What's wrong with the RCP, USA? [Archive]

Red Powers

28th November 2005, 22:47

Red Heretic

Red Powers, the RCP is in no way "anti-working class."

Alright, maybe I'm being "provacative" but the draft programme has little positive to say about large sections of the proletariat.

One of the things that has come out of imperialism is a section of the proletariat which has been completely bought off by the rulers of the imperialist system. They are essentially proletarians with bouregeois interests.

I don't think any proletarian has been completely bought off. If they are still proleatarians then they are engaged in the "now hidden, now open fight" of class struggle. Or do you suppose that the bourgeoisie has learned how to eradicate class struggle? There is indeed a strata of workers who are inclined to see things in a bourgeois light but this is a very small group and as soon as a crisis erupts it will get smaller.

The RCP has correctly analyzed the proletariat as being separated into two tiers, an upper, and a lower, proletariat. Even though fast food workers and the people living in projects who can't hold jobs longer than 6 months, and are under the constant threat of VERY REAL poverty don't necessarily fit into the traditional role of a proletarian, these people are proletarians.

Of course they are proletarians. I never said otherwise. But wasn't it you in the other thread that suggested that these people were hopelessly obsessed with platinum rims?

It is the people on the bottom of this society in the projects and ghettos who really have proletarian revolution in their interests, and more so than union workers with tons of privliges (not to say that these proletarians won't play a huge role in revolution).

Well see this is anti-working class. You are pitting one part of the class against another part when everybody knows that the working class wins through solidarity, an injury to one is an injury to all. Not by trying to decide which sector really has revolution in their interests. Proletrian revolution is in the interests of ALL proles.

And your use of the term "tons of priviliges" really is despicable. I understand that you've never benfited from these "priviliges." But I find it terribly demeaning to the workers to portray benefits won through sometimes deadly class struggle as "priviliges." Do you have any idea what the life of a coal miner, letter carrier, mailhandler, bus driver, garment worker etc. is like? And you want to call things like health care and pensions and SUB pay priviliges? Workers have earned those things and have fought like hell to get them. You think capitalists just "grant" those things out of the goodness of their hearts?

I was taken completely out of context in that thread.

Here's the thread again http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42479 The exchange between RH and I (and RS2K) begins on page four.

celticfire

30th November 2005, 14:29

Not to insult anyone, but I have found an immature trend among the anti-RCP crusaders.

I've been a supporter of the RCP for over a year now, and let me tell you why.
I've worked with the CPUSA, a myriad of trade unions, left-progressives, Trotskyists (lots of them!), anarchists, council communists, hippies, Greens, and a long list of others. All them had theories, different intepretations of history, etc.

The RCP has been the first group I've seen to actually go to the masses. I've seem the RCP be slandered some left groups, only for the RCP to go defend them when those groups are attacked.

I support the RCP because I know how badly those mass-murdering assh*les want to murder our revolutionary leaders like Mumia, Assata, and Avakian -- and even Ward Churchill and Lynne Stewart!

The fact of the matter is the RCP helped bring into creation mass movements like Nov. 2, October 22 (day against police brutality), and has for over 30 years survived attacks from cops, christian fascists and bourgeoisie alike.

I wonder if all of you who mock the RCP would have mocked the Black Panthers back in the day. Most of you I am sure are too young to know what it was like. (You can read about it here (http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/))

My point is this: why would people that call themselves "revolutionaries" or "radicals" spend so much time trying to discredit a revolutionary organization? It's either highly immature, or down right reactionary.

As I've said before, we can disagree about theories, programs, history...but the minute we start fighting eachother and not the capitalist swine, we are killing the revolution.

For all you who take shots at Avakian - have you read his works? Have you tried to? I wonder.

I didn't start to support the RCP because of it's stance, it was the opposite, I almost disagreed entirely. But not listening to other lefties, and doing what I consider rebeling among rebels, was to hear the RCP out. When I did, it changed everything.

I still have some disagreements, but principally I support the RCP as a truly revolutionary communist organization. And encourage everyone else to give them a chance.

Nothing Human Is Alien

30th November 2005, 15:14

Not to insult anyone, but I have found an immature trend among the anti-RCP crusaders.

Alot of people don't take "Maoists" seriously in the first world and even less take cults seriously. There's probably a corelation.

Satire does play a role in criticism, sometimes a great one!

You can't say that there haven't been detailed critical works done on the RCP though, because there have.

I've been a supporter of the RCP for over a year now, and let me tell you why.
I've worked with the CPUSA, a myriad of trade unions, left-progressives, Trotskyists (lots of them!), anarchists, council communists, hippies, Greens, and a long list of others. All them had theories, different intepretations of history, etc.

The RCP has been the first group I've seen to actually go to the masses. I've seem the RCP be slandered some left groups, only for the RCP to go defend them when those groups are attacked.

If you're saying that the RCP is the only group that does mass work you're either misinformed or purposely lying. I imagine it's the former.

If groups are trying to promote an ideology -- communism -- and the feel that another group is misrepresenting it, I think that they should come out and say it.

For instance, I don't want people to think what I'm promoting has anything to do with "great leaders" and personality cults, and I'll let that be known at any chance I get.

I have said time and time again however that one thing the RCP does right is the level of activity of its members. They are definitely one of the most active groups, and for that they should get credit.

People should unite with them in whatever that can as far as activity goes, but it should be on their own basis and platform.

I support the RCP because I know how badly those mass-murdering assh*les want to murder our revolutionary leaders like Mumia, Assata, and Avakian -- and even Ward Churchill and Lynne Stewart!

I don't think Avakian is anywhere close to the level of Mumia and Assata on the Feds "hit list". Most people have no idea who he is.

The fact of the matter is the RCP helped bring into creation mass movements like Nov. 2, October 22 (day against police brutality), and has for over 30 years survived attacks from cops, christian fascists and bourgeoisie alike.

Lots of communist parties have front groups, and most of them are much bigger than those of the RCP, so what's your point?

I wonder if all of you who mock the RCP would have mocked the Black Panthers back in the day. Most of you I am sure are too young to know what it was like. (You can read about it here)

The Black Panthers were alot different than the RCP. There was no cult of personality in the BPP, and they were the most revolutionary group in the US at that period in history. The RCP isn't and never has been.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken you are "too young to know what it was like" as well.

My point is this: why would people that call themselves "revolutionaries" or "radicals" spend so much time trying to discredit a revolutionary organization? It's either highly immature, or down right reactionary.

As I've said before, we can disagree about theories, programs, history...but the minute we start fighting eachother and not the capitalist swine, we are killing the revolution.

See above.

For all you who take shots at Avakian - have you read his works? Have you tried to? I wonder.

I for one have. I tried to view them as objectively as possible infact, but to be honest they are very boring and wordy.

Sometimes he takes three pages to say what could be expressed in a sentance, and frankly, I don't think he is bringing anything really "new".

Besides, even if he was everything he, and RCPers say he was -- I would still oppose the cult of personality built around him.

I didn't start to support the RCP because of it's stance, it was the opposite, I almost disagreed entirely. But not listening to other lefties, and doing what I consider rebeling among rebels, was to hear the RCP out. When I did, it changed everything.

I still have some disagreements, but principally I support the RCP as a truly revolutionary communist organization. And I encourage everyone else to give them a chance.

There probably are many people who have never "dug into" any of the RCPs works who are critical, and that is bullshit. But I think alot of us have, and obviously don't feel the same way as you.

What is the big problem, according to those in constant opposition, with the RCP? I want coherent replies. No idiotic shit-talking. Let's have a serious discussion. The RCP has put forth a draft programme, what is yours? Is there an actual problem here?

Obviously there are quite a few problems or there wouldn't be opposition.

See above for some, search the board for others.

Is there anyone else that is seriously working to make revolution in this country, revolution that stands in support of world-wide revolution?

In the U.S.? Of course.

The RCP considering itself the only party "seriously working to make revolution in this country, revolution that stands in support of world-wide revolution" is a part of the problem.

Is this "cult of personality" nonsense your only "real" problem?

Why is it nonsense; because you say so?

Or is it a problem with the draft programme? It is just a draft you know. Is it MLM?

Can I choose all of the above?

What line do you follow?

Personally I follow this (http://www.fpm-mgl.org/manifesto) one:

"We are not yet another political party formed around a particular doctrinaire, dogma, or “ism”, but rather a movement which bases its actions on current material conditions, the failures and achievements of the past (and the lessons they have taught us), and on the living – and constantly developing – revolutionary scientific theory of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. "

This is not humor.

Maybe not, but it the cult of Bob surely can be! :)

I actually want and, indeed, need to know. We need to have the record set straight. All and all I want to hear any and all problems with the RCP.

Look around, there have been plenty of criticisms of the RCP on this board, and throughout the left, over the years. Do a search.

Red Powers

1st December 2005, 05:23

Celticfire,

I saw your post in the other thread and I thought "he couldn't be talking about me could he"? Then I got here and sure enough it looks like a response to my post. Maybe that isn't the case.

But try reading this http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291920567 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=67&t=38364&hl=&view=findpost&p=1291920567) and maybe responding to that rather than descending to name calling. You can disagree with me all you want but i believe my criticisms of the RCP are well founded and are quite mature.

Poeticulture who began this thread specifically asked for opposing viewpoints so I gave him a couple.

And I for one am not a crusader of any type but when RCP supporters post stuff here I feel obliged to respond. In a way it's a compliment because there are groups I don't agree with who don't have the presence of the RCP and I don't bother with them.

celticfire

1st December 2005, 14:08

Red Powers: No comrade, the opposite. I think you have argued fairly and principled, as has redstar2000 has. But I can not say the same for people like CompaneroDeLibertad who are crusading against the RCP.

Red Powers

1st December 2005, 14:38

Well damn, what am I doing wrong? :D

I read CDL's post above and it doesn't seem "crusading" or immature.

But maybe it is this from him
Satire does play a role in criticism, sometimes a great one!

I think he's right here but maybe you don't care for satire. If that's the case I don't know what you are going to do because there are a lot of satirical sons of *****es all over the internet.

Nothing Human Is Alien

1st December 2005, 15:25

But I can not say the same for people like CompaneroDeLibertad who are crusading against the RCP.

Crusading? Be serious..

