The immature trend among the anti-RCP crusaders

[celticfire]

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 I encourage everyone else to give them a chance.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

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.

[Wanted Man]

It's funny how discussions about the RCP occur on here and on Soviet-Empire simultaneously.

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopi...ghlight=#553758 (http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=553758&highlight=#553758)

I'd like to refer to the posts by Wheelchairman and Tradlav(below that of Koba) in particular. While WCM was wrong about the connection between RCP and MIM, otherwise I fully agree with these posts.


For all you who take shots at Avakian - have you read his works? Have you tried to? I wonder.
Where can I read them? His site has a link to a list of works by him, but I can't actually read them. I've tried listening to one of his talks, and I just couldn't keep interested. The first bit of "Liberation Without Gods", if you're wondering. He went on about God, and then he told the life story of Haile Selassie or something like that. It just wasn't interesting.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:54 AM
The RCP has been the first group I've seen to actually go to the masses.
.....
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 think you mean something different by "masses" and "mass movement" than I do.

I've read a bit of Avakian Thought and other RCP lit, and it didn't exactly inspire me to read more.

[Red Heretic]

I'm glad that the Panthers have come into this debate. I think that what happened to the Panther leadership really well characterizes what happens to your leadership if you don't defend it.

Many of you know who Fred Hampton was, but for those of you who don't... Fred Hampton was a Maoist revolutionary and chairman of the Black Panther Party. He was drugged, and then murdered by the police while he slept as a part of the FBI's systematic counter-revolutionary program COINTELPRO.

It wasn't just Hampton that they targetted. They attempted to murder the leaders of the SDS, and countless other revolutionaries INCLUDING BOB AVAKIAN. The FBI spied on everything he said and did, and they got blueprints of his house and planned an assassination attempt. There were papers discussing his assassination. These were obtained under the freedom of information act and they are all published and included in Avakian's new memoir titled From Ike to Mao: From Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist.

After the protests that Avakian led against Deng Xaioping while Deng was visiting the United States, they stacked over 100 (I believe it was actually 220 if I'm not mistaken) years of charges against him to put him into prison for life. The feds wanted Avakian dead, period.

If we do not defend Avakian's leadership, and a revolutionary situation does arise like it did in the 60's, THEY WILL MURDER THE LEADERS OF THE PROLETARIAT. Not just Bob Avakian, they'll murder anyone who they believe poses any real threat to them, but they will ESPECIALLY target revolutionary communists like Bob Avakian. Not because he's Bob Avakian, but because he is a leader of the proletariat.

We need to be clear. We have got to popularize and defend our leaders, or the same shit that happened to the Panthers without Hamptons leadership, the same thing that happened to the revolution Turkey without Rosa's leadership, the same thing that happened to the revolution in Peru without Gonzalo's leadership, WILL HAPPEN TO ANY REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY. It is the absolute undeniable responsibility of the masses, and ESPECIALLY the responsibility of communists, to defend our leaders from the attacks of the enemy. If we are going to just stand by while they murder our leaders and smash our revolutions to pieces, then what the fuck is this all for?

I don't mean in a dogmatic religious way like the DPRK does. I mean real objective materialist popularization of our leaders that looks realistically at the role that they will play in the world revolution, and how they arise from the objective contradictions within this system.

[Xvall]

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!

Who is "our"? Avakian maybe you your revolutionary leader, but he sure as hell isn't mine.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:58 AM

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!

Who is "our"? Avakian maybe you your revolutionary leader, but he sure as hell isn't mine.
Ok, so you reject Avakian's leadership. Would you like to tell us why or do you just want to sound "cool?"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by celticfire
The RCP has been the first group I've seen to actually go to the masses.

Assuming the truth of your observation, the question still remains...

"Go the the masses" with what?

How does it assist the growth of class consciousness among the masses to tell them to follow Avakian?


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 would not consider any of the individuals you listed as "our revolutionary leaders". Indeed, I think that is a childish phrase...which is rather ironic given your complaint about "immaturity".

As a practical consideration, if the ruling class thought it would be advantageous to them to have any of those people killed, it would be done by dinnertime tomorrow.

Assassination of genuinely inconvenient individuals comes as easily to them as ordering a pizza. It's "no big deal".

I surmise that the ruling class has not killed the individuals you mentioned because there'd be no point to it. Those people are "not a real threat" in any significant sense.


I wonder if all of you who mock the RCP would have mocked the Black Panthers back in the day.

Well, I lived through the period when the Black Panther Party was widely celebrated in the "left"...and I can't say that I was terribly "impressed".

On occasion, I was present in meetings with them...and I found them a pretty arrogant bunch to deal with.

I don't know how they related to other African-Americans, but it seemed to me that they expected white lefties to flop on our bellies before their "revolutionary magnificence".

You know how I feel about that sort of crap.

Of course, I'm talking about "ordinary" Panthers...and what it was like to deal with the Panther leadership is something I have no knowledge of.

I only heard the "left gossip" of that era...that the BPP at the "top" was full of sordid intrigue and corruption...including the murder of a woman who "kept the books" for the Panthers.

I remind you that this was gossip...not "verified truth" in any way. What was really true and what was COINTELPRO lies was not easy to distinguish at the time...or now.

In passing, I must also question your equating the BPP and the RCP. I don't think that in any place at any time has the RCP ever had the political impact of the BPP.

It's a "whole different league".


My point is this: why would people that call themselves "revolutionaries" or "radicals" spend so much time trying to discredit a revolutionary organization?

Because they don't accept its claims of being revolutionary, of course.

Organizations cannot be considered revolutionary simply because they choose to paste that label on themselves.

