A Small Criticism

[Rawthentic]

I have been reading a lot of works by Avakian and the RCP works and all, and what I have seriously noticed is the petty-bourgeois rhetoric of "the masses", instead of saying working class. This ties into their class collaborationism that I have noticed, especially their "fight for the middle" and "unite all who can be united." They do this and justify it by saying that the proletariat would be at the helm of the struggle, but if the working class is the key to communism, and you have a non-proletarian leader who insists on uniting middle class suburban kids, does this does defeat the purpose as well as working class self-liberation?

This is not a sectarian cheap shot, I want discussion on this please.

[Demogorgon]

Well I think the RCP are a joke, but come on, what is the problem with referring to "the masses"?

When you talk about the Proletariat you sound dry and technical. It is a phrase for discussing political philosophy. "The masses" is a good phrase for rallying people. Don't read to much into it.

[Rawthentic]

Well, I think its called class struggle, and "the masses" term has been proven throughout history to be either populism or petty-bourgeois socialism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:55 am
Well, I think its called class struggle, and "the masses" term has been proven throughout history to be either populism or petty-bourgeois socialism.
Well call it class struggle if you like. To be honest you could call it Steve for all it bothered me :lol: As long as it is class struggle and as long as it is about liberating the working class and building a classless society, I really don't mind what it is called. Referring to the masses is a good rhetorical technigue. A bit ironic coming from the RCP with all the support from the masses they get, but we'll leave that aside for now.

[More Fire for the People]

I think 'masses' rhetoric is okay when talking about those who have nothing to lose and a world to win, the dispossessed, but I think Avaikan and the RCP group uses the ambiguity of the term to 'win over the middle'. As communists we recognize that there are is multitude of a dehumanized groups — the working class [obviously], the lumpenproletariat, and landless peasants — with an interest in such a grand humanist project as communism. However, we also recognize that the working class — as laborers — have a central role to play in this restructuring of the world because the restructuring is what laborers do.

[rouchambeau]

Not only is it a vague term, but it also takes the place of recognizing any division that exists within society based on class. I mean, who isn't part of "the masses".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The same that aren't a part of "the people." :)

[Rawthentic]

Exactly, those are the contradictions that I was speaking of. Thanks HA, rouchambeau, and CdL.

This is the abandonment of the materialist conception on behalf of the RCP and Avakian, and their class collaborationism that y'all pointed out proves this.

[The Grey Blur]

The RCP aren't "class collaborators"...they don't have any class to make collaborate. I agree with your small critiscism though of their use of such a vague term, it happens here as well were semi-socialist oportunist religious sectarians refer constanstly to "our people" ("our people" are oppressed, "our people" are neglected, etc) rather than "the working-class".

[Whitten]

Phrases such as "the masses" and "the people" have a place in some maoist literature due to the hybrid-class nature of their revolutions. Maoists view that the proletariat are not the only progressive class, and that other classes can be sided with in the fight against the current order. Ofcourse, historicly the maoist class alliance has focused on building capitalism and democracy more than specificly on socialism, so when you try to apply it to a developed capitalist society such as the USA there are bound to be contradictions.

[LSD]

I'm certainly no fan of Maoism or the RCP, but I think you're reading way too much into this.

Because whatever your particular political persuasion might be, I bet I could find a speaker in it who uses the word "people" or "masses" or some variety thereof

Sometimes it's because they're speaking to a wider audience, sometimes it's because they don't want to alienate those working-class people don't view themselves as working class (and there are more of those than you think), and sometimes -- maybe most of the time -- it's nothing more than a rhetorical choice.

If you've already used the words workers, working class, working class people, etc... 20 times in your last paragraph, you're going to want to use something else in your next

And it's not like the RCP doesn't use the term working class.

Besides there's a certain romanticism that words like "masses" have that words like "workers" doesn't. It evokes an emotion of glory and revolution in a way that "working people" just can't.

If you want to criticize the RCP line or the Maoist movement in general, fine. I think there's a lot to be criticized. But this kind of petty nitpicking is the worst kind of sectarianism, the kind that's empty of content.

I don't care if you don't use the word worker once in your speeches, if your politics are good, they're good. Now I don't happen to think that Avakian's are, but it sure ain't because I don't like his choice of wording!

[cenv]

I've got to agree with LSD. Many workers have yet to develop class-consciousness and identify much more with "the masses" than "the workers". You can't dismiss an organization as "petty-bourgeois" simply because of a word choice. However, I agree with you on their concept of the "fight for the middle". That they should even discuss winning over the petty-bourgeoisie while the vast majority of the working class remains indifferent to revolution shows the class nature of their organization, especially when you combine that with the fact that their "chairman" is not even proletarian.


Not only is it a vague term, but it also takes the place of recognizing any division that exists within society based on class. I mean, who isn't part of "the masses".
This would be true if the RCP repeatedly failed to acknowledge class struggle, but they don't. After looking at their site for about 20 seconds, I've found repeated references to class struggle and proletarian revolution. I'm as avid a critic of the RCP as you are, but I think getting upset over the way they phrase things is really silly.

[Rawthentic]

Well , I didn't really want to make it seems sectarian, so forgive me.

I also did not intend for too much discussion on word choice, I just wanted to hear people's reactions.

[Red Heretic]

So let me ask you, hastalavictoria, if you can take a moment away from your economist (revisionist) rant, do you think that when people like say.... the Bolsheviks and say... the Chinese Communist Party used that term, were they "petty bourgeois class collaborators?"

The fact of the matter here is the many other classes and sections of other classes will be united under the leadership of the proletariat when the actual siezure of power happens. Furthermore, if you don't win over certain sections of other classes to follow the leadership of the proletariat, you will lose those whole thing!

For example, it would be impossible to build a socialist country if the entire petit-bourgeoisie fled the country the day after the revolution. There would be no doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. etc. Increasingly, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, these other sections of society become less depended upon as the proletariat takes up these endeavors more fully, but you cannot build a socialist country if you do not transform certain sections of society under the leadership of the proletariat.

And finally, uniting all forces that can be united is not "class collaborationism." Certain sections of society are actually oppressed by imperialism, etc. and these other classes can be united under the leadership of the proletariat. This was the method through which the Chinese Communist Party was able to lead all forces that could be united against Japanese imperialism, and eventually lead the proletarian siezure of power in China.

[Rawthentic]

Economist revisionism ey? Ok, I all I advocate is working class self-liberation, which I believe is fundamental to worker's control.

And, how is does the RCP advocate this when their leader is not even proletarian? Or how about the "fight for the middle" as if the RCP already had the proletariat under their wing?

Working class self-organization is necessary, I also don't deny that members of other classes will be drawn to the proletarian movement, but allowing them into their actual organizations or as leaders is big problem in my opinion.

[Rawthentic]

Would you mind replying, RedHeretic. All I want is a good discussion on the RCP.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:45 am
Economist revisionism ey? Ok, I all I advocate is working class self-liberation, which I believe is fundamental to worker's control.


Ok comrade. In responding to this, firstly, I think we need to go back to Lenin's extremely important quote on economism from What is to be Done?. Lenin said:

"Working class consciousness cannot be genuine political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence, and abuse, no matter what class is affected—unless they are trained, moreover, to respond from a communist point of view and no other. The consciousness of the working class cannot be genuine class consciousness unless the workers learn, from concrete, and above all from topical political facts and events to observe every other social class in all the manifestations of its intellectual, ethical and political life; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata, and groups of the population. Those who concentrate the attention, observation, and consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even mainly, upon itself alone are not communists; for the self-knowledge of the working class is indissolubly bound up, not solely with a fully clear theoretical understanding—it would be even truer to say, not so much with the theoretical, as with the practical understanding—of the relationships between all the various classes of modern society, acquired through the experience of political life. For this reason the conception of economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into the political movement, which our Economists preach, is so extremely harmful and reactionary in its practical significance."

Comrade, you are doing what is called "reifying the proletariat." It is a form of economism. Communists are not fighting "for the workers" or for a "worker's republic." Communists are fighting for the emancipation of all humanity, the ending of all forms of oppression and exploitation, and the proletariat is the first (and the only) class in history which can be the emancipator of humanity. The proletariat is only special in the context that it can end all forms of oppression and inequality.


And, how is does the RCP advocate this when their leader is not even proletarian?

You are totally ignoring what is principle here. All throughout history, leaders become concentrations of particular class contradictions, and are shaped by those contradictions. Marx, Lenin, and Mao all came from relatively privileged class backgrounds, but became concentrations of the class contradictions swirling around them. Their outlook and leadership was that of the proletariat.


Or how about the "fight for the middle" as if the RCP already had the proletariat under their wing?

I think you are misinterpreting what Avakian is bringing forward. the "fight for the middle" is not the principle or main thing the RCP is doing. The main thing the RCP does is organize the proletariat. However, the "fight for the middle" has to be a secondary aspect of things, or you will lose the whole thing all together, and will never be able to make revolution.


Working class self-organization is necessary, I also don't deny that members of other classes will be drawn to the proletarian movement, but allowing them into their actual organizations or as leaders is big problem in my opinion.

What this boils down to is liberal identity politics. The principle thing is class outlook, not class background. Like Mao said, "line is decisive."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

RH, what does being "united under the leadership of the proletariat" entail? All rhetoric aside, what does that mean in practice? Does that mean the leaders of the struggle should be proletarians, or can anyone with the "proletarian outlook" lead? How can you have a "proletarian outlook" without being a proletarian?

And why will we "loose the whole thing" in a place like the U.S. if we don't "win over certain sections of other classes"? Does the proletariat not have the economic power to bury capitalism in the imperialist countries? Does it not make up the large majority of the population? Which sections, and of what classes, do we need to "win over" and why?

Why do you continue to misuse the term "liberal identity politics" after the correct meaning of that term has already been pointed out to you several times? How do you get a class outlook? Do you just pick one and put it on like a t-shirt off the rack? Can anyone from any class chose to have the "class outlook" of another class on a whim? Where do ideas come from? Was Marx wrong when he said that being determines conciousness?

[sexyguy]

Why are some of you so bothered who develops the best revolutionary theory?
What difference does it make that Marx was a (journalist) Engle,(capitalist) Lenin,(lawyer) Stalin,(trainee priest ) Moa,(librarian) Castro,(lawyer) Robert Mugabe,(teacher)Che,(medical student/ doctor?) General Giap(teacher) Ho Chi Minh, (teacher and galley slave) Jo Slovo (lawyer)Bhagat Singh, (student) George Jackson, (prisoner) Malcolm X,(worker/thief) ALL that matters is their useful contributions to the revolutionary struggle. If any of you nit-picking idealist economist ‘horny-handed-sons-of-toil’ can come up with anything better or anything even vaguely approaching the contribution of these people, let’s have it!

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 06, 2007 06:49 pm
RH, what does being "united under the leadership of the proletariat" entail? All rhetoric aside, what does that mean in practice? Does that mean the leaders of the struggle should be proletarians, or can anyone with the "proletarian outlook" lead? How can you have a "proletarian outlook" without being a proletarian?



RH, what does being "united under the leadership of the proletariat" entail? All rhetoric aside, what does that mean in practice?

It means that the proletariat unites with all forces that can be united under its leadership.

For example, in China, the proletariat united all forces that could be united with under against Japanese imperialism, while at the same time, the vanguard party of the proletariat played the leading role in that unity. This unity included the peasantry, the national-bourgeoisie (the section of the bourgeoisie that is oppressed by imperialism), sections of the petty-bourgeoisie like artists, intellectuals, etc.


How can you have a "proletarian outlook" without being a proletarian?

A persons class outlook is shaped by many different factors. In Avakian's case, his class outlook was transformed from that of a petty-bourgeois white youth, to the proletarian outlook of a revolutionary communist. His outlook was shaped by his unity with the Black Panther Party, and all of the other contradictions that were swirling around him throughout the 60's.


And why will we "loose the whole thing" in a place like the U.S. if we don't "win over certain sections of other classes"? Does the proletariat not have the economic power to bury capitalism in the imperialist countries? Does it not make up the large majority of the population? Which sections, and of what classes, do we need to "win over" and why?


I already answered this. Refer to my earlier post.

But, in short, if you did not win over any doctors, engineers, scientists, artists, or intellectuals during the course of the seizure of power, your whole economy would get thrown out of whack and it would become impossible to function.

The Bolsheviks ran into this contradiction to a certain degree when they had to give reactionaries leading positions in the Party to make those certain aspects of the economy function. These reactionary fought hard for capitalist restoration, and Stalin later had to purge many of them, and two years after Stalin died, that capitalist restoration line won out with Khruschev's coup d'etat and ascension to power. You can see where this is going.

Immediatly after the seizure of power, these sphere are still going to be in the hands of a very small group of people. For example, the day after the revolution, factory workers won't know how to conduct brain surgery. Increasingly, the masses will be put in charge of these sphere and will become masters of all of society, but it takes a transitionary period to do that, and if you don't win over sections of the petty-bourgeoisie to the leadership of the proletariat, we will not be able to hold onto socialism.


Why do you continue to misuse the term "liberal identity politics" after the correct meaning of that term has already been pointed out to you several times?

Because I'm not the one misusing it, or the one putting forward liberal identity politics. (or asking condescending questions for that matter).


How do you get a class outlook? Do you just pick one and put it on like a t-shirt off the rack? Can anyone from any class chose to have the "class outlook" of another class on a whim? Where do ideas come from? Was Marx wrong when he said that being determines conciousness?

No, you are distorting my line. One does not "pick up their class outlook off of a rack," their outlook is shaped by the contradictions around them, and practice. For example, my class outlook has changed drastically in the short period that I have been going out and doing work among the proletariat. I can't even imagine the extent to which Avakian's class outlook was transformed by him growing up around people like Huey Newton and the BPP and the other sharp experiences that he had in his life.

