Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

[DiggerII]

I've been sifting through the many socialist parties in the U.S. and I've found the Revolutionary Communist Party to be quite interesting.

It seems to me that Bob Avakian, who does indeed have splendid ideas, is put upon a kind of throne.

Is this a good thing? Am i just way off base? I'm not sure, but I do know the last thing i wish to see is another ruler creating an out of wack cult of personality.

thoughts comrades?

[bezdomni]

The RCP has pretty good politics, but I think they don't always put Bob Avakian forward in the "best" way all of the time.

I don't think it is necessarily a good or bad thing at this time...I wouldn't call it a personality cult, just a little annoying and perhaps a little worrying to a newcomer who might think that "hmm...the commies want this guy named Bob Avakian to be their dictator..."

[Red Heretic]

Hey comrade! Good topic.

I myself am a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party.


It seems to me that Bob Avakian, who does indeed have splendid ideas, is put upon a kind of throne.

Well, the RCP doesn't put him above the masses, but it does have ideological reasons why it promotes it's leaders, and especially Avakian. There are several important reasons as to why he is promoted.

First of all, all throughout history, when class contradictions become the sharpest, they create revolutionary parties and revolutionary leaders. This is part of a critical juncture that is necessary in making revolution. For example, the revolutionary upheaval in Europe created Marx, the early class struggle in Russia created Lenin, and the Japanese invasion of China created Mao. Avakian and the RCP actually came directly out of the revolutionary upheaval in the 60's, and Avakian is someone who was very close to Huey Newton (the leader of the BPP) and the rest of the Black Panther Party.

Actually, all revolutions have these sort of leaders who come forward and that the masses get behind (even anarchist uprisings have these, though anarchists hate to admit this). I've already given the examples of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, but you can also look at anarchist uprisings and see how people like Nestor Makhno came forward as the leader of the anarchists in Ukraine, or how Buenaventura Durruti became a huge icon for the Spanish anarchists.

The RCP promotes it's revolutionary leaders (and especially Avakian) because it believes that the masses seeing them as having a way forward out of all of this shit is a necessary juncture in making revolution.

Secondly, there have also been several attempts at assassination of him on the part of the FBI. For this reason, it becomes necessary to widely and broadly popularize him so that the feds can't murder him without fear of consequences.

[DiggerII]

Revolutions do have such leaders, but if you look at history, putting people in that role for any reason has some pretty dire consequences. Didn't Marx talk about a revolution by the entire proleteriat as a class? Or do you think that we rely on individuals out of human nature? I've often been given that argument.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:56 am
Revolutions do have such leaders, but if you look at history, putting people in that role for any reason has some pretty dire consequences. Didn't Marx talk about a revolution by the entire proleteriat as a class? Or do you think that we rely on individuals out of human nature? I've often been given that argument.
No no, that's not what I'm saying at all man. Of course it's the masses who make history, not individual leaders. What I'm saying is that at certain junctures in history, class contradictions create revolutionary leaders, and that these revolutionary leaders enable the masses to make history.

There's also the question of class outlook. It's no coincidence that Black proletarians have so much love for their leaders like Malcolm X and Huey Newton, while at the same time, middle class white youth say "they don't want to be led by anyone" (when in reality they're being led all the time by different forces).

Am I making sense?

[DiggerII]

You're making total sense. However, where would the Black Proleterians be without the Civil rights Legislation is 64 and 65? All i'm saying is that when certain individuals gained absolute power (namely Stalin, Mao, and Hitler) some really bad shiite went down ya know?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:06 am
You're making total sense. However, where would the Black Proleterians be without the Civil rights Legislation is 64 and 65? All i'm saying is that when certain individuals gained absolute power (namely Stalin, Mao, and Hitler) some really bad shiite went down ya know?
Well, I think Stalin is a complicated topic, and I don't think the problems with Stalin were necessarily because he was popular, but because of some serious short-comings in his leadership.

As far as Mao goes, what to you mean? Mao until the day of his death led the masses to rebel against all forms of reactionary authority, even within the communist party itself. Was he popular? Hell yeah, he was! The masses loved him! He led them to revolutionize the whole country and to achieve the highest level of socialism in history.

As far as Hitler goes, he definitely should not be included in a sentence with Stalin and Mao, that's some bourgeois lies man. As far as Hitler's cult of personality goes, the same thing goes that I was saying before, only for the bourgeoisie instead of the proletariat. Hitler came forward as a very special section of the German bourgeoisie, who had a program to save German imperialism, and the German bourgeoisie got behind his leadership. I think you can fill in the blanks from here ;)

[DiggerII]

Dude...

Stalin killed butt loads of people and bastardized communist thought. At least in my mind :mellow:

then we have to ask ourselves if Mao's plan to industrialize China actually worked. How many people starved? Is China not moving towards capitalism?

I'm not seeing too many positives with either of these rulers. Perhaps you can offer me a different perspective.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:41 am
The RCP has pretty good politics, but I think they don't always put Bob Avakian forward in the "best" way all of the time.

I don't think it is necessarily a good or bad thing at this time...I wouldn't call it a personality cult, just a little annoying and perhaps a little worrying to a newcomer who might think that "hmm...the commies want this guy named Bob Avakian to be their dictator..."

====

It seems to me that Bob Avakian, who does indeed have splendid ideas, is put upon a kind of throne.
:lol: Bob Avakian's works are promoted by the party because he represents and speaks the line in a well thought out fashion.

It's not a throne or a personality cult, its just a promotion of his work and the party's work other leaders are promoted this way too. If you're a real communist, you should look at the politics and organization of a party, not at the silly anarchist rhetorical shit said about the party.


All i'm saying is that when certain individuals gained absolute power (namely Stalin, Mao, and Hitler) some really bad shiite went down ya know?

First, its upsurd to compare Stalin and Mao to Hitler. Second, I would explore that and research that more. Stalin helped build the first socialist state in a highly backwards country in under 10 years, he abolished the rascist pogroms, gave woman equal rights, collectivized land so that the peasants controlled it, and organized the red army which would deal the Nazis 75-80% of their total casualties. Mao took socialism to a even higher place through the cultural revolution. If I were you I would look into this more. Set the Record Straight! (http://thisiscommunism.org/) is the ongoing and developing project on socialism's experience thus far and communism's future. This is not RCP, but it gives a good alternative look at Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html) even though I don't agree with 100% of what is said.

I am also a supporter of the RCP, and I run with the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades which is the youth arm of the RCP (RH is also active with them I think).

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:23 am
Dude...

Stalin killed butt loads of people and bastardized communist thought. At least in my mind :mellow:

then we have to ask ourselves if Mao's plan to industrialize China actually worked. How many people starved? Is China not moving towards capitalism?

I'm not seeing too many positives with either of these rulers. Perhaps you can offer me a different perspective.
Well, as far Stalin goes... First off, we should have a scientific approach to understanding him. Mao described Stalin as being 70% good, and 30% bad. Stalin led the worlds firsst socialist country, and ended starvation in the Soviet Union. Women were liberated, and the country was industrialized to the point to where they could smash Nazi imperialism.

At the same time, Stalin made a lot of really fucked up mistakes, and handled contradictions very poorly. First of all, his economics totally alienated the peasantry, and approached them with "trickle down" economics (ie. he expected their conditions to be improve by surplus trickling down from the proletarians). He also didn't understand the difference between contradictions among the people, and contradictions between the people and the enemy. Mao laid out that we have to handle contradictions among the people through persuasion, and contradictions between the people and the enemy with force (ie. we don't force the masses to do what is correct, we persuade them, but we use force to beat back the Nazis).

The bottom line is that we should learn from the positive aspects of the experience under Stalin, and criticize his errors and short-comings at the same time.

As far as Mao goes, c'mon comrade. Under Mao, the average life expectancy went from 32 to 65, Shanghai had a better infant mortality rate the the NYC, starvation was ended for the first time in Chinese history, opium addiction was wiped out through mass movements of the people, and women were liberated from being property and having their feet bounded to being the leaders of the revolution. China was the only country on the planet where the masses were encouraged to criticize leadership, to dissent, and to rebel. Beijing alone had over 900 different newspapers! Students plastered the entire countryside with Da Ze Baos (revolutionary posters promoting their own ideas, criticizing various different leaders, and contributing to consciousness of the people). Socialism in China was fucking incredible!

However, in 1976, Deng Xaioping and the grouping around him staged a violent capitalist coup, that seized control of the party, and set China on the road to the restoration of capitalism. Jiang Qing and other revolutionary leaders in the party tried to organize people's militias to stop them, but were ultimately defeated.

[Cryotank Screams]

The cult Avakian in my opinion is what puts most Communists away from the RCP, I mean that is the main way they sell themselves, you can't read anything by them without hearing about how bloody great Avakian is, and even in a speech made by Carl Dix, he did the same exact thing, which all in all it's ridiculous, and this cult erection should be abandoned, if the RCP wants to increase membership.

[bezdomni]

It's not a throne or a personality cult, its just a promotion of his work and the party's work other leaders are promoted this way too. If you're a real communist, you should look at the politics and organization of a party, not at the silly anarchist rhetorical shit said about the party.

Good thing I said there isn't a personality cult! Otherwise, you'd have proven me wrong.

Avakian does have a tendency to be put above the other RCP leaders though. Again, I am not saying this is a bad thing. It is simply a fact.



I am also a supporter of the RCP, and I run with the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades which is the youth arm of the RCP (RH is also active with them I think).
We are currently trying to start an RCYB in Houston.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 13, 2007 02:44 am
The cult Avakian in my opinion is what puts most Communists away from the RCP, I mean that is the main way they sell themselves, you can't read anything by them without hearing about how bloody great Avakian is, and even in a speech made by Carl Dix, he did the same exact thing, which all in all it's ridiculous, and this cult erection should be abandoned, if the RCP wants to increase membership.
Well the RCP is one of the largest communist parties especially among those who haven't sold out like the SEP and CPUSA did.

Its not a cult. That's getting old, soon you anarchists will have to think of another critiscism of the party. The only time he is promoted is when the RCP talks about Party line and ideals, which is reasonable.

[Red Heretic]

and this cult erection should be abandoned, if the RCP wants to increase membership.

First of all, increase what kind of membership? If you're talking about petit-bourgeois white kids, then you'd be right. I will tell you, in all my work of going out to Black proletarians living in rotting housing projects, I have never once heard this kind of argument, but it never ceases from petit-bourgeois internet revolutionaries on this website.

Secondly, communist parties don't decide their line on "what will get them the most members." That's called opportunism.

They decide their line according to what is true, which is the only thing that can get us to a world free from all forms of oppression and exploitation.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:47 am
Good thing I said there isn't a personality cult! Otherwise, you'd have proven me wrong.
lol, I don't think he was talking to you man.


Avakian does have a tendency to be put above the other RCP leaders though. Again, I am not saying this is a bad thing. It is simply a fact.

Yeah, because he is the most advanced leader in the RCP.


We are currently trying to start an RCYB in Houston.

Yep, me and Soviet Pants kick fucking ass. :D

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:47 am



Good thing I said there isn't a personality cult! Otherwise, you'd have proven me wrong.

:lol: sorry I didn't specify, that was more directed at DiggerII


Avakian does have a tendency to be put above the other RCP leaders though. Again, I am not saying this is a bad thing. It is simply a fact.

true but that's because he's the chairman.


We are currently trying to start an RCYB in Houston.

good luck man, I didn't know you were a supporter. Here in NYC we're also building up. RH helped build a library when he was here lol :D

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:51 pm
Its not a cult. That's getting old, soon you anarchists will have to think of another critiscism of the party. The only time he is promoted is when the RCP talks about Party line and ideals, which is reasonable.

First off, I was commenting about his cult only, not on the RCP itself, or it's policies, and second be honest now, you know he is always promoted, whether it be at the start of essays by him, or introducing his books, or talking about him, or any other occasion you simply can't escape it, and that is my main point, it's ridiculous, nd should be dropped, I mean I find some of the stuff he writes to be thought provoking and interesting, and I think he is a good writier, and I am sure you and others feel his work is extraordinary, but that is no reason to go on, and on, and promote him, every five fucking seconds, and really it only alienates a lot of people from joining, and it made me personally wonder whether or not I would want to join when I was a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

[bezdomni]

lol, I don't think he was talking to you man.

He quoted me...




Yeah, because he is the most advanced leader in the RCP.

Obviously.