If I changed my username on this board to "revolutionary genius", would that make me one?

Or if I called myself "Today's Living Marx", would that "automatically" be true?

:lol:

No, we have learned -- or are in the process of learning -- to look past the label and see what's actually in the package.

The idea of a country under the personal despotism of Bob Avakian does not strike people as "revolutionary."

Are you surprised by that?


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

The appeal for "unity on the left" has a long tradition...of utter futility.

It's never happened and never will.

Unity on the "Left"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082988280&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30 2005, 10:33 PM
If we are going to just stand by while they murder our leaders and smash our revolutions to pieces, then what the fuck is this all for?
That might be a reason for a "Bob Avakian Defense Campaign" - something I've never seen any sign of - but not for a Chairman Bob personality cult - something I've seen plenty of. RCPers constantly go on about Chairman Bob's supposed genius, but rarely if ever about the exact charges against him, why they're unjust, etc.

Certainly other political leaders in the history of the workers movement have stood and fought against far more serious charges.

I'd guess the reason I've seen little sign of such a defense campaign is that Avakian likes living in France. That's fine, but then he should stop claiming to lead a revolutionary movement in the U.S.

Edit: Heck, is he still facing charges, or was there a plea bargain? If he is facing charges, how come there's no active defense campaign? If the charges were the reason he moved to France, how come others charged in that protest didn't go?

[Xvall]

Ok, so you reject Avakian's leadership. Would you like to tell us why or do you just want to sound "cool?"

What fucking reason do I need? Am I supposed to just support anyone I come across? I reject Avakian's leadership because he belongs to a political party I'm not a part of and he's probably just going to die without accomplishing anything significant. I'm not trying to sound cool. He proclaimed who our "leaders" are and he is greatly mistaken.

[Red Heretic]

The need for a Bob Avakian defense campaign is probably a really valid criticism of the party... I'll have to give that a lot more thought.

There was a defense campaign back during the assassination attempts and while the charges were being stacked up until he went into exile. It was the conscious decision of the party however to popularize him with the masses and to do everything the party possibly could do to ensure that the bourgeoisie could not murder him without extreme reparations. Popularizing a leader with the masses makes them infinitely more difficult for the bourgeoisie to assassinate.

There are many other reasons that tie into the party's decision to popularize Avakian's leadership. I'll try to post some of the party documents on the decision when I get home.

As for going into exile, there were many more factors that tied into that besides just the stacked charges. I can't remember if I have read about a plea bargain... The central committee decided that exile was the best place from which Avakian should do his work. From exile, he is able to take a bold and radical stand against imperialism and for revolution in the US without constant fear of being murdered. As many know, he has traveled to the United States in secret several times to give speeches.

I mean look... with the revolution in Nepal heating up, and the possiblity of a US invasion of Nepal, they are going to go after the revolutionary leaders in this country with a connection to that revolution. That leader is Bob Avakian. He's one of the founders of the RIM, which gave birth to the communist party of nepal (maoist). The communist party of Nepal even distributes his works. He is very much connected to the revolution in Nepal, and they'll do everything they can to crush that revolution. As the world revolution progresses, the bourgeoisie is going to increase its repression of communists, and especially communist leaders. We very well could see another red scare if both India and Nepal go socialist.

[viva le revolution]

Unfortunately our revolutionary anarchists and Trotskyites are good only for criticism. This is a trend noticed by myself over a long peroid of time on this board. Unfortunately, they do not find it prudent to propose nor defend their own propositions merely hide behind the supposedly intellectualism of smileys. How about a thread where anarchists defend their propositions and allow Maoists to critique?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:39 AM


What fucking reason do I need? Am I supposed to just support anyone I come across? I reject Avakian's leadership because he belongs to a political party I'm not a part of and he's probably just going to die without accomplishing anything significant. I'm not trying to sound cool. He proclaimed who our "leaders" are and he is greatly mistaken.
What LOGIC!!! is this the logic of all first world commies?? :lol:

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 1 2005, 08:17 AM
There was a defense campaign back during the assassination attempts and while the charges were being stacked up until he went into exile.
Assassination attempts! I know the RCP claimed there were threats, are you claiming there were actual attempts? When, where and with what weapons?


It was the conscious decision of the party however to popularize him with the masses and to do everything the party possibly could do to ensure that the bourgeoisie could not murder him without extreme reparations. Popularizing a leader with the masses makes them infinitely more difficult for the bourgeoisie to assassinate.

But the party isn't popularizing him with the masses. Most people have never heard of him. Among those who have, most people are turned off by the personality cult - which is why y'all started this thread!

The personality cult serves the same purpose as the Baghwan Sri Rajneesh's. Ensuring the obedience of the already convinced, not making him more popular with most people.

If anything, it reduces the political cost for the ruling class if they were to remove him. Since Avakian is generally regarded as a cult leader, most people would care less.

Raising the political cost would involve a defense campaign which appeals to people who don't like Bob Avakian or agree with his politics, but who don't like seeing people murdered for their political ideas and activities. It would involve publicizing the details of the charges, if there still are any, the alleged threats, etc.

That might deter them from carrying out the assassination, if it's true they were planning one, and would certainly raise the cost if they went ahead....for example, there would be less doubt about who was responsible for the murder if it had been widely publicized that Uncle Sam was threatening to kill him.


From exile, he is able to take a bold and radical stand against imperialism and for revolution in the US without constant fear of being murdered.

What? Exile might protect him against legal charges, but certainly not against assassination! If anything, there are fewer constraints on the U.S. organizing assassinations abroad...