If anything, I'm alot more "friendly" to the RCP than alot of other people here.

I responded to the questions asked point by point and honestly. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't make them "unprincipled".

Frankly, being that I no longer live in the US, I'm not that interested in the RCP either way; and I'd be just as critical of any personality cult that was as visible here.

I think he's right here but maybe you don't care for satire. If that's the case I don't know what you are going to do because there are a lot of satirical sons of *****es all over the internet.

Apparently satires fine, but not if it's against Dear Leader.

If they act like this now, imagine how it would be if this cult weasled it's way into power..

Good thing that will never happen :)

Red Heretic

1st December 2005, 23:29

Alright, maybe I'm being "provacative" but the draft programme has little positive to say about large sections of the proletariat.

Bullshit! The draft programme sooooooo puts forward the proletariat it isn't even funny.

Or do you suppose that the bourgeoisie has learned how to eradicate class struggle? There is indeed a strata of workers who are inclined to see things in a bourgeois light but this is a very small group and as soon as a crisis erupts it will get smaller. .

It is not the conscious decision of the bourgeoisie that has done this, but rather the imperialist stage of capitalism. Sadly, many of the upper strata proletarians are profitting from imperialism, and imperialism can provide than a much better life than socialism could.

Of course they are proletarians. I never said otherwise. But wasn't it you in the other thread that suggested that these people were hopelessly obsessed with platinum rims?

I said that this system had indoctrinated that contradiction into the proletariat. It is not inherent to proletarians, no. This system created it. That contradiction must be and will be resolved by the socialist transition to communism.

Well see this is anti-working class. You are pitting one part of the class against another part when everybody knows that the working class wins through solidarity, an injury to one is an injury to all. Not by trying to decide which sector really has revolution in their interests.

I was not pitting one part of the proletariat against another, but rather trying to expose the way the bourgeoisie has pitted one part of the proletariat against another.

Your whole "you're anti-proletarian" arguement is a fallacy. It's like you are saying "HOW DARE YOU TELL THE TRUTH?!" when I tell you how much the bourgeoisie has hurt the proletariat. I know it is hard to accept that this system has done all of these horrible things and created all of these horrible contradictions within the proletariat, but that is the objective reality of things.

Proletrian revolution is in the interests of ALL proles.

It is in oppressed countries, and in the countries that Marx analyzed before the imperialist age. However, imperialism has repolarized this, to create a situation where many proletarians are profitting off of other proletarians.

Do you have any idea what the life of a coal miner, letter carrier, mailhandler, bus driver, garment worker etc. is like?

Jesus christ! I never said those people were bought off! I'm talking about the proletarians who once viewed union struggle as class struggle in the early 1900's, and now view union struggle as a way to inflate their 6 figure salaries. This is NOT the majority of the proletariat, but rather the very upper tier of it.

You think capitalists just "grant" those things out of the goodness of their hearts?

No, I don't. I'm sorry if I came off that way. I will take a self criticism on that.

RadicalLeft62

2nd December 2005, 02:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:25 PM

The fact of the matter is the RCP helped bring into creation mass movements like Nov. 2, October 22 (day against police brutality), and has for over 30 years survived attacks from cops, christian fascists and bourgeoisie alike.

Lots of communist parties have front groups, and most of them are much bigger than those of the RCP, so what's your point?

you want to name a few?

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd December 2005, 10:15

Sure.

CP-USA: United For Peace & Justice (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/), probably the biggest antiwar coalition in the US

PSL: A.N.S.W.E.R. (http://www.internationalanswer.org/), very close in numbers to UFP&J

WWP: Troops Out Now (http://www.troopsoutnow.org), pretty big, certainly bigger than anything the RCP has put togther.

RadicalLeft62

3rd December 2005, 18:09

CP-USA shouldnt even be considered communist. they only seem to talk about the new left policies, and never mention marx's plan anywhere.

Comrade-Z

4th December 2005, 04:54

The RCP seems to be one of the better communist groups out there (although that's not saying a whole lot right there). They do some good work, I'll admit. I've heard many people around me assert that World Can't Wait is just a front group for the RCP. That may be RCP's intention. Even so, though, I have to admit that it is a good effort. It's the kind of thing that I wish NEFAC (http://www.nefac.net) or other substantial anarcho-communist groups would do, although I'm sure they're already busy with a lot of good work as it is.

The thing that initially appealed to me about WCW was that, while its focus on something immediate and practical that a lot of people could agree with and participate in (opposing the Bush regime), its tone and suggested practices were very radical and even participatory (school walkouts, workplace strikes, town square meetings, etc.). I liked its focus on local action, instead of calling on people to attend some pre-planned demonstration in Washington or something, which is, 1): very difficult for many people to do, and 2): Not very participatory. Encouraging local protests meant that the organizing for the demonstrations and actions would be, in large part, left up to local citizens. Average people (i.e. non-RCP-members) would be the ones participating in organizing the actions. That's exactly what happened in my town of Springfield, MO, where a bunch of anarchists and other locals cooperatively participated in planning the actions and spreading the word. As a result, we were able to engage in some worthwhile actions in conjunction with many other cities and schools around the country, all the while keeping control over what we did and how we did it and gaining experience with organizing, distro, etc. Even though WCW wasn't perfect, hey, it was pretty darn worthwhile, and that's coming from a borderline anarcho-communist. It seems to me that, while criticism of the less worthwhile aspects of WCW is needed in order to improve our actions as a movement in the future, totally writing WCW off as trash is rather unhelpful.

Now, I would like to voice my (constructive) criticisms of the RCP and WCW:

1. The cult of personality around Bob Avakian is not helpful. Sure, to value his opinions is just fine, but it creeps a lot of people out to hear some RCP-ers talk about Bob Avakian as if he is infallible or the RCP's only chance for guidance and progress. It harmed our WCW actions somewhat when some people heard that the RCP was involved in the launching, and then heard about the Bob Avakian cult of personality. And it's totally unnecessary. In fact, investing so much authority in one leader is very harmful for a movement. What would happen if Bob Avakian were to get knocked-off? Would the RCP be thrown into disarray. Just think about the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King Jr. was certainly doing great things, but even so he was probably invested with too much authority and prestige for his own good or for the good of the civil rights movement, because as soon as he was knocked-off, the civil rights movement was thrown into disarray. Anarcho-syndicalist unions have a saying that goes, "Everyone is important, nobody is essential." What is means is, everyone should contribute, participate, and be heard. Furthermore, an organization should avoid a situation where one person is invested with so much expertise, knowledge, authority, prestige, etc., that the organization could not function without that one person. It's just good practical sense, because if that one person were to suddenly be removed from the organization (assassination, arrest, exile, sickness, corruption, or for whatever reason), then the organization would collapse when deprived of that essential person. The RCP would be more effective if it functioned with this modus operandi, in my opinion.

2. In my experience with WCW and the RCP, the national organizer that contacted me was rather pushy and overly eager to get me integrated with their efforts. He pestered me about attending a conference call and getting a statement from our student group drafted. I was like, "Whoa, man, I just wanted to get a school walkout going in conjunction with this nifty campaign." That kind of creeped me out a bit. And regarding the statement, I was like, "Whoa, just be patient, our student group is comprised of anarcho-punk rockers who spend practically every other day in ISS and only meet every two days at lunch, and it's only right that we draft the statement by consensus, so it might take a week or two."

3. The local WCW contact (whom I suspect is an RCP member, even though he has not said so explicitly) has not been involved in the local infoshop or local activist community to a great extent, other than in connection with WCW. You can't just fly by, ask for activists to get involved in something you're doing, and then jet. You've got to stay with their efforts for the long haul if you really want to forge connections and trust and get them to work with you and your organization in its actions.

That said, I think the RCP has been doing some really worthwhile things. Yes, the RCP could be a lot better. Ditching the Bob Avakian worship would help tremendously. But still, they don't deserve to be unconditionally slammed.

Comrade-Z

4th December 2005, 05:01

Hehehe, in case anyone was curious, this was the statement our student group came up with:
-------------
Communiqué from the Circle Of Rationally Pissed Off Students at
Central High School:

"What the fuck!?" How often do you say this to yourself in today's society? When you hear that the Bush regime wants Roe v. Wade
overturned and women's rights plunged back into the dark ages, do you
think to yourself, "What the fuck!?"? When you are confronted with
evidence that the U.S. is moving closer to a totalitarian police state
thanks to policies such as the PATRIOT (sic) Act, do you whisper to
your neighbor, "What the fuck!?"? When you hear that another 10 U.S.
soldiers and 100 Iraqi civilians were killed in Iraq yesterday, do you
feel yourself moved to exclaim, "What the fuck!?"? When you hear that
the Bush regime wants billions of dollars more for their illegal,
destructive, and deceitful war, do you scream at the top of your
lungs, "What the fuck!?"?

This insane regime deserves all the expletives we can
throw at it. Why, then, don't we confront this regime with more
visible and audible manifestations of our outrage? Perhaps the sheer
number of lies, double standards, and destructive actions has baffled
us into submission, or at least a state of stunned disbelief and
paralysis.

Our ultimatum is simply this: no more paralysis, no more
despair – don't just mourn, RESIST! This Circle Of Rationally Pissed
Off Students has taken a level-headed assessment of the Bush regime
and concluded that the only rational reaction to this regime is to be
extremely pissed off. It is clear that this regime is rapidly
transforming our society in a very authoritarian and destructive
manner. We know that this regime is rotten, through and through. Now
all that remains to be done is to dispose of the trash. And we must
set upon this task immediately – the world can't endure another three
years of this madness.

We know that many are already outraged at this regime. We simply hope to help them realize their power and potential for stopping this regime in its tracks and turning things around for the better. Through our visible and audible manifestations of discontent we seek to transform the political/cultural climate of this country in such a way that, when people see things which outrage them, they will not hesitate to
exclaim, "What the fuck!?" and confront the regime head-on about it.
Furthermore, when we begin to openly and assertively show our
discontent, our self-empowerment and resistance to this regime may be
more contagious than one might expect. Thus, we encourage everyone who shares our opposition to the Bush regime to join with us in our exclamations of "FUCK THE BUSH REGIME!" and other assertive manifestations of our resistance to the Bush regime on November 2nd and beyond.

redstar2000

4th December 2005, 05:18

Hi, Comrade-Z and welcome to RevLeft! :)

I very much appreciated your thoughtful post on the RCP.

