Bob Avakian

[elmo sez]

Bob Avakian, leader of the REvolutionary Communist Party of the United States, Marxist Lenninist Maoist.

Heard he likes to push the old personality cult. Anyone know anything about him?javascript:emoticon(':)')
smilie

[Rawthentic]

oh yes, I would advise for you to simply stay away from the RCP and Bob Avakian. He is treated as a god amongst RCPers and supporters. He is a Leninist who advocates a vanguard Party to "awaken" the workers into revolution, we know where that has gone in history. And yes, the worst part is the personality cult built around him that is completely counter-revolutionary. There are many comrades here that would agree with me on this point as well.

[Burrito]

Describing the Bob thing as due to Leninism is a bit like saying Bill Clinton liked fellatio because he was from Arkansas. There is plenty of Leninists who hold no truck with cult of personality, "hardcore Stalinists" included.

[YSR]

Burrito is correct. Though I have no love for Leninists, the Avakian cult is localized in the RCP, I've experienced. Even other Maoists can't stand those cats, as I understand it.

[Zero]

Although he has an extremely good critique on Christian Fundamentalism, and most American Fundamentalism... most of the other stuff he has to offer sounds like autocracy.

[kaaos_af]

I'm in Oz, but I used to subscribe to their shitty paper.

EVERY page is 'buy Comrade Leader Avakian's book', here is a article by Comrade Avakian, here is a book by one of our members on why Comrade Avakian is great, Comrade Avakian says 'you too can find peace and enlightenment in socialism, but first: buy my DVD!' A young RCP member speaks out 'I used to be a prostitute neo-Nazi anarcho-hedonist, but then I found Chairman Bob!'

I cut off my subscription after the first ish.

[Rawthentic]

Yes, well said kaaos, its pretty funny. I read the Draft Programme of the RCP, and Avakian's critique of capitalism is very good, but then when he gets to revolution, he gets despotic, constantly applying MLM to everything and reminds readers all the time that revolution cant be achieved without the Party. The "Party" and vanguard shit are the things that freaked me out and broke my interest with the RCP.

[guerillablack]

how many members does he have?in the thousands?

[guerillablack]

how many members does he have?in the thousands?

[guerillablack]

how many members does he have?in the thousands?

[Delta]

I've been registered on this site for almost a year now, but I didn't post much until late. Why? Because some communists at a local "revolutionary bookstore" talked to me about Bob Avakian, and their eyes lit up like a christian talking about jesus. It scared the shit out of me, and it took me a few good months to realize that most communists aren't so brainwashingly enamored with him.

[Delta]

I've been registered on this site for almost a year now, but I didn't post much until late. Why? Because some communists at a local "revolutionary bookstore" talked to me about Bob Avakian, and their eyes lit up like a christian talking about jesus. It scared the shit out of me, and it took me a few good months to realize that most communists aren't so brainwashingly enamored with him.

[Delta]

I've been registered on this site for almost a year now, but I didn't post much until late. Why? Because some communists at a local "revolutionary bookstore" talked to me about Bob Avakian, and their eyes lit up like a christian talking about jesus. It scared the shit out of me, and it took me a few good months to realize that most communists aren't so brainwashingly enamored with him.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

how many members does he have?in the thousands?

More like hundreds.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

how many members does he have?in the thousands?

More like hundreds.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

how many members does he have?in the thousands?

More like hundreds.

[guerillablack]

id rather it be in the teens

[guerillablack]

id rather it be in the teens

[guerillablack]

id rather it be in the teens

[Herman]

but then when he gets to revolution, he gets despotic, constantly applying MLM to everything and reminds readers all the time that revolution cant be achieved without the Party.

Something which is completely true.

[Herman]

but then when he gets to revolution, he gets despotic, constantly applying MLM to everything and reminds readers all the time that revolution cant be achieved without the Party.

Something which is completely true.

[Herman]

but then when he gets to revolution, he gets despotic, constantly applying MLM to everything and reminds readers all the time that revolution cant be achieved without the Party.

Something which is completely true.

[rioters bloc]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45744&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45744&hl=)

theres a bit of stuff there abt the rcp and avakian :)

[rioters bloc]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45744&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45744&hl=)

theres a bit of stuff there abt the rcp and avakian :)

[rioters bloc]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45744&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45744&hl=)

theres a bit of stuff there abt the rcp and avakian :)

[Comrade Don]

Avakian is just insane, I mean iam a Maoist and Iam ashamed that he calls himself one as well, He has done nothing. When faced with pressure he ran away.

[Comrade Don]

Avakian is just insane, I mean iam a Maoist and Iam ashamed that he calls himself one as well, He has done nothing. When faced with pressure he ran away.

[Comrade Don]

Avakian is just insane, I mean iam a Maoist and Iam ashamed that he calls himself one as well, He has done nothing. When faced with pressure he ran away.

[elmo sez]

thanks that was a big help ,the whole personnality cult thing really freaks me out :lol:

I thought the whole buy my book thing was quite weird. Has he mad alot of money of book sales?

I feel sorry for people who kind of just fall into these things :(

[elmo sez]

thanks that was a big help ,the whole personnality cult thing really freaks me out :lol:

I thought the whole buy my book thing was quite weird. Has he mad alot of money of book sales?

I feel sorry for people who kind of just fall into these things :(

[elmo sez]

thanks that was a big help ,the whole personnality cult thing really freaks me out :lol:

I thought the whole buy my book thing was quite weird. Has he mad alot of money of book sales?

I feel sorry for people who kind of just fall into these things :(

[Red Heretic]

*sigh*

What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

First and foremost, the question is

"What is a Cult of Personality?"

and

"What is popularization of leadership, and why has every successful proletarian revolution had it?"

First things first, a cult of personality implies that a leader is being popularized in an unscientific way, usually as a super-human god. The DPRK does this type of shit, for example, in a recent music video they produced they say that Kim Jong Il was of virgin birth and came down from heaven. See here. (http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboKIMJONGIL.html)

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership.

However, the main question here is so what IS the RCP's line on leadership.

In every proletarian revolution in human history, leaders have come forward and led those revolutions forward. Not because those leaders are somehow "better" than the proletariat or "all knowing." Proletarian leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Mao came forward because so long as our class is oppressed, our class will be lop-sided. Certain sections of the proletariat will develop faster than others, and will have a more advanced outlook on revolution than others. For example, the Black and Latin sections of the proletariat which are super-exploited, are usually more advanced and revolutionary than white sections of the proletariat in this country. It's also no coincidence that the most successful proletarian vanguard party in the USA, the Black Panther Party, popularized Huey Newton's tremendous revolutionary leadership.

For that reason, it is necessary for the most advanced section of the proletariat to lead the revolution forward. This goes beyond just Avakian leading the revolution forward, but also the proletariat's vanguard party, and the most exploited sections of the proletariat leading the more priveleged sections.

Frankly, I challenge anyone to point out someone other than Avakian, with a more comprehensive outlook and methodology, and a more scientific understanding of both the class contradictions in our current situation, as well as an understanding of the class contradictions that existed all throughout human history.

Oh yeah, and the fact that not one of you actually made a single point at Avakian's ideology, but instead took childish low-blows at his personality, is pathetic.

[Red Heretic]

*sigh*

What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

First and foremost, the question is

"What is a Cult of Personality?"

and

"What is popularization of leadership, and why has every successful proletarian revolution had it?"

First things first, a cult of personality implies that a leader is being popularized in an unscientific way, usually as a super-human god. The DPRK does this type of shit, for example, in a recent music video they produced they say that Kim Jong Il was of virgin birth and came down from heaven. See here. (http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboKIMJONGIL.html)

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership.

However, the main question here is so what IS the RCP's line on leadership.

In every proletarian revolution in human history, leaders have come forward and led those revolutions forward. Not because those leaders are somehow "better" than the proletariat or "all knowing." Proletarian leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Mao came forward because so long as our class is oppressed, our class will be lop-sided. Certain sections of the proletariat will develop faster than others, and will have a more advanced outlook on revolution than others. For example, the Black and Latin sections of the proletariat which are super-exploited, are usually more advanced and revolutionary than white sections of the proletariat in this country. It's also no coincidence that the most successful proletarian vanguard party in the USA, the Black Panther Party, popularized Huey Newton's tremendous revolutionary leadership.

For that reason, it is necessary for the most advanced section of the proletariat to lead the revolution forward. This goes beyond just Avakian leading the revolution forward, but also the proletariat's vanguard party, and the most exploited sections of the proletariat leading the more priveleged sections.

Frankly, I challenge anyone to point out someone other than Avakian, with a more comprehensive outlook and methodology, and a more scientific understanding of both the class contradictions in our current situation, as well as an understanding of the class contradictions that existed all throughout human history.

Oh yeah, and the fact that not one of you actually made a single point at Avakian's ideology, but instead took childish low-blows at his personality, is pathetic.

[Red Heretic]

*sigh*

What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

First and foremost, the question is

"What is a Cult of Personality?"

and

"What is popularization of leadership, and why has every successful proletarian revolution had it?"

First things first, a cult of personality implies that a leader is being popularized in an unscientific way, usually as a super-human god. The DPRK does this type of shit, for example, in a recent music video they produced they say that Kim Jong Il was of virgin birth and came down from heaven. See here. (http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboKIMJONGIL.html)

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership.

However, the main question here is so what IS the RCP's line on leadership.

In every proletarian revolution in human history, leaders have come forward and led those revolutions forward. Not because those leaders are somehow "better" than the proletariat or "all knowing." Proletarian leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Mao came forward because so long as our class is oppressed, our class will be lop-sided. Certain sections of the proletariat will develop faster than others, and will have a more advanced outlook on revolution than others. For example, the Black and Latin sections of the proletariat which are super-exploited, are usually more advanced and revolutionary than white sections of the proletariat in this country. It's also no coincidence that the most successful proletarian vanguard party in the USA, the Black Panther Party, popularized Huey Newton's tremendous revolutionary leadership.

For that reason, it is necessary for the most advanced section of the proletariat to lead the revolution forward. This goes beyond just Avakian leading the revolution forward, but also the proletariat's vanguard party, and the most exploited sections of the proletariat leading the more priveleged sections.

Frankly, I challenge anyone to point out someone other than Avakian, with a more comprehensive outlook and methodology, and a more scientific understanding of both the class contradictions in our current situation, as well as an understanding of the class contradictions that existed all throughout human history.

Oh yeah, and the fact that not one of you actually made a single point at Avakian's ideology, but instead took childish low-blows at his personality, is pathetic.

[Burrito]

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership

Liar.

[Burrito]

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership

Liar.

[Burrito]

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership

Liar.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:58 AM

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership

Liar.
No, I am not a "liar." You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. The RCP opposes dogmatic leadership popularization, but supports the scientific and realistic popularization of leadership in the context of the actual material role that those leaders must and will play in proletarian revolution.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:58 AM

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership

Liar.
No, I am not a "liar." You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. The RCP opposes dogmatic leadership popularization, but supports the scientific and realistic popularization of leadership in the context of the actual material role that those leaders must and will play in proletarian revolution.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:58 AM

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership

Liar.
No, I am not a "liar." You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. The RCP opposes dogmatic leadership popularization, but supports the scientific and realistic popularization of leadership in the context of the actual material role that those leaders must and will play in proletarian revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23 2006, 12:52 AM
*sigh*

What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

First and foremost, the question is

"What is a Cult of Personality?"

and

"What is popularization of leadership, and why has every successful proletarian revolution had it?"

First things first, a cult of personality implies that a leader is being popularized in an unscientific way, usually as a super-human god. The DPRK does this type of shit, for example, in a recent music video they produced they say that Kim Jong Il was of virgin birth and came down from heaven. See here. (http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboKIMJONGIL.html)

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership.

However, the main question here is so what IS the RCP's line on leadership.

In every proletarian revolution in human history, leaders have come forward and led those revolutions forward. Not because those leaders are somehow "better" than the proletariat or "all knowing." Proletarian leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Mao came forward because so long as our class is oppressed, our class will be lop-sided. Certain sections of the proletariat will develop faster than others, and will have a more advanced outlook on revolution than others. For example, the Black and Latin sections of the proletariat which are super-exploited, are usually more advanced and revolutionary than white sections of the proletariat in this country. It's also no coincidence that the most successful proletarian vanguard party in the USA, the Black Panther Party, popularized Huey Newton's tremendous revolutionary leadership.

For that reason, it is necessary for the most advanced section of the proletariat to lead the revolution forward. This goes beyond just Avakian leading the revolution forward, but also the proletariat's vanguard party, and the most exploited sections of the proletariat leading the more priveleged sections.

Frankly, I challenge anyone to point out someone other than Avakian, with a more comprehensive outlook and methodology, and a more scientific understanding of both the class contradictions in our current situation, as well as an understanding of the class contradictions that existed all throughout human history.

Oh yeah, and the fact that not one of you actually made a single point at Avakian's ideology, but instead took childish low-blows at his personality, is pathetic.
What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it was, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than the white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and white leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?

Whose vangaurd is it?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23 2006, 12:52 AM
*sigh*

What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

First and foremost, the question is

"What is a Cult of Personality?"

and

"What is popularization of leadership, and why has every successful proletarian revolution had it?"

First things first, a cult of personality implies that a leader is being popularized in an unscientific way, usually as a super-human god. The DPRK does this type of shit, for example, in a recent music video they produced they say that Kim Jong Il was of virgin birth and came down from heaven. See here. (http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboKIMJONGIL.html)

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership.

However, the main question here is so what IS the RCP's line on leadership.

In every proletarian revolution in human history, leaders have come forward and led those revolutions forward. Not because those leaders are somehow "better" than the proletariat or "all knowing." Proletarian leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Mao came forward because so long as our class is oppressed, our class will be lop-sided. Certain sections of the proletariat will develop faster than others, and will have a more advanced outlook on revolution than others. For example, the Black and Latin sections of the proletariat which are super-exploited, are usually more advanced and revolutionary than white sections of the proletariat in this country. It's also no coincidence that the most successful proletarian vanguard party in the USA, the Black Panther Party, popularized Huey Newton's tremendous revolutionary leadership.

For that reason, it is necessary for the most advanced section of the proletariat to lead the revolution forward. This goes beyond just Avakian leading the revolution forward, but also the proletariat's vanguard party, and the most exploited sections of the proletariat leading the more priveleged sections.

Frankly, I challenge anyone to point out someone other than Avakian, with a more comprehensive outlook and methodology, and a more scientific understanding of both the class contradictions in our current situation, as well as an understanding of the class contradictions that existed all throughout human history.

Oh yeah, and the fact that not one of you actually made a single point at Avakian's ideology, but instead took childish low-blows at his personality, is pathetic.
What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it was, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than the white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and white leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?

Whose vangaurd is it?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23 2006, 12:52 AM
*sigh*

What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

First and foremost, the question is

"What is a Cult of Personality?"

and

"What is popularization of leadership, and why has every successful proletarian revolution had it?"

First things first, a cult of personality implies that a leader is being popularized in an unscientific way, usually as a super-human god. The DPRK does this type of shit, for example, in a recent music video they produced they say that Kim Jong Il was of virgin birth and came down from heaven. See here. (http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboKIMJONGIL.html)

The RCP and Bob Avakian both utterly despise and criticize dogmatic worship of leadership.

However, the main question here is so what IS the RCP's line on leadership.

In every proletarian revolution in human history, leaders have come forward and led those revolutions forward. Not because those leaders are somehow "better" than the proletariat or "all knowing." Proletarian leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Mao came forward because so long as our class is oppressed, our class will be lop-sided. Certain sections of the proletariat will develop faster than others, and will have a more advanced outlook on revolution than others. For example, the Black and Latin sections of the proletariat which are super-exploited, are usually more advanced and revolutionary than white sections of the proletariat in this country. It's also no coincidence that the most successful proletarian vanguard party in the USA, the Black Panther Party, popularized Huey Newton's tremendous revolutionary leadership.

For that reason, it is necessary for the most advanced section of the proletariat to lead the revolution forward. This goes beyond just Avakian leading the revolution forward, but also the proletariat's vanguard party, and the most exploited sections of the proletariat leading the more priveleged sections.

Frankly, I challenge anyone to point out someone other than Avakian, with a more comprehensive outlook and methodology, and a more scientific understanding of both the class contradictions in our current situation, as well as an understanding of the class contradictions that existed all throughout human history.

Oh yeah, and the fact that not one of you actually made a single point at Avakian's ideology, but instead took childish low-blows at his personality, is pathetic.
What would you expect from the mass of petty-bourgeois white kids that post on this forum?

HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it was, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than the white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and white leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?

Whose vangaurd is it?

[Burrito]

Well, there is one small difference between Stalin/Marx/Lenin and Bob... :rolleyes:

For his part Stalin despised the cult-of-personality built up around him by johnny-come-latelies Krushchev & Co; for example this steaming pile of shit:



Miserable pygmies! They lifted their hands against the greatest of all living men, our wise leader Comrade Stalin. We assure you, Comrade Stalin, that we will increase our Stalinist vigilance still more and close our ranks around the Stalinist Central Committee and the great Stalin.

The older Bolsheviks like Molotov thought this kind of adulation was bizarre.

His daughter recalled how he would become livid with rage when he was compared to Lenin. Also she recalls an incident how Stalin became physically ill at the sight of adulating crowds whihc had come t meet him at a train station.

[Burrito]

Well, there is one small difference between Stalin/Marx/Lenin and Bob... :rolleyes:

For his part Stalin despised the cult-of-personality built up around him by johnny-come-latelies Krushchev & Co; for example this steaming pile of shit:



Miserable pygmies! They lifted their hands against the greatest of all living men, our wise leader Comrade Stalin. We assure you, Comrade Stalin, that we will increase our Stalinist vigilance still more and close our ranks around the Stalinist Central Committee and the great Stalin.

The older Bolsheviks like Molotov thought this kind of adulation was bizarre.

His daughter recalled how he would become livid with rage when he was compared to Lenin. Also she recalls an incident how Stalin became physically ill at the sight of adulating crowds whihc had come t meet him at a train station.

[Burrito]

Well, there is one small difference between Stalin/Marx/Lenin and Bob... :rolleyes:

For his part Stalin despised the cult-of-personality built up around him by johnny-come-latelies Krushchev & Co; for example this steaming pile of shit:



Miserable pygmies! They lifted their hands against the greatest of all living men, our wise leader Comrade Stalin. We assure you, Comrade Stalin, that we will increase our Stalinist vigilance still more and close our ranks around the Stalinist Central Committee and the great Stalin.

The older Bolsheviks like Molotov thought this kind of adulation was bizarre.

His daughter recalled how he would become livid with rage when he was compared to Lenin. Also she recalls an incident how Stalin became physically ill at the sight of adulating crowds whihc had come t meet him at a train station.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 23 2006, 06:04 AM
Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:
Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!

Mao was the greatest and most advanced revolutionary leader of the time, and he certainly made tremendous contributions to the international communist movement, but he also made many mistakes!

Communists shouldn't be afraid of being wrong. We are scientists, and what we may believe at one particular time may prove to be incorrect at a later date.

As for this particular quote, I suspect it is taken highly out of context, because I can remember reading a particular instance when he criticized those who were popularizing him dogmatically as a "god" and as being "always right." He called that type of thinking "ghoulash communism" and "counter-revolutionary."