Yep, me and Soviet Pants kick fucking ass.
:cool:

[cenv]

While I haven't looked into the RCP's politics and actions too thoroughly, this part on the home page always turns me off whenever I decide to examine their website:




* Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism- Maoism
* Our Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party
* Our Leader is Chairman Avakian



I don't know enough about the RCP to judge them, but this certainly makes it appear as if the party is extremely Avakian-centric, even bordering on a cult of personality. I think this probably puts off a lot of potential members to what may be a respectacle party. Correcting the image they give off is not a matter of being opportunistic; it's a matter of taking note that potentially dedicated comrades walk right by the RCP because of it's reputation of having a cult of personality formed around Bob Avakian. I'm not saying that's how it really is -- I'm not very familiar with the RCP at all -- but that's simply how the RCP appears to outsiders, and if the RCP wants to attract decicated comrades, they should probably address this issue, as I think it probably has a very large impact on how people view the RCP, which ultimately damages the RCP's chances of success in their endeavors. Just my opinion.

[bezdomni]

First off, I was commenting about his cult only, not on the RCP itself, or it's policies, and second be honest now, you know he is always promoted, whether it be at the start of essays by him, or introducing his books, or talking about him, or any other occasion you simply can't escape it, and that is my main point, it's ridiculous,

He's not without criticism though. For example, the RCP no longer distributes The Silver Book.

If it was really a personality cult, all of his works would be put forward as the truth 100% of the time. This is clearly not the case, as some of his earlier works are no longer supported by either him or the RCP as an organization.

[black magick hustla]

i went to revolution books in boston and i was deeply dissapointed

i was expecting to have a rousing discussion with some young maoist but instead there is this assholish, bored out of his mind old stalinist :(

also they only had books about the stalinist left :(

and lenin, and marx of course

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:01 am
While I haven't looked into the RCP's politics and actions too thoroughly, this part on the home page always turns me off whenever I decide to examine their website:




* Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism- Maoism
* Our Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party
* Our Leader is Chairman Avakian


To be honest, that has always bothered me as well.

Although, it is more because I view it as potentially turning others off of the party than as a personal turn off.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:01 am
While I haven't looked into the RCP's politics and actions too thoroughly, this part on the home page always turns me off whenever I decide to examine their website:




* Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism- Maoism
* Our Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party
* Our Leader is Chairman Avakian


Why does this turn you off? Is it not true that Revolution is the voice of the RCP, and the Avakian is the leader of the RCP?

The purpose of the box is to put forward the most basic orientation of the party.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:02 am
He's not without criticism though. For example, the RCP no longer distributes The Silver Book.
Actually, just as a side note, The Silver Book is still distributed, it just isn't promoted or emphasized.

[Cryotank Screams]

First of all, increase what kind of membership?

Of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionaries, looking for an organization to work with?


If you're talking about petit-bourgeois white kids, then you'd be right.

That wasn't what I was talking about, but alright, lets get try to deflect what I am saying with bullshit.


in all my work of going out to Black proletarians living in rotting housing projects, I have never once heard this kind of argument, but it never ceases from petit-bourgeois internet revolutionaries on this website.

I know dozens of Communist revolutionaries, both black and white, which have said Avakian’s cult like appearance within the RCP is ridiculous, and this argument is absolutely idiotic, and bordering racism, with your crypto-racist sentiments.


Secondly, communist parties don't decide their line on "what will get them the most members." That's called opportunism.

I know, I am talking about increased support by Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionaries, don't try to spin this into something it's not, but I guess I should have expected this, I attacked the Avakian over-glorified status, :rolleyes: .

Shall I be stoned, or burned at the stake?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:01 am
While I haven't looked into the RCP's politics and actions too thoroughly, this part on the home page always turns me off whenever I decide to examine their website:




* Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism- Maoism
* Our Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party
* Our Leader is Chairman Avakian


yes that is the anarchist-detector5000 :rolleyes: In all seriousness, why is that a turn off?


First off, I was commenting about his cult only, not on the RCP itself, or it's policies, and second be honest now, you know he is always promoted, whether it be at the start of essays by him, or introducing his books, or talking about him, or any other occasion you simply can't escape it, and that is my main point, it's ridiculous, nd should be dropped, I mean I find some of the stuff he writes to be thought provoking and interesting, and I think he is a good writier, and I am sure you and others feel his work is extraordinary, but that is no reason to go on, and on, and promote him, every five fucking seconds, and really it only alienates a lot of people from joining, and it made me personally wonder whether or not I would want to join when I was a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

Now you're just speaking in hyperbole. Come up with a better critiscism, we've already responded to this. Like RH said, the only people who complain about this are internet activists, I never hear this elsewhere.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:01 pm
I don't know enough about the RCP to judge them, but this certainly makes it appear as if the party is extremely Avakian-centric, even bordering on a cult of personality. I think this probably puts off a lot of potential members to what may be a respectacle party. Correcting the image they give off is not a matter of being opportunistic; it's a matter of taking note that potentially dedicated comrades walk right by the RCP because of it's reputation of having a cult of personality formed around Bob Avakian. I'm not saying that's how it really is -- I'm not very familiar with the RCP at all -- but that's simply how the RCP appears to outsiders, and if the RCP wants to attract decicated comrades, they should probably address this issue, as I think it probably has a very large impact on how people view the RCP, which ultimately damages the RCP's chances of success in their endeavors. Just my opinion.
Exactly what I was saying!

[insurgent]

http://rwor.org/a/019/pictures/chair-wall-comm2.jpg


Is that Bob?

[Red Heretic]

First of all, increase what kind of membership?

Of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionaries, looking for an organization to work with?


If you're talking about petit-bourgeois white kids, then you'd be right.

That wasn't what I was talking about, but alright, lets get try to deflect what I am saying with bullshit.

You missed the point. I was pointing out that this objection arises from a petit-bourgeois class outlook, and not a proletarian one. Refer back to my point from the beginning of this conversation: "It's no coincidence that Black proletarians have so much love for their leaders like Malcolm X and Huey Newton, while at the same time, middle class white youth say "they don't want to be led by anyone" (when in reality they're being led all the time by different forces)."


and this argument is absolutely idiotic, and bordering racism, with your crypto-racist sentiments.

WTF???


I know, I am talking about increased support by Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionaries, don't try to spin this into something it's not, but I guess I should have expected this, I attacked the Avakian over-glorified status, :rolleyes: .

Shall I be stoned, or burned at the stake?

No, you shall be honestly and genuinely struggled with by your fellow comrades in the revolution over what is the truth and how do we make revolution. ;)

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+February 13, 2007 03:06 am--> (Red Heretic @ February 13, 2007 03:06 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 03:02 am
He's not without criticism though. For example, the RCP no longer distributes The Silver Book.
Actually, just as a side note, The Silver Book is still distributed, it just isn't promoted or emphasized. [/b]
Oh, right.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:10 am
Is that Bob?
Yeah

[Red Heretic]

Anyway comrades, I gotta go write a college paper!

[insurgent]

cool.

I've been on the RCP site for awhile now. I do find it kind of weird how they talk about him but w/e


You guys were talking about how the CPUSA sold out. I read a little bit about that from some Zinn book but in the simplest terms what exactly did they do?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:08 pm
Now you're just speaking in hyperbole. Come up with a better critiscism, we've already responded to this.
I am not fucking try to criticize the RCP as an organization, just the cult like status of Avakian with in the party, which I feel should be disbanded, seriously calm the fuck down, and quite pissing yourself because I am making a valid critique about one aspect of the RCP that I find disappointing and displeasing, and secondly I am not exaggerating anything, it's true, anyone who has looked at their literature and websites can clearly see this, and as Cenv said, the RCP is somewhat Avakian-centric.


Like RH said, the only people who complain about this are internet activists, I never hear this elsewhere.

Well apparently you haven't talked to many people, outside of those whom think like you, and even if you did, I doubt that you would dare admit it.

[black magick hustla]

i think bob avakian is a pretty lucid, smart, and articulate individual. i have heard some of his speeches and i almost always agree with them--except when he starts to speak about the little vanguard party thing...

i think that saying that BOB AVAKIAN IS OUR LEADER is pretty ridicolous though, and makes you look as some sort of a cult

[RGacky3]

If it was really a personality cult, all of his works would be put forward as the truth 100% of the time. This is clearly not the case, as some of his earlier works are no longer supported by either him or the RCP as an organization.


If their no longer supported by him, but they are the the RCP but would be better proof that its not a personality cult, I mean basically he IS the party it sounds like to me.

I will say this however, I think its good what they are doing with their campaigns, they seam much more active than other Socialist parties (Some of the other US Socialist parties seam almost like tea clubs), I do however disagree with their politics, a Vanguard party is bad to begin with, as it leads to just a different type of oppression, now one that defends Stalin!!! Thats definately a huge red flag for me (no pun intended), Any Socialist that defends Stalin puts himself in the same boat as fascists to me, I don't care how much industry went up, how equal women were or whatever, Stalin killed millions of people to hold on to power, that is a fact.

[Cryotank Screams]

"It's no coincidence that Black proletarians have so much love for their leaders like Malcolm X and Huey Newton, while at the same time, middle class white youth say "they don't want to be led by anyone" (when in reality they're being led all the time by different forces)."

This is a stereotype, why are you espousing this?


WTF???

You threw in the race aspect where it shouldn't have even came up, and implied the stereotype of the white revolutionary being a petit-bourgeoisie youth in rebellion against his "old timey," parents, class, and culture, and that all black revolutionaries, are more revolutionary due to the historical discrimination of their people, and the subtle racism that exists within america, while still not recognizing the fact that there is black capitalists, and black people that are members of the petit-bourgeoisie, and such, which I felt was inappropriate, and how I interpreted your post, however I may have misinterpreted you, on this point, if so I apologize.

[bezdomni]

If their no longer supported by him, but they are the the RCP but would be better proof that its not a personality cult, I mean basically he IS the party it sounds like to me.

Why would the party have leadership that isn't ideologically representative of the party? That's stupid. Of course Avakian is going to reflect the line of the RCP, he's the chairman!


I do however disagree with their politics, a Vanguard party is bad to begin with, as it leads to just a different type of oppression, now one that defends Stalin!!!
A Vanguard is a natural part of any revolution. The masses are not going to wake up simultaneously and overthrow their oppressors in a day. Revolution is a process that takes a vanguard to antagonize the system and mobilize the masses.

The vanguard starts the revolution, but the masses finish it.


Any Socialist that defends Stalin puts himself in the same boat as fascists to me
Nobody is defending Stalin's mistakes, which pretty much everybody admits to. It is just stupid to discredit all of the progressive things that occured under Stalin's leadership because of all of the bad things. As materialists, we have to analyze Stalin objectively.

To compare Stalin to a fascist is plain, bourgeois lunacy.


I don't care how much industry went up, how equal women were or whatever, Stalin killed millions of people to hold on to power, that is a fact.
You don't care about industrialization or women's liberation? :blink:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Is that Bob?

Thirty years ago, yes.

Look, there is no one remotely familiar with the RCP (besides those in it), that would even attempt to argue that there isn't a cult of personality around Bob Avakian.

The last time I checked, he didn't even argue that there wasn't. I heard a whole section of a speech by him once that spoke about "good" and "bad" cults of personality.

You say that Bob Avakian isn't upheld dogmatically; and for proof of this, you tell us that "Bullets" (aka "The Silver Book") isn't promoted anymore. This proves nothing. Was it the rank and file of the RCP that decided not to promote this book? No, it was Bob himself. The same goes with the anti-homosexual outlook, and standing with fascists calling to keep schools segregated in Boston. It became "the wrong line" when Bob decided it was, and before that time, there are a few accounts of people being kicked from the party for opposing it.

Bob Avakian typifies the petty-bourgeois leadership which permeates many of the "workers' parties" today; but luckily, the trend seems to be moving away from this. In such parties, class divisions are replicated inside of parties, with working class members doing all the leg work, and answering to petty-bourgeois "leaders" (which play the role of managers).

I don't think Bob is conscious about all of this; it's more likely that, with his class background, he's so used to being in managerial positions that he doesn't realize it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Any Socialist that defends Stalin puts himself in the same boat as fascists to me

Then you're an idiot. The USSR under Stalin defeated fascism. Your claim makes as much sense as a hamburger on a hotdog bun.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:19 am
i think that saying that BOB AVAKIAN IS OUR LEADER is pretty ridicolous though, and makes you look as some sort of a cult
But it's very important when you go out to proletariat, especially among the deeper super-exploited sections of the proletariat, like the Black masses. Comrade, have you ever gone to the housing projects?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard proletarians say that they don't have any leaders anymore like they did in the 60, or how happy they are that there are advanced revolutionary leaders like Avakian who can lead a revolution forward. Read my earlier posts, they get into why revolutionary leaders coming forward is a critical juncture that happens before the seizure of power by the proletariat.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+February 13, 2007 03:43 am--> (Red Heretic @ February 13, 2007 03:43 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 03:19 am
i think that saying that BOB AVAKIAN IS OUR LEADER is pretty ridicolous though, and makes you look as some sort of a cult
But it's very important when you go out to proletariat, especially among the deeper super-exploited sections of the proletariat, like the Black masses. Comrade, have you ever gone to the housing projects?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard proletarians say that they don't have any leaders anymore like they did in the 60, or how happy they are that there are advanced revolutionary leaders like Avakian who can lead a revolution forward. Read my earlier posts, they get into why revolutionary leaders coming forward is a critical juncture that happens before the seizure of power by the proletariat. [/b]
dont misinterpret me, i think leadership is crucial for revolution.

but i always thought leadership shouldnt be something official--it shouldnt be a position of power. keep in mind that we communists are seeking to destroy class society, and becuase we have such a radical goal, our forms of organization shouldnt bear resemblance to bourgeois organizations.

remember that we dont only seek revolution, we seek also the abolition of classes-

[Red Heretic]

This is a stereotype, why are you espousing this?