This goes both ways too. There are proletarians who have the class outlook of their oppressors as well. For example, there are Black people who attack immigrants for taking their jobs, Black people with the Bill Cosby line of blaming Black people for their own oppression, immigrants who attack Black people for "not getting jobs" etc. etc. etc.

Line is decisive!

[Red Heretic]

An old Maoist joke about revisionists and identity politics comes to mind:

"At the beginning of the Sino-Soviet split, Khrushchev traveled to China to meet with Mao and Zhou Enlai to try to prevent the loss of control of the Chinese economy. At a certain point, Khruschev became furious and said to Zhou Enlai, 'The difference between you and me is that I rose to power from a working class family, whereas you came
from the privileged Mandarin class!'

Zhou laughed and replied, 'Well, I guess we're both traitors to our classes, now aren't we?'"

[Rawthentic]

RH, I am not an economist, I just believe that the vanguard of the working class should be the conscious members of the working class.

Class issues are "identity politics". Well, that's one for the books! Thank you for illustrating the inherent petty-bourgeois character of your political current. That rumbling sound you hear is the very foundation of your doctrine crumbling under the weight of its own insoluable contradictions. (It could also be the sound of Marx rolling over in his grave.) My point is that Marx took class questions seriously, and your comrade calling them "identity politics" is classical petty-bourgeois socialist garbage.

And then I quote Miles for truth:

Marx spent most of his entire political life arguing against petty-bourgeois socialists for doing exactly what you are doing here. You declare class policy absurd (such can be the only understanding one takes away from your one-sentence missive) and attempt to justify this rejection of communism -- i.e., proletarian class policy -- by hiding behind the class backgrounds of Marx (a mistake), Lenin and Mao (more understandable). Marx's views on class are very clear; he understood them well enough to attempt, as best as possible, to remove himself from his old class relations and draw as closely to the proletariat -- i.e., attempt to integrate himself into the proletariat -- as possible. The fact that he never used his PhD for anything other than access to libraries and museums, in order to write political documents and books, and preferred to work for a wage writing and translating articles for London newspapers (when such work was available) demonstrates this.

(As for Lenin and Mao, you are right. Neither of them fully broke with their old class relations -- although Lenin tried much more than Mao. And that failure showed through when, again, it came to class policy.)

And...

As to this point in particular, reformism is a bourgeois line, not a petty-bourgeois one. A petty-bourgeois line would be erasing the class line in favor of an abstract "people" fighting for an abstract "socialism" or "revolution". Further, a petty-bourgeois line would be a concentration -- strategic or tactical -- on recruiting "the middle" (i.e., the petty bourgeoisie) to your organization. Finally, a petty-bourgeois line would be replicating class-based divisions of labor within your organization, such as the uplifting of a "Moses" to "lead the flock" to the "New Jerusalem" -- thus turning one's back on the communist view that "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves".

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:59 pm
RH, I am not an economist, I just believe that the vanguard of the working class should be the conscious members of the working class.
So in other words: "I'm not an economist, I'm just an economist."


Class issues are "identity politics". Well, that's one for the books! Thank you for illustrating the inherent petty-bourgeois character of your political current. That rumbling sound you hear is the very foundation of your doctrine crumbling under the weight of its own insoluable contradictions. (It could also be the sound of Marx rolling over in his grave.) My point is that Marx took class questions seriously, and your comrade calling them "identity politics" is classical petty-bourgeois socialist garbage.

There's nothing new at all about this revisionist line. All you can do is dance around my points (and Lenin's points) with obnoxious innuendos and slogans that you borrowed from other posters.

You didn't make a single fucking point!

Reality never gets debated in the CL, and the workers are the new Jesus! Wonderful.

[Rawthentic]

So in other words: "I'm not an economist, I'm just an economist.
So, to be a communist, the vanguard leaders must be non-proletarians? Now, your real side comes out.


There's nothing new at all about this revisionist line
Stop talking bullshit. Stalinist slogans are not needed.


Reality never gets debated in the CL, and the workers are the new Jesus!
I suppose you have never read our Basic Principles or engaged into any of our talks. All you can do is pull out lies and crap like this. We agitate amongst the workers to imbue a communist consciousness, and train them in this. We do not put all efforts into elevating a single leader.

[Rawthentic]

A petty-bourgeois line would be erasing the class line in favor of an abstract "people" fighting for an abstract "socialism" or "revolution". Further, a petty-bourgeois line would be a concentration -- strategic or tactical -- on recruiting "the middle" (i.e., the petty bourgeoisie) to your organization. Finally, a petty-bourgeois line would be replicating class-based divisions of labor within your organization, such as the uplifting of a "Moses" to "lead the flock" to the "New Jerusalem" -- thus turning one's back on the communist view that "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves".
Bolded to emphasize Marxism. You didn't respond to this.

[KC]

While this debate is getting pretty heated, I don't really want to get involved but I did want to jump in and clarify something that you've touched on, Red Heretic:


Reality never gets debated in the CL, and the workers are the new Jesus! Wonderful.

I would just like to discuss the relation between the League and members of other classes. It is true that the League restricts membership to members of the proletariat, but we do work closely with many petty-bourgeois communists in our political work and welcome them as allies when they present themselves as such.

While we recognize that the emancipation of the working class must be done by the working class itself, we also realize that there are many members of other classes that will support us in our struggle and help us towards our goal of a classless, stateless society and will welcome their support and hard work in aiding us towards that goal.

[Rawthentic]

Exactly. But we do not make recruiting petty-bourgeois to our organization as our main strategy. We look towards the working class.

Engels pointed out two conditions in which the proletariat could ally with the petty-bourgeoisie:

1. In a time of revolutionary struggle
2. In a country where the petty-bourgeois had made it political mark.

None of these satisfy the US, and Avakian clearly contradicts this. But its not alot for him though. He's never starved, wondered where his next meal will come from, live in a ghetto, have immigrant parents, organize a strike as a worker. I am lucky that my parents have worked so hard to enjoy what we do now. This is my background, not his. For all the crap about his being next to the Panthers, he's like what Huey referred to for the white revolutionaries tailing alongside the BPP: "useless idiots."

[Red Heretic]

So in other words: "I'm not an economist, I'm just an economist.
So, to be a communist, the vanguard leaders must be non-proletarians? Now, your real side comes out.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:





There's nothing new at all about this revisionist line
Stop talking bullshit. Stalinist slogans are not needed.

LOL. :lol:



thus turning one's back on the communist view that "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves".

Bolded to emphasize Marxism. You didn't respond to this.

Glad you raised that, because it's an important point. Communists are not the "saviors" or the proletariat, they do not "liberate the proletariat," they are not happy liberal do-gooders, they are not super-heroes. Communists lead the proletariat to liberate itself and all of humanity.

You're absolutely right that the liberation of the proletariat cannot come from any other class than the proletariat. However, this has nothing to do with the class background of communist leaders.

Is what matters the identity of a leader, or is it their actual line and programme for revolution (if they have one at all)?

You are mish-mashing two different questions, and misinterpreting Marx's point.

[Rawthentic]

Glad you raised that, because it's an important point. Communists are not the "saviors" or the proletariat, they do not "liberate the proletariat," they are not happy liberal do-gooders, they are not super-heroes. Communists lead the proletariat to liberate itself and all of humanity.

You're absolutely right that the liberation of the proletariat cannot come from any other class than the proletariat. However, this has nothing to do with the class background of communist leaders.

Is what matters the identity of a leader, or is it their actual line and programme for revolution (if they have one at all)?

You are mish-mashing two different questions, and misinterpreting Marx's point.
No I am not. Avakian, the avowed leader of the proletariat, is not proletarian and has never been. I never said that we are the saviors of the proletariat, we help our fellow workers reach a communist consciousness and become leaders themselves of the proletarian movement, we dont put all efforts to elevate any one person.

And how about responding to this?:


Exactly. But we do not make recruiting petty-bourgeois to our organization as our main strategy. We look towards the working class.

Engels pointed out two conditions in which the proletariat could ally with the petty-bourgeoisie:

1. In a time of revolutionary struggle
2. In a country where the petty-bourgeois had made it political mark.


None of these satisfy the US, and Avakian clearly contradicts this. But its not alot for him though. He's never starved, wondered where his next meal will come from, live in a ghetto, have immigrant parents, organize a strike as a worker. I am lucky that my parents have worked so hard to enjoy what we do now. This is my background, not his. For all the crap about his being next to the Panthers, he's like what Huey referred to for the white revolutionaries tailing alongside the BPP: "useless idiots."

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:37 pm
No I am not. Avakian, the avowed leader of the proletariat, is not proletarian and has never been. I never said that we are the saviors of the proletariat, we help our fellow workers reach a communist consciousness and become leaders themselves of the proletarian movement, we dont put all efforts to elevate any one person.


Once again, line is decisive. What matters is not petty-bourgeois liberal identity politics, what matters is line! Is Bob Avakian correct, or is he incorrect?

It's like saying "Well! Lenin might have the correct programme to get us out of the World War and to make proletarian revolution, but did you hear he has a middle class background? Let's tell the proletariat to not follow what Lenin says even though he's correct!"

Fuck liberalism!


And how about responding to this?:


Exactly. But we do not make recruiting petty-bourgeois to our organization as our main strategy. We look towards the working class.

Engels pointed out two conditions in which the proletariat could ally with the petty-bourgeoisie:

1. In a time of revolutionary struggle
2. In a country where the petty-bourgeois had made it political mark.


None of these satisfy the US, and Avakian clearly contradicts this. But its not alot for him though. He's never starved, wondered where his next meal will come from, live in a ghetto, have immigrant parents, organize a strike as a worker. I am lucky that my parents have worked so hard to enjoy what we do now. This is my background, not his. For all the crap about his being next to the Panthers, he's like what Huey referred to for the white revolutionaries tailing alongside the BPP: "useless idiots."

There you go HVL, if you can't win an ideological struggle, just make up a ideological position for you opposition that isn't even their position, and then argue against that!

The RCP isn't, and never has, argued that the "main strategy" of a vanguard party is to "fight for the middle." Stop lying! What they ARE saying is that that has to be one secondary aspect of our work throughout to whole process of the revolution.

The overwhelming majority of the work I have done as a supporter of the RCP has been with the proletariat.

[Rawthentic]

Then tell Avakian that his Draft Programme is lying; I've read it and all you see that really stands out is this "fight for the middle", and this makes one wonder what they are really for and about.

Lenin lived in a time where changes classes was relatively easy, and he was separated from class antagonisms. In the US for example, that is not possible, and that sense there are clear class lines that are drawn. We live in the US 2007 comrade. The fact of the matter is that Avakian never suffered the repression that the Panthers did, or any other sorts of oppression facing working people. In my work that I have done as a proletarian alongside my fellow proletarians, I see that they have the power and ability to become leaders themselves, and we work to make sure that they do. If Marxist materialism is correct, then it holds true that to hold a proletarian "line", to hold a working-class outlook, one must be working-class. Avakian and his RCP fulfill the role of some "Messiah" that can lead us to the "Promised Land", like how people believe in Jesus to lead them to Heaven. A nice quote from Debs, and something we emphasize in the League:


I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition.

And for all the talk about liberalism, take a look at the WCW, the Democrat infested anti-Bush campaign that seeks to take down Bush, but has no political platform for after that. When people ask, "What about when Bush falls? What then?" What I usually have seen is "Revolution." Well no shit, but how. The RCP has no political platform for this, has no strategy. Talk about economism ey? This WCW also highlights the RCP's petty-bourgeois character, and the facts speak for themselves.

P.S. Comrade, the important thing is that you are involved in the proletarian struggle, I cannot deny that. But what I have presented here is objective, and you can make whatever you want on the them. For me, as a working class person, it is a near offense to think that so much power and efforts are put into one leader, while we have our class brothers and sisters who are so capable. The CL for me is something that I am so dedicated to expanding promoting because it fulfills me as a working class person to enable myself as a leader and help other class comrades become them as well.

[KC]

Lenin lived in a time where changes classes was relatively easy, and he was separated from class antagonisms. In the US for example, that is not possible, and that sense there are clear class lines that are drawn. We live in the US 2007 comrade. The fact of the matter is that Avakian never suffered the repression that the Panthers did, or any other sorts of oppression facing working people.

One doesn't have to be proletarian to be a communist.

[cenv]

I've read it and all you see that really stands out is this "fight for the middle", and this makes one wonder what they are really for and about.

I'm no RCPer, but this is false. The section about winning over the petty-bourgeoisie is a very small portion of Avakian's Draft Programme. If there's a general theme behind the document, it's the way Avakian repeatedly insists that the vanguard party "lead" the proletariat.

I think it's reasonable to devote a minor section to articulating the need to attempt to maintain an alliance with some of the progressive elements of the petty-bourgeoisie. For instance, you should be aware that while we do not grant petty-bourgeois comrades "official" membership status in the League, we have had some work closely with us in the past, and we recognize the necessity of not being excessively hostile towards the petty-bourgeoisie. Working with the petty-bourgeoisie does not automatically make an organization non-proletarian as long as the proletariat remains the overwhelming emphasis, although when the "chairman" of the organization is petty-bourgeois, well, that's a different story... If the main point of the Draft Programme was to advocate the role of the petty-bourgeoisie in the revolution, then your criticism would be valid, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Of course, one thing I've noticed is that the RCP tends to utilize a rather un-Marxist definition of the petty-bourgeoisie. For instance, Avakian's Draft Programme defines teachers and nurses as petty-bourgeois. This only serves to confuse things more.


