What About Bob?

[UrsaMajor]

I've noticed that I get some antagonistic reactions whenever I mention that what finally brought me over from hard-left Democrat to Communist was Bob Avakian's writings and speeches. My question is, why do so many people on this board have a problem with him? I've heard he's a Maoist, and that he's generating some kind of personality-cult following, but nobody has said why that is so wrong. Especially when we need that in this current political atmosphere where privatization is rampant and people vote Republican because they are convinced that the free market is going to make them rich someday (the same people that play the lottery instead of putting their money where it will do good for society). Anyone want to clue me in why Bob couldn't be an effective leader in the next American Revolution?

[workersunity]

well not intending to insult you, i feel that maoism was great for china, yet isnt applicable here in the first world, and that some of Bob's position are a little haywire that others prolly will exemplify, also there is a large personality cult around him which is the opposite of marxism

[UrsaMajor]

The opposite of Marxism, in the practice of it in government. But when faced with a society where imperialist delusions rule the day, American society, it may be what we need. The civil rights movement needed a Rosa Parks, the anti-war movement needed a Cindy Sheehan, but we in the socialist/communist camp don't have anyone like that. Americans are ruled by emotion, and we need someone who can exploit that, if only for the short term.

[KC]

I've heard he's a Maoist

Maoism is outdated.


and that he's generating some kind of personality-cult following, but nobody has said why that is so wrong.

Because a personality-cult following would mean that people believe his words over thinking for themselves and using logic.


Especially when we need that in this current political atmosphere where privatization is rampant and people vote Republican because they are convinced that the free market is going to make them rich someday (the same people that play the lottery instead of putting their money where it will do good for society).

What's that have to do with Bob Avakian and the RCP?


i feel that maoism was great for china

It was. As Leninism was great for Russia. These two ideologies helped develop these countries further in capitalist society. They helped capitalism evolve. But this isn't what we need. We need theory that will help us destroy the capitalist system, not help it evolve. This is why Leninism and Maoism is outdated. Of course, I'm not saying that all Leninist and Maoist theory is bad; there is certainly useful information in these writings. But the ideologies themselves are outdated.


But when faced with a society where imperialist delusions rule the day, American society, it may be what we need.

But it isn't. If you think this is what we need, and if there is an Avakian revolution, all it will accomplish is to develop capitalism further. What we need is a theory that will destroy capitalism. This is marxism. There are bits and pieces we can take from other theories to build on marxism, but these ideologies themselves will not suffice.


The civil rights movement needed a Rosa Parks

It most certainly did not. If you think that it wouldn't've happened without Rosa Parks then you are sadly mistaken. There was change because there was a demand for it. There was a great enough demand that the necessary reforms took place. Just because Rosa Parks was one of the first doesn't mean it wouldn't've happened without her.


the anti-war movement needed a Cindy Sheehan

Again, people were against the war because they were against it. They weren't against it because of something Cindy Sheehan said. Nor did they need her to find their voice.


but we in the socialist/communist camp don't have anyone like that.

That is because we don't need anyone like that. We don't need a figurehead, or a chairman, or a leader. Communism is about the people having the power over their own lives. The revolution is about people themselves taking action. It is about the people themselves setting up what socio-economic system they believe is best. A leader is a bad idea, because a leader tells people what to do. We don't want a leader. Certainly, there can be people who make suggestions, but these aren't leaders.


Americans are ruled by emotion, and we need someone who can exploit that, if only for the short term.

No we don't. The system itself will eventually cause people to become upset enough to revolt. No need for a leader telling everybody what to do and believe.

[UrsaMajor]

Generally, I thought answering someone who would parse and dissect every single word and sentence I wrote was futile, but i've got to answer to this.

I didn't say that the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened without a Rosa Parks, I'm saying that the movement needed an emotional focus, which it found

The value of a Rosa Parks or a Cindy Sheehan is their ability to become a symbol of the movement, which is totally essential in the capitalist American society. The value of these two and others in this struggle is not that they rallied our supporters, but that they rallied the mainstream, and there can be no revolution without gaining allies on the mainstream.

[Red Powers]

I'm glad you have been brought to communism by Bob Avakian. I have many differences with the RCP and one of them is the way Avakian is put forward. But I don't consider them antagonists more like misguided. The anarchists here do seem to have certain reactions to Avakian and maybe some of them will respond.