I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically.

Frankly, alot of reactionaries and revisionists try to spread that type of dogmatic thinking on purpose in order to create a basis for which to attack the leader at a later date. For example, many people don't realize that Nikita Khruschev was the main person pushing the dogmatic-style popularition of Stalin (like the shit where he was supposed to be super-human).

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 23 2006, 06:04 AM
Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:
Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!

Mao was the greatest and most advanced revolutionary leader of the time, and he certainly made tremendous contributions to the international communist movement, but he also made many mistakes!

Communists shouldn't be afraid of being wrong. We are scientists, and what we may believe at one particular time may prove to be incorrect at a later date.

As for this particular quote, I suspect it is taken highly out of context, because I can remember reading a particular instance when he criticized those who were popularizing him dogmatically as a "god" and as being "always right." He called that type of thinking "ghoulash communism" and "counter-revolutionary."

I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically.

Frankly, alot of reactionaries and revisionists try to spread that type of dogmatic thinking on purpose in order to create a basis for which to attack the leader at a later date. For example, many people don't realize that Nikita Khruschev was the main person pushing the dogmatic-style popularition of Stalin (like the shit where he was supposed to be super-human).

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 23 2006, 06:04 AM
Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:
Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!

Mao was the greatest and most advanced revolutionary leader of the time, and he certainly made tremendous contributions to the international communist movement, but he also made many mistakes!

Communists shouldn't be afraid of being wrong. We are scientists, and what we may believe at one particular time may prove to be incorrect at a later date.

As for this particular quote, I suspect it is taken highly out of context, because I can remember reading a particular instance when he criticized those who were popularizing him dogmatically as a "god" and as being "always right." He called that type of thinking "ghoulash communism" and "counter-revolutionary."

I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically.

Frankly, alot of reactionaries and revisionists try to spread that type of dogmatic thinking on purpose in order to create a basis for which to attack the leader at a later date. For example, many people don't realize that Nikita Khruschev was the main person pushing the dogmatic-style popularition of Stalin (like the shit where he was supposed to be super-human).

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:15 AM
HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it as, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and whites leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?
Actually, the RCP is the main vanguard party working among the Black and Latin proletariat. They have done a tremendous amount of work organizing the Katrina evacuees, as well as organizing vast amounts of Latin people around the May 1st immigrant upsurge (even to the extent where the bourgeois press and alot of reactionaries were attacking the immigrant demonstrations as being communist).

I'm not a member of the RCP, but I really support all of the tremendous amount of work the RCP has done toward actually concretely trying to build a revolution in the US. I support them to the degree that I'm actually going with several RCP members to New Orleans this summer to do work among the masses there! :D

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:15 AM
HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it as, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and whites leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?
Actually, the RCP is the main vanguard party working among the Black and Latin proletariat. They have done a tremendous amount of work organizing the Katrina evacuees, as well as organizing vast amounts of Latin people around the May 1st immigrant upsurge (even to the extent where the bourgeois press and alot of reactionaries were attacking the immigrant demonstrations as being communist).

I'm not a member of the RCP, but I really support all of the tremendous amount of work the RCP has done toward actually concretely trying to build a revolution in the US. I support them to the degree that I'm actually going with several RCP members to New Orleans this summer to do work among the masses there! :D

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:15 AM
HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it as, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and whites leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?
Actually, the RCP is the main vanguard party working among the Black and Latin proletariat. They have done a tremendous amount of work organizing the Katrina evacuees, as well as organizing vast amounts of Latin people around the May 1st immigrant upsurge (even to the extent where the bourgeois press and alot of reactionaries were attacking the immigrant demonstrations as being communist).

I'm not a member of the RCP, but I really support all of the tremendous amount of work the RCP has done toward actually concretely trying to build a revolution in the US. I support them to the degree that I'm actually going with several RCP members to New Orleans this summer to do work among the masses there! :D

[Burrito]

Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!


On this we can agree.



I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically


Look, I know how democratic centralism works, so if Avakian puffery on Internet forums is the line then that's what you gotta do. But lemme ask you for *one* honest answer: Do you think critical engagement all day long even matters if everyone in the outside just sees a cultish allegiance to Bob on all things? I mean, Qui Bono?

[Burrito]

Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!


On this we can agree.



I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically


Look, I know how democratic centralism works, so if Avakian puffery on Internet forums is the line then that's what you gotta do. But lemme ask you for *one* honest answer: Do you think critical engagement all day long even matters if everyone in the outside just sees a cultish allegiance to Bob on all things? I mean, Qui Bono?

[Burrito]

Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!


On this we can agree.



I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically


Look, I know how democratic centralism works, so if Avakian puffery on Internet forums is the line then that's what you gotta do. But lemme ask you for *one* honest answer: Do you think critical engagement all day long even matters if everyone in the outside just sees a cultish allegiance to Bob on all things? I mean, Qui Bono?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jun 23 2006, 01:24 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jun 23 2006, 01:24 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 06:15 AM
HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it as, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and whites leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?
Actually, the RCP is the main vanguard party working among the Black and Latin proletariat. They have done a tremendous amount of work organizing the Katrina evacuees, as well as organizing vast amounts of Latin people around the May 1st immigrant upsurge (even to the extent where the bourgeois press and alot of reactionaries were attacking the immigrant demonstrations as being communist).

I'm not a member of the RCP, but I really support all of the tremendous amount of work the RCP has done toward actually concretely trying to build a revolution in the US. I support them to the degree that I'm actually going with several RCP members to New Orleans this summer to do work among the masses there! :D [/b]
LOL at the RCP being the main vanguard party for the blacks and latinos. Thanks for the laugh. :wacko:

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jun 23 2006, 01:24 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jun 23 2006, 01:24 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 06:15 AM
HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it as, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and whites leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?
Actually, the RCP is the main vanguard party working among the Black and Latin proletariat. They have done a tremendous amount of work organizing the Katrina evacuees, as well as organizing vast amounts of Latin people around the May 1st immigrant upsurge (even to the extent where the bourgeois press and alot of reactionaries were attacking the immigrant demonstrations as being communist).

I'm not a member of the RCP, but I really support all of the tremendous amount of work the RCP has done toward actually concretely trying to build a revolution in the US. I support them to the degree that I'm actually going with several RCP members to New Orleans this summer to do work among the masses there! :D [/b]
LOL at the RCP being the main vanguard party for the blacks and latinos. Thanks for the laugh. :wacko:

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jun 23 2006, 01:24 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jun 23 2006, 01:24 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 06:15 AM
HAHA, i agree.

You talk about the black panthers and how successful it as, the black and brown liberation movements,etc and how they are more revolutionary than white working class. From my understanding RCP is not represent neither the black or brown working class, i never even heard of RCP outside from the internet and whites leftist. Whats the point of RCP if its not doing nothing with the most revolutionary people's?
Actually, the RCP is the main vanguard party working among the Black and Latin proletariat. They have done a tremendous amount of work organizing the Katrina evacuees, as well as organizing vast amounts of Latin people around the May 1st immigrant upsurge (even to the extent where the bourgeois press and alot of reactionaries were attacking the immigrant demonstrations as being communist).

I'm not a member of the RCP, but I really support all of the tremendous amount of work the RCP has done toward actually concretely trying to build a revolution in the US. I support them to the degree that I'm actually going with several RCP members to New Orleans this summer to do work among the masses there! :D [/b]
LOL at the RCP being the main vanguard party for the blacks and latinos. Thanks for the laugh. :wacko:

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:25 AM
Look, I know how democratic centralism works, so if Avakian puffery on Internet forums is the line then that's what you gotta do. But lemme ask you for *one* honest answer: Do you think critical engagement all day long even matters if everyone in the outside just sees a cultish allegiance to Bob on all things? I mean, Qui Bono?
Well, don't get me wrong, it's very difficult to get the masses to both rally behind revolutionary leadership, while at the same time constantly examing that leadership's line critically, and criticizing that leadership whenever it does anything reactionary. It's a hell of an undertaking. It's also something that the Chinese cultural revolution aimed to do, and something that communists need to work alot harder at.

I certainly don't want people to build up an uncritical dogmatic "cult" around Avakian, and the RCP's line doesn't call for that either. Anyone who wants Avakian popularized uncritically and dogmatically doesn't understand MLM, and should be criticized.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:25 AM
Look, I know how democratic centralism works, so if Avakian puffery on Internet forums is the line then that's what you gotta do. But lemme ask you for *one* honest answer: Do you think critical engagement all day long even matters if everyone in the outside just sees a cultish allegiance to Bob on all things? I mean, Qui Bono?
Well, don't get me wrong, it's very difficult to get the masses to both rally behind revolutionary leadership, while at the same time constantly examing that leadership's line critically, and criticizing that leadership whenever it does anything reactionary. It's a hell of an undertaking. It's also something that the Chinese cultural revolution aimed to do, and something that communists need to work alot harder at.

I certainly don't want people to build up an uncritical dogmatic "cult" around Avakian, and the RCP's line doesn't call for that either. Anyone who wants Avakian popularized uncritically and dogmatically doesn't understand MLM, and should be criticized.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:25 AM
Look, I know how democratic centralism works, so if Avakian puffery on Internet forums is the line then that's what you gotta do. But lemme ask you for *one* honest answer: Do you think critical engagement all day long even matters if everyone in the outside just sees a cultish allegiance to Bob on all things? I mean, Qui Bono?
Well, don't get me wrong, it's very difficult to get the masses to both rally behind revolutionary leadership, while at the same time constantly examing that leadership's line critically, and criticizing that leadership whenever it does anything reactionary. It's a hell of an undertaking. It's also something that the Chinese cultural revolution aimed to do, and something that communists need to work alot harder at.

I certainly don't want people to build up an uncritical dogmatic "cult" around Avakian, and the RCP's line doesn't call for that either. Anyone who wants Avakian popularized uncritically and dogmatically doesn't understand MLM, and should be criticized.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:33 AM
LOL at the RCP being the main vanguard party for the blacks and latinos. Thanks for the laugh. :wacko:
Are you aware of a more advanced revolutionary proletarian vanguard?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:33 AM
LOL at the RCP being the main vanguard party for the blacks and latinos. Thanks for the laugh. :wacko:
Are you aware of a more advanced revolutionary proletarian vanguard?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:33 AM
LOL at the RCP being the main vanguard party for the blacks and latinos. Thanks for the laugh. :wacko:
Are you aware of a more advanced revolutionary proletarian vanguard?

[guerillablack]

Let me tell you this, even if RCP was the only"vanguard party" or grassroots organization on the planet,it STILL wouldn't be the main vanguard for blacks and latinos. lol

[guerillablack]

Let me tell you this, even if RCP was the only"vanguard party" or grassroots organization on the planet,it STILL wouldn't be the main vanguard for blacks and latinos. lol

[guerillablack]

Let me tell you this, even if RCP was the only"vanguard party" or grassroots organization on the planet,it STILL wouldn't be the main vanguard for blacks and latinos. lol

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:44 AM
Let me tell you this, even if RCP was the only"vanguard party" or grassroots organization on the planet,it STILL wouldn't be the main vanguard for blacks and latinos. lol
You didn't answer the question.

The point is that the proletariat should rally behind it's most advanced section, its vanguard. As far as I know, that most advanced section is the Revolutionary Communist Party. It's not the Nation of Islam, or the NBPP. It's not the reformist SWP or the revisionist WWP. Those organizations provide the proletariat with no real material way out of all of this shit (and I'm fairly certain that both you and I want to find a way out of this shit!).

(edited typo)

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:44 AM
Let me tell you this, even if RCP was the only"vanguard party" or grassroots organization on the planet,it STILL wouldn't be the main vanguard for blacks and latinos. lol
You didn't answer the question.

The point is that the proletariat should rally behind it's most advanced section, its vanguard. As far as I know, that most advanced section is the Revolutionary Communist Party. It's not the Nation of Islam, or the NBPP. It's not the reformist SWP or the revisionist WWP. Those organizations provide the proletariat with no real material way out of all of this shit (and I'm fairly certain that both you and I want to find a way out of this shit!).

(edited typo)

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:44 AM
Let me tell you this, even if RCP was the only"vanguard party" or grassroots organization on the planet,it STILL wouldn't be the main vanguard for blacks and latinos. lol
You didn't answer the question.

The point is that the proletariat should rally behind it's most advanced section, its vanguard. As far as I know, that most advanced section is the Revolutionary Communist Party. It's not the Nation of Islam, or the NBPP. It's not the reformist SWP or the revisionist WWP. Those organizations provide the proletariat with no real material way out of all of this shit (and I'm fairly certain that both you and I want to find a way out of this shit!).

(edited typo)

[Burrito]

Does guerillablack believe in some kind of Bundism for blacks and latinos?

[Burrito]

Does guerillablack believe in some kind of Bundism for blacks and latinos?

[Burrito]

Does guerillablack believe in some kind of Bundism for blacks and latinos?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:56 AM
Does guerillablack believe in some kind of Bundism for blacks and latinos?
You'll have to fill me, what is Bundism?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:56 AM
Does guerillablack believe in some kind of Bundism for blacks and latinos?
You'll have to fill me, what is Bundism?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:56 AM
Does guerillablack believe in some kind of Bundism for blacks and latinos?
You'll have to fill me, what is Bundism?

[guerillablack]

Yeah whats Bundism?

and redic wat do you mean a more advanced proleterian vanguard?

[guerillablack]

Yeah whats Bundism?

and redic wat do you mean a more advanced proleterian vanguard?

[guerillablack]

Yeah whats Bundism?

and redic wat do you mean a more advanced proleterian vanguard?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:03 AM
And redic wat do you mean a more advanced proleterian vanguard?
by my question and the word "advanced" I meant with a more comprehensive and scientific programme to lead the proletariat forward to proletarian revolution and the final stage of communism.

Of course, in the broader context, advanced (in the communist usage of the term) means with a higher level of revolutionary consciousness and understanding. For example, earlier in this conversation I pointed out that Black proletarians are generally more advanced than white proletarians because they are super-exploited. The super-exploitation gives them a more concrete understanding of just what kind of system this is.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:03 AM
And redic wat do you mean a more advanced proleterian vanguard?
by my question and the word "advanced" I meant with a more comprehensive and scientific programme to lead the proletariat forward to proletarian revolution and the final stage of communism.

Of course, in the broader context, advanced (in the communist usage of the term) means with a higher level of revolutionary consciousness and understanding. For example, earlier in this conversation I pointed out that Black proletarians are generally more advanced than white proletarians because they are super-exploited. The super-exploitation gives them a more concrete understanding of just what kind of system this is.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:03 AM
And redic wat do you mean a more advanced proleterian vanguard?
by my question and the word "advanced" I meant with a more comprehensive and scientific programme to lead the proletariat forward to proletarian revolution and the final stage of communism.

Of course, in the broader context, advanced (in the communist usage of the term) means with a higher level of revolutionary consciousness and understanding. For example, earlier in this conversation I pointed out that Black proletarians are generally more advanced than white proletarians because they are super-exploited. The super-exploitation gives them a more concrete understanding of just what kind of system this is.

[elmo sez]

Who Is Bob Avakian? extract from THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE by someone at the RCP

Anyone seriously thinking about revolution knows that it can’t
happen without revolutionary leadership. It’s a huge question.
Well, just to be up front, there IS a leader, the likes of which this
country has never seen before, that can lead a mighty struggle
to make revolution and remake society. That leader is Bob
Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Chairman Avakian knows revolution. He has studied deeply the
revolutions of the past and taken up the responsibility for
charting the course of revolution today. He has done a whole
“re-envisioning” of communist society and what it will take to get
there. He’s a leader with tremendous love for and confidence in
the people; and he gives you confidence and hope that we can
actually do what the times demand of all of us.
But there’s more to his leadership than this. Chairman Avakian
makes not just what he’s learned but how he analyzes things
the property of the people. He knows it takes the great
involvement of the people to make revolution, and he invites –
and challenges – everyone into the process of struggle to know
and change the world. It may seem ironic . . . but the more that
people wrestle with and follow his leadership, the greater will be
their creative spirit, initiative, and activity. We in the RCP are
fully aware that someone like Bob Avakian comes along only
very rarely, and we take seriously our responsibility to defend
this precious leader from the powers-that-be – and to rally
others to do so as well.
If you care at all about the world we’re in, you should check him
out for yourselves. Get into Chairman Avakian’s historic DVD
talk, REVOLUTION: Why It’s Necessary; Why It’s Possible; and
What It’s All About.


Take that what ever way you like but all I see is history repeating its self. The way they portray Chairman Bob, reminds me of the whole Stalin cult. Sorry Red but theres just something really unnerving about how they take about him. Its almost cult like


. . but the more that
people wrestle with and follow his leadership, the greater will be
their creative spirit, initiative, and activity.

I just dont think that a vanguard party with an all powerful leader is the way forward for the Revolution. :blush:

[elmo sez]

Who Is Bob Avakian? extract from THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE by someone at the RCP

Anyone seriously thinking about revolution knows that it can’t
happen without revolutionary leadership. It’s a huge question.
Well, just to be up front, there IS a leader, the likes of which this
country has never seen before, that can lead a mighty struggle
to make revolution and remake society. That leader is Bob
Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Chairman Avakian knows revolution. He has studied deeply the
revolutions of the past and taken up the responsibility for
charting the course of revolution today. He has done a whole
“re-envisioning” of communist society and what it will take to get
there. He’s a leader with tremendous love for and confidence in
the people; and he gives you confidence and hope that we can
actually do what the times demand of all of us.
But there’s more to his leadership than this. Chairman Avakian
makes not just what he’s learned but how he analyzes things
the property of the people. He knows it takes the great
involvement of the people to make revolution, and he invites –
and challenges – everyone into the process of struggle to know
and change the world. It may seem ironic . . . but the more that
people wrestle with and follow his leadership, the greater will be
their creative spirit, initiative, and activity. We in the RCP are
fully aware that someone like Bob Avakian comes along only
very rarely, and we take seriously our responsibility to defend
this precious leader from the powers-that-be – and to rally
others to do so as well.
If you care at all about the world we’re in, you should check him
out for yourselves. Get into Chairman Avakian’s historic DVD
talk, REVOLUTION: Why It’s Necessary; Why It’s Possible; and
What It’s All About.


Take that what ever way you like but all I see is history repeating its self. The way they portray Chairman Bob, reminds me of the whole Stalin cult. Sorry Red but theres just something really unnerving about how they take about him. Its almost cult like


. . but the more that
people wrestle with and follow his leadership, the greater will be
their creative spirit, initiative, and activity.