And how about French imperialism? They're not interested in stopping the so-called revolution in Nepal? They would never, ever assassinate a revolutionary?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 1 2005, 12:32 PM
Unfortunately our revolutionary anarchists and Trotskyites are good only for criticism. This is a trend noticed by myself over a long peroid of time on this board. Unfortunately, they do not find it prudent to propose nor defend their own propositions merely hide behind the supposedly intellectualism of smileys. How about a thread where anarchists defend their propositions and allow Maoists to critique?
Cry me a river. :lol:

There are many people on this board who reject Leninism and I think their numbers are obviously increasing. :)

And Trotskyists are, by and large, scornful of their Maoist competition.

What else would you expect?

As to "proposing" or "defending" their "own propositions", that has happened on occasion.

What is taking place in our era is, I think, the formative stages of shaping a new revolutionary paradigm.

People are still "in the process" of deciding what parts of Marxism and of the anarchist tradition are worth incorporating into that new paradigm and what should be junked as misleading or inadequate.

This is "going to take awhile"...as there is much Leninist trash to be disposed of and some parts of the "old anarchism" did not "turn out well" at all.

It may be that people "sense" that the best way to form a new revolutionary theory is to begin with an on-going criticism of all previous such theories.

I don't imagine that those on the "receiving end" of such criticisms find it a pleasant experience. I don't imagine that the 19th century socialists criticized by Marx and Engels "liked that" either.

But that seems to be "how things work". If you want a message board where everyone shares your own personal superstitions, then I'm sure that you can find one or start your own. It's not that hard...and you don't even need much in the way of technical knowledge to do it.

You could have WeWorshipLenin.com or AllHailMao.com up and running within 24 hours.

Of course, you might find that the traffic on your site was rather minimal. :lol:

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

[Red Heretic]

Assassination attempts! I know the RCP claimed there were threats, are you claiming there were actual attempts? When, where and with what weapons?

The word I meant to use was "plots." My mistake. The plots are documented and published under the freedom of information act.


But the party isn't popularizing him with the masses.

Isn't popularizing him with the masses?! They're doing everything they can to do that!


Most people have never heard of him. Among those who have, most people are turned off by the personality cult - which is why y'all started this thread!


In 1.5 years of organizing and working with the masses, I have only come accross ONE proletarian who was against Avakian's popularization, and that was because of her anarchist background.

The whole anti-popularization of leadership is a reflection of class background. There is a staggeringly higher ratio of petit-bourgeois people who oppose the popularization of leadership. The petit-bourgeoisie is not exposed to poverty and exploitation and the need for leadership, and has a class outlook that looks at the world in a vacuum.

The petit-bourgeoisie says "lets do this because it'll be fun." However, the proletariat is looking for revolution because it doesn't have a choice. Out of class contradictions within the proletariat come proletarian leaders. These leaders play a tremendous role in historical materialism. When leaders like Lenin and Mao come forward, it is not something to be ashamed of like you Trots and Anarchists are, but rather something to be CELEBRATED! When revolutionary leaders come forward, that is a sign that class contradictions have become so sharp that leaders have come forward to resolve them. Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fred Hampton, Prachanda, and Avakian are all the DIRECT RESULT of the class contradictions in the societies they came from. Avakian came directly out of the revolutionary momentum in the 60's.

To say that we do not leaders that come forward out of these class contradictions is metaphysical and is a petit-bourgeois class outlook.



Since Avakian is generally regarded as a cult leader, most people would care less.

Perhaps the petit-bourgeois Trotskyites wouldn't care, but I have seen first hand that the proletariat cares.


What? Exile might protect him against legal charges, but certainly not against assassination! If anything, there are fewer constraints on the U.S. organizing assassinations abroad...

It isn't exactly easy for the US to commit an assasination in a competing imperialist power. If the USA regularly committed assasination in its imperialist competitor's country, that could ultimately mean a world war.


And how about French imperialism? They're not interested in stopping the so-called revolution in Nepal? They would never, ever assassinate a revolutionary?

Well, for the most part it is the USA and India that are leading the crusade against the revolution in Nepal. It is true that France could take a stance against the Nepalese revolution, but France for the most part tends to be neutral toward things that hurt US imperialism, even if it does give lip service against revolution.

France is much less likely to start rounding up and slaughtering people than the US. The US already does that.

[Red Heretic]

There are many people on this board who reject Leninism and I think their numbers are obviously increasing.

If you honestly believe the membership of this board is represenative to the sentiments among the proletariat, I suggest you do some serious reconsidering. I hate to break it to you, but this board unfortunately is not composed of a proletarian majority.

Even if the majority of the advanced members of the proletariat did reject Leninism, that would mean absolutely nothing. Your arguement is a falacy. What the majority of people believe has nothing to do with what is actually true.

The majority of Americans reject evolution. Does that mean evolution is wrong? FUCK NO! I don't care if every other person on this board becomes an anarchist, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is still the most correct and scientific ideology in human existence.


You could have WeWorshipLenin.com or AllHailMao.com up and running within 24 hours.

and you think us Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are dogmatic?!

[Amusing Scrotum]

In 1.5 years of organizing and working with the masses, I have only come accross ONE proletarian who was against Avakian's popularization, and that was because of her anarchist background.

I'm not an Anarchist and I am part of the masses. Guess what? ....I reject Avakian too, so you can add me to that figure.


The whole anti-popularization of leadership is a reflection of class background. There is a staggeringly higher ratio of petit-bourgeois people who oppose the popularization of leadership. The petit-bourgeoisie is not exposed to poverty and exploitation and the need for leadership, and has a class outlook that looks at the world in a vacuum.