No, it isn't a "stereotype." I'm talking about class outlook. I'm talking about the difference between how the proletariat looks at things, and how the petit-bourgeoisie looks at things. All classes, be the proletarians, peasants, petit-bourgeois, bourgeois, slave owners, feudal aristocracy, etc. have an objective way that they look at the world.


You threw in the race aspect where it shouldn't have even came up, and implied the stereotype of the white revolutionary being a petit-bourgeoisie youth in rebellion against his "old timey," parents, class, and culture, and that all black revolutionaries, are more revolutionary due to the historical discrimination of their people, and the subtle racism that exists within america, while still not recognizing the fact that there is black capitalists, and black people that are members of the petit-bourgeoisie, and such, which I felt was inappropriate, and how I interpreted your post, however I may have misinterpreted you, on this point, if so I apologize.

First off, there is no such thing as race. I'm talking about nationality and national oppression.

No, I never said there wasn't a Black bourgeoisie, or a Black petit-bourgeoisie. I was referencing the Black proletariat because it is the deepest most oppressed section of the proletariat. Yes, there are white proletarians, but they aren't super-exploited in the same way Black proletarians are.

[bezdomni]

but i always thought leadership shouldnt be something official--it shouldnt be a position of power. keep in mind that we communists are seeking to destroy class society, and becuase we have such a radical goal, our forms of organization shouldnt bear resemblance to bourgeois organizations.
Unofficial leadership is far more dangerous than official leadership. Official leadership can be recalled and oppsed, while unofficial leadership exists as long as the unofficial leader is charismatic enough to rally a group around them.

When you make leadership official, the leaders are obliged to be responsible.

[KC]

First off, there is no such thing as race. I'm talking about nationality and national oppression.


"Black" isn't a nationality.

[Red Heretic]

Thirty years ago, yes.

This was taken in Paris. He hasn't even been in exile that long...


Look, there is no one remotely familiar with the RCP (besides those in it), that would even attempt to argue that there isn't a cult of personality around Bob Avakian.

The last time I checked, he didn't even argue that there wasn't. I heard a whole section of a speech by him once that spoke about "good" and "bad" cults of personality.

This depends on what your definition of "cult of personality" is. If by "cult of perosnality" you mean dogmatic/religious popularization of leadership, then no, the RCP does not have a cult of personality. If by "cult of personality" you mean that the RCP promotes him according to a scientific understanding of the role that leaders like Avakian have to play in the revolution, then yes.

However, the RCP does not use that term because it implies dogmatic/religious popularization of leadership.


You say that Bob Avakian isn't upheld dogmatically; and for proof of this, you tell us that "Bullets" (aka "The Silver Book") isn't promoted anymore. This proves nothing. Was it the rank and file of the RCP that decided not to promote this book? No, it was Bob himself.

Wow, so you know all of the details of how all of the debate and struggle inside of the RCP regarding this book went down? Fill us in! :rolleyes:

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 12, 2007 11:50 pm
I was referencing the Black proletariat because it is the deepest most oppressed section of the proletariat.
Says you, I would actually say it would be the native american proletariat.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 13, 2007 03:59 am
"Black" isn't a nationality.
Yes, it is. Black people in the United States were forged into a nation, with their own culture, common language, and all of the other factors which make a nation. They are a different nationality than people in Africa.


The RCP's Draft Programme outlines this pretty well:

The Black National Question

Black people in the U.S. are not simply a “racial group” (or an “ethnic group”) but are an oppressed nation. Their roots are in Africa, but they developed into a separate and distinct nation based on their historical experience in this country.

The key moment in welding together this African-American nation occurred after the U.S. Civil War. The Black ex-slaves, who had fought and died for their freedom, attempted to secure basic civil rights and land at the end of that war. But the bourgeoisie betrayed its promises and, after a few short years of Re*con*struction, violently disarmed the Black masses, depriving them of all rights and forcing them to labor in serf-like oppression in semi-feudal conditions on the plan*tations, this time as sharecroppers. The white plantation owners—many of them former slave-owners or their de*scen*dants—used lynch mobs, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and other means to maintain this oppression.

In these conditions, Black people were welded into a nation, with all the essential characteristics of a nation: common territory, common language, common economic life, common culture and psychological makeup. More particularly, they were forged into an oppressed nation, separate from and dominated by the oppressor, European-American nation, in the area of the “Black Belt South” (so-called because of the color of its soil—an area that runs in an arc from parts of Mary*land through northern Florida and as far west as East Texas, and that includes significant parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, the Carolinas, and Virginia).

This national oppression underwent further development, particularly in the period of two great waves of Black migration: from the World War 1 years until the Great Depression, and again during and after World War 2. Due to a number of factors, particularly changes in southern agriculture and the needs of urban industry, millions of Black people were pushed off the land and pulled into the northern cities. In great numbers they were transformed from peasants into proletarians—still subjected to national oppression (in many new forms) and concentrated in the most exploited sections of the working class.

These changes, together with the building resistance of the Black masses north and south, along with a wave of anti-colonial and national liberation struggles around the globe, gave rise in the 1950s to the civil rights movement and then, in the ’60s, to the Black liberation struggle. Once again, just as it was after the Civil War, the question was posed very decisively: can Black people and will Black people be integrated, or assimilated, into this society on the basis of full equality? And once again, this system betrayed Black people and gave its thunderous answer: NO! THIS WILL NOT BE DONE.

Today Black people are still brutally oppressed under capitalism, and equality is nowhere to be found. In the wake of the 1960s, a small (but significant) section of Black people “made it” into the comfortable section of the middle class (though they, too, suffer from “racial profiling” by the police and many other forms of discrimination and oppression, and their economic situations are often very precarious). The masses of Black people have had to bend every effort just to keep from falling further behind, and about one third suffer much worse conditions today than they did in 1970!

Thus there remains today a common experience and common oppression as a people for Black people of all classes, and a continued existence as an oppressed nation within the boundaries of the U.S. today. Because of this whole history and present-day reality, the revolutionary proletariat upholds the right of Black people to establish autonomous rule in the Black Belt South, as well as other areas in which they form large concentrations.

In addition to the right of autonomy, for the Black nation there continues to be the right of self-determination, up to and in*cluding secession—that is, the establishment of a separate Afro-American Repub*lic in the Black Belt South. The proletariat does not favor this under now foreseeable circumstances. But upon achieving power, or in the armed struggle to win it, if there are indeed significant forces based among Black people raising this demand, the proletariat will take this into account. It will approach this question in light of the overall situation and the importance of weakening the enemy and strengthening the revolutionary forces—on the basis of revolutionary principle.

Whether to support a particular move for a separate state among Black people or to oppose it will depend on all this. But the proletarian state and the proletarian forces nearing power will be firmly opposed to deciding this question through the use of force, as the imperialists do. Rather, the proletariat will rely on the masses, especially in this case the masses of Black people, and will work to resolve the question non-antagonistically and in a way that serves the larger interests of emancipating all the exploited and oppressed.

Link (http://revcom.us/margorp/progtoc-e.htm)

[Seven Stars]

They are a cult. I seen them at a WCW protest they would go around asking people if they have heard Avakian's new talks then they would invite you to their bookstore for a 'listening party' and discussion on his talks. In their paper, about 14 of 20 pages mentions him, plus there was a 4 page supplement on Avakian.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:03 am
They are a cult. I seen them at a WCW protest they would go around asking people if they have heard Avakian's new talks then they would invite you to their bookstore for a 'listening party' and discussion on his talks. In their paper, about 14 of 20 pages mentions him, plus there was a 4 page supplement on Avakian.
How does this make the RCP a cult? Was there anything dogmatic or religious in what they were saying? There is absolutely no substance to your argument.

...and yeah, they are promoting the new talks that Avakian gave, because they represent huge contributions to the RCP's understanding of things, and serve as a foundation in training new revolutionaries.

[KC]

So other members of the RCP don't contribute theoretically?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 13, 2007 04:14 am
So other members of the RCP don't contribute theoretically?
WTF? Of course they do!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This was taken in Paris. He hasn't even been in exile that long...

He went there in 1981. 26 years ago. I was rounding up, not being exact. The point is, it's not a new pic by any means.


This depends on what your definition of "cult of personality" is. If by "cult of perosnality" you mean dogmatic/religious popularization of leadership, then no, the RCP does not have a cult of personality. If by "cult of personality" you mean that the RCP promotes him according to a scientific understanding of the role that leaders like Avakian have to play in the revolution, then yes.

You keep telling yourself that.


However, the RCP does not use that term because it implies dogmatic/religious popularization of leadership.

You mean like "The earth is a quakin, follow Bob Avakian?" :lol:


Wow, so you know all of the details of how all of the debate and struggle inside of the RCP regarding this book went down? Fill us in!

The sad part is, I probably know more about it then many people, such as yourself, that "support" or belong to the RCYB / RCP. Besides first hand accounts I've been given some of the things that have gone in party in the past, there's info on the net about it, from people who were expelled or left. I can dig it up if you really want.

The most important point I made though, was about petty-bourgeois leadership in "workers' parties;" and of course, you didn't address it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

...and yeah, they are promoting the new talks that Avakian gave, because they represent huge contributions to the RCP's understanding of things, and serve as a foundation in training new revolutionaries.


Is it the RCP's understanding of things, or Bob's understanding of things... or are the two interchangeable?

It seems to me a party's understanding of things should come from collective experience, discussion, debate, etc. From that a synthesis should be formed, collectively, which would really be the entire party's understanding of things. If Bob contributed to this fine. The cultish aspect comes in when this guy makes a proclamation from the mountain top and his followers adopt it with no serious investigation or Marxist analysis.

I've been around RCPers to know this is true.. Very few, that I've met, have read even half of the important works by Marx and Engels. They just trust that what Bob says comes from that. Not very Marxist.

[Red Heretic]

He went there in 1981. 26 years ago. I was rounding up, not being exact. The point is, it's not a new pic by any means.

But the photo wasn't taken in 1981. But, whatever.


You mean like "The earth is a quakin, follow Bob Avakian?"

That isn't an RCP chant, youth made that up in the 1980's, it sounds funny just like all kinds of funky 80's lingo. Get over it.


The sad part is, I probably know more about it then many people, such as yourself, that "support" or belong to the RCYB / RCP. Besides first hand accounts I've been given some of the things that have gone in party in the past, there's info on the net about it, from people who were expelled or left. I can dig it up if you really want.

I call bullshit. Avakian is actually known for using a method of simply asking questions and encouraging the different sides to articulate their positions to get at the truth whenever there is ideological struggle in RCP's Central Committee. This method is outlined in Avakian's memoir: From Ike to Mao, and is also used by people like Carl Dix, the RCP's spokesperson.


The most important point I made though, was about petty-bourgeois leadership in "workers' parties;" and of course, you didn't address it.

Give me a break, CDL. I didn't respond because I was hoping we wouldn't have to go down the road of identity politics. The fact of the matter is that what matters is not the class background of any given individual, but rather their class outlook, and what that outlook is a concentration.

Marx, Lenin, and Mao all came from relatively privileged backgrounds, but their ideas and class outlook were shaped by the revolutionary upheaval surrounding them. In this same way, Avakian was shaped by growing up around the leaders of the Black Panther Party.

[Red Heretic]

Is it the RCP's understanding of things, or Bob's understanding of things... or are the two interchangeable?

It seems to me a party's understanding of things should come from collective experience, discussion, debate, etc. From that a synthesis should be formed, collectively, which would really be the entire party's understanding of things. If Bob contributed to this fine. The cultish aspect comes in when this guy makes a proclamation from the mountain top and his followers adopt it with no serious investigation or Marxist analysis.

RCP members and supporters do not follow Avakian mindlessly or uncritically. People are encouraged to study his works critically, and when the disagree, to criticize those works.

Both the Party and Avakian make mistakes, and when they have, they have self-criticized their mistakes, explained why they made them, and corrected them.

Anyway, the point I was making about the talks was that they led to leaps in the understanding of different comrades, because a lot of the analysis was totally new, and extremely concentrated.


I've been around RCPers to know this is true.. Very few, that I've met, have read even half of the important works by Marx and Engels. They just trust that what Bob says comes from that. Not very Marxist.

