The "Good" Personality Cult?

[redstar2000]

Driving a stake through the heart of "leader-ism" is at least as tough as killing off the villain in a teen slasher movie. One can (fairly easily) find and display the warts and other short-comings of this or that "leader". Surprise, s/he's a fallible mortal after all!

But that doesn't stop the next generation of leader-wannabes from putting forward their dubious claims to the title...as if some folks just need the psychological "vindication" of being thought of as a "leader". And others, of course, glory in the title of "follower"...they are proud of their subservience.

One common response is to simply say "fuck those idiots and their leader; they deserve each other!", much as some atheists scorn the people that think the pope "really is" the "Vicar of Christ on earth".

But I think that's a mistake and an evasion of struggle against reactionary ideas. If you let bad ideas go unchallenged because they are "self-evidently stupid" in your eyes, the people who have those bad ideas are not going to just "go away" and "leave you alone".

They will keep "plugging away"...and one day you could wake up and discover that the pope's superstitious drivel is now "the law of the land".

Or that there's an army marching down your street and they're all carrying big pictures of...Bob Avakian!

There's another important reason to keep bringing this up; not every "follower" is necessarily an "idiot". There are intelligent and sincere people who, in this case, are very serious about making a personal contribution to the revolutionary process; it is shamefully wasteful to "stand aside" and watch their efforts being twisted and their persons humiliated in the cause of "leader-ism".

Consequently, I think it's important to "keep the pressure on" the idea of leader-ism...keep confronting it until it's completely discredited.

I recently came across an excerpt of Bob Avakian's memoirs on another board. Since, by Avakian's standards, it is remarkably succinct, I thought it would be appropriate here to examine the ideas he presents from a Marxist standpoint.

(Note: all quotes marked "Avakian" are from FROM IKE TO MAO AND BEYOND - My Journey From Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist A Memoir by Bob Avakian

Excerpted by an RCPer on the AnotherWorldIsPossible board here...

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?acti...75496&start=30) (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=articles&num=1104275496&start=30))


Originally posted by Avakian+--> (Avakian)As communists who understand both that it is the masses of people who have to rise up and make revolution and transform society and, on the other hand, that in order to do that the masses need leadership that makes them conscious of the need and the possibility to do this, we have a different view of leadership. We understand in a deep and scientific way why people need leadership and what kind of leadership they need. So we also look at the role of individual leaders differently than the bourgeoisie does, certainly, and also differently that others who don't have a communist viewpoint and understanding.[/b]

My observation, for what it's worth, is that Avakian's view of leadership parallels that of the bourgeoisie very closely.

It flatly asserts that the masses cannot realize the "need" and the "possibility" of making revolution and transforming society unless "someone" tells them that.

They'd never "figure it out" on their own.

The bourgeoisie also "believe in leader-ism", of course...from the shop foreman to the "world-conquerer". In their eyes as well as Avakian's, "nothing happens" without "leadership". Nothing "good", that is.

Even "bad things" happen "because" of "bad leadership". The history of 20th century communism turns out to be one of poor or inadequate "leadership". If the "guys in charge" had done "the right things", then matters would be totally different from the way they are now.

Is this not paralleled by many bourgeois historians? The Nazis lost the war "because Hitler fucked up". The U.S. lost in Vietnam because Johnson and Nixon were "incompetents". John Kerry lost the last "election" because he hired a "seven-time loser" as a campaign manager. And the U.S. is losing in Iraq because Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al., had "no plan" for how to set up a "successful occupation".

Neither the objective material conditions nor the masses themselves play any significant role in what happens.

Calling your assertions "deep" and "scientific" does not make them so.


Originally posted by Avakian+--> (Avakian)We understand that there are people who, as a result of a combination of personal experiences and larger social experiences and larger events and influences in society and the world, come to embody the kind of leadership that the masses of people, and the politically advanced forces among them, need in order to make revolution.[/b]

Think about that: what does it mean to "embody" a quality?

Doesn't it strike you like something along the lines of "and the Word became flesh and dwealt amongst us"?

If you say that someone "embodies" an idea, you don't simply mean that someone had an idea or developed an idea or even symbolizes an idea -- literally, you mean that they've become the idea. The idea and their bodily existence are "one and the same".

It's certainly possible that "Avakian didn't mean it literally" or "it was just a poor choice of words".

But I don't think so, myself. I think that "leader-ism" lends itself to metaphysical thinking and the words chosen reflect that predisposition. "Leader-ism" is a metaphysical concept; there's nothing scientific about it whatsoever.


Originally posted by Avakian
Now "cult of personality" is a phrase that has been used to convey a negative meaning -- the word "cult" implies a kind of religious sect -- but there is a deeper question here. And, in a certain way, it has been important to take this on directly, and at times in a provocative way. I remember, for example, being challenged by someone interviewing me -- I believe this was on a college radio station in Madison, Wisconsin -- who asked insistently: "Is there a 'cult of personality' developing around Bob Avakian?" And I replied: "I certainly hope so -- we've been working very hard to create one." This was a provocative way of getting to the real point.

Yes, that is certainly provocative.

Here's a guy who comes right out and says that there ought to be a "personality cult" around ME!

Modesty is not one of Bob Avakian's faults.

We are used to this sort of hype in the entertainment industry...and even among some of the more successful capitalists. Humans of normal intelligence usually discount it heavily...figuring that if the truth were known, these "personalities" screw up like everyone else.