Yes, they do on occasion come up with some good ideas. And no sensible person would deny them credit for that.

But what I think you will discover is the problem with the RCP is getting them to really listen to people like yourself.

You will point out to them the practical realities of the struggle in your own area...and they just won't listen!

Avakian has already decided "what is to be done" and folks like yourself will be expected to "just do it".

You won't have any input on "what is to be done" whatsoever.

In time, you'll be faced with a very awkward choice: do something really dumb because Avakian has "commanded it" OR just stop working altogether with the RCP.

Why? Because they don't like people who won't just "do as they're told". It's part of the whole Leninist tradition.

So by all means, as long as it's possible to do useful stuff in your area with the WCW campaign, go right ahead.

But be prepared for the "rude awakening" -- when you are "informed" (ordered) to "do this" or be regarded as "an enemy of the Party".

That is, sad to say, how Leninism really works. :(

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

Red Powers

6th December 2005, 15:47

Red Heretic, I doubt I'll be able to change your mind on these issues but I think it's worthwhile to hash them out.

Red Heretic

Bullshit! The draft programme sooooooo puts forward the proletariat it isn't even funny.

Well, sure a word search of "proletariat" in the Draft Programme would turn up probably a hundred hits but most of these would be totally "liturgical," that is words you are required to say. Sort of like when you announce that the proletariat is a revolutionary class right after saying "Newsflash -- Proletarian men beat their wives."

It is not the conscious decision of the bourgeoisie that has done this (created an upper strata of workers?) , but rather the imperialist stage of capitalism. Sadly, many of the upper strata proletarians are profitting from imperialism, and imperialism can provide than a much better life than socialism could.

This is incredible. You've removed real actors from the picture and now you have Imperialism, an impersonal idea accomplishing tasks and doing things! Neither the workers with their union battles nor the bourgeoisie with their choices have anything to do with it. Also, capitalists profit from imperialism, workers are sometimes able to wring a better deal from their bosses, it is not profit.

If you really believe that imperialism can provide a much better life than socialism why are you working for socialism? Do you plan to win people to a socialism in which their quality of life will decline?

I said that this system had indoctrinated that contradiction into the proletariat. It is not inherent to proletarians, no. This system created it. That contradiction must be and will be resolved by the socialist transition to communism.

Did you say this? I must have missed it. Maybe you can link to it for me?

I was not pitting one part of the proletariat against another, but rather trying to expose the way the bourgeoisie has pitted one part of the proletariat against another.

No, you were telling me which part of the proletariat was really interested in revolution which of course presupposes a part that is not. You weren't trying to expose the bourg. you were trying to win an argument by grasping at straws.

Your whole "you're anti-proletarian" arguement is a fallacy. It's like you are saying "HOW DARE YOU TELL THE TRUTH?!" when I tell you how much the bourgeoisie has hurt the proletariat. I know it is hard to accept that this system has done all of these horrible things and created all of these horrible contradictions within the proletariat, but that is the objective reality of things.

First of all, I accused you and the RCP of being anti-working class. It shouldn't make a difference but I think it does. And I don't mind at all hearing the truth, although I tend to shut down when I hear THE TRUTH. If you think that your rantings on that other thread represented any version of the truth you are mistaken. They were totally one-sided, negative impressions of a section of the proletariat. The truth? Maybe a half-truth.

Proletrian revolution is in the interests of ALL proles.

It is in oppressed countries, and in the countries that Marx analyzed before the imperialist age. However, imperialism has repolarized this, to create a situation where many proletarians are profitting off of other proletarians.

Here is Imperialism again strutting around the stage and repolarizing things.
Creating situations where proles profit and bourgeois types don't make conscious decisions. What crap. Read some Marx would ya? workers don't profit, capitalists profit. Workers are exploited. If a worker is making a bundle some capitaist is making a bigger bundle. Proles don't profit from other proles. The capitalist profits and then hires other workers who he/she can exploit.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you here pitting parts of the working class against one another?

Do you have any idea what the life of a coal miner, letter carrier, mailhandler, bus driver, garment worker etc. is like?

Jesus christ! I never said those people were bought off! I'm talking about the proletarians who once viewed union struggle as class struggle in the early 1900's, and now view union struggle as a way to inflate their 6 figure salaries. This is NOT the majority of the proletariat, but rather the very upper tier of it.

Well, you may never have said it but the Draft Programme has this:

"Another section of the proletariat consists of relatively priviliged 'bourgeoisified' workers. These workers are concentrated in large-scale industries -- like auto and steel, heavy machinery, utilities, the postal service -- and particularly where there have been strong unions "

I don't know how you read this but it seems to be talking about a lot more than people than those with six-figure incomes. You should really read my piece above if you haven't already. I'm not just randomly attacking the RCP for the hell of it. I'm very concerned about their treatment of the working class as a whole in their writings.

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

7th December 2005, 13:14

Originally posted by John [email protected] 27 2005, 11:40 PM
Is there anyone else that is seriously working to make revolution in this country, revolution that stands in support of world-wide revolution?
I know a party: Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/). Click here (http://www.socialistalternative.org/wwsf.html) for the outline of their programm.

Red Heretic

10th December 2005, 02:56

Lal salaam!

I am very sorry comrades... I will no longer be able to take part in the discussions at this board, as my school has blocked my access to this site, and that was my main means of posting on this forum. I really enjoy some of the two-line struggle going on here, but I unfortunately will no longer be able to take part to a significant degree. I am sorry. I will still try to drop in once a month or so at every chance I get. Fear not comrades, my 18th birthday is at hand! :D

I'll try to post this message in each of the threads I was taking part in so no one thinks I just ditched the debate.

P.S. If anyone has a really good guide to bypassing BESS, that would be cool. I've looked at about 20+ sites to try to figure out how to do it, and none of them have worked.

In Solidarity,

Red Heretic

Correa

10th December 2005, 03:11

Wouldn't that place your "school" under violation of free speech? Well it is the USA after all......free speech.....hahaha!

Red Heretic

10th December 2005, 03:38

Free speech for the proletariat under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? You must be dreaming! There has never been free speech in the United States.

Anyway, the supreme court actually ruled that free speech does not exist in high schools.

Themaoistthinker

10th December 2005, 04:10

That Socialist Alternative programme is the most dull and pointless thing I have ever read out of any marxist. What do they think Socialism is, a few handouts? These people sound like a more radical version of the democrats. The RCP, however, wants revolution and a whole new society, not sweden.

Red Heretic

10th December 2005, 04:34

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

10th December 2005, 11:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:10 AM
That Socialist Alternative programme is the most dull and pointless thing I have ever read out of any marxist. What do they think Socialism is, a few handouts? These people sound like a more radical version of the democrats. The RCP, however, wants revolution and a whole new society, not sweden.

What nonsense! It's not how much is said, but what is behind the words that are being said.

Take into public ownership, under democratic working class control and management, the top 500 corporations, banks, insurance and finance houses that dominate the economy. Compensation to be paid on the basis of proven need.

An end to the rule of profit, for a socialist society to meet the needs of all.

Ever heard of a transitional approach???

Do you think this demand 'Take into public ownership, under democratic working class control and management, the top 500 corporations, banks, insurance and finance houses that dominate the economy. Compensation to be paid on the basis of proven need.' could be met without a social revolution? The answer is NO!!

Not taking into account the level of consciousness of the working class in a country is ultra-leftism and sectarian. But yeah no wonder since you call yourself a maoist... :D

redstar2000

10th December 2005, 12:05

What's wrong with the RCP?

Here's a hint...

Bob Avakian Memoir Event this Wednesday in NYC

Honorary Co-Hosts:
Fr. Luis Barrios, Iglesia San Romero de Las Americas
Rev. George W. Webber, President Emeritus, NY Theological Seminary
and list of others follows

http://www.sunsara.blogspot.com/

So here we have not only a priest but the retired president of a "college" that teaches people how to be priests.

If people like that think Avakian is "a good guy", why should I?

Or any other sensible person? :o

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

Nothing Human Is Alien

10th December 2005, 16:25

Fr. Luis Barrios, Iglesia San Romero de Las Americas

I know Luis Barrios, he's a self proclaimed communist. I once confronted him about when I met him a few years ago.

I asked "how can you be a Marxist and a priest at the same time?" His answer was "who said anything about being a Marxist." He's big on "Liberation Theology" as the name of the church should tell you.

I know that a number of atheists even go to his church (it's small, maybe 50 people tops -- all Latino), because they get involved in alot of social activism.

I don't know when he got wrapped up in the RCP, but I think it may have been through the World Can't Wait campaign.

The Grey Blur

10th December 2005, 18:13

Red Rebel

10th December 2005, 19:47

What is the big problem, according to those in constant opposition, with the RCP? I want coherent replies. No idiotic shit-talking. Let's have a serious discussion. The RCP has put forth a draft programme, what is yours? Is there an actual problem here? Is there anyone else that is seriously working to make revolution in this country, revolution that stands in support of world-wide revolution? Is this "cult of personality" nonsense your only "real" problem? Or is it a problem with the draft programme? It is just a draft you know. Is it MLM? What line do you follow? This is not humor. I actually want and, indeed, need to know. We need to have the record set straight. All and all I want to hear any and all problems with the RCP.

The two biggest problems I have with the RCP are:

1. Being centered so much around one person (Bob Avakian)
2. Being revolutionary. They are calling for a revolution when it has no real popular support besides a bunch of students. They need to first educate people than call for revolution.

redstar2000

11th December 2005, 00:08

Originally posted by Rage Against The Machine
That's pathetic Redstar2000, what does that prove apart from your pettiness?

Whether you like it or not, politics is about associations.

If you consider yourself a revolutionary, then you do not associate with reactionaries.

On the other hand, if you are just a bourgeois politician eager to gain "any support from anyone", then objective political orientation is largely irrelevant.

It may happen on occasion that some reactionary group may take the same position that you do on a particular controversy -- you might, for example, find yourself in an anti-war march that also contains a group of reactionaries who also oppose the war because it's "bad for the Empire" (which, by the way, it is).

But you wouldn't invite such reactionaries to celebrate your book.

