RCP

[Enragé]

http://revcom.us/avakian/crossroads/index.html


That [revolutionary change -NKOS] demands leadership. And that is where Bob Avakian comes in.

Bob Avakian fought against the war in Vietnam in the 1960s, and worked closely with the Black Panther Party in the struggle for Black liberation. He was inspired by the courage and creativity of the masses who rose up in those times and the horizons they opened. He was fired by anger at those injustices and by an unstoppable drive to understand their root causes—a fire that burns in him to this day. And as he dug deeper, he saw a system, one whose very rules and workings give rise to—and indeed require—this oppression.

Then, grasping not only that things shouldn’t be this way but that they didn’t have to be this way, he became a revolutionary and a communist. He persevered, even after the high tide of revolution ebbed. He built, and today leads, a revolutionary party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA—a party that has mobilized thousands to fight against the system in different ways through the past decades and that has continued to promote revolution and communism.

But Bob Avakian is more than that. He is someone who has persisted in confronting the hardest, most excruciating questions before humanity. In so doing, he’s taken the communist understanding of the world and how to change it to a new place. The answers he’s brought forward and the pathways he’s forged demand a serious look—a deep engagement—from everyone concerned about the future of humanity.



More than anyone, Bob Avakian has pointed to the answers to the excruciating questions now posed before humanity and shown the pathways to solve the agonizing problems. As part of that, he’s invited as many people as possible into the process of figuring it all out—in order both to truly find the answers and to prepare the masses to rule. He is a leader for these times…a truly revolutionary leader with a truly revolutionary vision and method.

“Where are the leaders?”

Here is a leader, one you urgently need to check out, engage with, and follow.






aint it lovely :blink:


edit: btw, so these are the "leftists" the RAAN attacked? if so.. go RAAN!

[RNK]

Do you actually have anything to talk about? Or is the entire point of this post for you to cheer on leftists attacking other leftists?

Please make an actual contribution to discussion.

[Leo]

btw, so these are the "leftists" the RAAN attacked?

Well, they didn't really attack the RCP, they threw a pen at one of their bookstores.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

NKOS.

Try contributing rather than spamming. The point of the Crossroads we Face, The Leadership we need, is to introduce people to the party and to Bob Avakian and his works. Every single successful and lasting revolution has had strong leadership. Bob Avakian has spent his entire life organizing workers, students, and revolutionaries and contributing to communist theory. Why don't you try reading the shit he puts forward rather than spending your time redbaiting?

If you really think Bob Avakian is the son of the devil why don't you critique what he argues? Like this which was on the side


“You cannot break all the chains, except one. You cannot say you want to be free of exploitation and oppression, except you want to keep the oppression of women by men. You can’t say you want to liberate humanity yet keep one half of the people enslaved to the other half. The oppression of women is completely bound up with the division of society into masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited, and the ending of all such conditions is impossible without the complete liberation of women. All this is why women have a tremendous role to play not only in making revolution but in making sure there is all-the-way revolution. The fury of women can and must be fully unleashed as a mighty force for proletarian revolution.”

[piet11111]

bob can go and fuck himself !

we want communism not enlightened despotism.

[RNK]

What is it with all of these shallow knee-jerk responses? Are you incapable of actually articulating a conversation?

[Enragé]

Do you actually have anything to talk about? Or is the entire point of this post for you to cheer on leftists attacking other leftists?

no this post is me expressing my disgust for a "revolutionary" organisation which is authoritarian to such an extent that i dont know whether to laugh or puke, and to find out what my fellow leftists think of this rubbish



Every single successful and lasting revolution has had strong leadership.

"strong" leadership takes power out of the hands of the ones who should be empowered, i.e the working class.

By introducing such a leader-figure, you're effectively minimising any chance of developing decent class consciousness and create a ruler-in-embryo which will then under socialism use the state to its own end, without any sort of popular control since everyone's gotten used to having the great leader Bob Avakian
and then how on earth is the state going to "wither away" (which is the goal remember)

I have my problems with the institutionalised vanguardism of leninism, but this really is a one way ticket to a totalitarian shithole


Why don't you try reading the shit he puts forward rather than spending your time redbaiting?

If you really think Bob Avakian is the son of the devil why don't you critique what he argues? Like this which was on the side


am i claiming he's the son of the devil?
For all i care he's the son of god and he's right in everything he says

the point is such a method of organisation, and putting one man above all, is detrimental to the development of class consciousness; degrading/keeping the people in/to the position of sheep, paving the way for dictatorship, the death of the revolution.
not to mention
what if the dude kicks the bucket?
on to a new prophet? some other dude in the higher regions of the party?

[PRC-UTE]

The RCP are a cult- that can't even be seriously questioned.

The members of the RCP are wrong about many things. But they're wrong for the right reasons- I believe that they sincerely do want to create a better world. They just don't know how to go about that, and have been swindled by a conman.

Physically attacking them (or threatening to in rhetoric, amounts to the same thing) will only push them more into his orbit, imo.

What we need to do is use rational arguments (not emotive ones) to expose the kind of fake that Avakian is. What kind of revolutionary goes into self-imposed exile (in france no less&#33; :lol:) because he is alledgedly threatened with legal action for organising a demonstration? <_< I personally know many people facing much worse situations who didn&#39;t run from them like cowards&#33;

Ffs, Glorious Chairman Bob upholds Stalin... has he forgotten Stalin&#39;s &#39;not one step backwards&#33;&#39; slogan??&#33;&#33; :lol:

[RNK]

What kind of revolutionary goes into self-imposed exile (in france no less&#33; ) because he is alledgedly threatened with legal action for organising a demonstration? I personally know many people facing much worse situations who didn&#39;t run from them like cowards&#33;

You know of activists who are actually facing decades in prison?

Anyway I share some of the same critique of Bob. I don&#39;t see upholding leaders as inherently bad (though in my opinion no revolutionary should be publically idolized if he is still alive). I do however think that the lines have been blurred in the RCP&#39;s case, between a leader who is the "tool" of the revolutionary party, and a revolutionary party that is a "tool" of the leader.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by RNK+April 11, 2007 05:46 pm--> (RNK &#064; April 11, 2007 05:46 pm)You know of activists who are actually facing decades in prison?[/b]

And if Bob was facing decades in prison, then you might have a point. As it is, he&#39;s not facing any charges any more, and they were never really for decades in the first place. (Throwing red paint on Deng Xiaoping does not translate into "decades in prison".)

Regardless, he&#39;s back in the U.S. now and seems to be fine. Obviously, he didn&#39;t get nailed when he stepped off the plane and came back into the country.


[email protected] 11, 2007 05:46 pm
Anyway I share some of the same critique of Bob. I don&#39;t see upholding leaders as inherently bad (though in my opinion no revolutionary should be publically idolized if he is still alive). I do however think that the lines have been blurred in the RCP&#39;s case, between a leader who is the "tool" of the revolutionary party, and a revolutionary party that is a "tool" of the leader.

They&#39;re all tools. ;)

Seriously, though, for all the hype and hyperbole about Avakian&#39;s writings, there is very little "there" there. Much of it is a restating of what Marx, Engels and Lenin wrote, put in a more "modern" package. That&#39;s all. The League has, and members of the League have, written similar things to what Avakian has written -- sometimes at about the same time, sometimes sooner.

The point is that there is no reason to turn Avakian into something more than he is for ... doing his job as the RCP&#39;s theoretician.

Miles

[OneBrickOneVoice]

no this post is me expressing my disgust for a "revolutionary" organisation which is authoritarian to such an extent that i dont know whether to laugh or puke, and to find out what my fellow leftists think of this rubbish

revolution is the most authoritarian thing in the world. Stop red-baiting. I could "laugh or puke" about little anarcho-kiddie collectives and call them rubbish. Doesn&#39;t mean anything. you shoud critique his works not just continue with this anti-communist bullshit


"strong" leadership takes power out of the hands of the ones who should be empowered, i.e the working class.

no because the working class is the leading class.


By introducing such a leader-figure, you&#39;re effectively minimising any chance of developing decent class consciousness

what the hell are you talking about? Does that even make sense? Everything Bob Avakian says is about "developing decent class consciousness" stop making dumb comments and read his works before making an uneducated opinion.


and create a ruler-in-embryo which will then under socialism use the state to its own end, without any sort of popular control since everyone&#39;s gotten used to having the great leader Bob Avakian

the people will revolt because they are sick and tired of the sewer called capitalism. If the RCP is the vanguard it&#39;ll be because the people agree with what the RCP and Bob Avakian are putting forward. Socialism can&#39;t be "used" to suppress the people or used for Bob Avakian&#39;s "own end" it can only be "used" as the transition to communism and for the suppression of the bourgeiosie.


and then how on earth is the state going to "wither away" (which is the goal remember)

Read marx and lenin. They couldn&#39;t make it clearer. The state withers away once there are no classes. When there are no classes, what point does the state serve? It must disappear.


I have my problems with the institutionalised vanguardism of leninism, but this really is a one way ticket to a totalitarian shithole

totalitarianism doesn&#39;t exsist. It&#39;s a NATO invented word to compare Socialism to Nazism despite the fact they are complete opposites. Just because the RCP promotes leadership doesn&#39;t at all mean that it is "totalitarian" to think that is upsurd.


the point is such a method of organisation, and putting one man above all

no the RCP realizes that the people and the people alone are the motive makers of world history and of revolution, however it also recognizes that without a vanguard party and without leadership, the struggle achieve little success. Such is proven countless times in history that without leadership revolutions fail. There needs to be a plan and a way of carrying out the revolution. It&#39;s natural that people put more weight in certain people&#39;s voices, and that is why leadership emerges.


the point is such a method of organisation, and putting one man above all, is detrimental to the development of class consciousness; degrading/keeping the people in/to the position of sheep, paving the way for dictatorship, the death of the revolution.

the people are not "sheep" and can&#39;t be turned into that when they are told to think objectivly and scientifically and radically challenge society in the way the RCP promotes


What we need to do is use rational arguments (not emotive ones) to expose the kind of fake that Avakian is. What kind of revolutionary goes into self-imposed exile (in france no less&#33; ) because he is alledgedly threatened with legal action for organising a demonstration? I personally know many people facing much worse situations who didn&#39;t run from them like cowards&#33;

Ffs, Glorious Chairman Bob upholds Stalin... has he forgotten Stalin&#39;s &#39;not one step backwards&#33;&#39; slogan??&#33;

he was not "alledgedly threaten with legal actions" genius, he was charged with 2 times life in prison for defending himself against a cop who attacked him, he fled because he was sure to be convicted. Why wouldn&#39;t he flee charged with a basic death sentence?


The RCP are a cult- that can&#39;t even be seriously questioned.

do you even know what a "cult" is? You can&#39;t be seriously questioned because you use words you have no understanding of.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:13 pm

and then how on earth is the state going to "wither away" (which is the goal remember)

Read marx and lenin. They couldn&#39;t make it clearer. The state withers away once there are no classes. When there are no classes, what point does the state serve? It must disappear.
Isn&#39;t it obvious that Lenin was wrong? The USSR was a failure. It didn&#39;t lead to communism. There have been no socialist states that have lead to communism. A state won&#39;t just wither away.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+April 11, 2007 10:21 pm--> (Chicano Shamrock @ April 11, 2007 10:21 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:13 pm

and then how on earth is the state going to "wither away" (which is the goal remember)

Read marx and lenin. They couldn&#39;t make it clearer. The state withers away once there are no classes. When there are no classes, what point does the state serve? It must disappear.
Isn&#39;t it obvious that Lenin was wrong? The USSR was a failure. It didn&#39;t lead to communism. There have been no socialist states that have lead to communism. A state won&#39;t just wither away. [/b]
The collapse of the USSR doesn&#39;t disprove Lenin&#39;s theories or his actions. There were many, many, many changes and factors that contributed to that for almost 7 decades after Lenin&#39;s death.

