Revolutionary Communist 4

[Warren Peace]

The RC4 (http://www.rc4tour.info/) (Carl Dix, Clyde Young, Akil Bomani, Joe Veale) is a black group that tours around the US and gives revolutionary speaches.

I know they support the cult of personality that Bob Avakian has built up around himself, but other than that, it seems like the RC4 are intellegent revolutionary leaders who actually care about the people of the world, not their own glory. They are part of the RCP, which is an authoritarian party, but if you read their speaches, they themselves aren't very authoritarian at all.

They say:

"Look, the problem in the world is that there is all this wealth, all this technology that's controlled and dominated by a class of capitalists.

"All this technology and all this human wisdom could be used to benefit the masses here and all over the world.

"Everybody on this planet could have a decent life: no one has to go cold during the wintertime, no one has to go hungry, no one has to die for lack of water, everybody could read and write and be enriched in sports and culture.

"And the only thing standing in the way of that are these capitalists who rip off all this wealth, and use it to enrich this system."

"We are revolutionary communists, and we do not believe in gods or saviors. We look reality in the face, and we are passionate about changing the world."

I know they support Avakian, and most comrades on Rev Left, myself included, aren't the biggest Avakian fans. However, Che Guevara supported Stalin, yet most Rev Left comrades who are anti-Stalinist can see past that fact, and see Che Guevara for who he really ways, a great and compassionate revolutionary. I think we should give the RC4 a chance. What do you think?

[redstar2000]

The RCP's critique of capitalism is mostly generic...that is, it does not markedly differ from what observant people have been saying since even before the times of Marx and Engels.

And they articulate that critique well and forcefully...no one here would say, I think, that the RCP is "too harsh" on capitalism.

The personality cult around Avakian is distasteful to most people here for obvious reasons.

But what I think is the real "sticking point" is the kind of society that the RCP wants to build after the revolution.

Namely, they want a sanitized ("more humane") version of Leninism-Maoism...a social order in which the party leadership commands and everyone else, even party members, obeys.

And most people here are, at least loosely, in favor of a society in which power is in the hands of the actual working class...not an elite that claims to be acting "for" the working class.

This problem would exist even if Avakian personally happened to be a combination of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and Che rolled up in one "superhero" package. Even if he were as "great" as the RCP portrays him, he is still a mortal man.

After he died, the bastards would take over. :o

And everything would go down the toilet. :(

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

[Red Heretic]

I know they support the cult of personality that Bob Avakian has built up around himself

First of all, Bob Avakian did not "build a cult of personality around himself." It is the position of the RCP to put forward the leadership of it's part as the most powerful and concentrated form of the revolutionary energy that espouts from the people. Communist leadership is the direct result of the fundamental cotradictions that exist within imperialist and capitalist society.

It is not the position of the RCP to have dogmatic "cults" around leadership, but rather to poularize and promote leadership in a scientific and dialectical materialist way. Although it is certainly possible that the mistake of dogamtism could come from the promotion of leadership, it is the official position of the RCP to fight against dogmatism is a determined and relentless manner.

You can read more about this topic here: http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/825/revolutiona...ship_points.htm (http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership_points.htm)


Namely, they want a sanitized ("more humane") version of Leninism-Maoism...a social order in which the party leadership commands and everyone else, even party members, obeys.

And most people here are, at least loosely, in favor of a society in which power is in the hands of the actual working class...not an elite that claims to be acting "for" the working class.

While I share your desire to have increased democratic worker's councils (and so does the RCP), I must point out that it is important to also have centralized socialist planning, and for a lot of different reasons. For example, when we are in a position where a decision must be made quickly to deal with an imperialist invader, there is simply no time for everyone to get together and have debates about it. This is specifically why the fascists were able to easily crush the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War (and the communists since the anarchists refused to work together with the communists).

Another thing that is very important about centralized socialist planning is that it is necessary to maintain the equality of the agricultural worker with the industrial worker. If you do not have centralized socialist planning, the natural order of things is for the gap of inequality between industrial workers and agricultural workers continually widens just as it does in capitalism. The same goes for abolishing the inequalities between men and women, manual laborers and mental laborers, etc. etc. We need centralized socialist planning to uproot these inequalities until we get to the final goal of communism.



This problem would exist even if Avakian personally happened to be a combination of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and Che rolled up in one "superhero" package. Even if he were as "great" as the RCP portrays him, he is still a mortal man.

After he died, the bastards would take over. ohmy.gif

And everything would go down the toilet. sad.gif

The RCP has put forward many new ideas for combatting the tendencies of revisionism, both while, and after its current chairman is alive.

First of all, when asking this question, its important to note that Bob Avakian is absolutely not the only person in the Party with the ability or leadership skillsto lead a socialist country. Two others that I can think of off hand are Carl Dix and Clark Kissinger. Both have demonstrated an extraordinarily great grasp of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Not only this, but we know through a materialist understanding of the world that more leadership will come forward as the people's necessity for continues continues.

Second of all, the RCP has put forward a program of decentralized people's militias, separate from the state and the army, that serve the purpose of defending the proletariat from both the former bourgeoisie, and any revisionist/bourgeois elements that should develop within the party. The people's militias will be highly trained in both military and ideology, and will be able to discern the difference between socialism and revisionism. They will continually guard the proletariat against revisionism, and will ensure the stability of socialism until we get to the final goal of communism (at which point, they will no longer be necessary as there is not longer any threat of revisionism once we get to communism).

[Warren Peace]

I made this thread to talk about the RC4, but sure, whatever...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by makhno+--> (makhno)While I share your desire to have increased democratic worker's councils (and so does the RCP), I must point out that it is important to also have centralized socialist planning, and for a lot of different reasons.[/b]

You are just changing terminology here. What you are calling "centralized socialist planning" is what I (and I think most people on the board) would call commandism on the part of the party leadership.


Bob Avakian
And there will always be in one form or another political representatives; despite all the science fiction and everything else, I do not believe that the highest level that can be achieved is where everybody puts on their TV, listens to a big debate and pushes a computer, yes or no, up or down, kill ’em, throw ’em out, make ’em president or whatever; I don’t believe that’s the way that decision-making is going to be done under communism. There will be political representatives and struggle among them, and the masses will be decisive, yes, but not in the literal, direct, good old town meeting tradition.

http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/

Note this is communism he's talking about here...where evidently some kind of state-apparatus still exists.

I have never seen an RCP document where the concept of "workers' councils" even appears at all.


First of all, when asking this question, it's important to note that Bob Avakian is absolutely not the only person in the Party with the ability or leadership skills to lead a socialist country. Two others that I can think of off hand are Carl Dix and Clark Kissinger.

They are contemporaries of Avakian (like myself) -- if and when they succeed Avakian as "Leader", they will be even older than Avakian is now.

This is, of course, what happened in China and the USSR...gerontology (rule by ancients).

One of the notable features of Leninist parties and states is that the elderly maintain an increasingly tenacious grip on the reins of power.

As if they didn't have enough problems to contend with, Leninism must contend with senility.


Second of all, the RCP has put forward a program of decentralized people's militias, separate from the state and the army, that serve the purpose of defending the proletariat from both the former bourgeoisie, and any revisionist/bourgeois elements that should develop within the party.

I was not aware of this; is Avakian copying from redstar2000? :lol:

In any event, while that is a small step in the right direction, such a militia would not be able to overcome a revisionist leadership with a loyal professional army at its disposal.