Once again, line is decisive. What matters is not petty-bourgeois liberal identity politics, what matters is line!
Well, if just because someone talks the talk doesn't mean they walk the walk...

Bob Avakian, as a member of the petty-bourgeoisie, will not have the same real-life perspective on working-class struggle as a member of the proletariat. He will not approach things in the same way because he is not exploited by capitalism in the same manner. For Chairman Bob, class struggle is more of a profession than an act of self-emancipation.

Moving on... one thing that struck me while looking through the RCP's Draft Programme was the repeated references to the "vanguard leading the proletariat" to revolution, in revolution, and in a socialist society. This is a somewhat vague phrase. Could an RCPer elaborate on what, practically speaking, constitutes "leading the proletariat"?

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, anyone can agree with communism and Marxism, but for it to be something that is in their real, material interests, this falls on the proletariat, as well as other oppressed sectors.


I'm no RCPer, but this is false. The section about winning over the petty-bourgeoisie is a very small portion of Avakian's Draft Programme. If there's a general theme behind the document, it's the way Avakian repeatedly insists that the vanguard party "lead" the proletariat.
Granted. But we in the League do not go looking for the petty-bourgeois, we focus on the working class. I am for forming a League support group for non-proletarian elements, as long as League membership is for workers. But yeah, I do see where you come from. You might also take a look on a previous post on Engels and the petty-bourgeois.

[Entrails Konfetti]

The RCP is pretty unpopular in these parts, slagging off another organization is a good way to introduce people to another organization. RCP is a great target! :lol:

[Red Heretic]

First things first. This is going to be my last post because I am trying to study for finals. I am really sick and tired of your dishonesty HVL, but I feel the need to address some of these lies for the comrades who don't know otherwise.


Then tell Avakian that his Draft Programme is lying; I've read it and all you see that really stands out is this "fight for the middle", and this makes one wonder what they are really for and about.

First off, the Draft Programme is a work written collectively by the RCP, not Avakian (but it does draw heavily on theories that Avakian has developed).

The fact of the matter is that you are LYING. People should look at the RCP's Draft Programme and see for themselves. The section about transforming the middle strata doesn't even constitute a single chapter of the Draft Programme (it's a small subsection of a chapter).

The Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party (http://revcom.us/margorp/progtoc-e.htm)

The chapter which includes the subsection on the petty-bourgeoisie (http://revcom.us/margorp/a-uf2.htm)




Lenin lived in a time where changes classes was relatively easy, and he was separated from class antagonisms. In the US for example, that is not possible, and that sense there are clear class lines that are drawn. We live in the US 2007 comrade. The fact of the matter is that Avakian never suffered the repression that the Panthers did, or any other sorts of oppression facing working people. In my work that I have done as a proletarian alongside my fellow proletarians, I see that they have the power and ability to become leaders themselves, and we work to make sure that they do. If Marxist materialism is correct, then it holds true that to hold a proletarian "line", to hold a working-class outlook, one must be working-class. Avakian and his RCP fulfill the role of some "Messiah" that can lead us to the "Promised Land", like how people believe in Jesus to lead them to Heaven. A nice quote from Debs, and something we emphasize in the League:

Again, you've spouting the same dogmatic economism. "The truth is only true if a proletarian says it."

Line is decisive!


And for all the talk about liberalism, take a look at the WCW, the Democrat infested anti-Bush campaign that seeks to take down Bush, but has no political platform for after that. When people ask, "What about when Bush falls? What then?" What I usually have seen is "Revolution." Well no shit, but how. The RCP has no political platform for this, has no strategy.

More lies! The RCP is distributing an entire pamphlet by Avakian on how WCW is a part of repolarizing things toward a civil war against fascism (which would create an opening for the proletariat to make revolution). Check it out for yourselves:

The Coming Civil War and Repolarization for Revolution in the Common Era (http://www.revolutionbooks.org/product-p/comingcivilwar.htm)


P.S. Comrade, the important thing is that you are involved in the proletarian struggle, I cannot deny that. But what I have presented here is objective, and you can make whatever you want on the them.

Except that isn't objective! It's not true! And spreading false information about the RCP only plays into the hands of the enemy!

[Entrails Konfetti]

The fact of the matter is that you are LYING.
:o :o :o :o :o


Line is decisive!
Line also shows where is where, and what is what. Remember two points make a line. And when you overlook a point, you are dangerously close in overlooking the line and stepping OVER IT!!!


More lies!
LIGHTING, THUNDER, HURRICANE, BRIMSTONE AND FIRE!


spreading false information about the RCP only plays into the hands of the enemy!
The enemies hands are treacherous, they are plagued with blisters, warts, finger nail fungus--their hands are GREEN!
Their hands are so treacherous that when they tap you on the back, their brittle nails pierce your skin, and shards of finger nail imbed into your flesh, and follow you where ever you go!!!

BEWARE OF THE HANDS OF FATE!

[Rawthentic]

Ok, I have the courage to admit that I exaggerated on the Draft Programme, so forgive me. But generally, my points are the same:


Again, you've spouting the same dogmatic economism. "The truth is only true if a proletarian says it."
Talk about lying huh? Thats not at all what I fucking said, stop being a liar. Even a capitalist can talk the truth about the capitalist system, but only a working class person can hold a working class outlook. Theres no point in debating that. You only shout out "economism!" because you have not many better things to say. Economism is the belief that all struggles should be reduced to economic demands, not political one, so I suggest you read our Basic Principles (http://www.communistleague.org/principles.html) and stop lying. Does the League fit this category? Certainly not. Our existence was predicated on the understanding that the class struggle is a political struggle, and that intervention into the current political crisis is our chief task. In case you're wondering, RH, that's why the League hasn't participated in your organization's "World Can't Wait" actions. We formulated our Platform of Action specifically to present an alternative to the politically bankrupt plans put forward by the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois currents. Our work in this regard has been well documented in our publications since our founding. Did I say that I want to exclude all petty-bourgeois? Never. I am actually for creating a non-proletarian support group alongside the League, as long as we maintain the proletarian-only membership within the CL.


More lies! The RCP is distributing an entire pamphlet by Avakian on how WCW is a part of repolarizing things toward a civil war against fascism (which would create an opening for the proletariat to make revolution).

More lies! This is some more of the "fight for the middle", the petty-bourgeois orientation of the RCP. I already pointed out the conditions in which the proletariat could ally with the petty-bourgeoisie. A real anti-war campaign would be at least mainly focusing on those who have the power to end the war, working people.

[Rawthentic]

In fact, I will post here a part of our Basic Principles so that people can see what we are about and what I am about, just to dispel lies about my "economism" and dogmatism against the petty-bourgeoisie. And look how it differs from the RCP, who has a petty-bourgeois leader and orientation:



Inevitably, in the course of the class struggle, individuals from the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will present themselves to the proletariat and offer to assist. When such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois prejudices, privileges and ways of functioning, and that they irreversibly assimilate into the proletariat. Sometimes, in spite of their best efforts, these people cannot assimilate themselves into the proletariat and cannot break from their prejudices and privileges. In a political party of the working class, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds that necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence or place in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time.

Thank you all.

[Martin Blank]

As much as I think that HLV is doing a good job here, I might as well jump in and give a few thoughts.


Originally posted by Red Heretic+May 06, 2007 12:27 pm--> (Red Heretic @ May 06, 2007 12:27 pm)"Working class consciousness cannot be genuine political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence, and abuse, no matter what class is affected—unless they are trained, moreover, to respond from a communist point of view and no other. The consciousness of the working class cannot be genuine class consciousness unless the workers learn, from concrete, and above all from topical political facts and events to observe every other social class in all the manifestations of its intellectual, ethical and political life; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata, and groups of the population. Those who concentrate the attention, observation, and consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even mainly, upon itself alone are not communists; for the self-knowledge of the working class is indissolubly bound up, not solely with a fully clear theoretical understanding—it would be even truer to say, not so much with the theoretical, as with the practical understanding—of the relationships between all the various classes of modern society, acquired through the experience of political life. For this reason the conception of economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into the political movement, which our Economists preach, is so extremely harmful and reactionary in its practical significance."[/b]

This passage is important, both for what it says and, for our purposes, what it doesn't say. Let's start with the first sentence: "Working class consciousness cannot be genuine political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence, and abuse, no matter what class is affected — unless they are trained, moreover, to respond from a communist point of view and no other." This is quite true and, for the League, has been an important part of our understanding from the beginning. Remember, the League was formed in the wake of what I would call the second Bush coup in 2004 -- a coup that (again, in my opinion) sealed the doomed fate of American bourgeois democracy. We formulated a Platform of Action that was oriented toward revolutionary-democratic action in the political arena and began our organizing to that end. We even went so far as to participate in the work of the World Can't Wait campaign because of our understanding of this position.

Moreover, we approached this from the perspective outlined in the second sentence: "The consciousness of the working class cannot be genuine class consciousness unless the workers learn, from concrete, and above all from topical political facts and events, to observe every other social class in all the manifestations of its intellectual, ethical and political life; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata, and groups of the population." We in the League seek to learn what moves and motivates each class to take the actions they do -- what moves them forward or backward (or laterally), causes them to unify or divide, and makes them act in the manner they do. But we do so with the understanding that this is something that workers must learn in order for our class to undertake its responsibilities. We observe and learn about all other classes -- their history and development, their transformations and amalgamations -- in order for our class to be able to fulfill its mission. Where we differ from the RCP and other left organizations is that we believe we don't need non-proletarian elements to teach us these things; we believe that we, as a class, can learn these things ourselves -- that we are smart and savvy enough to "get it".

This is why we agree with Lenin's criticism in his third sentence: "Those who concentrate the attention, observation, and consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even mainly, upon itself alone are not communists; for the self-knowledge of the working class is indissolubly bound up, not solely with a fully clear theoretical understanding — it would be even truer to say, not so much with the theoretical, as with the practical understanding — of the relationships between all the various classes of modern society, acquired through the experience of political life." Yes, it is necessary to not limit our understanding to the internal machinations of our own class. This is why we participate in antiwar demonstrations, democratic-rights protests and similar actions. This is why we have members that keep tabs on liberal-democratic and radical-democratic movements and organizations, attend their meetings and events, engage with their members, etc. This is why we make a point to interact with elements from other classes -- which, incidentally, includes interacting with left organizations like yours on occasion. But we do all this from the material and political standpoint of the proletariat -- our class.

This is also why we agree with the last sentence in this passage from Lenin: "For this reason the conception of economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into the political movement, which our Economists preach, is so extremely harmful and reactionary in its practical significance." The class struggle is a political struggle. It is in the political arena that all classes vie for power and control in society, and it is therefore necessary that communists actively engage this political struggle on political terms. We have our Platform of Action, our Basic Principles and our understanding of where we are going.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 06, 2007 12:27 pm
Comrade, you are doing what is called "reifying the proletariat." It is a form of economism. Communists are not fighting "for the workers" or for a "worker's republic." Communists are fighting for the emancipation of all humanity, the ending of all forms of oppression and exploitation, and the proletariat is the first (and the only) class in history which can be the emancipator of humanity. The proletariat is only special in the context that it can end all forms of oppression and inequality.

This is classical petty-bourgeois socialism. Class? What class?! This is about the classless "humanity" and "ending all forms of exploitation", because, after all, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are exploited and oppressed too. Those poor, oppressed bourgeois! Someone has to save them!

Behind all the accusations of economism, behind the marginalization of the historic role of the proletariat, behind the denigration of class politics as "identity politics" is the cold, dead hand of what Marx and Engels called "True Socialism". The RCP's line is nothing new. In fact, Marx and Engels dealt with it in the Communist Manifesto:


Originally posted by Communist [email protected] Chapter III
"It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote 'Alienation of Humanity', and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois state they wrote 'Dethronement of the Category of the General', and so forth.

The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms, they dubbed 'Philosophy of Action', 'True Socialism', 'German Science of Socialism', 'Philosophical Foundation of Socialism', and so on.

The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome 'French one-sidedness' and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy....

While this 'True' Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things."

Our own modern-day "True" Maoists of the RCP do similarly. Under the Russian criticism of economism they write "liberal identity politics". Under the Russian revolutionary-democratic platform they write "struggle for the center". In a stroke, all "one-sidedness" of communism is cast aside ... and, along with it, the understanding of communism as a political trend that expresses the class struggle. They might use the words of "class struggle" and "proletarian revolution" on websites or in tepid documents, but the reality is the negation of that "one-sidedness" -- not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of "the people" and "the masses", who belong to no class, have no reality ... other than that given to them by the leading lights of the RCP.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 06, 2007 12:27 pm
You are totally ignoring what is principle here. All throughout history, leaders become concentrations of particular class contradictions, and are shaped by those contradictions. Marx, Lenin, and Mao all came from relatively privileged class backgrounds, but became concentrations of the class contradictions swirling around them. Their outlook and leadership was that of the proletariat.

Marx and even Lenin became a concentration of elements of those contradictions, but only after they decisively broke with their social being (i.e., their class backgrounds) and sought consciously to turn to the proletariat. Marx was more successful at this than Lenin; this is due as much to when they did so as it is to what they did.

The development of capitalism in its early, ascendant stage required the mass reorganization of the petty bourgeoisie, which meant that members of that class were to be thrown down into the working class in large numbers -- even in whole sections, such as clerks and secretaries. However, with the growth of large-scale industry and the world market, the need for an intermediary between owner and producer -- between bourgeois and proletarian -- reasserted itself. The petty bourgeoisie was best suited to this role, but had to be transformed and "perfected" to fit into the system of social relations that existed. Marx and Engels recognized this in their famous passage from the Manifesto:


Originally posted by Communist [email protected] Chapter III
"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, maneuvering between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen."