What is far more ominous is when this kind of grandiose self-delusion appears in a political context. A "cult of personality" requires, above all, followers...people who think the sun shines out of this guy's ass.

And if they think that, then how can they think about anything else at all?

And if there are a sufficient number of such followers, what happens then?


Originally posted by Avakian
What is involved here is the role of individual leaders, especially ones who do come to represent in a concentrated way the kind of leadership people need, people who are outstanding leaders, if you want to put it simply. Many people don't have a hard time recognizing that certain people come to play outstanding roles in various other areas of life -- science, sports, the arts, and so on -- but when it comes to the sphere of political leadership, this seems to be a much more sensitive and controversial issue.

Very true...and for a very valid reason. No one is going to take any action against me in the material world if I dissent from the "standard model" in particle physics, or if I discount the home-run totals of steroid-enhanced ballplayers, or if I'm firmly convinced that Britney Spears has the approximate singing ability of a camel.

In politics, especially revolutionary politics, matters are different. Criticism of the "leader" is apt to get me a really lousy job or even an early payment on my life insurance.

There is much to be "sensitive" about.


Originally posted by Avakian
And the deeper question is this: what is the relationship between such leaders and broader groupings of people? This question came up repeatedly, in a number of different forms, and we went into it deeply and struggled over it with broad numbers of people. We said straight-up that when you do have individuals who are of a high caliber, capable of being both far-seeing and of having a profound grasp of practical questions, able to grapple on a high level with theory and to provide guidance for the struggle, not only in a more immediate but in a more strategic sense, this is a very good thing, not a bad thing.

First of all, no one says this about you, Chairman Bob, except your followers. They claim at interminable length that you possess these desirable qualities in abundance...no one else seems to think so at all. Some even vigorously dissent from that evaluation.

Horrors!

Secondly, suppose such an individual "did exist"...would a "cult of personality" built around such a hypothetical individual be "the right thing to do"?

I think not. Because no matter "how good" someone is or how "outstanding" their contributions may be, they are human and will make mistakes.

But if there is a "cult of personality" around them, then they are beyond legitimate criticism and their mistakes (usually) cannot be corrected until they die.

If they admit a mistake, then they themselves can correct it. Otherwise, one can only wait for the emperor to become worm-shit and then try to clean up the mess he's made of things.


Originally posted by Avakian
This is a strength for a party. This is a strength for the revolution. This is a strength in terms of contributing to the international struggle. So this [is] not something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or defensive about, it is something to uphold and to popularize to people that we do have this kind of leadership and we do have an individual who can play this kind of a role, who is willing to take that responsibility and is able to do so.

This is a candid admission of the obvious. Some people in Avakian's party are "embarrassed", "ashamed", and "defensive" about the cult of Avakian.

But perhaps "are" is the wrong word; perhaps it should be were.

What happens to people in Avakian's party who "won't" go along with the hype? It seems to me that their position must be extremely precarious...even if they prudently refrain from any direct criticism of the "leader" or the line promoting the "leader" (waiting for the emperor to die).

Note also that Avakian fully shares the opinion of his followers; when he says that "we do have this kind of leadership and we do have an individual who can play this kind of a role, who is willing to take that responsibility and is able to do so" -- he's talking about HIMSELF!


[email protected]
Especially confronted with the challenge of defending, and popularizing, our Party and its leadership, we struggled over this within the Party itself, at the same time we took this out more broadly and struggled with progressive and radical people about this question: we deepened our own grasp of this, and a number of people beyond the party at least came to a better understanding of the issues involved, and many were won to be supportive of our position.

I'm rather skeptical of all this...I have yet to see anyone outside the milieu of Avakian's party take his self-evaluation seriously.

What I have noticed is a kind of "spill-over" effect: the cult of Avakian becomes, over time, the cult of his party as well.

Here's a contribution I came across on the Atlanta Indymedia site...


A movement already exists that has rethought the challenge of the betrayal of the Soviet-Chinese Revisionists. It is called the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and has an expression here in...the USA, where the Revolutionary Communist Party has taken up the banner of MLM and carried it through the historic breakthroughs made by Chairman Avakian. Only through working with the sole authentic voice of the American proletariat can revolution be made in countries like the USA and the RCP is the sole party under the leadership of Chairman Avakian that is actively capable of doing it. More and more proletarians of all national formations within the American empire are coming to realize the truths of these breakthroughs and are uniting behind the RCP's leadership. I would invite...anyone...serious about making revolution in this country to get down with the RCP on the revolutionary tip and take it until revolution is happened.

http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/disp...36407/index.php (http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/36407/index.php)

Note that: the RCP is "the sole authentic voice of the American proletariat", not to mention that "more and more proletarians...are uniting behind the RCP's leadership".

Self-hype is like cancer; it just grows and grows until it kills the host.

One more thing to be considered in all this. As in so many things, Marx anticipated this question as well.


Karl Marx
Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves — originating from various countries — to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules.

Letter, Karl Marx to Wilhelm Blos, London, November 10, 1877 (http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1877/letters/77_11_10.htm)

Marx directly links the "personality cult" to "a superstitious belief in authority".

I think he got that one right!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[nochastitybelt]

Yup, I agree with everything you said here. Is this a subliminal call out to RosaLR and crew?

by the way.. I saw your RedStar papers link at the NY Anarchohood site!!! :P they're promoting them down there!

There's a big difference in following the person, as oppossed to following the idea. and there's a big difference in a person rallying the masses as oppossed to leading the masses. I think the masses can lead themselves just fine.