I just dont think that a vanguard party with an all powerful leader is the way forward for the Revolution. :blush:

[elmo sez]

Who Is Bob Avakian? extract from THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE by someone at the RCP

Anyone seriously thinking about revolution knows that it can’t
happen without revolutionary leadership. It’s a huge question.
Well, just to be up front, there IS a leader, the likes of which this
country has never seen before, that can lead a mighty struggle
to make revolution and remake society. That leader is Bob
Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Chairman Avakian knows revolution. He has studied deeply the
revolutions of the past and taken up the responsibility for
charting the course of revolution today. He has done a whole
“re-envisioning” of communist society and what it will take to get
there. He’s a leader with tremendous love for and confidence in
the people; and he gives you confidence and hope that we can
actually do what the times demand of all of us.
But there’s more to his leadership than this. Chairman Avakian
makes not just what he’s learned but how he analyzes things
the property of the people. He knows it takes the great
involvement of the people to make revolution, and he invites –
and challenges – everyone into the process of struggle to know
and change the world. It may seem ironic . . . but the more that
people wrestle with and follow his leadership, the greater will be
their creative spirit, initiative, and activity. We in the RCP are
fully aware that someone like Bob Avakian comes along only
very rarely, and we take seriously our responsibility to defend
this precious leader from the powers-that-be – and to rally
others to do so as well.
If you care at all about the world we’re in, you should check him
out for yourselves. Get into Chairman Avakian’s historic DVD
talk, REVOLUTION: Why It’s Necessary; Why It’s Possible; and
What It’s All About.


Take that what ever way you like but all I see is history repeating its self. The way they portray Chairman Bob, reminds me of the whole Stalin cult. Sorry Red but theres just something really unnerving about how they take about him. Its almost cult like


. . but the more that
people wrestle with and follow his leadership, the greater will be
their creative spirit, initiative, and activity.

I just dont think that a vanguard party with an all powerful leader is the way forward for the Revolution. :blush:

[Red Heretic]

Take that what ever way you like but all I see is history repeating its self. The way they portray Chairman Bob, reminds me of the whole Stalin cult. Sorry Red but theres just something really unnerving about how they take about him. Its almost cult like

A Stalin cult? Do you not think that Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Huey Newton were not popularized as well? In fact, if there wasn't an advanced section of the proletariat such as the Bolsheviks and ultimately Lenin, there wouldn't have been a Russian revolution. If the masses had not rallied behind Lenin's leadership, it would have been impossible move the proletariat forward because of the inequalities within the proletariat created by capitalism.


I just dont think that a vanguard party with an all powerful leader is the way forward for the Revolution. :blush:

First of all, no one views Avakian as "all-powerful" (or, if they do they're gravely mistaken).

Secondly, I challenge you to name one successful proletarian revolution where the most advanced section of the proletariat (it's vanguard), as well as the most advanced section of the vanguard, wasn't popularized.

[Red Heretic]

Take that what ever way you like but all I see is history repeating its self. The way they portray Chairman Bob, reminds me of the whole Stalin cult. Sorry Red but theres just something really unnerving about how they take about him. Its almost cult like

A Stalin cult? Do you not think that Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Huey Newton were not popularized as well? In fact, if there wasn't an advanced section of the proletariat such as the Bolsheviks and ultimately Lenin, there wouldn't have been a Russian revolution. If the masses had not rallied behind Lenin's leadership, it would have been impossible move the proletariat forward because of the inequalities within the proletariat created by capitalism.


I just dont think that a vanguard party with an all powerful leader is the way forward for the Revolution. :blush:

First of all, no one views Avakian as "all-powerful" (or, if they do they're gravely mistaken).

Secondly, I challenge you to name one successful proletarian revolution where the most advanced section of the proletariat (it's vanguard), as well as the most advanced section of the vanguard, wasn't popularized.

[Red Heretic]

Take that what ever way you like but all I see is history repeating its self. The way they portray Chairman Bob, reminds me of the whole Stalin cult. Sorry Red but theres just something really unnerving about how they take about him. Its almost cult like

A Stalin cult? Do you not think that Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Huey Newton were not popularized as well? In fact, if there wasn't an advanced section of the proletariat such as the Bolsheviks and ultimately Lenin, there wouldn't have been a Russian revolution. If the masses had not rallied behind Lenin's leadership, it would have been impossible move the proletariat forward because of the inequalities within the proletariat created by capitalism.


I just dont think that a vanguard party with an all powerful leader is the way forward for the Revolution. :blush:

First of all, no one views Avakian as "all-powerful" (or, if they do they're gravely mistaken).

Secondly, I challenge you to name one successful proletarian revolution where the most advanced section of the proletariat (it's vanguard), as well as the most advanced section of the vanguard, wasn't popularized.

[elmo sez]

We've all seen how dangerous this cult of personnality can be, Stalin is a good example of it like Mao. They were both popularised within their own life time were as Marx and Lenin were only after their deaths. Avakian seems to already be building this personnality cult up around himself and hes not even in power.


We in the RCP are
fully aware that someone like Bob Avakian comes along only
very rarely,

The wording of this just seems to suggest that somehow Avakian is the answer to all of our problems, that he is better than everyone else.

Secondly, I challenge you to name one successful proletarian revolution? Lets see you can knock off Russia , China , Loas , Cambodia, the list is endless their Vanguard parties got them nowhere in the end, some places like the Soviet Union may have improved peoples lives in general, but brought them back to square one with their revisionist policies.

Vanguard parties dont work, because they turn into Dictatorships- There have been revolts before that hand no leadership like the MAy 68 riots in France , if this kind of popular revolt were to ever happen again the answer is more democracy not the installation of a vanguard party , by the looks of it Avakian is more of a hinderence to the advancement of Social Anarchy than anything else , hell bring us back to square one.

[elmo sez]

We've all seen how dangerous this cult of personnality can be, Stalin is a good example of it like Mao. They were both popularised within their own life time were as Marx and Lenin were only after their deaths. Avakian seems to already be building this personnality cult up around himself and hes not even in power.


We in the RCP are
fully aware that someone like Bob Avakian comes along only
very rarely,

The wording of this just seems to suggest that somehow Avakian is the answer to all of our problems, that he is better than everyone else.

Secondly, I challenge you to name one successful proletarian revolution? Lets see you can knock off Russia , China , Loas , Cambodia, the list is endless their Vanguard parties got them nowhere in the end, some places like the Soviet Union may have improved peoples lives in general, but brought them back to square one with their revisionist policies.

Vanguard parties dont work, because they turn into Dictatorships- There have been revolts before that hand no leadership like the MAy 68 riots in France , if this kind of popular revolt were to ever happen again the answer is more democracy not the installation of a vanguard party , by the looks of it Avakian is more of a hinderence to the advancement of Social Anarchy than anything else , hell bring us back to square one.

[elmo sez]

We've all seen how dangerous this cult of personnality can be, Stalin is a good example of it like Mao. They were both popularised within their own life time were as Marx and Lenin were only after their deaths. Avakian seems to already be building this personnality cult up around himself and hes not even in power.


We in the RCP are
fully aware that someone like Bob Avakian comes along only
very rarely,

The wording of this just seems to suggest that somehow Avakian is the answer to all of our problems, that he is better than everyone else.

Secondly, I challenge you to name one successful proletarian revolution? Lets see you can knock off Russia , China , Loas , Cambodia, the list is endless their Vanguard parties got them nowhere in the end, some places like the Soviet Union may have improved peoples lives in general, but brought them back to square one with their revisionist policies.

Vanguard parties dont work, because they turn into Dictatorships- There have been revolts before that hand no leadership like the MAy 68 riots in France , if this kind of popular revolt were to ever happen again the answer is more democracy not the installation of a vanguard party , by the looks of it Avakian is more of a hinderence to the advancement of Social Anarchy than anything else , hell bring us back to square one.

[Hit The North]

He’s a leader with tremendous love for and confidence in
the people; and he gives you confidence and hope that we can
actually do what the times demand of all of us.

Ugh. Pass the sick bucket.

[Hit The North]

He’s a leader with tremendous love for and confidence in
the people; and he gives you confidence and hope that we can
actually do what the times demand of all of us.

Ugh. Pass the sick bucket.

[Hit The North]

He’s a leader with tremendous love for and confidence in
the people; and he gives you confidence and hope that we can
actually do what the times demand of all of us.

Ugh. Pass the sick bucket.

[Red Heretic]

I've got to go to school, I'll be back to answer your post later this evening Mozez.

[Red Heretic]

I've got to go to school, I'll be back to answer your post later this evening Mozez.

[Red Heretic]

I've got to go to school, I'll be back to answer your post later this evening Mozez.

[Burrito]

Well, it's actually more more complex than this, but very very briefly, the Jewish Bund was a party that started out faction in the old R.S.D.L.P. which believed that the Jews needed their own Party in the struggle for Socialism. Lenin fairly devastated their arguments (IMHO) in What is to be Done? and other polemics, and most Jews ended up just joining the Bolsheviks directly. We can say that Bundism is the belief that an oppressed nationality needs it's own Communist or socialist (as opposed to Nationalist/bourgie) party.

But we are veering of the subject at hand.

The problem that I see is this: The Bob thing is making Socialist agitation ridiculous. You sound like a cult. End of story. This is the reality no matter how great you think his thought is.

You say that you don't agree with Mao 100%. Great! Start be critizing what he wrote on the CoP!

Besides, as I alluded to earlier, the CoP was far more justified in Mao/Stalin/Lenin's case, as they had actually, y'know, won.

I'm not against the RCP,USA like some other people on this board. I just think that we revolutionaries should honestly examine ourselves and others in our movement. Y'know, criticism/self-criticism. Honestly? It makes you look like a pack of clowns. Looks like the circus is in town...

[Burrito]

Well, it's actually more more complex than this, but very very briefly, the Jewish Bund was a party that started out faction in the old R.S.D.L.P. which believed that the Jews needed their own Party in the struggle for Socialism. Lenin fairly devastated their arguments (IMHO) in What is to be Done? and other polemics, and most Jews ended up just joining the Bolsheviks directly. We can say that Bundism is the belief that an oppressed nationality needs it's own Communist or socialist (as opposed to Nationalist/bourgie) party.

But we are veering of the subject at hand.

The problem that I see is this: The Bob thing is making Socialist agitation ridiculous. You sound like a cult. End of story. This is the reality no matter how great you think his thought is.

You say that you don't agree with Mao 100%. Great! Start be critizing what he wrote on the CoP!

Besides, as I alluded to earlier, the CoP was far more justified in Mao/Stalin/Lenin's case, as they had actually, y'know, won.

I'm not against the RCP,USA like some other people on this board. I just think that we revolutionaries should honestly examine ourselves and others in our movement. Y'know, criticism/self-criticism. Honestly? It makes you look like a pack of clowns. Looks like the circus is in town...

[Burrito]

Well, it's actually more more complex than this, but very very briefly, the Jewish Bund was a party that started out faction in the old R.S.D.L.P. which believed that the Jews needed their own Party in the struggle for Socialism. Lenin fairly devastated their arguments (IMHO) in What is to be Done? and other polemics, and most Jews ended up just joining the Bolsheviks directly. We can say that Bundism is the belief that an oppressed nationality needs it's own Communist or socialist (as opposed to Nationalist/bourgie) party.

But we are veering of the subject at hand.

The problem that I see is this: The Bob thing is making Socialist agitation ridiculous. You sound like a cult. End of story. This is the reality no matter how great you think his thought is.

You say that you don't agree with Mao 100%. Great! Start be critizing what he wrote on the CoP!

Besides, as I alluded to earlier, the CoP was far more justified in Mao/Stalin/Lenin's case, as they had actually, y'know, won.

I'm not against the RCP,USA like some other people on this board. I just think that we revolutionaries should honestly examine ourselves and others in our movement. Y'know, criticism/self-criticism. Honestly? It makes you look like a pack of clowns. Looks like the circus is in town...

[SocialistGenius]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jun 23 2006, 06:16 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jun 23 2006, 06:16 AM)
Compañ[email protected] 23 2006, 06:04 AM
Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:
Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!

Mao was the greatest and most advanced revolutionary leader of the time, and he certainly made tremendous contributions to the international communist movement, but he also made many mistakes!

Communists shouldn't be afraid of being wrong. We are scientists, and what we may believe at one particular time may prove to be incorrect at a later date.

As for this particular quote, I suspect it is taken highly out of context, because I can remember reading a particular instance when he criticized those who were popularizing him dogmatically as a "god" and as being "always right." He called that type of thinking "ghoulash communism" and "counter-revolutionary."

I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically.

Frankly, alot of reactionaries and revisionists try to spread that type of dogmatic thinking on purpose in order to create a basis for which to attack the leader at a later date. For example, many people don't realize that Nikita Khruschev was the main person pushing the dogmatic-style popularition of Stalin (like the shit where he was supposed to be super-human). [/b]
I thought Kruschev lead the de-Stalinization and social liberalization of the USSR?

[SocialistGenius]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jun 23 2006, 06:16 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jun 23 2006, 06:16 AM)
Compañ[email protected] 23 2006, 06:04 AM
Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:
Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!

Mao was the greatest and most advanced revolutionary leader of the time, and he certainly made tremendous contributions to the international communist movement, but he also made many mistakes!

Communists shouldn't be afraid of being wrong. We are scientists, and what we may believe at one particular time may prove to be incorrect at a later date.

As for this particular quote, I suspect it is taken highly out of context, because I can remember reading a particular instance when he criticized those who were popularizing him dogmatically as a "god" and as being "always right." He called that type of thinking "ghoulash communism" and "counter-revolutionary."

I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically.

Frankly, alot of reactionaries and revisionists try to spread that type of dogmatic thinking on purpose in order to create a basis for which to attack the leader at a later date. For example, many people don't realize that Nikita Khruschev was the main person pushing the dogmatic-style popularition of Stalin (like the shit where he was supposed to be super-human). [/b]
I thought Kruschev lead the de-Stalinization and social liberalization of the USSR?

[SocialistGenius]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jun 23 2006, 06:16 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jun 23 2006, 06:16 AM)
Compañ[email protected] 23 2006, 06:04 AM
Red Heretic some of what you said seems to go against Mao, who said: "There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship."

Notice he uses the word "worship".. but wait, no all worship is good, just worship based on "analysis". :wacko:
Well, of course I contradict Mao on some things! I also contradict Marx and Lenin! Mao wasn't god! Scientists today contradict some of the things Darwin said!

Mao was the greatest and most advanced revolutionary leader of the time, and he certainly made tremendous contributions to the international communist movement, but he also made many mistakes!

Communists shouldn't be afraid of being wrong. We are scientists, and what we may believe at one particular time may prove to be incorrect at a later date.

As for this particular quote, I suspect it is taken highly out of context, because I can remember reading a particular instance when he criticized those who were popularizing him dogmatically as a "god" and as being "always right." He called that type of thinking "ghoulash communism" and "counter-revolutionary."

I can also think of several instances where Avakian has called on people not to follow him uncritically.

Frankly, alot of reactionaries and revisionists try to spread that type of dogmatic thinking on purpose in order to create a basis for which to attack the leader at a later date. For example, many people don't realize that Nikita Khruschev was the main person pushing the dogmatic-style popularition of Stalin (like the shit where he was supposed to be super-human). [/b]
I thought Kruschev lead the de-Stalinization and social liberalization of the USSR?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Vanguard parties dont work, because they turn into Dictatorships- There have been revolts before that hand no leadership like the MAy 68 riots in France ,

Classic anarcho rhetoric :rolleyes:...

Where did those 'riots' (I thought it was a general strike) get us?? Nowhere! There is no organization so the power cannot be channeled against something like overthrowing the government. Look at the riots in France that happened last year. It went on for weeks with massive support yet they accomplished nothing except torching a hell of a lot of cars. The vanguard is the only way. It's as simple as that especially in modern times where police and governments are equipped to quickly suppress uprisings. Vanguards have in the past turned into dictatorships yes, however now we have history on our side and get to look at the mistakes made. For example, we cannot ever put the revolution in one mans hand whether it's Bob or Lenin and we cannot put it in anyones hands without a set of guidelines or rules to guard against a dictatorship. It should be the utmost goal to be a democratic centralism not a beaurocratic centralism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Vanguard parties dont work, because they turn into Dictatorships- There have been revolts before that hand no leadership like the MAy 68 riots in France ,

Classic anarcho rhetoric :rolleyes:...

Where did those 'riots' (I thought it was a general strike) get us?? Nowhere! There is no organization so the power cannot be channeled against something like overthrowing the government. Look at the riots in France that happened last year. It went on for weeks with massive support yet they accomplished nothing except torching a hell of a lot of cars. The vanguard is the only way. It's as simple as that especially in modern times where police and governments are equipped to quickly suppress uprisings. Vanguards have in the past turned into dictatorships yes, however now we have history on our side and get to look at the mistakes made. For example, we cannot ever put the revolution in one mans hand whether it's Bob or Lenin and we cannot put it in anyones hands without a set of guidelines or rules to guard against a dictatorship. It should be the utmost goal to be a democratic centralism not a beaurocratic centralism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Vanguard parties dont work, because they turn into Dictatorships- There have been revolts before that hand no leadership like the MAy 68 riots in France ,

Classic anarcho rhetoric :rolleyes:...

Where did those 'riots' (I thought it was a general strike) get us?? Nowhere! There is no organization so the power cannot be channeled against something like overthrowing the government. Look at the riots in France that happened last year. It went on for weeks with massive support yet they accomplished nothing except torching a hell of a lot of cars. The vanguard is the only way. It's as simple as that especially in modern times where police and governments are equipped to quickly suppress uprisings. Vanguards have in the past turned into dictatorships yes, however now we have history on our side and get to look at the mistakes made. For example, we cannot ever put the revolution in one mans hand whether it's Bob or Lenin and we cannot put it in anyones hands without a set of guidelines or rules to guard against a dictatorship. It should be the utmost goal to be a democratic centralism not a beaurocratic centralism.

[Burrito]

I thought Kruschev lead the de-Stalinization and social liberalization of the USSR?
de-Stalinization: yes. But I don't see a contradiction between "Stalinization" on the one hand, and "de-Stalinization" on the other. It was a power-play coming and going. Kruschev obviously played the game better than the Marxist-Leninists. One thing the anti-communists point out is that there was no orderly transitions of power in the USSR, and I suspect they are right (I haven't studied all transfers closely enough to say authoritatively that it is so.)

"social liberalization": I'm not sure what you mean by this, so no comment.


Classic anarcho rhetoric :rolleyes.gif:
Where did those 'riots' (I thought it was a general strike) get us?? Nowhere! There is no organization so the power cannot be channeled against something like overthrowing the government. Look at the riots in France that happened last year. It went on for weeks with massive support yet they accomplished nothing except torching a hell of a lot of cars. The vanguard is the only way. It's as simple as that especially in modern times where police and governments are equipped to quickly suppress uprisings. Vanguards have in the past turned into dictatorships yes, however now we have history on our side and get to look at the mistakes made. For example, we cannot ever put the revolution in one mans hand whether it's Bob or Lenin and we cannot put it in anyones hands without a set of guidelines or rules to guard against a dictatorship. It should be the utmost goal to be a democratic centralism not a beaurocratic centralism.

I feel you on this homey :wub:, but I am sorry to be the one to tell you that all class societies in history heretofore, have been a dictatorship of one class over another, whatever the external form be it absolute monarchy, bourgie parliamentarism, or police state dictatorship. This is Marxism chapter-1 I'm afraid :P

It's best to be realistic about how socialism works (the supremacy of the vast majority - the working class - over the bosses' class) and run it as equitably as possible given those constraints.

[Red Heretic]

We've all seen how dangerous this cult of personnality can be, Stalin is a good example of it like Mao.

You seem to completely lack comprehension of what went wrong under Stalin. Stalin didn't make mistakes because too many people supported him, that's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard!