Who are the "overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen" Marx and Engels write about? They are managers, professionals and consultants (overlookers); they are police, guards and similar armed agents of the state (bailiffs); they are bureaucrats, officials, functionaries, politicians and similar types (shopmen). In other words, they are the vast majority of the modern petty bourgeoisie. The individual producer, artisan or craftsman is, for the most part, a thing of the past -- or a fleeting reality for those who try (and fail) to transcend classes.

This is a consequence of the transition from capitalism from its ascendant to its declining stage: imperialism. The bourgeoisie needed these legions of petty bourgeois to handle the daily administration of society, especially as the proletariat grew to numbers that could easily overwhelm the ruling classes of the world. Thus, a deal was made: In exchange for their loyalty, the petty bourgeoisie would be given a broad hand in the management and shaping of society. The deal would be sweetened over the years, with the bourgeoisie accepting agreements that bolstered the position of the petty bourgeoisie within society. In times of relative social peace and an ebbed class struggle, this arrangement commonly expressed itself through bourgeois democracy. In times of sharpened class struggle, this arrangement was thrown into crisis and resolved many times with the turning toward fascism.

But the transformation of the petty bourgeoisie into a stable and crystallized class within the social relations structure capitalism needs was the annihilation of the "grey areas" that surrounded class relations, even in ascendant capitalist society. In other words, the ability to "de-class" one's self and be able to stand apart from one's previous class relations was eliminated in the epoch of imperialism. From this point on, one must either remain in their previous class relations or completely break from them.

This is what is missed by the "True" leftists that dominate the spectrum today. Their theory and understanding of class relations is a century old and they have steadfastly refused to analyze the development of classes and their relationships on their own. This is understandable, given the composition of these organizations. Put simply, it is not in the interests of the self-appointed "leaders of the proletariat" to expose their own social and historical being, how it is fundamentally different from those they emulate from a century ago, and how their role today is truly that of a falsifier.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 06, 2007 12:27 pm
I think you are misinterpreting what Avakian is bringing forward. the "fight for the middle" is not the principle or main thing the RCP is doing. The main thing the RCP does is organize the proletariat. However, the "fight for the middle" has to be a secondary aspect of things, or you will lose the whole thing all together, and will never be able to make revolution.

It may not be the principle, but it is "the strategic orientation" of the RCP in its work to build "The United Front Under the Leadership of the Proletariat", which is seen as a question of principle. Moreover, it is the only concrete strategy really spoken about apart from building the RCP, its local organizations and its publications. This is reinforced when talking about "The Basis for the United Front".


Red [email protected] 06, 2007 12:27 pm
What this boils down to is liberal identity politics. The principle thing is class outlook, not class background. Like Mao said, "line is decisive."

Social being determines consciousness. That is, to have proletarian class consciousness, one must have the social being of a proletarian. This is the materialist method of looking at the world. One cannot have a proletarian class outlook if their social being is not proletarian. In the past, when it was possible to "de-class" and touch on the social being of the proletariat, without actually integrating one's self into that class, one could divine that consciousness and extrapolate that into a relatively coherent class outlook. However, with the reorganization of class relations in the epoch of imperialism, this understanding has become more crystallized and its application narrowed.

This is the point we make when talking about non-proletarian elements that seek to present themselves as "leaders of the proletariat", like Avakian (but certainly not limited to him -- there are definitely worse ones out there, such as the WSWS's David North, who, under his real name, is the CEO of a large printing company in the metropolitan Detroit area, Grand River Publishing).

"Line is decisive". This is true, for as far as it goes. We would argue that the only way for the line to be correct is for its class basis to be rooted in material conditions -- in the material social relations and social being that determines consciousness. This is why we reject the "condescending saviors" that come to the proletariat and proclaim themselves as the leaders of our class.

You may call that "liberal identity politics", but that is little more than an expression of exactly how divorced from proletarian class politics you actually are.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

It might also be important here to include a few passages from Marx and Engels that are generally ignored by the "True" leftists we find in the world. The first is from Engels, written to August Bebel in 1875, about the Lassalleans.


"To begin with, they adopt the high-sounding but historically false Lassallean dictum: in relation to the working class all other classes are only one reactionary mass. This proposition is true only in certain exceptional instances, for example in the case of a revolution by the proletariat, e.g. the Commune, or in a country in which not only has the bourgeoisie constructed state and society after its own image but the democratic petty bourgeoisie, in its wake, has already carried that reconstruction to its logical conclusion."

In 1875, these were seen as exceptions to the situation. However, today, the second of these two instances is commonplace. In short, the second instance is what we know of as the democratic form of capitalist rule. Marx outlined what it meant for the petty bourgeoisie to carry the "construction" of "state and society ... to its logical conclusion" as far back as 1850.


"The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to a change in social conditions which will make the existing society as tolerable and comfortable for themselves as possible. They therefore demand above all else a reduction in government spending through a restriction of the bureaucracy and the transference of the major tax burden into the large landowners and bourgeoisie. They further demand the removal of the pressure exerted by big capital on small capital through the establishment of public credit institutions and the passing of laws against usury, whereby it would be possible for themselves and the peasants to receive advances on favourable terms from the state instead of from capitalists; also, the introduction of bourgeois property relationships on land through the complete abolition of feudalism. In order to achieve all this they require a democratic form of government, either constitutional or republican, which would give them and their peasant allies the majority; they also require a democratic system of local government to give them direct control over municipal property and over a series of political offices at present in the hands of the bureaucrats.

The rule of capital and its rapid accumulation is to be further counteracted, partly by a curtailment of the right of inheritance, and partly by the transference of as much employment as possible to the state. As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable. The demands of petty-bourgeois democracy summarized here are not expressed by all sections of it at once, and in their totality they are the explicit goal of only a very few of its followers. The further particular individuals or fractions of the petty bourgeoisie advance, the more of these demands they will explicitly adopt, and the few who recognize their own programme in what has been mentioned above might well believe they have put forward the maximum that can be demanded from the revolution."

In part or in whole, we see these demands prevalent in every advanced capitalist country today, including the United States (not even all of the corporatist transformations enacted by the Bush regime and its enablers have eliminated these programs). By extension, we also see these demands, in part or in whole, prevalent in most capitalist countries seen as part of the so-called "Third World". Only in exceptional circumstances do we see none of these present.

It should also be pointed out that the role of the petty bourgeoisie in these "Third World" countries of the Global South has been fundamentally altered by their class brothers and sisters in the Great Power centers, due in no small part to the growth of globalized capitalist production over the last two decades.

Another important passage from Marx and Engels comes from their circular letter to the leadership of the German Social-Democratic Workers' Party in 1879. This letter was meant to push the leaders of the SDWP to wage a fight against the growing influence of the petty bourgeoisie in the party.

I am going to quote more than what I normally do when posting from this letter, mainly because I think there is much there that outlines the differences between communists and petty-bourgeois socialists. So, for those of you with the attention span of a gnat on speed, I apologize in advance. ;)


"In the opinion of these gentlemen, then, the Social-Democratic Party should not be a one-sided workers' Party but an all-sided Party of 'everyone imbued with a true love of humanity.'... Then, too, 'numerous adherents from the circles of the educated and propertied classes will make their appearance. But these must first be won if the ... agitation conducted is to attain tangible successes.'

"... Socialism has 'attached too much importance to the winning of the masses and in so doing has neglected energetic (!) propaganda among the so-called upper strata of society.'... It is, however, 'desirable and necessary to entrust the mandate to men who have the time and opportunity to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the relevant materials. The simple worker and small self-employed man ... has the necessary leisure for this only in rare and exceptional cases.'...

"In short: the working class of itself is incapable of its own emancipation. For this purpose it must place itself under the leadership of 'educated and propertied' bourgeois [and petty bourgeois -- HJM] who alone possess the 'time and opportunity' to acquaint themselves with what is good for the workers....

"In order to relieve the bourgeoisie [and petty bourgeoisie] of the last trace of anxiety it must be clearly and convincingly proved to them that the Red bogey is really only a bogey, and does not exist. But what is the secret of the Red bogey if it is not the bourgeoisie's dread of the inevitable life-and-death struggle between it and the proletariat? Dread of the inevitable decision of the modern class struggle? Do away with the class struggle and the bourgeoisie and 'all independent people' will 'not be afraid to go hand in hand with the proletariat.' And the ones to be cheated will be precisely the proletariat.

"The Social-Democratic Party is not to be a workers' party, is not to burden itself with the hatred of the bourgeoisie or of anyone else; should above all conduct energetic propaganda among the bourgeoisie [and petty bourgeoisie]; instead of laying stress on far-reaching aims which frighten the bourgeoisie and are not, after all, attainable in our generation, it should rather devote its whole strength and energy to those small petty-bourgeois patching-up reforms which by providing the old order of society with new props may perhaps transform the ultimate catastrophe into a gradual, piecemeal and, so far as is possible, peaceful process of dissolution....

"As to their socialist content this has been adequately criticized already in the [Communist] Manifesto, chapter III, "German or 'True' Socialism." When the class struggle is pushed on one side as a disagreeable 'crude' phenomenon, nothing remains as a basis for socialism but 'true love of humanity' and empty phraseology about 'justice.'

"It is an inevitable phenomenon, rooted in the course of development, that people from what have hitherto been the ruling classes should also join the militant proletariat and contribute cultural elements to it. We clearly stated this in the [Communist] Manifesto. But here there are two points to be noted:

First, in order to be of use to the proletarian movement these people must also bring real cultural elements to it. But with the great majority of the ... bourgeois converts that is not the case. Neither ... have contributed anything which could advance the movement one step further. Here there is an absolute lack of real cultural material, whether concrete or theoretical. In its place we get attempts to bring superficially adopted socialist ideas into harmony with the most varied theoretical standpoints which these gentlemen have brought with them from the university or elsewhere, and of which ... each is more confused than the last.... Hence there are about as many points of view among these gentry as there are heads; instead of producing clarity in a single case they have only produced desperate confusion -- fortunately almost exclusively among themselves. Cultural elements whose first principle is to teach what they have not learnt can be very well dispensed with by the Party.

Secondly. If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [a point covered in my previous posting in this thread -- HJM]. But these gentlemen, as has been proved, are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas.... if these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. The time, moreover, seems to have come....

As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one path open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and in particular the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is therefore impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement. When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois. If the new Party organ adopts a line corresponding to the views of these gentlemen, and is bourgeois and not proletarian, then nothing remains for us, much though we should regret it, but publicly to declare our opposition to it and to dissolve the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad. But it is to be hoped that things will not come to that."

Comrades are welcome to draw their own conclusions about these passages. We have drawn ours.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 07, 2007 10:31 pm
More lies! The RCP is distributing an entire pamphlet by Avakian on how WCW is a part of repolarizing things toward a civil war against fascism (which would create an opening for the proletariat to make revolution). Check it out for yourselves:

The Coming Civil War and Repolarization for Revolution in the Common Era (http://www.revolutionbooks.org/product-p/comingcivilwar.htm)
I've read that pamphlet and, to be honest, I don't see anything that is practical about this series of musings and ramblings by Avakian. Most of what we find in there can be found in the writings of other organizations, including ours; the rest is flummery. There is certainly nothing unique or original about what's in there. The difference is that we are explicit about "what will replace it" ("it" being the current capitalist system) and how to get there. We prefer to leave coy and cagey formulations to others.

Miles

[Rawthentic]

Looks like this has been taken care of. Thanks Miles.

[sexyguy]

Miles

Just for the record, can you show us where in your ‘public’ declarations you call for the DEFEAT of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:22 am
Miles

Just for the record, can you show us where in your ‘public’ declarations you call for the DEFEAT of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks
Sigh! Didn't we already cover this?

Here are examples of where we stated it in just the last few months.

http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/tw/tw20070127.pdf
http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/tw/tw20070210.pdf
http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/tw/tw20070224.pdf
http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/tw/tw20070407.pdf

http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/wpa/wpa200703.pdf

http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/lib/lib200703.pdf

And here is the relevant passage from our Basic Principles:


Communists oppose all wars but those that advance the struggle for liberation and the abolition of classes. Always and at all times, communists are for the defeat of the bourgeoisie in times of war. Such a defeat, even when it is a defeat for both sides, is a “lesser evil” when compared to the alternative. As part of this, communists always point out the connection between war abroad and attacks on proletarians at home, and point out that the only way to end both of these horrific phenomena is to transform the movement against war into a movement for liberation and the abolition of classes.

Miles

[sexyguy]

Thanks for that comprehensive answer. Let‘s just start with your proposition that the war, or this war, can be ended.


“We believe it is time for new tactics and a new strategy to bring this bloody war and occupation to an end. “

“We working people are in a position to bring this war
to an end tomorrow. “

“If workers across the U.S. chose to stop working until
the war ended, it would be only a matter of days, if not
hours, before the first soldiers were on the planes heading
home. “

“Bringing an end to the war can only happen if we also
succeed at overturning the repressive measures adopted as
part of it.”
Much of this comment in your publications, while appearing to be correct academically, falls headlong into the reformist ‘Stop the War’ trap diverting workers attention away from the permanent and worsening economic crisis nature of capitalism that is at the root of all the warmongering. It isn’t going to “stop” or “end” even with your fantasy occupation of the ‘Capitol’ or Parliament, is it?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Much of this comment in your publications, while appearing to be correct academically, falls headlong into the reformist ‘Stop the War’ trap diverting workers attention away from the permanent and worsening economic crisis nature of capitalism that is at the root of all the warmongering. It isn’t going to “stop” or “end” even with your fantasy occupation of the ‘Capitol’ or Parliament, is it?

But surely, comrade, if they could force an end to the current imperialist war effort, it would weaken the system?

