it.

Perhaps you have not read it, and just took redstar&#39;s word for it. (especially since you say "benevolent despot" which is not used in the essay, i believe.)

Note the title of the essay is "exanding the we" i.e. overcoming these problems, contradictions and dynamics..

http://rwor.org/a/1201/bareach6.htm

[SonofRage]

This sounds pretty reactionary and anti-gay to me:

"As for homosexuality, this too, is perpetuated and fostered by the decay of capitalism, especially as it sinks into deeper crisis. This is particularly the case because of the distorted, oppressive man-woman relations capitalism promotes. Once the proletariat is in power, no one will be discriminated against in jobs, housing and the like merely on the basis of being a homosexual. But at the same time education will be conducted through out society on the ideology behind homosexuality and its material roots in exploiting society, and struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby+--> (flyby)Redstar has (consistently) taken it out of context... even after I pointed out to him that he was mistaken about what it meant.[/b]

See for yourself.


Bob Avakian
Speaking of the transition to communism and the seizure of power as the first great leap in that, to put this somewhat provocatively, it could be said that the goal is to move from where the vanguard is "an enlightened despot" to where there is no despot and no need or basis for one. Now that is, again, a deliberately provocative and even consciously outrageous way to say it. What do I mean by being "enlightened despots"? Obviously, I don&#39;t mean that literally--our outlook and methods can&#39;t be like those of Louis the 14th or Frederick the Great.

Still, the fact remains that, when we come to power, there will remain great inequalities and social divisions, and notions of "pure democracy" would only serve to bring the bourgeoisie back to power.

I think that&#39;s pretty clear. Flyby is correct that I&#39;ve substituted "benevolent despotism" for "enlightened despotism" in a number of comments I&#39;ve made on Avakian&#39;s statement.

I will try to be more careful in my quotation of the RCP&#39;s "living Marx" in the future.

:redstar2000:

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

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:49 AM

I, for one, tend to favor syndicalist theory originally layed out by Antonio Gramsci and revolutionary dialogue as described by Paolo Friere.

And Irish seperatism?

Sounds like you&#39;re a Connollyite, not a Shinner&#33; ;) Although to be fair, I don&#39;t know who the feck Paolo Friere is. :lol:
The long and the short of Freire&#39;s theory is revolution through dialogical education of the masses. In any event, I&#39;m mostly a Shinner because they&#39;re the larger of the seperatist parties, which means they can effect the most immediate change.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:34 PM
whew, sonofrage.

This is intense.

And I must say, the feelings are not mutual.

I respect you, and your commitment and your insights.


It&#39;s not that I don&#39;t respect your opinion, it just that I"m pretty sure you guys would either kill me or opress me if you ever took state power.

[flyby]

well at the risk of bringing the discussion down.... let me answer.

First it is kinda sad that sonofrage takes this whole tone to other comrades.

sonofrage wrote: "It&#39;s not that I don&#39;t respect your opinion."

well, obviously if you call me, and even the quick-witted Andrei "sheep" there is not a lot of respect -- for us as people and revolutionaries, or for our opinion.

If you respected our opinion you would approach differences in another way.

sonofrage writes: "I"m pretty sure you guys would either kill me or opress me if you ever took state power."

I find that bizarrely untrue -- both because the line of the revolutionary communists is NOT a line of killing opponents (even counterrevolutionary ones in the main), but also because you are obviously not a counterrevolutionary (and I can&#39;t forsee obvous way you would become one.)

And, more the point, there are people "taking state power" in the U.S. (i.e. the extreme rightwing types) who actually would "kill you and oppress you" (and in a no shit kinda way). And we need to unite and strategize about defeating them.

We can struggle over our differences, while we dig into how to build united resistance. And we CAN do both. But calling people "sheep" and making bizarre charges like we want to kill you..... I mean who does that serve, brother?&#33;

[flyby]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 13 2004, 12:02 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 13 2004, 12:02 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Redstar has (consistently) taken it out of context... even after I pointed out to him that he was mistaken about what it meant.

