Destruction of the RCP

[MKS]

The Revolutionary Communist Party; a Leninist-Maoist organization has beee working "for the people", but in reality they are working towards a "soviet" version of America and the world. Leninism should have no place in Leftist idealogy, it is flawed and creates a different kind of tyranny. The creation and allowance of a vaguard leads only to the creation of a fixed power base, and alienates the people from the "government". The people, and only the people acting democraticly should decide who if anybody should lead them, no one should promote themselves as the leadership.

The RCP must be stopped if Socialism is to advance.

[JKP]

The RCP is quite simply, an enemy of the working class. Assuming they're still around when a revolution happens, they should be regarded as counter-revolutionary.

[novemba]

...and will be.

[Anarchist Freedom]

They will be seen for the enemies they are.

[workersunity]

I see that this thread is kept alive by the anarchists here, Myself am a communist, and also find the deep problems with the RCP, personality cult, homophobia, Vanguard, peasants view, I do find them against marxism, and cant yet be regarded as an enemy of the people, are damn close to it

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But they are small and insignificant, so why waste your time? I'm not arguing against hashing it out against them theoretically, but it seems to me that your time is much better spent fighting capitalism than fighting Bob and his travelling side show.

[Clarksist]

Man, lots of RCP threads. Perhaps that is a sign of their importance to the modern movement. (just don't tell them that :P)

It concerns me greatly, their "message of communism" as it is so convaluted and authoritarian. However, should they be destroyed?

I would say that the best thing for the RCP to stay alive and to keep growing as it is now... it should kick out Avakian. He is only alienating future RCP goers.


Leninism should have no place in Leftist idealogy, it is flawed and creates a different kind of tyranny.


I have no buff with Leninism per se. What I have a problem with is a few of the ideals. I.E. state capitalism before socialism, that just sets up tyranny.

Other than that, centralized democracy, and the lack of diversity in candidates to run for the Soviets concerns me.

If the process was more decentralized and democratized... I'd absolutely be on board. But perhaps, I am asking too much of Leninism, and especially a MLM party.

[ComradeRed]

It doesn't need to be "destroyed" externally. It can do it internally.

What do you think will happen when "He" dies?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:58 PM
It doesn't need to be "destroyed" externally. It can do it internally.

What do you think will happen when "He" dies?
They'll just stick someone from the inner-party to take over. Then they'll continue to glorify Avakian and his "pathbreaking" rubbish.

[Vanguard1917]

Avakian's RCP is a joke - led by washed-up old lefties who have nothing to say about a progressive movement for the 21st century.

What is not funny, though, is the fact that people use such parties as examples of Leninist vanguards. If people took their time to try and understand Lenin's point about the vanguard, they would not have such a bourgeois-influenced, vulgar idea of Leninism - and they certainly wouldn't call parties like the RCP Leninist parties.

[Camarada]

true socialism shouldn't have personality cults, there is nothing wrong with thanking somebody if you consider them to be beneficial to the socialist cause, but mentioning them in every single statement you make is excessive

it seems like almost every thing they say contains "the RCP is promoting communism as it is being re-envision by Chairman Avakian." :lol:

[Poum_1936]

My main beef with the RCP, is Maoism. I see Maoism as a rehashing of all the old crap that both Marx and Lenin fought against. I see a few striking similarities between Maoists and the Narodniks.

[Vanguard1917]

I see a few striking similarities between Maoists and the Narodniks.

So do i: populism.

[Clarksist]

it seems like almost every thing they say contains "the RCP is promoting communism as it is being re-envision by Chairman Avakian."


You are completely right.

Every time I read a post from an RCP member, they say bullshit like "Avakian says this-" and "Avakian says that-".

Think for yourselves!


My main beef with the RCP, is Maoism.


I dislike Mao. But MLM isn't NEAR as bad as (ergats!) Avakianism.

[wet blanket]

I remember having a discussion with someone who works at a local revolutionary bookstore that was handing out RCP material among other revolutionary socialist relics(mao lenin etc.)

She tried to get me interested in some of the literature on display(many of the books I already own) and told her I wasn't a real big fan of Lenin and the idea of an authoritarian vanguard doesn't really appeal to me. It almost escalated to an argument when I pointed out that the members of the Communist Party in the USSR had an entirely different relationship to the means of production than the Russian workers themselves. She kept giving me all of this nonsense about the dictatorship of "the masses" and we eventually agreed to disagree on the subject and she gave me a lot of information about the RCP and I picked up Bob Avakian's 4 DVD set called REVOLUTION: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About.

I must say that I kind of like Avakian's criticism of US and capitalism, he does have an awareness of the root of the problems within existing society. He does encourage criticism and values dissent, but he uses the term "dictatorship" a little too much and that makes me uncomfortable about supporting him or the RCP. I get the feeling that if he were to ever find himself in a position of power there would be little to no tolerance of any dissent or protest of "Bob's Revolution".

I also get a kick out of the fact that if you listen to his interview about leadership at bobavakian.net he goes on about how there would need to be a leader who has a "higher level of understanding about what needs to be done for a revolution to be successful", while never mentioning himself directly, I can just tell he sees himself as some heroic and enlightened people's champion. The movement really doesn't need this kind of shit.