The fact that the USSR ever came into existence shows that he was right about how to establish socialism.

[RNK]

Current bourgeoisie democracy took millenia to become what it is today. Simply because past attempts have failed is no reason to abandon the project; how many inventions were sustained by the determination of their inventors?

Anyway,


Seriously, though, for all the hype and hyperbole about Avakian&#39;s writings, there is very little "there" there. Much of it is a restating of what Marx, Engels and Lenin wrote, put in a more "modern" package.

I partially agree, though he has made some contributing writings about contemporary topics that did not exist in Marx and Lenin&#39;s day. But I somewhat agree that his "hype" really doesn&#39;t add up to his actual contributions -- particularly when the RCP is pushing "Avakian&#39;s vision of communism".

[The Grey Blur]

True working-class leadership is proved through tireless work over decades and is formed in the very heat of the class conflict, neither of which applies to Bob Avakian.

The comrades of the RCP are good but they definitely need to re-think the exaltation of a self-imposed exile whose theoretical contributions aren&#39;t really anything special.

[Joseph Ball]

Avakian had the good sense to defend the &#39;gang of four&#39; when leftists the world over were swallowing revisionist lies about them. Try reading &#39;Mao&#39;s Immortal Contributions&#39; and say its the work of a mediocrity. People have their disagreements with Avakian&#39;s line and that&#39;s OK, Maoism is about dissent and rebellion. I think its possible to have real disagreements with Avakian&#39;s line on many issues and still see the inherent value in what he has done. But to say he&#39;s nothing special-that&#39;s very much wide of the mark. Let&#39;s view Avakian dialectically not one-sidely.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+April 11, 2007 10:21 pm--> (Chicano Shamrock @ April 11, 2007 10:21 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:13 pm

and then how on earth is the state going to "wither away" (which is the goal remember)

Read marx and lenin. They couldn&#39;t make it clearer. The state withers away once there are no classes. When there are no classes, what point does the state serve? It must disappear.
Isn&#39;t it obvious that Lenin was wrong? The USSR was a failure. It didn&#39;t lead to communism. There have been no socialist states that have lead to communism. A state won&#39;t just wither away. [/b]
no all that proves is that class struggle does continue after the revolution and during socialism and that even with state power to suppress the bourgeiosie, they made a comeback due to the splits in the revolutionary leftist movement. Also, communism is not established with in a decade or two or three. It is established once the world is engulfed in socialism. the fall of the USSR doesn&#39;t mean shit in this regard.


True working-class leadership is proved through tireless work over decades and is formed in the very heat of the class conflict, neither of which applies to Bob Avakian.

on the contrary, Bob Avakian has devoted his life to organizing for the revolution and speaking out against capitalism, also, I don&#39;t think anyone can deny the "heat of class conflict" that is occuring today.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:59 pm

True working-class leadership is proved through tireless work over decades and is formed in the very heat of the class conflict, neither of which applies to Bob Avakian.

on the contrary, Bob Avakian has devoted his life to organizing for the revolution and speaking out against capitalism, also, I don&#39;t think anyone can deny the "heat of class conflict" that is occuring today.
I know hundreds of comrades who have "devoted (their lives) to organizing for the revolution and speaking out against capitalism". This only makes them part of the struggle, not above it in a special category.

Not to mention that Bob hasn&#39;t exactly spent the last little while "organising for the revolution"...

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+April 11, 2007 11:04 pm--> (Permanent Revolution @ April 11, 2007 11:04 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 10:59 pm

True working-class leadership is proved through tireless work over decades and is formed in the very heat of the class conflict, neither of which applies to Bob Avakian.

on the contrary, Bob Avakian has devoted his life to organizing for the revolution and speaking out against capitalism, also, I don&#39;t think anyone can deny the "heat of class conflict" that is occuring today.
I know hundreds of comrades who have "devoted (their lives) to organizing for the revolution and speaking out against capitalism". This only makes them part of the struggle, not above it in a special category.

Not to mention that Bob hasn&#39;t exactly spent the last little while "organising for the revolution"... [/b]
actually I&#39;ve heard that he was organizing in France during that time and that RCP factions emerged there but whatever even if that&#39;s not true he was still publishing works and played an important part in descision making and administration of the party to keep it running. Besides even if he wasn&#39;t doing things then it was for a pretty good reason. Plus Bob Avakian has made theoretical contributions of his own

[Rawthentic]

The RCP, when it talks about the "proletariat", they mean themselves.

In the event of a revolution, the RCP would make sure that they were in power.

Bob is the mind and brains of the RCP, the rest are just the footsoldiers.

Sort of what Huey P.Newton said about black organizations that had white people in them. These organizations quickly became led by the whites, who were the "mind", and the blacks were the "body." He said, "there can be no black-white unity until there is first black-black unity."

Same applies for the working-class.

[bolshevik butcher]

I broadly agree with PRC-UTE&#39;s post. I expect that most of the RCP are genuine comrades and people that I would happily fight alongside. For sure it is unfortunate that they have been taken in by this Avikan, who from what I have read and seen doesn&#39;t have any real history in the American Labour Movement and now doesn&#39;t even live in the country. Let&#39;s face it if he was that wanted the American ruling class would demand his extradition. Clearly he is fueled like most sectarians by a false sense of self importance. However most of the RCP from what I have seen on this forum anyway is not like this, thet are genuine comrades to win over and hopefully dispel the myths of Avikan.

On this years in jail thing. In Scotalnd I have many comrades who organised illegally during the poll tax among other things. Some who did face jail and charges. I know other comrades who have faced other hardships including being sacked, black listed and one who faced this to the extreme that he was for years refused any work in the engineering industry for his unionising acitivies.

PRC-UTE comes from the Irish movement, I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if he had many comrades who had gone all the way and faced death for the struggle, please don&#39;t be so condescending towards active comrades who put things on the line for the socialist struggle.

[RGacky3]

I have a question for the RCP people, if a revolution started, a grassroots leaderless revolution in which the RCP or Bob Avakian had absolutely no leading role, would the RCP be cool with it, and support it all the way?

If the answer is no you guys got some thinking to do.

[Axel1917]

Bob Avakian is a personality cultist, and every sentence an RCP guy I have ran into begins with "Bob Avakian says..." I don&#39;t know if every RCP type is like that, but there are some out there that literally think that Chairman Bob is the sun. Bob Avakian kind of reminds me of redstar2000; he thinks he is so important, and he thinks that he is making all kinds of new contributions to Marxism, when in reality, he is not important at all and he is making contributions to vehement anti-Marxism.

I would support any measures of self-defense, given that they became necessary, taken by the RCP against RAAN thugs, though.


Isn&#39;t it obvious that Lenin was wrong? The USSR was a failure. It didn&#39;t lead to communism. There have been no socialist states that have lead to communism. A state won&#39;t just wither away.

Isn&#39;t it obvious that "libertarian communism" and anarchism are wrong? They have never overthrown a bourgeois dictatorship, when the anarchists could have taken power in Spain, they voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, all they do is spread the bourgeoisie&#39;s propaganda for them, give the left a bad name with hooligan tactics, etc.?

[Enragé]

you shoud critique his works not just continue with this anti-communist bullshit


as i said before
what he&#39;s saying is barely of any importance here, its about the position he holds in an organisation which should be paving the way for pure democracy, for communism.
His position, the existance of such a position, is completely anti-thetical to the stated goal of the RCP, being communism.


no because the working class is the leading class.


no its not, avakian is the leader.

havent you read?
follow avakian, we need him&#33;


what the hell are you talking about? Does that even make sense? Everything Bob Avakian says is about "developing decent class consciousness" stop making dumb comments and read his works before making an uneducated opinion.


Think about it
revolution is about empowering the working class, class consciousness is that set of realisations that we, as the working class, should and can take power, and institute common ownership

What does the RCP say? Follow bob avakian&#33; He&#39;s the leadership we need&#33; hurrah&#33;
It promotes the idea that dear mr avakian, as our glorious leader, should and can take power, and institute common ownership under his leadership (i.e common ownership only in name).


the people will revolt because they are sick and tired of the sewer called capitalism. If the RCP is the vanguard it&#39;ll be because the people agree with what the RCP and Bob Avakian are putting forward. Socialism can&#39;t be "used" to suppress the people or used for Bob Avakian&#39;s "own end" it can only be "used" as the transition to communism and for the suppression of the bourgeiosie.


er yes
if the proletariate indeed control the state
but if avakian does, leader of the proletariate
hmm?


Read marx and lenin. They couldn&#39;t make it clearer. The state withers away once there are no classes. When there are no classes, what point does the state serve? It must disappear.


no shit sherlock.
But if you create a leadership, that leadership will have an interest in holding on to power, thus constituting itself as a new "class", or whatever you want to call it, point being; state&#39;s not going to wither away.


totalitarianism doesn&#39;t exsist. It&#39;s a NATO invented word to compare Socialism to Nazism despite the fact they are complete opposites. Just because the RCP promotes leadership doesn&#39;t at all mean that it is "totalitarian" to think that is upsurd.

whatever, dictatorship

im not saying thats what the RCP wants, but its what it has a great risk of heading too should your party become one of the leading factors in future revolution.


no the RCP realizes that the people and the people alone are the motive makers of world history and of revolution, however it also recognizes that without a vanguard party and without leadership, the struggle achieve little success. Such is proven countless times in history that without leadership revolutions fail. There needs to be a plan and a way of carrying out the revolution. It&#39;s natural that people put more weight in certain people&#39;s voices, and that is why leadership emerges.


Yes its natural that "leaders" arise, that is those who have alot of influence because they are knowledgeable, it is however not natural to institutionalise that leadership (i.e through propaganda, personality cults etc) and show one man as "the leadership", since that would be paramount to claiming someone is knowledgeable about..well everything.

It has been proven countless times that revolutions under the banner of vanguardist parties lead to those parties usurping state power for its own end, whether under influence of the material circumstances or not, and they were capable to do this because in the running up to the revolution they created a servility of the working class to that party by posing themselves as "the leadership", thereby undermining class consciousness


the people are not "sheep" and can&#39;t be turned into that when they are told to think objectivly and scientifically and radically challenge society in the way the RCP promotes

and no other god damn way&#33; :P

get it?

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:01 pm
Bob Avakian is a personality cultist, and every sentence an RCP guy I have ran into begins with "Bob Avakian says..." I don&#39;t know if every RCP type is like that, but there are some out there that literally think that Chairman Bob is the sun. Bob Avakian kind of reminds me of redstar2000; he thinks he is so important, and he thinks that he is making all kinds of new contributions to Marxism, when in reality, he is not important at all and he is making contributions to vehement anti-Marxism.

I would support any measures of self-defense, given that they became necessary, taken by the RCP against RAAN thugs, though.


Isn&#39;t it obvious that Lenin was wrong? The USSR was a failure. It didn&#39;t lead to communism. There have been no socialist states that have lead to communism. A state won&#39;t just wither away.