[sexyguy]

But surely, comrade, if they could force an end to the current imperialist war effort, it would weaken the system?

You are spot on comrade. If they could force a real “end“, and all power to them for trying in whatever way, it would defiantly “weaken” the system to the point of smashing it completely!

However the immediate objective is not to "weaken" them, applying only
reformist strategies. It is to have the working class understand the need to DEFEAT!!! them.

As the communists in the US and all over the world should understand, “weakening them” in any way is not only good, it is always excellent and all power to them for that, whoever they are!
But agitating ,calling organising, arguing for DEFEAT!!! is much, much better!!! Try it!

Note to comrades in the United States of America

If the USA itself adopted the route that only a workers state could henceforth even begin trying to solve society's needs, then surely the endless speculative perplexities of how the WORLD socialist revolution would finally come about and look, - -would at last take on some realistic dimensions.

Once the American working class and petty bourgeoisie themselves conclude that they have far more to lose from continuing to back US imperialist warmongering in its efforts to colonially-police the world, - and far more to gain by ending this degenerate, final monopolisation catastrophe of the capitalist imperialist system, -- then it is hard to envisage any other nations in the modern world coming to any different conclusions.

Conditions and traditions for socialism and revolution in the USA are the least problem of all. The revolutionary civil war to end the feudal-slavery aspect of anti-Black discrimination is still a "good" precedent in general culture, and still only 140 years ago, when the parents were alive of some people who are still alive today.

The American Revolution itself, to end foreign domination, is still a powerful cultural tradition, only 220 years old, and aspects of it can still be heard echoed throughout modern US society.

The huge ethnic working-class minorities, still vastly discriminated against, - could almost make a socialist revolution on their own. And the workers movement in general developed powerful communist traditions and ferocious trade-union struggles from the beginning.

On top of all that, the anti-war movement over Vietnam was almost unprecedented in its style, scope, and achievements, - registering a quite remarkable objectivity about that war's stupidity in spite of the humiliating pain of failure for the US.

The philistinism and ignorance of the American political scene remain sickeningly high, but the potential for quite dramatic transformations should not be underestimated.

The capitalist ‘overproduction’ crisis and the degenerate war mongering culture are going to do most of the revolutionary educating.

[Rawthentic]

Uglyguy, I can tell you didn't read them.

Are you like some Orthodox Dogmatic Leninist or something?

You're weird.

[sexyguy]

Uglyguy, I can tell you didn't read them.

Are you like some Orthodox Dogmatic Leninist or something?

You're weird.

OK comrade stay cool and hold fast the opposites. It’s not the end of the world for your political development or your chosen guru or sect, yet.

You are a good debater. Now concentrate on the issue and put your skills to better work..

[Rawthentic]

Sect? Laughable.

If you read what we write, you wouldnt respond with such idiocy.

This is the form our Basic Principles:

Communists oppose all wars but those that advance the struggle for liberation and the abolition of classes. Always and at all times, communists are for the defeat of the bourgeoisie in times of war. Such a defeat, even when it is a defeat for both sides, is a “lesser evil” when compared to the alternative. As part of this, communists always point out the connection between war abroad and attacks on proletarians at home, and point out that the only way to end both of these horrific phenomena is to transform the movement against war into a movement for liberation and the abolition of classes.

[sexyguy]

Sect? Laughable.

If you read what we write, you wouldnt respond with such idiocy.
Trust me, your more experienced comrades are doing a bit more head scathing than you.

[Rawthentic]

Thats not an adequate response to the Basic Principles paragraph I provided...

[sexyguy]

As I said


Much of this comment in your publications, while appearing to be correct academically, falls headlong into the reformist ‘Stop the War’ trap diverting workers attention away from the permanent and worsening economic crisis nature of capitalism that is at the root of all the warmongering. It isn’t going to “stop” or “end” even with your fantasy occupation of the ‘Capitol’ or Parliament, is it?

Your “Basic Principles” say:


Communists oppose all wars but those that advance the struggle for liberation and the abolition of classes. Always and at all times, communists are for the defeat of the bourgeoisie in times of war. Such a defeat, even when it is a defeat for both sides, is a “lesser evil” when compared to the alternative. As part of this, communists always point out the connection between war abroad and attacks on proletarians at home, and point out that the only way to end both of these horrific phenomena is to transform the movement against war into a movement for liberation and the abolition of classes.
I am saying that you will not be able to “transform the movement against war into a movement for liberation and the abolition of classes.” by telling workers that they can “stop” the war or “end” the war with one more ‘big push’ protest in the ‘Capitol’. Your very worthy “Basic Principles”, the ones you are hoisting up the flag pole for all to applaud, have in practice turned into this:


“Perhaps the sight of tens of thousands of people occupying the Capitol and calling for an end to the war will give the ruling class something to think about. “
Great, lets have one of these demonstrations every day to “give the ruling class something to think about.” But what the working class needs “ to think about.” now, is the DEFEAT of imperialism , because the warmongering isn’t going to “end”, by giving “the ruling class something to think about. “ is it?

Your ‘strategy’ or whatever you call it, is the bog standard reformist approach of pushing the movement “left” with only a nod and a wink in the direction of revolution like this:

“The demand for immediate, unconditional withdrawal
from Iraq and Afghanistan, and an end to the phony “war
on terror,” would help to create a clear political alternative
to those who favor maintaining these wars of aggression,
either by the U.S. and its cartel directly or under the flag of
the united Nations.”
A “clear political alternative” at some unspecified time with one more ENORMOUS GIGANTIC demo in the “Capitol“? When what is required is for communists to combat (be in opposition to) the prevailing reformist ‘protest’ consciousness itself, which you quite correctly recognise is being spread throughout the working class by the capitalists agents.

Why do you not see the obvious difference between your reformist “immediate, unconditional withdrawal “, of troops and the revolutionary DEFEAT of the warmongers?

Examine the difference between your "Basic Principles" pritty prayer flag and the strained nodding and winking at revolution in you popular press coverage and you will see that I have not only read "them" I have read them correctly.

[Rawthentic]

I am saying that you will not be able to “transform the movement against war into a movement for liberation and the abolition of classes.” by telling workers that they can “stop” the war or “end” the war with one more ‘big push’ protest in the ‘Capitol’
We were not part of any "Stop the War" campaign or whatever "front" was presented.


Great, lets have one of these demonstrations every day to “give the ruling class something to think about.” But what the working class needs “ to think about.” now, is the DEFEAT of imperialism , because the warmongering isn’t going to “end”, by giving “the ruling class something to think about. “ is it?
Well, simply protesting and holding signs isn't going to do much now is it?

But if we stormed the Capitol and began to make our own laws...

And we always emphasize that working people are the only ones that can end it, and we are all working people.


A “clear political alternative” at some unspecified time with one more ENORMOUS GIGANTIC demo in the “Capitol“? When what is required is for communists to combat (be in opposition to) the prevailing reformist ‘protest’ consciousness itself, which you quite correctly recognise is being spread throughout the working class by the capitalists agents.
You've got it all wrong. What we are trying to do is set the stage to end protests as simply protests, and expand them to attack the capitalists system. One cannot do this out of thin air. What do you think the political alternative is? Working class revolution. With the end of the war, it helps the working class have greater space and ability to organize.


Examine the difference between your "Basic Principles" pritty prayer flag and the strained nodding and winking at revolution in you popular press coverage and you will see that I have not only read "them" I have read them correctly.
And understood them totally wrong.

[sexyguy]

“But if we stormed the Capitol and began to make our own laws...”Ye, What? Say it! Just like your press you are nodding and winking at revolution again. Go on spit it out and the get your press to do the same because this is what your press is saying at the moment.

“We believe it is time for new tactics and a new strategy to bring this bloody war and occupation to an end. “ In other words ‘End the War’ ! instead of Stop the War!


“We working people are in a position to bring this war
to an end tomorrow. “ In other words ‘End the War’ !instead of Stop the War!


“If workers across the U.S. chose to stop working until
the war ended, it would be only a matter of days, if not
hours, before the first soldiers were on the planes heading
home. “ In other words ‘End the War’ !instead of Stop the War!


“Bringing an end to the war can only happen if we also
succeed at overturning the repressive measures adopted as
part of it.” In other words ‘End the War’ !instead of Stop the War!

The above is all from your press! And you are desperately trying to distance yourself from the ‘Stop the War’ reformism when you are doing exactly the same thing!



“What we are trying to do is set the stage to end protests as simply protests, and expand them to attack the capitalists system.” “set the stage”, unless you haven't noticed capitalist economic crisis has already “set the stage” for a non-stop theatre of war ! You are just the clowns.

[sexyguy]

And we always emphasize that working people are the only ones that can end it, and we are all working people.
Thank you. Exactly what I have been saying about your ‘position’ all along.

You are telling worker that they "can end it” without the revolutionary DEFEAT of imperialism, it is a complete pacifist reformist stunt. To suggest, in whatever way, however smoke screened with “radical” sounding blather, that “working people” “can end it” in any other way is an opportunist concession to the cringing middle class single issue anti-war protest movement which sets-out to blunt working class revolutionary consciousness.

And this is where your cranky ‘policy’ about a ‘workers only’ revolutionary party falls apart IN PRACTICE, because no matter how ‘proletarian’ you sectarianly claim to be, you can not guarantee the development of correct revolutionary theory as your ’End the War’ reformism clearly shows.

We can’t DEFEAT imperialism by just saying it, but we won’t DEFEAT imperialism without saying it!

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:12 pm
We can’t DEFEAT imperialism by just saying it, but we won’t DEFEAT imperialism without saying it!
What should we be doing to defeat imperialism, then?

[sexyguy]

StartToday,

What should we be doing to defeat imperialism, then?
The short answer is:
We should be “doing” what we are “doing” here and now - working, debating, arguing and struggling, to DEVELOP CORRECT REVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

[Rawthentic]

Dude, sexyguy, chill. I've said before that your positions and all are very weird and even outdated. Not that revolution or communism is, but you seem to want to be Lenin.

I can respond to your diatribe, but I feel like I'm wasting my time.

[sexyguy]

StartToday,
A longer answer is:
The entire ‘left’ is trying opportunistically to out-do each other advocating different (if similar) “tactics” and “strategies” about what we should be “doing” to defeat imperialism. But the one problem the world does not have is any shortage of massively clever inventive humans driven by necessity poised to invent smart “tactics” and “strategies” to take revolutionary advantage of imperialism’s economic and military crises. But conscious (self conscious) deliberate struggle for deeper understanding of everything is lacking and is regarded by ‘left’ fashion as a non-essential by-product of “action”.

Example: The Soviet Union did not get undermined for want of dedicated people ready to “act“ in defence of the proletarian revolution, it got mislead by crap theory. Ditto lots of other battles.

There is no claim here to any ’special insight’ on this, I am saying that we need to stop the daft isolationist sectarian one-upmanship about “action” so beloved by the ’lefts’ and anarchists. The planet needs even more and better revolutionary theory which is again becoming a decisive revolutionary material force for the DEFEAT of insane imperialist war mongering “shock and awe“ backwardness. Telling workers that they can “end the war” by organising BIGGER demonstrations in the ‘Capital’ is crap theory. Better “action” will come from better conscious revolutionary “theory” to DEFEAT imperialism.

However, if anyone wants the answers on a plate without having the difficult theoretical struggle , go smoke a pipe.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:45 am
Working class self-organization is necessary, I also don't deny that members of other classes will be drawn to the proletarian movement, but allowing them into their actual organizations or as leaders is big problem in my opinion.
Then there is the problem of who are the working class. If you define it too narrowly - which Maoists tend to do - then you are always in the risk of becoming either ultra-sectarian, a la MIM, or to put excessive emphasys on alliances, to compensate.

So let me ask you, how do you define the working class/proletariat? Are improductive workers part of the proletariat? And the lumpen-proletariat? Skilled workers? Union bureaucrats? Policemen? Teachers? Engineers?

Luís Henrique

[Rawthentic]

I don't think it is as simple as in Marx's time. I would consider teachers working class, I mean just take a look at Oaxaca. For cops, I think they can be coupled as petty-bourgeois, but whether they are or not, they are the enforcers of capitalist rule.

In the League we are not uptight about this. We discuss whether they are proletarian or not. We have working class students, "white collar" workers.

We are careful to not be ultra-sectarian, which is why we are in the process of forming a League support group for non-proletarians who are willing to help in the struggle, and by breaking from their class backgrounds can they become League members.

So I mean, if someone wants to join, it is always up to discussion whether they could be considered working class or not.

[sexyguy]

“Dude, sexyguy, chill. I've said before that your positions and all are very weird and even outdated. Not that revolution or communism is, but you seem to want to be Lenin.
I can respond to your diatribe, but I feel like I'm wasting my time.

You have allowed yourself to be a ‘cats paw’ for your barmy party on this site and you are incapable of answering the revolutionary criticism of your party, so now you run away.

Your job and the job of every communist should be to smash all “very weird” “even outdated” “diatribe” openly in front of the working class if you are able.

You are showing the spinelessness of your ’left’ middle class cult by running away from the debate because you have lost the argument. What use is your posturing about a “workers party” without the ability to take on all criticism openly in front of the working class?

[Rawthentic]

You are showing the spinelessness of your ’left’ middle class cult
And all your arguments die....there.

You clearly don't know who we are. We have a proletarian-only policy, with a clear class-based understanding.

[sexyguy]

We have a proletarian-only policy, with a clear class-based understanding. We’ve noticed, a crystal clear class-based sectarian, economist, reformist understanding.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected]y 12, 2007 11:44 pm
In the League we are not uptight about this. We discuss whether they are proletarian or not. We have working class students, "white collar" workers.