[Paradox]

I must say that I kind of like Avakian's criticism of US and capitalism, he does have an awareness of the root of the problems within existing society.

Yeah, so do we.


He does encourage criticism and values dissent

Again, so do we.

Difference is, we do these things without personality cult and garbage arguements in favor of a strong State and vanguard.


I also get a kick out of the fact that if you listen to his interview about leadership at bobavakian.net he goes on about how there would need to be a leader who has a "higher level of understanding about what needs to be done for a revolution to be successful", while never mentioning himself directly

I actually downloaded a couple of 1 hour+ long speeches by Avakian. They were basically nothing more than history lessons; nothing major regarding theory, just talk about a vanguard and a State.

I have yet to hear anything from Avakian that is "new" regarding theory. I've read some Lenin and didn't like it. Maoism, don't know a lot about it, but from what I've heard, it doesn't sound too good, to say the least. Whether or not the RCP is a good representation of Leninism-Maoism, the group is not an organization I would work with. At least, not as long as they hang on to the ideas already mentioned and continue to worship "Comrade Avakian."


the deep problems with the RCP, personality cult, homophobia, Vanguard, peasants view

Homophobia? Really? :huh: Are they that bad? I haven't read anything homophobic or heard any members make homophobic remarks before. Is it a big problem in their group? Or just a few rotten apples? Avakian himself?

[Clarksist]

Homophobia? Really?


Actually, it was only in the past year or so that they changed their position of homosexuality from against "homos" to pro "homos".

Pretty fucken weird, seeing as Avakian always brags about having been a hippy.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 03:37 AM

Yeah, so do we.

Again, so do we.

Difference is, we do these things without personality cult and garbage arguements in favor of a strong State and vanguard.

I don't really recall this topic being about "we", whoever "we" may be.

I'm also kind of confused as to why you're telling me this... I think I made myself clear when I said "the movement doesn't need this shit" at the end of my post. So, I'm not entirely sure how I should respond to you... Yes, I agree with you. Want a prize?

[MKS]

don't really recall this topic being about "we", whoever "we" may be

We must be careful not to seperate ourselves from everybody else. we are the people, hopefully the voice of the people but we must not forget that there is no "us" and "them", only us; humanity fighting this fight.

The seperation of revolutionary and the masses is what creates personality cults and vangaurds.

We are all together in this struggle and we must not forget the one inalienable bond that holds us together; our humanity.

[wet blanket]

This discussion is going nowhere...

[celticfire]

The RCP is not homophobic. Most of what you fools are doing is left-splitting and serves the interests of the ruling class.

On the Position on Homosexuality (http://rwor.org/margorp/homosexuality.htm) :hammer:

[Paradox]

Originally posted by wet blanket+Sep 5 2005, 05:32 AM--> (wet blanket @ Sep 5 2005, 05:32 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 03:37 AM

Yeah, so do we.

Again, so do we.

Difference is, we do these things without personality cult and garbage arguements in favor of a strong State and vanguard.

I don't really recall this topic being about "we", whoever "we" may be.

I'm also kind of confused as to why you're telling me this... I think I made myself clear when I said "the movement doesn't need this shit" at the end of my post. So, I'm not entirely sure how I should respond to you... Yes, I agree with you. Want a prize? [/b]
No. I don't want a prize.

I was just elaborating, I guess.

Sorry if it seemed I was directing my points at you.

"We" are the ones who are not crazed and recognize the bullshit that is the RCP. Not any specific ideological group, just those who recognize the insanity of the Avakian worhsippers.

[celticfire]

we do these things without personality cult

Oh really? So Chomsky followers don't promote Chomsky?
Anarchists don't promote Goldman, Proudhon, Bakunin etc.?
Republicans don't promite "Reaganomics"?

They do.

Communists should promote their leaders but certainly not uncritically.
The RCP doesn't do this. And as far as the "Avakian says..." posts, you can EASILLY point out threads where someone put "Proudhon, Che, Chomsky, Bakunin said/mentioned/thought this..."

Because they promote their political line. Nothing wrong with this, is there?

The RCP folks (which I am not, but I feel compelled to defend them from blatant LIES) feel that there is something to be learned from Avakian. And I agree. He has worked with the Black Panthers, he helped found the Revolution Union, and the RCP. The RCP has (s)elected him again and again because he is a real revolutionary leader. If I was around the 60's I'd be promoting Huey and the BPP, but I'm in the 2000's and I'm promoting Avakian.

The RCP is fighting for the liberation of the masses and for socialism. They have fought and developed a political line, brought forward revolutionary leaders and are actively promoting their leadership, if this is a cult then you'd better start drinking the poisoned punch 'cause most of you are just as "cult"-ish.

Why does the RCP need to get rid of Avakian? The answer is they don't, my response to the people that would say this is to try ACTUALLY reading some of his stuff, and really studying not "skimming". If you don't like it, raise those disagreements with them in a comradely way, but advocating that a party is "counter-revolutionary" publicly makes me question the intent of such people and where they really stand - with the masses or with the exploiters.