The material basis for revisionism is in socialism itself -- an "enlightened despotism" that becomes unenlightened as its privilege becomes entrenched and grows.

Until you remove that material basis, "tweaking" the institutions will have little effect other than, at best, delaying the inevitable -- the restoration of capitalism.

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

PS: it is somewhat incongruous to have an RCP supporter using the name "makhno" -- if you would like to choose a new and more appropriate username, we can do that easily.

[Warren Peace]

I was not aware of this; is Avakian copying from redstar2000?

RN was not aware of this; is redstar2000 referring to himself in the third person? :lol:

You are more infuencial than I knew. There are links to your writtings on the sites for the FPE and Revolutionary Youth. Next you'll have your own cult of personality to rival Avakian's!

No, Avakian is copying Mao. Mao was the first to come up with the idea of "revolution within revolution", or as Makhno said, fighting "revisionist/bourgeois elements that should develop within the party." Mao did this with the Cultural Revolution.

For Makhno's new name, how about "Avakianite?" :lol:

I crack myself up.

[Red Heretic]

I have never seen an RCP document where the concept of "workers' councils" even appears at all.

The terminology of "workers' councils" is very reminescent of Tito's excuse for revisionism... so I suspect that might be why the RCP has been wary to use that specific terminology. However, I will point out that the RCP is a Maoist party, and supports the concept of Peasant Associations that existed in China.

I can't think of any specific documents devoted to worker's self management (mostly because the RCP views the strictly economist line as a right-error, and not fit for the concrete conditions in the USA). However, I can tell you that a large portion of Avakian's DVD "Revolution: Why it's Necessary, Why it's Possible, and What It's All About" is devoted to explaining how to make the transition to an economy where workers can be involved, and eventually in control of the workplace (Discs 2 and 3 I believe). (www.threeqvideo.com)


They are contemporaries of Avakian (like myself) -- if and when they succeed Avakian as "Leader", they will be even older than Avakian is now.

This is, of course, what happened in China and the USSR...gerontology (rule by ancients).

One of the notable features of Leninist parties and states is that the elderly maintain an increasingly tenacious grip on the reins of power.


I strongly agree with you on this topic. There is a tendency toward gerontology in socialism, and that is something that should be vigorously struggled against. I will point out, however, that the RCP has done an extraordinarily good job at working with, training, and involving the youth (I'm one of them, in my mid-teens!).

There is no reason to believe that the youth of the Party today will not be able come foward as leadership in the future.


I was not aware of this; is Avakian copying from redstar2000? :lol:

Hehehe :lol:

The RCP put this idea forward in its 2001 Draft Programme. It can be found in Chapter 8 of Part 2 of the program here: http://rwor.org/margorp/a-proldic.htm

Or the programme can be read in full here: http://rwor.org/margorp/progtoc-e.htm

PS: That would be GREAT! I didn't know if you guys could change it, and I fucking hate this user name! Could you change me to "Red Heretic" ?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Revolt Now!@Aug 6 2005, 05:57 PM
No, Avakian is copying Mao. Mao was the first to come up with the idea of "revolution within revolution", or as Makhno said, fighting "revisionist/bourgeois elements that should develop within the party." Mao did this with the Cultural Revolution.

The idea of the cultural revolution was first put into place by Mao, but the RCP hopes to expand upon this idea to a higher degree.

The People's Militias are to be widespread, and highly trained next time around. The People's Militias need to be able to to have the physical strength to actually crush a revisionist state/army, and the RCP has every intention of seeing to it that that type of a militia is formed. You should check out that chapter I posted. Scroll down to "Bearing Arms"

[rebelworker]

I find it interesting that first you blame the decentralism of the anarchist militias in spain for the defeat of the republic against Facism, and then go on to correctly identify the need for decentralisation in the armed forces to prevent corruption and dictatorship.

For the record, The Anarchists did quite well millitarily, their front was one of the last to fall, but they did loose out in the area of proper arms.

The Stalinists had both arms and centralisation but they too were defeated, and they didnt have to worry about other "revolutionaries" attacking them from the rear...

I am sure your heart is in this, and i hope you dont take what i am anout to say the wrong way, but I think you are infact a bit young and impresionable and being somwhat blinded by the sheer weight of Avcians theory and personality cult. If he were infact the great leader why then has he been active since the sixties(Bay Area Revolutionary Union) and still only been able to build a party of several hundred, while a group like NEFAC in a much smaller geographical area has been able to build up a comparably larger membership with much tighter theoreticall unity in five years?

I think you should pat yourself on the back for Identifying Mahkno as a stellar revolutionary spirit, then stop there before you get into personality politics and look further into platformist organizing, http://www.anarkismo.net or http://www.nefac.net is a great place to start. Platformist Anarchist Communism will adress your need for organization and revolutionary leadership, while keeping on top of issues like cult of personality leadership and centralisation of power.

Otherwise please consider changing your name because mahkno would be rolling over in his grave to be identified with a bourgeuoise adventurist like Avakian(he was the son of a Prominent California Judge studying at one of the most eleitist universities when he named himself the "leader of the working class".

Fuck off Avakian and all others who wish to lead us, no new boss same as the old boss bulshit for me thanks...

In Solidarity,
rebelworker

PS Im anly in my late twenties, and was not active in the sixties but you can read many other working class revolutionaries personal experience with Avakinan at the time for a better idea of what he was about...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RCP Program
The role of these mass militias, in overall coordination with the regular revolutionary armed forces, will be to help safeguard the proletarian state against its enemies—both within the country and outside it, both those openly hostile to the revolution and those who claim the mantle of Marxism and often are even leading Party officials but are exposed as actual counter-revolutionaries. -- emphasis added.

This seems to be the key paragraph. The question is who will the professional army obey?

If the army decides to obey "leading party officials" who have been "exposed as actual counter-revolutionaries"...then the militias, numerous as they are, are going to be in for some very rough times.

It will be civil war...one in which the militias may or may not be victorious. In any event, it will be extremely bloody and destructive -- that's what civil wars are like. Millions of people are going to be killed in combat, die from disease or malnutrition or both, etc.

(Note that the damage and the casualties from both February and October 1917 were relatively minimal -- the civil war that followed killed ten million or more and totally wrecked much of the countryside.)

That is why I am absolutely opposed to a professional army "after the revolution." Over time, professional armies develop a "mind set" that is opposed to the masses as a matter of class interest. They are contemptuous of "mere civilians", feel strongly that "civilian society" is "disorderly" and "doesn't appreciate the military virtues", and believe with religious intensity in "obedience to authority" as the "foundation of civilization"...and usually develop and uphold a whole complex of additional reactionary ideas as well.

I see no practical reason to run that risk -- if the mass militias cannot defend the revolution from imperialist invasion, then the revolution is lost anyway.

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

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 09:47 PM
I find it interesting that first you blame the decentralism of the anarchist militias in spain for the defeat of the republic against Facism, and then go on to correctly identify the need for decentralisation in the armed forces to prevent corruption and dictatorship.

For the record, The Anarchists did quite well millitarily, their front was one of the last to fall, but they did loose out in the area of proper arms.

The Stalinists had both arms and centralisation but they too were defeated, and they didnt have to worry about other "revolutionaries" attacking them from the rear...

Very true, and the militias held the line until the USSR-supplied Popular Army could be organised.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 09:47 PM
I find it interesting that first you blame the decentralism of the anarchist militias in spain for the defeat of the republic against Facism, and then go on to correctly identify the need for decentralisation in the armed forces to prevent corruption and dictatorship.