See for yourself.


Bob Avakian
Speaking of the transition to communism and the seizure of power as the first great leap in that, to put this somewhat provocatively, it could be said that the goal is to move from where the vanguard is "an enlightened despot" to where there is no despot and no need or basis for one. Now that is, again, a deliberately provocative and even consciously outrageous way to say it. What do I mean by being "enlightened despots"? Obviously, I don&#39;t mean that literally--our outlook and methods can&#39;t be like those of Louis the 14th or Frederick the Great.

Still, the fact remains that, when we come to power, there will remain great inequalities and social divisions, and notions of "pure democracy" would only serve to bring the bourgeoisie back to power.

I think that&#39;s pretty clear. Flyby is correct that I&#39;ve substituted "benevolent despotism" for "enlightened despotism" in a number of comments I&#39;ve made on Avakian&#39;s statement.

I will try to be more careful in my quotation of the RCP&#39;s "living Marx" in the future. [/b]
thanks, redstar.

I think anyone reading that can see that Bob Avakian is not advocating "despotism" -- but saying that at the moment a revolution wins, the powerstructures have to go a long way before the masses of people are deeply and directly involved in many aspects of ruling society.

And he says, of course, that we are talking about revolutionary power (and its forms, and its problems) so his "provocative" analogy is not meant (he says) to be taken literally. it is obviously not like the real despots of oppressive classes.

He is describing a situation like Castro -- who takes power without a living structure connecting the masses with power. And so there areroads one can take -- and Castro exactly took the road of acting like an "enlightened despot&#39; doing thing "in the name of the people" etc.

And yet, the break down of power (that is so essential to real socialism and the real transition to communism) never happened -- and so that claim of being "enlightened" became more tarnished and hollow with time.

You can only solve this by &#39;expanding the we" -- which is the part of the essay that you didn&#39;t post redstar.

So anyway, thanks for posting the larger quote this time. And I hope people take the time to read the full essay Expanding and Transforming the "We" Who Holds State Power (http://rwor.org/a/1201/bareach6.htm) -- since I think people can see that Avakian is exactly fighting against this kind of "enlightened despotism" and for a continuing revolution that will increasingly (as much as possible and as soon as possible) broaden the particupation of the masses in complex and profound decisions of society.

As for your last comment on being more careful in quoting Avakian in the future:

In general you should be more careful in the way you quote everyone. You are often sloppy, and even misleading. But also, Avakian himself is very careful and precise.... and if you want to criticize or debate his views, at least get it right. It is the least we can do in such important matters.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 09:18 PM
well at the risk of bringing the discussion down.... let me answer.

First it is kinda sad that sonofrage takes this whole tone to other comrades.

sonofrage wrote: "It&#39;s not that I don&#39;t respect your opinion."

well, obviously if you call me, and even the quick-witted Andrei "sheep" there is not a lot of respect -- for us as people and revolutionaries, or for our opinion.

If you respected our opinion you would approach differences in another way.

I can be bluntly honest about my opinion. That may come off as disrespectful at times.

I don&#39;t see what is quit-witted about spouting a party line, often using just about the same exact words from previous posts.

In my view, if you follow some "dear leader" then you are just that, a follower. Which definition of sheep was I using? This sounds about right:

a docile and vulnerable person who would rather follow than make an independent decision; "his students followed him like sheep"

Chairman Bob does your thinking for you, what does that make you? Please don&#39;t respond with something like "I think for myself, but I just happen to agree with the Chairman on everything."




sonofrage writes: "I"m pretty sure you guys would either kill me or opress me if you ever took state power."

I find that bizarrely untrue -- both because the line of the revolutionary communists is NOT a line of killing opponents (even counterrevolutionary ones in the main), but also because you are obviously not a counterrevolutionary (and I can&#39;t forsee obvous way you would become one.)