[Clarksist]

The RCP is not homophobic. Most of what you fools are doing is left-splitting and serves the interests of the ruling class.


Well it isn't anymore. Avakian was chairman during its anti gay days.


The RCP doesn't do this. And as far as the "Avakian says..." posts, you can EASILLY point out threads where someone put "Proudhon, Che, Chomsky, Bakunin said/mentioned/thought this..."


There's a difference between using a justifying argument, and simply preaching gospel.

Although I think its a good thing when people use others tho justify themselves.


The RCP folks (which I am not, but I feel compelled to defend them from blatant LIES) feel that there is something to be learned from Avakian


If you aren't pro RCP, then why do you have their links in your signature?


They have fought and developed a political line, brought forward revolutionary leaders and are actively promoting their leadership, if this is a cult then you'd better start drinking the poisoned punch 'cause most of you are just as "cult"-ish.


"They" haven't fought anything yet. And Avakian brought himself forward. And "they" are promoting Avakian's complete and un-abridged control.

[Warren Peace]

Disunity amoung the left is our greatest weakness. I don't agree with the RCP either, it's okay to be critical, but I can't believe you are actually calling for their destruction. They are still our comrades, and they are probably the leading revolutionary party in the US today. We need to put aside our differences and unite against the common and eternal enemy, then nobody will be able to stand in the way of the revolution.


And Avakian brought himself forward. And "they" are promoting Avakian's complete and un-abridged control.

All great revolutionary leaders, like Castro, have some sort of "cult" around them, Avakian has just taken his too far. Still, when was the last time you heard about Avakian in the media? We haven't. Instead, we hear from other RCP spokespeople like Sunsara Taylor and the Revolutionary Communist 4. Avakian's control is not "complete and un-abridged".

[Clarksist]

Avakian's control is not "complete and un-abridged".


His control is.

He just doesn't want to be as outspoken and have any public heat come on him.

[bombeverything]

Homophobia? Really? Are they that bad? I haven't read anything homophobic or heard any members make homophobic remarks before. Is it a big problem in their group? Or just a few rotten apples? Avakian himself?

Read their policy on homosexuality.


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.

What about sex for the sake of sex? This sounds really conservative to me. Who cares who people sleep with? I have no desire to unite with these perverts. There seems to be a strange interest in the private lives of people. For example:


So the ways people engage in sexual activity is not just something that individuals "do" in some kind of private isolation. Sexual activity is after all a social practice.

Huh? What does ones sexual activity have to do with anything?


But we do think there is a basis--and that we have a responsibility--to try to sort out what kind of larger social impacts and effects different social practices among the people may be having, and to help distinguish what may be relatively socially insignificant from what may actually be objectively harmful

And you honestly believe all this isn't homophobic? If so, your the fool. All they have done is re-worded their "old" stance. Read through it properly.

[celticfire]

Clarksist: I never said I wasn't pro-RCP, I said I wasn't a formal member. I'm not because I chose not to be, but I very much pro-RCP. I think what Warren Peace said needs to be considered more. It's fine to disagree and debate but to call for the destruction of a revolutionary party...well you see where that goes and what interest it serves.

The RCP does openly promote it's leadership, I call it a culture of appreciation. You can call it a cult of the individual, it doesn't matter. But what is the RCP upholding when it promotes Avakian? Are they saying "he should be our dictator!" Is that what the Panthers were saying when then promoted Huey and Bobby? Of course not! They were promoting political lines - and the same goes with Che - what does the image of Che represent?

Avakian thinks this attitude of "promoting leaders is cultish" is a petit-bourgeois view and actually divorced from working class thinking.

Well I disagree (Oh no! I disagree with Chairman Bob! The RCP police will soon come take me away...) I think this attitude is very working class but misguided. The bourgeoisie have personality cults too. Not necessarilly because they want that person in power forever (some are dead, ie George Washington, Ronald Reagan) but they represent concrete political lines among the bourgeois political terrian. Bush is is actively building one too if you pay attention. Should we not promote our leaders too? There might be something to be said if you think there is a over-emphasis on his promotion - I might even agree with you. (Ie in the paper the tag "Our leader is Bob Avakian" always makes my eyes roll.)

But does that negate the need to promote leaders?

[Warren Peace]

There might be something to be said if you think there is a over-emphasis on his promotion - I might even agree with you. (Ie in the paper the tag "Our leader is Bob Avakian" always makes my eyes roll.)

That's exactly why I think Avakian has taken his "cult" too far.


But does that negate the need to promote leaders?

You have a point. When was the last time there was a revolution without leaders?

[JKP]

Originally posted by Warren [email protected] 5 2005, 06:49 PM


You have a point. When was the last time there was a revolution without leaders?
Spain36?


France68?


Paris Commune?



There were leaders, but no Messianic "great Leader" type leaders.

[Paradox]

Communists should promote their leaders but certainly not uncritically.

Why not just promote Communism? :P

I mean yeah, there are some good comrades, and I consider myself a Luxemburgist, but why promote Luxemburg as opposed to promoting Communism?