I will leave you with this link http://www.redstar2000papers.com/ go there click on theory and there are several discussions of the RCP and Avakian. The author is a guy that lived in New Orleans and hasn't posted since 8/26, I hope he is just unable to get to a 'puter.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:06 AM
Anyone want to clue me in why Bob couldn't be an effective leader in the next American Revolution?
Because 'leaders' are unecissary.


But when faced with a society where imperialist delusions rule the day, American society, it may be what we need

So your suggesting that a majority of people will rise up and overthrow capitalism, and then they need to be oppressed because they still have "imperialist delusions"

[LSD]

The value of a Rosa Parks or a Cindy Sheehan is their ability to become a symbol of the movement, which is totally essential in the capitalist American society.

Except that both the civil rights and the anti-war movements preceded these individuals.

Cindy Sheehan did not "make" the anti-war movement, she doesn't even lead it. In all honesty, she doesn't contribute much! At present, she's just a media darling who happens to be a useful means of demonstrating the calousness and brutality of the present American administration. Within a year, she'll be a forgotten.

Hardly what I'd call a "symbol of the movement"!

And as for Rosa Parks, that's an even more ludicrous example. Rosa Parks was never a "symbol", what was done to her was. It was the law that was challanged, she just happened to be a convenient victim of it.

There was nothing about Rosa Parks herself, aside I suppose from her general likeability and lack of a criminal record, that made her at all deserving of "symbolhood" ....nor "leadership".

Because, remember, that's what we're talking about with regards to dear old Bob -- leadership. Bobby doesn't want to be a "symbol", he doesn't want to "help" the revolution, he wants to run it.

That's not "symbolism", and it's something that your anolgies conveniently ignore. Cindy Sheehan doesn't direct peace protests; Malcom X didn't report to Rosa Parks.

You're right in that a successful workers movement will need resonant and effective displays; powerful speakers and tragic martyrs. But these things are a component of method, not of organization.

There's a difference between a rallying poll and a "LEADER". We may indeed have a need for the former, we most certainly do not for the the latter.

[MikeSchafer]

Bob Avakian would be a poor symbol for the revolution. Sheehan and Parks were both victims of their respective injustices. Bob Avakian is not a victim of capitalism, he's an egotistical demagogue. The working class should be the symbol of the revolution.

Furthermore, if the revolution wants a leader, then Avakian is the last man on the Left we should choose. He will make the revolution about Uncle Bob (as the RCP calls him) and not about liberation.

A guy I know is a former RCP member, his words regarding Avakian were, "He is fucking crazy."

[Clarksist]

As Leninism was great for Russia.


That isn't entirely true.

Leninism wasn't Russia specific, as Maoism wasn't China specific.

Leninism is based around a certain form of progress, which would work almost anywhere... if it would work well is a whole other debate.

Maoism is based on a peasant run revolution, and from there on having constant "mini"-revolutions in the way the economy is laid out.

Not a bad idea, it was the way Mao carried it out that ruined the country economically, but it wasn't all his fault. There was also things happening out of his control. (see: devastating drought)


The value of a Rosa Parks or a Cindy Sheehan is their ability to become a symbol of the movement, which is totally essential in the capitalist American society.


You mean a martyr?

Communism has a great martyr who already has made (possibly millions) people jump over to Leftism.

His name is Che "Fucking" Guevera.

You might have seen on of his shirts? :lol:

We have our visual symbol (hammer and sickle), our thinkers (Marx, Engels, etc.), and our martyr (Che). And yet look at us...


Bob Avakian is not a victim of capitalism, he's an egotistical demagogue. The working class should be the symbol of the revolution.


Avakian is a victim of capitalism. We all are in some way, shape, or form. But the problem is Bob has done a poor job of articulating what capitalism has done to him.


Furthermore, if the revolution wants a leader, then Avakian is the last man on the Left we should choose.


Avakian is on the left? :P

[Hiero]

Maoism is outdated.

How?

[KC]

How?

Maoism is a communist ideology that helps develop capitalism. This is no longer needed (however, it could probably be used to develop the third world quicker).

[MikeSchafer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:53 PM
Avakian is a victim of capitalism. We all are in some way, shape, or form. But the problem is Bob has done a poor job of articulating what capitalism has done to him.

He's not victim enough to be used for rhetorical purposes.

[Clarksist]

Maoism is a communist ideology that helps develop capitalism. This is no longer needed (however, it could probably be used to develop the third world quicker).


Its not only that, but a way of guerilla war (which is outdated), and a system of socialist handling.

Maoism isn't quite outdated, its just not as useful as it once was.