The problem with Stalin was that he was completely isolated from the proletariat, and was unable to deal with contradictions because of that. His isolation from the masses made him buearacratic, rigid, and wooden. He operated in a sort of top-down bueracratic manner because of this.

In fact, Stalin illustrates my point perfectly! If Stalin had been able to unleash the masses as the main force of revolution in the Soviet Union, things might have turned out very differently in the Soviet Union. However, Stalin was isolated from the masses, and that is what made him make all of the mistakes that he made.

Mao is in stark contradiction to the Stalin example. With Mao, the masses did rally behind him, and they accomplished extraordinary things. They remade China, and advanced to the highest and most advanced stage of socialism in human history, cultural revolution! When the capitalists tried to have a coup in China like they already had done in the USSR, the masses took up arms, formed militias, and fought back! In Beijing alone, there were over 900 different newspapers, and different groups of people trying to take China in different directions. China was the most democratic, populist country in human history, with participation, free thought, and debate that the capitalist "democracies" can only dream of! The point of all of this is that when the masses are able to rally behind leadership instead of buearacratically forced around, socialism can take a very different character.


Marx and Lenin were only after their deaths.

Total bullshit. The term "Marxism" was a widespread term all over the world before Marx died, while the term "Maoism" didn't even come into usage until nearly 15 years after Chairman Mao's death (of course, many people promoted something called Mao Tse Tung Thought, but that's relatively different).

In addition, there were also hundreds of posters produced throughout the Russian revolution which depicted Lenin as being at the front of the masses, and pointing them forward to proletarian revolution.


Avakian seems to already be building this personnality cult up around himself and hes not even in power.

Avakian didn't just decide "let's popularize me!" In fact, the decision to popularize Avakian's leadership is something the the RCP's central committee has debated and struggled over for years and years. It is the ideological understanding of the RCP. I could dig up several of the RCP's old documents on this if you're interested.


The wording of this just seems to suggest that somehow Avakian is the answer to all of our problems, that he is better than everyone else.

What it means is that proletarian leadership arises out of class contradictions. When advanced leadership comes forward, that is really a testimony to how sharp class contradictions have become. It's no coincidence that both Avakian and Huey Newton came out of the 60's, that Mao came out of the Japense occupation of China, and that Lenin came out of the first world war.

Without that dynamic being fully developed, without revolutionary leadership having

developed, it is impossible to make proletarian revolution. The proletariat won't just magically spontaneously revolt and overthrow world capitalism/imperialism. it takes a long process of ideological development, which is the direct result of class contradictions.

Therefore, advanced revolutionary leadership is extremely important, and must be defended.


Lets see you can knock off Russia , China , Loas , Cambodia, the list is endless their Vanguard parties got them nowhere in the end, some places like the Soviet Union may have improved peoples lives in general, but brought them back to square one with their revisionist policies.

Well, disregarding your later two examples (which I don't consider to be proeltarian revolutions), the Soviet Union and China both made extraordinary leaps in advancing proletarian revolution. They were the first proletarian revolutions, and they achieved tremendous things.

Those revolutions didn't "fail," they were defeated. Defeated by new bourgeoisie's which, as Mao pointed out, formed within the vanguard party themselves. The solution to this problem, however, isn't to abandon the vanguard party, but rather to further cultural revolution and at a much earlier stage in proletarian revolution.

The bourgeoisie first began trying to make revolution in the 1200's and they didn't make any real substantial ground until the later 1700's. The fact that only 30's years after the first proeltarian revolution (the Paris Commune), the proletariat was able to get state power and hold onto it for years, is INCREDIBLE!

In the future, we have to go alot further than they did, but we shouldn't just completely throw away their contributions and achievements because they were ultimately defeated. For example, a scientist who goes further than any scientist has come before him, but at the same time does not achieve full results, doesn't just throw away all of his results. That scientist builds upon those results and figures out what went wrong in that past experiment.


There have been revolts before that hand no leadership like the MAy 68 riots in France

Ironically, you seem completely unaware that the attempts to make revolution in 1968 France were mainly inspired by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, and it resistance and opposition to Soviet revisionism.


if this kind of popular revolt were to ever happen again the answer is more democracy not the installation of a vanguard party , by the looks of it Avakian is more of a hinderence to the advancement of Social Anarchy than anything else , hell bring us back to square one.

No response needed.

[elmo sez]

Ok I see what you talkin about so maybe there is room for a vanguard party, to direct the revolution.

But could you please explain to me how we are supposed to avoid another Dictatorship , and by I dont mean dictatorship of the proles , I mean an all powerful one man dictatorship like Stalin , lets face it the cult was built up around him so much that he could do no wrong, all i can say is "Show Trials"


Classic anarcho rhetoric rolleyes.gif...

Im not anarcist, as far as i know


You seem to completely lack comprehension of what went wrong under Stalin. Stalin didn't make mistakes because too many people supported him, that's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard!


First of all no need for the insults, insulting people on your own side, thats not the brightest idea, you can critise without being insulting.

What went wrong under Stalin was, firstly he consolidated all of the power in the party for himself, using the Show Trials to eliminate rivals or those who would challenge his decisions , others were eliminated during the rest of his time.
He then went on to replace those that he had gotten rid of with a bunch of yes men, who believed that Stalin could do no wrong. Next thing you know is youve got people disappearing in the night, accused of being wreckers and Trotskities.

I never said he made mistakes because to many people supported him. In all fairness to Stalin I dont think he made many mistakes, when you look at things for his point of view, but his actions were still wrong because all the people that would have questioned his actions were dead, or those that did ended up dead soon enough .

A vanguard party may help to direct the revolution in its early days, however as soon as power has been achieved, a provisional government must be set up for a brief period, so that complete Democracy can be installed, if there is to be a vanguard party then it must be brief.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:25 PM
Who Is Bob Avakian? extract from THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE by someone at the RCP

Anyone seriously thinking about revolution knows that it can’t
happen without revolutionary leadership. It’s a huge question.
Well, just to be up front, there IS a leader, the likes of which this
country has never seen before, that can lead a mighty struggle
to make revolution and remake society. That leader is Bob
Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Chairman Avakian knows revolution. He has studied deeply the
revolutions of the past and taken up the responsibility for
charting the course of revolution today. He has done a whole
“re-envisioning” of communist society and what it will take to get
there. He’s a leader with tremendous love for and confidence in
the people; and he gives you confidence and hope that we can
actually do what the times demand of all of us.
But there’s more to his leadership than this. Chairman Avakian
makes not just what he’s learned but how he analyzes things
the property of the people. He knows it takes the great
involvement of the people to make revolution, and he invites –
and challenges – everyone into the process of struggle to know
and change the world. It may seem ironic . . . but the more that
people wrestle with and follow his leadership, the greater will be
their creative spirit, initiative, and activity. We in the RCP are
fully aware that someone like Bob Avakian comes along only
very rarely, and we take seriously our responsibility to defend
this precious leader from the powers-that-be – and to rally
others to do so as well.
If you care at all about the world we’re in, you should check him
out for yourselves. Get into Chairman Avakian’s historic DVD
talk, REVOLUTION: Why It’s Necessary; Why It’s Possible; and
What It’s All About.
Haha, while I was out last night, some woman handed me a card with text similar to that. It was about Jesus Christ. :lol:

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:19 PM
Haha, while I was out last night, some woman handed me a card with text similar to that. It was about Jesus Christ. :lol:
Where in the entire text does it say that Avakian is our "Lord and Savior" or that he is more than human? It doesn't.

And frankly, why is it that the bourgeoisie can popularize its leadeship like George Bush and John Kerry, and even build up ACTUAL personality cults around people like Ronald Reagan (they said he was sent by "God" to destroy communism), but when the proletariat popularizes its leadership, all the petty-bourgeois white kids throw a fit?

(I'm not necessarily saying your a petty-bourgeois white kid, but the vast majority of people who complain about leadership are, because it's a class outlook)

[which doctor]

all the petty-bourgeois white kids throw a fit (I'm not necessarily saying your a petty-bourgeois white kid, but the vast majority of people who complain about leadership are, it's a class outlook)?
No, it's not a class outlook. It's a sterotype.

[Red Heretic]

Ok I see what you talkin about so maybe there is room for a vanguard party, to direct the revolution.

Cool! :D


But could you please explain to me how we are supposed to avoid another Dictatorship , and by I dont mean dictatorship of the proles , I mean an all powerful one man dictatorship like Stalin , lets face it the cult was built up around him so much that he could do no wrong, all i can say is "Show Trials"


What went wrong under Stalin was, firstly he consolidated all of the power in the party for himself, using the Show Trials to eliminate rivals or those who would challenge his decisions , others were eliminated during the rest of his time.
He then went on to replace those that he had gotten rid of with a bunch of yes men, who believed that Stalin could do no wrong. Next thing you know is youve got people disappearing in the night, accused of being wreckers and Trotskities.


But could you please explain to me how we are supposed to avoid another Dictatorship , and by I dont mean dictatorship of the proles , I mean an all powerful one man dictatorship like Stalin , lets face it the cult was built up around him so much that he could do no wrong, all i can say is "Show Trials"

Those a great questions. First of all, we have to look at why Stalin did what he did.

When the Soviet Union became a socialist country, everyone thought that socialism was going to spread rapidly throughout all of Europe, but it didn't. The USSR basically was faced with the choice of either giving up on the revolution and going back to capitalism, or holding on to proletarian rule, and becoming isolated from the rest of the world.

Because of all of the monolithic threats the Soviet Union was facing, (like a civil war against the Kulaks, who were rich peasants that went around raping women, and burning the food supply to destroy socialism) as well as preparation for and actually fighting a war against the Nazis. When all of that shit was lined up against the Soviet Union, there were alot of people in the party who wanted to give up, and go back to capitalism.

Stalin percieved, at least to some degree, that large sections of party wanted to take the country back to capitalism, and they wanted the party to become the new capitalist class. Judging from what happened after Stalin died... he was right.

However, Stalin's main problem when it came to this was that he had no idea how to deal with revisionism within the party. Stalin tried to deal with it buearacratic, by using the military to oust those people who he percieved as revisionists. However, that did not help resolve the root of revisionism.

Stalin also had a tendency to think "I am the leader of the proletariat, and I can do no wrong." Because of that sort of tendency, we have to promote criticism of leadership, as well as encouraging leadership to publically take self-criticism to the masses. When proletarian leaders make mistakes (which they will), the leadership also needs to point out and criticize those mistakes to the masses.

However, going back to the original point of revisionism... Mao pointed out that after the socialist revolution, the vanguard party will have the capacity to become a new capitalist class, and that that tendency will exist until we can get to the final stage of communism. Mao dealt with revisionism very differently than Stalin. Instead of trying to stick the Army on revisionists, he started mass movements that sought to educate the masses to tell the difference between socialism and revisionism.

He created a revolution within the socialist revolution, in which the masses constantly rebelled against the party whenever it did anything reactionary, and the masses would call out and rebel against reactionary leaders. Of course, ultimately, there was a capitalist coup led by Deng Xaioping, in which all of the leaders of the masses which were rebelling against the revisionists were put in prison and some executed.

In the future, once we get to socialism we immediatly have to begin the work of educating the masses, and preparing them to defend socialism. The masses also need to have their own organized militias to be able to defend themselves against the party if it becomes revisionist, as well as to defend themselves against the imperialists if they ever invade. We have to popularize the spirit of "It's right to rebel!"

We have to take cultural revolution to a higher stage, and at an earlier stage in the revolution (BEFORE the revisionists start going for power) if we want to preserve the proletariat's power in the future.

Sorry that explanation was so long, but I really wanted to dig into that question ;)


First of all no need for the insults, insulting people on your own side, thats not the brightest idea, you can critise without being insulting.

You're absolutely right, I jumped the gun on that. I'm sorry.


A vanguard party may help to direct the revolution in its early days, however as soon as power has been achieved, a provisional government must be set up for a brief period, so that complete Democracy can be installed, if there is to be a vanguard party then it must be brief.

Well, as I pointed out earlier, the cultural revolution that follows socialist revolution is the most democratic society in that has ever been achieved in human history. It is lively, moving, and it brings the masses in to take direct action and really, concretely reshape society.

We do need to constantly move toward lessening the dependancy on the vangaurd party through cultural revolution. Through cultural revolution the masses can constantly take control of things the vanguard had been responsible for previously, and through cultural revolution the masses will be able to learn to manage and direct society.

However, so long as there is the threat of imperialism (which will exist until we get to communism), it will be impossible to abolish the vanguard party all together. The proletariat is going to have maintain a state and an army in order to defend the revolution from the imperialists. I can't even imagine how horrible it might have been if the people of the Soviet Union didn't have a state and a revolutionary army to defend them from the Nazis, or how it might have been if the people of Vietnam didn't have a revolutionary vanguard to defend their revolution from US imperialism!

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 24 2006, 06:18 PM
No, it's not a class outlook. It's a sterotype.
Yes, it is. The petty-bourgeoisie is used to directing its own affairs, so it naturally rejects all forms of leadership.

Saying that's a stereotype is like saying "Saying that imperialists commit atrocities is such a stereotype!"

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jun 24 2006, 02:00 PM--> (Red Heretic @ Jun 24 2006, 02:00 PM)
Fist of [email protected] 24 2006, 06:18 PM
No, it's not a class outlook. It's a sterotype.
Yes, it is. The petty-bourgeoisie is used to directing its own affairs, so it naturally rejects all forms of leadership.

Saying that's a stereotype is like saying "Saying that imperialists commit atrocities is such a stereotype!" [/b]
I'm just curious as to what the color of skin has to do with anything.

[Burrito]

Avakian didn't just decide "let's popularize me!" In fact, the decision to popularize Avakian's leadership is something the the RCP's central committee has debated and struggled over for years and years. It is the ideological understanding of the RCP. I could dig up several of the RCP's old documents on this if you're interested.

That would be wonderful! Please do!

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Jun 24 2006, 07:50 PM--> (Fist of Blood @ Jun 24 2006, 07:50 PM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24 2006, 02:00 PM

Fist of [email protected] 24 2006, 06:18 PM
No, it's not a class outlook. It's a sterotype.
Yes, it is. The petty-bourgeoisie is used to directing its own affairs, so it naturally rejects all forms of leadership.

Saying that's a stereotype is like saying "Saying that imperialists commit atrocities is such a stereotype!"
I'm just curious as to what the color of skin has to do with anything. [/b]
Well, color of skin has nothing to do with it, but a person's national outlook does. People who are of white national origin tend to have a different national outlook than people of Black national origin.

It has nothing to do with "race" (which does not exist) or skin color, but rather priveleges that people of different strata have.

Don't get me wrong, many white people are proletarians, but you do have a disproportionate amount of white people who are of petty-bourgeois class background because of imperialism. Let's do away with imperialism ASAP! ;)

(edited typos)

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:14 PM

Avakian didn't just decide "let's popularize me!" In fact, the decision to popularize Avakian's leadership is something the the RCP's central committee has debated and struggled over for years and years. It is the ideological understanding of the RCP. I could dig up several of the RCP's old documents on this if you're interested.

That would be wonderful! Please do!
Sure!

Here is the Central Committee's resolution on the issue:


Resolution: On Leaders and Leadership

The Party Exists for No Other Reason than to Serve the Masses, to Make Revolution

More than anything, we need proletarian revolution: we need to overthrow the bourgeois class in power by defeating their armed enforcers through revolutionary warfare, smash their whole state apparatus, and begin to build up a new and radically different society in which the masses of people will take center stage.

There is no way to accomplish that without seriously applying the basic principles and scientific methodology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM), within each country and on a world scale. Historical sweep and vision and concrete analysis of the ever-changing social conditions must be combined and consistently applied in order to guide revolutionary practice and correctly resolve the practical problems of the revolutionary movement.

All this takes more than good ideas and good intentions. It takes real revolutionary organization, and a real revolutionary leadership which is solidly grounded in those basic principles and that basic methodology. A leadership which can, at all times, keep strategic objectives firmly in the forefront of revolutionary practice. A leadership which can consistently and effectively keep the revolutionary movement from straying off course and which can recognize and take advantage of openings for action and advance.

Our Party was birthed through the struggles of the revolutionary-minded people, quite a few years ago. Over the years we have learned a great deal, and we have persevered on the revolutionary road. Today our Party continues to be an evolving expression, distillation, and concentration of the strivings of the masses of people for revolutionary change.

The Party exists for no other reason than to serve the masses of people, to enable them to make revolution and transform the world. And the masses of people themselves are really the roots and the lifeblood of the Party. Without the masses the Party would be nothing.

Our Party is a collective organization, not just a collection of individuals. We decide things collectively and we act collectively. Our power resides in our collectivity--this enables us to correctly link with, unleash, and lead the initiative of the masses and give it its most powerful revolutionary expression in conformity with the fundamental interests of the masses. This collectivity is expressed and realized through the collective functioning of the units of the Party on the various levels, and through the Party's chain of knowledge and of command up and down throughout the Party.

Our Party is organized on the basis of democratic centralism, a method which allows us to combine a high degree of individual input and initiative (from individuals and from units of the Party on all levels) with a high degree of unity of will and action and enables us to fight the enemy in an organized and disciplined way. It makes possible the functioning of the Party's chain of knowledge and of command in a way that links the Party with the masses to lead them in fighting for their revolutionary interests. Democratic centralism is an organizational expression of mass line.

Both aspects of democratic centralism are essential to the application of the mass line, the process through which we call forth and draw from the varied ideas, experiences and contributions of the masses of people (both inside and outside the Party) and bring these together with the summed up lessons of history, and the most sweeping vision of what the future could be, in order to concentrate the best of the masses' collective knowledge and experience over time and return it to the masses in the form of revolutionary line and policies and practical revolutionary guidance. And we do so while maintaining the strongest possible wall of unity and discipline which is difficult for the enemy to breach.

All our Party members are revolutionary leaders in their own right, of different abilities and levels of development. All of them are invaluable: they serve the people and should be supported and defended from attack.

Inside the Party, comrades share the good and the bad, and look out for each other: this too is an expression of our collectivity and our revolutionary outlook. Inside the Party there is (and should always be) much collective discussion and wrangling over what to do, over right and wrong in the development of the revolutionary theory and practice to which all comrades contribute.

The Party organization consists of various small groupings and units, each with its own leadership, which funnel into various higher leading bodies. The collectivity of the Party as a whole is most concentrated, and best represented, in our Central Committee.

Like all Party bodies, the Central Committee functions collectively. Composed of comrades of proven dedication to the masses and to the revolutionary cause, who are themselves well-grounded in the funda- mental principles and basic methodology of MLM, the Central Committee collectively recognizes that individual leader who is best suited to lead the Central Committee itself, and through it the entire Party.