Or put them up on the platform of your meetings.

Unless, of course, you were just interested in "showing off" how much "support" you have...from "all kinds of people".

This seems to be what Avakian wants.

If you think that's "petty", then you are going to be in for some really nasty surprises during your future political life.

Don't say that no one warned you.

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

Correa

11th December 2005, 00:29

Honestly Bob Avakian's role in the RCP shouldn't be surprising. After all he is a Maoist! Can you really expect anything else from this man?

The Grey Blur

11th December 2005, 15:48

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 11 2005, 12:08 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 11 2005, 12:08 AM)
Rage Against The Machine
That's pathetic Redstar2000, what does that prove apart from your pettiness?

Whether you like it or not, politics is about associations.

If you consider yourself a revolutionary, then you do not associate with reactionaries.

On the other hand, if you are just a bourgeois politician eager to gain "any support from anyone", then objective political orientation is largely irrelevant.

It may happen on occasion that some reactionary group may take the same position that you do on a particular controversy -- you might, for example, find yourself in an anti-war march that also contains a group of reactionaries who also oppose the war because it's "bad for the Empire" (which, by the way, it is).

But you wouldn't invite such reactionaries to celebrate your book.

Or put them up on the platform of your meetings.

Unless, of course, you were just interested in "showing off" how much "support" you have...from "all kinds of people".

This seems to be what Avakian wants.

If you think that's "petty", then you are going to be in for some really nasty surprises during your future political life.

Don't say that no one warned you.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Thanks for that patronizing lecture pops, I'm going skateboarding now; Later dude!

:redstar2000:

redstar2000

11th December 2005, 17:12

Originally posted by Rage Against The Machine
I'm going skateboarding now; Later dude!

Judging by your last two posts to this thread, skateboarding would evidently suit your capabilities much more than political discussion does.

Have a good time.

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

ReD_ReBeL

12th December 2005, 16:13

i do not like the RCp mainly due to Avakians 'god like status' amongst the RCP and also there dismissal of Homosexuals and feminists which i think is very non-communistic. heres a link to my comment by an ex-member of the RCP it's near the top near the Huey Newton bit. RCP LINK (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/misc.activism.progressive/browse_thread/thread/c9e1c3139059efd1/c92eb35b47068446?lnk=st&q=huey+newton&rnum=3&hl=en#c92eb35b47068446)

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

12th December 2005, 17:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 04:13 PM
i do not like the RCp mainly due to Avakians 'god like status' amongst the RCP and also there dismissal of Homosexuals and feminists which i think is very non-communistic. heres a link to my comment by an ex-member of the RCP it's near the top near the Huey Newton bit. RCP LINK (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/misc.activism.progressive/browse_thread/thread/c9e1c3139059efd1/c92eb35b47068446?lnk=st&q=huey+newton&rnum=3&hl=en#c92eb35b47068446)
A similar topic (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43716).

ReD_ReBeL

12th December 2005, 17:32

lol sorry man but im confused why u give me that Stalin good or bad link?

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

12th December 2005, 17:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:32 PM
lol sorry man but im confused why u give me that Stalin good or bad link?
uhm sorry...link has been changed...it was meant to point to Respect-topic.

Red Heretic

12th December 2005, 22:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:05 PM
What's wrong with the RCP?

Here's a hint...

Bob Avakian Memoir Event this Wednesday in NYC

Honorary Co-Hosts:
Fr. Luis Barrios, Iglesia San Romero de Las Americas
Rev. George W. Webber, President Emeritus, NY Theological Seminary
and list of others follows

http://www.sunsara.blogspot.com/

So here we have not only a priest but the retired president of a "college" that teaches people how to be priests.

If people like that think Avakian is "a good guy", why should I?

Or any other sensible person? :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
RedStar2000, the RCP practices the principle of Unity-Struggle-Unity, not dogmatic sectarianism. The party unites with all progressive forces that can be united against the common enemy, while at the same time struggling with them over ideology, tactics, etc. until both the party and the forces it has united with have been united as one on a new understanding around a correct line.

The party has published COUNTLESS works on atheism, including Bob Avakian's book Preaching from a Pulpit of Bones, and he has given several speeches on the topic, including God: The Original Fascist, and his more famous speech, God Doesn't Exist, and We Need Liberation Without Gods (which is availible at www.bobavakian.net)

One of the main topics of Avakian's work, Preaching from a Pulpit of Bones, was the very real short comings of Liberation Theology, and the reality behind religion.

Your arguement is unfounded and deceptive of the members of this board.

Red Heretic

12th December 2005, 22:10

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10 2005, 07:47 PM
The two biggest problems I have with the RCP are:

1. Being centered so much around one person (Bob Avakian)
2. Being revolutionary. They are calling for a revolution when it has no real popular support besides a bunch of students. They need to first educate people than call for revolution.
1. The party popularizes its leadership in its entirety, not just Bob Avakian as many reactionaries would have you believe. Read Revolution (www.revcom.us) and you will see this! It puts forward all kinds of leaders within the party, including Sunsara Taylor, Carl Dix, Clark Kissinger, etc.

2. If you do not build you programme around preparation for a revolutionary situation, then you probably never will. The party does not believe there is a revolutionary situation at this time, it is preparing for such a time.

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

12th December 2005, 23:47

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 12 2005, 10:03 PM
RedStar2000, the RCP practices the principle of Unity-Struggle-Unity, not dogmatic sectarianism. The party unites with all progressive forces that can be united against the common enemy, while at the same time struggling with them over ideology, tactics, etc. until both the party and the forces it has united with have been united as one on a new understanding around a correct line.

And now the central question: is this the way to a principled socialist program in the future or does it lead to illusion in reforms within capitalism?

Other cases such as this (e.g. Respect and racist campaigns with such a variety of groups, social forums etc) show that such 'broad' formations lead to the latter. Like a comrade of mine said: It's not about the number of participating organisations, but about the number of unafilliated people that can be organised.

And in this case he was speaking about a situation in which, although only socialist or so called socialist parties/organisatiions participated, there was still a large anti-racist mobilisation which was bigger than the year before.

Reds

13th December 2005, 00:23

I went to the world cant wait rally and the revolution book store hear in atlanta and from what I see the RCP needs to get off there high horse if it was not for that I might be in the RCP.

redstar2000

13th December 2005, 06:49

Originally posted by Red Heretic
RedStar2000, the RCP practices the principle of Unity-Struggle-Unity, not dogmatic sectarianism.

Do you think the ritual recital of this Maoist incantation successfully disguises collaboration with reactionaries?

Or do you wish to argue that some people in the godracket are "progressive"? :o

Either way, you're in trouble.

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

rebelworker

13th December 2005, 16:10

Heres an interesting critique from a racial standpoint(among other things) by a Black militant.

http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/gen...d_vanguard.html (http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/general_articles/mythology_of_the_white-led_vanguard.html)

Red Heretic

13th December 2005, 20:07

RS2000, in struggling with these issues with you, I am going to post a few exceprts from the RCP's Draft Programme (which can be read in full here: http://rwor.org/margorp/progtoc-e.htm)

The United Front
Under the Leadership
of the Proletariat

Exceprt: Maintaining Independence and Initiative in the United Front, Struggling for Leadership

The proletariat must “unite all who can be united.” But without the initiative and independent role of the class-conscious proletariat, the unity that is built with other class forces will not be as broad or as powerful as it can and must be. The proletariat, through its vanguard party, must strive to lead the united front. And unless the proletariat does achieve overall leadership of the united front, the united front will not serve revolution and the interests of the masses will suffer.

It is not as though this work of building the united front is carried out in a vacuum. Other class forces and programs contend for leadership of mass struggles and movements. Forces arise from the middle strata which often bring forward positive contributions, but also proposals and programs which represent the “in-between” position and vacillating character of the middle class. In addition, the bourgeoisie also has its political operatives, who consciously attempt to disrupt alliances among the people and steer the movement into bounds acceptable to the bourgeoisie.

The proletarian party has to analyze and sort out these different kinds of contradictions (which can often be tangled up together and confusing). It has to carry on the appropriate kinds of debate, discussion, and criticism of the different programs in the field, and work to point the spearhead of the struggle against the ruling class, uniting all who can be united and making sure that the interests of the proletariat and oppressed masses are protected and advanced.

Political leadership cannot be won if the proletarian vanguard acts in a disdainful and standoffish way towards forces with which it should be working to build unity. But neither can this leadership be won if the vanguard fails to distinguish the outlook and programme of the revolutionary proletariat from those of other class forces. Nor will leadership be won if the vanguard abandons the strategic revolutionary interests of the proletariat in the name of meeting the demands of any particular situation or preserving the unity of any particular struggle.

It would be wrong, it would cut off potential allies, to insist that revolution be the basis of unity and dividing line in mass struggles, movements, and organizations in today’s conditions. But, while uniting broadly with many diverse forces for objectives short of revolution, the Party must, at every point and all along the way, boldly bring forward the banner of proletarian revolution and seek to win increasing numbers of people to this banner.

The "Left" of religion is currently under a vicious attack by Christian Fascism, fundamentalism, and theocracy. This is something very new. Because of this attack, many of the more "left" religious forces are polarizing toward the leadership of the proletariat and it's resistance to all of this horror.

I think that you and I proba bly the most atheistic members on this entire board. However, it would be absolutely wrong, and it would be making the mistake of sectarianism, to refuse to unite with someone on the basis that they have religious beliefs. We must allow these people to unite with the proletariat under the leadership of the proletariat, and carry our constant ideological struggle with them over the flaws in their line, while at the same time uniting with them in the areas of their line that are correct.

This is why the RCP has devoted so much of its work to exposing the flaws of Liberation Theology. This is one of the main reasons why Bob Avakian published his book, Preaching from a Pulpit of Bones which largely aims at debunking Liberation Theology.

If a vanguard party were to refuse to unite with anyone who had flaws or inconsistencies in their line, then it could unite with practically no one! When I began hanging around with many people who were involved in the party, I was a a CHRISTIAN and an ANARCHIST! My anarchist friends and my Maoist friends would get together and talk politics, and struggle over countless topics and ideas. In uniting with me, and struggling with me, the Party was able to win me over to the side of revolution, and to help me to throw off my religious shackles.