[redwinter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:06 AM
I've noticed that I get some antagonistic reactions whenever I mention that what finally brought me over from hard-left Democrat to Communist was Bob Avakian's writings and speeches. My question is, why do so many people on this board have a problem with him? I've heard he's a Maoist, and that he's generating some kind of personality-cult following, but nobody has said why that is so wrong. Especially when we need that in this current political atmosphere where privatization is rampant and people vote Republican because they are convinced that the free market is going to make them rich someday (the same people that play the lottery instead of putting their money where it will do good for society). Anyone want to clue me in why Bob couldn't be an effective leader in the next American Revolution?
A few people on this board have a problem with Bob Avakian because they're afraid of revolution, or don't really know what it entails and how we could pull one off in the real world. Either that or they've just gone along with the herd mentality when they hear one person denounce a real revolutionary leader, these people go ahead and bleat like sheep the same tired bullshit against BA.

To the arguments that we don't need leadership: the one thing the masses lack right now to make revolution is leadership. The RCP is taking the responsibility to win the masses over to a revolutionary line. Bob Avakian's body of work is overall an important contribution to the development of modern communist theory and needs to have broader influence among the people, especially the proletariat.

Right now, I don't see many other Americans seriously talking about revolution outside of the revolutionary communists...who else is bringing out a revolutionary line to the masses? And who else is seriously putting it all on the line for revolution?

[UrsaMajor]

THANK YOU. Finally someone gets it and put it forward better than I could.

I just have to answer some items from a previous post:


Cindy Sheehan did not "make" the anti-war movement, she doesn't even lead it. In all honesty, she doesn't contribute much! At present, she's just a media darling who happens to be a useful means of demonstrating the calousness and brutality of the present American administration. Within a year, she'll be a forgotten.


I never said she did "make" the movement. What I am saying is that before her, all the anti-war movement was to the general public was us- the ultra-left anarchists, communists, socialists and ANSWER, thrown in with politically left religious leaders and various hippies. Cindy is someone the mainstream can more closely identify with, and thus help them understand the movement better.


And as for Rosa Parks, that's an even more ludicrous example. Rosa Parks was never a "symbol", what was done to her was. It was the law that was challanged, she just happened to be a convenient victim of it.

There was nothing about Rosa Parks herself, aside I suppose from her general likeability and lack of a criminal record, that made her at all deserving of "symbolhood" ....nor "leadership".

Again, someone they can identify with more closely.

Every successful movement has had "martyrs" and a "leaders". Rosa Parks was a "martyr", not in the literal sense but in that she was a sympathtic figure in the struggle. MLK and Malcolm X were leaders who became martyrs in the literal sense.

We see it again in Cuba with Castro being the leader and Che being the martyr.

Cindy Sheehan is a "martyr" in the same sense Rosa Parks was, a sympathetic figure that can bring the message to the mainstream.
The anti-war movement has many leaders as well as martyrs, including any soldiers who died or were maimed in a false war.

I think our movement needs a leader, and Bob is the only one who is getting the message out there. Even when he can't make the event you see the message being spread, like a group doing readings from his memoirs which I saw on C-Span2 a month ago. Have you seen another communist getting any equivalent publicity for the message or our movement?

[LSD]

To the arguments that we don't need leadership: the one thing the masses lack right now to make revolution is leadership.

No, the one thing the masses lack right now is an understanding of revolutionary theory. That doesn't come from "leadership", it comes from education.

Workers who believe in capitalism will not be "lead" away from it, and workers who understand capitalism don't need to be.


The RCP is taking the responsibility to win the masses over to a revolutionary line.

Hardly!

For one thing, the RCP's membership could hardly be called a mass, maybe a "small gathering" would be more appropriate.

More importantly, the "line" that the RCP is selling is not revolutionary!

You want to know why people here have a problem with little Bobby Avakian? Aside from his overemphasis on himself, it's because he's politically reactionary.

Bobby is pushing cult-of-personality Maoism. The kind of hard-line vanguardist "iron discipline" crap that went out with the Cultural Revolution. Not only is that Stalinist crap outdated, it's utterly useless from a political perspective. The first world working class may not be that politically informed, but fuck all if they're going to turn power over to a Maoist!

I mean, fuck, a half-crushed turtle could tell you that's a bad idea.

Maoism is never going to make headway in a first world country, never. It's never going to appeal to a population that is used to even marginal civil and human rights.

I mean, fuck, what on earth are you going to say to people? Look at China? :lol:

Getting the first world worker to recognize his exploitation is a challenging task enough, it requires work and struggle and ability. But one would have to have the rhetorical skills of God to make a sizeable first world audience turn to God damn Maoism. And good 'ol Bobby can just barely string a sentence together.