And, more the point, there are people "taking state power" in the U.S. (i.e. the extreme rightwing types) who actually would "kill you and oppress you" (and in a no shit kinda way). And we need to unite and strategize about defeating them.

We can struggle over our differences, while we dig into how to build united resistance. And we CAN do both. But calling people "sheep" and making bizarre charges like we want to kill you..... I mean who does that serve, brother?&#33;

You say that now, but if the revolution came, the capitalist state was destroyed, and RCP and other statists were attempting to erect a new state, and I was actively fighting counter-revolution by fighting the rise of a new state, what would you say then?

[flyby]

first you have known me for a long time, sonofrage.
do i give the impression of someone who doesn&#39;t think about things?

Of course revolution involves following. Is that so strange to you? We both lead and follow. What serious movement, what serious social change, what real upheaval hasn&#39;t involved both leaders and followers?


Second: this talk of "statists" and killing... on one level, it is a fantasy, a speculation, and a meanspirited speculation at that. On another level it is the error of treating "contradictions among the people" as if they are contraditions with the enemy. Or to put it simply, you have decided to treat me and other revolutionary communists as enemies. (so much for talk of respect&#33;&#33;) Based on a Orwell-style fantasy of what we are about.

Treating others in the common struggle as enemies is , if you think about, the essense of what &#39;sectarian&#39; means. Unprincipled divisions, while the real enemy is on the move.

All I ask is that you think about it.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 10:28 PM
first you have known me for a long time, sonofrage.
do i give the impression of someone who doesn&#39;t think about things?

Of course revolution involves following. Is that so strange to you? We both lead and follow. What serious movement, what serious social change, what real upheaval hasn&#39;t involved both leaders and followers?




Free will is an interesting thing. You can make a conscious decision to follow someone else. How can I have an honest impression of you? You are a disciplined Leninist, you spout your party line. That&#39;s your job, and you do it.

Add to that the close to, if not all out, religious devotion to your leader, how can I honestly know?

Of course there will be leaders, but it&#39;s quite a different matter to institutionize leadership in such a matter and put your leader on a pedestal like that.



Second: this talk of "statists" and killing... on one level, it is a fantasy, a speculation, and a meanspirited speculation at that. On another level it is the error of treating "contradictions among the people" as if they are contraditions with the enemy. Or to put it simply, you have decided to treat me and other revolutionary communists as enemies. (so much for talk of respect&#33;&#33;) Based on a Orwell-style fantasy of what we are about.

Treating others in the common struggle as enemies is , if you think about, the essense of what &#39;sectarian&#39; means. Unprincipled divisions, while the real enemy is on the move.

All I ask is that you think about it.

You&#39;ve dodged the question here. If I were actively fighting a new "workers&#39; state", would you label me counter-revolutionary?

Is the enemy of my enemy, my friend? I do not believe so. It&#39;s not that simple.

[NovelGentry]

Let me ask you something flyby, cause this is a real important question of mine. Say the revolution did come, but we as communists were broken into these rather dogmatic sects, the way we are now. And you had anarchists using union power, and union members to organize the struggle. The RCP using it&#39;s vanguard. Another more strictly Marxist-Leninist group using their vanguard. And then people like me... the people who believe we need organization but NOT groups. How would the RCP respond to these other groups post revolution who have all different ideas on what should happen.

It is my belief that this won&#39;t be a problem (but that is for other reasons which I do not need to get into here). Assume for a minute it is a problem, and each of these groups is pushing for their people to be given what they&#39;ve been fighting for... once again, how do you think the RCP would respond?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
I think anyone reading that can see that Bob Avakian is not advocating "despotism" -- but saying that at the moment a revolution wins, the power structures have to go a long way before the masses of people are deeply and directly involved in many aspects of ruling society.

Well, he&#39;s not just making a passive observation either. He wants the RCP to be in the place of the "enlightened despots".

To pass that off as an "impartial observation" is disingenuous, to say the least.