So it is petit bourgeois to reject a petit bourgeois leader. One word, bullshit.

I am exposed to poverty and exploitation and I want to stop this by destroying a system that creates exploiters. I don't want to "switch" exploiters.


To say that we do not leaders that come forward out of these class contradictions is metaphysical and is a petit-bourgeois class outlook.

Some people will say anything to justify despotism. :angry:

[Xvall]

What LOGIC!!! is this the logic of all first world commies??

Are you going to actually specify what part of my logic you have a problem with, or is INTENSE CAPITALIZATION and emoticon usage pointing to something I don't grasp, here? Yeah, that's my logic. I'm not a a Maoist, so I'm not going to consider some Maoist who means nothing to me to be my fucking leader. I didn't actually have much of a problem with Chairman Bob to begin with but now that I'm talking to his "followers" I'm begining to wish he stayed in Exile. You, like Avakian, are going to die without ever accomplishing anything - no one will remember who the hell you are ten years afterward, and those who knew you will not care.

And don't forget that Avakian is one of those "First World Commies"!

[redstar2000]

Well, well, well.

Red Heretic, rummaging through the rubble of 20th century Leninism, has dug up a very old response...tattered and torn as it is.


The whole anti-popularization of leadership is a reflection of class background. There is a staggeringly higher ratio of petit-bourgeois people who oppose the popularization of leadership. The petit-bourgeoisie is not exposed to poverty and exploitation and the need for leadership, and has a class outlook that looks at the world in a vacuum.

:lol:

No one has ever done (to my knowledge) a statistically rigorous analysis of the "class background" associated with different "left" political tendencies.

But it is nonetheless a commonplace observation that the 20th century leadership of Leninist parties in the "west" was dominated by people from a middle class or even upper class background.

These are the very same people who refer to their critics as "petit bourgeoisie". :lol:

The myth that working people "really want leadership" goes back to Lenin himself, of course.

The idea is that workers "learn" an "appreciation of discipline" from their factory experiences.

But their desire for "competent leadership" arises from their direct observation of the incompetence of their own bosses.

So "they conclude" that what's "needed" is "someone who knows what they're doing" to "run this factory" and "run this country" "right".

To be fair, there might even have been some truth to this idea in the Russia of 1917. Russian workers were "accustomed" to despotism...but demanded the replacement of obviously "incompetent" despots by "competent" despots.

Indeed, it might well be argued that the whole appeal of 20th century Leninism to the "western" working class (such as it was) simply reflected the overall backwardness of that century's working class.

We were simply not yet ready to become "a class for ourselves". A lot of us were still looking for "a redeemer" to "lead us out of bondage".

Well, Red Heretic, I must inform you that I am not "petit bourgeois" but come directly from the American working class. My father was a telephone lineman, my mother was a telephone operator (back when women did that work), my uncle was a railroad worker, my maternal grandmother worked at an aluminum plant, etc., etc., etc. I was the only member of my family ever to attend a university -- and that was a municipal college for 2-1/2 years on a scholarship.

So don't "petit-bourgeoisie" me! :angry:

And I learned from first-hand experience during the 60s and 70s what "Leninist leadership" amounted to in practice.

It is still possible, of course, that an active Leninist party like the RCP can locate an occasional worker who might decide to "check them out" for a year or two.

But it won't "keep them". As soon as this hypothetical worker finds out what "Leninist leadership" is really like, they'll head for the door without hesitation.

Working class people don't like being told what to do by pompous upper class "leaders".

That's over!

And it ain't "coming back"...ever! :)

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 1 2005, 05:10 PM

Assassination attempts! I know the RCP claimed there were threats, are you claiming there were actual attempts? When, where and with what weapons?

The word I meant to use was "plots." My mistake. The plots are documented and published under the freedom of information act.
Where?


In 1.5 years of organizing and working with the masses, I have only come accross ONE proletarian who was against Avakian's popularization, and that was because of her anarchist background.

And lemme guess, in your 1.5 years of working with what the RCP calls the masses, you've come across....ONE proletarian.

C'mon, the RCP has even less to do with the working class than most of the left. They even recently changed the name of their newspaper to reflect that reality - from Revolutionary Worker to Revolution. Your the last one to be in a position to play "more proletarian than thou."

My impression - admittedly superficial - is that it's young people from a middle-class background who are most likely to be attracted to exalted cult leaders because of the certainty they offer in an uncertain world, whether it's the Bhagwan or Avakian. That's the stereotypical cult follower, and the typical RCP recruit from those I've met.

In any case, it's certainly true that most of the population, of all classes, is repelled by such cults, as I said. But they can serve a certain function anyway: in keeping the faithful in line, and even in recruiting those individuals who are attracted to them.


It isn't exactly easy for the US to commit an assasination in a competing imperialist power. If the USA regularly committed assasination in its imperialist competitor's country, that could ultimately mean a world war.

Heh. Paris is going to go to war to avenge Avakian? They agree with you about his tremendous genius?

If he was such an asset to the world revolution, Paris would have no trouble agreeing with Washington on his assassination.


France is much less likely to start rounding up and slaughtering people than the US.

Tell it to the Algerians and the Vietnamese. Or if you prefer a more recent example, French imperialism aided the Rwandan regime responsible for the '94 genocide, and has had its finger in the pie of some other recent African bloodbaths.

You might also find it interesting to look at the antidemocratic decrees that were used to suppress the recent riots in France.

You're heading towards the logical conclusion of the current fashion on the left, which is to support anything against Washington or "the Bush regime." That logical conclusion is support to smaller imperialist powers.