This is subjective bullshit. Neither myself, or anyone I know who is a member or supporter of the RCP follows Avakian uncritically.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I call bullshit. Avakian is actually known for using a method of simply asking questions and encouraging the different sides to articulate their positions to get at the truth whenever there is ideological struggle in RCP's Central Committee. This method is outlined in Avakian's memoir: From Ike to Mao, and is also used by people like Carl Dix, the RCP's spokesperson.

So .. to prove that Avakian doesn't rule by decree, you point me to ... wait for it ... a book by Avakian that says he doesn't. And you expect me, or anyone else with half a brain, to buy that?


Give me a break, CDL. I didn't respond because I was hoping we wouldn't have to go down the road of identity politics. The fact of the matter is that what matters is not the class background of any given individual, but rather their class outlook, and what that outlook is a concentration.


Comrade, this sort of shit from a self-proclaimed communist is pathetic. Are you that far gone that you equate class politics with liberal identity poltics? Have you absolutely given up on materialism?

Where do ideas come from? Thin air? No, they don't. They come from one's experiences. A working class outlook can only come from .... being a part of the working class. These are principles that Marx clarified, and that's what sets us (scientific communists) apart from idealists and utopians. We use the materialist analysis, which includes the correct understanding that conciousness comes from being, not the other way around, to understand the world.. so that we can change it.

I really reccomend that you read some of Marx's writings.

What you're saying makes no sense, on a number of levels. We're fighting to put the working class in power, and to overthrow the bourgeoisie; but it doesn't have to be the working class that does the fighting. It can be the bourgeoisie, as long as they have "the right class outlook." Imagine that, a "workers' party" full of bourgeois members with a "working class outlook," overthrowing the rule of their own class, to put a class which did none of the fighting in power. Seriously, stop and think about what you're saying here.


Marx, Lenin, and Mao all came from relatively privileged backgrounds, but their ideas and class outlook were shaped by the revolutionary upheaval surrounding them. In this same way, Avakian was shaped by growing up around the leaders of the Black Panther Party.


Everytime I bring this up with a member of a "workers' party" run by the petty-bourgeois, I get the same old argument. "BUT MARX WAS PRIVILEGED!!!!"

Again, I recommend that you read some of Marx's writings, as well as a good biography.

From the moment Marx became a communist, he fought to leave his class privilege behind and become proletarianized. Marx worked as a journalist for a good time, and in between jobs, had to live off of gifts from Engels. At one point, he was so low on money he had to pawn his clothes. Of his seven children, only three survived. Nothing bourgeoisie about that.

Engels, who is always labeled bourgeoisie, worked at his father's mill, for as long as he could take it. Eventually, his father died and left him the mill, which he sold shortly thereafter.

Besides this, Marx and Engels always fought to make sure workers' parties were really that. They demanded that the U.S. section of the International be made up of a majority of workers for example.. then there's their Circular Letter to Bebel, et. al. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/18.htm) which read in part: "It is an inevitable manifestation, and one rooted in the process of development, that people from what have hitherto been the ruling class also join the militant proletariat and supply it with educative elements. We have already said so clearly in the Manifesto. But in this context there are two observations to be made:

"Firstly, if these people [petty-bourgeois and bourgeois people wanting to join the workers' movement] are to be of use to the proletarian movement, they must introduce genuinely educative elements...

"Secondly, when people of this kind, from different classes, join the proletarian movement, the first requirement is that they should not bring with them the least remnant of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but should unreservedly adopt the proletarian outlook. These gentlemen, however, as already shown, are chock-full of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In a country as petty-bourgeois as Germany, there is certainly some justification for such ideas. But only outside the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. If the gentlemen constitute themselves a Social-Democratic petty-bourgeois party, they are fully within their rights: in that case we could negotiate with them and, according to circumstances, form an alliance with them, etc. But within a workers’ party they are an adulterating element. Should there be any reason to tolerate their presence there for a while, it should be our duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no say in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. That time, moreover, would appear to have come [and this was written in 1879!! - CDL]. How the Party can suffer the authors of this article to remain any longer in their midst seems to us incomprehensible. But should the Party leadership actually pass, to a greater or lesser extent, into the hands of such men, then the Party will be emasculated no less, and that will put paid to its proletarian grit.

"For almost 40 years we have emphasised that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we cannot possibly co-operate with men who seek to eliminate that class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes."

And that's the communist outlook, then and today. Members with petty-bourgeois and bourgeois backgrounds, may be (due to the privilege and education they have) able to offer ideas that we workers can use.. they may be "educative elements." But even in 1879 when this letter was writen, the period when that would happen with any kind of regularity was coming to a close. This was a time when bourgeois revolutions and class relations were still cementing themselves. But now, as the system of capitalism decays, they are entrenched; and there is even less a chance of this happening (though it can pick up in periods of intense class struggle).

So, what this means is that we workers can look to people like Lenin and Mao (who never became proletarianized, though Lenin at least attempted to become proletarianized, or a de-classed "full time revolutionary") for educational value. If they made theoretical contributions which were positive, we can (and should) use them. We should also discard those parts of their theories which are incorrect (and this is what we in the FPM-MGL do).

* * *

Now, if you want to talk about identity politics comrade, you should start with yourself. You, in the typical petty-bourgeois manner injected by the RCP's petty-bourgeois leadership, act in a very patronizing way towards us workers, especially those "of color."

That tired ass "get down the revolution yo" bullshit that the RCP has been putting out for years is played, and no one is falling for it. It's a blatent attempt to appeal to youths "of color," that doesn't work. It's like Apple Jacks cereal using some bullshit commercial with a fake rap verse to sell their garbage.

When you refer to us as "the workers," "the black masses," etc. you show that you don't belong to our class. You show that you are an outsider, coming into our neighborhoods, like missionaries, to "show us the way."

You say "I will tell you, in all my work of going out to Black proletarians living in rotting housing projects, I have never once heard this kind of argument [that they don't want to be lead by Bob Avakian], but it never ceases from petit-bourgeois internet revolutionaries on this website."

This is anecdotal; but I'd like to point out that even Bob recognizes that most Black folks don't want to be "lead" by a privileged, crusty ass old white man living in France. Fuck, the RCP has a whole pamphlet about it (in which Bob replies to a letter from "A Black Nationalist" who tells him that he's not going to follow him, and that his people aren't either).

You also show your white liberal guilt by constantly accusing people you've never met of being "petty bourgeois white kids." The truth is that the majority of white people in the U.S. (and the majority of Black, Latino and Asians, etc.) are workers. It's crazy that in this respect, when it suits your argument, you recognize that being determines conciousness; but when it goes against your argument, you completely disregard it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is subjective bullshit.

Sort of like "I will tell you, in all my work of going out to Black proletarians living in rotting housing projects, I have never once heard this kind of argument [that they don't want to be lead by Bob Avakian]..."?

The difference here, is that I could, if really necessary, bring several people (FPMers, members of a Liberation Theologist church in NYC that I think you're familiar with, and non-affiliated folks) who witnessed debates I've had with self-described "long time supporters" of the RCP who were literally clueless about the contents of important books like "The Civil War In France;" but made sure to tell everyone that came in the store about "Our Chairman Bob Avakian's groundbreaking new talk on DVD." I'm talking about older people, in their 50's at least, who say they've been communists for decades, and have read every work of Bob Avakian, several times; but have not read, for example, "The Civil War In France."


Neither myself, or anyone I know who is a member or supporter of the RCP follows Avakian uncritically.

Are you fucking kidding me? You're further gone than I thought.

[BreadBros]

DiggerII, I would read this before joining the RCP:

The RCP - A Glimpse Behind the Curtain (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094424905&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Herman]

I actually sympathize with the RCP. I'm not sure what to say about Avakian though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Join the Moonies, instead: similar mysticism, hero worship and cult following, as the Mao-clones here amply demonstrate.

At least you will know you are being conned.

Dialectical Maoism: refuted by history.

[bezdomni]

Join the Moonies, instead: similar mysticism, hero worship and cult following, as the Mao-clones here amply demonstrate.

If only the people were smart enough to follow you...then we'd have the bourgeoisie shaking in their boots.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:07 am
DiggerII, I would read this before joining the RCP:

The RCP - A Glimpse Behind the Curtain (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094424905&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)
I stopped reading once R2K admitted that members who leave parties often exagerate and slander it. Oh yeah and the fact that R2K is a reknowned left-communist who spends half of all of his posts slandering leninism.

[RedLenin]

I think that the RCP deserves both praise and criticism. I think that the RCP is one of the few communist groups that is actually very active and actually tries to put their ideas of revolution into practice. I also think that Avakian is a pretty intelligent guy with a lot of good things to say. I agree with about 70% of what he says. However, the RCP also has a lot of problems.

First there is the ideology, MLM. I think there are a lot of problems here. I have heard Avakian speak about the vanguard party and his conception of it. I definitely agree that a vanguard party is essential, and I think that leadership is one of the most decisive issues in a revolution. However, I think Avakian and the RCP go too far with their concept of the vanguard. Calls to "institutionalize" the vanguard as the head of the country is a bit dangerous in my view. Is the RCP actually calling for a one-party dictatorship? Is the goal of a revolution to lead the proletariat in the seizing of state power and having this state be under the democratic control of workers councils, with party members taking high positions in government by being elected there? Or is the goal to simply have a regime change and put the vanguard party in a dictatorial position? I would argue that the first is by far the most desirable and the only real way to fight corruption and buerocracy.

I also have a problem with the theory of New Democracy, which I think the RCP upholds. Any theory calling for the proletariat to collaborate with the national bourgeoisie and petti-bourgeoisie is dangerous and anti-marxist in my opinion. That said, there are some ideas which the RCP upholds that are good. The idea of dissent and criticism being good things is obviously a good position to hold. But I am afraid that, if the RCP was to take power, the working masses would not hold any democratic control over the state or the economy. Without democratic control by the working class, it is not socialism, no matter what party is in power.

Those are just my thoughts. I would like to know the RCP's position on such matters if I am mistaken about them.

[black magick hustla]

So, what this means is that we workers can look to people like Lenin and Mao (who never became proletarianized, though Lenin at least attempted to become proletarianized, or a de-classed "full time revolutionary") for educational value. If they made theoretical contributions which were positive, we can (and should) use them. We should also discard those parts of their theories which are incorrect (and this is what we in the FPM-MGL do).

What about Castro comrade?

Do you consider him proletarian?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What you're saying makes no sense, on a number of levels. We're fighting to put the working class in power, and to overthrow the bourgeoisie; but it doesn't have to be the working class that does the fighting. It can be the bourgeoisie, as long as they have "the right class outlook." Imagine that, a "workers' party" full of bourgeois members with a "working class outlook," overthrowing the rule of their own class, to put a class which did none of the fighting in power. Seriously, stop and think about what you're saying here.

The RCP is a proletarian party as outlined in its draft programme it accepts all people who suscribe to that line of fighting for and overthrowing the system. No bourgiousie person would accept the proletarian line of the RCP which goes against the class interests of the capitalist class, and is in the interest of the proletariat, thus your situation is unrealistic and the Marxist-Leninist line held by the RCP is what ensures the fact that it is proletarian party.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think that the RCP deserves both praise and criticism. I think that the RCP is one of the few communist groups that is actually very active and actually tries to put their ideas of revolution into practice.

Yes this is an epidemic in communist parties today like the CPUSA and FPM. When I was considering joining the Revolutionary Youth (Youth branch of the FPM), I stayed on their list serve for several months. No chapter meetings were announced and maybe once were we encouraged to attend a rally. Most of the emails were just critiscisms and ideas from other chapters. Ultra-Leftist at best. It was even worse with the Young Communist League (Youth branch of the CPUSA), the only time they ever contacted me for any activity was a local conference, it had been so long, I had forgot about them :lol: yet within the first week of being active with the RCP there were weekly chapter meetings, discussions, and rallies as well as paper distribution to talk with people on the streets and talk about our views. I did more activism in a week than I had in the past several years with the other groups :lol:


First there is the ideology, MLM. I think there are a lot of problems here. I have heard Avakian speak about the vanguard party and his conception of it. I definitely agree that a vanguard party is essential, and I think that leadership is one of the most decisive issues in a revolution. However, I think Avakian and the RCP go too far with their concept of the vanguard. Calls to "institutionalize" the vanguard as the head of the country is a bit danger

No it is calling for proletarian democracy, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Communist Party after a revolution would oppress the bourgeois in return for the oppression that the bourgieois had reigned down on the masses for centuries in the form of police brutality, slavery/segregation, ghettos and barrios for the producing/working masses and fancy cars and country houses for the parasites, low wages, starvation, suppression of workers, suppression of worker parties etc...

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat however, much more freedom for the proletariat would be given as the workers would be encouraged to hang their bosses and take over their factories the same goes for farms and other workplaces. Workers and Revolutionaries would be encouraged to take over other institutions like the media and government and form committees and etc... For more I would read up.