[MKS]

The RCP is dangerous to the Socialist movement because it allows and endorses the creation of a vanguard party (Soviet Style Socialism), it propels a certain group of people to the forefront giving them power and influence, essentially creating a new kind of autocracy. The RCP to my knowledge never discusses the limitations of their "vanguard" role, their leader seems to promote the cult of personality that is built around him, and he seems to me a white liberal activist looking not for the liberation of the people but for glory, to make a name for himself. I doubt he has ever done a hard days work in his life.

Generally the assumption of the necessity of a vanguard speaks to their deeper feelings of contempt for the people they seek to liberate. The RCP is a faction of revolutionary leftist that needs to be eliminated if any real progress is to be made, if any real revolution is to occur. Soviet style Socialism will never and should never be re-established in the modern world.

[celticfire]

MKS: The RCP is dangerous to the Socialist movement because it allows and endorses the creation of a vanguard party (Soviet Style Socialism), it propels a certain group of people to the forefront giving them power and influence, essentially creating a new kind of autocracy. The RCP to my knowledge never discusses the limitations of their "vanguard" role, their leader seems to promote the cult of personality that is built around him, and he seems to me a white liberal activist looking not for the liberation of the people but for glory, to make a name for himself. I doubt he has ever done a hard days work in his life.

Generally the assumption of the necessity of a vanguard speaks to their deeper feelings of contempt for the people they seek to liberate. The RCP is a faction of revolutionary leftist that needs to be eliminated if any real progress is to be made, if any real revolution is to occur. Soviet style Socialism will never and should never be re-established in the modern world.

(*Emphasis added)

The RCP is actively fighting imperialism and global capitalism and establish socialism. You are calling on people to destroy that and follow your method of achieving socialism (or anarchy or whatever your objective is titled) - do you not realize how authoritarian and even yes, counter-revolutionary that is? If we start killing off comrades and fellow revolutionaries, we are going to be doing the work of the bourgeosie for them!

Don't like Leninism? Fine. Okay. But I've never heard the RCP say that Anarchists or Council Communists or Reformists need to be "eliminated" in order to achieve their aims. So who is really authoritarian? Meanwhile the RCP is actively supporting multi-group/personality movements like Not In Our Name and The World Can't Wait! Drive the Bush Regime Out! campaign towards their goals.

I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. I want socialism, mass workers' democracy, and the realization of the mass line. I think this can't be done without centralism, vanguards, and leadership. I support my comrades in Peru, Nepal and Turkey who are trying to realize this goal. You don't like it? Let's debate it in a comradely way - why do we need to "eliminate" eachother?

[MKS]

Don't like Leninism? Fine. Okay. But I've never heard the RCP say that Anarchists or Council Communists or Reformists need to be "eliminated" in order to achieve their aims. So who is really authoritarian? Meanwhile the RCP is actively supporting multi-group/personality movements like Not In Our Name and The World Can't Wait! Drive the Bush Regime Out! campaign towards their goals.


So what do you think the RCP will do with these factions? I obviously dont endorse killing anyone, simply dissolving an organization whose ethos and theories are proven to fail. Vanguardism, Leninism and Maoism are corrupted versions of "socialism".




You are calling on people to destroy that and follow your method of achieving socialism

Its not my method of Socialism, its an accepted theory of socialist thought and idealogy, along with some Anarchist theories which are very relevant to the struggle. Many Socialist/anarchist do not see the nessecity of a vanguard party.

I do not consider Leninist or Maosit as comrades in the struggle, I do see them as a detriment to the progress of the movement, and I will work to dissolve any organization that works to establish any type of elitist vanguard to replace an already existing tyranny.

[celticfire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:14 AM
Why not just promote Communism? :P

I mean yeah, there are some good comrades, and I consider myself a Luxemburgist, but why promote Luxemburg as opposed to promoting Communism?
Paradox: There's a lot of good stuff in Luxemburg I like. You probably know, ol' Rosa had comradely differences with Lenin and the Soviets...but she never stopped supporting them. She may have disagreed with tactics and methods, but she supported the Russian Revolution. Mao once mentioned (regarding Rosa and I think he was even borrowing a quote from Lenin) that sometimes an eagle will fly lower then a chicken; but a chicken will never reach the heights of the eagle. He is reffering to communists and revisionists (Rosa/Lenin are the communists eagles, Kautsky& Kruschev are the revisionist chickens...)

Sometimes I even think that the way the RCP promotes Chairman Avakian is silly :rolleyes: but there is "meat" to it - there is real content and important things past the promotion. Contrary to the Bob-the-dictator image as presented by some people, the RCP encourages and fosters open debates among people. I can't speak for internal party matters - I don't know. But publicly they certainly do live by their word.

But this something to think about: because a group calls itself the "Collective Anarchist Affinity Decentralized Democratic Leaderless Society" (haha! :lol: CAADDLS) does that really means its "democratic" internally? We don't know, unless you're involved in it (and sometimes even then its hard to tell.) My point is this: just because the RCP promotes Bob Avakian does that mean he controls all aspects of internal life in the party? Did Michael Jordan control the NBA? No, he made major contributions to the game and its legacy as a sport. Same as Avakian.