For the record, The Anarchists did quite well millitarily, their front was one of the last to fall, but they did loose out in the area of proper arms.

The Stalinists had both arms and centralisation but they too were defeated, and they didnt have to worry about other "revolutionaries" attacking them from the rear...

I am sure your heart is in this, and i hope you dont take what i am anout to say the wrong way, but I think you are infact a bit young and impresionable and being somwhat blinded by the sheer weight of Avcians theory and personality cult. If he were infact the great leader why then has he been active since the sixties(Bay Area Revolutionary Union) and still only been able to build a party of several hundred, while a group like NEFAC in a much smaller geographical area has been able to build up a comparably larger membership with much tighter theoreticall unity in five years?

I think you should pat yourself on the back for Identifying Mahkno as a stellar revolutionary spirit, then stop there before you get into personality politics and look further into platformist organizing, http://www.anarkismo.net or http://www.nefac.net is a great place to start. Platformist Anarchist Communism will adress your need for organization and revolutionary leadership, while keeping on top of issues like cult of personality leadership and centralisation of power.

Otherwise please consider changing your name because mahkno would be rolling over in his grave to be identified with a bourgeuoise adventurist like Avakian(he was the son of a Prominent California Judge studying at one of the most eleitist universities when he named himself the "leader of the working class".

Fuck off Avakian and all others who wish to lead us, no new boss same as the old boss bulshit for me thanks...

In Solidarity,
rebelworker

PS Im anly in my late twenties, and was not active in the sixties but you can read many other working class revolutionaries personal experience with Avakinan at the time for a better idea of what he was about...

I find it interesting that first you blame the decentralism of the anarchist militias in spain for the defeat of the republic against Facism, and then go on to correctly identify the need for decentralisation in the armed forces to prevent corruption and dictatorship.

For the record, The Anarchists did quite well millitarily, their front was one of the last to fall, but they did loose out in the area of proper arms.

The Stalinists had both arms and centralisation but they too were defeated, and they didnt have to worry about other "revolutionaries" attacking them from the rear...

Bull fucking SHIT! The Spanish Anarchists (and frankly, nearly ALL anarchists) were noted for being EXTREMELY sectarian. I will highlight a few of the failures of anarchism in Spain for you.

1. The inability to sustain cultural revolution. The anarchist model for revolution is confined to economism (the struggle of workers), while doing nothing for the super-structure (the struggle of women, homosexuals, and people of oppressed nationalies). As was documented even by anarchist sympathizers such as George Orwell, all of the initial progress that was made against gender oppression was dissolved after only six weeks! Without a vangaurd party that continually leads people to develop new ideas, and through off the oppressive ideas, you cannot ever defeat male chauvanism.

Male chauvanism is something that is ingrained into the root of the culture of the people, and if the people were to have complete control of everything overnight, they would enforce their oppressive male chauvanistic, homophobic, and racist ideology on all of society. This is why the people must be led to throw off such ideas, and to adopt a new pro-human culture.

2. Anarchists in Spain were so sectarian and dogmatic, that they would refuse to work in coalitions with the communists in order to flank the fascists. The anarchists were in fact so sectarian, that it was literally impossible to use any form of tactical manuevers against the enemy.

When we are in life and death situations, and someone says "ok, we'll go around the back, and you stay here and catch them when they come forward," you cannot say "fuck that, we want to do our own thing." or "hold on, we need to wait a few days for consensus." HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DIED BECAUSE OF THAT SHIT!


I am sure your heart is in this, and i hope you dont take what i am anout to say the wrong way, but I think you are infact a bit young and impresionable and being somwhat blinded by the sheer weight of Avcians theory and personality cult.

Seriously, get a fucking life. I am perfectly capable of making decisions, and I don't need to be told I am not capable of thinking because of my age.


If he were infact the great leader why then has he been active since the sixties(Bay Area Revolutionary Union) and still only been able to build a party of several hundred, while a group like NEFAC in a much smaller geographical area has been able to build up a comparably larger membership with much tighter theoreticall unity in five years?

First of all, no one said Bob Avakian was "the great leader." Bob Avakian is not some magical messianic god with super powers who was sent to save us from our sins. He is however, an extraordinarily devoted revolutionary leader with a great ideological line.

As for your second point, I will point out the the RCP was the result of all of the revolutionary energy that existed in the 60's. Unfortunately, the party did not exist at the pinacle of that revolutionary momentum. It was not until recently that the revolutionary energy in this country has begun to start amassing once again. This is probably the reasoning for the rapid growth of both orgainzations.

As for NEFAC, please. NEFAC is known (even in the anarchist circles that I once was a part of) for having no actual ideological line). It is known for taking a dogmatic economist line and making no real analysis of any situations or current events. NEFAC is a trendy group for punk rockers, not a revolutionary party.


I think you should pat yourself on the back for Identifying Mahkno as a stellar revolutionary spirit, then stop there before you get into personality politics and look further into platformist organizing, http://www.anarkismo.net or http://www.nefac.net is a great place to start. Platformist Anarchist Communism will adress your need for organization and revolutionary leadership, while keeping on top of issues like cult of personality leadership and centralisation of power.

This thread is not an advertizing space for you to hijack for the usage of your little anarchist circles. Stay on topic, or leave.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 8 2005, 03:56 AM
I will highlight a few of the failures of anarchism in Spain for you.

1. The inability to sustain cultural revolution. The anarchist model for revolution is confined to economism (the struggle of workers), while doing nothing for the super-structure (the struggle of women, homosexuals, and people of oppressed nationalies). As was documented even by anarchist sympathizers such as George Orwell, all of the initial progress that was made against gender oppression was dissolved after only six weeks! Without a vangaurd party that continually leads people to develop new ideas, and through off the oppressive ideas, you cannot ever defeat male chauvanism.

Male chauvanism is something that is ingrained into the root of the culture of the people, and if the people were to have complete control of everything overnight, they would enforce their oppressive male chauvanistic, homophobic, and racist ideology on all of society. This is why the people must be led to throw off such ideas, and to adopt a new pro-human culture.
The participation of women in militias and their retreat was caused by the PSUC (the Moscow-aligned socialist party) who didn't want to offend their republican allies.


As for NEFAC, please. NEFAC is known (even in the anarchist circles that I once was a part of) for having no actual ideological line). It is known for taking a dogmatic economist line and making no real analysis of any situations or current events. NEFAC is a trendy group for punk rockers, not a revolutionary party.



NEFAC is known for being consistently Platformist in orientation, so I don't think it's correct to say they have 'no actual ideological line'.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 7 2005, 01:16 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 7 2005, 01:16 AM)
RCP Program
The role of these mass militias, in overall coordination with the regular revolutionary armed forces, will be to help safeguard the proletarian state against its enemies—both within the country and outside it, both those openly hostile to the revolution and those who claim the mantle of Marxism and often are even leading Party officials but are exposed as actual counter-revolutionaries. -- emphasis added.

This seems to be the key paragraph. The question is who will the professional army obey?

If the army decides to obey "leading party officials" who have been "exposed as actual counter-revolutionaries"...then the militias, numerous as they are, are going to be in for some very rough times.

It will be civil war...one in which the militias may or may not be victorious. In any event, it will be extremely bloody and destructive -- that's what civil wars are like. Millions of people are going to be killed in combat, die from disease or malnutrition or both, etc.