If myself, and countless other revolutionaries today, were treated the way that you are advocating, this whole movement wouldn't even exist, and no vanguard party could ever build a revolution.

Axel1917

29th December 2005, 21:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:18 AM

That is, sad to say, how Leninism really works. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Lenin was not an evil dictator at all. Reading a bit from Ted Grant's Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution (see http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp ) totally destroys the myth that depicts Lenin as an evil tyrant.

I apologize for leaving links to entire books, as I am quite short on time, and therefore have no time to go through cetain parts piece by piece. Just reading from the first few sections dispels the myth, as I have not had time to read that entire book.

I feel that the RCP also has no idea what Fascism (there is no mass basis for it) really is. They just use it as a political swearword, it seems. It is quite annoying to see terms completely devoid of actual content, such as "Christian Fascism" and other such instances of political profanity mongering. A Marxist should know the basis for Fascism, as well as what it really is, and not resort to political profanitiy mongering.

We all know how Mao was an anti-workers' democracy type of tyrant as well. The struggle for socialism is a struggle to emancipate and empower the working class, so that we can eventually get to classless society, not subject them to totalitarianism!

We also have the fact that personality cults are also completely alien, and in opposition, to Marxism.

red team

30th December 2005, 07:09

To Redstar2000

Well do you realize that you need to differentiate between suckers and sucker fleecers. Attacking the religious only drive the suckers further into the arms of their own fleecers as they would see themselves as being the persecuted "righteous". Religious addicts similar to drug addicts need to be weened out of the dependencies. Also, you need to look at the demand side of the equation just as much as the supply side. Sure if the get down to it the church leaders are ultimately mental narcotic pushers, but without the wretched, oppressed masses to depend on to give them a non-stop supply of addicts because they need some sort of consolation to escape their terrible lives the church would lose its power and be a bankrupt organization in a short time. The only way we can do this is to teach these suckers and foot soldiers of the religious right of the nature of the game so that they realize that they are suckers and that a better future awaits them and their children not in heaven by working to forge a new society here on Earth. That means building alliances with them so that we can work on stripping away these suckers to our side bit by bit through education. Soon enough these church leaders will find that they are generals of the army without soldiers.

redstar2000

30th December 2005, 09:54

Originally posted by Red Heretic+--> (Red Heretic)The "Left" of religion is currently under a vicious attack by Christian Fascism, fundamentalism, and theocracy. This is something very new. Because of this attack, many of the more "left" religious forces are polarizing toward the leadership of the proletariat and it's resistance to all of this horror.[/b]

If the RCP (primarily Chairman Bob, of course) cannot grasp that this is a struggle between reactionaries -- a "turf war" as it were -- then all discussions of "uniting with and struggling against" are simply irrelevant.

Christian fascism is not "bad" because it "attacks" religious "leftists".

It is bad because, if successful, it would impose a clerical fascist regime on all of us.

If that happened, all the so-called religious "leftists" would repent at once and go crawling on their bellies to the theocrats.

Like 99.999% of the clergy in the Third Reich.

Originally posted by [email protected]
I feel that the RCP also has no idea what Fascism (there is no mass basis for it) really is.

Is this a reluctance on your part to give credit where credit is due?

The RCP, to its credit, was the first organized group in the U.S. to "raise the issue" of Christian fascism and even organize a couple of small demonstrations against it.

What's not good about the RCP is that they've essentially dropped the idea in favor of the "world can't wait" campaign...focusing on the Bush regime instead of Christian fascism as a reactionary mass movement.

I saw a recent poll suggesting that 7% of the U.S. adult population consider themselves "hard core" in favor of imposing a "Bible-based" government in this country.

That's a mass base by any reasonable definition...probably quite comparable to "hard core" support for the Nazis in 1930.

If you are suggesting that "it just won't happen", well, you could be right.

For Christian fascism to "work", the ruling class would have to "get on board" in a really major way...and that hasn't happened yet.

But there are straws in the wind...major corporations that have "gotten on board", such as Tyson Foods.

What I ask American "lefties" is: do you want to be a refugee in Mexico City or Toronto ten years from now? Asking yourself how "you let it happen" without even noticing?

Have a look at these threads...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43844

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44389

Sound familiar?

red team
Attacking the religious only drive the suckers further into the arms of their own fleecers as they would see themselves as being the persecuted "righteous".

Actually, the religious con-men already use the "victim rhetoric"...and very effectively.

Secular humanism is driving God out of public life.

Just as the Nazis used the "international persecution of poor Germany" to build up their popular support.

I see no reason why that rhetoric can't be "turned" on the godracket itself.

The reason those bastards tell you to "trust in God" is to get your money!

Religious addicts similar to drug addicts need to be weened out of the dependencies.

An interesting parallel...but don't forget those who advocate "cold turkey" as the best way to do that. :lol:

I think we should tell people DON'T BELIEVE IN BULLSHIT!...and then let the chips fall where they may.

I don't think there's any way to "slide" people "gently" out of superstition.

That means building alliances with them so that we can work on stripping away these suckers to our side bit by bit through education. -- emphasis added.

This is always the reformist perspective...that change always comes "bit by bit".

I disagree. In fact, I think the historical record shows that significant change is usually the consequence of upheavals or at least periods of tumultuous struggles.

And in any event, what kind of an "alliance" could you build with reactionaries?

Abolish Capital Punishment for Witchcraft!???

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

celticfire

30th December 2005, 12:00

I think rs2000 is absolutely correct on this one. When I first came across the RCP a few years ago, I thought the same as some other posters, that "Christian Fascism" was just a cardboard enemy (paper tiger :lol: ) but you investigate who is behind the scenes, rubbing elbows, smoozing, making campaign contributions, personal contacts, you will find an ants nest of Christian fundmentalism. The RCP is the only left group (that I know of) that recognizes this.

Does that mean the RCP is the left's fundmentalists? Nope. (I'd put that label on the PLP, or maybe MIM!)

Look - the Pat Robertson people don't disappear - even after they're no longer in the headlines for calling on the assination of Hugo Chavez -- they stay very active. If you ever watch cable, check out the relgious channnels sometime, watch Benny Hinn --- see the crowds of people? These people literally have a base of thousands -- possibly millions. And they are spreading their vile crap around the globe. (don't you love when they send bibles aand blonde barbie dolls to starving african countries?! ) :angry:

celticfire

30th December 2005, 12:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:09 PM

We all know how Mao was an anti-workers' democracy type of tyrant as well. The struggle for socialism is a struggle to emancipate and empower the working class, so that we can eventually get to classless society, not subject them to totalitarianism!

We also have the fact that personality cults are also completely alien, and in opposition, to Marxism.
Funny you mention Ted Grant, then denounce personality cults.

YFIS, WIL, and Socialist Appeal all have a personality cult around Ted Grant. It's not as repeatative as the RCP's, but it is there.

Consider that they preemptively made available his marxists.org archive (before he died) the Ted Grant Archive (which just happens to be in MIA format! :o )

I call bullshit.

Your sad hypocricy aside, let's talk about "totalitarianism."

I don't trust - off that bat -- people who call themselves Marxists, then use words like "totalitarianism."

If "totalitarianism" means "total control" then that applied to a lot more regimes than just the Eastern regimes of old. Speaking of political swear words -- what they HELL do you think "totalitarianism" is? :angry:

You're understanding of history is about the same as your understanding of class struggle today.

Do some more reading and learning than just Trot-Grant-approved literature.

Please? :)

Axel1917

4th January 2006, 02:08

Originally posted by celticfire+Dec 30 2005, 12:21 PM--> (celticfire @ Dec 30 2005, 12:21 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 09:09 PM

We all know how Mao was an anti-workers' democracy type of tyrant as well. The struggle for socialism is a struggle to emancipate and empower the working class, so that we can eventually get to classless society, not subject them to totalitarianism!

We also have the fact that personality cults are also completely alien, and in opposition, to Marxism.
Funny you mention Ted Grant, then denounce personality cults.

YFIS, WIL, and Socialist Appeal all have a personality cult around Ted Grant. It's not as repeatative as the RCP's, but it is there.

Consider that they preemptively made available his marxists.org archive (before he died) the Ted Grant Archive (which just happens to be in MIA format! :o )

I call bullshit.

Your sad hypocricy aside, let's talk about "totalitarianism."

I don't trust - off that bat -- people who call themselves Marxists, then use words like "totalitarianism."

If "totalitarianism" means "total control" then that applied to a lot more regimes than just the Eastern regimes of old. Speaking of political swear words -- what they HELL do you think "totalitarianism" is? :angry:

You're understanding of history is about the same as your understanding of class struggle today.

Do some more reading and learning than just Trot-Grant-approved literature.

Please? :) [/b]
The WIL is not a personality cult, and the claims about the "Grant cult" are a slander fabricated by the sectarian CWI. Anyone with experience in the organization, or anyone that critically analyzes it will realize that there is no personality cult.

I guess by your logic that the MIA is a major collection of personality cultish doctirines, containing many figures of a cult of personalitiy.

Totalitarianism is an objective phenomenon that can be observed throughout history, such as a deal of ancient regimes, deformed workers' states like the post-Lenin USSR, China, what the US would love to implement over its people, etc. Even the most basic dictionaries can define that word.

But of course, you don't trust Marxists, as Maoists are definitely anti-Marxists. That can be seen alone in the anti-Trotsky drivel, as Trotsky represented everything that the October Revolution stood for. Stalin killed him for that very reason.

My lack of understanding of class struggle? Sure... You are not helping the class struggle by building the Avakian cult and shouting out swearwords like "Christian-Fascism" and other such nonsense.

Also, I do read more than than just "Trot-Grant approved" literature, and I have the entire 47 volume set of the Lenin Collected Works as a major source. The Stalinist footnotes in those books do not fool me, and what Lenin had to say backs up Trotksyism (the same thing as genuine Marxism!).

Perhaps you should wake up and realize that Bob Avakian is not the sun.

redstar2000

4th January 2006, 07:44

Originally posted by Axel1917
Totalitarianism is an objective phenomenon that can be observed throughout history...

No. The origins and use of the concept are well summarized in this brief article from the Wikipedia...

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

It's certainly not, in any sense, a "Marxist" term...though a Marxist might use the word in its historical sense: Mussolini's plainly stated goal of a "total state".