Here is the draft programme of the RCP which summarizes what kind of revolution we're looking for

Draft Programme of the RCP,USA (http://revcom.us/margorp/progtoc-e.htm)

And here is a particular section of the Draft Programme which deals with what the dictatorship of the proletariat will look like.

Proletarian Dictatorship, Democracy and the Rights of the People (http://revcom.us/margorp/a-proldic.htm)


also have a problem with the theory of New Democracy, which I think the RCP upholds. Any theory calling for the proletariat to collaborate with the national bourgeoisie and petti-bourgeoisie is dangerous and anti-marxist in my opinion. That said, there are some ideas which the RCP upholds that are good. The idea of dissent and criticism being good things is obviously a good position to hold. But I am afraid that, if the RCP was to take power, the working masses would not hold any democratic control over the state or the economy. Without democratic control by the working class, it is not socialism, no matter what party is in power.

Well that is the view held to fight imperialism and for national liberation. I don't think the RCP holds that position since the US is not an oppressed nation but rather an oppressive nation. As for democratic control, see the above links.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What about Castro comrade?

Do you consider him proletarian?

He became proletarianized. This was explained to you before, by myself and another member, in a thread you started.


The RCP is a proletarian party as outlined in its draft programme it accepts all people who suscribe to that line of fighting for and overthrowing the system.

So.. it's a "workers' party" that accepts "all people," including non-workers, and members of enemy classes. But it's a "workers' party" because it has a "proletarian line." :lol: How materialist.


No bourgiousie person would accept the proletarian line of the RCP which goes against the class interests of the capitalist class, and is in the interest of the proletariat, thus your situation is unrealistic and the Marxist-Leninist line held by the RCP is what ensures the fact that it is proletarian party.

So you say.. but are the majority of the leaders proletarian? We know the leadership is not. Are members of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie excluded from membership, or even leadership? No. This nothing but a bunch of empty rhetoric that ignores reality. "Proletarian line," "Marxist-Leninist line," "proletarian party," etc. but actual the class character of the party, i.e. the classes that it's members actually belong to, the experiences that shaped their consciousness, are ignored.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes this is an epidemic in communist parties today like the CPUSA and FPM. When I was considering joining the Revolutionary Youth (Youth branch of the FPM), I stayed on their list serve for several months. No chapter meetings were announced and maybe once were we encouraged to attend a rally. Most of the emails were just critiscisms and ideas from other chapters. Ultra-Leftist at best.

Ultra-leftist? Do you just throw words around now, with no attachment to reality?

For one, the FPM isn't a communist party, and the RY is seperate from the FPM.

And, as you say, you were on an email list. You were not a member, or a probationary member.

As far as I'm aware, you live near NYC. Just there, in the last year, the FPM and RY have participated in countless actions.. including dozens we initiated ourselves... like these:
Free The Cuban 5 Protest (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?204)
Demos to defend the FPM and its members (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?171)
Rally for Puerto Rican Independence (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?201)
Protest against Sean Bell's murder (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?229)
Shut Down The War Machine (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?256)
Protests in defense of the workers and farmers of Oaxaca, before the larger protests, brought about by the murder of a U.S. citizen, took place

That's not to mention any of our activities in other areas.. like Connecticut were we've led rallies to defend Francisco Acevedo (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?165), food and clothing drives (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?82), distributed warm meals to fellow workers who needed them, school walkouts to defend undocumented workers (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?182), etc.

Or the Solomon Islands, where we lead election campaigns, anti-RAMSI occupation campaigns, and campaigns to reinstate the right to bare arms (which was revoked by the Australian invaders) (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?219).

Or in the Dominican Republic, where we took part in major protests to protest the murder of a young political activist from another organization (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?186), fought (and fight) against de facto martial law (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?164) and anti-abortion laws (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?170).

The RCP's "action" that you're so excited about consists of selling newspapers and "promoting Bob Avakian"... along with organizing "the youths" for liberal popular fronts like World Can't Wait... oh wait, there are also meetings! :lol:

Every group has meetings. The FPM and RY included. Of course, we don't let just anyone come to our meetings (open meetings not included). I don't know your exact situation, but I do know that you weren't invited to any meetings, because you were never a member or probationary member.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

He became proletarianized. This was explained to you before, by myself and another member, in a thread you started.

As has Bob Avakian and every revolutionary leader.


So.. it's a "workers' party" that accepts "all people," including non-workers, and members of enemy classes. But it's a "workers' party" because it has a "proletarian line." :lol: How materialist.

You're one to talk, when I was thinking about joining the FPM I CLEARLY remember reading that "all members of the FPM have to be working class or class allies".

Also they are not class enemies because they are allied with the proletariat in their views and actions they are fighting for the same thing, and unless they have become proletarianized, why the fuck would the fight for it?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 14, 2007 02:17 am

What about Castro comrade?

Do you consider him proletarian?

He became proletarianized. This was explained to you before, by myself and another member, in a thread you started.


Ahhhh.

Yeah, I remember the thread.

However, how can someone retain its proletarian status and be a manager at the same time? You can argue that cuba is very democratic etc etci, but you cannot disagree Castro is a manager at its best, and he has the ability to fire and hire other people.

Very petty bourgeois..

And as Miles pointed out, you dont ebcome proletarianized by just being "poor". You need to be a waged worker, and an attorney, unless he sells his labor power to the bourgeoisie in order to survive, can't be proletarian.

And even if he DID became proletarianized, I dont think it is sensible to call him one now, in the same way as you pointed out, Lenin was not proletarianized nor was he declassed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As has Bob Avakian and every revolutionary leader.

How has Bob become proletarianized? Has he ever even had a job? One that he relied on to survive? If he has, it wasn't for any extended period of time. He went from a member of a petty bourgeois family, to a petty bourgeois student, to leadership of a "workers' party" which pays all his expenses. Did he leave his class privilege behind? No, he's still in a privileged position in relation to most workers. He's in a managerial position typical of the petty bourgeoisie.

Fidel on the other hand came from a family made up of a immigrant worker, who was able to move up to the petty bourgeois class, and an illiterate mother, who was once a servant. After graduating from school as a lawyer, he worked for free on cases fighting for the unemployed, the poor, and members of the working class and peasantry. He became so poor that the furniture in his house was repossed and his family often went hungry -- even though his wife came from the Cuban elite, though Fidel would never take money from them. From there he became a leader of the armed struggle against Batista, from the attack on Moncada, through imprisonment, his exile in Mexico, and to the revolution.

When the revolution won, one of the first properties seized by the revolution was that of his father.

That's a process of proletarianization. Running to France and living off of dues and book sales while eating cheese and crackers is not proletarianization.


You're one to talk, when I was thinking about joining the FPM I CLEARLY remember reading that "all members of the FPM have to be working class or class allies".

"class allies" = sections of the lumpen in certain situations, and small farmers.


Also they are not class enemies because they are allied with the proletariat in their views and actions they are fighting for the same thing, and unless they have become proletarianized, why the fuck would the fight for it?

That's a good question, and something Marx and Engel's covered way back (in the letter I posted, for example, which you haven't responded to). Petty-bourgeois moralism is usually the answer. Other times it's because they see some sort of benefit to themself (i.e. becoming a character like Bob Avakian or Jack Barnes, who becomes a leader, lives off of an organizations money, etc. They're likely not always conscious of this of course, and I mentioned that. You said it: since it's not in their class interest to side with us workers, why would they?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Ahhhh.

Yeah, I remember the thread.

However, how can someone retain its proletarian status and be a manager at the same time? You can argue that cuba is very democratic etc etci, but you cannot disagree Castro is a manager at its best, and he has the ability to fire and hire other people.

Very petty bourgeois..

And as Miles pointed out, you dont ebcome proletarianized by just being "poor". You need to be a waged worker, and an attorney, unless he sells his labor power to the bourgeoisie in order to survive, can't be proletarian.

And even if he DID became proletarianized, I dont think it is sensible to call him one now, in the same way as you pointed out, Lenin was not proletarianized nor was he declassed.

He's the elected representative of the people of Cuba. This isn't the place for further debate on Fidel's class character. Go dig up the other thread if you want to do that.

Saying that Fidel's position as president makes him petty-bourgeois makes no sense. Bush was bourgeois before becoming president. Did his election make him petty bourgeois? Or does it only work the other way?

[KC]

CdL, I'd love to see you respond to this:



Yeah, I should have said "Every member of the FPM belongs to the working class, and no members of classes opposed to it are allowed to join." That's what I meant, just not what I wrote. Appologies.

It depends on the situation. At some times, in some places (especially neo-colonial and colonial countries), elements of the lumpen can be allied to our class. And in most cases, small farmers are our allies.

The petty bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie and their agents are excluded from membership.

Still, the FPM is a working class organization, and as of right now all of its elected Delegates are working class, as are its members. There are small farmers and some lumpen among our sympathizers and supporters.


Yeah, but members of other classes can join, so I don't think you can say that the FPM is a "working class organization" even if your membership base just happens to be proletarian right now. You don't have a proletarian-only policy and you actually say that members from other classes can join.

Link (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=61920&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292255302)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I'm in a rush so I'll be brief

a) Of course he's held jobs. He was part of an immigrant family that had nothing. His mom had no job and his dad was a lawyer but early on in his life his dad contracted polio and wasn't able to work. I think he got into college on a scholarship because he was a pretty good student. Ever since then he's been organizing workers and working towards the revolution. He left for France because he was face with life in prison for an action he organized.

b) Since when are you an authority on the RCP and Bob Avakians life style. That is an upsurd critiscism of France (waffles and cheese and crackers), as a matter of fact, most of the time he was there he was organizing workers and setting up chapters of the RCP there. He doesn't "live off the party" right now he's just a writer which as we all know is really a money making bourgeois proffession :rolleyes:, and alot of the time his work is free to read. In my local Revolution Books, we have set up a free library for all people in particular youth which contains works from Marx, Lenin, Mao, the party and Avakian, and other writers.

c) no you're just saying that by "class allies" you mean lumpenproletariat because its convenient. "Class allies" is vague as shit and can apply to anyone if they try hard enough. While Revolution Paper mentions the proletariat constantly, the shitty ass Free Press I got in the mail a while back spends an entire page out of like 4 pages talking about support for Iran, the other page about Cuba and North Korea or whatever but the proletariat is barely mentioned. It was like reading a "I love reading" picture book for kids.

Also, moralism never stretches past social democracy and liberalism. Never a violent insurrection against the class you activly belong to.

d) The defend the FPM members, were sadly, the only protests someone considering joining the FPM like me was contacted about. The Sean Bell Protests happened after I became disinterested and there were more RCP there even by a FPM members estimate. The Cuba 5 and Puerto Rican Independence protests I was also never alerted about despite the fact that I got emails everyday on the listserve asking members to donate or sell papers at schools etc...

e) the world can't wait is far more revolutionary than the shut down the war machine.
unlike other anti-war movements, the WCW targets the ruling sect in charge and has turned to overthrowing them in any means possible. We have attracted 100s of thousands nationwide to our movement because of our activist mentality. Meanwhile the Shut Down the War Machine project has the signatures of about 5 FPM affiliated groups as well as Chairman MLS's group :lol: yeah good luck stayin home, we'll avoid such ultra-leftism and agitate and eventually attack.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cdl


Yeah, but members of other classes can join, so I don't think you can say that the FPM is a "working class organization" even if your membership base just happens to be proletarian right now. You don't have a proletarian-only policy and you actually say that members from other classes can join.

It's a working class organization because it's made up of workers, run by workers, in the interest of the working class. Pretty simple.

The only other people allowed to join are allies of the working class (certain members of the lumpen in certain conditions, and small farmers), and they can do so only to support the fight for the working class to take power (which will benefit them too, which is why they are allies).

Members of enemy classes, and their representatives, are excluded from membership, specifically, by the rules and Procedural Program.


a) Of course he's held jobs. He was part of an immigrant family that had nothing. His mom had no job and his dad was a lawyer but early on in his life his dad contracted polio and wasn't able to work. I think he got into college on a scholarship because he was a pretty good student. Ever since then he's been organizing workers and working towards the revolution. He left for France because he was face with life in prison for an action he organized.


I'll give you a quick lesson on class analysis. I guess they don't teach that in RCP/Avakianist indoctrination courses. I wonder why :lol:

Self-employed layers are petty bourgeois. Judges are petty bourgeois. The children of judges who live of their wages (whether or not they supplement that with the occasional grass cutting or fast food job) are petty bourgeois. Students that come from petty bourgeois families and rely on funds from that family, not on a wage from a job, are petty bourgeois. "Organizing toward the revolution" does not make one transform from petty bourgeois to working class. Running to France doesn't either.