Isn&#39;t it obvious that "libertarian communism" and anarchism are wrong? They have never overthrown a bourgeois dictatorship, when the anarchists could have taken power in Spain, they voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, all they do is spread the bourgeoisie&#39;s propaganda for them, give the left a bad name with hooligan tactics, etc.?
I had similar experience awhile back at a huge anti-war protest in Washington. There were some RCP there I believe and there was one or two of them playing in the middle of the bus on our way to Washington from NYC, a dvd of Avakian talking. I don&#39;t know if people were interested but it definitely made me wonder what the deal with this guy was. Then when I got off the bus there were people handing out free newspapers with Avakian on it every like 10 feet.

I won&#39;t comment on the group but that was my experience with them initially.

[RNK]

I have a question for the RCP people, if a revolution started, a grassroots leaderless revolution in which the RCP or Bob Avakian had absolutely no leading role, would the RCP be cool with it, and support it all the way?

Can you confidently say that you, or any revolutionary movement, would unilaterally support any other revolutionary movement?

[RGacky3]

The reason I ask is that the whole vanguard party theory is that a revolutoin cannot happen without one.

My question is would the RCP support one where the RCP does not have a leadership role.

Most Anarchist organizations never attempt a leadership role, they encourage a grassroots leaderless revolution. So my answer is of coarse I would support a revolution that is grassroots and truly communistic. Even if me or ant organization that I am a part of has no leadership role, infact I would&#39;nt want anyone to have a leadership role.

If the RCP was truely a party who&#39;s intention is to bring about a revolution, and not attain power, they would fully support a revolution in which they are not in the leadership role of, of coarse if someone like the CPUSA was in control that might be a different story, but assuming its a grassroots workers revolution that does not want or need a vanguard, would you support it.

[UndergroundConnexion]

uhm who the fuck is Avarkian ?

Heard the name once or twice, and only on this forum, is it some yankee only shit (as i can guess from the post) or does it have some better value?

edit : i just did some research, interesting stuff

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:46 pm

What kind of revolutionary goes into self-imposed exile (in france no less&#33; ) because he is alledgedly threatened with legal action for organising a demonstration? I personally know many people facing much worse situations who didn&#39;t run from them like cowards&#33;

You know of activists who are actually facing decades in prison?
I know several right now, an IRSP comrade was involved in a protest with other socialist / anti-war comrades and are facing time in prison: the Raytheon 9 (http://raytheon9.org/home.html). I know another communist comrade who&#39;s not Irish and is also facing possible prison time. There are many in my movement who could possibly be arrested, and we still have RSM members in prison, whom I know personally&#33;

And I know many, many comrades who&#39;ve spent long terms of imprisonment for the cause. the first member of the IRSM I ever met was an ex-POW; his incredible knowledge, humility and dedication reversed the image of the IRSP/INLA that had been planted in my mind by the bourgeois media who regularly portray them as mindless thugs and gangsters.

Imprisonment doesn&#39;t have to be a defeat for revolutionaries. The IRSP was the first group in the modern Troubles to build a campaign for prisoners when an Party member was falsely imprisoned: The Wicklow Boy (youtube link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lyIs0y0uSU).

An essential quality for revolutionaries is to turn defeats into opportunities- for getting out your message, bringing more people into the struggle and so on. We were able to create mass struggle around the campaign for an end to criminalisation of Irish POWs and the hunger strikers in 1981. The Black Panthers also did an impressive job with their campaign for Huey Newton that undoubtedly helped to build their party.

Revolutionaries from Castro, to Malcolm X, to Irish Republicans have all referred to prison as their &#39;university&#39;. You&#39;re not defeated as a revolutionary just because you&#39;re in gaol. I&#39;m certainly not trying to romanticise prison or suggest it is never correct to go underground, but in Avakian&#39;s case, it seems that you could&#39;ve built a campaign to defend him rather than allow him to be nuetralised by &#39;exile&#39;. Certainly if Avakian is half the leader his followers claim, he is worth defending...

Someone said he was scared of death, but that cuts no ice here. Revolutionaries have to be prepared for the inevitable counter-revolution that will come. As Lenin said, we have to be ready to face death if necessary.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by RGacky3+April 12, 2007 07:23 pm--> (RGacky3 &#064; April 12, 2007 07:23 pm) The reason I ask is that the whole vanguard party theory is that a revolutoin cannot happen without one.

My question is would the RCP support one where the RCP does not have a leadership role.

Most Anarchist organizations never attempt a leadership role, they encourage a grassroots leaderless revolution. So my answer is of coarse I would support a revolution that is grassroots and truly communistic. Even if me or ant organization that I am a part of has no leadership role, infact I would&#39;nt want anyone to have a leadership role.

If the RCP was truely a party who&#39;s intention is to bring about a revolution, and not attain power, they would fully support a revolution in which they are not in the leadership role of, of coarse if someone like the CPUSA was in control that might be a different story, but assuming its a grassroots workers revolution that does not want or need a vanguard, would you support it. [/b]
Your understanding of the the vanguard, and communist&#39;s role in it, is flawed. Thus, though I have no love for the RCP, your question is entirely void. I understand you are learning, me too, but learn faster.

The vanguard is simply the most advanced section of the working-class. Parties arise from classes and thus you have the party of the vanguard, giving leadership to and participating in the struggles of the working-class.

If we reached the critical juncture of revolution, especially in America, a vanguard party would arise. Whether it be anarchist, communist, posadist, whatever.

What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm)


Most Anarchist organizations never attempt a leadership role, they encourage a grassroots leaderless revolution.
Leaders would emerge - those revolutionaries most committed and personally able. With democratic centralism these leaders are subject to the rank-and-file, without it you get informal cliques of leaders anyway and no accountability.

EDIT:

UC
uhm who the fuck is Avarkian ?
Quoted for truth

[UndergroundConnexion]

plus why "in France no less" , I know no other country that has a stronger revolutionary culture/history then France.

[Enragé]

If we reached the critical juncture of revolution, especially in America, a vanguard party would arise. Whether it be anarchist, communist, posadist, whatever.


i agree mostly.

The difference however lies in that in leninism the vanguard is institutionalised, focused upon, now, this should not be a problem, but it can be under shitty circumstances


Leaders would emerge - those revolutionaries most committed and personally able. With democratic centralism these leaders are subject to the rank-and-file, without it you get informal cliques of leaders anyway and no accountability.

Theoretically, yes.
The point however is is that if you dont give the vanguard institutionalised power (e.g in the party), you dont even need to hold them accountable since.. well what the hell are they gonna do without the consent of the rest of the group (now, this might be what you mean by democratic centralism, ok then). Also, freedom in discussion - unity in action is often used to shut people up (for example with the worker&#39;s opposition in lenin&#39;s days), i.e the unity in action is over-emphasised, and we can prolong the "action" indefinitely

This is mostly just murky semantics (so i avoid debates about democratic centralism per say since it all winds down to that), but shit, this avakian crap is something so completely anti-thetical to what we stand for, and so far from what the idea of the vanguard is about.

[The Grey Blur]

I&#39;d have to agree on most of what you say. In fact if you think of the better debates on the Vanguard on this site in the last little while, they have been between different Trotskyists rather than M-Ls and Anarchists. We&#39;re not 100% sure about anything either, and I&#39;m personally just as concerned as any Anarchist about whether the checks and balances will succeed if they are neccessary. I&#39;d say the only difference is that I want to analyse facts and theories and formulate my own opinion rather than approaching the question of the state and party with a prejudiced viewpoint.

[Red October]

All the RCP members I have met are solid comrades who I would gladly fight alongside, but they are misguided. Whatever my issues with RCP policy are, my main problem with them is how they treat Avakian. Many, but not all seem to think Chairman Bob is some sort of prophet who has the ultimate answer to all of life&#39;s problems. Fundamentally, the revolution does not depend on people like Avakian, it depends on the working class. While guys like Avakian are dicking around in France, others are doing real work towards revolution.

[bezdomni]

While guys like Avakian are dicking around in France, others are doing real work towards revolution.

He faces a large prison sentence if he returns to the United States.

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:12 pm

While guys like Avakian are dicking around in France, others are doing real work towards revolution.

He faces a large prison sentence if he returns to the United States.
It looks like we&#39;ve already established that that isnt the case.

[VeratheFastest]

I have never heard of this man until I read this thread.
What exactly has he done that people so admire?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Red October+April 12, 2007 10:21 pm--> (Red October @ April 12, 2007 10:21 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 05:12 pm

While guys like Avakian are dicking around in France, others are doing real work towards revolution.

He faces a large prison sentence if he returns to the United States.
It looks like we&#39;ve already established that that isnt the case. [/b]
No, you haven&#39;t.

All that has happened is somebody has said he should just take his prison sentence and that socialists have to be ready to face death, if necessary.

However, being imprisoned would severely hinder his ability to organize and publish. Being killed would hinder this even more severely.

There is a difference between bravery and irresponsibility.

Bob Avakian was a pretty important activist in the 1960s. He worked closely with the Black Panthers and the SDS. Anybody who says he is not committed to class struggle is clearly ignoring the facts.

[Red October]

if the government wanted him that badly they could have gotten him extridited fairly easily. and considering that he has finally returned to america, his legal troubles dont seem that important.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

For sure it is unfortunate that they have been taken in by this Avikan, who from what I have read and seen doesn&#39;t have any real history in the American Labour Movement and now doesn&#39;t even live in the country.

You&#39;re acting like RCP supporters and members are little children. Why don&#39;t you read some of Avakian&#39;s works, and you are wrong on both accounts. He now lives in the US somewhere and was a veteren of the free speech movement and was one of the few non-black people around the Black Panther Party. He has written quite a bit on his experiences with the party and the party in general. Oh yeah, he also is the chairman of a communist party which has been organizing workers and students since the 70s. This man has devoted himself to the communist struggle in the US and couldn&#39;t be more involved


Let&#39;s face it if he was that wanted the American ruling class would demand his extradition. Clearly he is fueled like most sectarians by a false sense of self importance.

no one has any idea where he is in the US now, or knew where in France he was then. Eventually the charges were dropped but it was for assault and usually you can&#39;t be extradited unless its extreme.

Here is what wikipedia says about the situation


Bob Avakian and the Revolutionary Union, along with others such as C. Clark Kissinger and Carl Dix, led the formation of the Revolutionary Communist Party in 1975. When Deng Xiaoping went to the United States to visit Jimmy Carter, the RCP led protests at sites throughout Washington, D.C. Avakian and others participants in the march became engaged in a conflict with the police. Avakian and others arrested for the incident were charged with several counts of assault on a police officer. After a court granted Avakian and the other arrestees&#39; request to be charged and tried together, their punishment exposure (the most severe possible sentence) was over 241 years. As a result, Avakian went to France in 1981.
Bob Avakian&#39;s current whereabouts are kept secret. His last appearances caught on video were two speaking engagements (on the East and West Coasts of the United States). These were recorded for the DVD REVOLUTION: Why It&#39;s Necessary, Why It&#39;s Possible, What It&#39;s All About. The recordings were the first publicly available images of Avakian since 1981.


