The RCP

[Ultra-Violence]

First of all! hello commrades i have been out for along time mostly cuase of dam computer viruses and been very busy of late.


while i have been away i have gone to many demonstrations in the past 2 months and what i have noticed is that the RCP is the only one bringing "revolution" to the masses. People come on we got do something about this we need to stop this menace. i hear so many of you people talking lots of shit about them and im not defending them but dam it thier the only ones i see out thier all the time! we need to stop this cult in its tracks. FUCK THE VANGUARD!FUCK AVAKIAN!


:hammer:

[celticfire]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 7 2005, 01:37 AM
First of all! hello commrades i have been out for along time mostly cuase of dam computer viruses and been very busy of late.


while i have been away i have gone to many demonstrations in the past 2 months and what i have noticed is that the RCP is the only one bringing "revolution" to the masses. People come on we got do something about this we need to stop this menace. i hear so many of you people talking lots of shit about them and im not defending them but dam it thier the only ones i see out thier all the time! we need to stop this cult in its tracks. FUCK THE VANGUARD!FUCK AVAKIAN!


:hammer:
Do you have ADHD?

[Clarksist]

They aren't the only one demonstrating. They are just the only ones promoting their party. They put the vanguard above the meaning of the protest.

I fully agree, however, that more people need to do more.

[flyby]

as a supporter of the RCP, I will say this: It would be great if more people took up the struggle, and even if more people did so from a revolutioanry perspective.

The RCP is stepping out, strongly, to try to mobilize and lead people in a very difficult moment.

If you want to do something, don't focus on "stopping the RCP" -- focus on stopping the oppression of people, and the aggressive moves toward fascism by the U.S. imperialists. If you do, then you will find yourself in a process of unity-and-struggle with the vanguard, which is not a bad place to be.

Join in, take your stand. There is much to do.

[karmaradical]

I give kudos to this man/woman or whatever it is, for simply saying the lovley logic of "stop avakian" I have recently demonstrated my beef with maoism, but i will say we shouldnt stop the RCP. We should simply bring our movements into the matter to over ride it.

[Correa]

RCP? Is this the "world can't wait organization?" No wonder! I showed to the local protest this past Nov 2nd here in Las Vegas, NV and the lead organizer was a Maoist. I didn't know they were Maoist as an organization. Hmmm......interesting.

[Ultra-Violence]

Do you have ADHD?
? :(


They aren't the only one demonstrating.
i am aware of that commrade


They are just the only ones promoting their party. They put the vanguard above the meaning of the protest.


this is what scares me


It would be great if more people took up the struggle, and even if more people did so from a revolutioanry perspective.


i think personaly poeple need to be educated first then revolution will come.


If you want to do something, don't focus on "stopping the RCP" --

im not saying focus i never mentioned that but this cult is growing rapidly wich is good and bad depends wich way you look at it

the good is that poeple are lifting the scales from thier eyes.

the bad is the FUCKING VANGUARD PARTY!FUCK THAT SHIT!
i dont want another stalin i dont think you want one either


Join in, take your stand. There is much to do.


im taking my stand! and im doing as much ass i can i hope your doing the same


We should simply bring our movements into the matter to over ride it.

EXACTLY!

:hammer:

[flyby]

in something as complex and protracted as a revolution, you need to organize the most determined, far-seeing, disciplined and conscious sections of the people -- and prepare them for the difficult and unprecedented tasks involved in making a revolution (mobilizing the people, developing new forms of organization, breaking the old state, directing and reorganizing production etc.)

In other words you need an organized vanguard.

The idea that you can do something as difficult and complex, as defeating U.S. imperialism and then building a new society, without an organized vanguard is (imho) extremely naive. And even an organized vanguard can't do it (at least it can't do anythng good with its work) if it isn't organized around a correct approach on all the cardinal questions that define a revolution.

Revolutions (that acutally lead anywhere) don't "just happen" -- they are made (in close connection with changes in objective conditions and great upsurges of the people)

I urge everyone to check out this essay "Why We Need A Vanguard Party" (http://rwor.org/a/v19/920-29/921/anar3.htm)

You may not agree, of course, but at least we will be discussing some of the core issues involved and not just reading your CAPITAL LETTERS of vehemence.

[KC]

Know what would really improve the perception of the RCP to members on this site, flyby? You participating in discussions that aren't about the RCP. You only discussing the RCP just confirms how cult-like the RCP really is.

[Correa]

Is the real problem here Mao? Is the beef with RCP really a beef with Mao? :huh:

[KC]

Is the real problem here Mao? Is the beef with RCP really a beef with Mao? :huh:


No

[celticfire]

flyby has actually contributed a lot to this forum, and others. I don't see why you criticise him for defending what he supports, especially since people from the Communist League and Free People's Movement seem to have an obsession around attacking the RCP. Whatever you may think of the RCP, Maoism and Bob Avakian they have been around for 30 years and have always been at the forefront of the major political battles in different ways.

The CL and FPM are new; and will probably wash away with the not so distant time. And they won't need to be attacked, their own instability will lead to their demise.

I have my own criticism of the RCP, but I still basically uphold and defend them, including the revolutionary leadership of Bob Avakian. If upholding a revolutionary leader makes me a "cultist" so be it.

You say:

the bad is the FUCKING VANGUARD PARTY!FUCK THAT SHIT!
i dont want another stalin i dont think you want one either

I am not entirely sure what this means....but a vanguard is an important necessity if we are going to have a revolution. Period. No anarchist idealism is going change that.

Now, for me, I don't think the Party should have a formal, insutionalized "leadership" position. This method has proved repeatedly to breed revisionism.

But a vanguard is, or should more then just a bureaucratic cadre position. It should be a vehicle for leading the masses towards their goals.

In other words, leaders have a responsibility to lead, but on the basic of the democratic decisions from below. I reject the rigid positions most Leninist parties take. I uphold MLM, but in doing so I don't uncritically accept anything.

flyby will call it radical democracy, I think it should just be standard.

General elections, recall and term-limits!

[Commie Rat]

I think we should kill avikan (i have no grudge against him)
if the party collaspes then is a fucked up personality cult
if the party lives then it is strong enough to be good representaion of communism

and you you cant tell im just stirring shit

RCP have the drive and the support to carry things out, i dont support them as communsits as i am naive and my interpretaions of RCP members on this board has been good

[Red Heretic]

Do you even know what a vanguard party is? The term vanguard refers to a leader, leading and inspiring people to take action to do something. A vanguard party leads the masses to resist this system, to struggle against inequality, to criticize reactionary ideas, and all of the other crucial tasks that are necessary to achieve the final goal of communism.

The vanguard party is the most essential organ is the struggle for socialism, and eventually communism.

The RCP imho opinion is the most legitimate revolutionary organization I have ever worked with, and has the most correct line I have ever come across in an American organization.

[Correa]

It seems they have the biggest movement in the US. However regarding vanguards. It was mentioned not to long ago that what would make the vanguard then hand the power to people? Instead of consolidating power itself and creating a post Lenin authoritarian government.

[Red Heretic]

That's a good question Correa.

To understand how the state will be abolished in socialism, you've got to understand the fundamental dialectial reasons that the state exists. You see, the state is the result of contradictions between different ruling classes, competing for control of resources, people, etc.

Vanguard parties lead the masses into socialism. Because over the capitalist systems imperialist domination on the entire world, socialist revolutions in one country will inevitably trigger socialist revolutions in other countries. This is why we say that socialist revolution is not confined to a single nation, but rather a world revolution, that will unite the entire world, and abolish all contradiction between different nations of people.

Once these fundamental contradictions have ceased to exist, there will be no more purpose for armies or nations. There will be no more purpose for states or anything of that sort. You can read a really good article about what communism will be like here: http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm7.htm

[Red Heretic]

Also, you can read some really great articles on how vanguard parties lead the masses to abolish inequalities and to take powers into their own hands here:

http://rwor.org/a/china/opium.htm
http://rwor.org/a/006/snail-fever-china.htm

[Livetrueordie]

Your Right The RCP is trash and so is Avakian, most logical people understand this.

[Ultra-Violence]

The term vanguard refers to a leader, leading and inspiring people to take action to do something. A vanguard party leads the masses to resist this system, to struggle against inequality, to criticize reactionary ideas, and all of the other crucial tasks that are necessary to achieve the final goal of communism.



It was mentioned not to long ago that what would make the vanguard then hand the power to people? Instead of consolidating power itself and creating a post Lenin authoritarian government.

thats exactly what i dont want! i believe the working class can lead them selves its their revolution!i dont need any group of individuals making decsions for many or any body else. not unless these decsions are made democraticaly by the poeple for the people.

[Guerrilla22]

If other parties were nearly as active as the Vanguard party and the RCP, our cause would be a lot further along. Unfortunately too many so called leftist movements are dominated by older intellectuall types who seem to be more interested in printing and distributing newspapers than anything else.

[praxis1966]

RCP Dinner Prayer

http://www.geocities.com/nevin_long/stuff/chairman_spongebob.jpg

Our Chairman who art in Paris
Bob be thy name
Give us this day our Party line
And forgive our missed sales
As we fundraise to feed our Dear Leader
Lead us not unto Revolution
But deliver us thy Rhetoric
For thine is a self imposed Exile
Sipping coffee on the Left Bank
Forever and ever
Amen

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 9 2005, 12:02 AM

The term vanguard refers to a leader, leading and inspiring people to take action to do something. A vanguard party leads the masses to resist this system, to struggle against inequality, to criticize reactionary ideas, and all of the other crucial tasks that are necessary to achieve the final goal of communism.



It was mentioned not to long ago that what would make the vanguard then hand the power to people? Instead of consolidating power itself and creating a post Lenin authoritarian government.

thats exactly what i dont want! i believe the working class can lead them selves its their revolution!i dont need any group of individuals making decsions for many or any body else. not unless these decsions are made democraticaly by the poeple for the people.
First off ultra-violence, CALM DOWN.

Communism is something that physically cannot be achieved with proletarian leadership. It is only natural for the most advanced forces among the proletariat to come forward, and to lead the other proletarians to throw off their chains. You cannot have a movement without leadership. Why do you think it is that after 200 years of the anarchist movement, there has never been one single anarchist revolution? Not even one!

You need to take a deep breath and seriously think about whether you are actually looking to achieve communism, or if you actually are just looking for an idea you think sounds cool. You need to approach this from a scientific perspective and drop the idealism.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:40 AM
RCP Dinner Prayer

Our Chairman who art in Paris
Bob be thy name
Give us this day our Party line
And forgive our missed sales
As we fundraise to feed our Dear Leader
Lead us not unto Revolution
But deliver us thy Rhetoric
For thine is a self imposed Exile
Sipping coffee on the Left Bank
Forever and ever
Amen
Isn't it amazing how someone can accuse the RCP's line of being full of rhetoric, and then have an arguement that is completely full of rhetoric?

Not one critic in this entire thread has made ANY analysis of the RCP's line. They just trash is left and right without any concrete analysis or arguements, just pictures depicting Bob Avakian as popular cartoon character. How old are you, and what the fuck kind of attitude is that for anyone who considers themself a communist?

[bcbm]

Why do you think it is that after 200 years of the anarchist movement, there has never been one single anarchist revolution? Not even one!

http://www.utpb.edu/utpb_adm/academicaffairs/collegeofartscience/deptofhumanitiesfinearts/ProgramOfHistory/zapata.jpg

http://www.anarchy-movement.org/images/anarchists/makhno_nestor.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Woman_with_cntfai_flag.jpg/180px-Woman_with_cntfai_flag.jpg

<_<

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Maybe he meant "successful" revolution?

anyway..


flyby has actually contributed a lot to this forum, and others. I don&#39;t see why you criticise him for defending what he supports, especially since people from the Communist League and Free People&#39;s Movement seem to have an obsession around attacking the RCP.

I really don&#39;t get why you pull out these two groups, especially when they both worked with the World Can&#39;t Wait campaign(&#33;&#33;) - though of course, on their own platforms. It&#39;s obvious that others here have been much more hostile to the RCP...

Of course, supporters of both of these groups have been critical of the RCP&#39;s politics.. but hey, you&#39;ll have that on a political debate board.


Whatever you may think of the RCP, Maoism and Bob Avakian they have been around for 30 years and have always been at the forefront of the major political battles in different ways.

SO? The CP-USA & "Leninism" have been around for much, much longer.. and overall have probably been more active.. does that ad some sort of legitimacy?


The CL and FPM are new; and will probably wash away with the not so distant time. And they won&#39;t need to be attacked, their own instability will lead to their demise.

Keep telling yourself that.. as someone who&#39;s been involved with the left for some time, I can definentely say I&#39;ve seen more done by the FPM in the past 3 years than of the other groups I&#39;ve belonged to or been around.

They are also the only truly proletarian parties that I&#39;m aware of. This says alot, especially when groups like the RCP are moving away from the proletariat - ie. dropping &#39;worker&#39; from the newspaper title (doing in word what they did in deed years previously).


I have my own criticism of the RCP, but I still basically uphold and defend them, including the revolutionary leadership of Bob Avakian. If upholding a revolutionary leader makes me a "cultist" so be it.

Then so be it ;)

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 8 2005, 11:05 PM
Isn&#39;t it amazing how someone can accuse the RCP&#39;s line of being full of rhetoric, and then have an arguement that is completely full of rhetoric?

Not one critic in this entire thread has made ANY analysis of the RCP&#39;s line. They just trash is left and right without any concrete analysis or arguements, just pictures depicting Bob Avakian as popular cartoon character. How old are you, and what the fuck kind of attitude is that for anyone who considers themself a communist?
It does make a point, however. The criticism, in the case that you missed it, is that you guys muck about raising money paying dues to someone who sits on high formulating a battle plan for a struggle which he can&#39;t be bothered to muddy his hands in. Meanwhile, you guys sit with bated breath, awaiting his next pamphlet so you&#39;ll know what to believe. Then you turn around and regurgitate it verbatim as if it were the word of God. Shit, for what that&#39;s worth, you might as well be paying tithes to the Catholic church and waiting for the Pope&#39;s next catechysm.

As for myself, I prefer to do my own reading and make up my own mind, as opposed to waiting for some intermediary to interpret Mao, Lenin, Marx, Freire, Gramsci or any of the others for me. So no, I won&#39;t get down with the whole thing, to borrow a phrase.

As for the pot shot at my leftist credentials, I guess it&#39;s not any way for a communist to behave. I guess it&#39;s a good thing that I&#39;m not one, simply a syndicalist attempting to do my part (that&#39;s a form of socialism, just in case you were curious). Oh, and not that it has any bearing on anything, and not that it&#39;s any of your business, but I&#39;m 27.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 9 2005, 04:47 AM
http://www.anarchy-movement.org/images/anarchists/makhno_nestor.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Woman_with_cntfai_flag.jpg/180px-Woman_with_cntfai_flag.jpg

<_<
The Makhnovischina and the Spanish Civil War demonstrate my point perfectly.

The only time in history when anarchists have ever had any power, is when power fell into their hands. They have never risen up an siezed it, because it is impossible to sieze power without leadership, because leadership naturally arises out of revolutionary movements.

In the Spanish Civil War, the anarchists were allowed to get control of parts of the country because the fascists caused the bourgeois democratic government to fall apart. It was no revolution.

I suppose you could make the case that the Makhnovischina revolts against the germans were to a degree some sort of a revolutionary uprising, but even then, they were under the direct leadership of Makhno. They were anarchist in name. A purely anarchistic revolution is fundamentally impossible.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by praxis1966+Nov 9 2005, 07:12 AM--> (praxis1966 @ Nov 9 2005, 07:12 AM)
Red [email protected] 8 2005, 11:05 PM
Isn&#39;t it amazing how someone can accuse the RCP&#39;s line of being full of rhetoric, and then have an arguement that is completely full of rhetoric?

Not one critic in this entire thread has made ANY analysis of the RCP&#39;s line. They just trash is left and right without any concrete analysis or arguements, just pictures depicting Bob Avakian as popular cartoon character. How old are you, and what the fuck kind of attitude is that for anyone who considers themself a communist?
It does make a point, however. The criticism, in the case that you missed it, is that you guys muck about raising money paying dues to someone who sits on high formulating a battle plan for a struggle which he can&#39;t be bothered to muddy his hands in. Meanwhile, you guys sit with bated breath, awaiting his next pamphlet so you&#39;ll know what to believe. Then you turn around and regurgitate it verbatim as if it were the word of God. Shit, for what that&#39;s worth, you might as well be paying tithes to the Catholic church and waiting for the Pope&#39;s next catechysm.

As for myself, I prefer to do my own reading and make up my own mind, as opposed to waiting for some intermediary to interpret Mao, Lenin, Marx, Freire, Gramsci or any of the others for me. So no, I won&#39;t get down with the whole thing, to borrow a phrase.

As for the pot shot at my leftist credentials, I guess it&#39;s not any way for a communist to behave. I guess it&#39;s a good thing that I&#39;m not one, simply a syndicalist attempting to do my part (that&#39;s a form of socialism, just in case you were curious). Oh, and not that it has any bearing on anything, and not that it&#39;s any of your business, but I&#39;m 27. [/b]
All revolutionary organizations have to raise money. If the RCP did not raise money, there is no way that it could create solidarity for the revolution in Nepal to the degree that it does.

Without revolutionary proletarian leadership like that of Lenin and Mao, there could have been no Chinese and Russian revolutions. We shouldn&#39;t be ashamed of leaders like Lenin, Mao, and Avakian. They play a large part in leading the proletariat forward to establish socialism.

Unfortunately I am at school, and my time to post is very limited.

[redstar2000]

Another thread about Bob Avakian and the RCP.