Avakian assumes that the "enlightened despotism" of the vanguard party is "historically inevitable" and then goes on to discuss the "desirability" of that despotism gradually relaxing as the masses become "fit to rule".

In that sense, I think it&#39;s perfectly fair to say that he advocates enlightened despotism.

If the RCP led a revolution, enlightened despotism would be the immediate outcome of its victory.

As difficult as it is for RCP people to grasp, many of us do not want a new despotism...no matter how "enlightened" it claims to be.

Nor do we accept the proposition that such a post-revolutionary despotism is "inevitable".

In fact, we think it imperative to avoid it at any cost&#33;

Because history suggests rather strongly that "enlightened despotisms" only move in one direction...towards unenlightened despotisms.

:redstar2000:

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

[redwinter]

Yo, Redstar, if you claim to be a Marxist, how can you not believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat? That is what the transition period to communism is, as set out by Marx himslf. The RCP is the party of the proletariat in the USA, meaning that it upholds the proletariat&#39;s interests. Maybe more proletarians in the USA support Bush than Avakian right now, but that doesn&#39;t mean that the Republican party is the proletarian party. With that said, how can you say that a "democratic dictatorship" -- which might sound scary to you, but really only means "rule not restricted by law" -- of the proletariat and allied forces, led by the revolutionary party, is not preferable to this so-called "democracy" that we have under Bush, moving in a more and more fascistic direction. If you uphold total democracy, how do you think we are going to win in a situation where the bourgeoisie controls the mass media and can disseminate its propaganda, already entrenched in the minds of the vast majority of people in this country? We gotta do better than this "democracy."


Now, to get back to the real discussion going on...I am not a member of the RCYB but it sounds like they&#39;re down with the people and the revolution. I&#39;ve seen a couple of their people post on here with some good shit I haven&#39;t seen elsewhere. I&#39;d love to hear some stories about organizing and how the RCYB gets down with the youth, how they apply the mass line and channel the scattered sentiments of the youth into concentrated revolutionary thought. Protest stories would be great too.

Another thing, if any comrades have more information on Joey Johnson or Damian Garcia, or any other revolutionary heroes in recent history, I&#39;d love to get my hands on some of that shit. I never even heard of Johnson before this thread, and that he was in the RCYB and behind this huge lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court was pretty inspiring. These heroes have to be promoted more.

[NovelGentry]

Not all of us see "dictatorship of the proletariat" as the same thing. For example... I don&#39;t see Dictatorship of the Proletariat to mean "Dictator who represent the proletariat." Instead I interpret it as meaning that the proletariat, that is the WORKING CLASS must have complete power in their hands. Thus it is a dictatorship in the same way that the current ruling class is a dictatorship.

We as the working class are to maintain all power, as a whole.

If you wonder why I interpret it this way it&#39;s because I&#39;ve read more Marx than just the communist manifesto. And the communist manifesto alone puts across points that would question such an authoritarian position as a single dictator.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I think the RCP and RCYB would agree with you on that, Comrade NovelGentry.

SonOfRage brings up an interesting point that I personally don&#39;t know how to answer. Obviously, Anarchists and non-Communists should have the right to organize and speak freely in the new society, but what are we to do if these potential allies try to rise up against the new socialist state? Obviously, the socialist state has the need to defend itself and defend the new revolutionary order, but surely there must be a better way of dealing with these contradictions rather than simply crushing them. Any Maoist comrades have something to say about that? Cuz this is actually a question I&#39;ve had for some time.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 02:32 AM
I think anyone reading that can see that Bob Avakian is not advocating "despotism" -- but saying that at the moment a revolution wins, the powerstructures have to go a long way before the masses of people are deeply and directly involved in many aspects of ruling society.
Can it really be a revolution if the power structures remain as they are?

[NovelGentry]

I think the RCP and RCYB would agree with you on that, Comrade NovelGentry.