[celticfire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:23 AM



So what do you think the RCP will do with these factions? I obviously dont endorse killing anyone, simply dissolving an organization whose ethos and theories are proven to fail. Vanguardism, Leninism and Maoism are corrupted versions of "socialism".




You are calling on people to destroy that and follow your method of achieving socialism

Its not my method of Socialism, its an accepted theory of socialist thought and idealogy, along with some Anarchist theories which are very relevant to the struggle. Many Socialist/anarchist do not see the nessecity of a vanguard party.

I do not consider Leninist or Maosit as comrades in the struggle, I do see them as a detriment to the progress of the movement, and I will work to dissolve any organization that works to establish any type of elitist vanguard to replace an already existing tyranny.
MKS: Maybe you should make it very clear then what you mean by "eliminate" the RCP then because so far you are advocating "that" style of socialism. Lets debate then the vanguard vs. anarchism or reformism then. Why publicly call for a organization to be "eliminated"? How wonderfully democratic! We'll eliminate everyone who doesn't agree! ;)

[wet blanket]

There's a lot of good stuff in Luxemburg I like. You probably know, ol' Rosa had comradely differences with Lenin and the Soviets.
I think her differences were with Lenin and the Bolsheviks... not the Soviets.


Sometimes I even think that the way the RCP promotes Chairman Avakian is silly :rolleyes: but there is "meat" to it - there is real content and important things past the promotion. Contrary to the Bob-the-dictator image as presented by some people, the RCP encourages and fosters open debates among people. I can't speak for internal party matters - I don't know. But publicly they certainly do live by their word.
I too find this to be an admirable trait, but it begs the question: Would they be so open to dissent once/if they ever find themselves in a position of power? Right now, disagreement is OK with them because they have nothing to lose from it. However if there ever were dissent or protest at a crucial point in "Bob's Revolution", I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that the RCP would do their best to marginalize or forcefully eliminate opposition when it is most inconvenient to them. It's happened more than once in the past and I don't have enough faith in Bob and the RCP to not let it happen again.


My point is this: just because the RCP promotes Bob Avakian does that mean he controls all aspects of internal life in the party?
All signs point to yes.

[MKS]

Maybe you should make it very clear then what you mean by "eliminate" the RCP then because so far you are advocating "that" style of socialism. Lets debate then the vanguard vs. anarchism or reformism then. Why publicly call for a organization to be "eliminated"? How wonderfully democratic! We'll eliminate everyone who doesn't agree!

By eliminate I mean dissolve, not by nessecarily by violent means. We can debate Vanguard v Anarchism all day long, but the fact remains that there is historical proof of the failure of vanguard "communism". Vanguardism creates tyranny, the RCP a Leninist-Maoist organization represents this idealogy, and also wish to "eliminate" the other leftist factions in order to create thier idea of how the world should be.

There are certain facts with leftist politics; namely Leninism is bogus and corrupt, nothing benefical can be learned from Lenin's example. Another fact; The "left" is splintered, it always has been and always will be. The reason; although Socialism/anarchist or "communist" idealogy is good theory and great for the advancement or social justice and equality, economicaly it is very hollow, and it is economics that really makes the world turn.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by celticfire+Sep 6 2005, 05:30 AM--> (celticfire @ Sep 6 2005, 05:30 AM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 02:14 AM
Why not just promote Communism? :P

I mean yeah, there are some good comrades, and I consider myself a Luxemburgist, but why promote Luxemburg as opposed to promoting Communism?
Paradox: There's a lot of good stuff in Luxemburg I like. You probably know, ol' Rosa had comradely differences with Lenin and the Soviets...but she never stopped supporting them. She may have disagreed with tactics and methods, but she supported the Russian Revolution. Mao once mentioned (regarding Rosa and I think he was even borrowing a quote from Lenin) that sometimes an eagle will fly lower then a chicken; but a chicken will never reach the heights of the eagle. He is reffering to communists and revisionists (Rosa/Lenin are the communists eagles, Kautsky& Kruschev are the revisionist chickens...)

Sometimes I even think that the way the RCP promotes Chairman Avakian is silly :rolleyes: but there is "meat" to it - there is real content and important things past the promotion. Contrary to the Bob-the-dictator image as presented by some people, the RCP encourages and fosters open debates among people. I can't speak for internal party matters - I don't know. But publicly they certainly do live by their word.

But this something to think about: because a group calls itself the "Collective Anarchist Affinity Decentralized Democratic Leaderless Society" (haha! :lol: CAADDLS) does that really means its "democratic" internally? We don't know, unless you're involved in it (and sometimes even then its hard to tell.) My point is this: just because the RCP promotes Bob Avakian does that mean he controls all aspects of internal life in the party? Did Michael Jordan control the NBA? No, he made major contributions to the game and its legacy as a sport. Same as Avakian. [/b]
I think you missed my point. I consider myself to be Luxemburgist specifically, Council Communist generally. But instead of promoting Luxemburg, I promote Communism. I rarely even mention Luxemburg herself when debating methods and means of establishing Communism. The only time I bring her up is if she's the topic, or if someone asks about her. I don't see a need to promote individuals, no matter how great their contributions, when I can promote the system itself. I want Communism, not cult worship.