*yawns*

For readers outside the U.S., you should be aware that upwards of 99% of all Americans have never heard of Bob Avakian or the RCP.

Indeed, probably upwards of 96% or more were and remain completely unaware of the recent "world can&#39;t wait" demonstrations.

The probability that Bob Avakian will "lead a revolutionary government" in the United States is around 0.0000000000000001 or less&#33;

So it&#39;s not something to "get upset over". Historically speaking, the most probable political trajectory for the RCP is into some version of "left" reformism...that&#39;s where Leninist parties "go to die".

There is a marginal possibility that the RCP could, instead, move in a leftwards direction after the retirement of the "Avakian generation".

It&#39;s possible that the young generation of activists in the RCP will come, through experience, to find theological Maoism stale and irrelevant to building a revolutionary movement in an advanced capitalist country.

I wouldn&#39;t "bet the rent money" on it...but sometimes history comes up with little "surprises" for us and not all of them are unpleasant.

As to "how to struggle against Leninism" in existing movements, I have a few suggestions to offer based on personal experience.

1. The "personality cult" around Avakian is the RCP&#39;s greatest political weakness at this time. Do not hesitate to embarrass them about this in every situation...especially when the masses themselves are watching. Draw out the obvious inference...would you want to live in a country run by this guy?

Avakian clearly wants to be "America&#39;s Mao"...so you should freely point that out whenever the subject comes up.

2. The RCP is a Maoist party. For more politically sophisticated audiences, a brief "history lesson" may be in order. Maoism is a peasant ideology that arose in China at a time when it was mostly feudal in class composition. It "bears the marks" of its own history...including, of course, leader worship.

Pound away on the fact that the RCP wants to replace the despotism of capital with the despotism of the RCP&#33;

The RCP wants to run the show and thinks, in fact, that they are the only ones who are "fit to rule" a post-capitalist society.

3. Don&#39;t allow them to "wave the image of communism" in front of people without contradiction. What the RCP really wants is socialism...a form of class society in which the despotism of capital is replaced with the despotism of the party, especially the despotism of the Great Leader.

Communist society is attractive to many people...whereas the features of Russian and Chinese socialism are both widely-known and generally unattractive. The "best version" of the RCP&#39;s socialism would still be a lot like things are now. Communism would be something that would happen "in the distant future"...like "the return of Jesus".

So it&#39;s necessary to confront the RCP in public about what they really plan to do.

4. Exercise caution when joining a group that is already run by the RCP (or any other Leninist party). The party leadership will regard you as a foot-soldier whose only responsibility is to carry out your orders in a disciplined fashion.

By all means attend an RCP demonstration that, in your opinion, might be useful. But...make your own sign&#33;

5. It&#39;s probably pointless to challenge the RCP&#39;s "anti-capitalist credentials" -- the RCPers that you are likely to run into are young and sincerely anti-capitalist.

There are occasional "hints" in Avakian&#39;s writings that he is, well, "skeptical" of the Marxist concept of proletarian revolution and would prefer a Maoist "revolution of the whole people" or something like that.

But most of the young members of the RCP are probably completely ignorant of such subtleties...and wouldn&#39;t understand what you were getting at.

6. Remember that the young Maoists are not "class enemies" or anything like that. You may freely dispute their more fantastic claims without descending into verbal abuse.

And be sure to send them to the redstar2000papers.com -- it can&#39;t do any harm and it may do some of them much good. :lol:

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

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:57 PM
Another thread about Bob Avakian and the RCP.

*yawns*

For readers outside the U.S., you should be aware that upwards of 99% of all Americans have never heard of Bob Avakian or the RCP.

Indeed, probably upwards of 96% or more were and remain completely unaware of the recent "world can&#39;t wait" demonstrations.

The probability that Bob Avakian will "lead a revolutionary government" in the United States is around 0.0000000000000001 or less&#33;

So it&#39;s not something to "get upset over". Historically speaking, the most probable political trajectory for the RCP is into some version of "left" reformism...that&#39;s where Leninist parties "go to die".

There is a marginal possibility that the RCP could, instead, move in a leftwards direction after the retirement of the "Avakian generation".

It&#39;s possible that the young generation of activists in the RCP will come, through experience, to find theological Maoism stale and irrelevant to building a revolutionary movement in an advanced capitalist country.

I wouldn&#39;t "bet the rent money" on it...but sometimes history comes up with little "surprises" for us and not all of them are unpleasant.

As to "how to struggle against Leninism" in existing movements, I have a few suggestions to offer based on personal experience.

1. The "personality cult" around Avakian is the RCP&#39;s greatest political weakness at this time. Do not hesitate to embarrass them about this in every situation...especially when the masses themselves are watching. Draw out the obvious inference...would you want to live in a country run by this guy?

Avakian clearly wants to be "America&#39;s Mao"...so you should freely point that out whenever the subject comes up.

2. The RCP is a Maoist party. For more politically sophisticated audiences, a brief "history lesson" may be in order. Maoism is a peasant ideology that arose in China at a time when it was mostly feudal in class composition. It "bears the marks" of its own history...including, of course, leader worship.

Pound away on the fact that the RCP wants to replace the despotism of capital with the despotism of the RCP&#33;

The RCP wants to run the show and thinks, in fact, that they are the only ones who are "fit to rule" a post-capitalist society.

3. Don&#39;t allow them to "wave the image of communism" in front of people without contradiction. What the RCP really wants is socialism...a form of class society in which the despotism of capital is replaced with the despotism of the party, especially the despotism of the Great Leader.

Communist society is attractive to many people...whereas the features of Russian and Chinese socialism are both widely-known and generally unattractive. The "best version" of the RCP&#39;s socialism would still be a lot like things are now. Communism would be something that would happen "in the distant future"...like "the return of Jesus".

So it&#39;s necessary to confront the RCP in public about what they really plan to do.

4. Exercise caution when joining a group that is already run by the RCP (or any other Leninist party). The party leadership will regard you as a foot-soldier whose only responsibility is to carry out your orders in a disciplined fashion.

By all means attend an RCP demonstration that, in your opinion, might be useful. But...make your own sign&#33;

5. It&#39;s probably pointless to challenge the RCP&#39;s "anti-capitalist credentials" -- the RCPers that you are likely to run into are young and sincerely anti-capitalist.

There are occasional "hints" in Avakian&#39;s writings that he is, well, "skeptical" of the Marxist concept of proletarian revolution and would prefer a Maoist "revolution of the whole people" or something like that.

But most of the young members of the RCP are probably completely ignorant of such subtleties...and wouldn&#39;t understand what you were getting at.

6. Remember that the young Maoists are not "class enemies" or anything like that. You may freely dispute their more fantastic claims without descending into verbal abuse.

And be sure to send them to the redstar2000papers.com -- it can&#39;t do any harm and it may do some of them much good. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I would like to know how it is exactly that you come to the conclusion that Maoism is stale and irrelevant when there are Maoist revolutions currently occuring in Nepal, India, Turkey, and the Phillipines, and well preparations for the launching of People&#39;s War in Iran and Afghanistan. The fact that so many revolutions are happening at the same time under the leadership of the Maoist International, the RIM, is not a sign of stagnation. Anarchists handing out reprints of pamphlets from the early 1900&#39;s which are almost completely irrelevant to the world situation of today is a sign of stagnation.

Protracted People&#39;s War is only a small part of Maoism, and therefore, Maoism is not at ALL a peasant ideology. Anyone who read any Black Panther or RCP material would know this. Mao make great progress in the areas of criticism and self-criticism, analysis of the bourgeosie within the communist party, on the topic of national liberation, on dialectical materialism, and countless other areas.

Not only this, but Red Star 2000 is in complete denial that this is a WORLD situation, and that the struggles of peasantry in the third world DIRECTLY effect the revolutions in the first world. Nothing could be more relevant to the world revolution and the fight for communism, a stateless and classless society, than Maoism.

The term personality cult refers to dogmatic and religious worship of a leader. There was some of this done by very undereducated peasant in China, who worshipped Mao as a god. This was criticized by the party and and the masses as being in contradiction with dialectical materialism and the fight for a communist world. However, Mao&#39;s leadership, as well as Lenin&#39;s, WAS put forward in an objective and scientific way. There is absoltely nothing wrong with popularizing various different revolutionary leaders like Lenin, Mao, Fred Hampton, Bob Avakian, Prachanda, etc. And not just the leaders of revolutionary parties, but also the members who play large roles in leading the proletariat forward. None of the names I listed should be worshipped as gods in a dogmatic way, but rather put forward as revolutionary leaders of the proletariat.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 9 2005, 11:40 AM
[QUOTE=black banner black gun,Nov 9 2005, 04:47 AM]
The Makhnovischina and the Spanish Civil War demonstrate my point perfectly.
What about the Zapatistas?


The only time in history when anarchists have ever had any power, is when power fell into their hands. They have never risen up an siezed it, because it is impossible to sieze power without leadership, because leadership naturally arises out of revolutionary movements.

Leadership is not neccessarily incompatible with anarchism. So long as the "leader" is not a position of hierarchy and privilege, but merely on of strategic importance, its perfectly compatible.



In the Spanish Civil War, the anarchists were allowed to get control of parts of the country because the fascists caused the bourgeois democratic government to fall apart. It was no revolution.

Anarchists are oppurtunists, but then again, most revolutions happen that way. Something forces their hand into action. And it certainly was a revolution, in addition to a civil war.


I suppose you could make the case that the Makhnovischina revolts against the germans were to a degree some sort of a revolutionary uprising, but even then, they were under the direct leadership of Makhno. They were anarchist in name.

They were anarchist in practice, too, as I understand it.


A purely anarchistic revolution is fundamentally impossible.

Purity is for religious zealots, not politics.

[Guerrilla22]

What about the Zapatistas?

theZapatistas are not an anarchist movement, nor are they a Marxist movement, in fact they really aren&#39;t even a revolutionary movement. However, I agree with you, who intiates or actually carries out the revolution is irrelevent and anarchist movements are just as legitimate as any other.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:29 PM

What about the Zapatistas?

theZapatistas are not an anarchist movement, nor are they a Marxist movement, in fact they really aren&#39;t even a revolutionary movement. However, I agree with you, who intiates or actually carries out the revolution is irrelevent and anarchist movements are just as legitimate as any other.
Not the EZLN. The Zapatistas of the Mexican Revolution.

[Red Heretic]

The followers of Zapata and Pancho Villa weren&#39;t really anarchists or communists either... I believe they claimed to be communists nevertheless.

You comment about leadership seems to indicate that you are unaware of the meaning of vanguard. You should really read those articles that I posted earlier, and read how Maoists view leadership and unleashing the power of the masses rather than usage of bueracracy and adminstrative measures like Stalin used.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red Heretic
I would like to know how it is exactly that you come to the conclusion that Maoism is stale and irrelevant when there are Maoist revolutions currently occurring in Nepal, India, Turkey, and the Philippines, and well preparations for the launching of People&#39;s War in Iran and Afghanistan.

To begin with, you exaggerate. Only in Nepal is there a significant "protracted people&#39;s war" taking place. It&#39;s true that there are still guerrillas in the field in the Philippines...but they do not appear to be active on a significant scale at this time.

The alliance of Maoist parties in India is turning towards bourgeois electoral politics...or so I&#39;ve read. Even the Nepalese Maoists suggest that they will replace the monarchy with a bourgeois "democracy".

I&#39;ll admit that the situation in Turkey is, well, unclear to me at this time. It seems "far-fetched" to me that Maoism would have a whole lot of appeal to the Turkish proletariat...though I suppose it&#39;s possible. I would be inclined towards the view that a more traditional Leninist party (like Lenin&#39;s Bolsheviks) would be more attractive to Turkish workers than "exotic" Maoism. Turkish workers now resemble, in my opinion, Russian workers of 1917 -- half modernized and half pre-modern.

Your suggestion that the Maoists are preparing to lead a protracted people&#39;s war in Iran or Afghanistan is not entirely implausible...but remains, after all, just a claim until it materializes.

And I must add, of course, that your implication that these revolutions, even if or when they do materialize, will be "communist" is entirely a-historic.

Instead (as in China itself), those revolutions are "echoes of 1789"...their purpose is to smash all the obstacles that stand in the way of the emergence of modern capitalism in those countries. The scraps and tatters of "Marxist" rhetoric are simply used to attract the support of the emerging proletariat.

The material conditions for communism simply do not exist anywhere in the so-called "third world"...indeed, they may not exist yet even in the advanced capitalist countries -- at least to the required level of development.

Thus Maoist rhetoric about communism can simply be dismissed as hype...they don&#39;t really want communism and even if they did, they couldn&#39;t do it.

But regardless of the complexities and uncertainties regarding the political possibilities in those far-away lands, you did not notice that I was being specific.

I said that Maoism is stale and irrelevant with regard to proletarian revolution in advanced capitalist countries.

Mao has nothing of interest to say to an advanced proletariat. The only peasantry we have left in the United States are "kulaks"...and even they are being "liquidated as a class" by the large agricultural corporations. In the decades to come, there will only be an agricultural proletariat in the U.S....something that Mao probably couldn&#39;t even imagine.

Mao&#39;s idea of "land to those who work it" would be a reactionary demand in the context of an advanced capitalist country...a plea to turn workers back into independent small capitalists. Only in the context of a semi-feudal society is Mao&#39;s demand progressive -- it&#39;s part of the fundamental process of smashing the old landed aristocracy that stands in the way of the emergence of modern capitalism.

You see, that&#39;s what Maoism really is...a way of struggling to break the chains of old landed aristocracies as well as foreign imperialism and its domestic lackeys.

It&#39;s the "modern version" of 1789. Our "1789" (in the U.S.) took place in 1860-65. Maoism is as relevant to us as a "new and improved" kerosene lamp.


Mao made great progress in the areas of criticism and self-criticism, analysis of the bourgeoisie within the communist party, on the topic of national liberation, on dialectical materialism, and countless other areas.

That&#39;s like saying that Martin Luther "made great progress" in "understanding" the "relationship" between "Man and God".

It&#39;s just metaphysical babble.

What Mao was "good at" was organizing peasants to effectively rebel against their masters.

And that&#39;s no "small" accomplishment. The "Communist" Party of China really did smash centuries of feudal stagnation as well as the imperialist "conquerers" of China.

They deserve credit for that&#33;

Otherwise...???


Not only this, but Red Star 2000 is in complete denial that this is a WORLD situation, and that the struggles of peasantry in the third world DIRECTLY effect the revolutions in the first world. Nothing could be more relevant to the world revolution and the fight for communism, a stateless and classless society, than Maoism.

I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re getting at here.

I&#39;ve discussed many times the absolute necessity for American revolutionaries to support anti-imperialist insurrections in the "third world"...we cannot hope to make any progress at home until the American Empire is drastically weakened by being deprived of its conquests.

You&#39;ll recall the remarks made by Marx himself on this subject. Something along the lines of "the English proletariat cannot hope to free itself until Ireland is no longer in chains".

I think, in fact, that the main obstacle to proletarian class consciousness in the United States over the last 50 years has been the success of empire.

If it turns out that the Maoists are the most capable political formation in the "third world" for organizing the defeat of U.S. imperialism -- then that&#39;s fine with me.

And it&#39;s quite possible that such will be the case...the Maoists will "do 1789" better than anyone else.

The problem is the small number of remaining Maoists in the "west" who think that "China&#39;s 1789" has some relevance to modern proletarian revolution.

That just makes no sense at all.


The term personality cult refers to dogmatic and religious worship of a leader.

True...but explicitly religious terminology is not required. For example, consider the official Maoist slogan: Mao is the red sun in our hearts.

That&#39;s not explicitly "religious"...but the "odor" is there.

Mao himself explicitly distinguished between "good" personality cults and "bad" personality cults. He said that a personality cult around a leader was "good" provided that the leader puts forward a "correct political line".

And the RCP&#39;s Bob Avakian agrees with this.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with popularizing various different revolutionary leaders like Lenin, Mao, Fred Hampton, Bob Avakian, Prachanda, etc.

I disagree.

"Good" Personality Cults? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114268920&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

There&#39;s everything wrong about "publicizing various revolutionary leaders".

Once More Against "Leadership" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1090373295&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 9 2005, 11:43 PM
The followers of Zapata and Pancho Villa weren&#39;t really anarchists or communists either... I believe they claimed to be communists nevertheless.
Zapata was heavily influenced by the anarchist Magon, and his own program was definitely anarchist-influenced, if not wholly an anarchist program.


You comment about leadership seems to indicate that you are unaware of the meaning of vanguard. You should really read those articles that I posted earlier, and read how Maoists view leadership and unleashing the power of the masses rather than usage of bueracracy and adminstrative measures like Stalin used.

Which articles, specifically? I&#39;m not talking about leadership in any authoritarian or "small group leading the masses" type of way. Though I have often heard Maoism called an anarchist deviation from Marxism.

[Red Heretic]

these two, which basically give a good image of all of the things that become possible with revolutionary leadership:

http://rwor.org/a/china/opium.htm
http://rwor.org/a/006/snail-fever-china.htm

RedStar2000: That is a very large post. Seeing as how my ability to post on this site is generally limited to 5 minute increments when I can sneak on... it may be a while before I can fully respond, but I will try to respond to your post tonight after my parents go to bed.

[enigma2517]

If you do not see the inherent problems of hierarchy...I can&#39;t help you.

If you don&#39;t see whats wrong with relying on a "leader" or a "vanguard" then I can&#39;t help you either.

I&#39;m glad to see that you recognize the need for most influential, advanced sectors of the working class to rise up and educate, agitate, and organize their fellow workers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and it is indeed essential.