As for Avakian, he seems to be much adrift to the ideas of revolution than in being that central guru for revolution. :(

I think the people have no problem leading themselves.

To quote Eugene Debs: "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds that there is nothing you cannot do for yourselves."

[rice349]

While personally I think the personality cults are just a little too obsessive, i think the idea that people can lead themselves is a bit far-fetched. For every positive argument for open democracy in which their is a lack of centralism and leadership roles, their lies the open wound in which inefficiency and argumentative wasting of time fills in. Without some form of centralized leadership, it would be rather hard to lead a centrally planned economy. This is where I believe there lies the biggest conflict we have to negotiate: what's more important - freedom or equality. Since you cannot have absolute freedom and absolute equality there has to be a decision based on what's more important.

If you want absolute freedom (direct democracy), then you are giving up equality. Centralized leadership (devoid of a functioning personality cult) is the most plausible way in which to liberate the workers and bring about class equality.

The leader(s) should not be viewed as above mere humans and fellow workers, but there has to b some levels of bureaucracy in the name of efficiency. Without, any revolutionary movement will be subject to not only petty internal arguments, but real external threats as well.

And while the notion that a personality cult is just plain retarded (especialyl in Bob Avakian's case), there s a clearly defined line between strong capable leaders and a cult of personality. Where that line is drawn is up to discussion, but the two are not synonymous.

As far as letting the people lead themselves, you don't have to treat them like idiots or beasts of burden; but their is some merit in the fact that sometimes people have to be led into some situations based on their own inhibitions and reactions to progressive change. Avakian is wrong in assuming nothing happens without a leader telling the people what to do, without qualified leaders there is no direction, and often times it is in the most basic of human needs to find someone who is capable of motivating and inspiring those with weaker minds and spirits to join in the revolution.

While it is not particularly healthy to let a single individual embody an entire idea and revolution, it happens and soemtimes this can be the best way to motivate people to fight. They connect somehow with that person; perhaps that individual's personality is what draws them in.

Strong leadership is necessary to give direction to the revolution, and help keep things organized for the sake of efficiency. Democracy is only experimental and problematic at best. Whiel not completely worthless, if combined with authoritative principles it can create a very efficient, while ego-fulfilling system that will satisfy the masses.

[nochastitybelt]

"Democracy is only experimental and problematic at best. Whiel not completely worthless, if combined with authoritative principles it can create a very efficient, while ego-fulfilling system that will satisfy the masses."

Well, there you go. :lol:

However, It's not a matter of Freedom vs. Equality, but of Mass Equality in Mass Participation. Centralized Ecomonies don't offer that and Centralized Economies will always likely fall short in developing a systematic approach in distributing resources equally outside of mass populated areas.

Still, I would rather have the inefficiency of the masses arguing it out than the Bureaucratic's inefficiency in arguing the same notions. Just to give it to The People, which is what it's all about. The equality to state a proposal and be considered.

[Severian]

A true personality cult isn't just a matter of bad ideas; it involves the ability to coerce and to distribute privileges in order to reinforce the leader's indisputable authority. The individual supreme leader, and the religion-like praise of that leader, is the summit of a hierarchy of privilege and coercion. A symptom, really.

Seems to me, also, that different things are being conflated in this thread - by both Redstar and Avakian, possibly. On one hand is the need for revolutionary leadership; the other is the idea that one individual can fill that need, or that leadership is necessarily counterposed to democracy.

It's not clear to me why "rice349" thinks freedom and equality are counterposed. It's simply assumed. I've previously seen this idea mostly on the radical ultraright; "Free men are never equal, equal men are never free."

[bolshevik butcher]

There will maybe always be leaders, but a personality clt is just accepting what is said without comprahending and thinking about it, I admire che but don't agree with everything he said or did.

[rice349]

It's not clear to me why "rice349" thinks freedom and equality are counterposed. It's simply assumed. I've previously seen this idea mostly on the radical ultraright; "Free men are never equal, equal men are never free."

This is my fault because i didn't explain my views very clearly, i did not mean that freedom and equality of the masses are counterposed; but rather, that freedom of those who are against the liberation and equality of the working class (the bourgeois, reactionary, etc.) I believe that freedom for those who are counter-productive to progressive change need to be suspended in order to make things flow evenly and successfully.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that we gave democratic freedoms (expression and association) to neo-nazi and anti-communist groups in a post-revolutionary society. These groups, whose hatred and tactics would be intensified by any successful progressive movement, could present dangerous threats to the worker's government if given electoral power. What happens when they start to gain larger constituencies and more and more political power? This is where freedoms have to be suspended in the name of equality.

Ultimately, this separation of freedom and equality would only be necessary until society is ready to move into the final transition --> communism.

[Lamanov]

so basicly democracy is counterposed to centralism ?

[The Grapes of Wrath]

It seems to me that the cult of personality is scary and dangerous, but that effective leadership is definitely not and should be encouraged. It seems to me that one reason why there may be such a thing as a cult of personality, is the simple reason that there is not much choice in a one-party system. In other words, too much power given to one group or person who cannot be dispelled.

But what of political recall? Wouldn't the people have the right to call back an official who displeases them? Well, would it matter? Politics is not in the open much, it takes back door channels whenever possible, besides, its easier and much more cost effective that way. If someone were to gain too much power, to the point of a cult of personality status, it would be too late to dispell this person, and harmful things can happen. Besides, the whole idea of the "cult" is to have everyone love that person or persons and identifying solely with their "will."