Not even the bourgeois ideologues have projected "totalitarianism" back into ancient history...as people had entirely different ideas then.

Trotsky represented everything that the October Revolution stood for.

Iconography.

Individuals don't "represent everything" a revolution "stands for".

That's not "Marxism", it's t-shirts and posters and the "ideology" of a fan club.

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

Axel1917

5th January 2006, 02:34

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 4 2006, 07:55 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 4 2006, 07:55 AM)
Axel1917
Totalitarianism is an objective phenomenon that can be observed throughout history...

No. The origins and use of the concept are well summarized in this brief article from the Wikipedia...

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

It's certainly not, in any sense, a "Marxist" term...though a Marxist might use the word in its historical sense: Mussolini's plainly stated goal of a "total state".

Not even the bourgeois ideologues have projected "totalitarianism" back into ancient history...as people had entirely different ideas then.

Trotsky represented everything that the October Revolution stood for.

Iconography.

Individuals don't "represent everything" a revolution "stands for".

That's not "Marxism", it's t-shirts and posters and the "ideology" of a fan club.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I meant that it is generally used in a historical sense, and that it embodies certain, objective (i.e., certain ways some states have/do function(ed), use(d) despoitic measures, etc.).

It should have been self-evident by the phrase I used that I meant that he was the most outstanding figure of defending all that Marxism really stands for after Lenin's death, i.e. he played a major role in defending and further devloping Marxism (leading and founding the Fourth International, being one of the major theoreticians to analyze new things like Stalinism and Fascism, etc.). I am aware of the role of the individual in history.

celticfire

5th January 2006, 04:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:19 AM

The WIL is not a personality cult, and the claims about the "Grant cult" are a slander fabricated by the sectarian CWI. Anyone with experience in the organization, or anyone that critically analyzes it will realize that there is no personality cult.

I guess by your logic that the MIA is a major collection of personality cultish doctirines, containing many figures of a cult of personalitiy.

Totalitarianism is an objective phenomenon that can be observed throughout history, such as a deal of ancient regimes, deformed workers' states like the post-Lenin USSR, China, what the US would love to implement over its people, etc. Even the most basic dictionaries can define that word.

But of course, you don't trust Marxists, as Maoists are definitely anti-Marxists. That can be seen alone in the anti-Trotsky drivel, as Trotsky represented everything that the October Revolution stood for. Stalin killed him for that very reason.

My lack of understanding of class struggle? Sure... You are not helping the class struggle by building the Avakian cult and shouting out swearwords like "Christian-Fascism" and other such nonsense.

Also, I do read more than than just "Trot-Grant approved" literature, and I have the entire 47 volume set of the Lenin Collected Works as a major source. The Stalinist footnotes in those books do not fool me, and what Lenin had to say backs up Trotksyism (the same thing as genuine Marxism!).

Perhaps you should wake up and realize that Bob Avakian is not the sun.
The MIA is a collection of writtings by dead political influences.

YFIS/WIL/Soc Appeal -- pushed for Ted Grant's writtings to be added as he was still living (is he still alive?), thus pushing forward a line promoting a living leader.

Look -- I will level with you here. I don't like the cult of personality crap.
I think Avakian is an important leader, but promoting him this way makes him look like creepy, and it isolates the Party from a lot of people.

I just think we should check and question "analysis" the bourgeoisie puts out, like "totalitarianism" -- we shouldn't just uncritically accept these things as truths.

Look - there was a lot of problems with past socialist societies, even in the beginning with Lenin and look how the demonize him!

I know you don't accept the Maoist line, and that's ok. But I'd challenge you to do some more research, and find real criticisms of the RCP and Maoism, not just repeat bourgeois slanders. My critcism of the YFIS/WIL isn't that they're "totalitarian-trotskyists."

See my point? ;)

redwinter

5th January 2006, 05:45

well, I disagree with Celticfire. I think that a leader like Bob Avakian doesn't emerge too often, so he warrants being important enough to promote before his death. Our leaders don't have to die before being recognized!

Martin Blank

5th January 2006, 10:17

I have been following this discussion for some time now, and, given what I've read so far, I do think celticfire has a point about an "immature trend" in this discussion. But what I am looking at as "immature" is not the same as what he sees, and I am seeing this "immaturity" on both sides. It is an "immaturity" of political thought -- a poverty of philosophy.

The anti-RCP comrades seem to center their criticisms on two things: a) the existence of the "Avakian cult" and b) the fact that the RCP is Maoist. Conversely, the pro-RCP comrades seem to center their defense on two things: a) the view that the RCP "goes to the masses" (although each comrade expresses this in different ways) and b) the view that Avakian has been able to correctly assess the current political situation in a way no other self-described communist leader has.

In all of these arguments, however, very little is being said about politics -- specifically, the politics of the RCP and whether they are correct. Sure, the anti-RCP comrades say "you're wrong", but little argument is made above and beyond this. Comrades, if you want to talk about the problems of the RCP, you have to start with their politics, not Avakian and not (necessarily) their doctrinal label.

Now, as anyone who has been on this board and the Another World Is Possible board knows, the Communist League has a number of fundamental differences with the RCP. Many of them have been discussed in detail both here and there. The reason these debates have happened is precisely because, for our part, we felt it was necessary to set aside the questions of Avakian and the historical role of Maoism for the moment, and concentrate on the current theory and practice advocated by them. This was, in our view, the only way to get to the heart of the matter.

All that said, let's now deal with what's in front of us.

One of the arguments made in defense of the RCP here is that they "represent the proletariat". Red Heretic even goes so far as to elaborate their view on the proletariat as as class:

The RCP has correctly analyzed the proletariat as being separated into two tiers, an upper, and a lower, proletariat.... It is the people on the bottom of this society in the projects and ghettos who really have proletarian revolution in their interests, and more so than union workers with tons of priveleges (not to say that these proletarians won't play a huge role in revolution).

Red Heretic's view on the correctness of this analysis notwithstanding, this view of the working class is anti-Marxian to the core. The de facto separation of the proletariat into two classes did not come from Marx; it was theorized by the German sociologist Max Weber in opposition to Marx's analysis on class. The key here is the question of "privilege". This was the issue that Weber inserted into social analysis in order to attack Marx. How?

The central place given over to "privilege" by Weber (and Red Heretic) shifts the question of how classes themselves are defined. In place of Marx's analysis, which is based on social relations defined by relationship to production, this Weberian analysis defines the social relations as based on relationship to the market. Thus, if you have a greater amount of "privilege", your relationship to the market is qualitatively different than that of someone with very little "privilege", and these two are thus not in the same classes.

It is true that the bourgeoisie attempts to bribe a section of the proletariat (often using profits extracted from the superexploitation of oppressed peoples, both in the Great Power states and in the Global South), but, as the recent experiences with the workers at Delphi have shown, these privileges are not a permanent, societal feature, but rather an insurance policy purchased by the ruling class in a given period -- a survival measure.

This anti-Marxian view of class also explains the RCP's approach toward the petty bourgeoisie. After all, many of those in the petty bourgeoisie do not have the "privileges" that some unionized workers have, and are thus more open to revolution in the RCP's view -- their relationship to production notwithstanding. In the final analysis, this theoretical failure on the part of the RCP is what defines many of their practical errors and guides their political opportunism. (More on this below.)

I want to take a moment here and deal briefly with Bob Avakian. Nowhere is the "immature trend" more visible than when it comes to him. Anti-RCP comrades, you can scream "CULT!" until you're blue in the face and it's still not going to change one RCPer's mind. If anything, you only reinforce their interest in the man and his writings.

Ever since the League began working in the World Can't Wait movement, I've been making a point to read the essays and commentaries by Avakian that are printed in the RCP's publication. I have to say that much of what he writes I can agree with; sometimes he really hits the nail on the head. But that's not really hard to do, to be honest. Many of the issues he is writing about are rather straight-forward, and I would expect that any self-described communist worth his or her salt could do the same thing.

And that is the point to make: Avakian is NOT saying anything new; he is NOT saying anything original. Sorry, RCP comrades, but it's true. Bob's not saying anything new or original. I know several comrades -- in the League, in the IWPA, in other organizations -- that have written extensive articles, documents and essays on the same issues Avakian is writing about: democracy, the character of the Bush regime, the development of "Christian fascism", the development of a revolutionary movement, etc. Moreover, these comrades were writing about these issues long before Avakian, and were making the same points he's making.

RCP comrades, the reason why we signed on to the World Can't Wait campaign was because it was something we as the League had been advocating since our founding in 2004 -- and something that members of the League and the IWPA had been advocating since the first Bush coup in 2000. Case in point: One comrade of the IWPA, Martin Schreader, has written a number of articles on the question of the development of a "Christian fascist" movement in the U.S. over the last two generations, including a long document titled "What Happened to America?", which he has since expanded into a rather lengthy book he has been trying to get published. This document was written long before Avakian began dealing with the question of the character of the Bush regime, and hits all of the same points (and a few he doesn't).

Now, if you want to uphold him as your theoretical leader, that is your right. But you do yourselves and your organization a disservice by continually repeating that your theoretical leader is the only one who has dealt with these questions. It is simply not true.

However, from our perspective, this is more of a side issue than anything else. What matters to us is what the RCP does and how their politics guide them in the class struggle. Here we return to the issue of class and how the RCP's adoption of the Weberian analysis leads them to make opportunist errors.

Again, as most comrades who have been on RL for a while know, we have been involved in the World Can't Wait movement since it was initially launched. But this work we have done has been on our political terms -- that is, we participate in the campaign on our own political platform, and do not subordinate it to either the RCP or the others who participate in this effort. In fact, we went so far as to publish a special section of Working People's Advocate -- called WPAnalysis -- with a critique of the RCP's approach (http://www.communistleague.org/wpa/stories/wpa200511-wcw-thenwhat.html) to the World Can't Wait movement.

In our view, the RCP's Weberian approach to class is also responsible for the opportunism they display in the campaign. As we point out in our critique, the RCP says little, if anything, about what would come after "driving out the Bush regime". Some RCPers see this as applying the "mass line" (or, as Red Heretic also put it, applying "Unity-Struggle-Unity"). However, this method, part and parcel of the RCP's approach toward the petty bourgeoisie, subordinates revolutionary politics to those of the democratic petty bourgeois, which, in the case of the World Can't Wait movement, is represented by Progressive Democrats of America.