You are, unfortunatley, caught up in the rhetoric my friend. People like you see anarchism in practice as a movement with no established goals or direction. You identify with the same reactionary ideas that the bourgeosie identify with.

We are all animals, we can&#39;t do something unless there is a coercive hierarchy making us do something. Hm...what can I say...go back to the 1500&#39;s and read some Thomas Hobbes?

Organization is no problem...guns to our backs is. We both recognize the need to provoke the masses. Here&#39;s the difference...in practice (not pretty rhetoric), one method directly involves and empowers people while the other sidelines and disenfranchises them. All 75 years of Leninist leadership could not raise class consciousness in the Soviet Union. The Spanish Revolution did more to empower the working class in one week than the Soviet Union did in its entire span...and no...don&#39;t spit back at me the wonderful advances of state capitalism to me and tell me that it had something to do with letting people run their own lives more.

Are you claiming that you can do it "better"?

I would say that:

a.) No, nobody can do it better...history shows us that it doesn&#39;t work

b.) My point above is highly contestable BUT if you want to tell me that prick Avakian is the next Lenin...well...I&#39;ll try to stiffle my laughter.

[Amusing Scrotum]

RedStar2000: That is a very large post. Seeing as how my ability to post on this site is generally limited to 5 minute increments when I can sneak on... it may be a while before I can fully respond, but I will try to respond to your post tonight after my parents go to bed.

:unsure:

Are you banned from going on this site? ......and why?

[Ultra-Violence]

First off ultra-violence, CALM DOWN.

Communism is something that physically cannot be achieved with proletarian leadership. It is only natural for the most advanced forces among the proletariat to come forward, and to lead the other proletarians to throw off their chains. You cannot have a movement without leadership. Why do you think it is that after 200 years of the anarchist movement, there has never been one single anarchist revolution? Not even one&#33;

You need to take a deep breath and seriously think about whether you are actually looking to achieve communism, or if you actually are just looking for an idea you think sounds cool. You need to approach this from a scientific perspective and drop the idealism


If you do not see the inherent problems of hierarchy...I can&#39;t help you.

If you don&#39;t see whats wrong with relying on a "leader" or a "vanguard" then I can&#39;t help you either.

I&#39;m glad to see that you recognize the need for most influential, advanced sectors of the working class to rise up and educate, agitate, and organize their fellow workers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and it is indeed essential.

You are, unfortunatley, caught up in the rhetoric my friend. People like you see anarchism in practice as a movement with no established goals or direction. You identify with the same reactionary ideas that the bourgeosie identify with.

We are all animals, we can&#39;t do something unless there is a coercive hierarchy making us do something. Hm...what can I say...go back to the 1500&#39;s and read some Thomas Hobbes?

Organization is no problem...guns to our backs is. We both recognize the need to provoke the masses. Here&#39;s the difference...in practice (not pretty rhetoric), one method directly involves and empowers people while the other sidelines and disenfranchises them. All 75 years of Leninist leadership could not raise class consciousness in the Soviet Union. The Spanish Revolution did more to empower the working class in one week than the Soviet Union did in its entire span...and no...don&#39;t spit back at me the wonderful advances of state capitalism to me and tell me that it had something to do with letting people run their own lives more.

Are you claiming that you can do it "better"?

I would say that:

a.) No, nobody can do it better...history shows us that it doesn&#39;t work

b.) My point above is highly contestable BUT if you want to tell me that prick Avakian is the next Lenin...well...I&#39;ll try to stiffle my laughter.


Egnigma2517 answerd it perfectly Thank you

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:11 PM
To begin with, you exaggerate. Only in Nepal is there a significant "protracted people&#39;s war" taking place. It&#39;s true that there are still guerrillas in the field in the Philippines...but they do not appear to be active on a significant scale at this time.

The alliance of Maoist parties in India is turning towards bourgeois electoral politics...or so I&#39;ve read. Even the Nepalese Maoists suggest that they will replace the monarchy with a bourgeois "democracy".

I&#39;ll admit that the situation in Turkey is, well, unclear to me at this time. It seems "far-fetched" to me that Maoism would have a whole lot of appeal to the Turkish proletariat...though I suppose it&#39;s possible. I would be inclined towards the view that a more traditional Leninist party (like Lenin&#39;s Bolsheviks) would be more attractive to Turkish workers than "exotic" Maoism. Turkish workers now resemble, in my opinion, Russian workers of 1917 -- half modernized and half pre-modern.

Your suggestion that the Maoists are preparing to lead a protracted people&#39;s war in Iran or Afghanistan is not entirely implausible...but remains, after all, just a claim until it materializes.

And I must add, of course, that your implication that these revolutions, even if or when they do materialize, will be "communist" is entirely a-historic.

Instead (as in China itself), those revolutions are "echoes of 1789"...their purpose is to smash all the obstacles that stand in the way of the emergence of modern capitalism in those countries. The scraps and tatters of "Marxist" rhetoric are simply used to attract the support of the emerging proletariat.

The material conditions for communism simply do not exist anywhere in the so-called "third world"...indeed, they may not exist yet even in the advanced capitalist countries -- at least to the required level of development.

Thus Maoist rhetoric about communism can simply be dismissed as hype...they don&#39;t really want communism and even if they did, they couldn&#39;t do it.

But regardless of the complexities and uncertainties regarding the political possibilities in those far-away lands, you did not notice that I was being specific.

I said that Maoism is stale and irrelevant with regard to proletarian revolution in advanced capitalist countries.

Mao has nothing of interest to say to an advanced proletariat. The only peasantry we have left in the United States are "kulaks"...and even they are being "liquidated as a class" by the large agricultural corporations. In the decades to come, there will only be an agricultural proletariat in the U.S....something that Mao probably couldn&#39;t even imagine.

Mao&#39;s idea of "land to those who work it" would be a reactionary demand in the context of an advanced capitalist country...a plea to turn workers back into independent small capitalists. Only in the context of a semi-feudal society is Mao&#39;s demand progressive -- it&#39;s part of the fundamental process of smashing the old landed aristocracy that stands in the way of the emergence of modern capitalism.

You see, that&#39;s what Maoism really is...a way of struggling to break the chains of old landed aristocracies as well as foreign imperialism and its domestic lackeys.

It&#39;s the "modern version" of 1789. Our "1789" (in the U.S.) took place in 1860-65. Maoism is as relevant to us as a "new and improved" kerosene lamp.


Mao made great progress in the areas of criticism and self-criticism, analysis of the bourgeoisie within the communist party, on the topic of national liberation, on dialectical materialism, and countless other areas.

That&#39;s like saying that Martin Luther "made great progress" in "understanding" the "relationship" between "Man and God".

It&#39;s just metaphysical babble.

What Mao was "good at" was organizing peasants to effectively rebel against their masters.

And that&#39;s no "small" accomplishment. The "Communist" Party of China really did smash centuries of feudal stagnation as well as the imperialist "conquerers" of China.

They deserve credit for that&#33;

Otherwise...???


Not only this, but Red Star 2000 is in complete denial that this is a WORLD situation, and that the struggles of peasantry in the third world DIRECTLY effect the revolutions in the first world. Nothing could be more relevant to the world revolution and the fight for communism, a stateless and classless society, than Maoism.

I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re getting at here.

I&#39;ve discussed many times the absolute necessity for American revolutionaries to support anti-imperialist insurrections in the "third world"...we cannot hope to make any progress at home until the American Empire is drastically weakened by being deprived of its conquests.

You&#39;ll recall the remarks made by Marx himself on this subject. Something along the lines of "the English proletariat cannot hope to free itself until Ireland is no longer in chains".

I think, in fact, that the main obstacle to proletarian class consciousness in the United States over the last 50 years has been the success of empire.

If it turns out that the Maoists are the most capable political formation in the "third world" for organizing the defeat of U.S. imperialism -- then that&#39;s fine with me.

And it&#39;s quite possible that such will be the case...the Maoists will "do 1789" better than anyone else.

The problem is the small number of remaining Maoists in the "west" who think that "China&#39;s 1789" has some relevance to modern proletarian revolution.

That just makes no sense at all.


The term personality cult refers to dogmatic and religious worship of a leader.

True...but explicitly religious terminology is not required. For example, consider the official Maoist slogan: Mao is the red sun in our hearts.

That&#39;s not explicitly "religious"...but the "odor" is there.

Mao himself explicitly distinguished between "good" personality cults and "bad" personality cults. He said that a personality cult around a leader was "good" provided that the leader puts forward a "correct political line".

And the RCP&#39;s Bob Avakian agrees with this.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with popularizing various different revolutionary leaders like Lenin, Mao, Fred Hampton, Bob Avakian, Prachanda, etc.

I disagree.

"Good" Personality Cults? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114268920&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

There&#39;s everything wrong about "publicizing various revolutionary leaders".

Once More Against "Leadership" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1090373295&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The proptracted people&#39;s wars in India and the Phillipines are both extremely relevant as well. It is you who exagerate on undercutting their revolutions. The revolution in India is especially important becasue of its connection to the Nepalese revolution.

The india revolutions are not at all turned toward bourgeois democracy.. I have no idea where you go that idea. The Maoist parties in India are engaged in active revolutionary activity, and are legally banned from India.

You are also making the mistake of giving too little credit to Mao&#39;s contributions other than protracted people&#39;s war. Mao&#39;s contributions on topics such as dissent in socialism, unleashing the masses, criticism and self-criticism, etc. are extremely relevant to the proletariat in even advanced imperialist countries.

The Chinese and Nepalese revolutions have absolutely nothing in common with the bourgeois revolution in France. They share absolutely nothing in common with capitalist revolution&#33; Next you will be claiming that the large scale collectivization, the liberation of women, and the even development of the city and countryside are al features of capitalism&#33; If those aren&#39;t features of socialism, then I don&#39;t know what the hell is. China during the cultural revolution achieved the highest level of socialism in human history&#33; The masses took up active roles, and began abolishing even the inequalities between the masses and the party.

You can claim that the material conditions do not exist in the third world, but that simply isn&#39;t true. You must realize that the world situation has GREATLY changed since Marx&#39;s time, and revolutions are no longer going to begin in the advanced capitalist countries like Marx said. Marx never lived to see the emergence of the imperialist system. The imperialist system has created a new world situation in which the masses of the third world have become what Maoists called the third world proletariat. The simple fact that they live in oppressed countries gives open opportunity for socialist revolution in the third world.

Maoists don&#39;t want communism?&#33; Please try not to be so absurdly subjective comrade.

Mao had LOTS to say about revolution in the imperialist countries. Perhaps you have not read his writings on Black and white proletarians in the United States? Or perhaps you haven&#39;t even looked at his writings at all? Although he did spend a great deal of time analyzing the situation within the third world, he also spent a great deal of time putting forward an ideology that could work for revolution in the first world, but by different strategy. For example, Maoists in various different imperialist countries advocate incurrestion (as in the USA), while in countries like Italy and Canada, Maoists advocate the strategy of insurrectionary people&#39;s war, which is a combination of both revolutionary strategies. Other areas of interest of Maoism for people in the first world is his incredible work on defending socialism from capitalist restoration, and taking an active stance against revisionism.

The thing that I am getting at, about third world revolution directly effecting the revolution in the oppressed nations, is that the establishment of socialism in the oppressed nations will result inevitably in a heightened revolutionary situation and worsened working conditions in the imperialist countries. This will GREATLY benefit the world revolution as a whole.

Your description of the line "Mao is the red sun in our hearts" IS an example of dogma, and something that both the RCP and Mao himself criticized as both dogmatism and goulash communism. Avakian discusses then in his Memoir actually..

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:27 PM
If you do not see the inherent problems of hierarchy...I can&#39;t help you.

If you don&#39;t see whats wrong with relying on a "leader" or a "vanguard" then I can&#39;t help you either.

I&#39;m glad to see that you recognize the need for most influential, advanced sectors of the working class to rise up and educate, agitate, and organize their fellow workers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and it is indeed essential.

You are, unfortunatley, caught up in the rhetoric my friend. People like you see anarchism in practice as a movement with no established goals or direction. You identify with the same reactionary ideas that the bourgeosie identify with.

We are all animals, we can&#39;t do something unless there is a coercive hierarchy making us do something. Hm...what can I say...go back to the 1500&#39;s and read some Thomas Hobbes?

Organization is no problem...guns to our backs is. We both recognize the need to provoke the masses. Here&#39;s the difference...in practice (not pretty rhetoric), one method directly involves and empowers people while the other sidelines and disenfranchises them. All 75 years of Leninist leadership could not raise class consciousness in the Soviet Union. The Spanish Revolution did more to empower the working class in one week than the Soviet Union did in its entire span...and no...don&#39;t spit back at me the wonderful advances of state capitalism to me and tell me that it had something to do with letting people run their own lives more.

Are you claiming that you can do it "better"?

I would say that:

a.) No, nobody can do it better...history shows us that it doesn&#39;t work

b.) My point above is highly contestable BUT if you want to tell me that prick Avakian is the next Lenin...well...I&#39;ll try to stiffle my laughter.
You miss the point. Maoists DO see the problem with hierarchy. It is anarchists who do not understand and comprehend this issue. If you do not have a socialist transition stage in which the vanguard leads the masses themselves to struggle against and abolish all inequalities, then the inherent inequalities that are still deeply rooted in society will give rise to the restoration of hierarchy and inequality in an anarchistic society.

It doesn&#39;t matter how much you try to use pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous remarks in the place of actual logical arguements because you do not actually understand the role of a vanguard, you are only revealing to the people on this board who actually understand the meaning of the word vanguard that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I spent 3 years of my life in the anarchist movement. I am not stupid or ignorant of anarchism and anarchist ideologies.

The Spanish Civil War is not something I would be bragging about. All of the advances that were made for women in the Spanish Civil War NATURALLY withered away, because the inequalities and chauvanism that were still rooted in society and culture. Compare that to the advances made by women in socialist China, which lasted the entire socialist period (1949-1976) and weren&#39;t rolled back until years after the restoration of capitalism in China.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red Heretic
Mao&#39;s contributions on topics such as dissent in socialism, unleashing the masses, criticism and self-criticism, etc. are extremely relevant to the proletariat in even advanced imperialist countries.

After the Shanghai "January storm" (1966), there was no significant public dissent in Mao&#39;s China.

It&#39;s true that prior to that great upheaval that threatened to establish a "Shanghai Commune" (modeled on the celebrated Paris Commune), Mao did publicly call upon the masses to "bombard the headquarters".

He recognized the emerging modern bourgeoisie that was, of course, inside the party and even inside the party leadership.

In other words, he saw with his own eyes what was really happening: 1789&#33;

And he didn&#39;t like it. And he tried to stop it.

But when the most radical elements of the party and the masses of working people in the most developed and politically advanced city in China responded to Mao&#39;s call by moving in the direction of at least a quasi-proletarian revolution...well, Mao shit himself in terror -- along with all of the "leading sections" of the party.

The masses were threatening to "get out of hand" and "take over everything themselves."

Horrors&#33; :o :o :o

So Mao, like all despots ("enlightened" and otherwise), called in the army.

After Shanghai, there were "mass committees" set up -- each with direct participation (oversight) by trusted army officers to make sure that the masses did not "get out of hand again".

Such was Mao&#39;s track record in "unleashing the masses". :angry:

As to the ritual of "criticism and self-criticism", I have already noted its historically primitive character here...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291969382 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42584&view=findpost&p=1291969382)


The Chinese and Nepalese revolutions have absolutely nothing in common with the bourgeois revolution in France.

You wish&#33;

In fact, the only real difference between France in 1789, China in 1949, and Nepal right at this very moment is terminological.

The use of "radical language" by the proto-bourgeoisie was known "back then" and it still is not at all uncommon.

Radical language is useful in mobilizing the masses to overthrow the old feudal regime...but that does not mean that it&#39;s true.

And one must also remember what Leninists always hate to be reminded of: material reality prevails&#33;

To put it bluntly and briefly: if you attempt to create "a socialist state" in a primitive country then your "socialism" will be primitive...and, in fact, will become capitalism.

Suggesting otherwise simply illustrates that Maoism in the "west" has completely abandoned Marx&#39;s historical materialism.

As you, in so many words, admit...


You must realize that the world situation has GREATLY changed since Marx&#39;s time, and revolutions are no longer going to begin in the advanced capitalist countries like Marx said.

Ok...fair enough.

But it would help matters a lot if you and all Maoists would stop calling yourselves Marxists&#33;

You have no right to appropriate the name and reputation of that great revolutionary thinker to cover up the ugly corpus of your own shabby metaphysics.


Marx never lived to see the emergence of the imperialist system.

What horseshit&#33; You think there was no such thing as imperialism until after Marx died?

What do you imagine the Haitian slaves were rebelling against at the beginning of the 19th century? Did the French conquer Algeria in 1840 because "they were having a bad hair day"? Did the British wage a cruel and bloody war against the rebellious peasants of India in the 1850s "to avoid dishonour"? Were the "opium wars" fought to defend "the right to get high"?

The 19th century was characterized by imperialist wars and anti-imperialist struggles...both plainly visible to Marx and Engels.

To be sure, I&#39;m well aware of the "idea" that emerged after the beginning of the last century...that "imperialism" was a "new stage" or even the "highest stage" or "last stage" of capitalism. This was not "just Lenin&#39;s idea" -- there were books promoting this thesis written by a number of prominent social democratic theorists prior to World War I.

I do not, in fact, find this hypothesis at all compelling. It seems to me that imperialism has been part of capitalism from the beginning...the search for cheap resources (including human labor power) and profitable markets is built in to the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism.

No "special analysis" is "required" to explain imperial wars of conquest or inter-imperialist wars between rival capitalist despotisms.