Since when are you an authority on the RCP and Bob Avakians life style. That is an upsurd critiscism of France (waffles and cheese and crackers), as a matter of fact, most of the time he was there he was organizing workers and setting up chapters of the RCP there. He doesn't "live off the party" right now he's just a writer which as we all know is really a money making bourgeois proffession, and alot of the time his work is free to read. In my local Revolution Books, we have set up a free library for all people in particular youth which contains works from Marx, Lenin, Mao, the party and Avakian, and other writers.

Actually, writing books can be a "money making bourgeois proffession," depending on who publishes the book and how the author is paid. In Bob's case, he's always been petty bourgeois, and he still is.

You really expect anyone to believe that the party doesn't fund Bob's entire life? :lol: When's the last time you saw an expense report? Lemme guess, never. I guess that's an issue for the "revolutionary leadership," not the foot soldiers.

Even if we accepted the absurd notion that he doesn't live off of party funds, and believe you that he lives off of book sales.. what would change? He writes books which are published by RCP affiliated (or even owned) publishers, promoted by RCP members (no one else is pushing that shit :lol:) and sold on RCP websites and in RCP stores staffed by volunteer RCP members. Yeah, you're right, he doesn't live off the party :lol:

Living off the party and book sales doesn't change that, it reinforces it. I doubt even Bob would claim he's a prole. To him, it doesn't matter, because he magically has "the proletarian line," without ever having been a part of the proletariat.


no you're just saying that by "class allies" you mean lumpenproletariat because its convenient. "Class allies" is vague as shit and can apply to anyone if they try hard enough.

No, class allies can only apply to class allies. The working class has objective class allies. I'm sorry that you've so blurred class lines that you're unable to differeniate between allies of the working class, enemies of the working class, and the working class itself. To you, and other misguided "Maoists", it's a matter of one's "line," not their class (as it was for Marx and Engels, and is for communists).


Also, moralism never stretches past social democracy and liberalism. Never a violent insurrection against the class you activly belong to.

Exactly. Now you're starting to get it (though you don't seem to realize it).


The defend the FPM members, were sadly, the only protests someone considering joining the FPM like me was contacted about.

Like I said, I don't know your exact situation. Maybe you just asked to be added to one of the lists. If you were a member or probationary member, you obviously would have been made aware of the actions. There's also the possibility that you're just being dishonest again, as you were about the issue of The Free Press you talked about.


The Sean Bell Protests happened after I became disinterested and there were more RCP there even by a FPM members estimate.

There were more RCP members there than FPM members. The RCP has more members in New York City than the FPM. The RCP has been around for decades. The FPM has only been around for a few years, even less in the U.S. Besides this, at the time, alot of the NYC members were in other areas doing work.


The Cuba 5 and Puerto Rican Independence protests I was also never alerted about despite the fact that I got emails everyday on the listserve asking members to donate or sell papers at schools etc...

See above about the protests. About selling papers.. you just proved yourself wrong. In an earlier post you talked about how much better the RCP was because it had branch meetings and paper distribution. Here you talk about being asked to distribute papers. If you didn't distribute papers that's on you; don't blame us for your lack of initiative.


While Revolution Paper mentions the proletariat constantly, the shitty ass Free Press I got in the mail a while back spends an entire page out of like 4 pages talking about support for Iran, the other page about Cuba and North Korea or whatever but the proletariat is barely mentioned. It was like reading a "I love reading" picture book for kids.

"The shitty ass," quite a principled criticism. :lol:

Let's see how honest you're being. The issue you mention is Volume 2, Issue 1, which is online as a pdf here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpv2i1.pdf

There is about 1 page on Iran. The article on Iran takes up half of the first page and a little less than half on the third. The article says:

"No war but the class war! Imperialist hands off Iran!
While we defend the right of imperialist-oppressed countries like Iran to pursue nuclear capabilities, we don’t lend one ounce of support to the reactionary, fundamentalist Iranian government.

"At the same time we demand that the imperialists keep their bloody claws off of Iran, we also join with the Iranian working class and its allies in their struggle to overthrow the repressive Mullah regime and unite with our working brothers and sisters and other oppressed people in the U.S. in struggle to build the consciousness required for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism in the “belly of the beast”.

"If the U.S., Israel, and/or any other imperialists attack or invade Iran we will stand for the complete defense of that country, because we know that every defeat of imperialism is a victory for working and oppressed people everywhere. An imperialist victory in Iran would only encourage the advancement of the “war on terror,” with all the repression and attacks on working and oppressed people all over the world that that entails.

"Workers and oppressed people of the world unite!
It is at times like these that we see exactly how important the historic mission of the working class and its allies – the revolutionary overthrow of the exploitative, oppressive, militaristic capitalist system – really is.

"We are the only ones who can stop the coming world crisis, which promises to be the worst our species has ever seen; and we can only do that when we unite and fight for our own interests, that is, for socialist revolution – the only way of establishing a free, just, and equal society."

There's a very small article about DPRK on page 3, which points out that one of the reasons the U.S. had for economic sanctions against that country was a lie.

There's another article explaining how capitalism caused the famine in the Horn of Africa that was happening at the time, one on protesters in Ecuador who shut down an oil pipeline in protest of the president's failure to come through with a promise to help a poor region, one on Socialist Cuba's volunteer doctors in Pakistan, one on the U.S. government forcing a hotel in Mexico to expel guests because they were Cuban, one on the Colombian government's massacre of an enitre family, one about protests in the Dominican Republic (that members of the FPM-MGL participated in) against the arrival of U.S. soldiers in their country, one about Chavez receiving a UN award for "contributing to the unity of Latin America," one on the Catholic Church's condemnation of an anti-aids program in Brazil, one on a protest in Pakistan against a U.S. bombing that killed several people, one about South American indigenous people calling for their own country, one about increased FBI repression in Puerto Rico (after Filiberto was assassinated), one about Katrina victims being evicted from the hotels they were staying in, one on the U.S. and Israeli effort to overthrow the Palestinian government, one on the popular uprising in Haiti, one on the deaths of twenty-three miners in eight weeks and the need for all miners to unionize to ensure safety in the workplace and prevent more, and a full page "Workers' Wire" which covers strikes and other workers' fights from around the world.

Yeah no mention of the working class there, :lol: That certainly can't compair with the use of the word "proletariat" (of course with no content behind it) by the RCP's "shitty ass" publication, Revolution (no longer Revolutionary Worker.. had to drop the word worker.. wouldn't want to scare off any potential petty bourgeois recruits for Bob's army :lol:).


the world can't wait is far more revolutionary than the shut down the war machine. unlike other anti-war movements, the WCW targets the ruling sect in charge and has turned to overthrowing them in any means possible. We have attracted 100s of thousands nationwide to our movement because of our activist mentality.

World Can't Wait: A liberal coalition, including members of the capitalist Democratic party, that seeks to have a president from the other capitalist party removed from office (via impeachment or other means, it's purposely left unclear), and replaced with.. who knows, again it's purposely left unclear.. but you can bet 95% of the people participating in it aren't thinking Bush should be replaced with a socialist government.

vs.

Shut Down The War Machine: A coalition of workers' organizations, unions, union members, leftist authors, musicians, etc. calling for a general strike, of workers, which are the only force capable of actually ending the war (something 1,500 protests of liberal college kids and burnt out hippies could never do).


Meanwhile the Shut Down the War Machine project has the signatures of about 5 FPM affiliated groups as well as Chairman MLS's group laugh.gif yeah good luck stayin home, we'll avoid such ultra-leftism and agitate and eventually attack.

list of endorses:

The Free People’s Movement
7Wounds - Recording Artist
Sun Rise Above - Recording Artist
Young Soldiers For Change
C. Harris - DC Retail Workers For Justice
Revolutionary Youth
C. Alazar - New York Retail Workers For Justice
The Cuba Truth Project
B. Dean Sr - Township Supervisor (Washington Township, Pennsylvania)
Oaxaca Defense Committee (New York)
K. Bautista - Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 101
1877 Workers’ Party
Transit Venus - Recording Artists
Democratic Rights Defense Organization
Michael Parenti, Ph.D. - Author
Gregg Shotwell
Truth Universal - Recording Artist
Mickey Z - Author
Professor Ward Churchill
Depleted Uranium BBS
Future of the Union
Paul Odekirk
Antonio Rivera
Irish Republican Socialist Movement
Irina Tavera - Bolivian Youth Club
Jonathan Santos
Damjan Aleksiev
Dena Rappaport
Matthew Opitz - Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice
Ashleigh Butler - TMAS
Max Ehrlich
Reina Patrick
Issaiah Wallace
Industrial Workers of the World - Pittsburgh GMB
RevolutionaryLeft.com

Michael Parenti, Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice, the Pittsburgh GMB of the IWW, members of the RWDSU, UAW and IAHFIAW, Mickey Z, Ward Churchill, Bolivian Youth Club.. yeah definitely "5 FPM affiliated groups as well as Chairman MLS's group."

Also very ultra-leftist. General strikes and organizing your fellow workers to flex their united class power.. these things are way too left wing. It's probably because we lack the "proletarian line" that Bob has. Oh well, we're only workers.. how could we have something like that?

Nothing like the revolutionary working class endorsers of WCW like Democratic bourgeois politician Cynthia McKinney, pro-imperialist petty bourgeois commissioned officer Lt. Ehren Watada (who refused to fight in the Iraq war, but would have no problem killing in Afghanistan, by his own admission), British bourgeois politician Craig Murray, etc. People calling for constitutional impeachment, which would bring.... Dick Cheney into office. But hey, if you can impeach him too, then the ultimate (but unspoken) goal of the campaign would be achieved.. to get a Democrat into office! :lol:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I'll give you a quick lesson on class analysis. I guess they don't teach that in RCP/Avakianist indoctrination courses. I wonder why :lol:

no such thing. Stop making upsurd baseless critiscisms.


Self-employed layers are petty bourgeois.

like Fidel? Anyhow, he got polio and couldn't work until Bob was in college I think. That made his family unemployed. Not very petty bourgeois



Actually, writing books can be a "money making bourgeois proffession," depending on who publishes the book and how the author is paid. In Bob's case, he's always been petty bourgeois, and he still is.

nah not really actually, especially in Bob Avakian's case where a small amount of people have even heard of him let alone read anything he wrote. All the money the book makes goes to the party and Revolution Books for the most part.


He writes books which are published by RCP affiliated (or even owned) publishers, promoted by RCP members (no one else is pushing that shit :lol:) and sold on RCP websites and in RCP stores staffed by volunteer RCP members. Yeah, you're right, he doesn't live off the party :lol:

And? You make it sound like he's stealing from the party. All he's doing is writing about the party line (which is not "dictated by him" but was drafted by the central comittee) in an interesting way. Don't pretend the FPM hasn't done that shit. I got constant countless emails about promoting The Free Press and the book by Ricardo with the cover with a starving person on it.


Living off the party and book sales doesn't change that, it reinforces it. I doubt even Bob would claim he's a prole. To him, it doesn't matter, because he magically has "the proletarian line," without ever having been a part of the proletariat.

How are you an authority on that? You don't come to be head of a communist party without being a proletarian. You have provided no evidence that he lives a bourgeois lifestyle other than that he was in france and for some reason you think everyone in france automatically lives richly. This is fucking ridiculous. Unless you provide some credible sources from where you're getting this info, I suggest we get back on topic.


Yeah no mention of the working class there, :lol: That certainly can't compair with the use of the word "proletariat" (of course with no content behind it) by the RCP's "shitty ass" publication, Revolution (no longer Revolutionary Worker.. had to drop the word worker.. wouldn't want to scare off any potential petty bourgeois recruits for Bob's army :lol:).

Alright fair enough, working class was mentioned, but not in depth like what the Revolution Newspaper does. Your paper also, is like a school newspaper, while Revolution actually is a finished product which explains what its talking about and goes in depth. The Free Press is like 4 pages total. And the name was changed in order to appeal more to revolutionaries in general like students and people who follow identity politics. Also, the RCP used to have a magazine written by the central committee of the RCP called "Revolution" and the name change was part of a sort of merger. Oh yeah and Free Press is great. Because when I think Free Press I think proletarian revolution, not bourgieos mouthpieces on television.


World Can't Wait: A liberal coalition, including members of the capitalist Democratic party, that seeks to have a president from the other capitalist party removed from office (via impeachment or other means, it's purposely left unclear), and replaced with.. who knows, again it's purposely left unclear.. but you can bet 95% of the people participating in it aren't thinking Bush should be replaced with a socialist government.

the WCW doesn't support Democratics and has publicly critiscized them and were the first to march on the democratic controlled congress as well as got heat for shouting down democrat senator-elects in demand for an end to the war.

I haven't talked to one WCWer who supports the democrats and many are socialists. The point is we're reaching out to other groups as well as taking a militant approach. We're hardly liberal. Liberal is UFPJ is doing, not trying to physically "drive out" the bush regime.


Shut Down The War Machine: A coalition of workers' organizations, unions, union members, leftist authors, musicians, etc. calling for a general strike, of workers, which are the only force capable of actually ending the war (something 1,500 protests of liberal college kids and burnt out hippies could never do).