[Severian]

None of the RCPers seem to know exactly what Avakian was charged with, if those charges are still outstanding, or what exactly is the basis for thinking his life was/is in danger.

Which seems to confirm that none of that is actually important to the RCP, that is to Avakian.

But I did find a source which gives one account of the events surrounding Avakian's move to France. It's an book by an academic attempting a "scholarly" look at Maoist and Trotskyist groups in the U.S. and France. It strikes me as an honest try by someone who does not really understand any of the politics involved, and who makes a lot of minor errors. So I don't know if this is exactly accurate...but it's more than any RCPer has been able to give.

So here it is:

This is not to imply that the RCP has remained perfectly static. On the contrary, it has undergone significant changes. One of these changes has involved Chairman Bob Avakian. The same contradiction between the very personalized role of Mao as leader and the egalitarianism of the Cultural Revolution has been replicated in the RCP. Bob Avakian has attempted to adopt the very personalistic leadership style of Mao and his followers have accepted this. His charisma has been put to an even greater test than Mao's because the Chairman has been obliged to do his chairing from France.

As indicated in Chapter 5, members of the RCP were charged with misdemeanors after their January 1979 demonstration against the visit of Deng Xiaoping to Washington. The Department of Justice intervened, however, and the charges were changed to felonies. Seventeen members of the RCP were hit with charges that could have caused each of them to be sentenced to 242 years in prison. Ultimately, the government backed off of the felony charges in exchange for guilty pleas to some of the original misdemeanor charges. Avakian and other members of the party had been subjected to surveillance and the party had been infiltrated since the FBI's COINTELPO program was instituted. In August 1979, the Los Angeles Times printed what it claimed was an excerpt from a speech that Avakian had given in Los Angeles on August 5. The presentation in the Times led one to believe that Avakian had called upon the audience to murder President Carter as well as police officers and other heads of state. The newspaper partially corrected its quote at the insistence of Avakian's lawyer, and the Los Angeles District Attorney's office called off the investigation which it had begun. Nevertheless, according to the RCP, the Secret Service continued to harass Avakian. The RCP claims that threats were made against his life "directly by Secret Service and other government agents."[52] After a speaking tour of the United States in the summer and fall of 1979, during which his life was threatened on numerous occasions, according to the RCP, Avakian went underground and surfaced in France, where he requested political refugee status.[53]
source (http://web.archive.org/web/20001215011500/http://www.maoism.org/misc/usa/trotskyism_maoism/epilog2.htm)

Table of contents for the book, which has some other interesting stuff. (http://web.archive.org/web/20010113095800/www.maoism.org/misc/usa/trotskyism_maoism/tm_toc.htm)

Originally hosted on some now-defunct Maoist website, now courtesy of the Wayback Machine...

[celticfire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:14 PM
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.
No personality cult at all...

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/02/310839.jpg

Why do you think this image was taken?

http://hierographics.org/yourhistoryonline/hueypnewton.jpg

[YKTMX]

I think there are some good things and some bad things about the RCP.

They seem, to me at least, to be one of the few visible (as far as they can be) and organised revolutionary groups. I like their bias towards youth and vibrancy. I've never met any of their members or been to any of their meetings but that is certainly the superficial impression I get from websites, material etc.

The problems are obvious. Firstly, they're a Maoist organisation in the most advanced country in the world, which, it seems to me, is just asking for trouble.

And, of course, the focus on Chairman Avakian is totally unhealthy.

Still, on balance, I think they're a useful outfit. I wouldn't take seriously the knee-jerk anti-Leninism of some members.

[violencia.Proletariat]

why do people always say the rcp is the only group "telling the story to the masses"? i have not met ONE single person outside the left who has heard of the rcp. they might have some name recognition in california and a few large cities, but thats it.

[Red Heretic]

RedStar2000, it is not at all an "old thought" or at all how you have portrayed it. All classes carry a class outlook and methodology, whether it be the bourgeoisie, the petit-bourgeoisie, or the proletariat. For example, it is the class outlook of the bourgeoisie to believe that the problems of Black people are the result of their own actions. That is a bourgeois point of view.

The belief that there is no real need for leadership is specifically a petit-bourgeois point of view. I realize this sounds "convenient" but it is the objective reality.

A proletarian point of view takes historical materialism and the roley that leadership play in it, into consideration in its outlook.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 1 2005, 11:50 PM
Some people will say anything to justify despotism. :angry:
Despotism? are you fucking joking?

Us Maoists want a society free from all forms of oppression and inequality, in which it is the masses who are truely in control of society (communism).

Even under socialism, it is the proletariat that is in control in society, as it struggles against the contradictions within itself and struggles against the contraidctions between itself and the bourgeoisie. In socialism, the party will LEAD the proletariat, not RULE it.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Dec 2 2005, 05:55 PM--> (Red Heretic @ Dec 2 2005, 05:55 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 1 2005, 11:50 PM
Some people will say anything to justify despotism. :angry:
Despotism? are you fucking joking?

Us Maoists want a society free from all forms of oppression and inequality, in which it is the masses who are truely in control of society (communism).

Even under socialism, it is the proletariat that is in control in society, as it struggles against the contradictions within itself and struggles against the contraidctions between itself and the bourgeoisie. In socialism, the party will LEAD the proletariat, not RULE it. [/b]
avakian is a maoist, that shit did NOT happen like that in china. so your trying to tell us that its going to turn out ok this time :lol: . no thanks.

[Xvall]

No, he's right dude, there was no opression in China whatsoever.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red Heretic
The belief that there is no real need for leadership is specifically a petit-bourgeois point of view. I realize this sounds "convenient" but it is the objective reality.