The reason that Lenin pounded so hard on this idea of "imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" is that he needed a rationale to make the prospects for socialism in Russia look plausible.

And it "sounded Marxist"...even though it wasn&#39;t. There was never any prospect for "socialism" in Russia back then.

The proof was in the practice...just four short years after Lenin&#39;s coup, he himself was telling his own party that state capitalism would be a great advance over "the present situation". And he was also begging for foreign capitalists to invest money in Russia.

You see, it was 1789 there&#33;&#33;&#33;


The imperialist system has created a new world situation in which the masses of the third world have become what Maoists called the third world proletariat. The simple fact that they live in oppressed countries gives open opportunity for socialist revolution in the third world.

A perfect example of Maoist anti-Marxist "shabby metaphysics".

People over there are to be told that what they are doing is "making socialist revolution"...even though what will actually happen is 1789&#33;

It&#39;s quite likely that third world Maoists believe their own rhetoric...sincerely think that "socialism" is what they&#39;re going to "build".

But what&#39;s your excuse (or that of any "western" Maoist) for swallowing that rubbish?

May I just assume that all of you folks are simply totally ignorant of the basic fundamentals of Marxist historical materialism?


Maoists don&#39;t want communism?&#33;

They don&#39;t think communism is possible...except in some far distant future era -- after many eons of "guidance" by the Leninist party and its "Great Leader".

What "western" Maoists actually want right now is a society that would fundamentally resemble what we have now...except that the capitalist class would no longer possess either wealth or power. Instead, the power would be in the hands of the Party and the wealth in the hands of a state apparatus created and run by the Party.


For example, Maoists in various different imperialist countries advocate insurrection (as in the USA), while in countries like Italy and Canada, Maoists advocate the strategy of insurrectionary people&#39;s war, which is a combination of both revolutionary strategies.

No they don&#39;t. No one, not even a Maoist, is so idiotic as to advocate insurrection of any kind in any developed capitalist country at this time.

We shall, in time, learn what "western" Maoists really think...when a potentially revolutionary situation actually emerges in one or several imperialist countries.

Assuming, of course, that there will still be any Maoists left in the "west".

I rather doubt that there will be. Their numbers have steeply declined over the last three decades and their various "vanguard parties" have, one by one, collapsed.

Sure, the RCP is still active -- even though it is much smaller than it used to be.

But we&#39;ll see when the time comes. :)

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

[Correa]

Great debate&#33; I&#39;m all ears. =D

[praxis1966]

China during the cultural revolution achieved the highest level of socialism in human history&#33;

Statements like these are why I detest Maoism. Hundreds of thousands of people died at the hands of Mao and his followers during the Cultural Revolution and you people praise him for it. It&#39;s every bit as disgusting as the Stalinists glossing over the purges or Neo-Nazis praising the aims of the Holocaust. Killing everyone who disagrees with you is never the solution, and neither are the RCP or Bob Avakian.

Besides, if your arguments are so week that you have to kill someone without even attempting to change their minds, you&#39;re probably not worth supporting in the first place.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don&#39;t know if I agree with you there. I&#39;m completely for the immediate elimination of the bourgeoisie.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I don&#39;t know if I agree with you there. I&#39;m completely for the immediate elimination of the bourgeoisie.

There wasn&#39;t really a bourgeois in China at that time, if any group was targeted it was the feudal aristocracy.

[enigma2517]

Maoists DO see the problem with hierarchy. It is anarchists who do not understand and comprehend this issue.

Explain

Is this why you want to remove this hierarchy by...introducing more of it? :huh:


If you do not have a socialist transition stage in which the vanguard leads the masses themselves to struggle against and abolish all inequalities, then the inherent inequalities that are still deeply rooted in society will give rise to the restoration of hierarchy and inequality in an anarchistic society

If the masses are too "childish" to recognize the need and benefit of eliminating inequalities then I hardly think there is anything you or your Maoist leadership can do to convince.

In my opinion, seizing all means of production and having them owned in common by the people would certaintly go a long way in abolishing class and the antagonisms that go with it. It would us more good than any "Cultural Revolution".


It doesn&#39;t matter how much you try to use pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous remarks in the place of actual logical arguements because you do not actually understand the role of a vanguard, you are only revealing to the people on this board who actually understand the meaning of the word vanguard that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Thanks for letting me know I&#39;m wrong. Now heres the crazy part: PROVE IT&#33;

As far as I can see you&#39;re doing nothing but making over generalized statements to counter my arguments and then not saying a single thing to actually back them up. Since am I so unaware of the vanguard and its role, would you like to explain it so I can actually point out where you are wrong?

Perhaps I dont "understand" what the role of a vanguard is, but I know what I have SEEN the vanguard do as far as replacing the capitalist class and introducing a few social safety nets.

I live in America and I want communism. It&#39;s as simple as that.

The means determine the ends...elitest, hierarchial methods of organization do not appeal to me...I don&#39;t need them&#33;

The political party is a bourgeosie invention, you know that right? If we&#39;re fighting the bourgeosie...aren&#39;t we using the wrong tool for the job?

Don&#39;t tell me that the Maoist party is a "Proletarian organization" either. The only thing that seperates it form any other kind of permanently hierarchial structure is its rhetoric (or "line" whatever you want to call it). Any other differences are as Redstar said "metaphysical babble"

[Redmau5]

The very fact that he is called Bob should show why he couldn&#39;t possibly lead a revolution.

I could just picture it........

Communist one: We need someone to inspire the masses &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Communist two: Let us follow comrade Bob &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Communist one: You&#39;re having a laugh aren&#39;t ya? Comrade Bob?
Communist two: How about if I call him Chairman Bob?
Communist one: Nah, still doesn&#39;t do it for me. Someone called Bob just ain&#39;t meant to lead us to the communist utopia.
Communist two: :( I know.........(sigh)

[Hiero]

I&#39;ll admit that the situation in Turkey is, well, unclear to me at this time. It seems "far-fetched" to me that Maoism would have a whole lot of appeal to the Turkish proletariat...though I suppose it&#39;s possible. I would be inclined towards the view that a more traditional Leninist party (like Lenin&#39;s Bolsheviks) would be more attractive to Turkish workers than "exotic" Maoism. Turkish workers now resemble, in my opinion, Russian workers of 1917 -- half modernized and half pre-modern.

Um what the hell are you talking about? What excactly makes an exotic ideology and practice, and what is the basis for your assumption that the Turkish would not take to Mao, but take more to traditional Leninist party?

Because of your choice of words, im assuming you just pulled that asumption from thin air.


I think we have had a thread before about destroying the RCP. Basically it&#39; the most opportunistic and idiotic idea that has been brought up in the whole history of this forum. What exactly do you plan to do, march around yelling "Fuck the vangaurd, Fuck the RCP". Yeah great idea, i got a better idea, we merge all the parties into one alliance and dedicate all our work to removing the RCP, because im sure that is the most important thing to do.

[donnie_middel1]

lol. i dunno man maybe he would fly if he was called sideshow bob lol,

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:13 AM
The very fact that he is called Bob should show why he couldn&#39;t possibly lead a revolution.

I could just picture it........

Communist one: We need someone to inspire the masses &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Communist two: Let us follow comrade Bob &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Communist one: You&#39;re having a laugh aren&#39;t ya? Comrade Bob?
Communist two: How about if I call him Chairman Bob?
Communist one: Nah, still doesn&#39;t do it for me. Someone called Bob just ain&#39;t meant to lead us to the communist utopia.
Communist two: :( I know.........(sigh)
I&#39;d like to see the RCP disappear, but just to be fair, attacking Avakian on nothing more than his name is a bit low; you need to attack his ideas. (which isn&#39;t that hard)

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by JKP+Nov 12 2005, 04:57 PM--> (JKP @ Nov 12 2005, 04:57 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 08:13 AM
The very fact that he is called Bob should show why he couldn&#39;t possibly lead a revolution.

I could just picture it........

Communist one: We need someone to inspire the masses &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Communist two: Let us follow comrade Bob &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Communist one: You&#39;re having a laugh aren&#39;t ya? Comrade Bob?
Communist two: How about if I call him Chairman Bob?
Communist one: Nah, still doesn&#39;t do it for me. Someone called Bob just ain&#39;t meant to lead us to the communist utopia.
Communist two: :( I know.........(sigh)
I&#39;d like to see the RCP disappear, but just to be fair, attacking Avakian on nothing more than his name is a bit low; you need to attack his ideas. (which isn&#39;t that hard) [/b]
Twas not meant to be taken seriously.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The odd thing here is that attacking "the man" is also attacking his ideas&#33; Because, the personality cult of himself is a large part of his [and subsequently his party&#39;s] "ideas".

[JC1]

What idea&#39;s are there too atack ? Avaikian&#39;s "work&#39;s" are empty peices of shit better described as poetry then theory. The RCP&#39;s paper is actualy very good, indeed, the reprint&#39;s of avaikian&#39;s "work" are the main detrimental factor&#39;s of there party press.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 11 2005, 12:00 AM

RedStar2000: That is a very large post. Seeing as how my ability to post on this site is generally limited to 5 minute increments when I can sneak on... it may be a while before I can fully respond, but I will try to respond to your post tonight after my parents go to bed.

:unsure:

Are you banned from going on this site? ......and why?
Well, not to stray too much from the subject matter of this thread... but I guess I need to explain to you guys where I&#39;ve been all this time, and why I have to go to such great lengths to post on this board.

About 3 months ago, my parents confronted me with a family contract that said that I had to sign it or go to boot camp. included in the contract were things like "no internet" and "no communist books"along with "no communist friends." All of this because my good christian family needs to save me from communist atheism before its too late&#33; I post on this board in secracy now.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 11 2005, 08:04 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 11 2005, 08:04 PM)
Red Heretic
Mao&#39;s contributions on topics such as dissent in socialism, unleashing the masses, criticism and self-criticism, etc. are extremely relevant to the proletariat in even advanced imperialist countries.

After the Shanghai "January storm" (1966), there was no significant public dissent in Mao&#39;s China.

It&#39;s true that prior to that great upheaval that threatened to establish a "Shanghai Commune" (modeled on the celebrated Paris Commune), Mao did publicly call upon the masses to "bombard the headquarters".

He recognized the emerging modern bourgeoisie that was, of course, inside the party and even inside the party leadership.

In other words, he saw with his own eyes what was really happening: 1789&#33;

And he didn&#39;t like it. And he tried to stop it.

But when the most radical elements of the party and the masses of working people in the most developed and politically advanced city in China responded to Mao&#39;s call by moving in the direction of at least a quasi-proletarian revolution...well, Mao shit himself in terror -- along with all of the "leading sections" of the party.

The masses were threatening to "get out of hand" and "take over everything themselves."

Horrors&#33; :o :o :o

So Mao, like all despots ("enlightened" and otherwise), called in the army.

After Shanghai, there were "mass committees" set up -- each with direct participation (oversight) by trusted army officers to make sure that the masses did not "get out of hand again".

Such was Mao&#39;s track record in "unleashing the masses". :angry:

As to the ritual of "criticism and self-criticism", I have already noted its historically primitive character here...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291969382 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42584&view=findpost&p=1291969382)


The Chinese and Nepalese revolutions have absolutely nothing in common with the bourgeois revolution in France.

You wish&#33;

In fact, the only real difference between France in 1789, China in 1949, and Nepal right at this very moment is terminological.

The use of "radical language" by the proto-bourgeoisie was known "back then" and it still is not at all uncommon.

Radical language is useful in mobilizing the masses to overthrow the old feudal regime...but that does not mean that it&#39;s true.

And one must also remember what Leninists always hate to be reminded of: material reality prevails&#33;

To put it bluntly and briefly: if you attempt to create "a socialist state" in a primitive country then your "socialism" will be primitive...and, in fact, will become capitalism.

Suggesting otherwise simply illustrates that Maoism in the "west" has completely abandoned Marx&#39;s historical materialism.

As you, in so many words, admit...


You must realize that the world situation has GREATLY changed since Marx&#39;s time, and revolutions are no longer going to begin in the advanced capitalist countries like Marx said.

Ok...fair enough.

But it would help matters a lot if you and all Maoists would stop calling yourselves Marxists&#33;

You have no right to appropriate the name and reputation of that great revolutionary thinker to cover up the ugly corpus of your own shabby metaphysics.


Marx never lived to see the emergence of the imperialist system.

What horseshit&#33; You think there was no such thing as imperialism until after Marx died?

What do you imagine the Haitian slaves were rebelling against at the beginning of the 19th century? Did the French conquer Algeria in 1840 because "they were having a bad hair day"? Did the British wage a cruel and bloody war against the rebellious peasants of India in the 1850s "to avoid dishonour"? Were the "opium wars" fought to defend "the right to get high"?

The 19th century was characterized by imperialist wars and anti-imperialist struggles...both plainly visible to Marx and Engels.

To be sure, I&#39;m well aware of the "idea" that emerged after the beginning of the last century...that "imperialism" was a "new stage" or even the "highest stage" or "last stage" of capitalism. This was not "just Lenin&#39;s idea" -- there were books promoting this thesis written by a number of prominent social democratic theorists prior to World War I.

I do not, in fact, find this hypothesis at all compelling. It seems to me that imperialism has been part of capitalism from the beginning...the search for cheap resources (including human labor power) and profitable markets is built in to the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism.

No "special analysis" is "required" to explain imperial wars of conquest or inter-imperialist wars between rival capitalist despotisms.

The reason that Lenin pounded so hard on this idea of "imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" is that he needed a rationale to make the prospects for socialism in Russia look plausible.

And it "sounded Marxist"...even though it wasn&#39;t. There was never any prospect for "socialism" in Russia back then.

The proof was in the practice...just four short years after Lenin&#39;s coup, he himself was telling his own party that state capitalism would be a great advance over "the present situation". And he was also begging for foreign capitalists to invest money in Russia.

You see, it was 1789 there&#33;&#33;&#33;


The imperialist system has created a new world situation in which the masses of the third world have become what Maoists called the third world proletariat. The simple fact that they live in oppressed countries gives open opportunity for socialist revolution in the third world.

A perfect example of Maoist anti-Marxist "shabby metaphysics".

People over there are to be told that what they are doing is "making socialist revolution"...even though what will actually happen is 1789&#33;

It&#39;s quite likely that third world Maoists believe their own rhetoric...sincerely think that "socialism" is what they&#39;re going to "build".

But what&#39;s your excuse (or that of any "western" Maoist) for swallowing that rubbish?

May I just assume that all of you folks are simply totally ignorant of the basic fundamentals of Marxist historical materialism?


Maoists don&#39;t want communism?&#33;

They don&#39;t think communism is possible...except in some far distant future era -- after many eons of "guidance" by the Leninist party and its "Great Leader".

What "western" Maoists actually want right now is a society that would fundamentally resemble what we have now...except that the capitalist class would no longer possess either wealth or power. Instead, the power would be in the hands of the Party and the wealth in the hands of a state apparatus created and run by the Party.


For example, Maoists in various different imperialist countries advocate insurrection (as in the USA), while in countries like Italy and Canada, Maoists advocate the strategy of insurrectionary people&#39;s war, which is a combination of both revolutionary strategies.

No they don&#39;t. No one, not even a Maoist, is so idiotic as to advocate insurrection of any kind in any developed capitalist country at this time.

We shall, in time, learn what "western" Maoists really think...when a potentially revolutionary situation actually emerges in one or several imperialist countries.

Assuming, of course, that there will still be any Maoists left in the "west".

I rather doubt that there will be. Their numbers have steeply declined over the last three decades and their various "vanguard parties" have, one by one, collapsed.

Sure, the RCP is still active -- even though it is much smaller than it used to be.

But we&#39;ll see when the time comes. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
No political dissent in China?&#33;??&#33; What the fuck??? What the hell do you think the cultural revolution was???? It was an entire period or dissent and rebllion against all forms of oppressive hierarchy, backward ideas, and reactionary authorities, even within the communist party itself.

Yes, the fact that Mao recognized the bourgeoisie within the party was a huge contribution the international communist movement. Maoists recognize that there is a bourgeoisie within the communist party. However, you are taking Mao&#39;s analysis COMPLETELY out of context.

The reason that there was a bourgeoisie within the party had nothing to do with the revolution being "1789." The bourgeoisie exists within the communist party because in many ways, capitalist restoration is in the interests of the party. This problem was not consolidated to the Chinese revolution, but existed in all three socialist states that had existed (The Soviet Union, China, and Albania). This is why Mao and Jiang realized that the masses themselves need to be armed and organized into people&#39;s militias that police the party and keep it in line. Unfortunately, by the time that they realized this, it was too late to save socialism in China. Once again, the emerging bourgeoisie and the threat of capitalist restoration are characteristics of ALL socialist states, and not just of the Chinese revolution, and reforms must be made to socialist states in the future to prevent corrution within the party and capitalist restoration.

Mao did not "shit himself in terror." He WANTED the masses to take power, and he wanted to reduce the dependancy and role of the party in socialist society to prevent capitalist restoration. Mao was not power hungry, as you seem to be hinting. If he were, then he would not have resigned from his position as Chaiman after the failure of the GLF economic plan.

In regard to the only difference being terminological: BULLSHIT&#33; You didn&#39;t even address my points&#33; The massive collectivization of land and industry is not a characteristic of capitalism&#33; It is SOCIALISM and the dictatorship of the proletariat whether you want to admit it or not. Like Mao said, the industial proletariat played the lead role in the chinese revolution, even though the peasantry fought most of the battles.

Maoists have not deviated from historical materialism, but rather, it is you, who treat Marx as some sort of Messianic prophet who should be strictly adhered to in a world 160 years later that looks VERY different that the world he analyzed. We have adhered to historical materialism, and not any form of dogma.