Yeah the coalition includes the FPM, the RY, the FPM, the Cuba Truth Project, and a bunch of individuals.

All those type of organizations are active in the WCW.

The Free People’s Movement


Oaxaca Defense Committee (New York)
1877 Workers’ Party
Democratic Rights Defense Organization
Future of the Union
Irish Republican Socialist Movement

Those are the organizations that have endorsed it. Of those, the Cuba Truth Project, YSFC, and RY are the same group

Oaxaca Defense Committee (New York)
1877 Workers’ Party
Democratic Rights Defense Organization
Future of the Union
Irish Republican Socialist Movement

The IRSM are not active in the country where the war machine is.

Oaxaca Defense Committee (New York)
1877 Workers’ Party
Democratic Rights Defense Organization
Future of the Union

So that's like 4 groups which aren't part of the FPM, individual people, or outside the US. Good luck with that. Yeah, you're really going to stop the war with a handfull of tiny groups.

To tell you the truth, if I was a worker who wasn't on this forum, I'd have no idea about the Shut Down the War Machine Project. Meanwhile I found out about the WCW by the countless actions, fliers, stickers, promotions, demostrations, and etc they hold on the streets.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

no such thing. Stop making upsurd baseless critiscisms.

Sure there is.. that's still what they are whether you call them "branch meetings" or "criticism/self-criticism sessions" or whatever.

You're living proof that it works.


like Fidel?

No, not like Fidel. Fidel worked as a volunteer lawyer for workers and peasants. He didn't make a living from being a lawyer for hire.


Anyhow, he got polio and couldn't work until Bob was in college I think. That made his family unemployed. Not very petty bourgeois

A petty bourgeoisie temporarily out of a petty bourgeois position is still a petty bourgeoisie. Again, I recommend you "dig into" some writings by Marx and Engels.


nah not really actually, especially in Bob Avakian's case where a small amount of people have even heard of him let alone read anything he wrote. All the money the book makes goes to the party and Revolution Books for the most part.

So where does his rent, food, clothes, etc. money come from? Magic communist pixies?


How are you an authority on that? ... You have provided no evidence that he lives a bourgeois lifestyle other than that he was in france and for some reason you think everyone in france automatically lives richly. This is fucking ridiculous. Unless you provide some credible sources from where you're getting this info, I suggest we get back on topic.

It's public knowledge. No secret.

Living in France doesn't decide your class. You're the one who seemed to assert (strangely) that it does.

What I said was if you're petty bourgeois in the U.S., and you run from the law to France, you're still petty bourgeois. Going into "exile" doesn't change your class.

You really don't seem to grasp what class actually is. It's now about "lifestyle," it's about one's relation to the means of production, and where that places one in society. Again, I suggest that you read some writings by Marx and Engels.


You don't come to be head of a communist party without being a proletarian.

:lol: Is that so? What law is this based on? Was Lenin proletarian? How about Jack Barnes? :lol:


And? You make it sound like he's stealing from the party. All he's doing is writing about the party line (which is not "dictated by him" but was drafted by the central comittee) in an interesting way. Don't pretend the FPM hasn't done that shit. I got constant countless emails about promoting The Free Press and the book by Ricardo with the cover with a starving person on it.

Done what shit? No one lives off the FPM. We live off of the wages we get from selling our labor. We're workers. You're compairing Bob living off of party funds and the sale of books (which are published, sold and promoted by RCP members) in France with .... a workers' organization urging supporters to sell our Publications? :lol:

Besides the other obvious differences, 100% of the sales of our publications go to.... our movement, not an invidual. Members of the FPM give to the movement, they don't take from it.


Alright fair enough, working class was mentioned, but not in depth like what the Revolution Newspaper does.

What?!? We talked about the working class and how it was the only force that could stop U.S. imperialism. We talked about the need for our fellow workers in the mines to unionize for their safety. We dedicated a full page to covering strikes and workers actions from around the world. "Revolution #78" which is now online at www.rwor.org contains one article that mentions even a working class action, the Smithfield struggles.. which is the first I've seen in a while..

We also have fractions in the Mining, Insulating, Driving, Healthcare and Retail industries, which publish their own publications. We are fellow workers, not people looking in from the outside... missionaries traveling to our cities when we strike to show us "Videos of an important talk of Bob Avakian."

Like I said, throwing around the world "proletariat" doesn't mean anything. Content and actual practice does.


Your paper also, is like a school newspaper, while Revolution actually is a finished product which explains what its talking about and goes in depth.

.. again, a clear and principled criticism. :lol:


The Free Press is like 4 pages total.

8. It was 8 in the issue you lied about earlier, and it's 8 now. The length has flucuated when we changed our publishing schedule, but it always equaled 8 pages every two months, until the later half of 2006, when it became 8 pages every month. I'm not sure how this matters though.

I guess a group with petty-bourgeois leadership and make up is more proletarian than a group of workers if it's paper has more pages? :huh:

We're workers, and we don't have a ton of money. We don't have judges for dads and petty bourgeois folks throwing us thousands of dollars. We still get the job done.


And the name was changed in order to appeal more to revolutionaries in general like students and people who follow identity politics.

In other words.. liberals and the petty bourgeoisie. The "middle" [class] that the RCP always talks about.. which needs to be "won over to the side of the proletariat," as if that was possible.. as if the working class was already "won over" simply by Bob's proclamation that the RCP was the proletarian vanguard in the U.S.


Also, the RCP used to have a magazine written by the central committee of the RCP called "Revolution" and the name change was part of a sort of merger.

Right..


Oh yeah and Free Press is great. Because when I think Free Press I think proletarian revolution, not bourgieos mouthpieces on television.

It's "The Free Press," and it's content speaks for itself. We certainly never dropped the word "worker" from anything. Supporting the RCP, you're hardly one to talk about "bourgeois mouthpieces." And then, there are our fractions, which publish publications like "Red Star Worker," "Retail Workers' Word," "Healthcare Workers' Ward," "Miners' Voice," and "Insulators' Voice."


the WCW doesn't support Democratics

So.. Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat, and supporter of the WCW campaign "doesn't support Democrat[s]"? Right..... :lol:

You're talking about a campaign whose unspoken goal is to put the Dems in power. People like Cynthia McKinney know this.. too bad you don't.


and has publicly critiscized them and were the first to march on the democratic controlled congress as well as got heat for shouting down democrat senator-elects in demand for an end to the war.

Oh no! Offended some possible liberal supporters did you! You better watch out, that probably won't help you in "the fight for the middle." :lol:


I haven't talked to one WCWer who supports the democrats

So what does that mean? What about people like McKinney, who are Democratic bourgeois politicians, and publicized on the WCW website?


and many are socialists. The point is we're reaching out to other groups as well as taking a militant approach. We're hardly liberal. Liberal is UFPJ is doing, not trying to physically "drive out" the bush regime.

Hardly liberal or hardcore liberal? The UFPJ is a liberal coalition, yes. But so is WCW. There's not a huge difference between impeaching Bush or voting him out..

And even still, the FPM participated in the WCW's earliest stages (when it first talked about opposing rightwing Christian's.. which it doesn't do at all anymore). We did this with the knowledge that at least a few workers looking for change would likely be drawn to demos by this campaign. We participated under the communist slogan "Drive out the Bush Regime... and the Capitalist Class He Represents." Unlike you and other sectarians, we don't instantly condemn any campaign or action called by another group; at the same time, we don't bend on our principles.


Yeah the coalition includes the FPM, the RY, the FPM, the Cuba Truth Project, and a bunch of individuals.

And.. the IRSM, union members, a union workers' group, a Latino Youth Group, an anti-war student/faculty group, and a union local.


All those type of organizations are active in the WCW.

No they're not, and even if they were.. it wouldn't change the WCW's characters. The Democratic party is supported by millons of workers. It's still a capitalist party.


Oaxaca Defense Committee (New York)
1877 Workers’ Party
Democratic Rights Defense Organization
Future of the Union
Irish Republican Socialist Movement

Those are the organizations that have endorsed it. Of those, the Cuba Truth Project, YSFC, and RY are the same group

No they're not. The Cuba Truth Project is a volunteer project of FPM and RY members, as well as some older folks who have a long history of organizing in the U.S. to defend Cuba.

The YSFC is it's own loose organization. As far as I know, there are some RY members in it, but most of it's members aren't affiliated to the RY.


The IRSM are not active in the country where the war machine is.

Yes they are. Do some research before spouting off.


So that's like 4 groups which aren't part of the FPM, individual people, or outside the US. Good luck with that. Yeah, you're really going to stop the war with a handfull of tiny groups.

Plus.. IWW Pittsburgh GMB, Bolivian Youth Club, Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice.. and the other groups which you lied about.

These are just the endorsers, which have signed on since this campaign was launched two months ago. There are thousands of others organizing for this. I know, because I helped mail out some (about 250) of the stickers and leaflet packets that went out a few weeks ago, and there were lots more being sent out by others (over 1,000 total). Each one of these individuals and organizations has the potential to reach many more people.

Future of the Union, for example, which is made up of UAW and IWW members, and has a website which thousands of workers view.

IRSM and the IWW Local that signed on are other examples.

Of course, this isn't going to work unless it picks up steam and thousands and thousands of working people come on board, and we're fighting for that. This action may also lead the way to future, and larger actions. The "Day Without An Immigrant" in early 2006 only brought out 2,000 people. Alot of people wrote it off as a failure. A few months later, there were millions of people in the streets, all across the country.

At least we're not writing off the workers and capitulating to the bourgeoisie.


To tell you the truth, if I was a worker who wasn't on this forum, I'd have no idea about the Shut Down the War Machine Project. Meanwhile I found out about the WCW by the countless actions, fliers, stickers, promotions, demostrations, and etc they hold on the streets.

Bullshit.

The union workers, union groups, and union local... the authors.. the musicians.. the youth and anti-war groups... etc. etc. don't post on this forum.

Sorry.

[Wanted Man]

I can't argue whether the RCP is actually a "cult", as I'm obviously all the way across the Atlantic, and have no idea what the rank-and-file is like. I can only go by what I read on the 'net.

With that said, the perception of the RCP as a cult didn't just come falling out of the sky. One thing that raises some eyebrows with me is the flowery language in which the man is described, as well as the frequency.

Example: http://rwor.org/a/001/avakian-need-to-know.htm

If You Want to Change the World
You Need to Know Bob Avakian

Not just "he's an interesting read if you want to change the world". No - you NEED to know Bob Avakian! Don't get me wrong, all movements have people who write theoretical works more extensively than others, but saying that you NEED to know one such person to change the world is a very... "bold" statement.

And since you NEED to know Avakian to change the world, naturally, his name is plastered all over the RCP's website. You can download a "toolkit" of him right away, hurrah! Right below that, there's a quote of the day, and on the left, he is proclaimed to be "our leader".

Might I suggest that this is utter bullshit? Sure, most credible parties have a chairman, a general secretary, or whatever you want to call it. However, proclaiming that person "OUR LEADER" is a different matter entirely. That is a very dangerous form of power concentration at the top. I know I would greatly prefer a party in which the chairman, the secretary, the #1 electoral candidate(if any) are all different people. Power concentration is a surefire way of undermining the party democracy. How is there any room for democratic centralism, when so much glory is concentrated on "OUR LEADER" at the top?

As for the stuff on the site, like the "Avakian Toolkit", it seems like a waste of space to present it that way. If the guy's works are good, just publish them like those of all your other theoreticians, who seem to be getting snowed under a bit(they are mentioned, sure). For a "toolkit", I wouldn't focus on just your chairman, but rather include some of the better introductions to communism, regardless of their authors.

Also, LOL at the claim that "our revolutionary vanguard is the RCP". Sounds to me like the kind of preachy "from-the-top" communism that would turn many proleterians off. You should work among the masses, rather than prematurely bestowing upon yourself the title of their "revolutionary vanguard".

[Honggweilo]

Just a little add to what the "The artist formerly known as WWSD :lol:" said;

Someone from the Socialist Road Alliance (70's split from the RCP) told me that in one district of New York actually spread pamflets that called for the recognizion of the workingclass for Avakain as their leader and the RCP as their vanguard :wacko:? How can you force a vanguard upon the people? The vanguard emerges from the democraticly elected, most militant elements of the workingclass and its workingclass sympatizers (petit-bourgeois class brakers, to avoid the previous discussion between CdL and Henry). Do the RCPists have any more info on that?

[KC]

It's a working class organization because it's made up of workers, run by workers, in the interest of the working class. Pretty simple.

No, it's not "made up of workers". As you've said later in this post, it's also made up of "allies of the working class" such as the peasantry and the lumpenproletariat. So you can't say it's "made up of workers". You can say it's currently "made up of workers" and that could change in the future, but saying that it's just "made up of workers" is wrong, as you yourself have shown. We can also say then that you can't say that it's "run by workers" for the very same reason, and we could then begin to question whether or not it actually does fight for the interests of the working class (or if it just does so now, if that).