The Committee continued and passed the following resolution with its decision to re-elect Avakian as its chairman:



Of all the leaders of our Party, Bob Avakian is the individual leader the Central Committee deems:

* best able to lead the collectivity of the Central Committee and its Standing Bodies and, in this way and through the collective structures of the Party and its leading bodies, lead the Party and the masses.
* best able to draw on the Party's collectivity to distill and concentrate what has come up from below, from the masses of people inside and outside the Party.
* best able to distill and concentrate the lessons of history and of the revolutionary struggle of the international proletariat in particular.
* best able to distill and concentrate the most fundamental political, ideological and organizational principles of MLM to date, and to lead in applying them.
* best able to grasp and consciously wield the key scientific method that is dialectical and historical materialism with regard to every sphere of social practice and theory, in order to chart the uncharted path and continually bring revolutionary work into closer concordance with the objective interests and overall strategic objectives of our class.
* best able to combine and connect great historical sweep and vision and a developed ideological and methodological grounding with a real sense of the sentiments of the masses and a deep understanding of the problems of the practical revolutionary movement.
* best able to lead the revolutionary forces of our Party in two-line struggle against revisionism and opportunism and in going against all incorrect tides.
* best able to set a standard for genuine proletarian internationalism and to lead our Party in carrying out its internationalist responsibilities as one contingent of the international communist movement, as one part of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.

The greater collectivity that is the RCP's Central Committee considers that the individual who best meets these criteria--and who has proven this over and over again, including at critical junctures in the history of our Party and the international movement--is clearly Bob Avakian.

Comrade Avakian is the complete opposite of a bourgeois leader: he is known for being extremely principled and having tremendous personal and political integrity; he has put serving the people above all else in his life, living and breathing for the masses of people; he has been a model in applying the MLM method of criticism and self-criticism; he has remained steadfastly revolutionary in the face of great personal risk; he has played a crucial role in grasping and propagating the science of MLM and charted new ground in its application to revolutionary practice; he has led the Party in seeking out the roots of, learning from, and correcting errors; he has shown himself to be very capable of drawing from, concentrating and wielding the collective power of our revolutionary organization; and he has never even lost his sense of humor! In short, he is a highly developed revolutionary communist comrade!

The Central Committee of the RCP hereby enthusiastically reaffirms its respect, love, and firm support for Comrade Avakian and his role as Chair of the Central Committee of the RCP,USA.

As part of stepping up our collective struggle to better meet the challenges and opportunities of these times, the Central Committee hereby urges all Party members and revolutionary-minded people to further ponder and discuss what exactly constitutes genuine revolutionary leadership, and to reflect on, and learn from, the particular role and contributions of the Chairman of our Central Committee in that context.

The Central Committee also hereby reaffirms our determination to prevent the enemy from silencing Chairman Avakian's crucial revolutionary voice or denying the revolutionary masses his revolutionary leadership, and our renewed determination to ensure that his guidance and methodology will reach an ever widening audience.

The Central Committee of the RCP,USA hereby urges all revolutionary- minded people to join us in this dedication.

Central Committee of the
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, 1995

[Red Heretic]

Here is another document on this issue:


Some Points On the Question of Revolutionary Leadership and Individual Leaders

One of the most important questions for any revolutionary forces anywhere--and for their allies and supporters--is the question of leaders and leadership. Do the revolutionary people even need individual leaders? Just what makes a revolutionary a revolutionary leader anyway? What makes one leader any "better" at leading than any other? What criteria should we use to evaluate leaders and their roles? If individual leaders are not superhuman and can have weaknesses or make mistakes, should we even be promoting them? Are most individual leaders bound to end up capitulating, broken or dead? Why even bother to put forward and promote individual leaders if this could lead to the masses treating them as gods, and getting set up for possible disappointment and paralysis in the event individual leaders are taken, broken or crushed? Doesn't the promotion of individual leaders possibly discourage the masses from recognizing the need to take initiative and become conscious revolutionary activists and leaders themselves? If we are in favor of collectivity in our methods of work and are striving for a communist spirit and way of life, then why are we highlighting individual leaders? And what about initiative within the Party itself: does the recognition and promotion of individual leaders tend to stymie the initiative and all-rounded participation of basic members or lower level cadre? What is the correct relationship of leadership and led?

*****

The questions listed above are all worth discussing more deeply. People from different strata, and with different life experiences (and different levels of political experience) will tend to answer these questions differently.

Most people who are serious about making revolution recognize the need for some structure, organization and leadership in order to guide, coordinate and systematically unfold the revolutionary work, and in order to ultimately seize power and begin building a whole new kind of society. Basic people in particular, because they are often only too familiar with the repressive hand of the enemy, are often quick to point out that the power of the authorities cannot be seriously challenged and defeated without tight organization and clear lines of leadership. And yet there is also among the basic masses--particularly, though not only, in a country like the U.S.--a significant amount of cynicism about revolutionary leaders: the view that leaders will "sell out", or that even if they don't sell out they will be taken from the masses by the enemy and there's just not much that you can do about it. This kind of cynicism is something that should be taken on, by drawing out the connection between the basic masses and leadership, and the responsibilities of each with regard to the other.

It is usually the people from the middle strata, and especially the intellectual types, who have the most "questions" about whether or not it's even "right" to have, and to promote, individual leaders in a communist revolutionary movement. They often look at this question too much in a vacuum or in the abstract, divorced from the material realities and necessities of the particular historical era we are part of. But it is a fact of material reality that humanity has not yet reached a stage where it can afford to dispense with a formalized division of labor and leadership structures and hierarchies. The question should be: what is the nature of these structures and whose interests do these structures serve.

Minuscule numbers of people trying to discuss and take action around a very few issues, of only limited scope, may sometimes be able to do so through "general consensus", without a leadership structure and individual leaders. But as soon as the objectives broaden in scope beyond one's backyard to encompass and take responsibility for trying to make fundamental and comprehensive social changes--and certainly to achieve a revolutionary transformation of the whole way society is organized, and on a world scale--then the need for more formalized division of labor, structure and leadership becomes obvious. And all the more so since these efforts to change the world do not go unopposed by those currently in power!

But if all this is true, then the fact that certain individual revolutionaries emerge as a concentration of this process, and themselves become a concentrated expression of the best qualities of revolutionary leadership--including a selfless dedication to the revolutionary cause and deep love of the masses, as well as a strong grasp of the scientific methodology needed to unleash the masses and chart the path of revolution in line with their objective interests--then the existence of such an individual leader or leaders is not something to lament but something to welcome and celebrate! It is part of the people's strength.

Ironically, those middle forces who have the most qualms about "accepting" revolutionary leadership often fail to see the extent to which they are already being "led" in every sphere of life and society by the very functioning of the underlying dynamics of the system and the prevailing oppressive and repressive powers and institutions! They need to recognize that the only real alternative to that is to choose to be guided by a radically different form of leadership, with radically different objectives, and to learn to become this kind of leader themselves.

Such people also usually fail to think through sufficiently the practical implications of the fact that there is uneven development in all processes and things, including people. This is true among the vanguard forces and among the masses of people in general. How could it be otherwise? But this unevenness is not a bad thing: correctly understood from the perspective of dialectical materialism, unevenness is itself a source of growth and development and a catalyst for advance.

But that is not to say that the questions posed by many intellectuals about leadership and the promotion of individual leaders in revolutionary parties and movements are not worthy of serious discussion. There are for instance in the revolutionary movement real practical questions that pose themselves (and that must be addressed repeatedly in practice) concerning how to most fully unleash the conscious initiative of the masses of people and combat any tendencies they might have to want to "leave the driving to others". Similarly, inside the revolutionary ranks it is important to guard against the development of any kind of "employee mentality" of people who would just as soon accept, in uncritical and in uninspired fashion, any lines and policies emanating from "above".

In regard to this it is important to recall a point that has been repeatedly stressed by Comrade Avakian: where leadership is genuinely revolutionary leadership, the more it plays its leadership role correctly, in accordance with MLM principles, the greater will be the conscious initiative of the masses.

There are also real questions about how to best build unity on a revolutionary basis, among the masses and among the organized revolutionary forces. There is always bound to be unevenness of development and differences on a number of questions, with the terrain often being further complicated by the effects of enemy attacks and the possibility of setbacks and defeats.

But to correctly deal with the question of leadership, as in all else, we all have to ground ourselves firmly in the science and methodology of MLM: on that basis, and no other, we have to evaluate lines and policies and determine what can push things forward in a good direction and separate it from that which cannot. And then we have to find the ways to promote those lines and policies which advance things in a revolutionary direction, and concretely support those individuals and organizations which concentrate and embody them at any given time.

No one is born a revolutionary leader, and there is no one set formula for how people become revolutionary leaders. Each revolutionary leader is a complex mix of personal life experiences and broader social experience, particularly in the revolutionary movement, and revolutionary leaders can be of any race, nationality, either gender, and come from many different backgrounds. The same objective criteria for determining that an individual is particularly suited to the role and responsibilities of revolutionary leadership should apply to all: the essential thing is that they demonstrate the greatest ability to take up and apply the stand, viewpoint, and methodology of the international proletariat. This has been shown by the experience of the international communist movement; today MLM parties and organizations throughout the world have brought forward--and will continue to bring forward--a number of leaders, who represent a great force for the advance of the world proletarian revolution.

The basic masses usually know, from deep life experience, that the concentrated power of the enemy cannot be seriously challenged with just "good ideas" and "good intentions" and a vague "general consensus" of the revolutionary ranks. It takes real tight organization and real political, ideological and organizational leadership to bring forth, to guide and to wield the newly emerging power and combativity of the people.

So the revolutionary masses recognize the need for leaders. But that's not enough. Real revolutionary leaders are brought forth, developed, nourished and sustained by the revolutionary people, and the revolutionary people must more fully understand that connection themselves. Revolutionary leaders are in a real sense the flower and fruit of the revolutionary people, who are themselves the roots and shoots of the revolution.

Without the revolutionary people the leaders are nothing. And without genuine revolutionary leaders to chart the course through the minefields, the people will not find the way to make real revolutionary breakthroughs when these are possible. Without revolutionary leadership the people's resistance will be crushed over and over again and will not succeed in "getting over to the other side."

Individual leaders are not gods or superhumans. They have their individual failings like anyone else, and they will make mistakes even when they are overall doing a good job of leading the revolution.

Some of them will even do worse than that and will at some point be broken, or in some way capitulate to the enemy and betray the revolution. And some will be taken from us by the enemy and jailed or killed.

Everyone must understand that such things can happen and must prepare for such eventualities, to minimize the possibility that such blows can fundamentally derail a revolutionary process and direction. But these possibilities cannot make us cynical or despair in the possibility of revolution. Because the hard-core strength of the revolution is the revolutionary base, the revolutionary people themselves. And it is true that as long as there is oppression the people will in time bring forth new revolutionary leaders to replace those who have fallen or been taken from us. But it must also be stressed that in a very real sense it is the responsibility of the party, together with the revolutionary masses, to minimize such losses, as well as to deal with the situation when such losses do occur.

Revolutionary leaders themselves should pay attention to fostering the greatest possible revolutionary collectivity and the greatest possible growth and all-rounded development of the revolutionary ranks and of many veteran and newly emerging leaders, so that, to the greatest extent possible, if they are taken from us, others will be ready to take their place.

On the other hand, there is no denying it: The loss of a true revolutionary leader--and all the more so if this is an individual who plays a key and critical leadership role--is like having a heart ripped out of our collective chest. When such things happen, we should deal with it--new leaders must step forward and be brought forward to continue to guide the revolutionary cause. But we should first of all do everything in our power to prevent such things from happening.

Key revolutionary leaders must be defended and protected with everything we've got. They are, in fact, the revolutionary people in concentrated form. They embody the very best that the people have to offer, that the people have given rise to and brought forward at a given point in history. To respect, protect and defend such revolutionary leaders is to respect, protect and defend the people themselves.

Within the revolutionary ranks there will always be (and always should be) discussion and wrangling about many different things and about just what is the right way to go forward. This is very healthy and important and an expression of the mass line within the revolutionary ranks and it will in many ways be the "juice" of the revolution and of the future society we will build.

But vis a vis the enemy we close our ranks tightly, and present them with a strong and unfissured wall of unity and allegiance to leadership. This makes it all the more difficult for them to breach our ranks.

We have to make the enemy feel this very sharply: come after our revolutionary leaders, and you will first have to come through us and the revolutionary people. We're that serious.

What does it mean to be a revolutionary communist leader? The revolutionary party has many leaders of different levels and abilities. They embody a variety of different strengths. All of them are visionaries as well as practitioners of revolutionary struggle, but not one of them can embody all the best characteristics of the revolutionary people today or of the future new society that we are struggling to bring into being. This is another expression of the fact that the party's strength and power is best expressed through its collectivity.

Yet every single leader is an important part of the process of making the revolution and the new society a reality. Each one brings to the revolution his or her particular mix of strengths and abilities. Each struggles to study and apply the scientific methodology of dialectical and historical materialism to the problems of making revolution. Each does many things right and some things wrong, and hopefully we all learn through experience to become stronger and better at the art of making revolution.

Each one is motivated not by petty concerns and self-interest but by a vision of how things could be done to better meet the needs of the great majority of humanity. Each one gets tired sometimes, but then struggles to once again work hard. Each one is afraid sometimes, but then struggles once again to be brave and have no fear.

Above all the most fundamental feature all genuine revolutionary communist leaders have in common is this: their strategic confidence in the masses of people, grounded in dialectical materialism.

The life of a revolutionary leader is one of sacrifice and hard work, frequent frustrations, self-doubts, and significant risks, and yet selfless dedication to the masses and to struggle for a better world. And it is also something else: especially in those times when the masses of people more readily shed their cynicism, fear or despair, and come forward with enthusiasm and life-affirming defiance to join the revolutionary movement, the all-conquering spirit and powerful unity of the people and its revolutionary expression courses through the revolutionary ranks and buoys the spirits of every genuine revolutionary like nothing else! It is a tremendous thing and something the cold and heartless bourgeois--who feed on the basic people but who can never be nourished or sustained by their growing emancipation--will never be able to enjoy, and in fact dread. But for us it makes it all worthwhile.

Revolutionary comrades: we should defend, support and celebrate our Party, our revolutionary leaders, our revolutionary people, and our vision of a revolutionary future. For they are in fact inseparable!

[kaaos_af]

what a crock of shit... this in particular-

"Minuscule numbers of people trying to discuss and take action around a very few issues, of only limited scope, may sometimes be able to do so through "general consensus", without a leadership structure and individual leaders. But as soon as the objectives broaden in scope beyond one's backyard to encompass and take responsibility for trying to make fundamental and comprehensive social changes--and certainly to achieve a revolutionary transformation of the whole way society is organized, and on a world scale--then the need for more formalized division of labor, structure and leadership becomes obvious. And all the more so since these efforts to change the world do not go unopposed by those currently in power!"

What? Do they think their members are idiots? How about breaking down leadership, having direct democracy with recallable delegates representing each section of the group?

By carrying on about the infallability of their 'wonderful Leader', they simply create the reputation, true or not, of being a cult. This serves only turn more people away from their group than they would attract to it.

And to you who say "petty-bourgeois white kids"... GET A LIFE! Yeah, so I'm white, yeah, so, who gives a toss? I'm no petty-bourgeois, but who cares? Even if I was, I think you ought to appreciate the fact that at least I was getting into revolutionary politics instead of playing some macho bullshit game and treating women like dirt. Take you're elitist attitude and shove it.

[Red Heretic]

what a crock of shit... this in particular-

"Minuscule numbers of people trying to discuss and take action around a very few issues, of only limited scope, may sometimes be able to do so through "general consensus", without a leadership structure and individual leaders. But as soon as the objectives broaden in scope beyond one's backyard to encompass and take responsibility for trying to make fundamental and comprehensive social changes--and certainly to achieve a revolutionary transformation of the whole way society is organized, and on a world scale--then the need for more formalized division of labor, structure and leadership becomes obvious. And all the more so since these efforts to change the world do not go unopposed by those currently in power!"

What? Do they think their members are idiots? How about breaking down leadership, having direct democracy with recallable delegates representing each section of the group?

No, the RCP's membership is not composed of idiots, but in many times in a revolutionary situation, you can not just sit around all day waiting for a general consensus, especially if you're trying to organizing millions of people! Do you think that the people of Vietnam should have just sat around all day during the revolution while they were being bombed by the USA and argued over a general consensus?! Hell no!

Sometimes in a revolutionary situation it is necessary to get things done as efficienctly as possible. However, socialist revolution is followed by cultural revolution, and one of the main aims of the culutural revolution is to lessen dependency upon the party, and to increase the amount of control of the masses (though the party can not be completely abandoned until we get to communism).


By carrying on about the infallability of their 'wonderful Leader', they simply create the reputation, true or not, of being a cult. This serves only turn more people away from their group than they would attract to it.

Funny, the only person using terms like "Wonderful Leader" is YOU!


And to you who say "petty-bourgeois white kids"... GET A LIFE! Yeah, so I'm white, yeah, so, who gives a toss? I'm no petty-bourgeois, but who cares? Even if I was, I think you ought to appreciate the fact that at least I was getting into revolutionary politics instead of playing some macho bullshit game and treating women like dirt. Take you're elitist attitude and shove it.

I never accused you personally of being a "petty-bourgeois white kid... but it must have hit a cord! :lol:

Look, petty-bourgeois kids certainly can play a tremendous role in the revolution, though they won't be the leading force. Large sections of them are really alienated with this society, and are looking for a way out, though they might have a slightly different vision than proletarians.

Nevertheless, the particular outlook we are talking about here is rejection of the concept of revolutionary leadership, which is specifically a petty-bourgeois outlook.

Why do you suppose it was that in the 60's, the Black proletarian masses never complained about the popularization of Chairman Huey Newton? They had posters like this:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2605/hueynewton8pp.jpg

yet, have you ever heard anyone among the Black proletariat refer to the Black Panther Party as a cult?

Oh, and one last thing, I don't think either Newton or Avakian have "invincible" thought. This particular poster is probably an example of a dogmatic form of leadership popularization, but nevertheless, it demonstrates my point about class outlook.

[Jesus Christ!]

So racism is cool. Red heritic, when you mention sections of the proletariat being more adavanced than others and using lenin and marx as examples, do you realize that lenin and marx were not even members of the proletariat?

[Red Heretic]

So racism is cool.

Where was I racist? Pointing out white privelege isn't racist, it's anti-racist.


Red heritic, when you mention sections of the proletariat being more adavanced than others and using lenin and marx as examples, do you realize that lenin and marx were not even members of the proletariat?

I think you pulled my Marx and Lenin examples out of context...

Anyway, yes, I realize that. The point is that their ideas were ultimately brought about by the storm of class contradictions all around them. They had enough privelege to be able to sit back and analyze what they were seeing, which is a privelege that very proletarians will get to enjoy until we get to socialism.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25 2006, 05:11 AM

So racism is cool.

Where was I racist? Pointing out white privelege isn't racist, it's anti-racist.


Red heritic, when you mention sections of the proletariat being more adavanced than others and using lenin and marx as examples, do you realize that lenin and marx were not even members of the proletariat?

I think you pulled my Marx and Lenin examples out of context...

Anyway, yes, I realize that. The point is that their ideas were ultimately brought about by the storm of class contradictions all around them. They had enough privelege to be able to sit back and analyze what they were seeing, which is a privelege that very proletarians will get to enjoy until we get to socialism.
Pointing out everyone as being ignorant due to their race is what I would consider being racist. Anti-racist? wtf is that? did you make that up?


My pointing out marx and lenin was to show that they had the privelage of sitting back and analyzing because they didn't have to do as much manual labor as the proletariat. They were not the proletariat and therefore cannot be considered an advanced form of the proletariat unless that some how means borgeuois.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25 2006, 12:11 AM

So racism is cool.