Bob Avakian has about as good a chance of leading a revolution as Yosemite Sam does of leading PETA.

Wait, I can just see it now!

Join the revolution!
Maoism with a lisp!

:lol:


I never said she did "make" the movement. What I am saying is that before her, all the anti-war movement was to the general public was us- the ultra-left anarchists, communists, socialists and ANSWER, thrown in with politically left religious leaders and various hippies.

And somewhere around 40% of the United States, if I remember correctly.

Support for the war has been dropping since well before Mrs. Sheehan made her glorious appearance. Her little protest drew attention, sure, but mainly it was the news outlets desperate for a story.

Not that any of this is relevent, of course. Sheehan is not a leader. So I'll ask again, who is the leader of this movement?

If all political causes need singular unchallanged, unquestioned rulers, who's this one's?


Bob Avakian's body of work is overall an important contribution to the development of modern communist theory and needs to have broader influence among the people, especially the proletariat.

:rolleyes:

And which major theoretical contributions has he made? Be specific.


I think our movement needs a leader, and Bob is the only one who is getting the message out there.

But what message is that?

Try a reactionary, dogmatic, anacronistic joke.

[Sa'd al-Bari]

Bob Avakian is seemingly followed in a very diehard manner by the RCP supporters. They seem to think that Avakian is the next great communist revolutionary and when they are challenged on this point they usually ask something along the lines of "don’t you think it is possible to have another great revolutionary like Lenin"? I dislike that for several reasons. First of all it supposes that we should look for some great revolutionary leader to all jump behind and follow to communism, but in doing so they ignore true Maoist principles that the party members should be subordinated to the party as a whole and the party subordinated to the masses. They get it backwards, thinking that the party should follow Avakian’s supposed revolutionary example and the masses follow the revolutionary lead of the party.

Another problem is that although the RCP paints this guy as a great revolutionary leader, he hasn’t really done much. He fled to Paris when he got in trouble with the law and hasn’t made much of an attempt to return since whereas the people the RCP compares him to would have tried to return. It all seems a bit fishy and makes me wonder what the hell he’s doing. It doesn’t seem like he’s doing much for all of the revolutionary talk he does.

Furthermore I just don’t like the way the RCP conducts themselves, they just want revolution instead of supporting the goals and aims of the working class, which is a path that really leads to revolution. So in the end they don’t really wind up backing the working class and as a result they’ve become stagnant and haven’t really gained much support. I often hear RCP supporters not caring about declining working class conditions and instead they just hope the workers will get mad and support revolution. But why would the working class support the RCP in revolution if they did nothing to support their interests or improve their conditions? They won’t, and thus the RCP is estranged from the masses. They’re also incredibly sectarian; if it doesn’t meet their standards then they won’t support it. Just look at how they react towards Cuba…

What has Avakian done to keep his party expanding and on track? Nothing and he doesn’t offer much explanation for it either. That doesn’t really live up to his billing as a great revolutionary the RCP has made him out to be.

[UrsaMajor]

Baiting? Speaking for myself, no. In fact is has been just several months since I have thrown myself into the study of socialism (which is why I posted this in "learning"). Until the last election I considered myself a hard-left Democrat. It was only when I realized that my party was only willing to send up these Republican-lite candidates that I decided to walk away.

So here are my stages of development in socialism:

1. Read the Communist Manifesto
2. Read the Anti-Capitalist Reader
3. Went to an ANSWER rally in downtown L.A., where I got copies of the RCP paper as well as the demo of Avakian's DVD's. Also met with members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and got their materials.
4. Went to Libros Revolucion downtown, got the DVD's and Bob's memoirs.
5. Went to a solidarity event for Cuba and Venezuela put on by the PSL.
6. Went back to the bookstore for more reading materials.

So really, if I'm afilliated with anyone, it's the PSL, and I'm not even officially a member. It just seemed to me that Bob was the only one trying to bring the message. If thinking his speeches are good means I'm in the "cult of personality", I'm sorry but I don't see it.

[Red Powers]

Have you read any of the discussions on the Redstar2000papers website, that I posted above? You sort of owe it to yourself to get a broader view of things.

As I said above I'm glad you consider yourself a communist (do you?) now, and I recognize that the RCP is capable of doing good propaganda work. But try to understand that many people on this board have been communists or anarchists for years and have read and thought about much more than the Manifesto, The Anti-Cap reader and Bob's speeches. Many seem to have experience with the RCP that forms their opinions. So I wouldn't just brush off their comments (unless they are obviously assinine, which we get sometimes).