By refraining from presenting their own vision of what kind of society should be built in place of an overthrown Bush regime (and corporatist system) and how we get there, the RCP hands political leadership to PDA, even though it retains organizational leadership for itself. (This is assuming that a group like ours is not strong enough to directly challenge for political leadership.) This is because PDA has a definite vision of where society would go after the end of the Bush regime. The end result is that the RCP becomes responsible for stabilizing capitalist rule, not overthrowing it.

The moral of the story: If you want to know what's wrong with the RCP, start with their content (their theoretical and political underpinnings), not the forms it takes (e.g., the "Avakian cult").

Miles

celticfire

5th January 2006, 14:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:56 AM
well, I disagree with Celticfire. I think that a leader like Bob Avakian doesn't emerge too often, so he warrants being important enough to promote before his death. Our leaders don't have to die before being recognized!
Red Winter: I am not knocking Avakian or his leadership, but the RCP's approach.
Avakian is an important revolutionary leader and very much worth defending. BUT -- the personality cult, as another comrade said, "saps the proletariats ability to govern."

I want to respond to the last two postsin full, which i will later, but I leave you with some quotes from Marx and Lenin about the issue, food for thought (I know quotes prove nothing alone.)

I have wrongly defended the personality cult before, I can't continue defending something I think isn't right.

"Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. A proof of this is, for example, that, because of aversion to any personality cult, I have never permitted the numerous expressions of appreciation from various countries with which I was pestered during the existence of the International to reach the realm of publicity, and have never answered them, except occasionally by rebuke. When Engels and I first joined the secret Communist Society we made it a condition that everything tending to encourage superstitious belief in authority was to be removed from the statutes. (Later on Lassalle exerted his influence in the opposite direction.)"

Karl Marx, "Letter to W. Blos," November 10, 1877
Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1978, p. 521.

“All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all. I am just like everybody else.” Vladimir Lenin

Red Heretic

5th January 2006, 20:38

I think the mistake that you are making, celticfire, is giving in to the Trotskyite lie that Avakian is worshipped.

A personality cult implies that the leader is popularized in a way that he or she is believed to be a living god, super human, metaphysical, messianic, etc. etc. The DPRK engages in those sorts of activities, and popularizes their leadership as actual replacements for the gods in Korean religions. The RCP condemns that sort of dogmatic, metaphysical, and reactionary approach to leadership.

We need to be very clear about the context in which all communist leaders should be popularized. They need to be popularized in a dialectical materialist context, rooted in the reality of the actual role they play in history and the remaking of the world.

Avakian isn't some magical god, messiah, or anything like that, who can just take away our pain and suffering by dying for our sins or something stupid like that.

Avakian is a communist leader who can play a very important role in showing the proletariat the way to emancipate itself and remake the world, and he should be popularized in that context. This is a scientific and objective look at leadership, and it is one that needs to be understood by communists.

Red Heretic

5th January 2006, 20:48

One more thing, citing the opinions and quotes of certain communist leaders in history as if they were Bible verses, instead of engaging in an actual debate, is making the mistake of dogmatism. Especialy when used around cardinal questions, it is a form of unhealthy struggle, and extraordinarily dangerous.

Just because Marx, Lenin, Mao, Prachanda, or Avakian hold a certain view, that does not necessarily make it correct. What matters is what is objectively correct, not what the opinion of a particular communist leader is. Communist leaders can help lead us to see the objective truth, but sometimes they will be wrong. They should be criticized, and take self-criticisms when they are wrong.

Axel1917

6th January 2006, 02:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:59 AM

From celcticfire:

The MIA is a collection of writtings by dead political influences.

Your criterion for the "Grant Cult" was having a similar layout to the MIA.

YFIS/WIL/Soc Appeal -- pushed for Ted Grant's writtings to be added as he was still living (is he still alive?), thus pushing forward a line promoting a living leader.

By this logic, someone becomes a personality cultist by writing a book, for one is pushing their own writings while they are alive. Grant is still alive, at the age of 92, but the nonsense about the "personality cult" is baseless slander, and there is no concrete proof of it.

Look -- I will level with you here. I don't like the cult of personality crap.
I think Avakian is an important leader, but promoting him this way makes him look like creepy, and it isolates the Party from a lot of people.

Virtually every lefitst I have encountered considers Avakian to be a cult of personality. In itself, it can be wrong, but it makes one wonder when they describe a bombardment of his image and such.

I just think we should check and question "analysis" the bourgeoisie puts out, like "totalitarianism" -- we shouldn't just uncritically accept these things as truths.

I never dogmatically accepted it. In fact, totalitarianism is just fine for the Bourgeoisie, and they love it, under the condition that it is done according to their interests (Hitler had a good deal of support from other European nations until he started attacking them!).

Look - there was a lot of problems with past socialist societies, even in the beginning with Lenin and look how the demonize him!

The charges against Lenin are downright hypocritical (he noted in his Letter to the American Workers, in Lenin Collected Works, volume 28...can't remember the exact page numbers, that force was holy and just when the Bourgeoisie used it, but it became the ultimate sin when the Bolsheviks used it, inflicting far less casualties)).

I know you don't accept the Maoist line, and that's ok. But I'd challenge you to do some more research, and find real criticisms of the RCP and Maoism, not just repeat bourgeois slanders. My critcism of the YFIS/WIL isn't that they're "totalitarian-trotskyists."

The Bourgeoisie sometimes make valuable admissions, and there have been sources from inside Stalinist nations. Maoism is strongly opposed to what Lenin really stood for (it can be proven by reading a lot of Lenin and Trotksy that Leninism and Trotskyism are the same thing). I would not be surprised if the figures of deaths and such in Stalinist nations were inflated, though (some Bourgeois "historians" now claim that Mao had killed something like 70 million). Not to mention that they would have loved people like Stalin if they had killed 10 times as high as the Bourgeois figures in the name of captialism!

We do have a flaw in that the term "Christian-Fascism" is flung around by that group, as the Christians do not control the levers of society (wealthy capitalists do. If Christians somehow threatened the Bourgeoisie, they would throw them out like a bag of trash). We also have the fact that there is no mass basis for Fascism (historically, a large Petty-Bourgeoisie. The Petty-Bourgeoisie continues to get smaller and smaller, being ground away between major corporations). The Bush-approved religious fundamentalism is merely a tool to control the minds of the people (this can be seen in that fundies tend to be very bloodthirsty, especially Pat Robertson, the terrorist of whom has advocated the assassination of Chavez)!

redstar2000

6th January 2006, 12:14

Originally posted by Red Heretic
One more thing, citing the opinions and quotes of certain communist leaders in history as if they were Bible verses, instead of engaging in an actual debate, is making the mistake of dogmatism.

I agree, sometimes that is exactly what's happening.

And it should be criticized.

But, now and then, it becomes necessary to "quote scripture" in an argument when it becomes clear that someone is claiming the "mantle of authority" without justification.

If someone claims to be a "Marxist" and follows this claim with the suggestion that proletarian revolution is "unnecessary" and even "harmful"...then I don't think it's "out of order" to quote a relevant paragraph or two from Marx to demonstrate the falsity of their "Marxist" credentials.

Celticfire's quotation from Marx against personality cults and superstitious belief in authority is entirely relevant to this thread...and, indeed, deserves to be widely publicized on its own merits.

You see, the relevant question is really not who said something...but rather is were they right about that?

I think Marx was wrong about "dialectics" and right about historical materialism.

Was Marx right in his opposition to personality cults and superstitious belief in authority?

I think he was! :)

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

Red Heretic

6th January 2006, 21:03

Whether or not you think something is right doesn't make it right. Neither you, or those quotes, made any actual points about whther or not a leader should be popularized.

It's rather ironic that the same person, Lenin, who you both are claiming did not need to be popularized and defended, was murdered by an anarchist.

Not only that, but in the quote of Marx's, Marx is argueing against dogmatic metaphysical popularization of leadership, just like me. No where in the quote does it say that we should rally behind and defend our leaders, and popularize their line.

Amusing Scrotum

6th January 2006, 21:25

Originally posted by Red Heretic
It's rather ironic that the same person, Lenin, who you both are claiming did not need to be popularized and defended, was murdered by an anarchist.

Have I missed something? ....I thought Lenin died of a stroke?

redstar2000

6th January 2006, 22:22

Originally posted by Red Heretic
Whether or not you think something is right doesn't make it right.

Quite so...but you are sitting next to me in that same boat.

If "all things" are reduced to "what we think is right", then truth is "always subjective" and reality becomes "unknowable".

Mao said that there could be such things as "good personality cults"...and you think Mao was "right" about that.

How do we decide?

We appeal to the objective historical evidence as best we can tell what it is.

I think that evidence is overwhelming: personality cults are a bourgeois deviation from the Marxist paradigm...they clearly represent the bourgeois fascination with "great men" who "build commercial empires".

The Marxist view entirely contradicts this perspective. To Marx, history is made by the masses...and "leaders" are of trivial importance. When proletarian revolution takes place, it's simply an accident who happens to be in the front of the room at the time.

Who "led" the great Petrograd uprising of February 1917? :lol:

It's rather ironic that the same person, Lenin, who you both are claiming did not need to be popularized and defended, was murdered by an anarchist.

Why is that "ironic"? Lenin was persecuting anarchists at the time...is it terribly shocking that one of them decided to retaliate?

And, of course, Lenin was wounded...not "murdered". Though it's been suggested that the wound ultimately shortened his life...making the stroke that killed him happen sooner than it otherwise would have.

No where in the quote does it say that we should rally behind and defend our leaders, and popularize their line.

If Marx thought that such a course was "desirable" or even "necessary", would he not have said so?

But he didn't...and the tone of his remarks suggest that he thought it was a "rotten idea".

He and those who supported his ideas did work pretty hard to "spread the word"...that much is true. But it seems to me that their remarks about Marx "as a leader" were rather "low key"...if they existed at all.

The idea was not "Marx is the Moses of the Proletariat"...but rather Marx's ideas show us how we may emancipate ourselves.

In fact, the evidence suggests that Marx thought of himself primarily as a scientist and almost never as a political leader.