However most of the RCP from what I have seen on this forum anyway is not like this, thet are genuine comrades to win over and hopefully dispel the myths of Avikan

oh please go on, enlighten me on how you want to "win me over and dispel the myths of Avakian"


but in Avakian&#39;s case, it seems that you could&#39;ve built a campaign to defend him rather than allow him to be nuetralised by &#39;exile&#39;. Certainly if Avakian is half the leader his followers claim, he is worth defending...

yeah like the bourgeiosie would let that shit happen, besides what good could he do for the movement in jail for life. At least in exile he could continue to publish marxist anti-capitalist literature en mass and organize abroad and had a chance at coming back free


Theoretically, yes.
The point however is is that if you dont give the vanguard institutionalised power (e.g in the party), you dont even need to hold them accountable since.. well what the hell are they gonna do without the consent of the rest of the group (now, this might be what you mean by democratic centralism, ok then). Also, freedom in discussion - unity in action is often used to shut people up (for example with the worker&#39;s opposition in lenin&#39;s days), i.e the unity in action is over-emphasised, and we can prolong the "action" indefinitely

what&#39;s the difference between a spontaneous vanguard that is rushed and not well prepared, and could become tyrannical due to a lack of doctrine and a party vanguard which holds to the principles of democracy and centralism and has time to prepare and organize and can&#39;t be caught off guard as easily as spontaneous vangaurd.


but shit, this avakian crap is something so completely anti-thetical to what we stand for, and so far from what the idea of the vanguard is about.

um how so? You can spew shit all day and its great but what matters in intelligent debate (yes I know, this thread is definatly not at all made of intelligent debate or topic, but lets pretend) is how you back up your claim.


as i said before
what he&#39;s saying is barely of any importance here, its about the position he holds in an organisation which should be paving the way for pure democracy, for communism.
His position, the existance of such a position, is completely anti-thetical to the stated goal of the RCP, being communism.

uhh how so? People put more weight in the voices of leaders and look to leaders for leadership (duh).


no its not, avakian is the leader.

havent you read?
follow avakian, we need him&#33;

Stop being a dickface and spamming like this. The RCP clearly states in the draft programme that the proletariat must be the leading class. Every thing Bob Avakian says reinforces that. revolutionary leaders are representitive of the revolutionary class.


Think about it
revolution is about empowering the working class, class consciousness is that set of realisations that we, as the working class, should and can take power, and institute common ownership

What does the RCP say? Follow bob avakian&#33; He&#39;s the leadership we need&#33; hurrah&#33;
It promotes the idea that dear mr avakian, as our glorious leader, should and can take power, and institute common ownership under his leadership (i.e common ownership only in name).

umm no. Either you can&#39;t tell the difference between leadership/vanguard of the proletariat and
the proletariat as a class or you are incredibly dim-witted. Find me where the RCP says that Bob Avakian should take power. The RCP doesn&#39;t. It promotes Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Revolutionary Communism. It also promotes the modern contributions of Bob Avakian to revolutionary communism and Mao Tse-tung Thought. The revolution can only be about the proletarian seizing power and that&#39;s what the RCP advocates.


But if you create a leadership, that leadership will have an interest in holding on to power, thus constituting itself as a new "class", or whatever you want to call it, point being; state&#39;s not going to wither away.

no on the contrary, thoroughly communist leadership will never be separate from the masses. It Communists are tribunes of the people. An important part of Maoism in particular is the mass line which is to never separate ones self from the masses and always work in their interests. That is why despite all the bourgeiosie-nazi lies spread about communist leaders and socialist nations in the past, real eyewitness accounts have described Mao and his wife living in a 2 bedroom (Red Star Over China) and Chou En-Lai and Lin Piao and Mao walking among the masses freely despite a &#036;200,000 bounty on their heads by the KMT (ibid). Leadership that is working to destroy classes once and for all forever, cannot become its own separate class.

The real problem is what is the anarchist proposal as a alternative? No state? Yes this is our end goal of course but explain to me: who will suppress the bourgeiosie? Who will suppress fascism? What about instituting the proletariat as dominant? Without a state when there are still classes, the bourgeiosie could easily take back power in a coup playing on nationalist, religious, and other similiar themes. When I usually ask this question I get the following answer: "Don&#39;t worry: it&#39;ll all work out. You can trust us. the workers will be happy. trust us. We&#39;re anarchists". That arguement is un-dialectic and un-materialist and in sum un-realistic which is why anarchism has never left a lasting impression on the world through revolution.

Don&#39;t get me wrong, there are alot of things I like about anarchists which I despise about communists. In particular, I despise how communists refuse to engage in direct actions while anarchists are always prepared for them and have a plan.


Yes its natural that "leaders" arise, that is those who have alot of influence because they are knowledgeable, it is however not natural to institutionalise that leadership (i.e through propaganda, personality cults etc) and show one man as "the leadership", since that would be paramount to claiming someone is knowledgeable about..well everything.

Let me sum up what you just said

yes there are leaders, because they know everything, however, if you institutionalize it, you claim that they know everything

wtf???

if you admit leadership is natural, then isn&#39;t it naturally institutionalized???


It has been proven countless times that revolutions under the banner of vanguardist parties lead to those parties usurping state power for its own end, whether under influence of the material circumstances or not, and they were capable to do this because in the running up to the revolution they created a servility of the working class to that party by posing themselves as "the leadership", thereby undermining class consciousness

that is you subjective opinion and thus, has no relevence to objective fact and truth. Thus I frankly don&#39;t care.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

All lies; there&#39;s no cult at all, as this shows:


We are proud and thrilled to announce the posting of important new talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP,USA, on bobavakian.net and revcom.us. These talks are truly pathbreaking explorations in communist theory and its application to a breathtaking range of questions, including political questions which are urgently and sharply posed in today’s situation. They are also living laboratories in the communist method and approach to the world. There is a scope and a depth to each talk, and the talks as a whole, that is really unprecedented and extraordinary.

http://revcom.us/avakian/

So you Chairman Avakian-bashers can shut up&#33; :rolleyes:

[bezdomni]

No institution or leader should go unquestioned. All commuists know this. All communist parties know this. Bob Avakian and the RCP are no exceptions.

The masses are encouraged to take everything the party says with a critical mind. Anything less than that could have disasterous consequences.

[Janus]

What&#39;s the point of this thread? Is it another RCP bashing thread or are people looking for an actual discussion.

previous RCP thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62558&hl=+Revolutionary++Communist++Party)

[The Grey Blur]

SP: Where does it say on the RCP site that critiscism is welcome?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 12, 2007 11:40 pm
SP: Where does it say on the RCP site that critiscism is welcome?
uh well it asks visitors to send comments here

http://revcom.us/commentform-en.php

there is also a welcome acceptance of critiscism and self-critiscism here, in a summation of the party ideology

http://revcom.us/a/ideology/mlm.htm

also here it upholds the cultural revolution as the highest point of socialism thus far in human history in part because of the mass debates on the direction of society taking place

http://revcom.us/margorp/a-proldic.htm


What&#39;s the point of this thread? Is it another RCP bashing thread or are people looking for an actual discussion.

yes funny how people can&#39;t even come up with decent critiscism and critiques, just anti-communist shitty rhetoric. Only CdL and hasta have actually pursued this from what I&#39;ve seen.

[Rawthentic]

yes funny how people can&#39;t even come up with decent critiscism and critiques, just anti-communist shitty rhetoric. Only CdL and hasta have actually pursued this from what I&#39;ve seen.

Ok, thanks, but can you please respond to my last post here? Its on the first page.

You talk about Avakian and the BPP, lets see what you got.

[bezdomni]

You talk about Avakian and the BPP, lets see what you got.
what do you mean by "what you got"? Do you want us to substantiate the claims that he was active with the BPP?

I&#39;m sure that could be very easily done.

In fact, while selling the RCP paper at demonstrations, I have met several people who get very excited to see Avakian&#39;s name. They claim to "remember him from the sixties".

Ironically, I took this issue of the paper out to a black proletarian area of Houston last weekend with some comrades. Not one person mentioned the words "cult of personality" or was concerned about a political leader.

There is also a part of the article that you either did not read or conveniently failed to mention where it says (paraphrasing) that Bob Avakian should not be followed like a religious leader, but that people should take what he has to say critically.

When you&#39;re going to talk shit about an article...at least read the whole thing.

Also, the main reason this issue was published with such a heavy emphasis on Avakian is because the bourgeoisie know more about the RCP&#39;s leadership than the proletariat does. This is obviously a major organizational problem, and this issue of the paper really pushed revolutionary leadership to attempt to resolve this problem.



SP: Where does it say on the RCP site that critiscism is welcome?
Criticism and self-criticism are absolutely integral parts to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. All Maoists encourage criticism.

I have been to many RCP discussion groups. They are always asking what people think about their paper, and encouraging people to disagree with anything they think is fucked up or incorrect.

And plus, if you disagree with them; they don&#39;t care that much (they being party organizers and distributers of the paper). They engage you in the matter, but they won&#39;t hate you if you disagree with part of their line.

A major difference between Maoists and Trotskyists is their interpretation of democratic centralism. Maoists apply it more to organizational tactic as opposed to upholding political line (which is mostly a Trotskyist tendency).

Basically, Maoists are more concerned with getting people into the streets while Trotskyists are more concerned with creating "the perfect line". This is why Trotskyists split so goddamned much. ;)

[Rawthentic]

Actually, SovietTrousers, thats not what I meant, I don&#39;t doubt that Bobby worked with the Panthers.

Why don&#39;t you take a look at my first post here? It&#39;s on the first page.

[bezdomni]

The RCP, when it talks about the "proletariat", they mean themselves.
A well substantiated claim.


In the event of a revolution, the RCP would make sure that they were in power.
Another well substantiated claim.


Bob is the mind and brains of the RCP, the rest are just the footsoldiers.
The Central Committee of the RCP would disagree. Political line comes from the masses, not from the Chairman.

I suggest you read their constitution.


Sort of what Huey P.Newton said about black organizations that had white people in them. These organizations quickly became led by the whites, who were the "mind", and the blacks were the "body." He said, "there can be no black-white unity until there is first black-black unity."

Same applies for the working-class.
What does that have to do with anything?

BPP was Maoist. How can you denounce one Maoist and praise another? Avakian and Newton are very similar ideologically. If you are going to take an anti-Maoist line, at least be consistent with it.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 11, 2007 09:20 pm
What kind of revolutionary goes into self-imposed exile

How about Vladimir Lenin?


because he is alledgedly threatened with legal action for organising a demonstration?

No, that is not the only reason Bob Avakian is exile. Those charges were dropped. There were attempts on his life. The FBI had blueprints of his house and actual assassination plots. If people check out Avakian&#39;s memoir, From Ike to Mao, it includes actual photocopies of the FBI documents. Since the time of those trials, Bob Avakian has remained on FBI "domestic threat" lists.

Should we just throw revolutionary leaders out in the public and give them a good run for 6 months until they get killed? Or should we build widespread support to popularize and defend that revolutionary leadership from the bourgeoisie? Think about how people took the leadership of people like Fred Hampton and Malcolm X for granted until the were murdered by the pigs. Alot of people didn&#39;t see the importance of their leadership until after those events.

What we need is not another martyr, what we need is a revolutionary leader who can get us out of this shit&#33;


I personally know many people facing much worse situations who didn&#39;t run from them like cowards&#33;

Is Bob Avakian a "coward," or is he a tempered communist revolutionary who is making a strategic decision in the interest of the revolution? Like Lenin&#39;s exile, Avakian&#39;s exile is necessary for him to lead the revolution at this particular point in time. It&#39;s not that the RCP wants to hide him away forever, it&#39;s that it wants to create a political situation where the bourgeoisie can&#39;t murder Avakian, because the consequences that they would recieve from the masses in return would be to great.