The RCPers who used to post here frequently, constantly mentioned Avakian and what "Avakian says," providing links to his writings, etc.. It was as if he were their only source. I don't mean to present this as evidence that every RCP member is like this, but after listening to his history lesson speeches, hearing his arguement for a vanguard and state, and seeing RCP members constantly mentioning him as if he were a "great theorist" or someone who has a "new" way to achieve Communist society, I'm sorry, but there's no way I will work with people like that.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The RCP is dangerous to the Socialist movement because it allows and endorses the creation of a vanguard party (Soviet Style Socialism),

So you're against Leninism. Why pick out the RCP for this? There are many, many Leninist parties around the world.

The RCP has many flaws, but I don't think it's fair to single them out for Leninism.

[MKS]

So you're against Leninism. Why pick out the RCP for this? There are many, many Leninist parties around the world.

The RCP has many flaws, but I don't think it's fair to single them out for Leninism

The RCP operates mainly in the US, and as an American Socialist I think they are one of the greatest threats to True Socialism and its advancement. It is hard to introduce Socialism as a progressive way of change in the US, it is impossible to introduce "soviet style" socialism, and also irresponsible.

It isnt unfair to single out the RCP, since they promote themselves in such a degree that it is impossible to ignore them, it also isnt unfair to guard against dangerous factions within the socialist movement.

I’m seriously considering a publish admonishment of the RCP and their leader in a Socialist Publication. Its time to change things, its time to discard arcane and corrosive factions within the movement.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Comrade, there are many, many Leninist parties in the U.S. The RCP isn't even the biggest.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Who would win in a fight bob avakian or L. Ron Hubbard (when he was alive ofcourse)?

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 8 2005, 02:07 AM
Who would win in a fight bob avakian or L. Ron Hubbard (when he was alive ofcourse)?
Like a fist-fight?
They're both pretty hefty fellows... but I'm willing to bet if they fought while they were both at their prime, Bob would win.

[MKS]

Comrade, there are many, many Leninist parties in the U.S. The RCP isn't even the biggest.

Why do you defend the RCP so much? Do you think they have anything of value to add to the struggle?

The "left" must begin to deal with the malignancy within itself before it begins to fix those from without.

[Warren Peace]

The RCP is dangerous to the Socialist movement because it allows and endorses the creation of a vanguard party (Soviet Style Socialism), it propels a certain group of people to the forefront giving them power and influence, essentially creating a new kind of autocracy.

It doesn't make sense to accuse someone of supporting autocracy when you are the one calling for the destruction of a revolutionary party because they have different ideas than you.

And not only do you support fighting our own comrades, you're against Che?

"Then came the stage of guerrilla struggle. It developed in two distinct elements: the people, the still sleeping mass which it was necessary to mobilize; and its vanguard, the guerrillas, the motor force of the movement, the generator of revolutionary consciousness and militant enthusiasm. It was this vanguard, this catalyzing agent, which created the subjective conditions necessary for victory." -Che

"It is the vanguard group which clears the way, the best among the good, the party." -Che

Che Guevara was one of the greatest and most selfess revolutionaries ever to fight under the red flag. He knew what he was talking about. Revolution without a revolutionary party is chaos, like the random killings under Pol Pot in Cambodia, or the Cultural Revolution in China after Mao lost control of many Red Gaurds. It's people like you who give Chomsky a bad name. I don't agree with every word Chomsky says, but I know he's still my comrade, so I would never call for him to be silenced.

Look at how many people Stormfront has compared to us. Do you ever wonder why Nazism seems to attract more radical youth than Communism? It's because Nazism is united. There aren't fifteen different dogmas of Nazism, all bickering and calling for each other's destruction. They're racist dumbasses, but they're smart enough to work together against their common enemy.

It worked for them before, Hitler accomplished many of his goals. It never seems to work for Communists, because we have so many sects amoung us that hate each other more than they hate the Capitalists, always stabbing each other in the back. Stalin poisoned Lenin and ice-picked Trotsky, Mao decided to turn on Kruschev so Fidel cut off aid for Che, Deng stepped on Mao, China invaded Vietnam. Why can't we learn from the mistakes leftists have made by fighting each other, and from the sucess rightists have had by standing together?

If the revolution in America came tommorow, it would be a revolution of Nazis, Fascists, Minutemen, Klansmen, and other cross-burning, bible-brandishing rightists. The US already is the most reactionary nation in the world, but a rightist revolution would be more likely because they've learned to put aside differences and work together.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why do you defend the RCP so much?

:lol:


Do you think they have anything of value to add to the struggle?

Not really. They are very active though.


The "left" must begin to deal with the malignancy within itself before it begins to fix those from without.

So just forget about capitalism and work on whiping out the parties we don't like "on the left?"

[redwinter]

What's up with all this shit talking about the RCP and Bob Avakian? Are these few people talking shit so bored of doing no real political work that you have to worry about destroying any groups or leaders who are actually doing something?