We are careful to not be ultra-sectarian,
Good. From some of your previous posts, I gathered the feeling that you uphold a somewhat mystical conception of the working class, almost as if it was its suffering that made it revolutionary. As some kind of collective Christ, agnus Dei qui tollit peccata mundi...


which is why we are in the process of forming a League support group for non-proletarians who are willing to help in the struggle, and by breaking from their class backgrounds can they become League members.


Now this is worrisome. Do you mean you actively instigate people to "become proletarians"? If so, I should say that this vision is quite problematic, and could bring very serious problems to your organisation!


So I mean, if someone wants to join, it is always up to discussion whether they could be considered working class or not.

There is no consistent policy, then? Things are discussed case-by-case? How do the various branches of the CL manage to maintain a unified practice (and even discourse) on such question?

Luís Henrique

[Rawthentic]

We’ve noticed, a crystal clear class-based sectarian, economist, reformist understanding.
Wrong on all counts. Stop lying.

Take a look at our Basic Principles. (http://www.communistleague.org/principles.html)

About the "class-based sectarianism":


The liberation of the proletariat from capitalism is the responsibility and task of the proletariat itself. Historical experience has shown that all other classes cannot accomplish the outstanding political, economic and social tasks of capitalist society without endangering their class position and privileges in the process. While communists certainly welcome democratic and social justice movements among other classes, and will aid any such genuine movements with all our might, we do not see them as a substitute for an independent proletarian movement fighting for its own interests.
Inevitably, in the course of the class struggle, individuals from the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will present themselves to the proletariat and offer to assist. When such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois prejudices, privileges and ways of functioning, and that they irreversibly assimilate into the proletariat. Sometimes, in spite of their best efforts, these people cannot assimilate themselves into the proletariat and cannot break from their prejudices and privileges. In a political party of the working class, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds that necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence or place in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time.

About the reformism:


The workers’ republic — referred to historically as the dictatorship of the proletariat — is not merely another form of the state, or of class rule. Rather, it represents the transition between defeated bourgeois rule and the classless, communist society. The state is the linchpin of class society. Its abolition is key to the abolition of class distinctions and antagonisms. But the abolition of the state cannot be accomplished merely with the stroke of a pen. The capitalist state, due to its nature as a combination of armed agencies, must not only be dismantled, but its armed forces must be broken up and atomized.
In all, the workers’ republic has four main tasks: 1) the ouster of the bourgeoisie from political power; 2) the eradication of the old organs of the bourgeois state; 3) the institution of democratic workers’ control of production through the abolition of private property; and 4) the raising of the productive forces to a level where the material basis for class distinctions and class antagonism is forever eliminated. As the material basis for class distinctions and antagonisms disappears, those who were hitherto counted among the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will enter the ranks of labor. The proletariat comes to encompass all members of society, and the proletariat itself ceases to be a class. Thus, the state becomes an anachronism of society, to be discarded like an empty orange peel. With the disappearance of classes comes the disappearance of the state.- Emphasis added

About the economism:


Because the class struggle is a political struggle, the proletariat must be organized as a distinct and independent political body. Concretely, this means that proletarians need to unite into a single political organization that is able to challenge the bourgeoisie on its own field and win — a political party of the working class. Communists do not form a proletarian political party that stands in opposition to other genuine parties of the working class...Any struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie inevitably involves the state. The state is the crux of the capitalist system and bourgeois rule. The overthrow of capitalist rule cannot take place without the overthrow of the capitalist state. The state is not some amalgam of governmental agencies and deliberative bodies. Those are more or less mere forms of administration. The central element of the state is the organized and developed body of armed men and women that enforces the decisions of the bourgeoisie. Above all else, the central task of these armed bodies is the defense and preservation of private property. Thus, the modern capitalist state is a specialized instrument for the maintenance of bourgeois rule.-Emphasis added


Sorry Uglyguy, but your shit just got refuted

[Rawthentic]

There is no consistent policy, then? Things are discussed case-by-case? How do the various branches of the CL manage to maintain a unified practice (and even discourse) on such question?
Well don't go that far, as if we can't positively distinguish who is working class or not. We do have a consistent policy, that is why we are working class.


Now this is worrisome. Do you mean you actively instigate people to "become proletarians"? If so, I should say that this vision is quite problematic, and could bring very serious problems to your organisation!
Its simply that to become League members, they need break with their old class backgrounds. But we are discussing this currently.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:10 pm

There is no consistent policy, then? Things are discussed case-by-case? How do the various branches of the CL manage to maintain a unified practice (and even discourse) on such question?
Well don't go that far, as if we can't positively distinguish who is working class or not. We do have a consistent policy, that is why we are working class.


Now this is worrisome. Do you mean you actively instigate people to "become proletarians"? If so, I should say that this vision is quite problematic, and could bring very serious problems to your organisation!
Its simply that to become League members, they need break with their old class backgrounds. But we are discussing this currently.
So, for instance, if some guy owns a shop, he needs to get rid of it in order to join the CL? Or if some lady is an engineer, she should stop working as such, and find a job as webster or welder?

Luís Henrique

[Rawthentic]

If some guy owns a shop, he is petty-bourgeois correct? He can then become a League supporter.

As for the lady, I'm not sure as to what type of engineer you are referring to.

But you might check more into this thread, mainly in the second page where Miles says and how he quotes Marx to prove our point.

[sexyguy]

The erroneous assumption in all this, is that working class people (who presumably are working class by virtue of their occupations or parentage) are not themselves vulnerable to all manner of middle class and capitalist ideological influences whether they are members of a ’communist’ party or not.

[sexyguy]

The erroneous assumption in all this, is that working class people (who presumably are working class by virtue of their occupations or parentage) are not themselves vulnerable to all manner of middle class and capitalist ideological influences whether they are members of a ’communist’ party or not.

[Rawthentic]

So I'm waiting for Down-For-Peoples-War (formerly known as LeftyHenry) to come and restart the debate on Avakian and the RCP.

[Fawkes]

He never said he was planning on doing so....

[Rawthentic]

Well that last empty rant of his calling me a "sectarian dick" made me think that he had more than just hot air.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:26 pm
So I'm waiting for Down-For-Peoples-War (formerly known as LeftyHenry) to come and restart the debate on Avakian and the RCP.
I'm really done with being sectarian. I used to come on this forum and just attack other communists. I realized it was stupid and I could use my energy for much more productive matters like conducting mass line, attending rallies, participating in direct actions. Now I just come on here to post where it doesn't involve trying to split apart the communist movement.

All your posts indictate that for a "communist" you are the exact opposite and my counterpart. You fight against direct actions like the ones the anarchist comrades in Milwaukee conducted. You attack other communist parties. Its annoying.

Bob Avakian long ago renounced his background. Since he left highschool he has survived on so called "menial" jobs like waitering and the like, and more recently on selling his works to publishers. I don't think that matters. What matters is that he has devoted his life from the time of the black panther party onward to fighting for socialism and the emancipation of humanity. The proletarian line is acquired by those who materially think the proletariat are the vanguard for liberation. I obviously came on this thread late so there is too much for me to respond post by post but I'll just say what I've been saying all along. To win the revolution, the more we can get under the banner of socialism and liberation, the more likely we are to win. There is no time for shooting progressive socialist petty bourgeoisie who want to fight alongside us. some of us would rather spend our energies on defeating the CAPITALIST CLASS FIGHTING AGAINST US

[sexyguy]

some of us would rather spend our energies on defeating the CAPITALIST CLASS FIGHTING AGAINST US
Hooray!
Someone else on this sight is for “defeating” the enemy. It’s the best staring point for further development of vital revolutionary theory through open polemic in the working class and it’s remarkable how it helps expose fake ‘left’ reformist and sectarian posturing.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:58 pm
If some guy owns a shop, he is petty-bourgeois correct? He can then become a League supporter.
What exactly does this mean? That he cannot become a member, but he is allowed to support the organisation?


As for the lady, I'm not sure as to what type of engineer you are referring to.

An employee at a huge capitalist company, that has several workers under her orders. Or that gives direct advice on engineering issues to the high management, for instance.

Luís Henrique

[cenv]

People's-War: Gotta applaud your attitude, comrade.


What exactly does this mean? That he cannot become a member, but he is allowed to support the organisation?
It means he is more than welcome to work with the League on various projects but may not be allowed to participate in decision making and such. In practice, though, this isn't really an issue, as very few members of the petty-bourgeoisie find organizations that emphasize class as much as the League does attractive. Those who do are usually people from petty-bourgeois backgrounds who ultimately wind up breaking with their original class anyway.

[Rawthentic]

I too applaud your attitude Peoples war.


Someone else on this sight is for “defeating” the enemy. It’s the best staring point for further development of vital revolutionary theory through open polemic in the working class and it’s remarkable how it helps expose fake ‘left’ reformist and sectarian posturing.
Shut your trap, I already refuted that. All communists are for refuting the enemy.

And for Peoples war, I criticize the RCP to put down a clear proletarian class line, proletarian communism. You should at least consider the criticisms. We have the right to criticize our fellow communists as we see fit, just like Marx and Lenin did.

Remember that this is just a message board. All my efforts are on overthrowing the capitalist class for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[sexyguy]

Remember that this is just a message board. All my efforts are on overthrowing the capitalist class for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
So will you and your party/league simply call for the military, political, diplomatic DEFEAT of US/British imperialist “Shock and Awe” fascist blitzing of Iraq and Afghanistan?

It is a diversionary bluff to claim that ’Basic Principles” are a sufficient demonstration of revolutionary intentions towards imperialism. The most they can be is exactly what you call them, “Basic Principles” and you are correct, they are only ‘Basic Principles‘.! The problem with your “Basic Principles” is that they are not PARTICULAR to the war which you claim “can be ended”, are they?


“Basic Principles”
Communists oppose all wars but those that advance the struggle for liberation and the abolition of classes. Always and at all times, communists are for the defeat of the bourgeoisie in times of war. Such a defeat, even when it is a defeat for both sides, is a “lesser evil” when compared to the alternative. As part of this, communists always point out the connection between war abroad and attacks on proletarians at home, and point out that the only way to end both of these horrific phenomena is to transform the movement against war into a movement for liberation and the abolition of classes.
Now, if you don’t know it, the use of ‘Basic Principles’ is what generations of labour traitors have used to hide behind, while they sell-out every PARTICULAR revolutionary struggle. Revolution ‘in general’ as stated in “What We Stand For” and “Where We Stand” or “Basic Principles” columns of the ‘left‘ press etc, is no problem for the ruling class. Revolutionary agitation ‘in particular’ for the DEFEAT of imperialism in THIS WAR, would be a problem for them if the ‘left‘ would carry out such agitation.

The more you dig-in, lay down smoke screens, create diversions, hurl abuse and refuse any serious consideration of agitating for the DEFEAT of the imperialist war mongers in THIS WAR, the more problematic this issue is becoming for you.

I am inviting you to take time out, if necessary, and give very serious consideration to this matter before you reply in the way you have been doing.

Tim

[Rawthentic]

You are right Tim, I will take the criticisms into consideration. Thanks.

And LeftyHenry, its real cute to obscure Avakian's shit with your sentimental attacks against me. Thats not how I roll.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Remember that this is just a message board. All my efforts are on overthrowing the capitalist class for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

yeah but its still really stupid to just throw sect-fits. There are much better ways to use this message board. For example, organizing with other comrades to do actions, or to set up a website, or post fascist rally info, or to debate political events in relation to communism as a movement. When it degenerates into "OPPOSE THE RCP AND AVAKIAN" rather than "OPPOSE CAPITALISM AND GEORGE THE DUECHE" than we are going no where.


And for Peoples war, I criticize the RCP to put down a clear proletarian class line, proletarian communism. You should at least consider the criticisms. We have the right to criticize our fellow communists as we see fit, just like Marx and Lenin did.

Well, if its principled. If a party or group is actually abandoning communism and supporting the bourgeoisie or acting to dismantle communism. The only 2 critiscisms of other communists I've heard from the RCP was 1) when the Comunist Party of India was planning on dispersing and breaking up after the collapse of the Soviet Union citing that capitalism triumphed and class struggle and communism were for ever ended. and 2) when the CPUSA started campaigning for the democrats and abandoning revolution and communism replacing it with social democracy. Both of these are principled. Attacking the RCP because it views the proletariat as the leading class not necessarily the only class in revolution though is in my opinion unprincipled. I have critiscisms for the RCP at certain occasions in particular how it connects theory and practice in certain tight scenarios and so I disscuss it and usually I further realize why the party takes its positions and stand corrected. I think I have considered the critiscisms and have offered my line pretty well. By attacking people that are willing to join us in crushing capitalism we are just dividing and by that action of dividing our forces, making it easier for the capitalist class to destroy us. I find that every time I work in United Fronts weither it be against imperialism in Iraq or Police Brutality, alot more is accomplished and a much stronger message is sent.

[Rawthentic]

More like if its a party that calls itself the proletarian vanguard but doesn't have proletarian leadership, and holds that one only has to have a "class line" to have a working class view, as if that was materialistic.

But thats been refuted in this thread.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

the leadership is proletariat or majority proletariat. any outlook or line is achieved based on materialist understanding that it is beneficial. Otherwise no petty bourgeois individual like take Engels, one of the greatest communists ever, would be communist

[Rawthentic]

Thats been refuted as well, as if class relations remain the same after 160+ years.

The second page sums it up. Miles throws the gauntlet down on that.

[KC]

More like if its a party that calls itself the proletarian vanguard but doesn't have proletarian leadership, and holds that one only has to have a "class line" to have a working class view, as if that was materialistic.

But thats been refuted in this thread.