(Note that the damage and the casualties from both February and October 1917 were relatively minimal -- the civil war that followed killed ten million or more and totally wrecked much of the countryside.)

That is why I am absolutely opposed to a professional army "after the revolution." Over time, professional armies develop a "mind set" that is opposed to the masses as a matter of class interest. They are contemptuous of "mere civilians", feel strongly that "civilian society" is "disorderly" and "doesn't appreciate the military virtues", and believe with religious intensity in "obedience to authority" as the "foundation of civilization"...and usually develop and uphold a whole complex of additional reactionary ideas as well.

I see no practical reason to run that risk -- if the mass militias cannot defend the revolution from imperialist invasion, then the revolution is lost anyway.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
While I share your dismay for having to fight a civil war with the revisionists to defend socialism, I think it is important for us to be realistic about this. If we don't have a professional army, then how are we to coexist with the imperialist states? It is literally impossible for us to coexist with imperialist powers without a porfessional army. Even if we took state power in a an imperialsit country like the USA, the imperialists would still regroup and launch an imperialist assault on us from their various outposts around the world.

For this reason, I feel that we have no choice but to have a professional army.

[Red Heretic]

The participation of women in militias and their retreat was caused by the PSUC (the Moscow-aligned socialist party) who didn't want to offend their republican allies.

Ah, this brings me to my third point which I accidently left out.

3. The entire anarchist movement is so sectarian and dogmatic that it rejects all criticism and self-criticism. It accepts no responsiblity whatsoever for all of the horrors of fascism that it let run rampant over Catalonia.

This is essentially the symptom of a weak ideology that can only sustain itself through extreme dogmatism and sectarianism that not even the Spartacist League can compete with. Instead, it blames all of it's mistakes and shotcomings on its favorite scapegoat, the communists. You ought to be thankful for us communists, because if it weren't for us, then who would you have to blame all of your countless failures and shortcomings on?

Either way, to get into some of the history of this stupid accusation, it was documented by countless sources (including George Orwell who sympathized with the anarchists) that women were forced to lay down their weapons because they were constantly hounded and laughed at by the chauvanistic men in Catalan society. This occured because the anarchists maintained no revolution or control of the super-structure of society. All of the old chauvanistic roots that existed in Catalan society were allowed grow and flourish unhindered by the economism of the anarchists, and their inability to provide leadership for throwing off oppressive ideas.

[Red Heretic]

In honor of poor Revolt Now! who had his/her thread hijacked:



RC4 Tour Returns for 2nd Round! Saturday August 20th 2pm in Los Angelos

Revolution and Communism in America? Or is this some cognitive
dissonance....?

Not so fast say members of the Revolutionary Communist 4, or the RC4
for short. They are the ensemble of four Maoist revolutionaries who
kicked off a national speaking tour on July 23 in Los Angeles. And
their Tour has a specific focus on the Black communities of this
country.

They say that in the post-9/11 political climate, when thousands
upon thousands of Arab, Muslim and South Asian immigrants have been
detained, when civil liberties are aggressively being curtailed by
legislation and policies such as the USA Patriot Act, when lawyers
no longer can count on a client-attorney privileges, police
brutality and racial profiling has escalated and re-codified, and
torture is being mainstreamed by US forces in Guantanamo and at Abu
Graib, and where we've seen stolen elections and bold power plays by
the Christian fundamentalists in and out of political power -- comes
the RC4 Speaking Tour.

The RC4 are Carl Dix, Akil Bomani, Clyde Young and Joe Veale – proud
Maoists, and enthusiastic followers of Bob Avakian, the Chairman of
the Revolutionary Communist Party. The RC4 are all of African
American heritage -- three of whom are veterans of the Black
liberation struggles of the 60's and 70's. They have proclaimed
their bold and unprecedented speaking tour will be focusing on the
Black communities in the US from the West to East Coasts as they
kicked off in Los Angeles on July 23, 2005 before an audience of 200.

The RC4 plan to speak to some of the heaviest questions weighing on
Black people: The binding influence of religion, the Bill Cosby
brand of "personal responsibility", the "manhood" patriarchy of
keeping women oppressed, the "bling-bling" of capitalism and
entrepreneurialism – no stone will be left unturned in digging at
the truth of how it will take all the way proletarian revolution to
end the oppression of Black people and everything else foul this
system inflicts on people here and around the world.

They say the Black communities in the US, under siege for over a
generation since the Reagan years, have been marginalized,
brutalized, criminalized and demonized not seen since the days of
Jim Crow. Recounting the role of Black people during the civil
rights years and the Black liberation movement that immediately
followed it, the RC4 aim to bring forth from among this important
section of the American people, a revolutionary polarity that is
united around revolution and communism.

Can this be possible?

As explained by Joe Veale, spokesperson for the L.A. Branch of the
Revolutionary Communist Party, and one of the RC4, "We need a
revolutionary communist movement that is in the struggle and knows
that this [capitalism] is the problem -- we need millions and
millions of people who realize that if the masses could take power
and come together to share in all of this wealth and knowledge in a
collective way -- this represents the solution and the way out. So
this is a part of what this tour is about: to begin to build the
kind of revolutionary communist consciousness out here now that can
prepare to lead the masses to change the world."

Their version of communism is further enriched and informed by the
works of Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist
Party USA. Avakian has singlehandedly re-envisioned the communist
project despite all protestations and dismissals by mainstream
pundits and ideologues. It is significant in these times that Black
revolutionaries are projecting the leadership of someone who is
white. Carl Dix, another member of the RC4, and who is National
Spokesperson for the Revolutionary Communist Party, said that the
caliber of a leader should be judged by the content of what they are
bringing forward, not by their nationality. If people were locked in
a horrible prison for life and someone came along who knew the way
out, he said, would the prisoners say, well I don't want to know how
to get out of here because you are the wrong nationality!

* * *

Targeting other major cities like New York, Chicago, Detroit,
Philadelphia, Cleveland, Atlanta and other locales, this Tour will
stir up "a big conversation" about the dire situation in the
country, and the challenge those locked on the bottom of society to
become part of building a communist movement to emancipate all of
humanity.

The RC4 Speaking Tour's slogan is, "It's Way Past Time to Throw Off
the Chains of Oppression and Get With the Emancipators of History!"

The RC4 are: Carl Dix, Joe Veale, Clyde Young and Akil Bomani. The
members of the RC4 Speaking Tour are significant personages with
hefty resumes in their own right. They are available for press
commentary and interviews.

Biographical Synopses:

Carl Dix is the National Spokesperson for the Revolutionary
Communist Party (RCP). In 1970 he was one of six active duty GIs at
Fort Lewis who refused orders to Vietnam; and he subsequently served
two years at Ft. Leavenworth Military Penitentiary. He is a co-
founder of the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality.
Joe Veale is the Spokesperson for the Los Angeles Branch of the RCP
and a veteran of the Black Panther Party.
Akil Bomani is a member of the Chicago Revolutionary Writers and
Artists Collective and a correspondent to Revolution newspaper. He
speaks powerfully to how he became a revolutionary communist in his
article, "Losing My Religion."
Clyde Young became a revolutionary -- leading prison rebellions and
other political activities -- while serving a lengthy prison
sentence. Upon his release from prison, he met RCP Chairman Bob
Avakian and recognized in him unique and special qualities as a
leader. Clyde Young is author of the analysis, "Since the '60s...
Class Polarization in the Black Nation"

Please contact us at: 866-841-9139x2670 or by email at Visit our web
site at www.rc4tour.info/.