My advice to people who are serious about revolutionary change is to read RCP literature and Bob Avakian's works themselves and judge it from a clean slate, without all the preconceptions, bias, and lies being spread by a few sour individuals.

http://revcom.us
http://bobavakian.net

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The destruction of the RCP is not necessary or even beneficial at this time; while I disagree with their stated aim of creating an authoritarian State, they are very much an active group. If the RCP were protesting a Christian Fascist event of some sort, I would support the RCP without a second thought.

In the event of a revolution, however, I would unconditionally oppose any efforts by the RCP to set up a new MLM State.

[JKP]

"It was this vanguard, this catalyzing agent, which created the subjective conditions necessary for victory." -Che

Subjective conditions? Was Che trying to walk in Lenin's footsteps?

Any revolution must be based on ojective conditions. We're not looking for a triumph of the will.




"It is the vanguard group which clears the way, the best among the good, the party." -Che


The vanguard is best for clearing the way to capitalism. It has a 100% success rate.



EDIT* But I do give credit to Che for actually rising up aganst oppression.

[MKS]

So just forget about capitalism and work on whiping out the parties we don't like "on the left?"

You make it sound like I have some personal grudge against the RCP and thier leader. When my arguments are purely idealogical. We cannot and should not work towards the "big picture" without making sure that any other form of tyranny or state oppression is left to take the place of the vanquished. That is what worries me about the RCP and any leninst organization. As Noam Chomsky said; "Leninism was one of the greatest enemies of socialism" and, "If the left is understood to include Bolshevism then I would gladly disassociate myself from the Left." Leninism has no place in true Socialism/Anarchism.


My advice to people who are serious about revolutionary change is to read RCP literature and Bob Avakian's works themselves and judge it from a clean slate, without all the preconceptions, bias, and lies being spread by a few sour individuals

Which I have done. There are plenty of ways to get involved without getting involved with the RCP. Many of us here work outside of this board for the movement. Just because we disagree with a certain viewpoint does not make us less commited to change. However the RCP is committed to creating a centralized power base that "guides" the people, that dosent sound like equality to me.





It doesn't make sense to accuse someone of supporting autocracy when you are the one calling for the destruction of a revolutionary party because they have different ideas than you

It makes perfect sense when that party threatens true equality. Ill fight against Leninism just as hard as I fight against Capitalist Imperialism.


And not only do you support fighting our own comrades, you're against Che?

god forbid someone is against blessed Che! As much as I admire Che for what he created, I do disagree with him (as do many people) on the nessecity of a vanguard. For Cuba the Vanguard has become a fixed power base (the Communist Party) and because of this the people's indivdual freedoms are limited and controlled. The economy is not controlled by the people, but it is controlled by the Party.
Thankfully Cubas Party is not as bad as Russia's or China's was, Cubans do enjoy many personal freedoms, excellent healthcare, and state funded education. But who is to say that the RCP will become like Cubas Party? Who is to say it will not turn into another Russia or China? That is what I fear from the RCP. Its not hatred that drives me against the RCP it is fear. PLacing trust into one party and ultimately one Leader is always a bad idea, and creates the oppurunity for corruption, oppression and disaster.

I as a Socialist/Anarchist believe true freedom will only be achieved through mass participation in the revolution, the formation of non hierarchical political organization, and the total elimination of any class distinctions.

quotes taken from: Chomsky on Anarchism

[Scars]

I don't think the RCP are worth worrying about. They're a small party with a limited support base, few links with the working class and who are led by a cretin. Threads like this only serve to bolster their ego. Much like the MIM, it's easier to ignore their stupidity.

Anyway, the RCP's ideology isn't particularly originla or interesting. Mainly a rehash of early Maoism (from the 1950s, they're more 'Great Leap Forward' than 'Cultural Revolution' Maoist) with anti-war popularism and a little activism. I don't agree with them, or like them, but I don't think they're important enough to single out. In America the first targets on the Lefts list should be teh Republicans and teh Democrats.

And Leninism is leftist.

[Hiero]

Why this is such a great idea.

Ok here is the plan. We use all of our resources, time and energy, and concentratre them on destroying the RCP.

Because im quite sure that the War in Iraq, the US imperialist movmement isn't as importante as a the slight chance the RCP could come to power.

Seriously though, get a fucking life. You are the lowest of all leftist, you have no positions in the leftist movement. You are complete utter fool, and should do someting usefull with your life rather then complain how the RCP is the worse thing in the world.

Im all keen for leftsit criticism of the people in the movement, but what good is hostility? 90% of effort should be against capitalism and 10% on self criticism and criticism of the whole movement.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As much as I admire Che for what he created, I do disagree with him (as do many people) on the nessecity of a vanguard. For Cuba the Vanguard has become a fixed power base (the Communist Party) and because of this the people's indivdual freedoms are limited and controlled.

Wrong.

[MKS]

Wrong.

Care to elaborate?

The Communist Party in Cuba is a fixed power base. If you had read my entrie posting though I did compliment the Party for its progress and sucess in Cuba.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I've elaborated so many times on this board I can't bare to do it again.

The workers hold state power in Cuba.