No need to be formal here, Comrade Gent is fine ;)

Let me follow that up with something then. While they may agree it&#39;s not a problem, what would be their reason for saying such. While the general belief that it won&#39;t be a problem may be shared, I doubt they would share my specific reasoning for such, so I must ask you to explain WHY they don&#39;t think it would be a problem. I can explain mine if you&#39;d like me to. I would also accept an article explaining why it wouldn&#39;t be an issue if such an article exists. Thanks in advance for any information you provide.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:17 AM
Yo, Redstar, if you claim to be a Marxist, how can you not believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat? That is what the transition period to communism is, as set out by Marx himslf. The RCP is the party of the proletariat in the USA, meaning that it upholds the proletariat&#39;s interests.
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" apparently advocated by the RCP is not Marxist, but a Leninist misunderstanding of what Marx wrote. For Marx, and most communists, the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply another (long-winded) way to describe workers&#39; democracy. That is, the control of the state by the workers, while such class differences still exist.

Leninists have misinterpreted this dictatorship to mean the dictatorship of the vanguard party, supposedly on behalf of the proletariat.

[NovelGentry]

Leninists have misinterpreted this dictatorship to mean the dictatorship of the vanguard party, supposedly on behalf of the proletariat.

While I agree I think you&#39;ll be hard pressed to ever find a Leninist who agrees with this interpretation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by redwinter
Yo, Redstar, if you claim to be a Marxist, how can you not believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat? That is what the transition period to communism is, as set out by Marx himself.

First of all, one does not "claim" to be a Marxist on the basis of "beliefs". Marxism is a scientific way of investigating and explaining social phenomena...not a series of "orthodox dogmas" that one must "believe" or "risk damnation".

Marx himself did indeed posit a "transition period" between capitalism and communism to which he attached the label "dictatorship of the proletariat".

But what is the content of that "dictatorship"?

The only thing we really have to go on is Marx&#39;s assumption that the proletariat would "dictate" to the old ruling class in something of the same way that the ruling class "dictates" to the proletariat now.

In other words, the old capitalist class and its lackeys would have no right to property, no right to "hire wage labor", no right of "free speech" or a "free press"; no right to organize; no right to vote or to be represented in any workers&#39; organs of representation, etc.

The old ruling class would be "in the shit" -- where we are now.

I have no problem with Marx&#39;s vision of the dictatorship of the proletariat at all.

But Leninism does not limit itself to Marx&#39;s conception but rather takes off in a whole different and much more ambitious direction.

What Avakian and the RCP propose is an "enlightened despotism" of their party over the working class itself.

Do you think that&#39;s "Marxist"?

Do you think that&#39;s "a good idea"?


The RCP is the party of the proletariat in the USA, meaning that it upholds the proletariat&#39;s interests.

Even if that were true, does that mean that it would still "uphold the proletariat&#39;s interests" once it got into power?

There&#39;ve been lots of Leninist parties who, at one time or another, upheld the interests of the proletariat for a while...and then they stopped doing that and started upholding their own interests.

Why? Was it all down to personal villainy? Or are there objective reasons why "enlightened despots" turn into unenlightened despots?

Why did Lenin try so hard to bring the foreign capitalists back to Russia? Why did Stalin sign a treaty with Hitler? Why did Mao oppose the Shanghai Commune and instead cozy up to Richard Nixon? How did any of those deeds "uphold the proletariat&#39;s interests"?

If you want to be a Marxist, you must learn to start asking hard questions about social reality.


With that said, how can you say that a "democratic dictatorship" -- which might sound scary to you, but really only means "rule not restricted by law" -- of the proletariat and allied forces, led by the revolutionary party, is not preferable to this so-called "democracy" that we have under Bush, moving in a more and more fascistic direction.

Ah...a fresh argument. You are asking me to support Avakian and the RCP as a "lesser evil" than Bush.

Well, you see, I&#39;ve never been able to acquire a really good crystal ball...and so I&#39;ve never been able to tell in advance who would really be "the lesser evil".