"But what is Chinese Communist Party?" "It is Chariman Mao's will." I don't think that socialism/communism should fall into that trap again. We can highly regard someone, but we must remember to criticize their doings and sayings, otherwise, what good is democracy?


so basicly democracy is counterposed to centralism ?

I don't think necessarily so. It all depends on what you mean by democracy. If you have a one-party system, where the party is in effect the government as well, you have no check on that party/governmental body. The party should be separate from government, and hence, there would seem to be at least more than one party (but I would hope for more than 2). You're party can be the most centralized party ever, as long as it is not simultaneously the government.

If you mean centralism as in the form of government, such as a strong centralized state, or else a stong federal government, I don't see why it would be either. In order for society of work, some form of hierarchy must exist in my opinion. Centralization makes hierarchy easier, but is that the way we wish to go? I suppose it would depend on the individual country or region.


I believe that freedom for those who are counter-productive to progressive change need to be suspended in order to make things flow evenly and successfully.

I realize this is slightly off topic, but this is creepy to me. How do we know who such people are? Are we to have dossiers on them? Do we need a Socialist Police to watch them? Spies to follow them? Do they need nametags?

Where do we draw the line? Would these people not show us to see what may be a problem we are having? Is not dissent in most forms a rebellion against and a representation of the problems of a given society or government?

This, of course, brings us back to the question that has plagued mankind for about 2 centuries now ... individual freedoms versus social controls. Where do we draw this line? There will always be textbook cases and exceptions, it is a gray area. We cannot simply say "you don't get the right," that is simplism. Things are more complicated than that.


What happens when they start to gain larger constituencies and more and more political power?

Then we are failing in bringing about positive change and bettering the lives of the people. I would hope that actions would speak louder than words. But if not, then this is were politics comes in. We'll just have to play that game. Besides, to be honest, I can't really see neo-Nazis gaining power anywhere.


This is where freedoms have to be suspended in the name of equality.

Ultimately, this separation of freedom and equality would only be necessary until society is ready to move into the final transition --> communism.

This ok, it has its flaws but so does everything. My question is, how do we know when we have reached communism? Is there a finish line with a guy waving a checkered flag? I think the answer is that we don't know. That would be up to debate, but almost everyone has a differing form of communism in their heads. So we may never know as a government (or collective or whatever it may be for our Anarchist friends and others) let alone as human beings.

And so, if communism is nearly impossible to pinpoint, that it has different interpretations and definitions, what are to become of these rights? Are they just thrown to the wayside until further notice?

Are we striving for equality or freedom? Can you have both at the same time? Can you have one without the other? Well, those were questions arisen from your points. I don't know if they are relevant to the topic at hand, I'm sure they are not. So, in light of this revelation, I suppose you can simply discount them as ramblings of a young man.

In conclusion .... cults of personality are bad, centralism is not.

TGOW

[rice349]

no but democracy is suboordinate to centralism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by rice349+--> (rice349)For every positive argument for open democracy in which there is a lack of centralism and leadership roles, there lies the open wound in which inefficiency and argumentative wasting of time fills in.[/b]

Yes, you have nailed the essence of the dispute here.

Are people willing to tolerate "inefficiency" in order to attain and preserve their liberation?

And I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

Some people (mostly Leninists) think that inefficiency is a kind of "dagger" pointed at the heart of the revolution, that people will "demand" an "experienced leadership" that "gets things done". If communists don't supply that, then the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie "will".

And there's no denying that, at least within limits, a "great leader" and/or a reasonably competent bureaucracy is "more efficient" than any form of direct democracy.

I would put it this way: is efficiency the main goal of our movement? Are we for communism "because" it is "more efficient" than capitalism?

Secondly, let's suppose the Leninist assumption was "correct" -- that people "do" and "always will" prefer an efficient socialist despotism to "time-wasting", "argumentative" communism...at least for a very long time.

My position is that even if that unpleasant hypothesis turned out to be true, we should nevertheless struggle for what we really want.

If offered a socialist despotism by a victorious vanguard party, we should struggle against it and demand proletarian democracy on every public occasion. If offered a "great leader", we should respond with ridicule and the sharpest possible criticisms of his "revolutionary" pretensions.

Just because somebody says (in suitably authoritative tones) that this or that outcome of the revolutionary process is "historically inevitable" does not mean that we have to roll over like puppies and accept that.

They could very well be totally wrong.


Severian
A true personality cult isn't just a matter of bad ideas; it involves the ability to coerce and to distribute privileges in order to reinforce the leader's indisputable authority. The individual supreme leader, and the religion-like praise of that leader, is the summit of a hierarchy of privilege and coercion. A symptom, really.

Yes, that's how it used to be. But in the case of Maoism in general and Avakian in particular, the personality cult is "front-loaded" (as one fellow put it on another board) into the revolutionary process. Long before the "great leader" has done anything of consequence or has any privileges/punishments to dispense, the Maoist is tasked with the burdensome job of winning popular acclaim for the leader. (Not every Maoist group does this; but I think most do.)

Thus, we are dealing (in the "west") with what is still an idea...something proposed to us as something we "ought to do" or even "must do".

I'm informed (I think reliably) that in RCP circles, no one can even be considered a "real communist" unless they acknowledge Avakian's "leadership". That doesn't mean they won't talk to you (it's not "that kind" of cult); they're very willing to argue with anyone who's willing to argue with them. And, to be fair, they often have interesting insights on many contemporary political questions.