Ffs, Glorious Chairman Bob upholds Stalin... has he forgotten Stalin&#39;s &#39;not one step backwards&#33;&#39; slogan??&#33;&#33; :lol:

Well, let&#39;s get into that. Avakian is giving an entire undogmatic summation of the entire history of the international communist movement. He has analyzed the positive aspects of socialism under Stalin, while at the same time criticizing the negative aspects of it. He is re-envisioning entire aspects of how things should be in socialism. He is putting forward an actual program for how we can make revolution in a country like the United States. He is on the level of Marx, Lenin, and Mao. I do NOT say that lightly. There literally has never been anything like his leadership in the United States.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:48 pm
I have never heard of this man until I read this thread.
What exactly has he done that people so admire?
He is a revolutionary leader who was close to the Black Panther Party in the 60&#39;s, and has never sold out the masses. He has produced an entire volume of works that re-envision the entire communist project, and laid forward an actual program for making proletarian revolution in the USA.... and whole lot more. You should check out the special edition of Revolution Newspaper that is promoting his leadership, here:

Special Edition of Revolution Newspaper Promoting Avakian&#39;s Leadership (http://revcom.us/avakian/crossroads/index.html)

Audio Version (http://revcom.us/avakian/crossroads/crossroads.mp3)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Special Edition of Revolution Newspaper Promoting Avakian&#39;s Leadership

"He’s shown the basis and the ways for such a revolution to reach out to and eventually win over the great majority of people in the U.S. (including most of the large middle class)."

More "fight for the middle," huh?

[Herman]

There&#39;s something which i&#39;ve seen and I am skeptical about.

It seems that people around here measure how &#39;revolutionary&#39; a person is according to how long he&#39;s been in prison.

So if I went to prison tomorrow, would that make me a legend among every revolutionary socialist?

No, it wouldn&#39;t.

In fact, going to prison or having a prison sentence is wrong. It doesn&#39;t show how faithful you are to communism. It shows that you are an idiot and it doesn&#39;t help anyone that you&#39;re behind bars. Wouldn&#39;t it be better if you weren&#39;t facing prison so that you could actually contribute to the movement?

[Enragé]

what&#39;s the difference between a spontaneous vanguard that is rushed and not well prepared, and could become tyrannical due to a lack of doctrine and a party vanguard which holds to the principles of democracy and centralism and has time to prepare and organize and can&#39;t be caught off guard as easily as spontaneous vangaurd.

you cannot become tyrannical if you have no power
non-institutionalised vanguards have no power.


um how so? You can spew shit all day and its great but what matters in intelligent debate (yes I know, this thread is definatly not at all made of intelligent debate or topic, but lets pretend) is how you back up your claim

i did <_<


uhh how so? People put more weight in the voices of leaders and look to leaders for leadership (duh).


Which is one of the things we should seek to overcome, not encourage it as you do (which is the core of my argument). This tendency to look towards leaders for the answers, rather than thinking critically on your own ("question everything") is one of the greatest impediments to a succesful revolution since it degrades people to followers, to sheep, rather than a force of self-liberation.


Find me where the RCP says that Bob Avakian should take power. The RCP doesn&#39;t. It promotes Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Revolutionary Communism. It also promotes the modern contributions of Bob Avakian to revolutionary communism and Mao Tse-tung Thought. The revolution can only be about the proletarian seizing power and that&#39;s what the RCP advocates.


You put Avakian forward as a messiah like figure, the core of your argument is follow avakian. Instead of trying to get people to think for themselves you substitute one leader with the other.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


The real problem is what is the anarchist proposal as a alternative? No state? Yes this is our end goal of course but explain to me: who will suppress the bourgeiosie? Who will suppress fascism? What about instituting the proletariat as dominant?

1. The people organised in a federation of worker-councils by means of popular militias
2. The moment the proletariate takes control of the means of production, and abolishes the capitalist state, the proletariate has become as dominant as it would if it would cling on to a state, if not more so (since the state is a tool of rule by a minority over the majority, and since the proletariate is the majority... the state becomes obsolete, the majority can impose its will on the minority, the bourgeosie, without a state as such).

In any case
i dont care if you have a state
as long as its sufficiently under the control of a class conscious, free, critical people. Putting Avakian forward as the new leader we all need impedes that.


the bourgeiosie could easily take back power in a coup playing on nationalist, religious, and other similiar themes

so can they when the state still exists, it might even work in favour of them since all they&#39;d have to do is take state power. Meet the newest boss, same as the last one, which was the same as the old one.


yes there are leaders, because they know everything, however, if you

institutionalize it, you claim that they know everything
wtf???

if you admit leadership is natural, then isn&#39;t it naturally institutionalized???


no
they know certain things, therefore they come to the foreground in those areas where those certain things apply, in discussion with others, those "leaders" would come out on top in certain debates since they know those certain things. They are knowledgeable.

To make someone "the" [institutionalised] leader, in any area, however means that you claim that person knows everything, holds the absolute truth (in at least that certain area), which if that leader makes controversial decisions, or shitty ones, will lead to people saying "fuck you" and the only way to make them do what the leader says would be to enforce it with a form of violence, that is to form a state, thus enabling the minority to rule the majority... and thát is inherently unnatural.

so there are two different types of "leadership"
natural leadership
and
institutionalised/unnatural leadership

[RNK]

There literally has never been anything like his leadership in the United States

I think that&#39;s something we can all agree on. Now, whether it&#39;s a good or bad thing, that&#39;s for each other&#39;s opinions...

Anyway, I have only one question for the RCP USA supporters...

Do you understand why many leftists and revolutionaries find the RCP&#39;s rhetoric to be worrying? Forget your own personal beliefs about Avakian; from the perception of an outsider who knows little about the RCP and Avakian, can you understand why many people may be &#39;turned off&#39; by the RCP&#39;s incredibly aggressive praise of Avakian? If so, do you not value the tactics of subtleness? Obviously, as you&#39;ve seen on this board, many people find the blunt praise of Avakian as a turn-off; this should be taken as an indication of the need for a more subtle approach to advancing the ideology of the RCP. I can respect your admiration for Avakian, but you guys must exercise the ability to analyse how your behaviour may be damaging the Party. It&#39;s silly to expect that you can make everybody happy; it&#39;s also silly to expect that you don&#39;t have the obligation to try and reach out to revolutionaries through amicable terms.

As for the nay-sayers, please try not to jump to conclusions based on conceptions/misconceptions, half-truths, rumours and second-hand stories you&#39;ve heard about Maoists, or the RCP, or Avakian.


The RCP, when it talks about the "proletariat", they mean themselves.

In the event of a revolution, the RCP would make sure that they were in power.

Bob is the mind and brains of the RCP, the rest are just the footsoldiers.

I disagree, and I&#39;d like to know how and why you&#39;ve come to this "conclusion". I&#39;m fairly certain that almost every left-wing organization represented on this board is after the same thing; the destruction of the bourgeois state and its political system, and the introduction of true people&#39;s freedom from exploitation. The RCP is no different. You may disagree with their strategy and tactic (which I do as well) but running around accusing the RCP of being totalitarian is nothing more than baseless smearing. So far, few people here have actually tried to debate the RCP&#39;s actual Programme or Constitution or Party Line or policies. Instead, most have just thrown around the same accusations, repeated the same rumours and stories, essentially just insulted the RCP on the most shallow grounds without actually discussing anything of substance.

For instance, where can I find an in-depth source of information on the RCP&#39;s Programme, Party Line, policies, plans, etc? Revcom.us seems more like an online magazine than a party website -- there seems to be very little actual information on the party itself, most of it is just written articles for its paper.

[Delta]

Here is a leader, one you urgently need to check out, engage with, and follow.

Terryifying...

[Lenin II]

Recently I was invited to an event by a friend on Facebook. Here&#39;s the ad:

The Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade encourages everyone in the Atlanta area and those that we have met in outlying areas to check out this special edition of Revolution Newspaper, which is available online at www.revcom.us. People around the country are working tirelessly to get out this very important newspaper and introduce people to Bob Avakian, the chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Millions of people around the globe are crying out for an end to the needless suffering this system perpetuates. People also realize the need for leadership, this is why now more than ever, the revolutionary leadership of Bob Avakian is so badly needed. We are encouraging people to take out this week&#39;s paper broadly and get it into the hands of millions of people, so that they can also engage with the ideas and possibilities of revolution and communism. We want everyone who is concerned with the future of humanity to read this newspaper, lend their support, donate time and money, raise their concerns, questions and disagreements, while at the some time forging a way out of the horrors of this system and into a new world free of classes and oppression.

Join us this Saturday, April 14 @ Revolution Books Outlet in Atlanta
(1087 Euclid Ave in Little 5 Points - for info and direction to Revolution Books click here)


9:30am: Outreach with Revolution newspaper&#33; We will be leaving the bookstore at 10am and heading to Georgia Tech to attend Barack Obama&#39;s speaking event. There will be an estimated 20,000 people at the event. Many of these people are desperately searching for a way out of the Bush&#39;s future, we want to raise their sights and introduce them to a real revolutionary leader, Bob Avakian.

1:30pm: Meet back at Revolution Books to go out to several other events around the city, including a Katrina Tribunal at Clark Atlanta.

4:00pm: For everyone checking out Revolution for the first time and for those that want to delve more deeply into the ideas of Chairman Avakian and communism, join us for a DVD screening of Revolution. The DVD will be followed by an open discussion. Please come out and raise your questions and contribute to the conversation.


Contact the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, Atlanta: [email protected]





Its this Saturday. What do you think? Shall I attend?

[RNK]

Sure, why not? Then you can judge the RCP for yourself.

[NaxalbariZindabad]

Concerning AndrewG&#39;s question, it seems obvious to me that you should seize the opportunity to meet some RCPUSA activists.

In my opinion, the work done by these comrades is really significant and important ; every revolutionary-minded person in the US should at least engage in an honest, scientific and once in a while "offline" debate with them, and at best join the RCPUSA. I do have some important criticisms concerning the RCPUSA&#39;s theory and practice, but for example if someone criticizes 10% of a Party&#39;s line and agrees with the rest, that person should join the Party and undertake a constructive debate at the same time.

Concerning comrade RNK&#39;s questions about "the RCP&#39;s Programme, Party Line, policies, plans", you can get the RCPUSA&#39;s programme on Revcom at this address: http://revcom.us/margorp/progtoc-e.htm.

[NaxalbariZindabad]

In addition to the programme, there&#39;s also a book by Avakian titled "Could We Really Win?" which --if I&#39;m not mistaken-- is the RCPUSA&#39;s main document about revolutionary strategy in the US.

"Could We..." was written in 1987, was reprinted not so long ago and is available here: revolutionbooks.org/product-p/cwrw.htm (http://www.revolutionbooks.org/product-p/cwrw.htm) (unfortunately I can&#39;t find an online version&#33;)

[wes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:13 pm
[QUOTE]
revolution is the most authoritarian thing in the world.[QUOTE]
Care to explain this statement a little better?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Bob Avakarin is truly a genius theoretician and excellent activist. I can&#39;t think of a better modern marxist theorist/activist right now besides him.

But in my opinion the practicality and attractability of the Bob Avakarin cult scares away popular opinion. This feeds very well the Reactionaries propaganda labeling of a "personality cult". So I&#39;d suggest Bob drop that, because that only hurts him infinetly to the practical cause of his organizing.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:08 pm

[QUOTE]
revolution is the most authoritarian thing in the world.[QUOTE]
Care to explain this statement a little better?
This comes straight from Engels. Here is the exact quote:


Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

It comes from Engels&#39; argument against "anti-authoritarians" about the nature of the revolution and the transition to a classless society.

Not that any of the above has any real bearing on the character of the RCPUSA or Bob Avakian or anything like that. But it is a nice fudge.

Miles

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:48 pm
In addition to the programme, there&#39;s also a book by Avakian titled "Could We Really Win?" which --if I&#39;m not mistaken-- is the RCPUSA&#39;s main document about revolutionary strategy in the US.