Carl Dix, National Spokesperson, Revolutionary Communist Party

P.O. Box 941, Knickerbocker Station, New York, NY 10002-0900

866-841-9139 x2670 [email protected]

[Abbigail]

wow they seem pretty intelligent... I agree with them too, obviously..

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+--> (Red Heretic)If we don't have a professional army, then how are we to coexist with the imperialist states?[/b]

It will be a "dicey" situation, to be sure.

But I'd rather run that risk then run the risk of creating a "professional army"...which history suggests is a certain source of counter-revolution.

Don't forget that as much as the remaining imperialist countries would "like" to invade and crush us, they may not be able to do it.

When the next era of proletarian revolution begins, it may involve all or most of the imperialist countries. The respective ruling classes of those countries may all be threatened...and be far too pre-occupied with hanging on to their own power to invade anybody.


Abbigail
wow they seem pretty intelligent

But that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

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

[Warren Peace]

Yes, now we're actually getting back to talking about the RC4! :lol:


NEFAC is a trendy group for punk rockers, not a revolutionary party.

Hey now, I take offense at that, being a punk rocker and a revolutionary.


In honor of poor Revolt Now! who had his/her thread hijacked:

His. Thanks, though.


But that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

Are you suggesting they are? Besides their support for Avakian, how could you possibly disagree with anything they said?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Revolt Now!@Aug 8 2005, 06:40 PM
Hey now, I take offense at that, being a punk rocker and a revolutionary.
Hehe, I used to be a punk rocker too Revolt Now!, so no worries. What I meant actually was that NEFAC is more of a group for the "lifestylist" punk rockers, who are are not serious about revolution, but rather characterize themselves as revolutionaries because they think its cool.

I don't in any way mean that people who are into punk rock can't contribute to the world revolution.

RedStar2000, I have a response to your post, but unfortunately I do not have time to repsond at the moment. I'll post it later tonight.

[redstar2000]

Besides their support for Avakian, how could you possibly disagree with anything they said?

Well, they agree with everything Avakian says, right? And I disagree with a great deal of what Avakian has to say. Ergo, I almost certainly disagree with a great deal of what the RC4 will have to say.

Most likely, they will emphasize "the leading role of the vanguard party"...which I think has proven to be a hopelessly wrong idea.

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

[STI]

As for NEFAC, please. NEFAC is known (even in the anarchist circles that I once was a part of) for having no actual ideological line). It is known for taking a dogmatic economist line and making no real analysis of any situations or current events. NEFAC is a trendy group for punk rockers, not a revolutionary party.


How much time have you spent reading "The Northeastern Anarchist"? Flipping through a few issues would show very clearly that there are a number of analyses of situations and current (as well has historical) events.


Hehe, I used to be a punk rocker too Revolt Now!, so no worries. What I meant actually was that NEFAC is more of a group for the "lifestylist" punk rockers, who are are not serious about revolution, but rather characterize themselves as revolutionaries because they think its cool.

Except in all those places in NEA where lifestylism is attacked and NEFAC is identified as a decidedly class war federation.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 8 2005, 05:08 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 8 2005, 05:08 PM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected]
If we don't have a professional army, then how are we to coexist with the imperialist states?

It will be a "dicey" situation, to be sure.

But I'd rather run that risk then run the risk of creating a "professional army"...which history suggests is a certain source of counter-revolution.

Don't forget that as much as the remaining imperialist countries would "like" to invade and crush us, they may not be able to do it.

When the next era of proletarian revolution begins, it may involve all or most of the imperialist countries. The respective ruling classes of those countries may all be threatened...and be far too pre-occupied with hanging on to their own power to invade anybody.


Abbigail
wow they seem pretty intelligent

But that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
As history was shown, it would be literally impossible to hold onto a revolution without a people's army.

There is no way that the Soviet Union could have held onto socialism through World War II. There is absolutely no way that the people of a backward country like China could hav overthrown Chiang Kai Shek with out a people's army. There is no way that the Vietnamese could have crushed US Imperialism without a people's army.

No decentralized militia could ever carry out complex programs like tunnel warfare in Vietnam, bringing the enemy in deep like in the USSR and China, or Protracted People's War like in China and Nepal. A professional army is absolutely necessary to do this sort of complex tasks that are ALWAYS going to be neccessary.

It will (at least until over 50% of the world is socialist) be absolutely necessary to defend ALL socialist revolutions from imperialist invaders, because of that nature of socialist revolution.

Historical materialism and dialectical materialism have shown us that socialist revolution is going to start in the most backward places in the world (Russia was the most backward in Europe, China was the most backward in Asia and dominated by Japanese imperialism, and today Nepal is the third poorest country in the world). It is not a coincidence that all of the socialist revolutions thus far have occured in the places where the fundamental contradictions in society were the sharpest.

Because of the strategic location where socialist revolution is going to begin, it will be absolutely necessary to defend against imperialist invasion. In addition, a people's army will be the only viable source of revolution in the most backward nations (like Nepal and China).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red Heretic
Historical materialism and dialectical materialism have shown us that socialist revolution is going to start in the most backward places in the world...

No, that's just idealism. Those "socialist" revolutions were bourgeois in function.

Modern Echoes of 1789 (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1122651577&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[rebelworker]

I wont respond too much to the Spanish revolution stuff due to the fact that it was hijaking the discussion, next forum it comes up in I will have some serrious in depth disagreement with most of what has been said.

The point I was trying to make in relation to the RC4 is that many very articulate people often get behind a program that is self defeating in the end.

Lenin was no doubt a very articulate leader, the problem is that he duped many dedicated revolutionaries into supporting a dictatorial system that was the antithesis of workers power and DIRECTLY lead to the horrors of stalinism.

I am personally the most sympathetic to maoism among all other strains of the revolutionary left, I have found them some of the most dedicated and hard working people, here in Montreal oftn the PCR(co) is the only group on the left that makes a serrious attempt at revolutionary theory that isnt totally self serving or oportunistic. The problem is that the maoist project however how well meaning is doomed to lead to failure for the working class(not nessesarily a clique of "profesional revolutionaries" who hope to take power).

Most of the revolutionaries that i have identified with from the 60's(the last time there was anything resembling a serrious revolutionary movement in north america) were at one time maoists. I have been particularly influneced by organizers out of the Black Panther Party( Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, Ashanti Alston & Kuwasi Balagoon to name a few). In their analysis of the history of the sixties they have come to the conclusion that the authoritarian model that the Panthers followed was a key factor in their self destruction. This is not the case of all former panthers obviously(way too many have converted to islam) but still a solid percentage of the ones who remain active revolutionaries. For more on this see my posts on the Armed Guerrillas thread...

As to supporting Bob Avakian and still being ok, the problem is that no matter what good things you have to say, if you are working towards a bunk project all is for naught...

The fact remains that Bob Avakian is just another rich kid telling working people what to do.
Try reading "Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years 1960-1975 - Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz" for a hillarious look at Bob Avakian, the self centered, sexist "leader of the revolution".

I want to apologise to red heritic, i didnt mean to say you cant think for yourself beacuse of your age, I just meant to point out that younger people are often overly impressed with older peoples opinions because of our inexperience. It was the same for me(mabey still is im not yet 30) and i just wanted to bring that up.
Obviously didnt come across well.