Now when you call yourself a hard-left Democrat do you mean like a Howard Dean supporter? And what was the main change that pushed towards proletarian revolution? (Just curious)

[UrsaMajor]

Now when you call yourself a hard-left Democrat do you mean like a Howard Dean supporter? And what was the main change that pushed towards proletarian revolution? (Just curious)

I must admit I was a Dean supporter, though I disagreed with him on issues like the death penalty, because I though he could beat Bush. Nothing else was more politically important to me than that. My views were closer to Kucinich.

In hindsight however, I have always been a socialist. One of my earliest memories is of my Mom exhorting me to finish my broccolli using that tired line, "Don't you know there are kids who are starving in (somesuch country)?", which I guess in most cases is supposed to make a kid think what a priviliged country he's in, how lucky he is, and finish his vegetables out of some form of patriotism.

My reaction was, "Wait, there is food here that I am not hungry for, but there are kids elsewhere who don't have any? Why isn't the food over there?!" (paraphrased) My Mom remembers this incident and has confirmed to me that it happened.

I am also a sci-fi fan, and as sci-fi has always attempted to predict the future, I was determined at which future I wanted to see. I knew I did not want the "Federation" of Starship Troopers, a fascist militaristic government bent on conquer and aggressive protectionism, the direction I see us going now. I want to see the "Federation" of Star Trek, a society with an economy not based on money, but merit. Where the accumulation of wealth is no longer the driving force of society, and where everyone works to better themselves and the whole of society.

I know it sounds trite (I just like the shows, I do not go to conventions), but I cannot see a future utopia like that being created without revolution. To save the future, capitalism must be overthrown.

Again, I know I am new to this, which is why I post in "Learning" where no question is stupid.

Although, that brings up another idea. Maybe we should go to conventions, set up at a table and form "Trekkers for Socialism". Could be fun.

[redwinter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:46 PM

I'm in the "cult of personality", I'm sorry but I don't see it.

Check out the latest issue of their paper? The majority of articles are either by Bobby or about him.

How about this quote, "If you want to change the world you have to know Bob Avakian?"

Or my personal favorite: "Our ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Our Vanguard Is The Revolutionary Communist Party, Our Leader Is Chairman Avakian"

:lol:
Here, let's check out the latest issue of Revolution and see how the "majority of the articles are by BA or about him":



Statement by the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, On Hurricane Katrina: 3 Fundamental Lessons

The Foolishness of Confusing Religion with Fundamentalist Fascism, by Bob Avakian, Chairman, Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

Three Sentences On Democracy, by Bob Avakian, Chairman, Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

Time to Let Go of God

On The Ground In The Hurricane Zone... Death, Heroes and Collective Action

New Orleans: A Call To Resist!

Actors, Singers, and Musicians Express Outrage Over New Orleans

Driving Out the Bush Regime: A Crucial Moment

Revolutionary Communist 4 Speaking Tour Coming to San Francisco Bay Area

Build a Student Movement for November 2nd: Resist Like The Future Depends On It

Report from Columbia University

Cindy Sheehan: A Bold Stand Against the War

Global Warming: The Future of the Planet in the Balance

Crimes of the Bush Regime on Global Warming

Nepal, Building a Road to the Future

Newsday Lies about the Revolutionary Road in Nepal, by Li Onesto

Abstinence-Only Policies Spread Death in Uganda

Pat Robertson ... Christian Fascist, Certifiable Lunatic and Close Advisor to the President


I see one article by BA and then a three-sentence quote from him. A clear majority out of the 17 articles and then countless other quotes and other things in the paper.

And what's the problem with having the quote "Our ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Our Vanguard Is The Revolutionary Communist Party, Our Leader Is Chairman Avakian" in the paper? It makes things clear, the newspaper has an ideology, recognizes the RCP as the vanguard party, and recognizes the leadership of Bob Avakian. It's not vague or anything like a lot of other groups' literature, where you don't really know what it's all about or where they're coming from. Unlike others, revolutionary communists "disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

[Communist-sanflea]

Who is a member of RCP.?Why not take over RCP!!Make so it actually care for the proleteriate mass.

Why doesn't Bob come back.Its been a while since the white house incident LMAO that was dumb.

Does he actually exist? :o

Was Mao and lenin ever considered nut?

[Wanted Man]

A very accurate Maoist criticism of the RCP. Be sure to read it in its entirety, it's very good.

http://www.massline.info/rcp/index.htm