We call our selves Marxist-Leninist-Maoists because our ideas are still rooted in Marxism, even in we do have criticism&#39;s, and even if we expand on Marx&#39;s ideas.

When Lenin and Mao refer to imperialism, they are not referring to it in the bourgeois context of the world, but rather in the context of a stage of world wide domination of the oppressed nations by the oppressor nations. At the time that Marx wrote, capitalism had not developed to this stage. There were imperialist and colonial wars in hos time, yes, but not the imperialist system.

Your subjective conspiracy theories about Lenin&#39;s theories are probably more degrading to you than they are to Lenin.

We look at communism in a realistic and dialectical materialist way. Communism is absolutely impossible until the fundamental contradictions between nations states are resolved, communism cannot exist, period. The entire world needs to be socialist before we can have communism. Claiming anything else would be adventurist and metaphysical.

The RCP is actually growing rapidly right now... so I am not exactlysure what makes it is smaller than it used to be...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The RCP is actually growing rapidly right now...

What do you base your assessment on? The RCP doesn&#39;t disclose it&#39;s membership numbers and never has. And members are required not to disclose any such information.


so I am not exactlysure what makes it is smaller than it used to be...

I am. The students of the 60&#39;s that made up its bulk went back to their middle class lives after college and took up positions bossing around proles.

You see, for them it&#39;s a choice .. for us class concious proles, it&#39;s really not.

[JKP]

No political dissent in China?&#33;??&#33; What the fuck??? What the hell do you think the cultural revolution was???? It was an entire period or dissent and rebllion against all forms of oppressive hierarchy, backward ideas, and reactionary authorities, even within the communist party itself.

Re-read what RS2k wrote.



Yes, the fact that Mao recognized the bourgeoisie within the party was a huge contribution the international communist movement. Maoists recognize that there is a bourgeoisie within the communist party. However, you are taking Mao&#39;s analysis COMPLETELY out of context.

It was a step foward for the movement, but not to actually achieving communism, seeing as how material conditions didn&#39;t allow it.


The reason that there was a bourgeoisie within the party had nothing to do with the revolution being "1789." The bourgeoisie exists within the communist party because in many ways, capitalist restoration is in the interests of the party. This problem was not consolidated to the Chinese revolution, but existed in all three socialist states that had existed (The Soviet Union, China, and Albania). This is why Mao and Jiang realized that the masses themselves need to be armed and organized into people&#39;s militias that police the party and keep it in line. Unfortunately, by the time that they realized this, it was too late to save socialism in China. Once again, the emerging bourgeoisie and the threat of capitalist restoration are characteristics of ALL socialist states, and not just of the Chinese revolution, and reforms must be made to socialist states in the future to prevent corrution within the party and capitalist restoration.

Actually it had more in common with 1789 than you would like to admit. Maoism is an advanced form of protectionism that allows peasant countries to become capitalist in a hurry. It&#39;s funny when you speak of "capitalist restoration" when capitalism, for the most part, didn&#39;t exist in China. It was still primarily of fuedal composition. The only path that China could of taken was to become capitalist; material conditions demand it.



Mao did not "shit himself in terror." He WANTED the masses to take power, and he wanted to reduce the dependancy and role of the party in socialist society to prevent capitalist restoration. Mao was not power hungry, as you seem to be hinting. If he were, then he would not have resigned from his position as Chaiman after the failure of the GLF economic plan.

Unfortunately, the reality is quite different.



In regard to the only difference being terminological: BULLSHIT&#33; You didn&#39;t even address my points&#33; The massive collectivization of land and industry is not a characteristic of capitalism&#33; It is SOCIALISM and the dictatorship of the proletariat whether you want to admit it or not. Like Mao said, the industial proletariat played the lead role in the chinese revolution, even though the peasantry fought most of the battles.

On the first note, you once again completely ignore material reality; China was a peasant country. Yes there were proletarian elements, but they were only a tiny minority. Genuine communism can only happen with a proletariat majority. It&#39;s basic Marxist theory, something which Leninism has no regard for.

And as for the dicatorship of the proletariat, that didn&#39;t exist in China. The closest they had was the Shanghai commune, and that was suppressed.



Maoists have not deviated from historical materialism, but rather, it is you, who treat Marx as some sort of Messianic prophet who should be strictly adhered to in a world 160 years later that looks VERY different that the world he analyzed. We have adhered to historical materialism, and not any form of dogma.

This speaks for itself. The shame is that you don&#39;t realize it.




We call our selves Marxist-Leninist-Maoists because our ideas are still rooted in Marxism, even in we do have criticism&#39;s, and even if we expand on Marx&#39;s ideas.

See above.




When Lenin and Mao refer to imperialism, they are not referring to it in the bourgeois context of the world, but rather in the context of a stage of world wide domination of the oppressed nations by the oppressor nations. At the time that Marx wrote, capitalism had not developed to this stage. There were imperialist and colonial wars in hos time, yes, but not the imperialist system.

We are all committed to defeating imperialism. Even as an Anarchist, I support all anti imperialist struggles whatever form they take, including Maoism.

The point is that Leninism and Maoism are irrelevent to the countries that are doing imperialism.



We look at communism in a realistic and dialectical materialist way. Communism is absolutely impossible until the fundamental contradictions between nations states are resolved, communism cannot exist, period. The entire world needs to be socialist before we can have communism. Claiming anything else would be adventurist and metaphysical.

Dialectics have nothing to do materialism.

And yes, I agree that the contradictions between nation-states need to resolved before communism can exist, but once again you make an assertion that goes against material reality. Namely, that we need socialism before we can achieve communism. The reality is that we need capitalism before we can achieve communism. Your assertion is profoundly in contradiction with Marx. Even if you consider adhering to material reality to be "dogmatic".


The RCP is actually growing rapidly right now... so I am not exactlysure what makes it is smaller than it used to be...

I actually tried to visit the local RCP bookstore for a few laughs; the problem was their door was locked during open hours.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
We look at communism in a realistic and dialectical materialist way. Communism is absolutely impossible until the fundamental contradictions between nations states are resolved, communism cannot exist, period. The entire world needs to be socialist before we can have communism. Claiming anything else would be adventurist and metaphysical.

You think that Marx was "metaphysical"...for recognizing the historical and material differences between different countries.

It would presumably follow from your "criticism of Marx" that all such differences must be "abolished" before communism is "possible".

What is this if not a recipe for postponing communism forever?

After all, the world will never be "the same" everywhere and "therefore" the time will never arrive for the "transition" to communism.

So what Maoists really want is an eternal despotism of the Party and its Great Leader. What you really promise us is "better emperors" than all previous forms of class society.

That&#39;s not good enough.

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hiero
What exactly makes [Maoism] an exotic ideology and practice, and what is the basis for your assumption that the Turkish [proletariat] would not take to Mao, but take more to [a] traditional Leninist party?

Because Turkish workers have already been "semi-modernized"...like Russian urban workers in, say, 1900-1917. Turkish workers are not backward peasants looking for a "benevolent emperor".

I think Turkish workers would find Maoist rituals "too exotic" to be appealing.

Lenin&#39;s more "down-to-earth" approach and "plain speaking" would, I think, appeal much more to them.

Of course, I am admittedly speculating...but my speculation is grounded in historical materialism -- something as alien to "western Maoism" as the surface conditions on Pluto.

They think that humans everywhere want to march in big parades carrying huge pictures of a "Great Leader".

Imagine an enormous balloon replica of Bob Avakian at the next Macy&#39;s Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York City. Picture his swollen mug towering over the streets of the city.

That&#39;s sort of what they have in mind. :lol:

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

[Red Heretic]

What do you base your assessment on? The RCP doesn&#39;t disclose it&#39;s membership numbers and never has. And members are required not to disclose any such information.

It was actually just a personal analysis of what I&#39;ve seen springing up in the areas around me. Everything has grown dramatically in the past 9 months around here, and we&#39;re right here in the belly of the beast (Houston and Austin)&#33;

[Solidarnosc]

The thought of a Avakian blimp isn&#39;t a nice one. But, redstar2000, with your patronising attitude towards debate, one can&#39;t help but feel that if you were to ever take power in a hypothetical sense we&#39;d see the same thing, only the aforementioned blimps in your image, rather than Avakian&#39;s.

And no, I&#39;m not an RCP apologist.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:07 PM
The thought of a Avakian blimp isn&#39;t a nice one. But, redstar2000, with your patronising attitude towards debate, one can&#39;t help but feel that if you were to ever take power in a hypothetical sense we&#39;d see the same thing, only the aforementioned blimps in your image, rather than Avakian&#39;s.

And no, I&#39;m not an RCP apologist.
I have said from my earliest posts on this board (late 2002) that I have no desire whatsoever to be a "leader" of anyone.

I&#39;m not recruiting anyone to anything.

No one on this board even knows what I look like...I am completely uninterested in being or becoming an "icon" or "leading personality".

In fact, I don&#39;t even want to be "in power" over anyone.

Consequently, permit me to suggest that your image of me as "Avakian-like" in my aspirations stems not from your hypothetical sympathies with the RCP but rather from gross ignorance of my own views...as expressed in nearly 10,000 posts.

Criticize me as harshly as you think I deserve...but at least attempt to make your criticisms have some remote relationship to what I have actually said.

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

[STI]

About 3 months ago, my parents confronted me with a family contract that said that I had to sign it or go to boot camp. included in the contract were things like "no internet" and "no communist books"along with "no communist friends." All of this because my good christian family needs to save me from communist atheism before its too late&#33; I post on this board in secracy now.

Holy shit&#33; Props to you for coming here anyway man.

[celticfire]

I think redstar2000 is right that Maoism has been historically progressive, especially in the third world countries. And in China the revolution was swallowed by a newly emerged (or capable) bourgeoisie that originated within the party.

Mao did see this as a problem, but redstar2000 and the pseudo-ignorant-anarchist people contradict themselves.

Someone with a (praxis66?) had a Sinn Fein avatar but denounces Maoism - WTF??? Sinn Fein laid down arms, and now clings to the skirt of the British bourgeoisie&#33; But anyway, this person made the assertion the Cultural Revolution killed thousands of people...

As redstar2000 pointed out there were real revolutionary upheavals like the January Storm. But these things were brought into creation by teenagers who factionalized the hell out of things and began turning on each other instead of focusing on the bourgeois leaders running around. Some got into gun battles, executions and more. It was (revolutionary) self-defeating chaos.

So, if Sinn Fein boy thinks violence is bad (probably, since you advertise the bastard Sinn Fein&#33;) he can go ignore the boards, it called REVOLUTIONARY left not CAPITULATE left&#33;

For redstar2000 - what would have happened if that had implemented the direct democracy with all the factionalized red guards?

I can&#39;t say the Cultural Revolution proved historically to be an all achieving method. The RCP&#39;s programme even admits it didn&#39;t stop the bourgeois from seizing power.

Whatever Sinn Fein boy thinks about the Cultural Revolution, I have to agree with redtar2000 that was probably the loftiest, highest moment of the Cultural Revolution. The CR was a real live revolution, and real live revolutions have violence and excess.

[Red Heretic]

I don&#39;t have long to post, but I need to respond to RedStar&#39;s points (or JKP&#39;s total lack of). The point that RedStar2000 is missing in his posts, is that it is not the "majority" class that neccessarily leads a revolution.

In the French Revolution of 1789, it was not the bourgeoisie that was in the majority, but it was the bourgeoisie that led that revolution forward.

During the Chinese and Russian revolutions, the proletariat was not in the majority, but the proletariat DID lead those revolutions forward.

It is not the class that is in majoirty that defines the class characteristic of revolution, but rather the class that is physically leading that revolution.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:38 AM

About 3 months ago, my parents confronted me with a family contract that said that I had to sign it or go to boot camp. included in the contract were things like "no internet" and "no communist books"along with "no communist friends." All of this because my good christian family needs to save me from communist atheism before its too late&#33; I post on this board in secracy now.

Holy shit&#33; Props to you for coming here anyway man.
Thank you comrade :D

Although it is very difficult for me to post on this board, I do so at every moment that I can, because I think there alot of crucial questions and work that needs to be done at this point in time. With only 6 months left until I turn 18, I would rather risk boot camp than be cut off. Of course, if I am "dissappeared" for a few month, you&#39;ll know where I went.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by celticfire+--> (celticfire)But these things were brought into creation by teenagers who factionalized the hell out of things and began turning on each other instead of focusing on the bourgeois leaders running around. Some got into gun battles, executions and more. It was (revolutionary) self-defeating chaos....what would have happened if that had implemented the direct democracy with all the factionalized red guards?[/b]

Who knows?

Maoism, as a variant of Leninism, holds it to be "self-evident truth" that the masses (including teenagers&#33;) are "inherently incapable" of self-government.

Without "qualified leadership" (themselves), everything will just "turn into chaos".

Perhaps this "would" have been the case in Shanghai. The masses in China "were" and "are" too backward to assume and utilize power. This was certainly Lenin&#39;s own view about the Russian masses of his own time.

But this is another example of what makes Leninism in general and Maoism in particular an anachronism in the "west". Ordinary people here are far more information-rich ("culturally advanced") than is the case in the "third world". And, with the internet, that process is accelerating.

Advanced capitalist societies are where the proletariat learns both the necessity of self-government and "how to do it".

They are where that "eternal illusion" of class society finally crumbles...that timeless quest for a "really benevolent despot" is finally abandoned as utterly futile.

I contend that the masses in the "west" are either already capable of self-government or will approach that point in the course of this century.

It is certainly legitimate to challenge my contention...but reality imposes severe constraints on your challenge. If not this century, then what about the next? Or the one after that?

I don&#39;t think that "western" Maoists believe that it will ever "really be possible" to "let the people decide".

Because if that were possible, then there&#39;d be nothing left for the Party to do.

Horrors&#33;


Red Heretic
In the French Revolution of 1789, it was not the bourgeoisie that was in the majority, but it was the bourgeoisie that led that revolution forward.

Quite true. Marx and Engels pointed out that "all previous revolutions" simply deposed one minority ruling class in order to replace it by another.

We are ruled today by an "aristocracy of capital" that is just as much an arrogant minority as the court of a Roman emperor.

But Marx and Engels went on to point out that proletarian revolution would be different. It would arise from the material self-interests of the overwhelming majority of the population and would, when successful, actually abolish all classes.

Thus one cannot extend "by rule of thumb" the characteristics of all "prior revolutions" to include that of proletarian revolution.

I think Marx and Engels were right about this; it will be something very different from anything the world has ever seen before.

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

[Red Heretic]

Maoism, as a variant of Leninism, holds it to be "self-evident truth" that the masses (including teenagers&#33;) are "inherently incapable" of self-government.

This accusation is absolutely utterly false. Avakian really went into explaining this in his speech "Revolution" (which can be obtained here: www.threeqvideo.com. The masses are perfectly capable of governing themselves, when they are given the opporunity to aspire to such a task.

For example, you cannot take a group of ex-slaves right after the civil war, and expect them to be able to be doctors, intellectuals, scientists, etc. They have no idea about any of that&#33; They&#39;ve been deprived of educations because of this system and all of it&#39;s shit. However, you CAN put them in a situation where they are given educations, and able to fully aspire to their human ability, and those ex-slaves can become doctors, intellectuals, and scientists.

That stuff doesn&#39;t happen overnight. It will be a struggle to educate the masses and uproot all of the inequalities that are and will be deeply embedded in society immediatly after capitalism.



But this is another example of what makes Leninism in general and Maoism in particular an anachronism in the "west". Ordinary people here are far more information-rich ("culturally advanced") than is the case in the "third world". And, with the internet, that process is accelerating.

Bullshit&#33; If what you are saying were true, than capitalism will "naturally" uproot all inequalities in society, and there isn&#39;t even any need for a revolution. Only SOCIALISM can do that&#33;

The truth is that capitalism inevitabely widens the gaps of inequalities, and strengthens contradictions. Not vice versa. This system robs the proletariat of its education.

The reason that those living in imperialist countries are more educated is because imperialist countires have disproportionately larger petty-bourgeois classes. The size of the petty-bourgeoisie will be DRAMATICALLY decreased by proletarian revolutions in the third world, that force the imperialists to return the means of production to their own home countries.


Quite true. Marx and Engels pointed out that "all previous revolutions" simply deposed one minority ruling class in order to replace it by another.

We are ruled today by an "aristocracy of capital" that is just as much an arrogant minority as the court of a Roman emperor.

But Marx and Engels went on to point out that proletarian revolution would be different. It would arise from the material self-interests of the overwhelming majority of the population and would, when successful, actually abolish all classes.

Thus one cannot extend "by rule of thumb" the characteristics of all "prior revolutions" to include that of proletarian revolution.

It will be different. It will abolish classes. However, it will do that through the dictatorship of the proletariat and world revolution, which will resolve the contradictions that cause classes to exist in the first place. Proletarian revolutions are not "magical" revolutions in which ONLY the proletariat takes part, and none of the classes that the proletariat leads take part. Such an accusation or thought is metaphysical and utterly naive.

I believe you are walking the line of being dogmatic about Marxism.

[Red Powers]

From Red Heretic

For example, you cannot take a group of ex-slaves right after the civil war, and expect them to be able to be doctors, intellectuals, scientists, etc. They have no idea about any of that&#33; They&#39;ve been deprived of educations because of this system and all of it&#39;s shit. However, you CAN put them in a situation where they are given educations, and able to fully aspire to their human ability, and those ex-slaves can become doctors, intellectuals, and scientists.

That stuff doesn&#39;t happen overnight. It will be a struggle to educate the masses and uproot all of the inequalities that are and will be deeply embedded in society immediatly after capitalism.