They are not necessarily "idiots".

What they have been unable to do (and may always be unable to do) is challenge Mao's assertion that there "can be good personality cults".

Or that Bob Avakian is the "revolutionary equivalent" of Barry Bonds.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 22 2005, 04:49 PM
If you have a one-party system, where the party is in effect the government as well, you have no check on that party/governmental body. The party should be separate from government, and hence, there would seem to be at least more than one party (but I would hope for more than 2). You're party can be the most centralized party ever, as long as it is not simultaneously the government.
I agree, and it's interesting to note that in the early Soviet Union, Lenin and others identified it as a problem, that the state and party had become overly entertwined. This entanglement interfered with the proper functioning of government, and worse, corrupted and bureaucratised the party.

It's preferable that different parties exist to represent the interests of different classes and layers of working people....if the interests of a class can't find expression through its own party, they'll find some way to express themselves through the single ruling party.

As for centralization in government, it's definitely not always counterposed to democracy. In U.S. history, for example, it's the opposite: the "state's rights" advocates have been the defenders of slavery and segregation. The federal government has run roughshod over state government in a way that's expanded individual democratic rights more than once.

The "bio-region" argument against centralization somebody's raising makes little sense to me; environmental considerations seem to me to argue for centralization. Pollution, and certainly global climate change, recognize no borders; regional governments are more likely to disregard worldwide environmental concerns in favor of regional economic advantage. As state governments in the U.S. often do today, and national governments do in relation to the danger of global climate change.

Marx, incidentally, favored centralization in government, probably in part because that was the direction of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Germany, France, and other countries; and that became a common position among pre-WWI socialists.

It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks, with their emphasis on self-determination for oppressed nationalities, who shifted support away from state centralization.

Anway: centralization depends on the particular situation.




I believe that freedom for those who are counter-productive to progressive change need to be suspended in order to make things flow evenly and successfully.

I realize this is slightly off topic, but this is creepy to me. How do we know who such people are? Are we to have dossiers on them? Do we need a Socialist Police to watch them? Spies to follow them? Do they need nametags?

Where do we draw the line? Would these people not show us to see what may be a problem we are having? Is not dissent in most forms a rebellion against and a representation of the problems of a given society or government?

Heh. Unfortunately, we probably do need some of these things if we're faced with terrorism and other violence seeking to reverse the revolution. Dissent in the early stages of a transition to socialism may simply indicate that people who owned capital in the old system, don't like losing it.

I think you do have a point though. Repression against the capitalists is a necessary evil at best. It tends to have a chilling effect on workers' democracy at well. And there's the problem of: who decides what is counterrevolutionary and what is legitimate disagreement within the revolution? Repressive powers can potentially be abused.

So while I think political repression against the deposed capitalist class - the dictatorship of the proletariat - is necessary, I think it shouldn't be as little, and as short, as possible.



What happens when they start to gain larger constituencies and more and more political power?

Then we are failing in bringing about positive change and bettering the lives of the people. I would hope that actions would speak louder than words. But if not, then this is were politics comes in. We'll just have to play that game. Besides, to be honest, I can't really see neo-Nazis gaining power anywhere.

Yeah, I agree. If you really have to worry about counterrevolution forces gaining majority support, you're doing something else wrong. Very wrong.

Repression is necessary in order to deal with the violent, often terrorist, resistance of the capitalist class - a small minority - and its hangers-on - hopefully also a minority.

If it's directed against the majority, that's probably not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship over and against the proletariat. Not in support of equality, but in defense of the privileges of bureaucts.

As almost everyone agrees happened in the USSR, China, etc...the only disagreement is over when it happened.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:07 PM
Secondly, let's suppose the Leninist assumption was "correct" -- that people "do" and "always will" prefer an efficient socialist despotism to "time-wasting", "argumentative" communism...at least for a very long time.
When did Lenin make that argument, exactly?

Or are you using "Leninist" to refer to ideas that are the opposite of Lenin's, again?

Lemme suggest that what first happened in the USSR to reduce mass participation in decisionmaking (the soviets, etc.) was....most people got tired of going to meetings all the time.

Revolutions are exhausting. Especially with all the material sacrifices people had to make, in that particular situation. A state of high mass participation in politics is hard to sustain. It's going to ebb...and one hopes, rise again. But not remain at one constant level, certainly.

I suppose that might bear some resemblance to yer version of "Leninism" there...that many people were voting with their feet for "efficient socialist depotism". In the sense they weren't willing to keep doing what was necessary for the alternative.

But not much resemblance.


Yes, that's how it used to be. But in the case of Maoism in general and Avakian in particular, the personality cult is "front-loaded" (as one fellow put it on another board) into the revolutionary process. Long before the "great leader" has done anything of consequence or has any privileges/punishments to dispense, the Maoist is tasked with the burdensome job of winning popular acclaim for the leader. (Not every Maoist group does this; but I think most do.)

Sure, but without the power to coerce and grant privileges, their ability to get people to sign up for this personality cult is limited. (Note that in the original case of Maoism, the CCP held power in "liberated areas" larger than some countries for an extended period, with total coercive power and the ability to grant privileges that were significant relative to the living standard of the rest of the population.)

For that matter, without state sponsorship, Stalinist groups generally are greatly weakened.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Lemme suggest that what first happened in the USSR to reduce mass participation in decisionmaking (the soviets, etc.) was....most people got tired of going to meetings all the time.