Avakian makes more attractive promises than Bush...do you think that "means something"? For all I know, Avakian might jerk my sorry ass into a "labor camp" faster than you can say "enemy of the people".

Bush hasn&#39;t done that...yet.

And I don&#39;t want to live in a society with "labor camps".


If you uphold total democracy, how do you think we are going to win in a situation where the bourgeoisie controls the mass media and can disseminate its propaganda, already entrenched in the minds of the vast majority of people in this country?

I note that you are a new member of Che-Lives and that this, in fact, was your first post here...so it&#39;s not really your fault that you are unfamiliar with my views.

I don&#39;t "uphold" bourgeois "democracy" at all...in any way. I do not think that working class revolutionaries will ever "be elected" to power in a capitalist country.

In fact, I think revolutionaries should attack capitalist "elections" as fake&#33;

It is, in particular, what happens after the proletarian revolution wherein I am sharply opposed to the Leninist paradigm.

I am in favor of a "Paris Commune" type of "state"...wherein power is directly in the hands of the working class itself and exercised in an "ultra-democratic" fashion. In fact, I want to proceed at once to the establishing of communism -- recognizing that it can&#39;t be done "overnight" but that visible progress in that direction is imperative.

In particular, I think even the commune must not be allowed to become a "political center of gravity" -- a consolidated state that draws the ambitious into its orbit.

Accordingly, I reject the RCP&#39;s claim (or anyone else&#39;s) to be the "leaders" of either the revolution or the new society that follows.

We don&#39;t need no stinkin&#39; leaders&#33;

:redstar2000:

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

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:55 PM
We don&#39;t need no stinkin&#39; leaders&#33;
What about freshly bathed ones?

:D

[Xvall]

I don&#39;t think I have enough Lenin/Mao in me to actually be directly affiliated with this organization. Nice shirts though.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 05:55 PM

In fact, I think revolutionaries should attack capitalist "elections" as fake&#33;

It is, in particular, what happens after the proletarian revolution wherein I am sharply opposed to the Leninist paradigm.

I am in favor of a "Paris Commune" type of "state"...wherein power is directly in the hands of the working class itself and exercised in an "ultra-democratic" fashion. In fact, I want to proceed at once to the establishing of communism -- recognizing that it can&#39;t be done "overnight" but that visible progress in that direction is imperative.

In particular, I think even the commune must not be allowed to become a "political center of gravity" -- a consolidated state that draws the ambitious into its orbit.
Two questions Redstar, I&#39;ve been reading your writings lately, and I&#39;ve found I agree alot with your ideology (only things I don&#39;t is the debate about dialectics and some things about the Paris Commune). Anyways, I&#39;ve been dying to find a "label" or if you want to call it something else, a "name" for such views, since they really don&#39;t fit into Marxist Humanism, Leninism, Trotskyism ect.
So what would you call yourself, if asked?


Secondly, the Paris Commune didn&#39;t opress the former ruling class as much, the bank of France even cheated on them when they demanded money for the new economy. Some liberals even had posistions within the government. Marx, if I recall correctly, wrote that the Commune failed to oppress the deposed ruling class as much as it should had.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zingu
So what would you call yourself, if asked?

I might end up someday calling myself a "workerist". :D See the new thread on Proletarism in the Theory forum.


Marx, if I recall correctly, wrote that the Commune failed to oppress the deposed ruling class as much as it should had.

Very true and quite justifiably. It&#39;s astounding that the communards did not seize the gold in the Paris banks at once. Among other things, it could have been used to buy food from the peasantry and both feed the commune and attract opportunistic support from nearby peasants.

Engels also criticized the communards privately...saying that it was suicidal for them not to have marched on Versailles and dispersed that center of counter-revolution before it could organize itself.

But it&#39;s a funny thing: it almost seems like a "law of history" that revolutions are never revolutionary enough...they stop well short of what they could have accomplished -- and end up actually accomplishing even less&#33;

Perhaps it&#39;s a kind of historical or cultural "inertia" at work...to build a whole new form of human society is really hard.