How is it that we are discussing recently emancipated slaves. I thought the discussion was about the self-emancipation of the proletariat in a capitalist country. When did the RCP become the vanguard of the Freedmen? :D

Sure if you are talking about Reconstruction maybe there is a need for petite bourgeois leaders but if you have to go back that far to find a situation where your view of revolution is appropriate I think you&#39;ve just proved Redstar&#39;s charge of anachronism


And your comments about education being the sole preserve of the PB are the real bullshit here. Since the GI bill after WWII millions of people from working class backgrounds have acquired at least portions of a college education. How many PB kids go to Community Colleges? Not all of these educated proles make it into the PB, so again Redstar&#39;s contention that the proletariat is moving towards an ability to rule society seems born out.



It will be different. It will abolish classes. However, it will do that through the dictatorship of the proletariat and world revolution, which will resolve the contradictions that cause classes to exist in the first place. Proletarian revolutions are not "magical" revolutions in which ONLY the proletariat takes part, and none of the classes that the proletariat leads take part. Such an accusation or thought is metaphysical and utterly naive.


Yes, the "dictatorship of the PROLETARIAT. Not the dictatorship of the party and certainly not the dictatorship of Avakian or anybody like him. An ironic dictatorship because the proletariat will be a majority. For the first time in history an exploited class is in position to rule society without any exploited classes. Certainly it will not be magical but if you are a proletarian it will be "fantastic." Liberation from all the little dictators that go by the name boss or any of its synonyms -- manager, chief, mayor, president, chairman etc., that will be fantastic. But its also not magical because the unique leading role of the proletariat is based upon material conditions particularly where the class stands in relation to the means of production. Now you can charge me with being dogmatic about Marxism, but the way I read things is that only the proletariat is going to carry the revolution through to the abolition of wage labor, the abolition of classes and finally getting rid of the state. Every other class (basically the PB) is going to want to stop at some point. They can&#39;t be counted on to be "down for the whole thing."

[Red Heretic]

How is it that we are discussing recently emancipated slaves. I thought the discussion was about the self-emancipation of the proletariat in a capitalist country. When did the RCP become the vanguard of the Freedmen? :D

Sure if you are talking about Reconstruction maybe there is a need for petite bourgeois leaders but if you have to go back that far to find a situation where your view of revolution is appropriate I think you&#39;ve just proved Redstar&#39;s charge of anachronism

It&#39;s called a metaphor. My point is just as true for present day society. The proletariat in the ghettos and barios in the United States is exploited and oppressed to the point where it has been completely deprived of a decent education, and it has been indoctrinated with the morality and culture of the bourgeoisie.

The kids youth around me growing up in the ghetto have deeply rooted backward ideas, and lack of education. They cannot articulate themselves. They are obssessed with capitalist culture (ie. platinum, spinning car rims, etc.). They called women "*****es" and view them as vessels to be masturbated into. These sorts of backward ideas and inequalities can only be uprooted by socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, along with its vanguard party which will lead the proetariat to struggle against and uproot all backward and oppressive ideas and culture.

I am reminded of the historical example that the anarchists (yeah, I used to be one of them) love to parade around about, the Spanish Civil War. During the Spanish Civil War, initially, women took up arms and took active part in the struggle against fascism. However, after only the first 6 weeks women were back in their traditional roles, and even people like George Orwell recorded that the men were laughing at the revolutionary women and the "absurdity" of women taking up arms. There was a deeply rooted inequality, in the form of male chuavanism, still in Spanish society. And unless you have a vanguard party and socialism, to unleash the masses to struggle against those backward ideas, then you can&#39;t abolish those inequalities.

If you were to tell everyone that they were equal imediately after the revolution, you would be lying. Those with a monopoly on educmation would become the new rulers of society, because those with the lack of education would be in a situation of dependence and eventually subservience to those with educations.


And your comments about education being the sole preserve of the PB are the real bullshit here. Since the GI bill after WWII millions of people from working class backgrounds have acquired at least portions of a college education. How many PB kids go to Community Colleges? Not all of these educated proles make it into the PB, so again Redstar&#39;s contention that the proletariat is moving towards an ability to rule society seems born out.


What the hell does "PB" stand for?

[Red Powers]

From Red Heretic

It&#39;s called a metaphor. My point is just as true for present day society. The proletariat in the ghettos and barios in the United States is exploited and oppressed to the point where it has been completely deprived of a decent education, and it has been indoctrinated with the morality and culture of the bourgeoisie.

You may call it a metaphor, I call it bait and switch. We are talking about the ability of the proletariat to rule society and you bring in a metaphor based upon the least developed class of people in US society and you have to go back 135 years to find them. This is not materialism. When I call you on it you make an even more ridiculous argument that modern day proletarians might as well be plantation slaves.

These young people that you talk about in the ghettoes and barrios (and whom you seem to think are universally backward) are light years more advanced than the Freedmen. Even the crappiest inner-city education is far better than what a slave got. And most of them know quite well how the world functions. They are in much better shape to run society than the ex-slaves. But you only see their deficiencies, their backwardesses, their inability to articulate themselves. Why is that? Could it be class stand? The RCP is wedded to the idea that the masses are backwards and need the party to run things. My take is that the proletariat actually does make society run and is capable of running society.


I don&#39;t know what all this is about anarchism but I&#39;m not an Anarchist.

[Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 16 2005, 06:03 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 16 2005, 06:03 AM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 09:07 PM
The thought of a Avakian blimp isn&#39;t a nice one. But, redstar2000, with your patronising attitude towards debate, one can&#39;t help but feel that if you were to ever take power in a hypothetical sense we&#39;d see the same thing, only the aforementioned blimps in your image, rather than Avakian&#39;s.

And no, I&#39;m not an RCP apologist.
I have said from my earliest posts on this board (late 2002) that I have no desire whatsoever to be a "leader" of anyone.

I&#39;m not recruiting anyone to anything.

No one on this board even knows what I look like...I am completely uninterested in being or becoming an "icon" or "leading personality".

In fact, I don&#39;t even want to be "in power" over anyone.

Consequently, permit me to suggest that your image of me as "Avakian-like" in my aspirations stems not from your hypothetical sympathies with the RCP but rather from gross ignorance of my own views...as expressed in nearly 10,000 posts.

Criticize me as harshly as you think I deserve...but at least attempt to make your criticisms have some remote relationship to what I have actually said.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
You have magnificently missed the point of my post.

1/10.

Read it again.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:22 PM
Without "qualified leadership" (themselves), everything will just "turn into chaos".

But this is another example of what makes Leninism in general and Maoism in particular an anachronism in the "west". Ordinary people here are far more information-rich ("culturally advanced") than is the case in the "third world". And, with the internet, that process is accelerating.


:lol: If that was true the revolutionary left blog would be the biggest blog in the world with everybody who is oppressed particpating in it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some foul-mouthed hip hop "artist" rapping about "gang banging" whores and "busting a cap" into a rival is lot more popular even in the oppressed African American population than Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez.

The internet is making the masses more culturally advanced? Well thats not really the case is it? Most people in the mainstream population when not using the internet to look at porn are using it to find out the latest news about the private lives of movie "stars" and sports "heroes" which also explains why Entertainment Tonight is a lot more popular and watched then the entire on-air programming for PBS.

Also, you forgot that China 1949 is not America 20??. Whatever Mao did in revolutionary China for whatever intentions he took to the grave (or mausoleum :lol: ) with him. I&#39;m also pretty sure that his actions were influenced by the objective situation that he found himself in like being in a country with a massive population of semi-literate backward peasants. You can&#39;t really expect people like that to read the entire volume of Capital and understand it do you? As cultish and egotistical as it may seem the only way he could have popularise the ideals of socialism was to rely on slogans and homilies written in a small booklet. The important objective criteria to judge Mao was whether or not the masses of people were better off after the revolution than before it. Would it have been better if Mao didn&#39;t win so the KMT remained in power? If you want to know what the alternate China would resemble you need not look farther than India. Pre-Revolutionary China and India has about the same population size and semi-feudal social structure. So how is India now. And not talking about some small high-tech enclave where offshored western I.T. jobs go, but the masses of India. How are they doing with 50+ years of Capitalist development with no revolutionary interruptions? But back to what I was saying, China 1949 is not America 20?? so if the revolution does come its not going to be a repeat of the Chinese experience. Besides the only people who does that sort of thing now are televangelists so it would have been a lot easier for Mr. Avakian to go into the evangelical profession if he actually wanted to be a cult leader. Why wait till after the revolution?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16 2005, 08:54 PM


These young people that you talk about in the ghettoes and barrios (and whom you seem to think are universally backward) are light years more advanced than the Freedmen. Even the crappiest inner-city education is far better than what a slave got. And most of them know quite well how the world functions. They are in much better shape to run society than the ex-slaves. But you only see their deficiencies, their backwardesses, their inability to articulate themselves. Why is that? Could it be class stand? The RCP is wedded to the idea that the masses are backwards and need the party to run things. My take is that the proletariat actually does make society run and is capable of running society.


I don&#39;t know what all this is about anarchism but I&#39;m not an Anarchist.

You may call it a metaphor, I call it bait and switch. We are talking about the ability of the proletariat to rule society and you bring in a metaphor based upon the least developed class of people in US society and you have to go back 135 years to find them. This is not materialism. When I call you on it you make an even more ridiculous argument that modern day proletarians might as well be plantation slaves.

You either have absolutely no ability to understand the nature of class contradiction, or you are intentionally dancing around my post. The comment about slaves was to give the example of how a population that has been deprived of an education is naturally put into a situation of subservience to a population that has a monopoly on education. It doesn&#39;t matter population that is in subservience is ex-slaves, factory workers, peasants, or whatever. They all need a transition in which all of the inequalities within their population/class are uprooted, or they will return right back to subservience.

Do you think it would be a good idea to give direct democracy to the German population in Nazi Germany? That gets you you shit like the SS. Lynch mobs. The KKK. Men dominating women like in the middle east.


These young people that you talk about in the ghettoes and barrios (and whom you seem to think are universally backward) are light years more advanced than the Freedmen. Even the crappiest inner-city education is far better than what a slave got. And most of them know quite well how the world functions. They are in much better shape to run society than the ex-slaves.

Ex-slaves also had a more progressive view of women than the proletariat today has.

Most proletarians in the United States reject evolution, reject science, are deeply religious, have negative views of women, are extremely capitalistic... And the white sections of the proletariat have negative views of the Black sections of the proletariat&#33;



But you only see their deficiencies, their backwardesses, their inability to articulate themselves. Why is that? Could it be class stand? The RCP is wedded to the idea that the masses are backwards and need the party to run things.

NEWSFLASH: PROLETARIAN MEN BEAT THEIR WIVES&#33;

The proletariat is not some magical god to be worshipped as perfect. There are all kinds of contradictions are forms of oppression carried out by the proletariat, and inside the proletariat. The proletariat needs socialist revolution and a vanguard party to be led to struggle against the backward ideas and inequalities within itself before it can achieve communism, and before we can have a world free of all forms of oppression. Without a vanguard party to lead the proletariat to throw off all backward ideas within itself, those backward ideas will reign supreme&#33;

I am not taking a bourgeois, or petty-bourgeois stand as you have hinted. I am, however, pointing this out in an objective, and dialectical materialist way. The proletariat IS the class that is going to lead this all forward. It is a revolutionary class, and the class that will lead us out of all of this shit.

[Hiero]

Perhaps this "would" have been the case in Shanghai. The masses in China "were" and "are" too backward to assume and utilize power. This was certainly Lenin&#39;s own view about the Russian masses of his own time.

But this is another example of what makes Leninism in general and Maoism in particular an anachronism in the "west". Ordinary people here are far more information-rich ("culturally advanced") than is the case in the "third world". And, with the internet, that process is accelerating.

Advanced capitalist societies are where the proletariat learns both the necessity of self-government and "how to do it".

This is an idealist stance.

You forgot the main importance being class position. The peasants in 1949 China were at a revolutionary level the workers in the west haven&#39;t been in since the end of the war.*

The workers in the west today are so tightly surrounded by petty bourgeios thought.

You can&#39;t just assume that a "information-rich" ("culuturally advanced") means that they are more revolutionary or find the importance of fulfilling.

That&#39;s like assuming middle class people are the best to lead the revolution because of their education level. When most likely middle class people bring a petty bourgioes or half baked Marxism to the revolution.

Also you have yet to grasp that power by the people can be centralised.

*When Marx and Engels talked about Peasants being reactionary they were talking about in Germany were there was a two social systems, Capitalism and a minority Feudalism. There was never any class analysis

[Red Powers]

From Red Heretic

You either have absolutely no ability to understand the nature of class contradiction, or you are intentionally dancing around my post.

Although I love to dance I&#39;m not dancing around your post. And I certainly understand class contradiction. Like the one between you and I. I&#39;m standing up for my class, you seem intent on portraying the proletariat in as bad a light as possible. I&#39;m a part of the class, you seem to be on the outside looking in.


It doesn&#39;t matter population that is in subservience is ex-slaves, factory workers, peasants, or whatever.

Is this what passes for historical materialism and class analysis among you guys? Even a bourgeois historian would call bullshit on this everything-is-everything nonsense



They all need a transition in which all of the inequalities within their population/class are uprooted, or they will return right back to subservience.

And of course they will be guided by you in this necessary transition. :D


Do you think it would be a good idea to give direct democracy to the German population in Nazi Germany? That gets you you shit like the SS. Lynch mobs. The KKK. Men dominating women like in the middle east.

I think if the Raete(councils) had been able to sieze power in 1918 history would have been very different. But I think what you&#39;re asking is "Aren&#39;t the masses too fucked up to allow democracy?" My short answer is no. Your example of Nazi Germany, the KKK and the Middle East all point to societies where the bourgeoisie is in control. More democracy not less is the cure for each of those situations.



Ex-slaves also had a more progressive view of women than the proletariat today has.

Gee, how would you know that? I&#39;m not saying that you&#39;re just making stuff up, but I&#39;m curious how someone would establish such a fact. And is this why so many blues songs have lyrics about poisonig or shooting women (and men)?


Most proletarians in the United States reject evolution, reject science, are deeply religious, have negative views of women, are extremely capitalistic... And the white sections of the proletariat have negative views of the Black sections of the proletariat&#33;


Good thing we have a sizable "enlightened" petite bourgeoisie that has the skills to decipher the main man&#39;s speeches, understand his re(en)visioning of socialism, and lead these proletarian assholes to victory.



NEWSFLASH: PROLETARIAN MEN BEAT THEIR WIVES&#33;


Is that all proletarian men, or just some? And is it only proletarian men? Is it increasing? decreasing? What&#39;s your fucking point except to disparage the proletariat.





I am not taking a bourgeois, or petty-bourgeois stand as you have hinted. I am, however, pointing this out in an objective, and dialectical materialist way. The proletariat IS the class that is going to lead this all forward. It is a revolutionary class, and the class that will lead us out of all of this shit.


Well the reader can make up their mind about class stand. I don&#39;t mean to put you in the "camp of the enemy" or anything like that. I&#39;m actually impressed with the lengths you go to post here. But I do think there is a petite bourgeois line that says the working class is too degenerate to make revolution without the aid or guidance or leadership of other classes.

Is this really what you call objective and dialectical materialist? What I&#39;ve seen so far has been an unsubstantiated rant accentuating every negative sterotype of the working class and not a single positive besides your liturgical acknowledgement (see below) that the Proletariat is a revolutionary class. You really think this was objective? Materialist? You had me fooled.





The proletariat IS the class that is going to lead this all forward. It is a revolutionary class, and the class that will lead us out of all of this shit.
AAAAAmen&#33;

I don&#39;t understand how you could beleive this after all you&#39;ve said about the working class. Do you know why it is a revolutionary class? Why Marx picked on the proles (who were even more backward then) to go forward to communism?

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s kind of sad to see it...but I don&#39;t see how it can be denied that "western" Maoists have a deeply anti-working class prejudice almost "built-in" to their whole "outlook on things".

Consider these "samples"...


The workers in the west today are so tightly surrounded by petty bourgeois thought.


The comment about slaves was to give the example of how a population that has been deprived of an education is naturally put into a situation of subservience to a population that has a monopoly on education.


Most proletarians in the United States reject evolution, reject science, are deeply religious, have negative views of women, are extremely capitalistic... And the white sections of the proletariat have negative views of the Black sections of the proletariat&#33;


NEWSFLASH: PROLETARIAN MEN BEAT THEIR WIVES&#33;


Most people in the mainstream population when not using the internet to look at porn are using it to find out the latest news about the private lives of movie "stars" and sports "heroes" which also explains why Entertainment Tonight is a lot more popular and watched then the entire on-air programming for PBS.


The kids around me growing up in the ghetto have deeply rooted backward ideas, and lack of education. They cannot articulate themselves. They are obsessed with capitalist culture (i.e., platinum, spinning car rims, etc.). They called women "*****es" and view them as vessels to be masturbated into.

And so on. :(

It&#39;s the working class seen directly through the ideological lens of modern capitalism. Or script notes for a new PBS "Special Report" -- The Working Class -- Rotten Bastards All&#33;

And what, you might wonder, is the motive for all this Maoist invective?

Good question&#33;


Originally posted by Red Heretic
Without a vanguard party to lead the proletariat to throw off all backward ideas within itself, those backward ideas will reign supreme&#33;

Thus they dispose of Marx&#39;s "obsolete idea" that "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves".

Clearly all those rotten bastards must be made to behave better "for their own good".

It should not surprise you that the modern "western" working class is totally indifferent to Maoism. Why would they ever "accept the leadership" of people who despise them?

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

[Hiero]

Typicall, a hyped up rant with no content.