Revolutions are exhausting. Especially with all the material sacrifices people had to make, in that particular situation. A state of high mass participation in politics is hard to sustain. It's going to ebb...and one hopes, rise again. But not remain at one constant level, certainly.

People do, I suspect, get tired of going to meetings...if the meetings are ceremonial in nature.

If your "factory committee" doesn't do anything except endorse the latest party/managerial decree, why bother attending personally? If the soviet that meets closest to you -- one that you could attend if you wished -- isn't going to actually debate anything of substance, then what point is served by paying any attention to it at all?

Meetings that lack any real purpose are boring...and sensible people avoid them whenever possible.

I also agree with you that immediate material conditions have a very significant impact; if you're worried about tomorrow's meal, you're not too likely to want to go to a meeting unless they're also handing out food.

On the bigger question of the "ebb and flow" of revolutionary enthusiasm, well...I'm not so sure about that one. The Maoists use the "wave analogy" to explain (justify) the role of the party leadership...who are supposed to "stay the course" even when the enthusiasm of the masses wanes.

The underlying assumption is that "we communists" are "really different" from the masses -- "we" will "hang in there" while the masses will "inevitably" retreat into their private concerns.

It seems to me at least equally plausible that ordinary people will retreat to their personal worlds when they discover that their participation has no effect on the outcome of events.

In a limited sense, humans are "lazy" -- the expenditure of effort without consequence is distasteful and even repugnant.

If we really want a revolutionary society characterized by the political participation of the masses, then we must develop a perspective that promotes that participation. In short, real decision-making power has to be in the hands of the masses...otherwise, they'll go home and watch old pre-revolutionary dvds.

Or just drink.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:28 AM
On the bigger question of the "ebb and flow" of revolutionary enthusiasm, well...I'm not so sure about that one.
It's an observed fact, under capitalism as well as after the revolution.

I don't claim that revolutionary parties are immune to it, either.

[redstar2000]

Here is a further reflection of life as a follower of "the main man" (Avakian) that I found on the blog of Sunsara Taylor (she is a "spokeswoman" for the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade -- the "youth group" of the Revolutionary Communist Party.

From the context, it seems that this writer was a former member of the RCP.


But, I have to say, you raise a point that has been a painful one for me to wrangle over recently, and maybe you can shed some light (or maybe I can): "This is leading followers of Avakian to work in a different way now".

Well, my question is: Is it really? I mean, some of us have written about a hundred things to the RCP, and never heard back on any of them, and that is with 90 of them being written while we were working closely with the Party (and including in important positions of public representation). If this had really changed, if the RCP really had decided it was doing anything different, wouldn't it have some sort of something to say to people? I mean, how do you ignore so many people for so long and then say that everything is cool now without going and talking to anyone who has worked so closely with you for so long and being told to "obey, don't worry about anything but your immediate work" for so fucking long? I mean, ok, maybe this whole new thing constitutes a big public self-criticism. But maybe it doesn't. After all, some of us thought the homosexuality criticism was a big deal, but a lot of older comrades didn't take it very seriously.

For example, there was a comrade that I personally really respected who finally left (after 20+ years of her life) after the homosexuality criticism got spun by a bunch of older comrades as "we weren't mainly the ones in the wrong in this" when the line on that changed. And I wonder, maybe you and the other idealistic young comrades are being taken on a ride on this whole thing. Because wouldn't the first indication of a real change in line on the part of the RCP on this question of listening to people be that those who have been saying for so many years that the RCP needs to be more open-minded, or that worked so hard to push different positions (conceived within the framework of MLM), would be approached by the RCP in some way?

But it doesn't seem like anything like that is happening. So, while I applaud your open-mindedness, your poetry, and your clear willingness to learn the best of what Avakian has to offer, I have some serious skepticism about where the RCP is going with all this. I always heard stories about what a good listener Avakian is, as far back as NDP1, but that never seemed to matter in practice to his close followers that constituted my leadership.

But I give you mad props for giving me a longer response to something I wrote than my leadership ever did, even during the years I was devoting 100+ hours a week to the Party. And, once again, I apologize for putting such a long ass thing on your blog, as if it were a discussion site or something (although, if you look at RCP supporter behavior on sites like 2ctw or awip, it is anything but tolerant of dissent). But, it's Christmas, and I fucking hate this holiday, and you probably understand that since you're from such a cold part of the country.

http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2004/12/avakia...g.html#comments (http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2004/12/avakian-and-listening.html#comments)

And here is more from the same source...


How would the RCP go back to people who have been driven out over the years (I’m sorry, I think the correct way to phrase it is “fallen by the wayside” or “gone the other way” or “left behind at a turn in the road of the struggle”)? Well, that would have a lot to do with the various particulars. But, let’s take the example of my friend who worked with the Party for 25 years or so and left when local leaders decided not to uphold the new line on homosexuality. I mean, she was shut down and stifled in a bad way. So now, if the RCP is really serious about listening to people, wouldn’t someone like that be the sort of person that basic human decency (which I guess isn’t a very scientific Marxist term) would require them to go and talk to, to say ‘we fucked up’? Not so that they have to pay or apologize or anything just for the sake of apology, but can’t one sort of measure how thorough a self-criticism or change of policy is by what people do to rectify their past errors? I mean, if you say, we’ve changed, now we’re different, how can people measure that except if you go back and try and show how you’ve changed? Why should anyone take that seriously if you don’t try and rectify mistakes? Anyways, some people like me run off at the mouth like I am now, so we’re probably too much of a security risk to come and talk to, but people like my friend should be talked to.