Where was I racist? Pointing out white privelege isn't racist, it's anti-racist.
Anti-racism would be not even mentioning the color of ones skin.

[Red Heretic]

Pointing out everyone as being ignorant due to their race is what I would consider being racist. Anti-racist? wtf is that? did you make that up?

I was actually trying to point out that the reason that this forum is a haven "Avakian bashing" is because of its general class outlook, which is unquestionable. In fact, I seriously question whether the majority of the people on this site do anything outside of talking about revolution on the internet.

You've never heard the term anti-racist? Uhhh..... I normally don't even use that term but I thought you'd understand...

I was pointing out that white people are enormously priveleged because of their nationalities. Would you say I was racist if I pointed out white privelege during slavery?


My pointing out marx and lenin was to show that they had the privelage of sitting back and analyzing because they didn't have to do as much manual labor as the proletariat. They were not the proletariat and therefore cannot be considered an advanced form of the proletariat unless that some how means borgeuois.

If instead of being brutally exploited and massacred in unspeakable conditions, the proletariat sat around all day eating cotton candy and candy canes, do you think Marx and Lenin would have become revolutionaries? Of course not.

They became revolutionaries because of the storm that was raging around them. The same goes for Mao, Newton, Prachanda, and Avakian.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25 2006, 12:34 AM
They became revolutionaries because of the storm that was raging around them. The same goes for Mao, Newton, Prachanda, and Avakian.
We all know what a revolutionary Chairman Bob is. He's done so much for the oppressed proletariat of America!

/sarcasm

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 25 2006, 05:25 AM
Anti-racism would be not even mentioning the color of ones skin.
Only if you have a bourgeois conception of racism. When Black people rise up against racial oppression, is that racist?

I suppose the problem with the term "racist" is that it implies that all nationalities of people have equal conditions, which they don't.

They real problem is national oppression and national chauvinism, but I used "anti-racist" because I was unsure whether Jesus Christ! would know the meaning of those terms.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 25 2006, 05:36 AM
We all know what a revolutionary Chairman Bob is. He's done so much for the oppressed proletariat of America!

/sarcasm
Avakian was a veteran of the Black Panther Party, he successfully fought against the revisionists within the RCP (which split because of the capitalist coup in China), and saved the party from falling apart during the capitalist coup in China, and he also played a leading role in the world wide international communist movement when he fought against Deng Xaioping's revisionism.

He has also developed Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to and even higher stage, and developed a revolutionary strategy to actually win in an imperialist country like the US. He has devoted his entire life to the proletariat.

Don't give me that bullshit.

[Nachie]

When you have to sit there and constantly produce "official resolutions" and even protest chants that glorify the sanctity of your leader, it means your leader fucking sucks.

[poetofrageX]

alrite, lets not ever comapre Huey P Newton to Avakian again. There are several huge key differences.

The Black Panther Party only came close to forming a personality cult around Newton when he was in jail. Newton never talked about what a great leader he was in any of his writings, and the Black Panther Party's newspaper wasn't filled with ads for Huey P. Newton paraphernalia, like the RCP's is filled with ads for anything with Avakian's name on it. Newton was a very humble man, he lived his entire life in the same poor Oakland neighborhood, and was very hands on with the Party's dealings with the people.

Huey P. Newton was not hailed by the party as a grand, glorious, enlightened, leader without whom the revolution could never take place. Newton was in fact criticized from within the Party at times. He was considerably romanticized after his death, but thats to be expected with any revolutionary leader.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:35 AM
When you have to sit there and constantly produce "official resolutions" and even protest chants that glorify the sanctity of your leader, it means your leader fucking sucks.
Newsflash Nachie, I posted those resolutions because burrito requested them.

And where did I post a chant?

I think the real point is that when you can't make any actual criticisms of Avakian's line, and just smart off with childish low blows, your line fucking sucks.

[encephalon]

I was actually trying to point out that the reason that this forum is a haven "Avakian bashing" is because of its general class outlook, which is unquestionable. In fact, I seriously question whether the majority of the people on this site do anything outside of talking about revolution on the internet.

Yes, none of us are "real proles" like you. Otherwise, we'd all follow avakian unquestionably. If we were working class, we'd obviously agree with you.

The working class has learned through hard experience--including myself--to distrust any leader. We get the brunt of their mistakes, while they sit on top of it all and tell us everything is for the better.

What you fail to realize is that there are real proletarians that insist on leadership of and by the proletariat, not in its name. We've gone the route of great leaders, and ended up face down in the dirt--EVERY TIME. We're tired of it. Now is the time for the working class to empower itself, not have it faux-bestowed upon them.

But aside from that, I will admit that the RCP has consistently been the most visible marxist organization in the US, at least in my own experience, and I hope that will continue.

But seriously.. if you honestly can't see what people are talking about when they mention the "cult of avakian" thing, you really need to assess yourself. I have never talked to an RCP'er for more than five minutes without hearing the work "avakian" twelve times. It's like talking to a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, without all the fire and brimstone.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:49 AM


Huey P. Newton was not hailed by the party as a grand, glorious, enlightened, leader without whom the revolution could never take place. Newton was in fact criticized from within the Party at times. He was considerably romanticized after his death, but thats to be expected with any revolutionary leader.

The Black Panther Party only came close to forming a personality cult around Newton when he was in jail.

Actually, the decision to popularize and defend Avakian when the FBI obtained blueprints of Avakian's house, and plotted to assassinate him. In addition to that, they stacked up charges against him for the demonstration he led against Deng Xaioping and the capitalist coup in China. The charges totalled to over 250 years, and he was forced to make the decision to go into exile.


Newton never talked about what a great leader he was in any of his writings, and the Black Panther Party's newspaper wasn't filled with ads for Huey P. Newton paraphernalia, like the RCP's is filled with ads for anything with Avakian's name on it. Newton was a very humble man, he lived his entire life in the same poor Oakland neighborhood, and was very hands on with the Party's dealings with the people.

Avakian doesn't obsess over himself in his writings either... I'm not sure where you got the idea that he does... You should really read his memoir.

It is untrue the the BPP's newspaper didn't popularize Newton and defend his leadership, as well as promote his writings. Have you ever read the BPP's newspaper?

May I ask why it is that you think Avakian isn't humble? Have you read his memoir?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:35 AM




Yes, none of us are "real proles" like you.

I never said I was a "real prole," nor did I ever use the term "real prole." In actuality I grew with a rather "middle class" background myself (with the exception of the last year of my life, which has really first-hand introduced me to the conditions that the proletariat faces).

Many people, including petty-bourgeois youth, intellectually overcome their class outlook. I remember very distinctly the days when I was an anarchist...


The working class has learned through hard experience--including myself--to distrust any leader. We get the brunt of their mistakes, while they sit on top of it all and tell us everything is for the better.

What you fail to realize is that there are real proletarians that insist on leadership of and by the proletariat, not in its name. We've gone the route of great leaders, and ended up face down in the dirt--EVERY TIME. We're tired of it. Now is the time for the working class to empower itself, not have it faux-bestowed upon them.

Without going too deep back into the anarchism discussion, I'll make a few points.

The bottom line is that without a vanguard party which naturally develops because of the inequalities within the proletariat created by capitalism, it is impossible to make revolution. Never in human history have anarchists or Trotskyites been able to successfully obtain power, because those ideologies simply do not allow the class contradictions to develop.

There are going to be inequalities among the proletariat so long as our class is exploited by the capitalist class. If you do not allow the most advanced section of the proletariat to become a devoted political organ that carries the rest of the proletariat through the ebbs and flows of class contradictions, you cannot make revolution.

I at least hope that you genuinely are most concerned about how to make revolution, and get to communism, because I think that is what we both ultimately want.


But aside from that, I will admit that the RCP has consistently been the most visible marxist organization in the US, at least in my own experience, and I hope that will continue.

Me too. :D


But seriously.. if you honestly can't see what people are talking about when they mention the "cult of avakian" thing, you really need to assess yourself.

Look, I see where people are coming from. I know that when I was an anarchist I was really alienated with the popularization of Avakian, because I really didn't understand the ideology behind it.

However, when I'm doing work among the masses, and when proletarians I meet get introduced to Avakian, most of this shit never even crosses their minds.

Even before people even are aware of Avakian, alot of the proletarians I meet (especially these Black proletarians I met while I was working at this call center in the ghetto) would talk about how they wish that there were a revolutionary leader out there today like Newton or Mao (these guys knew about Newton and Mao long before they met me). I remember, I burnt them copies of an excerpt one of Avakian's speeches titled "Why do People Come Here From All Over the World?" and they REALLY connected with that shit. The next day it was like I gave them tickets to fucking Disney World. I started bringing them more stuff too.

Anyway, those are just some of my personal experiences, which I relate to how class outlook plays into all of this.


I have never talked to an RCP'er for more than five minutes without hearing the work "avakian" twelve times. It's like talking to a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, without all the fire and brimstone.

Though I am not a RCP member, I'd like to ask you, do you think I popularize Avakian in a dogmatic way?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


Never in human history have anarchists or Trotskyites been able to successfully obtain power, because those ideologies simply do not allow the class contradictions to develop.

And once you Maoists seize power (as in China) by a non-proletarian take-over, you make the working class suffer in their millions.

Substitutionism pure and simple, all justified by this sort of mysticism:


because those ideologies simply do not allow the class contradictions to develop.

So you can take your Avakian cult, and stick it up your Tianamen Square....

[encephalon]

I never said I was a "real prole," nor did I ever use the term "real prole." In actuality I grew with a rather "middle class" background myself (with the exception of the last year of my life, which has really first-hand introduced me to the conditions that the proletariat faces).

Many people, including petty-bourgeois youth, intellectually overcome their class outlook. I remember very distinctly the days when I was an anarchist...


I remember very distinctly when I was a leninist :lol: In fact, some of lenin's theoretical work, I think, is very useful, as well as works of Mao, etc. But in practice, the vanguard has led to a near-complete reversal of its intentions every single time.

You stated that people that do not support the vanguard concept solely do so because of their class, and that it is a petty bourgeoisie phenomenon (I'm paraphrasing, but I believe that's the point you were making; correct me if I'm wrong).

Yet here I am, on the lower end of labor in the United States (as I've been all of my life, including growing up), and I've a sincere distaste for vanguardism. Believe it or not, real working-class people have developed a distrust for leadership based on experience.



Without going too deep back into the anarchism discussion, I'll make a few points.

The bottom line is that without a vanguard party which naturally develops because of the inequalities within the proletariat created by capitalism, it is impossible to make revolution. Never in human history have anarchists or Trotskyites been able to successfully obtain power, because those ideologies simply do not allow the class contradictions to develop.

There are going to be inequalities among the proletariat so long as our class is exploited by the capitalist class. If you do not allow the most advanced section of the proletariat to become a devoted political organ that carries the rest of the proletariat through the ebbs and flows of class contradictions, you cannot make revolution.

I at least hope that you genuinely are most concerned about how to make revolution, and get to communism, because I think that is what we both ultimately want.

Let me first say that I'm not an anarchist.

As for the vanguard: they may have successfully gained power, but they did not use that power justly. By the same logic that you apply to anarchists and trotskyists, one can come to the conclusion that history has proven that a vanguard such as the various ones that have popped up in the last century will always end in the same way because it always centralizes power into the hands of a few. It is merely replacing the old bourgeoisie with a new ruling class--that isn't the proletariat--that has just as much interest in preserving its power against meaningful socio-political change as did the bourgeoisie it replaced.

I don't think that the working class needs to be carried; and if history is any indication of how a vanguard might work in the future, the working class will be dropped from the vanguard's shoulders within a decade or two after siezure of power. This is not a revolution I am willing to fight for. Unless it empowers the whole of the working class, it will fail to emancipate the working class.



Look, I see where people are coming from. I know that when I was an anarchist I was really alienated with the popularization of Avakian, because I really didn't understand the ideology behind it.


I understand the ideology behind it quite well. And I don't really mind that Avakian is popular. What I mind is the cult of personality that surrounds him. The one RCP'er I've met that lasted longer the 5 minutes without saying 'Avakian' was Sunsara, and she didn't last too much longer than that. Throughout history, the cult of personality has always ended in complete disaster, and usually ends up accomplishes the opposite of the objective at hand. As communists, we must recognize that central power in the hands of a few will always lead to those few protecting that central power--especially against the masses. That isn't saying that humans are inherently selfish, but instead that the material conditions of being in that position will lead to such self-protection.


However, when I'm doing work among the masses, and when proletarians I meet get introduced to Avakian, most of this shit never even crosses their minds.


I actually first heard of Avakian before having much of any political leaning years ago from an RCP'er, and I must tell you that I quickly recognized the "avakian-this, avakian-that" mentality. It further bolstered the stereotype of communists as mindless drones that can repeat any phrase by one of their glorious leaders but can't form a comprehensive thought of their own, actually, and is something I've been fighting since then.



Even before people even are aware of Avakian, alot of the proletarians I meet (especially these Black proletarians I met while I was working at this call center in the ghetto) would talk about how they wish that there were a revolutionary leader out there today like Newton or Mao (these guys knew about Newton and Mao long before they met me). I remember, I burnt them copies of an excerpt one of Avakian's speeches titled "Why do People Come Here From All Over the World?" and they REALLY connected with that shit. The next day it was like I gave them tickets to fucking Disney World. I started bringing them more stuff too.

Anyway, those are just some of my personal experiences, which I relate to how class outlook plays into all of this.

If they connect with it--GREAT! But if they start replacing "avakian" with "I" or "we," then there's a problem. I've noticed that RCP'ers never say "We think.." but instead "Avakian thinks" or "Avakian says"--and it truly reminds one of a jesus cult.


Though I am not a RCP member, I'd like to ask you, do you think I popularize Avakian in a dogmatic way?

Actually, when I started reading this thread I was rather amazed at the fact that you didn't keep writing "Avakian says".. I should've figured that you aren't in the RCP :lol:

Some of Avakian's ideas are good; others are bad. I imagine that you aren't in the RCP because you've a disagreement with the platform in some way or another. And once again, if it weren't for the cult of personality, I'd have absolutely no qualm with the RCP or avakian.

Generally, though, I find the midless verbal xeroxing of avakian's speeches by his followers to be.. well, spooky, frankly. And when there's so much of that, it doesn't matter if the person is bob avakian or david koresh--it's still the same disease of a cult, and most reasonable people quickly tire of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And, Encephalon, if you read the plaudits on his books, they are well over the top. The few books of Avakian's I have read certainly did not merit this praise (they were by and large of average Maoist quality -- with loads of chest-beating thrown in fo goo measue -- you know the sort, us Trotskyists are good at it too!) -- which underlines the cultish nature of the party quite nicely.

Anyway, E: (if you haven't already done so) you should read Dennis Tourish's book (co-authored with Tim Wolhforth): 'On the Edge' (an attempt to provide a social-psychological analysis of far left and far right cultism).

His views are summarised here:

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Bac...xt27/Intro.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Intro.html)

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Bac...xt27/Cults.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Cults.html)

Responses here, and Tourish's replies (scroll down):

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/60690?sear...e_comments=true (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/60690?search_text=cwi&condense_comments=true)

Slugging match here:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story...sults_offset=80 (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60567&results_offset=80)

[You will recognise the style very quickly -- it is aped by many who post here: 'Head in the sand'.]

[encephalon]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2006, 09:17 AM
And, Encephalon, if you read the plaudits on his books. they are well over the top. The few books of Avakian's I have read certainly did not merit this praise (they were by and large of average Maoist quality -- with loads of chest-beating thrown in) -- which shows the cultish nature of the party up quite nicely.

E: you should read Dennis Tourish's book (co-authored with Tim Wolhforth): 'On the Edge' (an attempt to provide a social-psychological analysis of far left and far right cultism).

His views are summarised here:

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Bac...xt27/Intro.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Intro.html)

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Bac...xt27/Cults.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Cults.html)

Responses here, and Tourish's replies (scroll down):

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/60690?sear...e_comments=true (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/60690?search_text=cwi&condense_comments=true)

Slugging match here:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story...sults_offset=80 (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60567&results_offset=80)

[You will recognise the style very quickly -- it is aped by many who post here: 'Head in the sand'.]
Thanks Rosa, I'll look into it.

Actually, the reason I even entered this thread in the first place (I've generally become tired of this fight) is that I'm reading avakian's "Phony Communism is Dead.. Long Live Real Communism!" now. So after I finish this (which, from what I've read so far, seems to be rather light reading), I'll likely write a review of some sort and post it in the Articles section.. and watch the hilarity ensue :lol:

But after that I'll try to find some Tourish.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2006, 09:17 AM
And, Encephalon, if you read the plaudits on his books, they are well over the top. The few books of Avakian's I have read certainly did not merit this praise (they were by and large of average Maoist quality -- with loads of chest-beating thrown in fo goo measue -- you know the sort, us Trotskyists are good at it too!) -- which underlines the cultish nature of the party quite nicely.

Anyway, E: (if you haven't already done so) you should read Dennis Tourish's book (co-authored with Tim Wolhforth): 'On the Edge' (an attempt to provide a social-psychological analysis of far left and far right cultism).

His views are summarised here:

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Bac...xt27/Intro.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Intro.html)

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Bac...xt27/Cults.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Cults.html)

Responses here, and Tourish's replies (scroll down):

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/60690?sear...e_comments=true (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/60690?search_text=cwi&condense_comments=true)

Slugging match here:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story...sults_offset=80 (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60567&results_offset=80)

[You will recognise the style very quickly -- it is aped by many who post here: 'Head in the sand'.]
Those look like interesting links, I'll definitely check them out.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jun 25 2006, 05:39 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jun 25 2006, 05:39 AM)
Fist of [email protected] 25 2006, 05:25 AM
Anti-racism would be not even mentioning the color of ones skin.
Only if you have a bourgeois conception of racism. When Black people rise up against racial oppression, is that racist?

I suppose the problem with the term "racist" is that it implies that all nationalities of people have equal conditions, which they don't.

They real problem is national oppression and national chauvinism, but I used "anti-racist" because I was unsure whether Jesus Christ! would know the meaning of those terms. [/b]
You don't need to dumb yourself down for me. Feel free to single people out for class but saying " no wonder this thread has degenerated its a bunch of white petty boeurgouis. Is this to say that white people can not suffer just as much as any other race?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25 2006, 07:31 AM
Newsflash Nachie, I posted those resolutions because burrito requested them.
So? I didn't say anything against you cowboy, I was talking about the dolts that wrote them. Though by the looks of things you all might as well be one and the same.


And where did I post a chant?
You didn't, but the RCP still has them!


I think the real point is that when you can't make any actual criticisms of Avakian's line, and just smart off with childish low blows, your line fucking sucks.
I think you were looking for emphasis on "your", and not "line".

Anyway my criticism of Avakian's line involves him surrounded by 10 people with baseball bats.

[Red Heretic]

And once you Maoists seize power (as in China) by a non-proletarian take-over, you make the working class suffer in their millions.

Bullshit, China accomplished unprecedented things for the proletariat while it was a socialist country.