"Could We..." was written in 1987, was reprinted not so long ago and is available here: revolutionbooks.org/product-p/cwrw.htm (http://www.revolutionbooks.org/product-p/cwrw.htm) (unfortunately I can&#39;t find an online version&#33;)
I don&#39;t see why Revolution Books has most of his works for such expensive prices. His works sell much more cheaply on amazon.com, so I&#39;d suggest looking there instead.

[Rawthentic]

What does that have to do with anything?

BPP was Maoist. How can you denounce one Maoist and praise another? Avakian and Newton are very similar ideologically. If you are going to take an anti-Maoist line, at least be consistent with it.

It has alot to do, mainly because Bobby is not proletarian. I&#39;m relating to the black-white relationship to the working class-petty-bourgeoisie relationshiop.

Look back into it comrade. And this is not about anti-Maoism, its about the RCP. I fully understand that Huey and the BPP were Maoist.

[Genosse Kotze]

Frankly, I don&#39;t know what to make of Avakian. All of his speeches can be found online, which is great. Sometimes he&#39;s a better speaker than others but for the most part I really dig what he&#39;s saying. There are some things that don&#39;t sit well with me though, but I&#39;m to do what some people have suggested on this thread and talk about what he&#39;s actually putting forth.

First off, his arguments as to why voting for the democrats is shit are right on. I think it&#39;s very important for people to come to that understanding if there is to be any real change in society, and the way Avakian articulates this point is very persuasive and apt.

If you don&#39;t like religion, than Bob Avakian is the guy for you. You can find a bunch of his lectures online and the majority of them are critiques of religion and why people need to put that kind of dominance behind them in order for there to be a better world.

There are a bunch of other topics where he can be very good, however this so called "culture of appreciation" around him seems to be the most off-putting thing about him--how he defends Stalin in particular is very distasteful.

Now, in his speeches, he refers to, again and again, "a solid core with a lot of elasticity." This is his analogy for how he envisions how a socialist society, and how a party, should be like. It must be very dynamic and there must be constant ferment and debate, at the same time while not taking your eye off the prize and not allowing this to get in the way of achieving objectives. He does emphasize this quite a bit, but what I feel he is saying is this: "People can argue and disagree all they like, but at the end of the day it shouldn&#39;t be allowed to amount to anything other than what the program calls for." That seems to be the case in society today. People are allowed to protest but they are easily brushed aside by policy makers.

Another problem I find with Avakian is that, although he does a very good job of explaining what capitalism is all about and unpacking the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Mao, he doesn&#39;t really add anything new into the Marxist tradition. He&#39;s not a theoretician in his own right but just a very good student of past ones, which isn&#39;t bad in itself, and usually when somebody decides to add something or what have you to Marxism, it winds up being revisionist and just takes away from that tradition. However, there are modern developments, such as the neo-imperialism of the global financial institutions (IMF, WTO, etc.) that Avakian really doesn&#39;t get into depth about.

However, getting back to the "culture of appreciation" thing, it may only be off putting in Avakian’s case because he&#39;s the leader of a party. Noam Chomsky is promoted and held up really high amongst all sorts of people because what he talks about is very eye-opening. You&#39;ve got to wonder though, if Noam Chomsky was the leader of a party instead of a professor, would we look at him differently and call his popularity a "cult of personality"?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:57 pm

What does that have to do with anything?

BPP was Maoist. How can you denounce one Maoist and praise another? Avakian and Newton are very similar ideologically. If you are going to take an anti-Maoist line, at least be consistent with it.

It has alot to do, mainly because Bobby is not proletarian. I&#39;m relating to the black-white relationship to the working class-petty-bourgeoisie relationshiop.

Look back into it comrade. And this is not about anti-Maoism, its about the RCP. I fully understand that Huey and the BPP were Maoist.
yeah he was we&#39;ve been over this. This is a very silly arguement. I guess marx and Engels were garbage because they "weren&#39;t proletarian". How upsurd.


I don&#39;t see why Revolution Books has most of his works for such expensive prices. His works sell much more cheaply on amazon.com, so I&#39;d suggest looking there instead.

Amazon sells them used which is cheaper but when you buy from Amazon you are funding a gigantic multi-national corporation as opposed to a communist party putting forward the vision of abolishing capitalism and emancipating humanity.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13, 2007 06:28 am

Special Edition of Revolution Newspaper Promoting Avakian&#39;s Leadership

"He’s shown the basis and the ways for such a revolution to reach out to and eventually win over the great majority of people in the U.S. (including most of the large middle class)."

More "fight for the middle," huh?
yes you conveniently ignored this

Fundamental to a truly communist revolution is this: the people who today are at the bottom of society, whether slaving at jobs or cast off altogether, must rise above what this system has cast them into and lead the revolution and the transformation of all society

This is the RCP&#39;s position on what you&#39;re talking about (http://revcom.us/margorp/a-uf1.htm). In sum the RCP&#39;s position is that the proletariat want to win this revolution and in order to win, the more of the masses fighting the revolution, the better chance that the revolution will be won.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Sort of what Huey P.Newton said about black organizations that had white people in them. These organizations quickly became led by the whites, who were the "mind", and the blacks were the "body." He said, "there can be no black-white unity until there is first black-black unity."

Same applies for the working-class.

When did Huey say that? Do you have a link? Thanks because I could&#39;ve sworn it was Malcolm X. I respond after I see the link

[NaxalbariZindabad]

I found this:


Whites can help us, but they can&#39;t join us. There can be no black/white unity, until there is first some black unity. — From the press conference at which [Malcom X] announced the formation of Muslim Mosque, Inc.; cited in The Autobiography. (From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Malcolm_X)

... but of course Wikipedia isn&#39;t a very reliable source

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote (concerning Bob Avakian":


All lies; there&#39;s no cult at all, as this shows:

Yes, "Chairman Bob says it, I believe it, that settles it&#33;".

[Rawthentic]

When did Huey say that? Do you have a link? Thanks because I could&#39;ve sworn it was Malcolm X. I respond after I see the link
No, Huey was talking about Malcolm, but was referring to the SNCC, who had white people in them, who naturally became the heads and wanted to run things, thus destroying black autonomy.

Same goes for the working class. You allow petty-bourgeois in their parties, and say goodbye to self-organization and emancipation.

I&#39;ll provide a quote later, its in the book I have called, The Black Panthers Speak, by Phillip S. Foner.

[bezdomni]

Yes, "Chairman Bob says it, I believe it, that settles it&#33;".
The RCP promotes criticism among its leadership. No supporter of the RCP would ever say that. That&#39;s a bullshit strawman.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

seems like NaxalbariZindabad beat you too it, proving it was a Malcolm X quote. This is understandable because Malcolm X was a Black Nationalist. But okay I get your point: apparently you&#39;re so uncomfortable with the line of your party that you think it will be hijacked in the night by the bourgeiosie. Let me ask, don&#39;t you think that if something like that happened, which is impossible because in a party advocating the dictatorship of the proletariat and active in proletariat neighborhoods will be mainly proletariat just because of theory and practice. If this somehow does happen, all the communists and revolutionaries will leave as proven by the CPUSA which was reformist which led it to the petty bourgeiosie line it holds now.

[Rawthentic]

It is a Malcolm X quote, but Huey used it in reference to their struggle as well as other black organizations of the time.

And I&#39;m not uncomfortable with the CL&#39;s line. I think we are doing a good job of focusing on our class brothers and sisters, who are the vast majority in humanity, and reemphasizing self-organization and emancipation.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:27 pm
But okay I get your point: apparently you&#39;re so uncomfortable with the line of your party that you think it will be hijacked in the night by the bourgeiosie. Let me ask, don&#39;t you think that if something like that happened, which is impossible because in a party advocating the dictatorship of the proletariat and active in proletariat neighborhoods will be mainly proletariat just because of theory and practice. If this somehow does happen, all the communists and revolutionaries will leave as proven by the CPUSA which was reformist which led it to the petty bourgeiosie line it holds now.
A few comments:...

"impossible because in a party advocating the dictatorship of the proletariat and active in the proletariat neighborhoods will be mainly proletariat just because of theory and practice".

Every "official Communist" party in the 1920s fit this description (in fact, much more than the RCP,USA does today, since they actually had memberships in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and/or millions, and a living connection to the proletarian upsurges that followed the First World War), and yet, they ALL degenerated into the bourgeois-socialist sects they are today. A point you concede here:

"all the communists and revolutionaries will leave as proven by the CPUSA which was reformist which led it to the petty bourgeiosie line it holds now".

When the Maoists first began to break from the CPUSA in the 1950s, it had thousands of members, most of whom were in basic industry -- auto, steel, transport, longshore (dock workers), etc. They were active at their workplace and in their neighborhoods. They had a daily newspaper that reached hundreds of thousands, plus local bulletins and newsletters that addressed more immediate issues. The European, Asian and African "official Communists" were even larger, and had more of a proletarian base and area of activity. And they all swore up and down that they supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian revolution and communism. And yet,...

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&#39;s back on the communist view that "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves".

This is not uncomfortability you&#39;re seeing. What you&#39;re seeing is what it looks like to learn the lessons of a century and apply them in practice. I&#39;m sorry you cannot seem to handle that.

Miles

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:53 am
Do you understand why many leftists and revolutionaries find the RCP&#39;s rhetoric to be worrying? Forget your own personal beliefs about Avakian; from the perception of an outsider who knows little about the RCP and Avakian, can you understand why many people may be &#39;turned off&#39; by the RCP&#39;s incredibly aggressive praise of Avakian? If so, do you not value the tactics of subtleness? Obviously, as you&#39;ve seen on this board, many people find the blunt praise of Avakian as a turn-off; this should be taken as an indication of the need for a more subtle approach to advancing the ideology of the RCP. I can respect your admiration for Avakian, but you guys must exercise the ability to analyse how your behaviour may be damaging the Party. It&#39;s silly to expect that you can make everybody happy; it&#39;s also silly to expect that you don&#39;t have the obligation to try and reach out to revolutionaries through amicable terms.

As for the nay-sayers, please try not to jump to conclusions based on conceptions/misconceptions, half-truths, rumours and second-hand stories you&#39;ve heard about Maoists, or the RCP, or Avakian.
Yeah, I do understand that those lines exist, and for the most part, I understand why they exist too. I don&#39;t have alot of time so I&#39;m going to be brief.

I believe that there is a direct correlation between the overwhelmingly large petit-bourgeoisie in the USA (and the other imperialist countries for that matter) and the "we don&#39;t need any leaders" line. For instance, I&#39;ve never heard Black proletarians talking about "we don&#39;t need any leaders." Rather, Black proletarians talk about how much love they have for leaders like Malcolm X, Huey Newton, and Fred Hampton.

I&#39;ll say it straight up: if there&#39;s nothing special about Bob Avakian&#39;s leadership, then his leadership should not be put forward in this way. However, if Bob Avakian&#39;s leadership is actually of the caliber that the RCP says that it is, then people need to widely popularize and defend his leadership, on much larger scales than is being done now.

There are two good theoretical articles that analyze the "we don&#39;t need any leaders" line, and why the RCP is putting forward Chairman Avakian&#39;s leadership in this way, that you can read here:

Some Points On the Question of Revolutionary Leadership and Individual Leaders (http://www.revcom.us/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership_points.htm)

Resolution: On Leaders and Leadership (http://www.revcom.us/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership.htm)


where can I find an in-depth source of information on the RCP&#39;s Programme, Party Line, policies, plans, etc? Revcom.us seems more like an online magazine than a party website -- there seems to be very little actual information on the party itself, most of it is just written articles for its paper.