Regardless of how you feel about the RCP and its theoretical positions and practical actions, the statement that LeftyHenry has made still apply:


Originally posted by LeftyHenry
yeah but its still really stupid to just throw sect-fits. There are much better ways to use this message board. For example, organizing with other comrades to do actions, or to set up a website, or post fascist rally info, or to debate political events in relation to communism as a movement. When it degenerates into "OPPOSE THE RCP AND AVAKIAN" rather than "OPPOSE CAPITALISM AND GEORGE THE DUECHE" than we are going no where.

Even if you consider RCP members to be "misguided" they're still comrades and you should treat them as such.

[Rawthentic]

Dude, I do treat them as comrades, and I am sorry if my criticisms came about as harsh.

I suppose he is right, and thats mostly what I do around here. But don't tell me you won't take a stab at refuting syndicat?

[KC]

Syndicat didn't post in this thread.

[Rawthentic]

I know, but in the other threads about the state and the "coordinator class."

[sexyguy]

There is nothing special about any of us on this site, and to quote one smug cynical ‘left’ platitude which is usually used to undermine the struggle for correct theory, “no one has a monopoly on the truth, you know”.
However, crap theory gets workers killed, diverts the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Correct theory has to be fought hard for. Our bruised egos are a worthwhile price to pay.

There are many very important issues for the working class in this thread and they should all be thrashed out as best we can at some point, but three obvious issues are:

1) The ‘class’ identity and integrity of ‘communist’ movements.
2) The revolutionary way to agitate against imperialist war.
3) The importance, or not, of debate on the web or anywhere else.

If anyone wants to continue having a go at clarifying any of this, or any related issues, I'm up for it.

[Rawthentic]

1) The ‘class’ identity and integrity of ‘communist’ movement

Wrong. Communism is a working class ideology, it means the liberation of the proletariat. Who's talking about "correct theory"?


However, crap theory gets workers killed, diverts the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Correct theory has to be fought hard for. Our bruised egos are a worthwhile price to pay.

Yeah, this is a large problem. Take for example, allying with Islamist fundamentalists on an "anti-imperialist" platforms when they are the very people that are murdering proletarians. Or maybe support for state-capitalist regimes under the dilusion that they are "socialist."

[OneBrickOneVoice]

what comrade miles says doesn't say ANYTHING about Engel's class status. He claims that Marx and Lenin became proletariat, which is partially true, but largely I don't think so and it still leaves comrade Engels out of the equation, why because outlook is what is liberating. There are many proletariats with reactionary views, and there are a good amount of petty bourgeoisie with a proletariat mentality and thus line like Engels. Now what this means is that people like Engels are working for liberation. Plus, while he did say alot of clever rhetoric, and it really wasn't until I think the last 2 paragraphs maybe that I disagreed with his post, he didn't refute my arguement that the more under the proletariat banner we can get, the merrier, the better chance for winning. One point that he made that petty bourgeoisie aren't oppressed is often untrue. First there are national minorities like Chicanos and Blacks who may be petty bourgeoisie or even bourgeosie, but are constantly subject to racism in the workplace and by the police. 89% of all people frisked here in NYC for example, were non-whites. As for White petty bourgeoisie, I really just think that the 2nd piece in the draft programme of the RCP revolving around the United Front deals clearly with this. There are many strata of the petty bourgeoisie, some while not being proletariat do struggle to get by and/or just don't enjoy a system built on exploitation, wage-slavery, oppression, imperial wars and etc which is why the RCP sees communism not just as liberation for the working class, but also for all of humanity

[sexyguy]

Wrong. Communism is a working class ideology, it means the liberation of the proletariat. Who's talking about "correct theory"?
I don’t quite understand what you are saying here. Are you being ironic or something?


Yeah, this is a large problem. Take for example, allying with Islamist fundamentalists on an "anti-imperialist" platforms when they are the very people that are murdering proletarians. Or maybe support for state-capitalist regimes under the dilusion that they are "socialist."
Again, can you be specific or are you just throwing crap about again hoping that some of it will stick? If so, it is just irresponsible and only adds to the deliberate confusion that is being spread in the workers movements by capitalism’s agents. If not, then being specific will help to avoid confusion, don’t you think?

[Rawthentic]

Cool.

Since we are talking about Engels, who lived about 160 years ago, as if class relations remain static here goes this: He pointed out that there are 2 instances in which the proletariat could ally with the petty-bourgeoisie:

1. In a revolutionary situation.
2. In a country where the petty-bourgeois had left its political mark.

We do not have those conditions in the US, and the RCP contradicts them with their "fight for the middle."

And for the RCP, since we are talking about self-emancipation, that doesn't roll with them. First of all, becuase their "proletarian vanguard" is not even working class, namely their leader. And don't give me the crap about class "line", thats been refuted as ridiculous.

Miles says, which I am assuming you purposely ignore:



(Red Heretic @ May 06, 2007 12:27 pm)
Comrade, you are doing what is called "reifying the proletariat." It is a form of economism. Communists are not fighting "for the workers" or for a "worker's republic." Communists are fighting for the emancipation of all humanity, the ending of all forms of oppression and exploitation, and the proletariat is the first (and the only) class in history which can be the emancipator of humanity. The proletariat is only special in the context that it can end all forms of oppression and inequality.



This is classical petty-bourgeois socialism. Class? What class?! This is about the classless "humanity" and "ending all forms of exploitation", because, after all, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are exploited and oppressed too. Those poor, oppressed bourgeois! Someone has to save them!

Behind all the accusations of economism, behind the marginalization of the historic role of the proletariat, behind the denigration of class politics as "identity politics" is the cold, dead hand of what Marx and Engels called "True Socialism". The RCP's line is nothing new. In fact, Marx and Engels dealt with it in the Communist Manifesto:



(Communist Manifesto @ Chapter III)
"It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote 'Alienation of Humanity', and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois state they wrote 'Dethronement of the Category of the General', and so forth.

The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms, they dubbed 'Philosophy of Action', 'True Socialism', 'German Science of Socialism', 'Philosophical Foundation of Socialism', and so on.

The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome 'French one-sidedness' and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy....

While this 'True' Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things."


Our own modern-day "True" Maoists of the RCP do similarly. Under the Russian criticism of economism they write "liberal identity politics". Under the Russian revolutionary-democratic platform they write "struggle for the center". In a stroke, all "one-sidedness" of communism is cast aside ... and, along with it, the understanding of communism as a political trend that expresses the class struggle. They might use the words of "class struggle" and "proletarian revolution" on websites or in tepid documents, but the reality is the negation of that "one-sidedness" -- not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of "the people" and "the masses", who belong to no class, have no reality ... other than that given to them by the leading lights of the RCP.




(Red Heretic @ May 06, 2007 12:27 pm)
What this boils down to is liberal identity politics. The principle thing is class outlook, not class background. Like Mao said, "line is decisive."


Social being determines consciousness. That is, to have proletarian class consciousness, one must have the social being of a proletarian. This is the materialist method of looking at the world. One cannot have a proletarian class outlook if their social being is not proletarian. In the past, when it was possible to "de-class" and touch on the social being of the proletariat, without actually integrating one's self into that class, one could divine that consciousness and extrapolate that into a relatively coherent class outlook. However, with the reorganization of class relations in the epoch of imperialism, this understanding has become more crystallized and its application narrowed.

This is the point we make when talking about non-proletarian elements that seek to present themselves as "leaders of the proletariat", like Avakian (but certainly not limited to him -- there are definitely worse ones out there, such as the WSWS's David North, who, under his real name, is the CEO of a large printing company in the metropolitan Detroit area, Grand River Publishing).

"Line is decisive". This is true, for as far as it goes. We would argue that the only way for the line to be correct is for its class basis to be rooted in material conditions -- in the material social relations and social being that determines consciousness. This is why we reject the "condescending saviors" that come to the proletariat and proclaim themselves as the leaders of our class.

You may call that "liberal identity politics", but that is little more than an expression of exactly how divorced from proletarian class politics you actually are.

Miles

That puts things in a different light now doesn't it? :angry:

[Rawthentic]

Again, can you be specific or are you just throwing crap about again hoping that some of it will stick? If so, it is just irresponsible and only adds to the deliberate confusion that is being spread in the workers movements by capitalism’s agents. If not, then being specific will help to avoid confusion, don’t you think?


You were talking about the distortion of communist theory, and I concurred with what I said.

[sexyguy]

You were talking about the distortion of communist theory, and I concurred with what I said.
Forgive me for asking, and I am honestly not trying to be offensive, but are you, stoned, drunk or sick. I assure you I am stone cold sober and I can not understand you. You are really not making sense to me.

[Rawthentic]

Okay smartass:

You said:

However, crap theory gets workers killed, diverts the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Correct theory has to be fought hard for.

I then said:

Yeah, this is a large problem. Take for example, allying with Islamist fundamentalists on an "anti-imperialist" platforms when they are the very people that are murdering proletarians. Or maybe support for state-capitalist regimes under the dilusion that they are "socialist."

Get it?

[KC]

I think he doesn't understand why you're concurring with what you yourself have said.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Down-For-People's-War!@May 13, 2007 09:50 pm
I'm really done with being sectarian. I used to come on this forum and just attack other communists. I realized it was stupid and I could use my energy for much more productive matters like conducting mass line, attending rallies, participating in direct actions. Now I just come on here to post where it doesn't involve trying to split apart the communist movement.
Great self-criticism comrade. ;)

[Red Heretic]

I do not have time to fully respond to this thread because of the massive amount of other political work I am doing, but I want to post a quotation in relation to the liberal identity politics in this thread.

Here is a quotation from comrade Carl Dix in response to the question of having a white leader (Bob Avakian):


Look, here’s the deal. There is a leader who has come forward, who is pointing to the way out of this, who is pointing to a future that we can get to, and is showing us the way to get there.

The challenge for people is to look at the content of what the leader is bringing forward. That’s what we gotta grab hold of. Because if you want to get out of all this mess the criteria for leadership is not, what nationality is the leader:what race:or what gender. But instead, what is the content of the vision that leader is putting forward, and, what is the program they’re putting forward to realize that?

You see, that is the challenge. We are not saying, ‘follow Bob Avakian blindly’ or ‘follow the RCP blindly.’ We’re saying, grapple with the content of the vision of the future society being brought forward. And grapple with the program that’s being brought forward to realize this.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, I praised him for that too. Me and Peoples War are on good, comradely terms.

I also have a feeling that this here shows that you have nothing more to say on the refutation of your line, RedHeretic. Or are you sincere?

[sexyguy]

Xanpano,

I think he doesn't understand why you're concurring with what you yourself have said.
Thank you, that’s certainly part of it.

Isn’t all this colossally diverting?

[Devrim]

Since we are talking about Engels, who lived about 160 years ago

Actually, Engles died 112 years ago. I once met someone who was taken to see him speak as a child.

There is no connection to this discussion, but I just wanted to make a point that it is not that long ago as to be ancient history.

The last survivors of the revolutionary wave after the First war have died off now, but when I lived in London in the 80's I met an anarchist woman who had known Lenin personally, and somebody I worked with met an ex-member of the 'Friends of Durruti'.

There is an organic link to the communist tradition.

Devrim

[sexyguy]

I have a strong sense that all this ‘distancing’ is in order to cherry-pick the traditions of communism that are ‘acceptable’ to the US working class who have been heavily influenced by ruling class anti-communist propaganda. In other words it is assumed that US workers can’t cope with history, “warts and all”.

[sexyguy]

"What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both."
Bob Avakian,
Chairman of the RCP,USA
"http://rwor.org/avakian/Avakian-audio.html"

And this is what it looks like after inserting a more communist class ‘attitude’.

What we see in contention here with militant anti-imperialist Jihad on the one hand and war mongering imperialist McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically weak and progressively outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically more brutal, “shock and awe” outmoded, and bankrupt, ruling strata of the war mongering imperialist system. These two unevenly matched reactionary classes seem poles apart, but they are able to reinforce each other, only when communists traditions are incapable of developing revolutionary theoretical and practical leadership, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ rather than organising, attacking and defeating the more powerful reactionary threat , you end up strengthening the anti-communism of both."

So it now reads:

What we see in contention here with militant anti-imperialist Jihad on the one hand and war mongering imperialist McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically weak and progressively outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically more brutal, “shock and awe” outmoded, and bankrupt, ruling strata of the war mongering imperialist system. These two unevenly matched reactionary classes seem poles apart, but they are able to reinforce each other, only when communists are incapable of developing revolutionary theoretical and practical leadership, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ rather than organising, attacking and defeating the more powerful reactionary threat , you end up strengthening the anti-communism of both."

[Rawthentic]

Sorry, but what are you trying to prove?

[sexyguy]

"What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both."
Bob Avakian,
Chairman of the RCP,USA
"http://rwor.org/avakian/Avakian-audio.html"


And this is what it looks like after inserting a more communist class ‘attitude’.

What we see in contention here with militant anti-imperialist Jihad on the one hand and war mongering imperialist McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically weak and progressively outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically more brutal, “shock and awe” outmoded, and bankrupt, ruling strata of the war mongering imperialist system. These two unevenly matched reactionary classes seem poles apart, but they are able to reinforce each other, only when communists traditions are incapable of developing revolutionary theoretical and practical leadership, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ rather than organising, attacking and defeating the more powerful reactionary threat , you end up strengthening the anti-communism of both."

So it now reads:

What we see in contention here with militant anti-imperialist Jihad on the one hand and war mongering imperialist McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically weak and progressively outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically more brutal, “shock and awe” outmoded, and bankrupt, ruling strata of the war mongering imperialist system. These two unevenly matched reactionary classes seem poles apart, but they are able to reinforce each other, only when communists are incapable of developing revolutionary theoretical and practical leadership, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ rather than organising, attacking and defeating the more powerful reactionary threat , you end up strengthening the anti-communism of both."