For Anarchist sectarianism, well if youve just been exterminated and backstabbed by other so called revolutionaries(The bolsheviks were extreemly treturous to the mahknovists and the Russian Anarchsit movenment) i think its ok to be a bit skeptical, But the truth is that the CNT worked with the POUM and the Republicans(right or wrong).

The Spanish Womens Anarchsit Organization Mujeres Libres had a larger membership than the whole cummunist Party and its work was almost entierly focused on challenging sexism and empowering the lives of women. Spanish men at the time were sexist thats true, Anarchists have done much since and then to challenge sexism. Women organizing themselves and being supported by male comrades will defeat sexism, not having some male vanguard telling people how its to be done.

In solidarity,
rebelworker

PS Im not a Punk and nevr have been, there are no punks in NEFAC in montreal, I have only met 4 or 5 punks in the entire organization, I like punks and punk music(One of my roomies fronts a whiked band called Ballast, check em out, she rocks).

I dont know where you met any nefac'ers but I fear you are greavely mistaken. If your impression is based on how many north american anarchism think that dosnt worry me too much..

I guess we can slam each others organizations all we want(I would actually love to work with current RCPers who eventually dump authoritarian politics) but the fact is only time and our work will tell who is on the right path...
Also for the record i think history has already clearly proven that point but I guess that is again up for debate...

[Xiao Banfa]

Let's relegate the RCP to the dustbin. Bob Avakian is a fuckwit. Has anyone read the "I'm still not drinking coke" article? He basically says that he used to boycott coke then he started drinking it again, but he still botcotts it "metaphorically".
Is it that much trouble to boycott that crap?

Avakian is also a homophobe. RCP, while that wont say they oppose homosexuality per se, believe that queers should be "reformed" after the revolution. That is scary.

If the imbecillic pose he strikes on the website doesn't crack you up his imitation of legalistic chinese 60's writing will

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:55 PM
Lenin was no doubt a very articulate leader, the problem is that he duped many dedicated revolutionaries into supporting a dictatorial system that was the antithesis of workers power and DIRECTLY lead to the horrors of stalinism.

I am personally the most sympathetic to maoism among all other strains of the revolutionary left,
Oh, the irony!

Leninism is blamed for supposedly leading to Stalinism...by someone who has a soft spot for Maoism, the most obscurantist and reactionary form of Stalinism! The whole anarchist-Maoist affinity kinda illustrates that "anti-authoritarian" opposition to Leninism often has little to do with opposition to authoritarianism or Stalinism....indeed, they may prefer Stalinism to Leninism.

IMO the anti-authoritarian and the Stalinist both oppose Leninism for, at bottom, similar reasons....they are both petty-bourgeois trends which oppose working people taking political power into our own hands.

[STI]

Here we go again, using "political power" and "state power" as though they were interchangeably.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 11 2005, 02:13 PM
Let's relegate the RCP to the dustbin. Bob Avakian is a fuckwit. Has anyone read the "I'm still not drinking coke" article? He basically says that he used to boycott coke then he started drinking it again, but he still botcotts it "metaphorically".
Is it that much trouble to boycott that crap?

Avakian is also a homophobe. RCP, while that wont say they oppose homosexuality per se, believe that queers should be "reformed" after the revolution. That is scary.

If the imbecillic pose he strikes on the website doesn't crack you up his imitation of legalistic chinese 60's writing will
I haven't read any article on Bob Avakian not boycotting coca cola anymore, but he did mention it in his memoir, "From Ike to Mao." He made the point that boycotting is not a real force to change. We can try to boycott capitalism all we want, go live in the woods like a bunch of mountain men and make all of our products ourselves, but that STILL isn't going to abolish this system or all of the horror that it will still cause for the vast majority of the masses. If you want to attack Avakian for not being a trendy lifestylist, be my guest.

In reality, the simple fact that the best arguement that you can dig up against Bob Avakian is that he drinks Coca Cola is really rather pathetic. Are you serious about looking for the way out of this system, or are you just serious about defending the leftist sect that you belong to?



Avakian is also a homophobe. RCP, while that wont say they oppose homosexuality per se, believe that queers should be "reformed" after the revolution. That is scary.

Bull fucking shit. The following is from the RCP's Draft Programme:

"As for intimate relations, socialist society will promote values of, and create the conditions for, personal, family, and sexual relations based on mutual love, respect, and equality.

The revolutionary proletariat is staunchly opposed to the attacks on homosexuality by reactionary forces such as religious fundamentalists, and to all physical assaults on, discrimination against, and government repression of homosexuals, which is so widespread and vicious in the U.S. today. In the new society, discrimination against homosexuals will be outlawed and struggled against in every sphere of society, including personal and family relations. (p. 22)

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

Sexual and intimate relations between men and women in bourgeois society are largely reflective of and dominated by the ideology of male supremacy and "male right"; they exist within and are influenced by the overall framework of social relations in which the oppression of women is an integral and fundamental part. All this is something that the proletariat will be mobilizing the masses to radically transform in the process of uprooting the oppression of women and all oppression and exploitation. In the realm of intimate relations, socialist society will encourage people to strive for standards that are consistent with and contribute to uprooting the oppression of women.

Homosexuality

Under socialism people will not be stigmatized because they are homosexuals or because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination will not be tolerated, and the repression and violence against homosexuals that has been so prevalent in capitalist society will be firmly opposed and dealt with.

At the same time, it is important to grasp that same sex relations do not escape and do not exist outside of the prevailing family and sexual relations and the corresponding ideology of male supremacy that oppress women in this society. In many ways the outlook that characterizes male gay culture in bourgeois society is not a departure from--and in fact there are elements in which it is a concentration of--male right. Lesbianism is in many ways a response to the oppression of women in class society, but in and of itself it is not a fundamental solution to this oppression.

The outlook that one partner in an intimate relationship must be devalued, dominated, abused, or owned is a reflection of the oppression of women in society; and forms of male right, in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, will be targets of criticism and transformation. (From the appendix "The Proletarian Revolution and the Emancipation of Women," p. 106 )"

[rebelworker]

The RCP's support of homosexuality is very new, untill not to long ago they did think it was a burgeouis lifestyle and denounced it as dividing counter revolutionary. As did Bob in the sixties think that femenism was another distraction from the class struggle.

As for my limited simpathy for maoists, I used to be in a trotskyist group, I came to revolutionary politics through class hatred and a union community background, I soon realised that lenenism is an antithesis to working class liberation and 95% of leninists and their groups are University debate societies...

The one consistent exception was maoisism, which I ideologicaly oppose for all the same reasons I opose all other authorian politics, but I did notic that in a North American context(with the exception of most of the RCP) it had more of a working class following(BPP + PCR(co)).

Arguments about boycotting are not the issue here, the fact is that Bob Avakian is just the living continuation of a trean of burgeois people telling working class people what we should do and defining the limits of debate and level of controll we should have over our lives.
Marx, Lenin, Mao and Castro all were petty bourgeois intellectuals who decided they knew what was best for the working class and if we didnt like it we were counter revolutionaries or (even more insulting) followers of a petty burgeois trend...
THE VANGUARD PARTY AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PARTY IS A PETTY BURGEOIS TREND,
END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anarchist Communists, Council Communists and left Marxists have all learnd this by now, how long will it take you???

[Red Heretic]

The RCP's support of homosexuality is very new, untill not to long ago they did think it was a burgeouis lifestyle and denounced it as dividing counter revolutionary. As did Bob in the sixties think that femenism was another distraction from the class struggle.