Some people, discouraged by this, want to stop before "we go too far".

I think we should "shoot for the moon"...so that even if we don&#39;t reach it, we may still achieve a perfectly satisfactory "high earth orbit" and an "easy launch" to get the rest of the way.

:redstar2000:

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

[flyby]

i think we need to stand on the shoulders of the past, to advance much farther in the next wave of revolution.

That is why i&#39;m a follower of bob Avakian -- that is his method, and his lifes work.

The commune was a very primitive and early attempt (as even Marx thought at the time). If Marx had been able to lead, not just comment, it might have gone much farther.

The bolsheviks and then the Maoist revolutin each went much farther, learning from the past, to make new leaps, develop new methods and insights.

Now we need to preapare to overcome the "two humps" -- revolution in each country, the seizure of countrywide power is one hump, and the transformation of the larger world situation, pulling out enough of the world onto the communist road to unleash a whole new dynamic is the second hump.

Let&#39;s unite on that basis. And strategize on how to press ahead.

[American_Trotskyist]

I&#39;m not an RCP member because Im not into the whole Cult of Bobby Avakian. Have you ever had a democratic change within the party? No I believe in Democracy and following Marx and Lenin, see NewYouth.com for more info on stalinism or beter yet read the Revolution Betrayed

[American_Trotskyist]

Maoism and Stalinism betrayed Lenin and Marx. The Petty Bourgeoisie isn&#39;t to be in the PROLETARIATE revolution. Maoism is a petty cheap form of Proudhonism

[flyby]

i think proletarian revolutino is carried out by a broad movement that will take the form of a "united front under proletarian leadership."

It seems clear to me that sections of the middle class (including students, black professionals and many other groupings) can play a positive supportative role in proletarian revolution.

It is not a narrow "class against class" thing -- but a broad revolutionary movement, led by the most all-the-way communist elements and their leader...

I advise you to study the strategic approach of the RCP which may prove thought provoking:

http://rwor.org/margorp/a-uf1.htm

then we can talk some more.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
The commune was a very primitive and early attempt (as even Marx thought at the time). If Marx had been able to lead, not just comment, it might have gone much farther.

The Bolsheviks and then the Maoist revolutin each went much farther, learning from the past, to make new leaps, develop new methods and insights.

I think that&#39;s very disputable.

The states created by the Bolsheviks and the Maoists lasted longer than the Paris Commune...but never achieved the level of workers&#39; power that existed in the Paris Commune (except, perhaps, briefly in the Shanghai Commune).

It&#39;s always interesting to speculate on "what if" questions; e.g., what if Marx and Engels had been "on the scene" in Paris when the Commune was proclaimed? Would they have attempted to become "enlightened despots"? Would they have succeeded?

I think they would not have entertained such aspirations...but we shall never know.

:redstar2000:

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

[American_Trotskyist]

Look, the middle class (this is a vague term because "poor" doesn&#39;t mean proletariat, the definition is someone who has to sell their labor and many proletariats are in this class peasant own their means of living), better yet the petty bourgeoisie won&#39;t ally with us. During the Russian they promised the peasants land but the it was the WORKERS&#39;, because Marx never had a kind word for those who spoke fondly of the peasants and proletariat alliance nor did Lenin ever support Stalinist/Maoist Menshevik class collaboration, The workers, proletariat, are the most oppressed class and the Revolution is meant for them. The PBs will only help in maybe a February 1917 way, a small but ephemeral time of Bourgeois rule lead by quasi-socialist. However, the classes have nothing in common. We are at a dichotomy in society after the short, but not exactly necessary, bourgeois revolution. The point of communism is to bring PROLETARIAT rule, not peasant. Even in the Manifesto under "bourgeois socialism" Marx states the absurdity of two classes reconciling, if it we possible we wouldn&#39;t have the state now would we?

[guerillablack]

So, where can i get information about joining RCYB?