Big difference, eh?

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

Red Powers

7th January 2006, 01:56

from Red Heretic

Avakian is a communist leader who can play a very important role in showing the proletariat the way to emancipate itself and remake the world, and he should be popularized in that context.

Ya gotta love this!! Old "Uncle" Bob's gonna come down and show us proles how to emancipate ourselves. That'll be real popular. <_< Too bad the draft programme of the RCP tells a quite different story.

There Avakian is the Chair of the Party that has a monopoly on political power and control of the police and army. And as Red Heretic told me two weeks ago, the proletariat is too corrupted by capitalism and imperialism to emancipate itself.

Axel1917

7th January 2006, 02:25

From redstar2000:

Why is that "ironic"? Lenin was persecuting anarchists at the time...is it terribly shocking that one of them decided to retaliate?

And, of course, Lenin was wounded...not "murdered". Though it's been suggested that the wound ultimately shortened his life...making the stroke that killed him happen sooner than it otherwise would have.

I believe that Anarchists had provoked such things by using a terroristic bombing attack in a CP headquarters. I like how you try to put Lenin as some kind of anti-Marxist dictator when evidence (like I have put forth) says otherwise.

As for Bob showing the proletarians how to emancipate themselves, I don't think that throwing red paint on people is really going to help out at all.

Red Heretic

7th January 2006, 03:12

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jan 6 2006, 09:36 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jan 6 2006, 09:36 PM)
Red Heretic
It's rather ironic that the same person, Lenin, who you both are claiming did not need to be popularized and defended, was murdered by an anarchist.

Have I missed something? ....I thought Lenin died of a stroke? [/b]
He did. The stroke was caused by a gunshot to the had several months earlier.

celticfire

7th January 2006, 03:18

I want to be principled in how I respond to this, because I don't want to just argue against a caricature, I want to get to the heart of this.

As I've already said, I support Bob Avakian and the RCP. I think Avakian's works (especially the new Civil War piece) are extremely valuable.

Now, the RCP promotes Bob Avakian, in a culture of appreciation.

Red Winter says the RCP promoting Bob Avakian isn't like the religious tones and fuedel ones used in North Korea.

Oh Really? Open the very first page of any Revolution. What does it say in that gray box? "Our Leader is Bob Avakian." What's missing? "Dear" leader?

How is this different?

I understand what the RCP is attempting to do, they are trying to popularize a line by putting a human face on it. Cool.

I understand that. Personality cults have been used for hundreds of years, even bourgeois revolutionaries had them (George Washington had one for example, he was depicted floating among god's angels in the art of the time, and ran uncontested in the first presidental election.)

Personality cult simply means adoration of a leader; but what this is what Max Weber called charistmatic authority. Tucker points out in his Lenin Reader (I'm paraphrasing) that charistmatic authority attracts individuals in great distress of the current status quo; and since the leader offers a way out; the leader is exalted by the followers.

Ok -- so the RCP wants emotional capital. I see the use in that, and it has been effective in past revolutionary movements.

So in theory the personality cult makes sense. But lets examine the past societies/movements that used the personality cult and what happened to them.

Example 1) Stalin's personality cult began wide spread in the 1930's, as the Soviet Union faced the possibility (and eventual reality) of invasion by NAZI germany, and as active counter revolutionaries destroyed collective farm equipment, killed officials (Kirov), etc.

Example 2) Mao's personality cult reached its epitome during the Cultural Revolution, which was a battle of lines and the direction of the new socialist society. Mao's power had been reduced to figure head, and the cult was used to stir action from below. Though this example was positive in that it did stir action from below, it also had a very negative side, as the Mao cult was used by revisionists promoting very different lines (there's a discussion about this here on AWIP.)

Example 3) Huey Newton's personality cult really began when different lines began to emerge within the Black Panthers. There was a lot of struggle (and no formal arena for them to be struggled out, there was never a BPP congress as far as I know) and in the short run provided party unity, but ultimately also failed.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b388/celticfire84/rcp/newton1.jpg
The poster says "LET US HOLD HIGH THE BANNER OF REVOLUTIONARY INTERCOMMUNALISM AND THE INVINCIBLE THOUGHTS OF HUEY P. NEWTON MINISTER OF DEFENSE OF THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND SUPREME SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE."

Since the personality cult builds emotional capital it also equates the leader with the state or movement; so when the leader dies -- the state/movement is quick the change drastically - case in point (Stalin's death and the rise of Khruschev, Mao's death and the rise of Deng)

So we know the personality cult in that way empowers revisionism.

My argument against the personality cult isn't the bourgeois argument that it's "totalitarian" but that it saps the proletariats ability to rule.

From massline.info's Scott H.

"One of the more absurd although sadly predictable manifestations of this ultra-leftism was the emergence of an infantile cult of personality devoted to the RCP's chairman, Bob Avakian. The cult seemed to spring up rather spontaneously during the period of the split with the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters. This probably represented, at least in part, the confusion of cadre poorly prepared ideologically, searching for some sort of idolatrous certainty. If the cult of personality was initially spontaneous, it was soon to be consciously manipulated by the RCP during the Mao Tsetung Defendants campaign. At that time, the patently ridiculous assertion that a U.S. revolution was impossible without the leadership of Bob Avakian became commonplace among RCP cadre." (The Decline of the RCP (http://www.massline.info/rcp/ORU.htm))

Again we see the personality comes about in times of hard struggle. It is this that leads me to think the personality cult is a sign of weakness, not strength.

Bob Avakian is an important revolutionary leader; but the personality cult turns him into a joke (ie: the reactionary Bob Avakian The Video Game).

Someone on another thread asked "why not just promote communism?"
Couldn't really argue against that.

Red Heretic

7th January 2006, 03:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:33 PM
Why is that "ironic"? Lenin was persecuting anarchists at the time...is it terribly shocking that one of them decided to retaliate?

And, of course, Lenin was wounded...not "murdered". Though it's been suggested that the wound ultimately shortened his life...making the stroke that killed him happen sooner than it otherwise would have.

No where in the quote does it say that we should rally behind and defend our leaders, and popularize their line.

If Marx thought that such a course was "desirable" or even "necessary", would he not have said so?

But he didn't...and the tone of his remarks suggest that he thought it was a "rotten idea".

He and those who supported his ideas did work pretty hard to "spread the word"...that much is true. But it seems to me that their remarks about Marx "as a leader" were rather "low key"...if they existed at all.

The idea was not "Marx is the Moses of the Proletariat"...but rather Marx's ideas show us how we may emancipate ourselves.

In fact, the evidence suggests that Marx thought of himself primarily as a scientist and almost never as a political leader.

Big difference, eh?

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

Mao said that there could be such things as "good personality cults"...and you think Mao was "right" about that.

I have heard you cite that several times. I doubt very serious Mao said it like that, but I haven't read whatever it is you are talking about. Do you have a reference?

I think that evidence is overwhelming: personality cults are a bourgeois deviation from the Marxist paradigm...they clearly represent the bourgeois fascination with "great men" who "build commercial empires".

Personality cults, yes. The popularization of revolutionary leadership, no. I wonder if you even read my previous posts.

Revolutionary leadership comes forward because of class contradictions, and it is a sign of how sharp class contradictions are. Lenin came out of the class struggle in Russia, Mao out of the revolutionary situation in Chinese, caused by Japenese imperialism, and Avakian came out of all of the revolutionary momentum in the 60's. Revolutionary leaders are the synthesized rage and ideology of the masses, and the sure as hell aren't anything the proeltariat ought be ashamed of.

The Marxist view entirely contradicts this perspective. To Marx, history is made by the masses...and "leaders" are of trivial importance. When proletarian revolution takes place, it's simply an accident who happens to be in the front of the room at the time.

That is utterly bullshit. Lenin and Mao's ideological contributions are literally priceless and immortal. Their work is not of "trivial importance."

Exposing soviet revisionism is not of "trivial importance."

Exposing the fact that their is a embryonic bourgeoisie within the party, and that it must be struggled against by the proletariat is not of "trivial importance."

Unleashing a mass campaign in which the masses drive the drug lords out of their country, and abolish drug addiction in the country with the worlds largest drug problem, is not of "trivial importance."

Unleashing the masses to transform all of society and struggle against revisionism isn't of "trivial importance" either.

Your arguements are nearly all loaded statements that merely "sound good."

Who "led" the great Petrograd uprising of February 1917?

The bolsheviks. I suggest you read Ten Days That Shook the World.

redstar2000

7th January 2006, 08:04

Originally posted by Red Heretic
[Lenin's] stroke was caused by a gunshot to the head several months earlier.

Lenin was wounded on August 30, 1918. He suffered his initial stroke on May 26, 1922. He suffered a second stroke on December 15, 1922. He suffered a third stroke on March 9, 1923. His fourth and fatal stroke took place on January 21, 1924.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/bio/timeline.htm

I have heard you cite that several times. I doubt very seriously Mao said it like that, but I haven't read whatever it is you are talking about. Do you have a reference?

Avakian quotes Mao admiringly in this collection...

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

And applies the same criterion to himself in this one...

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

The actual source of Mao's discussion of "good" and "bad" personality cults comes in a piece he wrote about Stalin...around 1958 I think. You should be able to find it if there's a Mao Archives source on the net.

Revolutionary leaders are the synthesized rage and ideology of the masses, and they sure as hell aren't anything the proletariat ought be ashamed of.

This is metaphysical. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.

No single individual "represents the proletariat" in any kind of a metaphysical sense...that's just bourgeois idealism.

Like the Nazis claimed: "Hitler is Germany!"

No he wasn't.

Lenin and Mao's ideological contributions are literally priceless and immortal.

More iconography. Why not some statues of those guys that "weep real tears"? :lol:

The "verdict of history" seems to be that neither did anything of substance to advance communist revolution. At best, they were displaced bourgeois ideologues from 1789.

They have very little of interest to say to us at all.

I suggest you read Ten Days That Shook the World.

I have, of course, read John Reed's classic account of the Bolshevik's October 1917 coup.

But what I asked you was who led the massive uprising of the proletariat in Petrograd in February 1917.

It was not "the Bolsheviks"...or anyone else!

It happened spontaneously.

Something that's haunted the Leninists ever since.

It's their "worst nightmare". :lol:

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