Many other groups such as the PLP and the SDS also held similar views at that time. The RCP made a serious mistake on that issue, and it has taken a self-criticism on that issue.

The bottom line is that literally everyone on this board has held some reactionary view points at different times in their life on the long journey to become a real revolutionary communist. I'll say straight up that I myself used to be a homophobic christian fascist, period. That shit was ingrained into my upbringing, and it was a 5 year journey to get to where I'm at today. We all go through those kinds of journeys, even revolutionary leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Bob Avakian.

As for your claims of the International Communist Movement being a petty bourgeois trend... you are getting into indentity politics, and that is very dangerous. People do not have to come from a specific race, gender, or social class to have a correct understanding of the world and the leadership that it takes to bring the world forward to socialism. There's a great joke on this topic about Nikita Khruscvhev that really hits on key.

"When Chinese Communist Party came out with its criticism of the USSR and Nikita Khruschev, Khruschev came to visit China to attempt to force the CCP to step down from that claim. In his normal ranting fury, Khruschev said "HOW CAN YOU SAY WE'RE NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY, AND THAT I'M NOT A COMMUNIST?! LOOK AT YOU! [pointing at Zhou Enlai] YOU CAME FROM A FAMILY OF ARISTOCRATS!!! BUT WHAT ABOUT ME? I CAME FROM A WORKING CLASS FAMILY! MY FATHER WAS A FARMER!"

Zhou calmly looked at him and said "Well, I guess it looks like we both betrayed our classes, now doesn't it?"

This joke exposes that people can be revolutionary leaders regardless of whether they came from a middle class family white family or not. The reality of it all is that the majority of revolutionary leaders that are going to come forward are going to be of petty-bourgeois background, because people of petty-bourgeois background have more time to analyze this system, and develop the knowledge that is required to bring a new world into being. This is not something that should bother us. A person's class background does no ultimately decide whether or not they have the ability to lead society forward.

Did Mao's petty-bourgeois background somehow stop him from leading an entire revolution against all of the horrors in China? No! Did Mao's petty-bourgeois background somehow stop him from rebelling against even the communist party when it became revisionist? Hell no!


Anarchist Communists, Council Communists and left Marxists have all learnd this by now, how long will it take you???

*yawn*

How long will it take you to stop rejecting objective reality? There has never been, and never will be an anarchist revolution. Never in human history has an anarchist platform led people into revolution. In reality, every example the anarchists use is an instance where power fell into their hands, and even then, the anarchist platform has proven incapable of being able to hold on to power.

Without understanding the dialectical materialist context of state society, one can never seek to abolish the state. To explain this to you, i'm going to have to dig very deeply into the origins of the state and fuedal society.

In the 1700's, there lived a group of Native South Americans known as the Arawak Indians. The Arawak Indians were completely isolated from all other human beings on the coasts of Brazil. Because of their isolation they were able to develop a collective pre-fuedal communist society that was almost exactly like the final goal of a stateless and classless society that we all strive for. However, when the Arawak Indians were discovered by Columbus, they were taken as slaves and mass murdered. Their entire race no longer exists today.

In reality, all human societies after the neolithic revolution (the development of agriculture) started out this way. However, as the separate human societies continued to develop, the came into contradictions with each other. To compensate, human societies evovled to have a state apparatus. The state apparatus was the direct result of the contradictions between different nations of people. Those human societies which did not develop a state apparatus were all inevitably crushed by the evolutionary superior societies that had developed the state apparatus.

The Arawak Indians were killed off by Columbus because they did not have the state apparatus. They had no need to develop the state apparatus, because up until that time, they had never come into contradiction with another nation of human beings.

So now that we understand the origin and the fundamental contradiction in society that gives rise to the state, we must use this to understand how to abolish the state. To abolish the state, human society must be completely unified and have all of its contradictions between nations dissolved by the world socialist revolution. Only when there are no more fundamental contradictions between nation will the state no longer serve any purpose and wither away.

To try to abolish the state as you anarchists want to do without resolving the contradictions between nations is to commit suicide and open the path to the imperialists and fascists of the world to rise and increase their power onto an even greater level than they already have. Anarchism is a trend trying to take human society to the days before the state arose. It is a primitivistic trend they is both naive and impossible.

Only the international proletarian world revolution can abolish the state!

[Warren Peace]

Crap, this thread is totally hijaked. :blink: I should have just said clearly: this isn't a thread for fighting about the entire RCP, it's just for talking about the RC4! Oh well, too late. I don't have strong feelings about the RCP, but I'll jump in.


This joke exposes that people can be revolutionary leaders regardless of whether they came from a middle class family white family or not. The reality of it all is that the majority of revolutionary leaders that are going to come forward are going to be of petty-bourgeois background, because people of petty-bourgeois background have more time to analyze this system, and develop the knowledge that is required to bring a new world into being. This is not something that should bother us. A person's class background does no ultimately decide whether or not they have the ability to lead society forward.

Agreed. This is why I think the idea of "labor aristocracy" is crap. MIM thinks that just because someone is an American worker, they are an imperialist. "Petty-bourgeois" is just a dogmatic term that some communists use to condemn revolutions they don't agree with.


As history was shown, it would be literally impossible to hold onto a revolution without a people's army.

Unless the aim of the revolution is feudalism. I think that revolution can directly achieve communism if it burns away classes and imperialism. But to abolish the state while classes and imperialism still exist, and leave the people without an army to defend them? RedStar, do you have any idea what you're asking for? No offense, comrade, but it won't just be "dicey", it will be a living hell! If imperialist powers don't occupy us, warlords and bandits will seize power and enslave people. Criminals will run rampant, looting, raping, and killing, totally unchecked, easily a match for your "decentralized militias". In fact, because the militias are decentralized, what's to stop a militia here and there from becomming bandits themselves? People will be living in their own shit, and trading their firstborn children for food scraps. If anyone wants a society like that, move to Kashmir!

[Raisa]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 8 2005, 05:26 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 8 2005, 05:26 PM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected]
If we don't have a professional army, then how are we to coexist with the imperialist states?

It will be a "dicey" situation, to be sure.


Don't forget that as much as the remaining imperialist countries would "like" to invade and crush us, they may not be able to do it.

When the next era of proletarian revolution begins, it may involve all or most of the imperialist countries. The respective ruling classes of those countries may all be threatened...and be far too pre-occupied with hanging on to their own power to invade anybody.


Abbigail
wow they seem pretty intelligent

But that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
"But I'd rather run that risk then run the risk of creating a "professional army"...which history suggests is a certain source of counter-revolution."

All people after the revolution should learn military skills in school. A good way to carry this out is to teach it to all young people along with math and english and other required classes from the 8th grade up. Not learning skills on fighting in Iraq or going somewhere else but every one should learn regular thigns to defend their locality, and this should be carried out by professional military who understanding military science and coordination and techology is their entire career. The people should be a strong force in the military, but there should still be a professional military also. Then no one could mess with us unless they obliterated us from the sky....but wait- the professional military sees them coming on a radar , and is going to blow them out of the sky before they even get here cause its their job!


I dont see whats wrong with both a civilian militia and a professional militia, but i see whats wrong with not having both.