[Red Heretic]

Although I love to dance I&#39;m not dancing around your post. And I certainly understand class contradiction. Like the one between you and I. I&#39;m standing up for my class, you seem intent on portraying the proletariat in as bad a light as possible. I&#39;m a part of the class, you seem to be on the outside looking in.

Oh yawn. I am not intent on attacking the proletariat. I was attempting to debunk the dogmatic worship of the proletariat in an metaphysical way. To treat proletarians as if they are perfect simply because they are proletarians is a form of dogmatism, and is detrimental to the world revolution. You still have no responded to any of my analyses of the contradictions within the proletariat (the prejudice against Black proletarians by white prletarians, the domination of woman proletarians by male proletarians, etc.)

You keep dodging my analysis, because you do not have an answer to these question (which you absolutely can&#39;t have so long as you reject socialism).


And of course they will be guided by you in this necessary transition. :D

More blanket statements without any fact. Acuse me of being bourgeois and dismiss my arguements. Would it absolutely kill you to do some thinking?

Just for the record, I grew up in a predominately Black neighborhood, and I am not a member of any communist party (but I DO support the RCP).


My short answer is no. Your example of Nazi Germany, the KKK and the Middle East all point to societies where the bourgeoisie is in control.

You again have COMPLETELY dodged my arguements&#33; The cultural roots and inequalities still exist within the proletariat, even in the initial stages of socialism and the dictatroship of the proletariat&#33; If you put white male proletarians (who are the majority) in charge of society with all of the inequalities and backward ideas left of from capitalism, what will happen to Black and woman proletarians?&#33; It would be a horror&#33; Unless you have a socialist transition in which proletarians are brought forward to struggle against all backward ideas, then the world you and I both want will never come into being&#33;


Gee, how would you know that? I&#39;m not saying that you&#39;re just making stuff up, but I&#39;m curious how someone would establish such a fact. And is this why so many blues songs have lyrics about poisonig or shooting women (and men)?

Because in slavery, women to a great degree still took part in labor, so they were less domesticated to the home than they are now. This naturally led to a situation where women were less subordinate to their husbands, and slightly raised their position in society. A very similar thing had happene3d in the rural parts of China, where women took part in agriculture along with their husbands. Those women were actually in a slightly better position than the women in the inner cities.

Capitalism is detrimental to the situation of women.


Is that all proletarian men, or just some? And is it only proletarian men? Is it increasing? decreasing? What&#39;s your fucking point except to disparage the proletariat.

No, not all proletarian men beat their wives. That isn&#39;t the point. My point was to put it in your face and expose to you that there is a chauvanistic root deeply embedded in the proletariat. We need socialist revolution to get rid of that.

[Red Powers]

Red Powers

Although I love to dance I&#39;m not dancing around your post. And I certainly understand class contradiction. Like the one between you and I. I&#39;m standing up for my class, you seem intent on portraying the proletariat in as bad a light as possible. I&#39;m a part of the class, you seem to be on the outside looking in.



Oh yawn. I am not intent on attacking the proletariat. I was attempting to debunk the dogmatic worship of the proletariat in an metaphysical way. To treat proletarians as if they are perfect simply because they are proletarians is a form of dogmatism, and is detrimental to the world revolution. You still have no responded to any of my analyses of the contradictions within the proletariat (the prejudice against Black proletarians by white prletarians, the domination of woman proletarians by male proletarians, etc.)(emphasis added)

I never said you were attacking the proletariat but I don&#39;t think even you could deny that you paint a pretty bleak picture. Redstar&#39;s post above does a better job than I can of bringing that out.

Dogmatic worship of the proletariat?? First of all I don&#39;t worship. Second of all, where do you get this from? Where have I shown a worshipful, dogmatic attitude that holds the proletariat perfect? Or is it that if I criticize your one-sided, "undialectical," completely negative appraisal of the proletariat I must be a dogmatist who is detrimental to the world revolution. ehh&#33; I&#39;ve been called worse.

As far as the contradictions, black/white, male/female etc (because there are many more) in my lifetime I&#39;ve seen these situations improve dramatically.
Does that mean I&#39;m blind to them? No. I know there are backward proletarians but you make it seem like all proletarian white people want to kill Blacks and that all proletarian men are misogynists. Besides, don&#39;t these contradictions permeate all classes in bourgeois society.


You keep dodging my analysis, because you do not have an answer to these question (which you absolutely can&#39;t have so long as you reject socialism).

You don&#39;t have an analysis. As I said above it is an unsubstantiated rant that furthemore equates one class with another. My answer is that backward ideas have to be struggled against under the dictatorship of the proletariat or the proletariat organized as the ruling class. Now I don&#39;t think I rejected socialism in this thread so I guess I&#39;m flattered that you checked out my posts. I do actually reject a long transitional stage. I think the proletariat would have to move swiftly to get society moving in the direction of communism. What&#39;s your answer to these problems? Pass leadership to a less corrupted, better educated, more articulate group of people?



And of course they will be guided by you in this necessary transition. :D

More blanket statements without any fact. Acuse me of being bourgeois and dismiss my arguements. Would it absolutely kill you to do some thinking?


For the record the "you" in "guided by you" is a plural. I just took this from my reading of the RCP&#39;s draft programme, which is maybe not fair since you are only a supporter. And please note the smiley face which indicates sarcasm. Further, I haven&#39;t accused you of being bourgeois and on arguments see analysis above.

From Red Heretic

Do you think it would be a good idea to give direct democracy to the German population in Nazi Germany? That gets you you shit like the SS. Lynch mobs. The KKK. Men dominating women like in the middle east.


You again have COMPLETELY dodged my arguements&#33; The cultural roots and inequalities still exist within the proletariat, even in the initial stages of socialism and the dictatroship of the proletariat&#33; If you put white male proletarians (who are the majority) in charge of society with all of the inequalities and backward ideas left of from capitalism, what will happen to Black and woman proletarians?&#33; It would be a horror&#33;&#33;


You call that dumbass question about the nazis and the KKK an argument? I answered that idiocy as best I could, apparently you didn&#39;t care for the answer.
Now about this second quote I&#39;m a little confused. Is this something you read somewhere or is this just your own ideas? Because it seems to contradict reality. Nobody ever said anything about putting white male proletarians in charge. I for one when I speak of the proletariat include all those people employed or unemployed who have to earn their living by wage labor. I&#39;m pretty sure the majority of that group are women. What is the nature of this horror and why isn&#39;t it occuring right now? And who is going to prevent it? You seem to have a concept of the proletariat as barbarous semi-human beasts. In reality, where I live most of the time, men and women are getting along ok, and most people go to work and school and interact regularly with people of other races. Why would a revolution cause that to become a horror?


Unless you have a socialist transition in which proletarians are brought forward to struggle against all backward ideas, then the world you and I both want will never come into being


If the proletariat is as fucked-up as you seem to think, who is going to bring them forward to struggle against backward ideas? And when I see how you perceive this world I&#39;m a little suspicious of the world you want.





Because in slavery, women to a great degree still took part in labor, so they were less domesticated to the home than they are now. This naturally led to a situation where women were less subordinate to their husbands, and slightly raised their position in society. A very similar thing had happene3d in the rural parts of China, where women took part in agriculture along with their husbands. Those women were actually in a slightly better position than the women in the inner cities.

Capitalism is detrimental to the situation of women.


So you are just making stuff up. And it&#39;s not even good stuff. Do you have any idea what percentage of female African Americans work outside the home? Are you saying that these women today are more domesticated than in slavery times? Hell you might be right but you have to do better than to extrapolate from something you read on China.




No, not all proletarian men beat their wives. That isn&#39;t the point. My point was to put it in your face and expose to you that there is a chauvanistic root deeply embedded in the proletariat. We need socialist revolution to get rid of that.



When did proletarian men stop beating their wives? :lol: Is this chauvenistic root also deeply embedded in say the petite bourgeois? Does it come from patriarchal, capitalist society or is it a congenital defect of proles. Are there proles who aren&#39;t racists or misogynists? How did they get rid of it?


Here&#39;s the deal Red Heretic. The proletariat is a majority of the population in an advanced capitalist country. It is mostly made up of families of one sort or another, although there is a growing number of single person households. Workers get up and go to work when they have a job and they make the whole society run. They raise kids. Many of them have some college and some have degrees. There are portions of the working class that have very backward ideas like you describe but in the overall picture I don&#39;t believe they are that significant and a revolutionary situation has a way of "expanding consciousness." I saw it in the late 60s. People could go from total asshole right-winger to anti-warrior in no time.

So that&#39;s my class, if you see this as dogmatic worship that&#39;s too bad because it&#39;s really based on years and years of research. I&#39;m pretty certain that a revolutionary situation will call forth a vanguard from this class in the sense that some will be more advanced than others but they won&#39;t have power to impose their will on anybody. But at any rate the real proletariat (as opposed to your horror comic version) won&#39;t be following any self-proclaimed vanguards led by self-absorbed master dialecticians.

[praxis1966]

Someone with a (praxis66?) had a Sinn Fein avatar but denounces Maoism - WTF??? Sinn Fein laid down arms, and now clings to the skirt of the British bourgeoisie&#33; But anyway, this person made the assertion the Cultural Revolution killed thousands of people...

You obviously have absolutely no clue as to what you&#39;re talking about. First of all, Sinn Fein never had any weapons, so it would be impossible to disarm. They are a political party and always have been. Oglaigh na hEirran (the IRA) just laid down arms, and, just for your information, the two organizations severred official ties a long time ago.

Secondly, I hardly see how Sinn Fein are "clinging to the skirt of the British bourgeoisie." As of right now, they are currently in the process of demanding the publication of a green paper on Irish re-unification in the Irish parliament (a move which they were the first to make). I don&#39;t think I need to tell you how historically important this is. Did I mention that the Irish situation has exactly nil to do with the topic at hand?


So, if Sinn Fein boy thinks violence is bad (probably, since you advertise the bastard Sinn Fein&#33;) he can go ignore the boards, it called REVOLUTIONARY left not CAPITULATE left&#33;

First of all, learn how to puncuate your sentences and spell properly. Secondly, I can read lower case letters just fine. The caps aren&#39;t necessary. Further, I understand that violence in revolution is sometimes unavoidable, but that still doesn&#39;t excuse the murder of hundereds of thousands now does it? Besides, the real reason for disarmament was that it became appallingly obvious that violence hadn&#39;t gotten the republican movement any farther along than it was the day the Good Friday Agreement was signed.


Whatever Sinn Fein boy thinks about the Cultural Revolution, I have to agree with redtar2000 that was probably the loftiest, highest moment of the Cultural Revolution. The CR was a real live revolution, and real live revolutions have violence and excess.

There&#39;s no need for the condescention. Anyhow, next you&#39;ll be apologizing for Stalin as well. Well worked, mate.

At any rate, in summation I would only like to say one thing: Next time you decide to rip into something or someone, you might try getting your fucking facts straight.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Further, I understand that violence in revolution is sometimes unavoidable, but that still doesn&#39;t excuse the murder of hundereds of thousands now does it?

Depends who the "hundreds of thousands" are.

What/when are you talking about specifically? Or are you speaking hypathetically?

[praxis1966]

I was speaking in terms of the very real. During the truly chaotic period of the Cultural Revolution in China, from 1966-69, over 500,000 people were said to have died at the hands of the Red Guards. Although, many historians and internal critics have said that the figure should be much higher, as alot of the deaths in the work camps went unreported. Further, many of the deaths which occured while people were in police custody were actively covered up and labeled suicides.

The truth about the Cultural Revolution that you won&#39;t here from Maoists or their RCP sympathisers was that although there was some revolutionary motive, it was also used as an excuse for ethnic cleansing. That&#39;s right, I said it. Genocide. Ask them about the massacres of Hui Muslims, the ethnic Koreans, or the Mongolians (claiming that they were purging members of one Inner Mongolian People&#39;s Party, nevermind that it had been disbanded decades earlier). Most of this violence was directed at so-called foreign outsiders, nevermind that it was the work of foreign outsiders that created the Marxist-Leninist ideology which Mao held in such high esteem. These people were of no threat to the CCP or the revolution. The real problem was that they did not fit into the neat picture of ethnic Han superiority so prevalent within the party.

Further, there were tens of thousands of educated people killed, mostly teachers and college graduates. The real effect of this was an entire generation of under-educated Chinese would follow in the late 70s and early 80s. Further, it was also used in a very real way as the model for Pol Pot&#39;s Year Zero (something which even the most hardline Maoist can&#39;t deny was a right bit of nastiness).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I&#39;m not going to respond to the whole post, but:


Further, it was also used in a very real way as the model for Pol Pot&#39;s Year Zero (something which even the most hardline Maoist can&#39;t deny was a right bit of nastiness).

Can you back this up?

I&#39;ve read several written accounts that counter the argument that Year Zero used China as a "model"..

[Red Heretic]

Thus they dispose of Marx&#39;s "obsolete idea" that "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves".

You are either misinterpretting my post, or you are deliberately distroting what I just said. Vanguard leadership serves the purpose of leading the proletariat to emancipate itself and transform all of society. The vanguard party absolutely does NOT serve the purpose of ruling the proletariat.

[Red Heretic]

BULLSHIT. PERIOD. The Cultural revolution was carried out by the masses, in which the masses were unleashed to transform all of society. While it is true that there were incidents where struggle among the masses became violent (for example, women would get violent with men who had sexually harrassed them), violence was overall NOT the nature of the cultural revolution. Mao criticized rampant usage of violence.


The truth about the Cultural Revolution that you won&#39;t here from Maoists or their RCP sympathisers was that although there was some revolutionary motive, it was also used as an excuse for ethnic cleansing. That&#39;s right, I said it. Genocide. Ask them about the massacres of Hui Muslims, the ethnic Koreans, or the Mongolians (claiming that they were purging members of one Inner Mongolian People&#39;s Party, nevermind that it had been disbanded decades earlier).

Where the fuck do you get this shit? This unfounded claim isn&#39;t even worthy of responce.

To give an example of how bullshit this really is, there are some ethnicities in China that file down their teeth to be razor sharp. To show a sense of unity with these people, the Red Guards in their village during the revolution actually filed down thier teeth to show unity with this formerly oppressed nationality. They permenantly changed their appearance to show these people they legitamately seeked to build unity with their ethnicity.

Unfortuantely, I&#39;m out of time, and I will finish debunking this bullshit later.

[praxis1966]

Can you back this up?

I&#39;ve read several written accounts that counter the argument that Year Zero used China as a "model"..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cultural_revolution


Where the fuck do you get this shit? This unfounded claim isn&#39;t even worthy of responce.

See the link above. By the way, dismissing my argument out of hand isn&#39;t going to prove that it&#39;s not true. You need to come with some evidence.


To give an example of how bullshit this really is, there are some ethnicities in China that file down their teeth to be razor sharp. To show a sense of unity with these people, the Red Guards in their village during the revolution actually filed down thier teeth to show unity with this formerly oppressed nationality. They permenantly changed their appearance to show these people they legitamately seeked to build unity with their ethnicity.

I hate to tell you this, but a show of solidarity in one place doesn&#39;t necessarily indicate the purity of the whole of the movement. The fact is, after the failure of the Great Leap Forward&#39;s programs, the Cultural Revolution was a tool for Mao to eliminate his critics and consolidate his erroding power base. There were many, many intellectuals and party insiders purged whom Mao deemed to be a threat (whether real or percieved) in a fashion which can be likened to the Stalinist purges. Mao&#39;s &#39;self-criticism&#39; was nothing more than political Three Card Monty. Period.

[Red Heretic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cultural_revolution

Wikipedia is NOT a reputible source. Anyone can write anything on wikipedia. That&#39;s like saying "Oh, well so and so said so on this thread on RevLeft." That doesn&#39;t make it true&#33;


See the link above. By the way, dismissing my argument out of hand isn&#39;t going to prove that it&#39;s not true. You need to come with some evidence.

I need to come up with some evidence?&#33; That&#39;s like a Christian saying "you need to come up with some evidence that God doesn&#39;t exist&#33;" You can&#39;t prove that something that doesn&#39;t exist, doesn&#39;t exist.

You&#39;re the one making the most bogus claim I&#39;ve ever heard in my life, YOU COME UP WITH THE EVIDENCE. I lived in revisionist China, which hates the cultural revolution, and I STILL have never heard anything relatively close the the garbage you make up.

You don&#39;t even understand the basic means or purposes of the cultural revolution. The revolution wasn&#39;t carried out by the red guards, it was carried out by the masses standing up and taking control of society. It aimed to reduce reliance on the party, and to expose revisionism. If you want to claim that there weren&#39;t any revisionists in the party, or that the masses weren&#39;t struggling against capitalist restoration, then what the hell do you think happened in 1976 when Deng Xaioping restored capitalism?


The fact is, after the failure of the Great Leap Forward&#39;s programs, the Cultural Revolution was a tool for Mao to eliminate his critics and consolidate his erroding power base.

Mao resigned from his position as chairman because of the failure of the Great Leap Forward&#33; He didn&#39;t believe that he was right to lead Chinese Socialism at that time. He didn&#39;t have to resign. It wasn&#39;t until years later when themasses protested and demand that he be reinstated chairman that he became chairman again.

Mao started the cultural revolution because he saw Soviet revisionism, and he could see the tendency for capitalist restoration inside the Party taking place in China. Without criticism and resistance to revisionism within the party by the masses, capitalist restoration is ineviateble until communism&#33;


There were many, many intellectuals and party insiders purged whom Mao deemed to be a threat (whether real or percieved) in a fashion which can be likened to the Stalinist purges.