*They took that average life expectancy from 32 to 65
*Healthcare was availible to 99% of the population (only 5% has access to healthcare after the capitalist coup)
*Shanghai had a better average infant mortality rate than New York City (and this is a poor third world country we are talking about)
*Starvation was completely wiped out for the first time ever in Chinese history
*Opium addiction (China had the worlds worst drug problem) was wiped out through masse movements
*Japanese imperialism was smashed to pieces
*Male chauvinism was smashed (remember the bounding of the feet?)
*For the first time ever, proletarian art forms and culture developed and expanded
*The cultural revolution shook the entire planet, the entire wave of world wide rebellion in the 60's, including the Naxalite rebellion in India, the Paris riots in 1968, and the Black Panther PArty in the USA

Those are just a few things I can think of off of the top of my head.


So you can take your Avakian cult, and stick it up your Tianamen Square....

Are you referring to the Tiananmen Square massacres? Because if so... do you realize that those massacres were committed by the people who were responsible for the capitalist coup in China, and that many (not all, but many) of the people protesting that day were Maoists?

[Red Heretic]

But in practice, the vanguard has led to a near-complete reversal of its intentions every single time.

It is true that there is the dynamic for a new bourgeoisie to form inside the party, which is why we Maoists stress cultural reveolution, rebellion, and criticism of leadership to prevent those things from coming into being. As I have outlined in my previous posts, I think we need to take cultural revolution to a whole new level next time, and also fight to bring about a cultural revolution before the revisionists start contesting for power.


You stated that people that do not support the vanguard concept solely do so because of their class, and that it is a petty bourgeoisie phenomenon (I'm paraphrasing, but I believe that's the point you were making; correct me if I'm wrong).

That is not what I meant at all. I am sure there are some proletarians out there who are alienated from leadership as well. My point was that the rejection of leadership is predominantly a petty-bourgeois class outlook, however.

Even non-lefist people from the petty-bourgeoisie often feel very alienated from the bourgeoisie's leadership (ever listen to them complain about all of the corruption in the bourgeois state?) Like I said, the bourgeoisie is alienated from leadership in all forms because they're used to running their own small properties, etc.


As for the vanguard: they may have successfully gained power, but they did not use that power justly. By the same logic that you apply to anarchists and trotskyists, one can come to the conclusion that history has proven that a vanguard such as the various ones that have popped up in the last century will always end in the same way because it always centralizes power into the hands of a few. It is merely replacing the old bourgeoisie with a new ruling class--that isn't the proletariat--that has just as much interest in preserving its power against meaningful socio-political change as did the bourgeoisie it replaced.

I disagree. The past socialist expreiences were not defeated because of too much centralization (even though that may have played a role in it, and we should try to lessen the dependency through cultural revolution), but rather, they were defeated because they were unable to stop the new bourgeoisie which forms within the party during socialism, from siezing power from the proletariat. Which of course goes back to my point about the need for cultural revolution, and at an earlier stage.


I don't think that the working class needs to be carried; and if history is any indication of how a vanguard might work in the future, the working class will be dropped from the vanguard's shoulders within a decade or two after siezure of power. This is not a revolution I am willing to fight for. Unless it empowers the whole of the working class, it will fail to emancipate the working class.

I never said the proletariat needed to be "carried." The proletariat makes history! However I do believe that certain sections of the proletariat become more advanced more quickly than others, and because of that unevenness, the revolutionary section of the proletariat, the vanguard, needs to lead the less advanced sections forward to revolution.

After the revolution, will the vanguard do reactionary things? Most definately. Which is why time and time again I keep going back to cultural revolution, rebellion against all reactioanry authority, and lessening dependancy on the vanguard through cultural revolution until communism.

Of course we will need to have the vanguard in socialism, to defend the proletariat's power from the imperialists until we complete the world revolution and get to communism... but you get the drift.


Throughout history, the cult of personality has always ended in complete disaster, and usually ends up accomplishes the opposite of the objective at hand.

Please explain to me how the popularization of Lenin or Mao hurt the proletarian revolution? Because frankly, without that, it would have been infinitly easier for people like Nikita Khruschev and Deng Xaioping to restore capitalism.


As communists, we must recognize that central power in the hands of a few will always lead to those few protecting that central power--especially against the masses.

Maoists are fully aware of the contradictions betweenthe masses and the party in socialism. That is why Maoists put so much emphasis on cultural revolution... (I'm feeling like a broken record here!)


Actually, when I started reading this thread I was rather amazed at the fact that you didn't keep writing "Avakian says".. I should've figured that you aren't in the RCP :lol:

Well, actually, I think alot of RCP supporters who are not members will use Avakian's name like that, or point out the RCP as being separate from themselves, because they aren't members. For example, I probably have said a few things on this board that really deserve criticism, and they have nothing to do with the RCP. I have to work really hard to help people to understand that I'm not an RCP member, and that they shouldn't associate incorrect things that I say when I'm talking out of my ass, with the RCP.

But to be completely honest with you, I have never met an RCP member or supporter who I thought used Avakian's name in a dogmatic way. The Houston folks are really good about not being dogmatic, and handling that contradiction (of materialist popularization vs. dogmatic popularization) in a proper way.

I remember when I was in China (my grandfather is a college professor there, and I got to visit him for a summer), there were a few people I met who thought that Mao was a god, and 100% right, though they seemed to know very little of Mao's actual ideology. That shit pissed me off, and I wasn't even a Maoist back then.


Generally, though, I find the midless verbal xeroxing of avakian's speeches by his followers to be.. well, spooky, frankly. And when there's so much of that, it doesn't matter if the person is bob avakian or david koresh--it's still the same disease of a cult, and most reasonable people quickly tire of it.

See, here's the thing. When you say "cult" that leads both me and others to believe that there is something dogmatic, unscientific, and religious about the way that he is being popularized. Frankly, I don't see how promoting some analysis that Avakian has written and getting it out to others is at all dogmatic.

Now, I do think that communists should avoid stereotypical "Party-style writing and language," as Chairman Mao pointed out. However, you've got to realize, many people have come to understand MLM through Avakian's leadership, so the way they talk and the terminology they use is going to reflect the source the obtained the information from.

I can remember when I was an anarchist, after reading Alexander Berkman, my entire dialect was like a mirror image of Berkman's terminology and dialect. That wasn't neccessarily because I dogmatically worshipped Berkman or thought he was a god, but because Berkman was the source where I obtained all of that information.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:53 PM
Anyway my criticism of Avakian's line involves him surrounded by 10 people with baseball bats.
So let's get this straight.

When you can't beat Avakian in the realm of thought and ideology, you just talk about killing him.

I don't see how you're any better than the FBI which already tried that.

[Nachie]

I didn't talk about killing him, I talked about 10 people with baseball bats surrounding him. They would all be in uniform, too. And singing and dancing in a coreographed manner, possibly about how totally awesome Bob Avakian is.

As for "you can't beat Avakian in the realm of thought and ideology" hoo ha ha what the fuck ever, you're delusional. I should damn well hope that something as blatantly ridiculous as the RCP doesn't have to be "analyzed" and "defeated in the realm of thought and ideology" over and over again because that's the biggest waste of time ever. We all know it's a bunch of useless Leninists leading a Leninist Party, so why the hell would we even pay any attention to them?

Fuck Bob Avakian!

August 31, 2005 - "Revolution Books", the propaganda outlet of Bob Avakian's Maoist cult the "Revolutionary Communist Party" in Cambridge, MA is vandalized and "Maoism Kills Millions" spraypainted with the RAAN acronym across the store's front doors. A story on Boston IMC relating to the vandalism appears to have illicited several comments in support of the action. It was the second time that an RCP bookstore is attacked by network affiliates.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:20 AM
id rather it be in the teens
Membership numbers alone don't mean the most in the last analysis; sure, a party will need to be larger and such in order to lead the people to victory, but these numbers must be based on correct theory, principles, tactics, etc. Numbers and Dollar signs alone don't really mean anything. The CPSU had millions of members and billions in funding, but due to incorrect theory, principles, tactics, ideas, etc., it got nowhere. You should not be worried about the RCP's membership. They are not going to be able to lead anyone to victory with faulty theory, practice, principles, etc.

From Red Heretic:


Bullshit, China accomplished unprecedented things for the proletariat while it was a socialist country.

*They took that average life expectancy from 32 to 65
*Healthcare was availible to 99% of the population (only 5% has access to healthcare after the capitalist coup)
*Shanghai had a better average infant mortality rate than New York City (and this is a poor third world country we are talking about)
*Starvation was completely wiped out for the first time ever in Chinese history
*Opium addiction (China had the worlds worst drug problem) was wiped out through masse movements
*Japanese imperialism was smashed to pieces
*Male chauvinism was smashed (remember the bounding of the feet?)
*For the first time ever, proletarian art forms and culture developed and expanded
*The cultural revolution shook the entire planet, the entire wave of world wide rebellion in the 60's, including the Naxalite rebellion in India, the Paris riots in 1968, and the Black Panther PArty in the USA

Those are just a few things I can think of off of the top of my head.

I could write volumes about my disagreements and such with the RCP and Maoism, but it astonishes me that the progressive feature of deformed workers' states completely flies over the heads of "Trotskyists" like Rosa. :huh: What would you have wanted, Rosa? For China to remain capitalist the whole time and be far worse off than it is now? Do you even know what Trotsky meant by deformed workers' state, or were you too busy ranting about dialectics instead of looking into that aspect?

Nachie, hooligan tactics will get you nowhere. When in history have such tactics won a revolution?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:54 PM
As for "you can't beat Avakian in the realm of thought and ideology" hoo ha ha what the fuck ever, you're delusional. I should damn well hope that something as blatantly ridiculous as the RCP doesn't have to be "analyzed" and "defeated in the realm of thought and ideology" over and over again because that's the biggest waste of time ever. We all know it's a bunch of useless Leninists leading a Leninist Party, so why the hell would we even pay any attention to them?
So in other words, you still can't try to argue any points against me, you just try to intimidate me by talking about vandalizing Revolution Books.

Tell me, did you support the bomb threats your friends did against Revolution Books too?

[Nachie]

I support the autonomy of those who did it and will neither condone nor condemn such actions.

[red team]

I support the autonomy of those who did it and will neither condone nor condemn such actions.

Expected from an Anti-Civilizationist. :lol:

Tell me, would you neither condone nor condemn warlords, mafia syndicates and street gangs provided that they are democratic and equitable to its membership?

Ahh, the Russian mafia is not democratic cuz they don't let me choose my turf and doesn't share their loot with me "fairly" so I'll go join the Chinese triads instead. Is that your line Anti-Civilizationist?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I support the autonomy of those who did it and will neither condone nor condemn such actions.

So in otherwords you're a worthless asshole who belongs to a weirdo "collective" on the fringes of society? Good luck with that.

[Burrito]

Red Heretic,

Thanks for the documents on Bob. I'll work on a more complete response. But, where are the sources?

Now,


He has also developed Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to and even higher stage, and developed a revolutionary strategy to actually win in an imperialist country like the US.

No, he didn't. Last I checked the US was still capitalist. So it's logically invalid to say Bob "developed a revolutionary strategy to win in the US".

A general comment:

I can't speak for the camp that is against leadership in principle. But, Red Heretic, I think you are fundementally misunderstanding the other posters' arguments. You seem to be hearing, "Avakian is not a great leader", and then posting arguments as to why he is a wise and correct leader which means that he should be "sold" to the proletariat because once he is, his wise and correct line will result in revolutionary momentum. But this is not in fact what your opponents are saying. It doesn't matter if his line is 100000% correct, YOU DONT WIN PEOPLE TO THE SIDE OF REVOLUTION IN THIS WAY. It takes more than 10000% correct line to win, it takes a correct PRACTICE. This is not a correct practice. Why? Just what we've been telling you, You sound like a total nutcase!

"The Earth is quakin'/Follow Bob Avakian" is NOT a good protest chant! PERIOD! Why? You sound like total MOONY HARE KRISHNA JESUS FREAK lunatic! Or christian fascist, haha!

Now, you can rationalise our negative responses, as you have, by dismissing us as "white petit-bourgeiosie", but you actually don't know that we are on this anonymous board, neither can you accurately guess our response based on our racial-class background. People shed their class origins (look at Avakian himself - the son of a bourgeois attorney/judge) and more importantly, people aren't that predictable! What you are doing is called RACE-BAITING, and just as threatening bodily harm with baseball bats, is NOTHING MORE than a losers' way to shut down meaningful debate!

[Nachie]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 26 2006, 02:13 AM
Tell me, would you neither condone nor condemn warlords, mafia syndicates and street gangs provided that they are democratic and equitable to its membership?

Ahh, the Russian mafia is not democratic cuz they don't let me choose my turf and doesn't share their loot with me "fairly" so I'll go join the Chinese triads instead. Is that your line Anti-Civilizationist?
What on earth are you even talking about?

[encephalon]

Do you even know what Trotsky meant by deformed workers' state, or were you too busy ranting about dialectics instead of looking into that aspect?

It's degenerated workers state. You may want to look into it yourself.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nah comrade.. according to Trotsky, deformed workers' states are states where capitalism has been overthrown, but the working class has never ruled.

Degenerated workers' states are states in which capitalism has been overthrown, and the working class ruled, but no longer does.

[Red Heretic]

Thanks for the documents on Bob. I'll work on a more complete response. But, where are the sources?

Here (http://www.revcom.us/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership.htm) and Here. (http://www.revcom.us/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership_points.htm)


No, he didn't. Last I checked the US was still capitalist. So it's logically invalid to say Bob "developed a revolutionary strategy to win in the US".

I think you misinterpretted what I was saying. What I menat was that he laid out a revolutionary strategy that could actually lead to victory, which is very different from what other parties like the CPUSA, the SWP, the WWP, the PSL, MIM, or whoever the fuck. None of these organizations really have a solid programme and strategy to achieve revolution in the USA. Their strategies are composed of things like "we'll Americanize revolution" or "We'll just vote communism into being!" (both CPUSA lines), or the line that many parties have which boils down to "someday" without really concretely describing how to get there or what concrete contradictions could bring about a revolution in an imperialist country, or even BS like MIM's "revolution is impossible, the only was is to have a socialism country invade the USA and turn it into a single unified gulag."

Avakian has explained why Protracted People's War is impossible in an imperialist country, and why that strategy led groups like the Weather Underground to doom. He's also concretely explained why the strategy of insurrection followed by civil war is suitable for imperialist countries, as well as concretely shown the dynamic within the ruling class of the united states which allows for the possibility of civil war in the US.

That is essentially what I meant.


Red Heretic, I think you are fundementally misunderstanding the other posters' arguments. You seem to be hearing, "Avakian is not a great leader", and then posting arguments as to why he is a wise and correct leader which means that he should be "sold" to the proletariat because once he is, his wise and correct line will result in revolutionary momentum. But this is not in fact what your opponents are saying. It doesn't matter if his line is 100000% correct, YOU DONT WIN PEOPLE TO THE SIDE OF REVOLUTION IN THIS WAY. It takes more than 10000% correct line to win, it takes a correct PRACTICE. This is not a correct practice. Why? Just what we've been telling you, You sound like a total nutcase!

I am fully aware that different posters approach these contradictions from different view points. I have been trying to respond to all of those view points.

This goes back to my point earlier that the undogmatic popularization of leadership is essential to leading a proletarian revolution. It has existed in the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, the Nepalese Revolution, as well as in the more successful vanguard parties which previously existed in the USA (most notably the Black Panther Party). If you will go back and read my earliest posts, this was the view point I was resonding to.

Essentially, the point I made was that there is unevenness in the proletariat because of the inequalities in capitalism. Because of this, it is essential to popularize the more advanced section of the proletariat, and get the proletariat to rally behind it's most advanced section, its vanguard. That is the only way to make revolution so long as our class is dominated by capitalism (or even worse, imperialism).


"The Earth is quakin'/Follow Bob Avakian" is NOT a good protest chant! PERIOD! Why? You sound like total MOONY HARE KRISHNA JESUS FREAK lunatic! Or christian fascist, haha!

I will agree with you that that isn't a very good protest chant. Not because it promotes Avakian, but because it's fucking cheesy!

The inability of a particular RCYB comrade to write cool chants has little to do with this debate.

Frankly, most protest chants I have heard are cheesy, especially when read in text instead of heard. For example, the popular chant "hey hey hey! ho ho ho! capitalism has got to go!" comes across as very goofy. It also isn't rare to see anarchists dressing up as clowns at protests, and having puppet shows. Alot of the "Left" is very cheesy! I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the cheesiness either, as alot of people really connect with that shit.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 26 2006, 07:27 AM
I will agree with you that that isn't a very good protest chant. Not because it promotes Avakian, but because it's fucking cheesy!

The inability of a particular RCYB comrade to write cool chants has little to do with this debate.
It has everything to do with it!

Now you're making it look like the problem is just one guy who can't write good chants, not the overwhelming leader worship that inspired him in the first place. Suddenly the Avakian cult isn't dangerous lunacy, it's just "cheesy". The fact that R"C"P activists run around chanting their leader's name in the street is inconvenient and therefore of absolutely no interest to you, has "little" to do with this debate, and can just be brushed off because oh, they're only being "cheesy".

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Nachie+Jun 26 2006, 02:15 PM--> (Nachie @ Jun 26 2006, 02:15 PM)
Red [email protected] 26 2006, 07:27 AM
I will agree with you that that isn't a very good protest chant. Not because it promotes Avakian, but because it's fucking cheesy!

The inability of a particular RCYB comrade to write cool chants has little to do with this debate.
It has everything to do with it!

Now you're making it look like the problem is just one guy who can't write good chants, not the overwhelming leader worship that inspired him in the first place. Suddenly the Avakian cult isn't dangerous lunacy, it's just "cheesy". The fact that R"C"P activists run around chanting their leader's name in the street is inconvenient and therefore of absolutely no interest to you, has "little" to do with this debate, and can just be brushed off because oh, they're only being "cheesy". [/b]
You completely missed my point. I was saying that the problem with the chant isn't that Avakian is being popularized, but rather that "quakin" and "avakian" is a rather goofy rhyme (though ALOT of protest chants are really goofy).

[elmo sez]

Care to explain ?

[bezdomni]

So?

People here have Marx, Castro, Lenin, Che..etc avatars and nobody gets all pissy over it.

Bob Avakian isn't a bad guy, nor was it his idea to say..hey, let's have a day that honors me!

There's nothing wrong with liking or admiring certain people, especially revolutionaries. I don't 100% agree with the RCP's line (seeing as I'm a Trotskyist), but I respect Maoists and support the CPN(M). If the sign said something along the lines of "Question Avakian and die" or "Avakianismo o muerte", then that would be worrying.

People always like to turn revolutionary socialist groups into a "one person controls the entire thing" sort of party. Avakian does not exercise unilateral control over the RCP.

If the banner replaced Bob Avakian with say...Mikhail Bakunin, then I don't think anybody would have a problem.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:52 PM
Care to explain ?
Does that particular banner say anything unmaterialist, unscientific, or untrue?

It says the Bob Avakian's voice is a voice that should be heard. Do you think that Avakian's voice should not be heard?

It's also rather troubling that people seem to have no complaint with holidays to commemorate bourgeois leaders like "Columbus Day" and "Presidents Day," but when the proletariat in the Bay Area has a day to celebrate and popularize one of its leaders, people throw a fit.