A proletarian point of view takes historical materialism and the role that leadership play in it, into consideration in its outlook.

The attentive reader will see the problem in "debating" with Maoists.

When one challenges their fundamental assertions, they don't actually respond to one's arguments, they just repeat their assertions in bold-faced type.

If the board software permitted it, they'd scream "workers want leaders" in a size so large that it would fill an entire page.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the RCP will soon display a huge banner at their next demonstration: "Workers Want Leaders!"

The invocation of historical materialism by Red Heretic strikes a discordant note...as he is otherwise clearly a follower of the old bourgeois "great man theory" of history.

Like all really serious Maoists.

I suspect he just dropped in the words because he thought they "sounded impressive".

Western Maoists wouldn't know historical materialism if it ran up and bit them in the ass.

Which it has. :lol:


In socialism, the party will LEAD the proletariat, not RULE it.

A good example of how Maoists think that changing a label "really means" changing the social realities.

This is "politics as image"...a lesson that western Maoists have learned from western ruling class practice.

Party despotism "sounds bad"...so let's think of something to call it that will "sound good".

They overlook how cynical the western working class has become about "images".

And that cynicism is increasing!

Especially about "leaders".

Which is one of the many reasons that western Maoism will continue its slide into obscurity.

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:20 AM
They seem, to me at least, to be one of the few visible (as far as they can be) and organised revolutionary groups. I like their bias towards youth and vibrancy. I've never met any of their members or been to any of their meetings but that is certainly the superficial impression I get from websites, material etc.
See Nate's post just after yours. I think this illustrates the problem with evaluating a group based on its websites rather than contact with its real-world activity.

The RCP is reasonable-sized as far left groups in the U.S. go, judging by its level of public activity. It's not as super-sectarian as, say, the Spartacist League, and will sometimes engage in worthwhile actions along with other people. I've occasionally stood alongside its members in clinic defense actions, for example.

That's about all that can be said for it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:52 PM
The attentive reader will see the problem in "debating" with Maoists.

When one challenges their fundamental assertions, they don't actually respond to one's arguments, they just repeat their assertions in bold-faced type.
Yeah, exactly.

But they've been doing a bit better than usual in this thread: Red Heretic and Celticfire have sometimes actually responded to other people's actual points. Celticfire's last post about the Black Panther's is an example.

I think they should be recognized for taking a step forward, even if it's from such a far-back starting point.

[h&s]

Not having any experience of the RCP (living on the wrong continent doesn't help) I can't really comment on their tactics, but I do have to agree that the anti-RCP 'crusade' on the internet does seem to be a little childish and immature.
Though critisism of them is healthy, and it helps people to develop their views.

One thing I want to know about them is what do they mean when they say that they are 'going to the masses?'
Surely as the vanguard / leaders of the proletariat they should be the masses? A revolutionary party is not the means by which a group gains power, it should be the grouping together of working people, standing up for themselves, fighting for their rights.
'Appealing to the masses' implies that they are not part of the masses, so therefore are not a workers party.
So what action does the RCP actually take?

Also, why is Bob Avakian still the leader if he lives in France? Wouldn't it be better for him to get involved in French politics instead?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:52 AM
When one challenges their fundamental assertions, they don't actually respond to one's arguments, they just repeat their assertions in bold-faced type.
And you bolding your little stingwords is any better? Don't make me laugh.


Which is one of the many reasons that western Maoism will continue its slide into obscurity.
As opposed to your "anti-Leninist" or "orthodox" marxism or whatever you advocate on your boring-ass site? Your arrogance is completely misplaced.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Matthijs
As opposed to your "anti-Leninist" or "orthodox" marxism or whatever you advocate on your boring-ass site? Your arrogance is completely misplaced.

And another charming Maoist is heard from. :wub:

For all of Mao's long-winded babbling about "the correct handling of contradictions among the people", the western Maoists seem not to have "read that part". :lol:

In their eyes, criticising Maoism is making your personal reservation for an extended stay at the Bob Avakian Memorial Labor Camp and Political Re-Education Center.

You get to "lose weight" too. :lol:

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

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:34 AM
It is still possible, of course, that an active Leninist party like the RCP can locate an occasional worker who might decide to "check them out" for a year or two.

But it won't "keep them". As soon as this hypothetical worker finds out what "Leninist leadership" is really like, they'll head for the door without hesitation.

Working class people don't like being told what to do by pompous upper class "leaders".

That's over!

And it ain't "coming back"...ever! :)

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

A lot of what you say mirrors my experiences as well.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Despotism? are you fucking joking?

I wouldn't joke about something as serious as despotism.


Us Maoists want a society free from all forms of oppression and inequality, in which it is the masses who are truely in control of society (communism).

The last time I checked, most Maoists were proposing an eternity of Socialism.

If there were a revolution tomorrow which was led by Maoists, there would be no Communism in my lifetime.


Even under socialism, it is the proletariat that is in control in society, as it struggles against the contradictions within itself and struggles against the contraidctions between itself and the bourgeoisie. In socialism, the party will LEAD the proletariat, not RULE it.

Since when has Avakian, a bourgeois politician, been the proletariat? ....the RCP proposes a vanguard headed by Avakian to "lead" (which means govern in this context) the proletariat. If I wanted to be "lead" by a bourgeois politician, I would start participating in bourgeois democracy. Heck, the bourgeois politicians would probably do a better job of "leading" me than Avakian.

Though what is very interesting about your post, is that you say "the party will LEAD the proletariat." This kind of "gives you away." After all by distinguishing the party from the proletariat, you are implying that the party is not the proletariat. Reminds me a lot of what we have now.