The only other people allowed to join are allies of the working class (certain members of the lumpen in certain conditions, and small farmers), and they can do so only to support the fight for the working class to take power (which will benefit them too, which is why they are allies).

Ah, so membership is based on whether or not they'll "support the fight for the working class to take power" and not actually on whether or not you're a worker. Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

[Honggweilo]

No, it's not "made up of workers". As you've said later in this post, it's also made up of "allies of the working class" such as the peasantry and the lumpenproletariat. So you can't say it's "made up of workers". You can say it's currently "made up of workers" and that could change in the future, but saying that it's just "made up of workers" is wrong, as you yourself have shown. We can also say then that you can't say that it's "run by workers" for the very same reason, and we could then begin to question whether or not it actually does fight for the interests of the working class (or if it just does so now, if that).

Quite agree with Zampano here, good point.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

CdL,

a) let's stop debating Bob Avakian's class orgins and class status. You're making baseless claims, and have provided no source. While I don't know enough about him either. I'm going to take a look at his autobiography in a few days and I'll post about what jobs he's held from that book.

b) the RCP has a separate magazine and news service which is dedicated to reporting worker struggles around the wolrd: A World to Win. Also, the RCP reports on worker struggles every issue whether it be in Nepal or the homefront.

c) yes we are open to the broad left which is why we have hundreds of thousands on the streets on October 5th and November 2nd, while only a few individuals and a few groups have pledged to strike, not a nationwide strike in which people pour out into the streets which was what October 5th and November 2nd were. The RCP's involvement in these rallies has drawn many people to the party, yet I could count the people on the FPM listserve on my fingers.

The RCP is committed to overthrowing the system and replacing it with a socialist one, however this doesn't mean only workers should be allowed in the party. Intelligestia, students, and the like have been contributing factors to past socialist revolutions and the marxist ideology. The backbone of the party and the movement is proletariat however it is the masses as a whole that can and will create revolution and shatter the system, just as has its been in past revolutions.

This is the RCPs draft programme. It outlines what the party is about.
http://revcom.us/margorp/progtoc-e.htm

WWSD,

What is wrong with saying that the chairman is the highest leader of the party. Also, power is distributed among the central committee. The Central Comittee makes all important descisions. I have met two leaders of the RCP in person and they have active roles as well. One has a section of the website and the other regularly writes the frontpage articles of the Revolution Paper. Even if Bob Avakian is petty bourgieois as you baselessly claim, most leaders aren't. Carl Dix who is often said to be 2nd in command grew up in one of the toughest neighborhoods in country and served in jail after resisting the call to go to Vietnam.

[cenv]

Intelligestia, students, and the like have been contributing factors to past socialist revolutions and the marxist ideology.
And we see how all of those revolutions turned out...

Also, "students" aren't exactly a single class. Students from proletarian backgrounds are very different than petty-bourgeois or bourgeois students.


The Central Comittee makes all important descisions.
Is that supposed to be a good thing? :-/

Anyway, I can just see how all the C.C. meetings go...

Avakian: How about we ...?
C.C. Member #2: Yeah!
C.C. Member #3: I'm with Bob!
C.C. Member #4: Me too!
C.C. Member #5: Well, I dunno...
C.C. Member #6: No, Bob's ideas are always good!
...etc...


Even if Bob Avakian is petty bourgieois as you baselessly claim, most leaders aren't.
I don't think the assertion was baseless. Based on what you've said here, he seems to be a writer who certainly doesn't survive by selling his labor power to the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie.


and served in jail after resisting the call to go to Vietnam.

That doesn't make him proletarian. Although I'll trust your statement that he's proletarian, keep in mind that refusign to participate in the Vietnam War could just as easily be a product of petty-bourgeois morals as it could be related to being a class-conscious proletarian.

Ok, now I have a serious question about the RCP. What do RCP members do on a regular basis and how involved are they in the party? Do they just hand out literature written by the "leaders" and participate in the strikes and demonstrations scheduled by the "leaders", or do they take a more active role in the party? I'm genuinely curious because I don't know, so don't take this question as sarcasm.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

And we see how all of those revolutions turned out...

Also, "students" aren't exactly a single class. Students from proletarian backgrounds are very different than petty-bourgeois or bourgeois students.

The defeat of the workers revolutions weren't because they were mass-linked revolutions in which other classes were involved, they were defeated because class struggle doesn't end in socialism and the enemies of the proletariat still exsist, in fact, will fight harder to get back their slave plantations and factories.


Is that supposed to be a good thing? :-/

Anyway, I can just see how all the C.C. meetings go...

Avakian: How about we ...?
C.C. Member #2: Yeah!
C.C. Member #3: I'm with Bob!
C.C. Member #4: Me too!
C.C. Member #5: Well, I dunno...
C.C. Member #6: No, Bob's ideas are always good!
...etc...

wtf? How do you come up with that. Central Committees were and are how every respectable communist party makes its descisions. Its called democratic centralism; there is freedom of discussion, unity of action. The line on homosexuality for example had been debated for years before it became official.


I don't think the assertion was baseless. Based on what you've said here, he seems to be a writer who certainly doesn't survive by selling his labor power to the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie.

No but he has in his lifetime, and its not like he spends all day on a throne as CdL tries to make it look, rather, he is organizing the party, writing for the paper, working with other groups to set up demonstrations, contacting local chapters and co-ordinating. Being chairman of a party is a full time job, in anycase, selling books is selling your labor to the publishing company. Some of his books are published by RCP affiliates but others aren't.


That doesn't make him proletarian. Although I'll trust your statement that he's proletarian, keep in mind that refusign to participate in the Vietnam War could just as easily be a product of petty-bourgeois morals as it could be related to being a class-conscious proletarian.


point is, if he was petty bourgieous he definatly wouldn't be growing up where he was.


Ok, now I have a serious question about the RCP. What do RCP members do on a regular basis and how involved are they in the party?

depends. Some of the more active supporters and members meet everyday to co-ordinate, pass out leaflets, sell papers, write for the paper, organize demonstrations etc... For example I go to a meeting every week where we make plans of action for upcoming weeks, then usually at least one other time that week I'll conduct mass line by joining in on actions. The RCP is a party of action, not a Ultra-leftist party like the FPM. The RCP is at every action, and when its not, its organizing its own.

For example in January and December alone, the RCP helped organize a nationwide anti-war demonstration on January 4th in Washington as well as help organize a citywide rally for Sean Bell in Jamaica Queens here in New York. Not to mention the weekly actions and demonstrations that the RCP just participated in.


Do they just hand out literature written by the "leaders" and participate in the strikes and demonstrations scheduled by the "leaders", or do they take a more active role in the party?

depends what you mean. RCP members and supporters do organize themselves. The youth branch I run with is really non-hiarchial. Yes there are more experienced members, but everyone has the same voice when it comes to participation and disscussion. The RCP does adhere to democratic centralism, which is why RH and I don't call ourselves members, but it is not a dictatorial party, its a action party.

[combat]

Intra-stalinist fight??? :huh: What good does it bring to the working class? :ph34r:

[Rawthentic]

The RCP is a party of action, not a Ultra-leftist party like the FPM. The RCP is at every action, and when its not, its organizing its own.

Ah, Christ. What base do you have to say that the FPM is an ultra-leftist party? I'm not a follower or supporter of the FPM but the shit that you come up with is ridiculous. The RCP acts on what Avakian says. He's the fucking leader, he's got the whole cult thing going.

This thread has obviously showed the petit-bourgeois nature of the RCP. In it's "fight for the middle", it ignores the proletariat for an insignificant majority. While I myself question the class nature of the FPM, its nowhere near the outright petit-bourgeois nature of the RCP.

Your claims are all baseless. Open your mind. Your activism or life doesn't end after we make you realize what the RCP really is.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:55 am
Intra-stalinist fight??? :huh: What good does it bring to the working class? :ph34r:
Its called progres through discussion

[black magick hustla]

The FPM ultra-left, ha!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:02 am

The RCP is a party of action, not a Ultra-leftist party like the FPM. The RCP is at every action, and when its not, its organizing its own.

Ah, Christ. What base do you have to say that the FPM is an ultra-leftist party? I'm not a follower or supporter of the FPM but the shit that you come up with is ridiculous. The RCP acts on what Avakian says. He's the fucking leader, he's got the whole cult thing going.

This thread has obviously showed the petit-bourgeois nature of the RCP. In it's "fight for the middle", it ignores the proletariat for an insignificant majority. While I myself question the class nature of the FPM, its nowhere near the outright petit-bourgeois nature of the RCP.

Your claims are all baseless. Open your mind. Your activism or life doesn't end after we make you realize what the RCP really is.
:lol: what the fuck are you talking about? Yes we have strong leadership, and that's the reason why we're perhaps the largest communist party that adheres to a true communist line.

You are directly contradicting what CdL said and its quite funny. CdL claims that Bob Avakian is busy doing nothing in France while you claim he's organizing workers, both are made to be critiscisms, nonetheless, it shows the ignorance about the party that floats around in this forum.

How the fuck is the RCP petit-bourgeois? All members are students, workers, or unemployed revolutionaries with a class conscious background. We are a alliance of anti-imperialists and communists. The proletariat is the base of the revolution and without the proletariat, there is no revolution. That's why we are one of the few groups that takes demonstartions and the mass line to proletarian neighborhoods where protests hardly go. However we recognize that other anti-imperialists and communists have had and can have a role in revolutions.

[Rawthentic]

laugh.gif
what the fuck are you talking about? Yes we have strong leadership, and that's the reason why we're perhaps the largest communist party that adheres to a true communist line.

You are directly contradicting what CdL said and its quite funny. CdL claims that Bob Avakian is busy doing nothing in France while you claim he's organizing workers, both are made to be critiscisms, nonetheless, it shows the ignorance about the party that floats around in this forum.

How the fuck is the RCP petit-bourgeois? All members are students, workers, or unemployed revolutionaries with a class conscious background. We are a alliance of anti-imperialists and communists. The proletariat is the base of the revolution and without the proletariat, there is no revolution. That's why we are one of the few groups that takes demonstartions and the mass line to proletarian neighborhoods where protests hardly go. However we recognize that other anti-imperialists and communists have had and can have a role in revolutions.

You are the largest communist party because you've been around for so goddam long! Organizations like the Communist League and FPM have been around for about 3 or 4 years and have international members as well as, well the League at least, a strictly proletarian-only program. You are also so large because you don't discriminate against class backgrounds. Avakian comes to mind here.

I wouldn't call fighting to win over the oppressive petty-bourgeoisie or attempting to win over the "national" bourgeoisie a "true communist line" because....its simply not.

And where the fuck did I claim that the RCP was organizing workers? Now thats an absurd notion, because its not. And don't try to pit me against others because everything CdL has said about St.Avakian and his Church I agree on.

[bezdomni]

RCP has very few members. They have very many supporters.

There is a difference.

They have many supporters because of their presence in proletarian areas and their political line.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Hasta,

you said that the party acts on what Avakian says. The party is one of the most politically active in the United States, the RCP provided extensive support & coverage of the Smithfield strike and was a major organizer of the Febuary 15th anti-war strikes.

why wouldn't you call fighting to win over the capitalists a true communist line. Like SovietPants says, there are few members. Just about every member however, is proletariat. Avakian is not petty bourgieous. He worked "small" jobs before becoming chairman and now is a writer and organizes a communist party which is hardly petty bourgieous. As for supporters, it's way to fucking narrow to just take the FPM line. Class Outlook is what brings socialism, and there was more than just proletarian in past revolutions. Why? Because revolutionary intellegistia and students played active parts and can play active parts in the revolution of today.

[KC]

STUDENTS AREN'T A CLASS OF PEOPLE

Get that through your thick skull yet?

[Rawthentic]

why wouldn't you call fighting to win over the capitalists a true communist line
Because they are the oppressors. Why focus on such an insignificant minority when you don't even have the proletariat under your wing? It shows your class nature.


He worked "small" jobs before becoming chairman and now is a writer and organizes a communist party which is hardly petty bourgieous.
Doesn't make him proletarian either.


As for supporters, it's way to fucking narrow to just take the FPM line
Maybe. What do you mean here?

[cenv]

He worked "small" jobs before becoming chairman and now is a writer and organizes a communist party which is hardly petty bourgieous.
Err... being a self-employed author and someone that "organizes" a political party as a profession doesn't make him petty-bourgeois? What does it make him?

[KC]

Err... being a self-employed author and someone that "organizes" a political party as a profession doesn't make him petty-bourgeois? What does it make him?

I think he figures that because this work is towards the communist movement. He's basically putting ideology over material conditions, which is basically like saying that no matter what class you're from you can have just as much influence in the proletarian movement. It's basically bullshit.