I mean, to be subjective again for a minute (this is a blog, right, so a certain amount of subjectivity and chattiness is expected, right?), I can’t express how galling it is to see this stuff from Bill Martin on how intellectuals need time and particular conditions to actually do intellectual work being used and upheld as ‘the line of the RCP’. I mean, I was showing people that passage from his Politics in the Impasse book 3 years ago and I got branded a ‘bourgeois intellectual’ by my leadership for it. And now people are just supposed to accept that this is the line of the RCP?

I mean, it would be personally satisfying to get an apology, but that isn’t the point (at least, if I try and think in really broad terms, which can be a challenge sometimes on some of this painful stuff). The point is that to practically implement a new and better line, some element of going back and saying ‘look, we fucked up’ is going to be necessary. Otherwise you’ll have a situation like we had here on the homosexuality question, with a lot of people insisting that while the previous line was incorrect, it was “more correct than those who were criticizing us”—which in practice leads pretty quickly to “our shit doesn’t smell” and “we know everything and don’t need to listen to others”. Which of course leads us back to a big part of that epistemology talk and what Avakian is trying to rectify, right?

Sorry to give you such a long reply. I hope it’s not too repetitive.

http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2005/01/avakia...d.html#comments (http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2005/01/avakian-discussion-continued.html#comments)

I think these posts provide a remarkable insight into the "mindset" of those who follow great leaders...even for a while. They "can't believe" how wrong they were or how wrong the leader was. Frequently, their attitude -- even after disillusionment -- is "if only the leader had known". It's "the local leadership" who were assholes; the leader would not have "permitted this" had he been consulted.

They do not grasp for a long time (if ever) that a personality cult generates mini-personality cults automatically. A local leader in the RCP thinks of himself (rarely herself, I would imagine) as a "little Avakian"...with all the temptations of arrogance that implies.

It's rather ironic to think about: Avakian "prides himself" on his alleged ability to "listen to criticism with an open mind". But the only people he ever talks to are people that he himself has appointed as his underlings.

And they, of course, can never offer anything but praise.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

RedStar, i dont know much about Avakian (or about the US communist "movement" for that matter) but i agree with u wholly that leader personality cults are highly undesirable.

However, i think that leadership is vital for a REVOLUTIONARY movement. I follow Lenin in that i dont think workers can achieve revolutionary consciousness without the existence of a revolutionary party. Workers can only achieve trade union consciousness spontaneously (i.e. economic consciousness: fighting for higher wages, better conditions, etc.) ; political, revolutionary consciousness has to come from a revolutionary party.

Slightly going off point here but: to preach spontaneity is to preach passivity and defeatism (not to mention laziness). There is no such thing as a spontaneous revolution. If you left the workers to spontaneity, you leave them in the hands of the capitalists and the capitalist state, along with its reactionary propoganda and agitation. It is the DUTY of the revolutionary party to WIN workers to the cause of revolution.

I think you should read or re-read Lenin (especially 'State and Revolution') before u denounce him. Lenin called for a workers' vanguard party precisely because he believed in the revolutionary (and self-emancipating) potential of the working class.

Spontaneity must be fought against. There is nothing "democratic" about leaving workers in the hands of the capitalists. It is up to the most politically advanced sections of the working class (i.e. those who understand that a workers' revolution is the only solution) to organise into a political party and, as i said, WIN fellow workers to revolutionary socialism.

Btw, i've read some of your posts elsewhere and looked through your website; i like and agree with some of the things u say. I think your rejection of dialectics and Hegel is interesting but ultimately wrong. But maybe we'll talk about this another time.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
I follow Lenin...

Don't do that!

The question is not "what did Lenin say?" or "what did Marx say?" or even "what did Bob Avakian say?".

The question is always is it true?

Hasn't it occurred to you that if Leninism were "true", then by now we would have had at least one if not several Leninist revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries?

We've had hordes of "vanguard parties" and not a single one has ever been able to "get it right".

Are you just impervious to this incredible losing streak?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Hasn't it occurred to you that if Leninism were "true", then by now we would have had at least one if not several Leninist revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries?

But we have not had ANY socialist, workers' revolutions in any advanced countries. So you cannot hold Leninism accountable on that basis. If you're suggesting that this is because of the "hordes of "vanguard parties"", supposedly based on Leninist principles, you are wrong. We all know that there are many key objective as well as subjective reasons for why socialism has not come about in the West. In my view, one of the key reasons for this is the non-existence of a strong enough workers' party devoted to a large-scale challenge of capitalist hegemony and consensus. Are you suggesting that this could come about automatically, without a party?


The question is not "what did Lenin say?" or "what did Marx say?"... The question is always is it true?

I agree. There is no High Authority, and there ought to be no dogmas. What Lenin pointed out (in response to anarchist tendencies in the Russian movement) was that a high level of organisation is needed, and that without this the working class becomes increasingly insignificant as a force capable of transforming society. Surely this is just logical? Furthermore, surely it is VITAL if we're serious about revolution?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:14 AM
I follow Lenin in that i dont think workers can achieve revolutionary consciousness without the existence of a revolutionary party.
If it's not possible to achieve revolutionary consciousness without a revolutionary party, then how did the revolutionary party achive it in the first place? :P

I didn't need some vanguard party, I figured it out on my own. Either way, just because you can educate people doesn't mean you should lead them.