A lot of what you say mirrors my experiences as well.

I didn't know the RCP operated in Ireland. Do they?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 4 2005, 12:57 AM

A lot of what you say mirrors my experiences as well.

I didn't know the RCP operated in Ireland. Do they?
Never heard of it there, or much of any Maoist presence. I was referring to what Redstar said about arrogant party leadership in general who talk down to workers.

[celticfire]

OglachMcGlinchey: Has your experience been only online? I am fan of the IRSP, but not if their approach is that dogmatic as to judge an organization by its online supporters.

On the question of leadership -- would it be practicing the mass line if Avakian dictated everything to the workers? No -- it wouldn't.

"Dictatorship does not apply within the ranks of people. The people cannot exercise dictatorship over themselves, nor must one section of the people oppress another. Law-breaking elements among the people will be punished according to law, but this is different in principle from the exercise of dictatorship to suppress enemies of the people. What applies among the people is democratic centralism. Our Constitution lays it down that citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration, religious belief, and so on. ... In advocating freedom with leadership and democracy under centralised guidance, we in no way mean that coercive measures should be taken to settle ideological questions or questions involving the distinction between right and wrong among the people." -- Chairman Mao



Free Dessie O'Hare!
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal!

[PRC-UTE]

I wasn't applying it to the RCP, a group I don't have in person experience with - I was saying it rang true of many party leaderships I've encountered, that are arrogant, led by the middle class and talk down to working class rank and file.

I agree with what CDL said: I'll recognise the positive and negative aspects of the RCP.

Thanks for the comment about Des. ;)

[KGB5097]

I've simpally never seen anything good come out of the RCP, and i've seen too much that seems to damage our entire ideology.

First off is the Cult of personality around Avakian. I'm not just using the word cult, a friend of mine attended a local meeting and they REFERED TO THEMSELVES as a cult, and discussed ways to build even more of a cult around this man. This in itself is unsocialist in my opinion....

Secondly is the fact that i've seen nothing groundbreaking come from Avakian, he simpally has a way with words. He puts old concepts into simplifyed terms, thats all. This dosen't make him a father of the revolution, nor does it make him a true ideologist. He only appeals to youth because he puts Communism into terms that our undereducated youth can understand more easily.

While that sounds great in a way, the way he does it is not. He dosen't seem to educate people to bring them into Communism, he does it to bring them into the RCP exclusivly.

Than theres the issue of the RCP itself, it is an extremely authoritarian and eletist group from what I have seen. http://www.massline.info/rcp/expel/index.htm Heres just one example.

I'll add more later....

[Wanted Man]

The massline site very well documents the flaws of the RCP from a Maoist point of view. It also sheds a light on the "draft" program. Very good site.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2005, 06:55 PM
Even under socialism, it is the proletariat that is in control in society, as it struggles against the contradictions within itself and struggles against the contraidctions between itself and the bourgeoisie. In socialism, the party will LEAD the proletariat, not RULE it.
Keep changing the words...the essence is the same.

[enigma2517]

These leaders play a tremendous role in historical materialism.

Hehe

Did you mean ahistorical psycho-babble?


The belief that there is no real need for leadership is specifically a petit-bourgeois point of view.

Tell that to the workers in Spain during 1936 :\

Ok so now that I'm done with my jabs, could you care to actually back up your assertion. We need leaders to do everything involved with revolution...explain and please provide concrete historical examples.

[Spirit of '94]

Dictatorship does not apply within the ranks of people. The people cannot exercise dictatorship over themselves, nor must one section of the people oppress another. Law-breaking elements among the people will be punished according to law, but this is different in principle from the exercise of dictatorship to suppress enemies of the people. What applies among the people is democratic centralism. Our Constitution lays it down that citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration, religious belief, and so on. ... In advocating freedom with leadership and democracy under centralised guidance, we in no way mean that coercive measures should be taken to settle ideological questions or questions involving the distinction between right and wrong among the people." -- Chairman Mao

Given how the Chinese CP have interpreted this idea, I think I'll pass on the RCP and other Maoist groups, thanks. Frankly, anyone who's running around pushing a party line is kind of wasting their time.

As has been said, the American working class isn't going to warm to that crap. They'll perk up when they see evidence of real action though.

I was hearing rumors that the World Can't Wait events in early November across the U.S. were organized by an RCP front group. Anyone know anything about their involvement in this?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Umm.. the WCW is an RCP front group.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:10 PM
Umm.. the WCW is an RCP front group.

....and RCPer's have made thousands of threads discussing the issue in Practice (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showforum=7).

[KGB5097]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 6 2005, 04:19 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 6 2005, 04:19 PM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 02:10 PM
Umm.. the WCW is an RCP front group.

....and RCPer's have made thousands of threads discussing the issue in Practice (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showforum=7). [/b]
If someone knows of any internet sources of this, please PM them to me.

Thanks in advance.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by KGB5097+Dec 6 2005, 06:55 PM--> (KGB5097 @ Dec 6 2005, 06:55 PM)
Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 6 2005, 04:19 PM

[email protected] 6 2005, 02:10 PM
Umm.. the WCW is an RCP front group.

....and RCPer's have made thousands of threads discussing the issue in Practice (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showforum=7).
If someone knows of any internet sources of this, please PM them to me.