Avakian's leadership has played a huge role in the Bay Area especially, and I see nothing wrong with what they did.

[which doctor]

Do you think that Avakian's voice should not be heard?
Frankly, yes.


It's also rather troubling that people seem to have no complaint with holidays to commemorate bourgeois leaders like "Columbus Day" and "Presidents Day," but when the proletariat in the Bay Area has a day to celebrate and popularize one of its leaders, people throw a fit.
Many people have a problem with those holidays too. And isn't it only the yuppie liberals who celebrate that day in Berkely?


Avakian's leadership has played a huge role in the Bay Area especially, and I see nothing wrong with what they did.
What did he ever accomplish?

[Red Heretic]

Frankly, yes.

Anarchists who want to silence their opposition and believe that people shouldn't be allowed to hear what Avakian has to say... isn't that ironic?

What's even more ironic is that Avakian is pushing for all people, even reactionaries, to be able to openly criticize the party, it's leadership, and pretty much anything else in socialism.


Many people have a problem with those holidays too.

Well, the bourgeoisie and the reactionaries certainly don't, and that is the point that I'm making.


And isn't it only the yuppie liberals who celebrate that day in Berkely?


What?! Where the hell did you get that idea?

My understanding was that there was a large Black proletarian presense. You have to keep in mind that there is more than just Berkeley right there, there is also San Fransisco, Oakland, and the not too distant towns of Fresno. Most of those people heavily commute too.


What did he ever accomplish?

Avakian played a role in the Black Panther Party when they were still around, and also fought hard to fight the revisionist line that formed in the international communist movement after the capitalist coup in China. He fought hard against the narrow economist line that was predominate in the movement, and uprooted that incorrect trend from the party through means of persuasion, not buearacracy. He has put forward his theories on new theories on Epistemology which the Nepali comrades had published and applauded. In addition to all of that he has put forward a revolutionary strategy for actually making revolution in the USA, something that many people in the international communist movement believe is impossible.

He grew up in the Bay Area with people like Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, and took part in their struggles, and carried them on when they weren't around anymore. He also led demonstrations against Deng Xaioping when he came to the USA (which ultimately led to his exile and the assassination attempts on him).

He also accomplished alot of other things, which I have eluded to in my previous posts, and I don't particularly want to sound like a broken record...

[Soviet Militia]

Avakian may have acheived some level of success in the things he participated in , But as far as Iam concerned , How can he claim to be this great revolutionary leader when he ran away? I mean stay and fight like a man.

Plus he gives the RCP Canada a bad name because ppl here RCP and assume we are related and/or under the control of him, which is the most idiotic thing ive ever heard.

[EusebioScrib]

I mean stay and fight like a man.

As opposed to a...woman...who would do what?

[Soviet Militia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:40 AM

I mean stay and fight like a man.

As opposed to a...woman...who would do what?
Give up the sexist rhetoric, Obviously Iam not going to say women because Avakian is quite obviously a male.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Soviet [email protected] 30 2006, 03:24 AM
I mean stay and fight like a man.
You do know that Lenin was exiled as well, right? (Of course, both Lenin and Avakian both "snuck" back into their home countries and agitated despite their exile).

Or maybe you think that Lenin wasn't a "man?"

Avakian made the decision to go into exile out of an ideological understanding of what happened to Huey Newton when he was stuck in prison, and how prison isolated him from the party, and prevented him from really being able to lead the Black Panther Party.

If Avakian had gone to prison for 255 years like the bourgeoisie was pushing for, or if he had been assassinated, that would have stopped him from leading the revolution anywhere (and it would have been a tremendous set back for the proletariat!).

[Sasha Suvorov]

But, IF Avakian is the 'object of a cult of personality' wouldn't he realize what power he has- however it has come about- over his supporters? Would not he also then realize how much greater his 'legend' would become if he were to become the RCP's very own resident martyr?

Instead of running from his prison sentence, I think he should turn himself in and face the music. Hell, he could invoke the memory of MLK and write his own series of 'letters from a (insert city name) jail'. And, if he's really tapped for assassination by The Man, WOW just think of how much more popular he would be in death!

Seriously, though- all one needs to do is take a look at the RCP website to see that either a) his followers have set him up to be the Big Man, or b) he's set HIMSELF up to be the Big Man. How to find out? Who put the website up in that form with every other word a variation of 'buy this' or 'Bob says THIS...' and c) who gave the okay to publish it? Without even knowing anything at all about the line or history of the RCP I can read between the lines and see that regardless of whether A or B is the truth, C will most assuredly lead to Bob himself.

[Red Heretic]

But, IF Avakian is the 'object of a cult of personality' wouldn't he realize what power he has- however it has come about- over his supporters? Would not he also then realize how much greater his 'legend' would become if he were to become the RCP's very own resident martyr?

Instead of running from his prison sentence, I think he should turn himself in and face the music. Hell, he could invoke the memory of MLK and write his own series of 'letters from a (insert city name) jail'. And, if he's really tapped for assassination by The Man, WOW just think of how much more popular he would be in death!

Uhh... I can't believe you're really proposing this.

Communist leaders are worth alot more than the rebellions which might be started up as a result of their death. Do you think it would have been better for the international communist movement if Marx, Lenin, and Mao had been murdered before they could have led people forward into revolution (and actually contributed to the theory and understanding of the international communist movement) ?

Like I said, look back at what happened to the Panthers. While it is true that they were able to build up more revolutionary momentum from Newton being in prison, they were also tremendously set back as a result of it as well.

[Sasha Suvorov]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30 2006, 06:23 AM

But, IF Avakian is the 'object of a cult of personality'...

Uhh... I can't believe you're really proposing this.

Communist leaders are worth alot more than the rebellions which might be started up as a result of their death. Do you think it would have been better for the international communist movement if Marx, Lenin, and Mao had been murdered before they could have led people forward into revolution (and actually contributed to the theory and understanding of the international communist movement) ?

Like I said, look back at what happened to the Panthers. While it is true that they were able to build up more revolutionary momentum from Newton being in prison, they were also tremendously set back as a result of it as well.
I'll readily admit I'm not a heavy-duty scholar or anything like that, but what exactly DID Marx do of value after 'Manifesto' and 'Kapital' were published? Other than work towards the First International I don't really see much going on.

As for Avakian of course I was being sarcastic- but YOUR believing I was making a serious suggestion IS rather telling with regard to his 'cult of personality', isn't it? It's not a personal indictment of you, but rather a general observation on the CoP tendency of some groups.

[Ferg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:05 AM
Describing the Bob thing as due to Leninism is a bit like saying Bill Clinton liked fellatio because he was from Arkansas. There is plenty of Leninists who hold no truck with cult of personality, "hardcore Stalinists" included.
Please don't say that about Clinton. There is nothing worse then strolling along the RefLeft forums then having the image of Hillary blowing Bill.

[barista.marxista]

Jeez, you silly little Leninists and your tolerance for personality cults are the reason why the "left" has been fucked for decades. If you all constantly rush to stand in line to give Bob Avakian/Jack Barnes/Sam Webb/(insert Leninist demigod here) a blowjob, you'll never have any time to actually make revolution! Not that you'd know how to, anyway. You guys never tend to analyze the material conditions (that is: the Leninist paradigm) which have allowed for personality cults in every Leninist party. And you call yourselves Marxists...

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 27 2006, 06:58 AM
You completely missed my point. I was saying that the problem with the chant isn't that Avakian is being popularized, but rather that "quakin" and "avakian" is a rather goofy rhyme (though ALOT of protest chants are really goofy).
And you're completely ignoring *my* point (I doubt you missed it), which is that the goofiness of the rhyme doesn't pass for more than a distraction next to the REAL issue, which is in fact that Avakian is being mindlessly popularized (or rather, that mindless people are trying to popularize him).

Pay less attention to the "goofy chant" and more attention to the goofy culture that would have allowed it to be created in the first place.

[Red Heretic]

you'll never have any time to actually make revolution!

The ironic thing here is the communists actually have made revolutions in places like the Soviet Union, China, and Nepal; whereas, anarchists have actually never made a revolution.

This goes back to my original point, that it is impossible to make revolution without rallying the proletariat behind its most advanced section, its vangaurd, because of the uneven development of the proletariat caused by capitalism.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:00 PM
And you're completely ignoring *my* point (I doubt you missed it), which is that the goofiness of the rhyme doesn't pass for more than a distraction next to the REAL issue, which is in fact that Avakian is being mindlessly popularized (or rather, that mindless people are trying to popularize him).

Pay less attention to the "goofy chant" and more attention to the goofy culture that would have allowed it to be created in the first place.
I am not ignoring you, Nachie, I simply didn't see the need to respond to a point which I have already responded to time and time again in this very thread.

Avakian is not being "mindlessly" popularized. He is being popularized and defended based on a conscious understanding of what is concretely necessary to make a successful revolution.

He is not being popularized in a dogmatic, or religious way. Many RCP documents even explicitly point out that Avakian is no god, nor is he super-human.

Avakian IS a revolutionary leader who has put forward a concrete analysis of how to make revolution, and there is nothing mindless about popularizing that.

[Burrito]

You do know that Lenin was exiled as well, right? (Of course, both Lenin and Avakian both "snuck" back into their home countries and agitated despite their exile).

I'm sorry, but I am simply incredulous that the Romanov feudal deathsquad dictatorship that the Bolsheviks grappled with is in any way analogous to liberal bourgeois Bill-of-Rights democracy that existed in the United States in the 1970's. Not buying it. Granted, Bob may have been up for a MAXIMUM sentence of 255 years if convicted of ALL charges - but of what charges, precisely? - I have never been shown the precise list of charges for disrupting the Deng visit. I don't suppose you have it handy?

I've been thinking about the documents that you posted earlier. Briefly, I've been thinking that if the inner-party debates did decide that Bob had some special knack for leadership going for him it may be smarter to work as hard as possible in training the next generation in those skills rather than staying content with following his leadership, given the exigencies of the bourgeois state. The present fate of the PCP (Sendero Luminoso) springs to mind, among other things.

[Red Heretic]

I'm sorry, but I am simply incredulous that the Romanov feudal deathsquad dictatorship that the Bolsheviks grappled with is in any way analogous to liberal bourgeois Bill-of-Rights democracy that existed in the United States in the 1970's. Not buying it. Granted, Bob may have been up for a MAXIMUM sentence of 255 years if convicted of ALL charges - but of what charges, precisely? - I have never been shown the precise list of charges for disrupting the Deng visit. I don't suppose you have it handy?

One of the things that is really interesting if you read Bob Avakian's memoir (From Ike to Mao), is that in that book there are photo copies of the actual blue prints of Avakian's house and notes regarding assassination, which were obtained from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act.

I don't know what all of the particular charges against Avakian were, and I don't really see why that is important. If you really want me to I could probably shoot around some emails and find someone that knows.

The bottom line is that the bourgeoisie wanted Avakian dead, and if the imperialists deem they are threatened again like they were then, they will certainly try to kill communist leaders again (just like they did to countless Blac k Panthers including Fred Hampton, as well as tried to do to Avakian).

The imperialists are infinitely more powerful than the Russian government on the 1900's were, as well.


I've been thinking about the documents that you posted earlier. Briefly, I've been thinking that if the inner-party debates did decide that Bob had some special knack for leadership going for him it may be smarter to work as hard as possible in training the next generation in those skills rather than staying content with following his leadership, given the exigencies of the bourgeois state. The present fate of the PCP (Sendero Luminoso) springs to mind, among other things.

Well, the RCP has many programmes to train new revolutionaries and revolutionary leaders, and to fight against the tendency to be just a bunch of "old revolutionaries." Many new revolutionary leaders are developing through the RCP right now especially (look at Sunsara Taylor!).

The PCP are also another example of how dangerous it is to a revolution if revolutionary leaders are supressed, killed, or imprisoned.

[Burrito]

I don't know what all of the particular charges against Avakian were, and I don't really see why that is important. If you really want me to I could probably shoot around some emails and find someone that knows.

Yes, I think that would be most educational to the Avakian-sceptics amongst us and possibly make your case stronger (in my eyes anyways)


The PCP are also another example of how dangerous it is to a revolution if revolutionary leaders are supressed, killed, or imprisoned.

Well, anybody who bucks the system throughout history risks being permanently neutralized by the powers that be. The question becomes, then, how do protect the revolution such that if one falls, ten stand to take her place? I believe the answer does not lie in method in which the RCP has chosen.

On a more superficial level, I think that the vast bulk of people in the USA would find the level of adulation directed at Bob aesthetically repugnant. I think it has to do with our national character, which is derived from both our nation's origin in a basically progressive bourgeois revolution, and the perception (rightly or wrongly) that ours is a comparitively egalitarian society. At the end of the day, you have to win over the vast bulk of people if you wish to win.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:44 PM
The question becomes, then, how do protect the revolution such that if one falls, ten stand to take her place? I believe the answer does not lie in method in which the RCP has chosen.
dingdingdingdingding

for the win!

[Red Heretic]

Yes, I think that would be most educational to the Avakian-sceptics amongst us and possibly make your case stronger (in my eyes anyways)

Ok, I'll send some emails and see what I can find out.


Well, anybody who bucks the system throughout history risks being permanently neutralized by the powers that be.

That is absolutely true. That is why I feel so strongly that revolutionary leaders need to be defended from the powers-that-be.


The question becomes, then, how do protect the revolution such that if one falls, ten stand to take her place? I believe the answer does not lie in method in which the RCP has chosen.

This is a great question! I believe the answer lies in cultural revolution, and taking that cultural revolution to inside the military, and inside the party, once we get to socialism. In China, there were many other people in the party who could have become great new revolutionary leaders in China (particularly, any member of the "Gang of Four"), but they were crushed by the revisionist majority in the party led by Deng Xaioping. This is a sign that cultural revolution in China had started too late, and did not develop far enough within the party and the military.

Many people in the Chinese army weren't even down for socialist revolution, and had only joined because they supported the New Democratic revolution. This created a tremendous need for the cultural revolution in the military. In addition to that, many people in the party wanted to take things to capitalism, and the cultural revolution didn't start until well after those people were already trying to take China in that direction.


On a more superficial level, I think that the vast bulk of people in the USA would find the level of adulation directed at Bob aesthetically repugnant. I think it has to do with our national character, which is derived from both our nation's origin in a basically progressive bourgeois revolution, and the perception (rightly or wrongly) that ours is a comparitively egalitarian society. At the end of the day, you have to win over the vast bulk of people if you wish to win.

Argueing that we should water down our ideology because of the class outlook of the massive petit-bourgeoisie in America is like saying that we should water down our ideology as not to offend slave owners, or racists. It's not something we should be compromising on (and further, if communists did compromise on this issue, it wouldn't be possible to lead a revolution).

[Burrito]

The question becomes, then, how do protect the revolution such that if one falls, ten stand to take her place? I believe the answer does not lie in method in which the RCP has chosen.

This is a great question! I believe the answer lies in cultural revolution, and taking that cultural revolution to inside the military, and inside the party, once we get to socialism. In China, there were many other people in the party who could have become great new revolutionary leaders in China (particularly, any member of the "Gang of Four"), but they were crushed by the revisionist majority in the party led by Deng Xaioping. This is a sign that cultural revolution in China had started too late, and did not develop far enough within the party and the military.

:lol: Does not follow!

We are discussing how to build critical mass for the revolutionary overturning of the present order and here you all of a sudden start in on how to combat revisionism in a hypothetical socialist military!? C'mon, maaaaaann.... Stay on topic. Cultural revolution!? How about seizing state power first!? :)

I really really want your thoughts on what I said:



The question becomes, then, how do protect the revolution such that if one falls, ten stand to take her place? I believe the answer does not lie in method in which the RCP has chosen.

OK?




On a more superficial level, I think that the vast bulk of people in the USA would find the level of adulation directed at Bob aesthetically repugnant. I think it has to do with our national character, which is derived from both our nation's origin in a basically progressive bourgeois revolution, and the perception (rightly or wrongly) that ours is a comparitively egalitarian society. At the end of the day, you have to win over the vast bulk of people if you wish to win.


Argueing that we should water down our ideology because of the class outlook of the massive petit-bourgeoisie in America is like saying that we should water down our ideology as not to offend slave owners, or racists. It's not something we should be compromising on (and further, if communists did compromise on this issue, it wouldn't be possible to lead a revolution).

Petit-bourgeoisie...? Wha...? :wacko:

You would be correct in reprimanding me if I was suggesting that the RCP pander to the backward elements; which I, of course, did not do&#33; <_<

It&#39;s interesting that you take my comments on style and ascribe them as commentary on the RCP&#39;s core beliefs, however. Kind of puts the lie to some of the stuff you said previously.

On another level, it makes me feel that you think you have me "pegged" and are responding to what you presume I believe without really engaging in what I am saying.

On the other hand, I am trying to do the opposite: really listen to what you are saying and give back some honest critique on the method and practice of the RCP.

[Red Heretic]

:lol: Does not follow&#33;

We are discussing how to build critical mass for the revolutionary overturning of the present order and here you all of a sudden start in on how to combat revisionism in a hypothetical socialist military&#33;? C&#39;mon, maaaaaann.... Stay on topic. Cultural revolution&#33;? How about seizing state power first&#33;? :)

I really really want your thoughts on what I said:



The question becomes, then, how do protect the revolution such that if one falls, ten stand to take her place? I believe the answer does not lie in method in which the RCP has chosen.

OK?


Ok, I see what you are saying now, I thought you were talking about after the revolution.

The Black Panthers did a really great job of building up their revolutionary organization to a larger size because of Fred Hamptons assassination, however, I still hold my view that anytime a leader like Hampton or Newton or Gonzalo gets supressed (either through assassination or imprisonment), it deals a much greater blow to the organization than the positive effects of the spontaneous revolt that the attack on revolutionary leadership may cause. I think the question of defending our current revolutionary leadership is absolutely a pivotal question.

I believe the answer to bringing forward new people in the event that our current leadership comes under attack ultimately lies in popularizing and defending the leadership we have now. If the vanguard and its leadership are popularized and defended by the masses, it both protects the current revolutionary leadership, as well as creates an explosion of revolutionary fury if that leadership comes under attack.


Petit-bourgeoisie...? Wha...? :wacko:

You would be correct in reprimanding me if I was suggesting that the RCP pander to the backward elements; which I, of course, did not do&#33; <_<

It&#39;s interesting that you take my comments on style and ascribe them as commentary on the RCP&#39;s core beliefs, however. Kind of puts the lie to some of the stuff you said previously.

On another level, it makes me feel that you think you have me "pegged" and are responding to what you presume I believe without really engaging in what I am saying.

My interpretation of what you said was basically along the lines of "The American masses do not rally behind revolutionary leadership because of their class outlook."

When I spoke of the petit-bourgeoisie, I was probably jumping ahead of myself. You see, it is a natural trend for people in imperialist countries to reject leadership, and to have a more "me-first" outlook on things. This is because those are petit-bourgeois class outlooks, and imperialist countries have disproportionately large petit-bourgeoisies.

My point was that we should not compromise our proletarian class outlook for the petit-bourgeois outlook of leadership.

Did that answer your question? I&#39;m very sorry if i&#39;m not understanding what your asking.