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:07 pm

"What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both."
Bob Avakian,
Chairman of the RCP,USA
"http://rwor.org/avakian/Avakian-audio.html"

And this is what it looks like after inserting a more communist class ‘attitude’.

What we see in contention here with militant anti-imperialist Jihad on the one hand and war mongering imperialist McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically weak and progressively outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically more brutal, “shock and awe” outmoded, and bankrupt, ruling strata of the war mongering imperialist system. These two unevenly matched reactionary classes seem poles apart, but they are able to reinforce each other, only when communists traditions are incapable of developing revolutionary theoretical and practical leadership, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ rather than organising, attacking and defeating the more powerful reactionary threat , you end up strengthening the anti-communism of both."

So it now reads:

What we see in contention here with militant anti-imperialist Jihad on the one hand and war mongering imperialist McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically weak and progressively outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically more brutal, “shock and awe” outmoded, and bankrupt, ruling strata of the war mongering imperialist system. These two unevenly matched reactionary classes seem poles apart, but they are able to reinforce each other, only when communists are incapable of developing revolutionary theoretical and practical leadership, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ rather than organising, attacking and defeating the more powerful reactionary threat , you end up strengthening the anti-communism of both."
okay basically the point made here is that Avakian should've stated that the Jihad IS anti-imperialist. This is true, and this why the RCP is extremely active at every anti-war protest. However, the jihad doesn't fundamentally challenge imperialism because it offers nothing better, just reactionary islamic fundamentalism which, if it does turn back the imperialist war machine, it'll replace it with a reign of oppression of gays, woman, non-muslims, and anything that challenges the conservative regime put in place. Also, often, this jihad, is not really a jihad against imperialism but a sectarian civil war where mostly the masses suffer as a result. They are slaughtered by car bombs and suicide bombers. What is really needed is a United Anti-Imperialist front which wages people's war on the Americans, non of this fundamentalist suicide-bombing civilian killing shit because that's not progressive. I support and encourage the Iraqis to rise up against their invaders, but this is not really a resistance.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:33 pm
Cool.

Since we are talking about Engels, who lived about 160 years ago, as if class relations remain static here goes this: He pointed out that there are 2 instances in which the proletariat could ally with the petty-bourgeoisie:

1. In a revolutionary situation.
2. In a country where the petty-bourgeois had left its political mark.

We do not have those conditions in the US, and the RCP contradicts them with their "fight for the middle."

And for the RCP, since we are talking about self-emancipation, that doesn't roll with them. First of all, becuase their "proletarian vanguard" is not even working class, namely their leader. And don't give me the crap about class "line", thats been refuted as ridiculous.

That puts things in a different light now doesn't it? :angry:
Well our forces aren't built up enough for revolution, but the actual crossroads we face are screaming for revolution. Number 2 I think IS true. Petty bourgeoisie students played a large part in Vietnam actions and now in Iraq actions. No doubt working class students did, but to ignore large petty bourgeois sections is impossible. The "fight for the middle" just in reality means that in a country like the US where there are complex class relations, having the middle shooting at the bourgeoisie rather than at the proletariat revolutionaries will be descisive. The way you make it sound is that you want to cut down our potential forces, which I think will hurt us because the more people you have in a revolution, the much better chance you have of actually winning it. Like I said, Avakian while coming from a lower petty bourgeoisie background, has broke with it to be proletariat since Berkley some what? 40 years ago? Other prominant party leaders have come from very proletariat backgrounds. Even if the central committee of the RCP wasn't majority proletariat, what is descisive is the line that the proletariat will be the class that leads the revolution to emancipate humanity. That is why almost everyday the RCP is in the barrios, ghettos, and proletarian neighborhoods all over the country reaching out to the people. Comrade Miles as usual makes good points, but avoids the fact that look, communists the CL upholds to the fullest like Comrade Engels were at least petty bourgeoisie yet helped the struggle and devoted themselves to it in ways that most people here haven't. Without Engel's aid and income, Marx's works might have never have gotten out the way they have. While class relations may have changed they are fundamentally the same. There are the bourgeois, the proletariat, and the petty bourgeoisie just as there was back then. As Comrade Red Heretic has hammered, LINE IS DESCISIVE, and the only explanation that makes sense considering the background of Engels on how line is achieved and the fact that large sections of the proletariat do hold reactionary views at times is that line and outlook is decided by material acceptance of the masses that they are sick of oppression, exploitation, imperialist warfare, oppression of woman, blacks, chicanos, gays and want to see a world which reverses these gutter symptoms of captialism. Being proletariat means that you are subject to this in the most brutal ways for the large part and that is why the proletariat play the leading role in emancipation of humanity.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

BTW Hasta, let me publicly apologize for how rude I was before, I have a tendency to overeact at things. I hope you understand.

[Rawthentic]

The way you make it sound is that you want to cut down our potential forces, which I think will hurt us because the more people you have in a revolution, the much better chance you have of actually winning it
Not at all. What I want is the emphasis on class struggle and working class self-liberation, since we are the exploited class. Oh those poor bourgeois! Lets save them! "Classless humanity" is classical petty-bourgeois socialism.


Like I said, Avakian while coming from a lower petty bourgeoisie background, has broke with it to be proletariat since Berkley some what?
Avakian is not proletarian. He is either petty-bourgeois or divorced from class relations.


Comrade Miles as usual makes good points, but avoids the fact that look, communists the CL upholds to the fullest like Comrade Engels were at least petty bourgeoisie yet helped the struggle and devoted themselves to it in ways that most people here haven't. Without Engel's aid and income, Marx's works might have never have gotten out the way they have.
Once again, history changes. Engels lived more than 160 years ago, a time when shifting between classes and strata was not only possible but easy to do. Take Marx for example, and how he became proletarian after he grounded himself in materialist and communist theory. Also, it was an era when the propertied classes, like Engels, were the ones that studied and read, while the working class did not, leaving it up to the propertied classes to lead their struggles. Today, most proletarians in the US can read and write and handle machinery, so we dont need any "specialists" to "guide" us in production, or "Messiahs" to liberate them.



As Comrade Red Heretic has hammered, LINE IS DESCISIVE,
Which is a thoroughly reactionary and un-materialist stance. Let me put it this way so as to refute it :

1) If there was a "communist" party, like the RCP, that was full of bourgeois and capitalist leaders, but they held a "proletarian class line", would you be ok with that? I mean, as long as they have the "class line." If you would not be ok, then you are proving why that is simply wrong.

2) If you say it is ok, that as long as the capitalist leaders of the communist party have a "proletarian class line", then you are saying that these bourgeois are consciously plotting their own overthrow, which is ridiculous and anti-Marxist.

What choice? I logically chose number one.


BTW Hasta, let me publicly apologize for how rude I was before, I have a tendency to overeact at things. I hope you understand.
No problem comrade.

[cenv]

Well, I have a few questions for RCP members. And these are serious questions... I'm not going to toss shit at the RCP just for the sake of it (not now, anyway ;-) ).

1) The RCP documents have a lot of references to the party that will "lead the proletariat." Avakian and co. seem to have a lot to say about "leadership." However, what exactly does "leading the proletariat" entail, both in pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary society? The term is kind of vague.

2) I still can't tell what the RCP envisions for after the revolution. The RCP website seems to have a lot of vague references to "socialism", "workers control", "proletarian society", and so on... but nowhere can I find an elaboration on whether the RCP believes in an economy managed by workers' councils, one directed mainly by the party elite, workers' management of workplaces, "managers" that preside over workplaces, etc. Moreover, they don't seem to specifically address the issue of how, in a socialist society, the party is going to "lead" the proletariat without stealing the show?

3) What exactly is so special about Bob Avakian's writings? He doesn't really seem to say anything original or groundbreaking. And even if he is as ingenious as RCP members claim, what purpose does making him the public face (and "chairman") of the RCP serve?

4) About what is the proportion of proletarian RCP members to petty-bourgeois RCP members? Just curious.


Finally, the RCP members tell us repeatedly that "line is decisive". Perhaps. But do you not accept the fact that the working class and the petty bourgeoisie approach revolution with entirely different outlooks and perspectives on society. D'you not think that this could be an issue?

[AFM]

Originally posted by Down-For-People's-War!+May 17, 2007 12:12 am--> (Down-For-People's-War! @ May 17, 2007 12:12 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 10:07 pm

"What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both."
Bob Avakian,
Chairman of the RCP,USA
"http://rwor.org/avakian/Avakian-audio.html"

And this is what it looks like after inserting a more communist class ‘attitude’.



okay basically the point made here is that Avakian should've stated that the Jihad IS anti-imperialist. This is true, and this why the RCP is extremely active at every anti-war protest. However, the jihad doesn't fundamentally challenge imperialism because it offers nothing better, just reactionary islamic fundamentalism which, if it does turn back the imperialist war machine, it'll replace it with a reign of oppression of gays, woman, non-muslims, and anything that challenges the conservative regime put in place. Also, often, this jihad, is not really a jihad against imperialism but a sectarian civil war where mostly the masses suffer as a result. They are slaughtered by car bombs and suicide bombers. What is really needed is a United Anti-Imperialist front which wages people's war on the Americans, non of this fundamentalist suicide-bombing civilian killing shit because that's not progressive. I support and encourage the Iraqis to rise up against their invaders, but this is not really a resistance. [/b]
I don't think it's completely true that "Jihad" is anti-imperialist.

Many of the fundamentalist forces are currently anit-US Imperialism, but does this mean that they are fundamentally against imperialism? Or does it even mean that they will always be against US Imperialism?

I think not. And we can examine history to find examples of various of these forces allying themselves with imperialism, and even US Imperialism.

I want to come back and respond to some of Miles' comments after my migraine from reading 5 pages worth of all this subsides . . .

This is a good debate to be had, but in all seriousness is hard to read at times due to the sect-squabbling.

[sexyguy]

I don't think it's completely true that "Jihad" is anti-imperialist.
You probably already know that “Jihad” can mean different things at different times to different people. E.g. - a struggle with an external enemy, an internal personal, religious, or ‘spiritual’ struggle or journey or both etc.


Many of the fundamentalist forces are currently anit-US Imperialism, but does this mean that they are fundamentally against imperialism? Or does it even mean that they will always be against US Imperialism?

The answer to this depends on how much hair-splitting or obfuscating we want to do in order to avoid clearly agitating for the defeat of imperialism. Bob Avakian just says ’a pox on both your houses’ to avoid the issue of seriously agitating for defeat her and now!

DFPW comes to Bob’s rescue by telling us that :

“jihad doesn't fundamentally challenge imperialism because it offers nothing better, just reactionary islamic fundamentalism which, if it does turn back the imperialist war machine, it'll replace it with a reign of oppression of gays, woman, non-muslims, and anything that challenges the conservative regime put in place.”

“jihad doesn't fundamentally challenge imperialism”?
Even the very religious and very bourgeois nationalists are "fundamentally" damaging, (to the point of near defeat in some areas) US and British imperialist interests in the region. Their war has not only caused many military and civilian casualties among the occupying forces, it has created some useful (to us) infighting within imperialist governments (and military) circles in both the US and Britain. Blair has to go or lose the next election for the New Labour "projec" and Bush is a lame duck with hardening opposition and general scepticism everywhere, and then there is the growing opportunist rivalry from imperialist “allies” e.g. Russia, Italy, France “cheese eating surrender monkeys” etc.


“it offers nothing better”
Because the “peaceful coexistence” communist traditions of the last fifty years in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, and the deadly “two state solution” PLO and most of the rest of the world, have, at least for now, lost the trust of the ‘masses’ including most of the working class. The main problem for the world is not the existence of Islam or nationalism, it is the absence of communist revolutionary theory about defeating the current economic, political and military crisis. In this case the refusal to agitate for imperialist defeat, now, in this war! The substitute is “condemnation” of anyone and everyone who actually does put the boot into imperialism for whatever ‘reason‘, and instead of taking advantage of imperialisms problems the ’left’ gives aid and encouragement to the imperialist war propaganda by joining in the attacks on “fundamentalism" and doing it often with more vigour. The strong suspicion has to be that the predominantly revisionist traditions (of whatever stripe) are still criminally holding the ’communists’ in check almost everywhere.



I think not. And we can examine history to find examples of various of these forces allying themselves with imperialism, and even US Imperialism.
‘Alliances’ chop and change all the time, so what?
“We can examine history to find examples ... “Comrade, we can examine the bumps on each other heads to find examples of somthing and avoid discussing this 'particular' struggle. What is to point of talking about things 'in general'? Talking about this war, now is the best PRACTICE for developing anti-revisionist, anti-imperialist revolutionary theory, wouldn’t you say?

[A.J.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:09 am
I am actually for creating a non-proletarian support group alongside the League, as long as we maintain the proletarian-only membership within the CL.


If your sect only accepts proletarians then you shouldn't be a member of it yourself

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60592&hl=

[sexyguy]

But communism is a proletarian ideology and the proletarian viewpoint can only be held by proletarians. Its called historical materialism
No, this realy is wrong. Communism in it's modern scientific form as opposed to any 'primitive' types, is an ideology for the proletariat, but was indisputably, unarguably, deffinatly and without a shadow of a doubt originated by the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. Marxs and Engels being representatives of those classes. The decisive point is that communism is the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat AS A CLASS rather than as individuals, who anyway have plenty of bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie habits, attitudes, and political consciousness whether they work in a factory or a university. How could it be otherwise? There are no ‘Chinese wall’ between classes. The culture of the dominant class or classes must influence the working class. We don’t come from separate planets. Well most of us don’t.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

who the heck identifies themselves as "the masses"?

[sexyguy]

No idea mate, who does?