Check out the RCP&#39;s Draft Programme here:

Draft Programme (http://www.revcom.us/margorp/progtoc-e.htm)

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:48 pm
In addition to the programme, there&#39;s also a book by Avakian titled "Could We Really Win?" which --if I&#39;m not mistaken-- is the RCPUSA&#39;s main document about revolutionary strategy in the US.

"Could We..." was written in 1987, was reprinted not so long ago and is available here: revolutionbooks.org/product-p/cwrw.htm (http://www.revolutionbooks.org/product-p/cwrw.htm) (unfortunately I can&#39;t find an online version&#33;)
That&#39;s a GREAT book, but that&#39;s not the main document for strategy right now. Currently, the RCP&#39;s two main documents that lay out it&#39;s strategy are:

The Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party (read it online) (http://www.revcom.us/margorp/progtoc-e.htm) Buy it for &#036;4.00 (http://www.revolutionbooks.org/product-p/draftprog.htm)

and

The Coming Civil War and Repolarization For Revolution in the Current Period by Bob Avakian (Buy it for &#036;2.00 (http://www.revolutionbooks.org/product-p/comingcivilwar.htm))

[OneBrickOneVoice]

petty-bourgeois line would be erasing the class line in favor of an abstract "people" fighting for an abstract "socialism" or "revolution"

if you&#39;re refering to the RCP, that is bull and you know it. Look at any of the vast arrays of links provided. In the draft programme it emphasize "uncompromising united front under the leadership of the proletariat. It is the proletariat organizing themselves and the masses as a whole. To just reject communists of a non-proletarian background means you don&#39;t want to win. You don&#39;t want as many people as possible to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeiosie, you just want to use your slick rhetoric.


Further, a petty-bourgeois line would be a concentration -- strategic or tactical -- on recruiting "the middle" (i.e., the petty bourgeoisie)

on the contrary, that is not what the RCP does. Where I live, the RCP goes particularly into the barrios and ghettos and projects and neighborhoods that are hardly proletarian to distribute literature. From the sound of what I&#39;ve heard SovietPants and RedHeretic say, it seems the party functions the same elsewhere as well. The RCP just doesn&#39;t reject the petty bourgeoiseie and recognizes that in the past they have been very valuable to the revolution and could be in a future revolution (that we want to win) as well.


"Moses" to "lead the flock" to the "New Jerusalem" -- thus turning one&#39;s back on the communist view that "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves".

no one is denying that. Its just that every lasting revolution has had strong leadership and this will continue. Why because people look to leaders for experienced descision making, theoretical inspiration, and a voice that people naturally put more weight in because of various reasons. When a person speaks for the masses though, he is not speaking as an individual or a moses but as a representitive of the masses. To actually think that the RCP thinks that Bob Avakian will overthrow the government alone is so upsurd I really don&#39;t know what to say, otherwise, I don&#39;t see your point much.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+April 14, 2007 01:25 am--> (LeftyHenry &#064; April 14, 2007 01:25 am)In the draft programme it emphasize "uncompromising united front under the leadership of the proletariat.[/b]
Translation: On the ground, in the real world, the RCP aims for young people from "middle class" backgrounds (part of their current and very real "fight for the middle"). And organizing the proletariat? Well, that&#39;s above their current work.

Way above....

Up high....

High in the sky....

In the sweet by-and-by....


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:25 am
To just reject communists of a non-proletarian background means you don&#39;t want to win. You don&#39;t want as many people as possible to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeiosie, you just want to use your slick rhetoric.
"Non-proletarian communist" is a contradiction in terms. I will concede "non-proletarian socialist". But then, we&#39;ve seen throughout the 20th century what "non-proletarian socialism" has done to humanity.

Call that "slick rhetoric" if you want.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:25 am
Where I live, the RCP goes particularly into ... neighborhoods that are hardly proletarian to distribute literature.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Paging Dr. Freud&#33; Paging Dr. Freud&#33; Your slip is showing&#33;

(I think the word you were reaching for was "heartily".)


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:25 am
From the sound of what I&#39;ve heard SovietPants and RedHeretic say, it seems the party functions the same elsewhere as well.
Going into working-class neighborhoods is one thing. Being accepted when you&#39;re there -- that&#39;s something else. And I&#39;ll tell you, working-class people don&#39;t like leftists who go slumming to feel good about themselves.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:25 am
The RCP just doesn&#39;t reject the petty bourgeoiseie and recognizes that in the past they have been very valuable to the revolution and could be in a future revolution (that we want to win) as well.
Valuable in the past does not mean they will be valuable in the present. For that matter, valuable in turn-of-the-20th-century Russia or 1930s China does not mean valuable in 21st-century United States or even 21st-century Nepal (or India, or Peru, or Afghanistan, etc.).

Class relations develop over time. That&#39;s what you and your comrades fail to understand. Just because Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Bob has not written about the changes to class relations as a result of the development of the imperialist epoch -- the last stage of capitalism -- does not mean they haven&#39;t changed. It either means they died too soon to analyze it fully (Lenin -- who actually did begin to explore the question), or it did not serve their purpose at the time (Stalin, Mao), or it does not serve their purpose now (Bob).

Sure, you can argue that the development of the petty bourgeoisie hasn&#39;t changed fundamentally. But then, such a position would go against the spirit and sense of the communist method. I mean, are you really going to argue that class relations have not developed over the last century -- that the imperialist epoch has not changed the role of the petty bourgeoisie?


[email protected] 14, 2007 01:25 am
no one is denying that. Its just that every lasting revolution has had strong leadership and this will continue. Why because people look to leaders for experienced descision making, theoretical inspiration, and a voice that people naturally put more weight in because of various reasons. When a person speaks for the masses though, he is not speaking as an individual or a moses but as a representitive of the masses. To actually think that the RCP thinks that Bob Avakian will overthrow the government alone is so upsurd I really don&#39;t know what to say, otherwise, I don&#39;t see your point much.
Having communists highly trained in theory and able to apply it to practice is one thing. Every communist organization, including ours, has those comrades. However, it is the responsibility of communists and the communist organization to decentralize information and theoretical training, to train as many workers as possible to be theoretical and practical leaders in the class struggle, not centralize it to a single point and enshrine one person as "The Leader". There is a clear dividing line between the role of the individual in history and the cult of the individual. The RCP crosses that line ... then seeks to blow it up with high explosives.

I subscribe more to what Eugene V. Debs said about individual personalities: "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again." ("Industrial Unionism", 1905)

Did it ever cross your mind -- or the minds of your comrades -- that Avakian could betray you at the critical moment and "you could be led back again" into a capitalist hell?

Miles

[RNK]

Odd that I couldn&#39;t find the RCP&#39;s Programme...

Anyway, thanks for the links.

[Enragé]

lefty henry, could you respond to my post?

[UndergroundConnexion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:00 am
There&#39;s something which i&#39;ve seen and I am skeptical about.

It seems that people around here measure how &#39;revolutionary&#39; a person is according to how long he&#39;s been in prison.

So if I went to prison tomorrow, would that make me a legend among every revolutionary socialist?

No, it wouldn&#39;t.

In fact, going to prison or having a prison sentence is wrong. It doesn&#39;t show how faithful you are to communism. It shows that you are an idiot and it doesn&#39;t help anyone that you&#39;re behind bars. Wouldn&#39;t it be better if you weren&#39;t facing prison so that you could actually contribute to the movement?
yet quite a few revolutionaries used the time in prison to educate themselves , which made them stronger, when leaving prison.. look at Fidel or Malcolm X

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13, 2007 04:36 am
Avakian is giving an entire undogmatic summation of the entire history of the international communist movement. He has analyzed the positive aspects of socialism under Stalin, while at the same time criticizing the negative aspects of it. He is re-envisioning entire aspects of how things should be in socialism. He is putting forward an actual program for how we can make revolution in a country like the United States. He is on the level of Marx, Lenin, and Mao. I do NOT say that lightly. There literally has never been anything like his leadership in the United States.
:lol:

If this is satire then you are a genuis.

There&#39;ve been some pretty massive working class struggles in N American history - and Avakian doesn&#39;t come close to any of them.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:00 am
Translation: On the ground, in the real world, the RCP aims for young people from "middle class" backgrounds (part of their current and very real "fight for the middle"). And organizing the proletariat? Well, that&#39;s above their current work.

Way above....

Up high....

High in the sky....

In the sweet by-and-by....
This just objectively isn&#39;t true. People have always made it principle to bring forward proletarian youth.



"Non-proletarian communist" is a contradiction in terms. I will concede "non-proletarian socialist". But then, we&#39;ve seen throughout the 20th century what "non-proletarian socialism" has done to humanity.

I don&#39;t believe that identity politics get us anywhere comrade. Marx, Lenin, and Mao all came from relatively privileged backgrounds...


Going into working-class neighborhoods is one thing. Being accepted when you&#39;re there -- that&#39;s something else. And I&#39;ll tell you, working-class people don&#39;t like leftists who go slumming to feel good about themselves.

You&#39;re absolutely right man. I do think alot of so called communists do do that. However, let me relate to you some of my experience:

When people here in the city where I live go to get out Revolution Newspaper, not only do the masses accept those people, but they take up huge bundles of papers to get to other proletarians. They greet people by name, and ask "where is so and so?" "Tell so-and-so she needs to bring me a fucking Wanted t-shirt&#33;" etc. Just today as I was leaving this proletarian neighborhood, I saw a proletarian women taking the big bundle of papers we gave her and getting them out to other neighbors. It&#39;s really fucking exciting, and I can&#39;t explain to you how much it reverberates with me&#33;


Did it ever cross your mind -- or the minds of your comrades -- that Avakian could betray you at the critical moment and "you could be led back again" into a capitalist hell?

Well, let&#39;s get into that. It&#39;s easy to see why so many people (including alot of proletarians) raise this. So many leaders have sold out the masses of people.

First of all, I don&#39;t think anyone should follow Avakian uncritically. However, take a look at his leadership. He&#39;s been around since the 60&#39;s, was close to the Black Panther Party, and has never sold-out or burnt out on revolution. He has never compromised on making proletarian revolution, never lost his hatred for this system, or lost his bond with the masses. Leaders like Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Avakian, are rare, and it really highlights why we&#39;ve go to mobilize to defend them.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 14, 2007 07:31 pm
There&#39;ve been some pretty massive working class struggles in N American history - and Avakian doesn&#39;t come close to any of them.
The statement was that there has never been a proletarian leader in the US of Avakian&#39;s caliber, not that there has never been a struggle of this caliber.

Do you think there are more advanced leaders out there than Avakian? Let&#39;s get into that.

[Red Heretic]

I feel that the criticisms of Avakian here really don&#39;t have any substance... People should look into what Avakian is actually saying, and engage that. Let&#39;s get into what Avakian is putting forward, and talk about people agree with, disagree with, etc.

For example, have people checked out his talks on BobAvakian.net (http://www.bobavakian.net)? People should get into those and engage them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because Avakian has contributed dipshit to the creation of an international communist party with national "cells" per se, he is little more than an opportunist, regardless of his so-called "contributions to Marxist theory."

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+April 15, 2007 12:30 am--> (Red Heretic &#064; April 15, 2007 12:30 am)This just objectively isn&#39;t true. People have always made it principle to bring forward proletarian youth.[/b]
Actually, it was a polemical flourish. But since you want to take it seriously, we can do that. To say that the RCP has "always made it principle to bring forward proletarian youth" is rubbish. I know and have known enough RCP/RCYB members over the years, including a couple who became League supporters, to know that: a) it is not something they have "always" done, and b) it is not something that is "always" (if, by such a term, we can generally mean "at all times, in all places") done today.