The main focus of a civilian militia in every day life (as they should be educated for this) is to regulate the government so they dont go back stabbing on the people.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:03 AM
Here we go again, using "political power" and "state power" as though they were interchangeably.
That's because they are.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 13 2005, 04:26 PM--> (Severian @ Aug 13 2005, 04:26 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 07:03 AM
Here we go again, using "political power" and "state power" as though they were interchangeably.
That's because they are. [/b]
Political power goes far beyond state power.

[Red Heretic]

http://www.rc4tour.info/rc4_aug20.jpg

http://rc4ny.blogspot.com/

[viva le revolution]

Looks more like an ad for a concert :D
Are you sure this isn't just another personality cult, because that's the feeling i get looking at that poster.

[Red Heretic]

It looks like an ad for a concert because it is trying to appeal to revolutionary youth.. I don't see the problem.

[viva le revolution]

I personally will add my two cents here.
Passing off and marketing our cause through posters that represent communism as a passing fad is extremely unwise. Just look at that poster, it looks more like a hip-hop band than a group of communists, there is no symbolism there. Passing off the image that 'communism is cool' is just dumb, because if you treat it as such, that is what it will end up being, just a fad. Communists should seek support from serious dedicated people, not teenyboppers who saw a poster of 'cool' commies. Our struggle is serious, therefore we need support from people who driven towards our cause through genuine dissatisfaction and alienation from the current system, not cosmopolitan images nor the beginnings of a personality cult, like that poster is actually encouraging.
A simple poster with a hammer and sickle or a clenched fist would have sufficed but no they had to pass themselves off as some superstars. We need serious discussion and people should be there for the right reasons.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The language that is typically used by the RCP is also extremely insulting to minorities, coming from a party dominated by white folks.

"Get down with the main man yo!"

As if minorities can't understand plain English.

[rebelworker]

My point about the class background off the "leaders" is a simple one.

These people ahve been raised to govern society, just like you correctly identified the fact that we are raised with negative social values that we must purge so i agree that this trend of vanguardism must be purged as a leftover social value from a hierachical society.

To say that the "leaders" will just build socialism untill the working class is ready for communism is crazy, in the mean time we the workers will just have to lay down and face some of the worst exploitation our class has ever seen untill you decide it ok for us to have rights and a say in things????

Thats total crap, its anti working class and I for one haye the fact that obvious facts like this get debated around and burried in academic jargin.

Communism must come from the self emancipation of the working class, we will have "leaders", nut they will lead through example and theory not through centralised power. Replacng one opresssive ruling class that hates me wityh another that disrespects me is something im not interested in.

You cant shortcut revolution, it will be long, it will be uneven but it must be free.
Only through trial and error, through learning from our mistakes will the working class become capable of creating a functioning communist society.

"dictatorships of the proletariate" are just a 1984 type language game to try and hide the fact the the working class is again being degridated and history has show will degrade into just another type of ruling class, ans in the process set back the power and growth of the working class movements that brought it into power.

Currently in china there are many large scale labour uprisings with the workers demanding communism. 60 years later they are being forced to finally do away with the roadblock to their freedom that took power in their name.

Again Communism will come from the self activity of the working class, we will need organization and we will face defeats, but better to face defeats at the hands of a known enemy than to be stabbed in the back by thoes who claim to support you.

Your critique of anarchism is extreemly shallow, some of the things you dsay are true but they are being worked out within the anarchist movment. Platformism will bring the kind of coheirance and vivion that will help to build a strong millitant workingclass revolutinary movment. You are beating a dead horse by trying to resurect a fundamntaly flawed "science". Though Im sure you would say the same for me...

For Communism,
rebelworker

[rebelworker]

PS I am genuinly sorry Revolt Now! if you feel like yor post is being hijaked but as I said earlier the basis of the RCP politic is at the crux of weither or not the RC4 is a worth while project.

I also agree with the critique of the event as trendy, I think the poster is fine and I guess the speaking tour in itself is not a bad idea, but only through engaging in calss struggle will we build a reviolutionary movment, all the che T's in the world wont save us...

rebelworker

[Enragé]

"In order that the revolution should be something more than a word, in order that the reaction should not lead us back tomorrow to the situation of yesterday, the conquest of today must be worth the trouble of defending; the poor of yesterday must be worth the trouble of defending; the poor of yesterday must not be poor tomorrow."

and thats why, when our cause is just, NO MILITARY FORCE CAN STOP US!!! A military cannot oppose us when the bulk of its army DEFECTS to our side, and it will! As long as we do not fall back to using the same methods as the bourgeois oppressors!
No army on the planet can be kept alive when the people do not support it, no ideal has ever been destroyed by military force when the people support it.
CANT YOU SEE?!?! It is not about military victories! As long as justice and freedom is what we fight for, our message will resound in hearts around the world! And such a message cannot be silenced by bullets, it can however be silenced by people who say they fight for that cause who create an abusive state, and a military to support it

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+--> (Red Heretic)To abolish the state, human society must be completely unified and have all of its contradictions between nations dissolved by the world socialist revolution.[/b]

You left out the "return of Jesus". :lol:

Postponing classless society to "the day after never" is self-evidently a rhetorical device to reconcile us to the "enlightened" despotism of the party and its great leader indefinitely into the future.

But it's not working...people will not accept it.


Revolt Now!
RedStar, do you have any idea what you're asking for? No offense, comrade, but it won't just be "dicey", it will be a living hell! If imperialist powers don't occupy us, warlords and bandits will seize power and enslave people. Criminals will run rampant, looting, raping, and killing, totally unchecked, easily a match for your "decentralized militias".

Your confidence in the proletariat is rather minimal, isn't it?

Without a group of uniformed professional thugs around to "keep us in line", we'll just "naturally" revert to a Hobbesian "war of all against all".

Everyone in the middle class usually thinks that working people are just shaggy-haired savages at heart...who've barely managed to learn how to dress themselves and use indoor plumbing.

The proposition that we could actually run and effectively defend a modern society is...well, utopian.

No it isn't.

And provided that you're young enough, it's possible that you may live long enough to see why you're wrong with your own eyes.

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

[rebelworker]

Well said, classist prejudices so often manifest themselves in Vanguarist theory.

I saw a documentary on those commies who got shot by the Klan in the eighties, one of the, a doctor, described the kkklansmen "they were like long haired savages, unshaven, coming out of the forest and swamps"...
Later on one of the clansmen goes on to talkl about his working class pride and how he didnt want a bunch of bougie commie yuppies telling him his buisness.
I hate the Klan but it goes to show why the left has been so dismally out organized by the right since the sixties.

No wonder the working class didnt get too onboard the project of revolution if these are the kinds of ideas that their so called leadership is carrying.

although very sexist and fucked up in some other ways, I would recomend a book called "the red neck manifesto" it looks at the disgust working class people are held in by much of the liberal american left. Another book that looks interesting in a similar vein is called "whats wrong with Kansas". Has anyone read it?

rebelworker

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:05 PM
The language that is typically used by the RCP is also extremely insulting to minorities, coming from a party dominated by white folks.

"Get down with the main man yo!"

As if minorities can't understand plain English.
Where do they use this language?

I don't see anything wrong with the poster.

On there events, i think it would be worth checking out.

[Solidarnosc]

I hate the Klan but it goes to show why the left has been so dismally out organized by the right since the sixties.

Apart from the fact that the right have the meagre forces of the media, the government, the machines of industry and the state machinery but there you go.

There are sections of the "left" which are rabidly anti-working class, but neither are they communist, so they get the air time when the bosses of the TV networks or the editors of the mainstream newspapers decide in a moment of "benevolency" to give to the "left".