Thanks in advance. [/b]

Do you mean links to the WCW campaign and the RCP? ....if so, here you go,

World Can't Wait, Drive Out the Bush Regime (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41594)
World can't wait. (Nov 2), What individuals can do. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41900)
Nov 2nd High School Plan, What can I do? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41882)
Pics From World Cant Wait in New York City (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42330)

I'm sure there are more. :o

[Spirit of '94]

That's the impression that I got as well, but I'd heard conflicting accounts on exactly how much of a role the RCP played in WCW.

Ya' got to give 'em this: they organized a large scale day of action which confronted the administration. Even if they didn't do it as the RCP, they still pulled it off.

I like this kind of thing. The event in my hometown was picked up by a bunch of anarchists, who I don't think had any idea who was behind the whole thing, but they got some people out. Even had the Anti-Terrorism folks out to watch all 20 of us standing in the rain. :lol:

Course that's nto saying much... around here, they're starting to wratch up the pressure on groups as "dangerous" as Food Not Bombs and Critical Mass.

It may not add up to much in the long run, and while I'll never join the Party, it is SOMETHING. I know leftist groups have done this sort of thing in the past, but I've never seen it spread so quickly, to such a large, demographically diverse group of people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have read every pamphlet handed to me by an RCPer and (I have to admit the personality-cult thing is scarry) most of the anyalysis boils down to "workers are under attack so the best thing to do is listen to Bob".

Christian-Fascism:
Calling Bush a fascist is used by Democrats to scare workers into voting for leaders (i.e. Democrat politicians) to protect them form an assault on their freedoms.

THe RCP calls bush a "Christian fascist" because, again, fascism implies that protesting and organizing won't protect workers, so we should turn to the only person who has an anaylisis of the "Christian-fascist" takeover since presumedly since he's the only one who recognizes it, he's the only one who knows how to stop it. Again it's fearmongering to get people to follow a leader.

The LaRouchites (left-sounding proto-fascists) use the same tactic but call Dick Cheney the head of some secret society (persumedly being controlled somehow by the british monarchy) that wants to take over the world. The answer to this problem is the same... Follow LaRouche because he recognizes the danger and therfore is the onlt one who can stop it.

As marxists we should see that as reactionary as Bush is, he is a representative of the system and it's the system that we should fight. And since Bush isn't a fascist and dosn't have a army of thugs directly loyal to him who will put protesters and dissenters and communists onto trains to concentration camps, the best thing for workers to do is to use what bourgoie rights we have to protest and grow the left and put up an opposition.

On a side note it's funny that Redstar of all people criticizes RCPers for repeating things in bold print since he frequently overuses bolds himself :D ! But seriously, I think the reply to his argument is more telling of the real problem with argueing with RCPers, if you disagree with them they automatically call you a petty-bourgie.

If other revolutionaries are attacking the RCP in rallies and so on, this is indeed not helpful to the movement as a whole, but debating politics and tactis and party structures is totally appropraite and necissary in forums such as this where revolutionaries are here to discuss and debate with eachother.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:04 PM
Christian-Fascism:
Calling Bush a fascist is used by Democrats to scare workers into voting for leaders (i.e. Democrat politicians) to protect them form an assault on their freedoms.

THe RCP calls bush a "Christian fascist" because, again, fascism implies that protesting and organizing won't protect workers, so we should turn to the only person who has an anaylisis of the "Christian-fascist" takeover since presumedly since he's the only one who recognizes it, he's the only one who knows how to stop it. Again it's fearmongering to get people to follow a leader.
Actually, I think it's the same reason other supporters of the Democratic party call Bus a fascist. Which you accurately describe.

Since the red-flag waving RCP isn't going to directly come out and say, "vote Democratic."

[Severian]

Originally posted by Spirit of '[email protected] 6 2005, 03:15 PM
Ya' got to give 'em this: they organized a large scale day of action which confronted the administration. Even if they didn't do it as the RCP, they still pulled it off.
No, they didn't. Those weren't "large-scale" or "mass" actions at all. They were pretty damn small. And in composition, middle-class.

If you're into front-group demonstrations, Workers World is much better at that kind of thing.

And the whole "oust Bush" demand is just a more radical way of saying "support the Democrats." They even modified Puffy's "Vote or Die" slogan..."Resist or Die."

If they had AK's like their Peruvian and Nepalese comrades, it's likely they'd enforce that "Resist or Die" the same way.

[Red Heretic]

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

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:04 AM
Actually, I think it's the same reason other supporters of the Democratic party call Bus a fascist. Which you accurately describe.

Since the red-flag waving RCP isn't going to directly come out and say, "vote Democratic."
The RCP has never endorsed the fucking Democrats. Where do you get this shit?!

Avakian spoke on this very topic, exposing the fact the Kerry and Bush were competing forces among the bourgeoisie, competing to prove who could best rule the proletariat and carry out an imperialist agenda. Avakian also point out in the speech that we would not refuse to unite with people if they felt they "had" to vote against Bush (because Bush DOES represent Christian Fascism and an entire assualt on the present situation of women, morality, religion, homosexuality, etc. from the Christian Fascist right). The speech was titled Elections, Democracy, Dictatorship, Resistance, and Revolution and it is availible here (http://www.bobavakian.net/)

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:07 AM
And the whole "oust Bush" demand is just a more radical way of saying "support the Democrats." They even modified Puffy's "Vote or Die" slogan..."Resist or Die."

If they had AK's like their Peruvian and Nepalese comrades, it's likely they'd enforce that "Resist or Die" the same way.

Way to take a slogan completely out of context to decieve the viewers of this board.

The slogan "Resist or Die" was meant to inject the spirit of resistance to this system instead of voting into the proletarian youth who were effected by P Diddy's message which was very backward.

As for your shot at the revolution in Nepal... you're only exposing your reactionary nature.