[Vanguard1917]

It's a simple question: how are the working class to overthrow a heavily organised capitalist class without itself being heavily organised? In a class struggle, the capitalist class has the most advaced of form of organisation and leadership at its disposal (i.e. the capitalist state). How is the working class to respond without itself possessing an advanced form of leadership and organisation?

[SonofRage]

you're dogding the question by answering it with another question.

[Vanguard1917]

The working class cannot spontaneously achieve revolutionary class consciousness. When i say spontaneously, i mean objectively. Class societies do not lead to revolution on an objective basis alone. The human subject always plays the decisive role. The human subject, as a subjective force, decides which way history is to go, albeit based on pre-existing objective conditions. In a capitalist society, the working class, as a subjective force, is the decisive element; the condition of capitalism is not. If this working class does not organise, and is not lead towards a revolutionary direction, capitalism will not be overthrown.

There seems to be a lot of idealistic theorising (if not romanticising) going on here. A revolution is an activity where one class enforces (more than often, violently) its demands on another class. Our goal therefore is to figure out how this will be done in a 21st century capitalist world. So its back to the question i posed in the post below:

how are the working class to overthrow a heavily organised capitalist class without itself being heavily organised? In a class struggle, the capitalist class has the most advaced of form of organisation and leadership at its disposal (i.e. the capitalist state). How is the working class to respond without itself possessing an advanced form of leadership and organisation?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
How are the working class to overthrow a heavily organised capitalist class without itself being heavily organised? In a class struggle, the capitalist class has the most advanced of form of organisation and leadership at its disposal (i.e. the capitalist state). How is the working class to respond without itself possessing an advanced form of leadership and organisation?

Good grief! :o

Don't you understand that the "heavily organized" ruling class is an illusion?

What the ruling class depends on is people who will follow their orders. If very large numbers of people refuse to do that, then the ruling class is left with nothing but big cardboard organization charts.

Do you imagine that the outcome of insurrection depends on which class has the most elaborate forms of organization? Or most "advanced leadership" (whatever the hell that means)?

Who "organized" the Petrograd uprising of February 1917? Or the French General Strike of May 1968?

What in the world are you thinking of???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Don't you understand that the "heavily organized" ruling class is an illusion?

In periods of class struggle, relatively strong capitalist states ARE heavily organised. This is not an illusion. The capitalist state is an organisation of the capitalists. It includes the courts, the army, the police, etc. - all organisations of class rule by the capitalists.


Do you imagine that the outcome of insurrection depends on which class has the most elaborate forms of organization?

The working class needs to be very effectively organised in order to stand up to the capitalist state.


Who "organized" the Petrograd uprising of February 1917? Or the French General Strike of May 1968?

Are you suggesting that there was no organisations bringing workers together? My knowledge of 1968 isnt great, but surely trade unions (an organisation of workers) played a key role in the general strike.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Actually the general strike of 68 was started without trade unions. Even worse then that: the Leninist CGT broke the strike off. The people were so close to bringing the French state down, but tnx Leninists.

Ofcourse, we need organisation. But that doesn't mean that it needs to be hierachial or centralized. A hierachy is very damaging. To the extent that a new ruling class is formed out of the old middle-class and the workingclass screwed again.

And what Redstar is saying, is that; the power of the Capitalist class depends on obedience of the workingclass. As soon as the workingclass arises in a revolution, the capitalist's powerbase largely dissapears. The key is here disobying the capitalist class, not having a 109% efficient organisation.

[redstar2000]

From the first issue of the new tabloid Revolution published by the RCP...


In the projects down the street two men greet the neighbor who got them their DVD samplers by putting their fists to their hearts and shouting out, "[b]B.A.!"

There is Something Beginning Here (http://rwor.org/a/001/los-angeles-something-beginning.htm)

This rather unusual gesture appears to have its origins in modern fantasy. Both Star Trek and The Lord of the Rings are frequently mentioned...as well as many on line role-playing games.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fist+%2B...:en-US:official (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fist+%2B+to+%2B+heart%22+%2B+salute&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22fist+%...fficial&fr=moz2 (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22fist+%2B+to+%2B+heart%22+%2B+salute&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fist+%2B...:en-US:official (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fist+%2B+to+%2B+chest%22+%2B+salute&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22fist+%...fficial&fr=moz2 (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22fist+%2B+to+%2B+chest%22+%2B+salute&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2)

I have this fuzzy memory of old Hollywood movies set in Imperial Rome...where Roman soldiers would make this gesture in response to a command by their superior officers. But neither Google nor Yahoo could confirm this.

Does art influence reality?

And will this salute to "B.A." become a kind of signature for RCPers greeting each other?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

What about the vanguard. Che believed in the duty of the vanguard of the revolution, a group of leaders to "shepherd" the masses towards fruitful struggle. I agree that people like Avakian do not represent such a vanguard, but have created or are trying to create a new kind of "oligarchy" or dictatorship. His example are why people fear communism, they see the cult of personality being formed and grow fearful of oppression and tyranny.

The vanguard should usher in the masses to communism, leading them through the turmoil of the creation of socialism, then should dissolve into the masses as they are no longer needed. The vanguard should sacrafice everything for the cause, and it will become a joyus burden. Leaders are needed, tyrants are not. Personality cults are just another form of tyranny.