People were not "purged" from that party as in the Soviet Union under Stalin, because Mao relied on the masses, not administration and big beauracracy. The masses did however ciriticize, expose, and rebel against reactionary authorities in China, and drove many revisionists from the party.

That is a GOOD thing&#33;

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:19 AM
Further, it was also used in a very real way as the model for Pol Pot&#39;s Year Zero (something which even the most hardline Maoist can&#39;t deny was a right bit of nastiness).
This is absolutely utterly false. In fact, Pol Pot sided with Deng Xaioping over Jiang Qing after the cultural revolution, and said that the cultural revolution was counter-revolutionary&#33;


The real effect of this was an entire generation of under-educated Chinese would follow in the late 70s and early 80s.

WHAT?&#33;&#33;?&#33; The cultural revolution existed for the purpose of educating the masses, and enabling the proletariat to control society without being dependant upon the party&#33; The masses have never had greater control on human society than they had during the period of cultural revolution.

Did they make mistakes? Yep. Mao, and many other masses struggled with those making such mistakes, and criticized such errors as using violence as a means of ideological struggle.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21 2005, 01:27 PM

Thus they dispose of Marx&#39;s "obsolete idea" that "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves".

You are either misinterpretting my post, or you are deliberately distorting what I just said. Vanguard leadership serves the purpose of leading the proletariat to emancipate itself and transform all of society. The vanguard party absolutely does NOT serve the purpose of ruling the proletariat.
The historical record is rather clear on this point. You are simply wrong.

I don&#39;t see what you hope to gain by claiming otherwise.

It&#39;s not as if anyone with any sense at all will simply accept such claims "as a matter of faith".

On the contrary, your claims will be met with near universal derision.

Quite properly so&#33;

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

[red team]

Yes, it is a matter of faith, but that&#39;s what you really get with a representational system of government. Even in the so-called western democracies the government is made up of people representing the ruling class and I don&#39;t mean the electorate when I say that. I mean the government rules on behalf of the people with the majority OWNERSHIP of property in society.

Even after a revolution you&#39;ll still need some form of government even though it would be ruled over by people representing a different class, the working class instead of the propertied class. Although you have a valid argument that the ruling class may actually be ruling on their own behalf instead of for the interest of the working people, what you forget is that organization is key to maintaining power and with that instituting changes that benefit the working people. The working population is a lot more numerous than the population of the propertied class which accumulate wealth at the expense of the rest of us and has instituted a social system which makes it near impossible to be financially secure other than to follow the capitalist value of cut-throat competition in accumulating wealth through financial speculation and exploitation of labor. The question then becomes if the exploited working population is so much more numerous than the ones doing the exploiting why hasn&#39;t the ruling propertied class been overthrown already? Spontaneous organization simply doesn&#39;t work and hasn&#39;t work otherwise all exploitative systems including Capitalism would have been destroyed long ago. The more honest truth is that organization can only be achieved through leadership from those with the most advanced knowledge of how this system operates and know what it takes to eventually overthrow it. As to judge whether or not the people in leadership positions are ruling on behalf of the working people or simply ruling on behalf of themselves you look at the policies that are enacted by those in leadership positions. And lets not think that people are that stupid. Most people know when their being cheated and lied to if policies enacted are the opposite of what is being said by the leadership. People can&#39;t fill there stomache or heat there house through rhetoric alone so I&#39;m pretty sure most people can spot a Communist charlatan. But by condemning all leadership and opting for spontaneous organization you&#39;re just preventing organization itself and that&#39;s only going to preventing working people from fighting more effectively.

Also the thing that you need to remember is that the power structures of the present society is deeply ingrained and without a strong effective counterforce which takes leadership and organization to develop making long lasting positive changes are impossible. For example, what effective organization can act as a counter to the family organization? This is not a hypothetical or academic question. What&#39;s going to counter an authoritarian family headed by a patriarch which insists that backward views and ideology like religious fundamentalist nonsense are strictly followed through physical or financial threats to anyone dissenting? So far even in this society the only limited avenue that you could turn to is through government agencies and they are under attack by those in power who want to destroy even these limited gains. What makes you think it won&#39;t be any different for long time to come even after this system has been overthrown? Government and centralised leadership will be necessary for long time to come. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply living in an utopian dream world.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wikipedia is NOT a reputible source. Anyone can write anything on wikipedia. That&#39;s like saying "Oh, well so and so said so on this thread on RevLeft." That doesn&#39;t make it true&#33;

Right. Took the words out of my mouth.

[praxis1966]

Fine. Have a look at this then. It&#39;s basically just raw stats, and doesn&#39;t discuss the ethnicities of the victims, but I think the figures are staggering enough that it really doesn&#39;t matter. By the way, RH, you need to just stop with attempting to minimize the unbelievable scale on which death actually occured. Mistakes were made. My aching ass they were. I&#39;ve made alot of mistakes in my lifetime, and not one resulted in the death of at least half a million and perhaps 20 million.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

Or how about this. I personally don&#39;t appreciate all the editorializing that&#39;s done here, but the stated facts are still relevant.

http://www.epochtimesnews.net/index.php?content/view/178/37/

This is all beside the fact that even in some of the more sympathetic treatments I can find of Mao state that every one of his economic policies (i.e. The Great Leap Forward) were a total disaster, resulting in famine and death. Almost all of them state that the recovery was a credit to his subordinates, whom he later had sent to work camps.

http://www.nottinghamuniversity.com/iaps/C...lRevolution.pdf (http://www.nottinghamuniversity.com/iaps/CulturalRevolution.pdf)

The fact is, Maoism is bankrupt both in theory or practice. What I can&#39;t figure out is how you RCPers allowed yourselves to be indoctrinated into his cult of personality across thousands of miles and several decades. Perhaps it&#39;s like learning a language, once you&#39;ve got the first one the seconed one&#39;s a cinch. In other words, once you start worshipping Bob Avakian, Mao is no problem at all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red team
Yes, it is a matter of faith...

Well, that&#39;s not good enough&#33;

The "age of faith" has been waning for many centuries and continues to "wither away" under the criticism of science.

The "scientific attutude" is slowly but inevitably permeating the working class in all the advanced capitalist countries.

The idea that we should accept something (anything&#33;) as "true" merely because someone says it&#39;s true is obviously becoming more and more discredited.

I think this is part of the process of the working class making itself "fit to rule".

More and more, when some smooth-talking bastard gets up in front of people and says "Follow me and I&#39;ll set you free", we know that he&#39;s up to no good...except his own&#33;

Leninists deplore this rank "cynicism"...even suggesting that it&#39;s a "middle class intellectual" trait that "needs to be struggled against".

:lol:

The self-interest in such comments is as obvious as an elephant&#39;s trunk.

No one has ever suggested that the working class will "not" create organizational forms suitable for its purposes. It has "spontaneously" done so in the past and there&#39;s no reason to think it will not do so again in the future.

Indeed, we have some people on this board who have already created small groups that are solely composed of working people...they explicitly reject the whole idea of middle-class "leadership".

Those of you who retain your "faith" in the Leninist "vanguard" might want to consider those developments as very early "straws in the wind" with ominous implications for your project.

You think that people "need you" to "tell them what to do"...but they really don&#39;t.

And they are already discovering that.

Bad news for Chairman Bob...and possibly for you as well.

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

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I haven&#39;t had time to go through the rest but you quoted EPOCH TIMES??

:lol:

HOLY SHIT&#33; Do you know who these people are?

They are a rabidly anti-communist propaganda group set up and run by the falung gong people that follow that nut job Li Hongzhi&#33;

"In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi states that a Falun resides in the abdomen of all true practitioners of Falun Gong. Falun means "Wheel of Law" in the Chinese language, which can be translated as a Dharma wheel or a Chakra; to Falun Gong practitioners, the Falun is specifically a wheel consisting of five srivatsas and four taijitu, as illustrated on the top right-hand corner of this page. The Falun is said to be a miniature of the universe, and once it is installed into the abdomen, it turns continuously. When the Falun turns clockwise, it absorbs energy from the universe into the body; when it turns counter-clockwise it eliminates waste from the body. Some of Falun Gong practitioners believe they can see this Falun rotating in their abdomens, provided their "celestial eye" (said to be associated with the pineal body) is open."

The "epoch times" is a fucking joke.

[red team]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 23 2005, 04:20 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 23 2005, 04:20 PM)
red team
Yes, it is a matter of faith...

Well, that&#39;s not good enough&#33;

The "age of faith" has been waning for many centuries and continues to "wither away" under the criticism of science.

The "scientific attutude" is slowly but inevitably permeating the working class in all the advanced capitalist countries.

The idea that we should accept something (anything&#33;) as "true" merely because someone says it&#39;s true is obviously becoming more and more discredited.

I think this is part of the process of the working class making itself "fit to rule".

More and more, when some smooth-talking bastard gets up in front of people and says "Follow me and I&#39;ll set you free", we know that he&#39;s up to no good...except his own&#33;

Leninists deplore this rank "cynicism"...even suggesting that it&#39;s a "middle class intellectual" trait that "needs to be struggled against".

:lol:

The self-interest in such comments is as obvious as an elephant&#39;s trunk.

No one has ever suggested that the working class will "not" create organizational forms suitable for its purposes. It has "spontaneously" done so in the past and there&#39;s no reason to think it will not do so again in the future.

Indeed, we have some people on this board who have already created small groups that are solely composed of working people...they explicitly reject the whole idea of middle-class "leadership".

Those of you who retain your "faith" in the Leninist "vanguard" might want to consider those developments as very early "straws in the wind" with ominous implications for your project.

You think that people "need you" to "tell them what to do"...but they really don&#39;t.

And they are already discovering that.

Bad news for Chairman Bob...and possibly for you as well.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]

Well, that&#39;s not good enough&#33;

What&#39;s the alternative? Its true for any form of representative government. Leaders are elected and then you hope as much as you can that they won&#39;t stab you in the back. Even if the leader is a member of the working class this is still true so don&#39;t tell me thats not a matter of faith. And even then that&#39;s absolutely no guarantee that they won&#39;t enact policies that are actually bad for advancing Socialism either intentionally or through stupidity. Unless you have a policy of immediate recall of elected officials you&#39;re stuck with somebody representing you. And if you do have a policy of immediate recall of officials how often do you hold elections to judge their performance? once a year, once a month, once a week. People be spending more time in the ballot box and organizing election campaigns then working productively.

[ReD_ReBeL]

hmm i hear that Bob Avakian is associated with middle-eastern terrorist Jihads is this true?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red team
What&#39;s the alternative? It&#39;s true for any form of representative government.

Quite so...suggesting that this political invention of the emerging capitalist class must be replaced by something better.

By what? Here is a suggestion that I find most interesting...

Democracy without Elections; Demarchy and Communism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Further Notes on Demarchy (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083543192&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

You see here the conservative framework of the Leninist and the social democratic paradigms. We just "do what the bourgeoisie do" only "in the interests of the people".

Even the "most libertarian" Leninist can only envision a system of soviets that would resemble the U.S. congress or the British parliament...an elite set above the masses to govern them "for their own good".

From a materialist standpoint, all of the Leninist revolutions have been bourgeois revolutions...and thus the most "democratic" arrangement they could possibly imagine was bourgeois "representative" democracy.

I think that the genuinely proletarian revolutions of this century and the next will do much better than that.

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

[celticfire]

It is not true there is "faith" involved with MLM or even representational government.

What redstar2000 is advocating is a gigantic leap from capitalism directly to communism.

Marx (though I&#39;m sure RS2000 will deny it), Lenin and Mao all agreed there needed to be a transitional period called socialism. There will still be elections and we communists have a duty to make sure leaders stay on the revolutionary road, or we vote them out, replace them or simply revolt against them - that&#39;s how you keep leadership accountable&#33;

But in reality redstar2000 is advocating only formal methods (direct democracy) to keep authority in check. Capitalists-in-commie&#39;s berets can still come to power (we Maoists call them revisionists), or worse (and more likely) the entire lack of centralism could destroy them.

You don&#39;t need to look at the too distant past to see this.

Take the Black Panthers and COINTELPRO, the Feds did everything in there power to dissrupt the unity of the panthers, and thanks to the lack of centralism the feds were succesful and factions formed, and we know the rest is history.

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I wouldn&#39;t want to live in any socialism where redstar2000&#39;s views are freely debated and even more popular, because people (especially communists) should aways being say "fuck this, we want better&#33;" But as another comrade said on another board, there&#39;s nothing wrong with a hungry heart, except when you pass up real food for an imaginery feast.

RS2000 doesn&#39;t like war analogies, but revolution is a war. It is an act of violence in which one class surpresses another class. And we will need leadership, centralism and even orders. But at the same time we will need a meaningful and broad democracy and dissent. The two go hand in hand.

And as a side note, if any "socialist" government tried to silence rs2000 for his opinions I&#39;d be right next to the anarchists defending him - because even though I still really disagree, he is always challenging - and thats a good thing&#33; :)

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:36 PM

Take the Black Panthers and COINTELPRO, the Feds did everything in there power to dissrupt the unity of the panthers, and thanks to the lack of centralism the feds were succesful and factions formed, and we know the rest is history.

huh? Are you serious? The Black Panthers were very much a Leninist (actually they were MLM) party and were very centralized. The FBI killed off their leaders and it was like cutting off their head. If they were decentralized and there was more rank and file control then maybe they would not have been destroyed as easily.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by celticfire
What redstar2000 is advocating is a gigantic leap from capitalism directly to communism.

"Advocacy" is not quite the right word here. I&#39;m talking about what will happen...not because I or anyone has "convinced" the proletariat to "do it our way".

I think the "arrow of history" points unmistakably in this direction.

In the 20th century, we only saw "bits and pieces" of very temporary working class power...hardly more than "hints" of what might someday be possible.

The much more advanced working classes of this century and the one to follow are going to do far more than anyone thought possible...except Marx, of course. :lol:

The transition from capitalism to communism is very much a "gigantic leap"...it will make the whole era of bourgeois revolutions look like a "tea party".

To be sure, there are many now who shrink from such visions...who don&#39;t really think the masses could actually "run things" and are terrified of the possibility that they might try.

I can only predict a future of great fearfulness for them. If Marx was right, then we stand "on the edge" of things that have never been seen before. The final end of wage-slavery and class society will be the most significant thing to happen in human history probably since the discovery of fire.

It will most definitely not be the "orderly" transition that Leninists imagine they can "administer" and "guide" and "oversee".

They might just as well attempt to "guide" a hurricane.


Marx (though I&#39;m sure RS2000 will deny it), Lenin and Mao all agreed there needed to be a transitional period called socialism.

Well, they all had a good excuse...a small and backward proletariat amidst an ocean of even more backward peasants.

What could they have possibly advocated under such material circumstances but a kind of "enlightened" despotism?

In one sense or another, they thought that "socialism" was "necessary" to prepare people to live in a communist society.

People who still, for the most part, did not even know what indoor plumbing was, much less how to use it.

As one must constantly remind the Leninists, the times have changed.

Simply repeating your ancient formulas on this board serves no useful purpose. It is no more relevant to revolutionary politics in advanced capitalist countries than detailed instructions on the proper care and storage of medieval armor.


And as a side note, if any "socialist" government tried to silence rs2000 for his opinions I&#39;d be right next to the anarchists defending him - because even though I still really disagree, he is always challenging - and that&#39;s a good thing&#33;

Thank you for your kind words...but I don&#39;t think there are even going to be any "socialist governments" in the "west", so I am not really worried about hypothetical persecution.

"Socialism" is like an abandoned subway station...history&#39;s trains don&#39;t even slow down there any more. :)

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

[celticfire]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Nov 24 2005, 03:16 AM--> (SonofRage &#064; Nov 24 2005, 03:16 AM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 10:36 PM

Take the Black Panthers and COINTELPRO, the Feds did everything in there power to dissrupt the unity of the panthers, and thanks to the lack of centralism the feds were succesful and factions formed, and we know the rest is history.

huh? Are you serious? The Black Panthers were very much a Leninist (actually they were MLM) party and were very centralized. The FBI killed off their leaders and it was like cutting off their head. If they were decentralized and there was more rank and file control then maybe they would not have been destroyed as easily. [/b]

It&#39;s true the BPP was influenced by Maoism, but they had some serious flaws, even though I think they were the most revolutionary force in the U.S. at that time.

As rs2000 pointed out on another board, they never held a congress of members.

There was a serious lack of information between chapters, and even though they had strong centralized leadership leadership they fell apart at the repression and various view points on struggle, for example Angela Davis was more a revisionist (she ended up in CPUSA), as opposed to to the revolutionary line of others.

Then there were factions, some like the Cleaver faction that argued for guerrilla war in the U.S. There was even wrong orentations (they thought the U.S. was fascist then&#33;) on top of everything else, there was COINTELPRO.

Just calling yourself Marxist-Leninist-(Maoist) doesn&#39;t automatically mean you operate like one, or even are ideologically at that level. Just as being an "anarchist" doesn&#39;t automatically mean you run by consensus or are that ideological at that level.

And for their mistake, some also thought Korea was revolutionary and socialist(&#33;)
:blink:

Real centralism would have solved a lot of their problems. It was the lack of centralism that ultimately destroyed them.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:05 AM


Real centralism would have solved a lot of their problems. It was the lack of centralism that ultimately destroyed them.
I don&#39;t think there is much weight to that statement. How would "real centralism" have been better specifically?

You say that "There was a serious lack of information between chapters, and even though they had strong centralized leadership leadership they fell apart at the repression and various view points on struggle..." which seems to actually contradict your argument for more centralism.

Instead of power and information being decentralized, which would mean that all the chapters would have had to share information in order for them to coordinate, power and information was centralized at the top. The problem with such centralized power is that when you cut off the head you leave the body on its own to die.