Read these: The Truth About Cuba (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5a.html) & Let's Talk About Cuban Democracy (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5b.html) and read "Cuba: Dictatorship or Democracy?" by Marta Harnecker

Explains how the leaders are elected on local and then national level by the people, how voters are elected on their merits and not campaigns, how 50% people elected aren't party members, how that to get elected to the party your fellow workers must elect you a model worker, how Fidel is elected, the recallability of all elected officers, that the mass organizations like the Federation of Cuban Women, CDRs, and the unions participate in all decision making, how all major legislation is brought into these organizations and broadly discussed, debated, and modified by the Cuban people and then ratified by a vote, etc. etc. etc.

[Warren Peace]

Subjective conditions? Was Che trying to walk in Lenin's footsteps?

YES, in fact, Che was a Marxist-Leninist. He was a strong admirer of Lenin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh. The whole reason Castro stopped helping Che after the Sino-Soviet Split, which divided socialist countries into two sides, was because Che supported China while Castro supported the USSR.

Che is a perfect example for us to follow because he saw past the petty differences in our movement and saw the need to unite in the greater struggle against capitalism. For example, Che supported both Mao's China and Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, even though the two groups had so much conflict after the split amoung socialist countries.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The whole reason Castro stopped helping Che after the Sino-Soviet Split, which divided socialist countries into two sides, was because Che supported China while Castro supported the USSR.

<_< Please read before you say idiotic things like this.

[wet blanket]

And Leninism is leftist.
Oh really? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/)






:lol: Just a joke, by the way.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That is about ultra-leftism.

[Warren Peace]

Please read before you say idiotic things like this.

It&#39;s not idiotic, it&#39;s true. Che backed China. Castro backed the USSR, probably because he needed a trading partner to defend himself and the Cuban people from US imperialism. So when Che went into Bolivia, did Castro help him at all? No, and Che was murdered.

Don&#39;t get me wrong, Castro is cool, I&#39;m in no way blaming him for Che&#39;s death. I&#39;m just critical of his decision to cut off aid to Che. Don&#39;t you agree that the Sino-Soviet split was the reason Castro didn&#39;t help Che when he went into Bolivia? Can you think of any other reason?

[celticfire]

The 1975 (Cultural Revolution era) CONSTITUTION of the People&#39;s Republic of China (PRC) (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/mao/cpc/constitution1975.html)

included things like: freedom of speech, correspondence, the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration and the freedom to strike, and enjoy freedom to believe in religion and freedom not to believe in religion and to propagate atheism.

And more:

The citizens&#39; freedom of person and their homes shall be inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except by decision of a people&#39;s court or with the sanction of a public security organ..

All citizens who have reached the age of eighteen have the right to vote and stand for election, with the exception of persons deprived of these rights by law.
Citizens have the right to work and the right to education. Working people have the right to rest and the right to material assistance in old age and in case of illness or disability.

Citizens have the right to lodge to organs of state at any level written or oral complaints of transgression of law or neglect of duty on the part of any person working in an organ of state. No one shall attempt to hinder or obstruct the making of such complaints or retaliate.

Women enjoy equal rights with men in all respects.

The state protects marriage, the family, and the mother and child.
The state protects the just rights and interests of overseas Chinese.

These were NOT just words on paper, they were carried out, and those who tried to stop the masses from their rights were revolted against (hence the need for the Cultural Revolution). How is this "authoritarian" or "totalitarian"?

Some of you might think I&#39;m a bit :wacko: but overall - Stalin era included - the socialist experience has been one of highly democratic operating. There has been shortcomings and errors, mistakes and even outright violations. But revolutions are tumultous affairs. That doesn&#39;t mean we should uncritically accept the past, including the Stalin era, but we should keep in mind the creation of the Soviet Union and People&#39;s Republic of China were huge thorns in the side of the bourgeoisie.

I can only hope 100 years from now history books teach the "totalitarianism" of capitalist workings...

Anyway I think the best thing I&#39;ve read in a while...

On the Question of Stalin (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/QS63.html)

[Poum_1936]

It&#39;s not idiotic, it&#39;s true. Che backed China. Castro backed the USSR, probably because he needed a trading partner to defend himself and the Cuban people from US imperialism. So when Che went into Bolivia, did Castro help him at all? No, and Che was murdered.

There was alot of "beef" between Havana and Moscow. Especially on the question of spreading the Latin American revolution. Castro was for spreading the revolution, Moscow was not (business as usual).

Im not entirely positive about this, but during 1967-68 the Kremlin was seriously considering ending its support of the Cuban Revolution and leaving it to its own fate.

Also, "On the Question of Stalin" I saw this qoute, and BAM&#33; migraine.

The Central Committee of the CPC pointed out in its letter of June 14 that the "struggle against the personality cult" violates Lenin&#39;s integral teachings on the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses, and undermines the Communist principle of democratic centralism.

So... the personality cult was a teaching of Lenin? Wow, who have I been reading?

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU avoids making any reply to our principled arguments, but merely labels the Chinese Communists as "defenders of the personality cult and peddlers of Stalin&#39;s erroneous ideas".

Im gonna have to go with the CPSU on this one.