I know for a fact that the local RCP leadership here has steadfastly refused to send younger members into any of the auto plants here, even though current and former members have offered to get them in. Moreover, those same local leaders have placed a lot of pressure on their two remaining autoworkers in Detroit to take the buyouts and leave their base of work for more than 20 years to die on the vine -- without replacing them in the plant and without attempting to maintain the connections they&#39;ve made over the years. According to the people I&#39;ve talked to about it, the local RCP leaders "sound like MIM people" on this question.

That&#39;s some way to "bring forward" the proletariat -- young or otherwise.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 15, 2007 12:30 am
I don&#39;t believe that identity politics get us anywhere comrade. Marx, Lenin, and Mao all came from relatively privileged backgrounds...
Class issues are "identity politics". Well, that&#39;s one for the books&#33; 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.)

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&#39;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.)


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 15, 2007 12:30 am
When people here in the city where I live go to get out Revolution Newspaper, not only do the masses accept those people, but they take up huge bundles of papers to get to other proletarians. They greet people by name, and ask "where is so and so?" "Tell so-and-so she needs to bring me a fucking Wanted t-shirt&#33;" etc. Just today as I was leaving this proletarian neighborhood, I saw a proletarian women taking the big bundle of papers we gave her and getting them out to other neighbors. It&#39;s really fucking exciting, and I can&#39;t explain to you how much it reverberates with me&#33;
What you write is interesting, and I have no reason to question the honesty of what you&#39;re saying here. However, let me point out two things to you: First, they may indeed be accepting of what you&#39;re peddling ... while you are there. The key to know whether or not your views are making any headway is when the relations move from friendly to serious -- when it&#39;s no longer "Tell so-and-so she needs to bring me a fucking Wanted t-shirt", and it becomes "I have a situation at my job/around here that some of us wanted to talk to you about" -- that is, when it moves from relatively passive acceptance to active initiation.

Second, building on the first, they may be taking and passing out issues of Revolution ... when you bring them. But what if you don&#39;t bring them? Will they come and get them so they don&#39;t break consistency? Will they attempt to step into your shoes if yours shoes don&#39;t step in the neighborhood/workplace?

Comrade, be excited about what you&#39;ve seen so far. But understand that it is only the first step -- and understand that you&#39;re not the first organization to get such a response ... and you won&#39;t be the last. Don&#39;t get "dizzy with success", as the saying goes.


Red [email protected] 15, 2007 12:30 am
However, take a look at his leadership. He&#39;s been around since the 60&#39;s, was close to the Black Panther Party, and has never sold-out or burnt out on revolution. He has never compromised on making proletarian revolution, never lost his hatred for this system, or lost his bond with the masses. Leaders like Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Avakian, are rare, and it really highlights why we&#39;ve go to mobilize to defend them.
OK, let&#39;s be real here. There are a lot of people who can make the same claims. For that matter, I would venture to argue that there are people much younger than Avakian whose experience in the class struggle and fighting for proletarian revolution is richer, deeper and more educational than his. For the sake of demonstrating my point, I&#39;d even be willing to compare my own political history to his, in terms of experiences.

But that&#39;s not really the point. My point is this: The test of a revolutionary does not come in the periods of relative calm, when the class struggle is at an ebb, when a measure of "social peace" exists. The test of a revolutionary comes in times of revolution -- of sharp class struggle, of social warfare. If we take this as the standard, then Avakian has yet to be really tested. In fact, he has yet to see the inside of the testing room.

The 1960s did not provide enough of a "testing ground"; the objective conditions for revolutionary action had only just begun to develop again, and there was no real mass proletarian movement in action in the U.S. That development was cut off before it had a chance to mature. In my opinion, someone who has "been around since the 60s" in the U.S. has yet to really face a revolutionary situation, and in no way can be seen as any really "tested leadership". Perhaps, in relation to other New Leftovers still around today, Avakian is better. But that&#39;s not saying much.

Because of this fact, I will continue to hold to what I have said before: You need to consider that a man as relatively untested as Avakian can betray you. He is, after all, vulnerable to such things by dint of the general and specific character of his class background.

Therefore, it is incumbent on you, as a self-described communist, to learn as much as you can about communist method and how it applies to the real world. You need to study Marx and other communist thinkers, analyze what they wrote and decide for yourself what is correct and what is not, based both on historical experience and your own knowledge.

Take nobody&#39;s word for it -- not even mine.

Look at all sides, including those that you know are anathema to your political viewpoint.

History is not always written by the winners, so don&#39;t let the "winners" be the only ones to shape your historical outlook.

Most importantly, take what you&#39;ve learned and subject it to the test of history and the class struggle.

Don&#39;t be afraid to make mistakes -- only people who do nothing make no mistakes -- and don&#39;t be afraid to learn from your mistakes. The difference between a communist and a revisionist (to use your terminology) is that the communist admits and learns from their mistakes; the revisionist compounds their mistakes with more mistakes.

Remember, there may come a time when you have to step into the role that you currently assign to Avakian. Will you be ready?

Miles

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:25 pm
I have a question for the RCP people, if a revolution started, a grassroots leaderless revolution in which the RCP or Bob Avakian had absolutely no leading role, would the RCP be cool with it, and support it all the way?

If the answer is no you guys got some thinking to do.
I ask the question again, I think this is an important question, because it reveals the Vanguardist concept of the party in relation to the working class

[Rawthentic]

We are all the vanguard. The vanguard is not a clique of elite "professional revolutionaries", but the class conscious section of the proletariat.

There are no such things as "leaderless" revolutions. There will always be persons that are theoretically and practically advanced and are thus capable of aiding their class comrades. They are the ones that come out in front for the class.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

you cannot become tyrannical if you have no power
non-institutionalised vanguards have no power.

bullshit. That&#39;s why they would be the vanguard wouldn&#39;t it? Because the worker are looking for leaders to a) represent them b) guide them and c) apply theory to the revolutionary practice no matter if its an institutionalized vanguard or a non-institutionalized vanguard.


i did <_<

uh no


Which is one of the things we should seek to overcome, not encourage it

well yes it is a contradiction but in a non-egalitarian society, it can&#39;t be ended only socialism can end the contradiction as the proletariat and the masses seize power, they will all become leaders, Bob Avakian speaks to this line


This tendency to look towards leaders for the answers, rather than thinking critically on your own ("question everything") is one of the greatest impediments to a succesful revolution since it degrades people to followers, to sheep, rather than a force of self-liberation.

are you kidding? That&#39;s a major part of Maoism and Leninism, critical objective thinking. Leaders, in particular theoreticians, inspire people to then think critically. Books, pamphlets, lectures, etc.. all do the same, to mix up inspiration with uncritical following of a leader is plain silly.


You put Avakian forward as a messiah like figure, the core of your argument is follow avakian. Instead of trying to get people to think for themselves you substitute one leader with the other.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

no on the contrary the RCP and its supporters put forward Bob Avakian as an experienced leader with the theory and the organizational skills to inspire the masses to rise up. That is what the purpose of a vanguard leader is. Definately not "meet the new boss, same as the old" to claim that is upsurd. Bob Avakian has been speaking the exact opposite for decades. To claim that Bob Avakian is the same as George Bush, Lenin the same as the Tsar, and Mao the same as Chiang Kai-Shek is dellusional.


1. The people organised in a federation of worker-councils by means of popular militias


yeah ever heard of the soviets? That IS a state because its suppressing a class. You&#39;re supposed to say "Tinkerbell will mightily destroy the bourgeiosie during the anarchist revolution". That makes more sense theoretically.


2. The moment the proletariate takes control of the means of production, and abolishes the capitalist state, the proletariate has become as dominant as it would if it would cling on to a state,

um no it doesn&#39;t because the state allows it to preserve its dominance, having no state would allow great breathing room for fascists to mobilize


In any case
i dont care if you have a state
as long as its sufficiently under the control of a class conscious, free, critical people. Putting Avakian forward as the new leader we all need impedes that.

That&#39;s exactly what Chairman Avakian has been fighting for since the 1960s.


so can they when the state still exists, it might even work in favour of them since all they&#39;d have to do is take state power.

yes all they have to do is take state power, me and my friends are planning to do that tonight wanna join? After that we&#39;ll go for a drink. Oh yeah I forgot, a socialist state would have worker militias, police, a People&#39;s Liberation Army, and etc... a stateless anarchist society would not as those are state mechanisms thus disproving your theory.


no
they know certain things, therefore they come to the foreground in those areas where those certain things apply, in discussion with others, those "leaders" would come out on top in certain debates since they know those certain things. They are knowledgeable.

To make someone "the" [institutionalised] leader, in any area, however means that you claim that person knows everything, holds the absolute truth (in at least that certain area)

nonsense. No one is claiming that. And he is not "the" leader, he is the foremost leader of the central committee in which there are more than one leader. Leaders aren&#39;t made by "winning a debate" or disscussion, they are made by holding the correct line regarding theory and practice and speaking it to the masses, and organizing the masses towards it. Thus there is NO difference between a leader who emerges during the spontaneous uprising and the leader who emerges from working tirelessly to create an uprising other than that the latter has been tested and tried before the moment and has been consistant, definately not a spot of the moment opportunist.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I know for a fact that the local RCP leadership here has steadfastly refused to send younger members into any of the auto plants

I know for a fact that I have never ever ever ever never ever seen the Communist League ANYWHERE here and neither have any of my comrades to my knowledge or people I&#39;ve talked to at rallies or on streets.

The RCP is organized like that in my experience. It has a solid core of principle and theory, but alot of elasticity involving putting that theory into practice. I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re saying is true, although Its more likely that the youth go to proletarian schools to distribute literature while the veterans go to prison lines and factories and the projects (that&#39;s more of how it works here, although youth also get involved in neighborhoods), but the RCP supporters and members are not robots. They go where they organize.


You need to consider that a man as relatively untested as Avakian can betray you

of all the critiscisms of Avakian, this is the oddest one. In 40 years he has produced countless works; Could We Really Win?, Democracy: Can&#39;t We Do better than That?, Bullets, From a Harvest of Dragons, Mao&#39;s Immortal Contributions, articles in Revolution, Revolutionary Worker, and the Red Papers as well as the talks, On the upcomin civil war, Conquer the World, Phoney Communism is Dead, Long Live real communism, etc etc etc.... yet with all that marxist-leninist work, and all those anti-capitalist books, you insinuate he is a traitor fake communist? After 40 years? By your definition of a revolutionary NO ONE in America is a revolutionary&#33;


"I have a situation at my job/around here that some of us wanted to talk to you about"

That does happen. I&#39;ve seen people relate at almost every disscussion the RCP holds to real life scenarios at their job and at school. Myself included.


Second, building on the first, they may be taking and passing out issues of Revolution ... when you bring them. But what if you don&#39;t bring them? Will they come and get them so they don&#39;t break consistency? Will they attempt to step into your shoes if yours shoes don&#39;t step in the neighborhood/workplace?

that&#39;s what the supporter base of the party is built on. That&#39;s how a great deal of supporters and members came to the party. What about the CL? I&#39;ve never even heard of them off of this website, and there are times where I like CL analysis, and would like to check out a paper but they&#39;re no where to be found.


(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.)

Well I haven&#39;t read much about Lenin&#39;s life, but I did read Mao&#39;s autobiography and he was born into a poor family which became a middle class family. Mao then went on to live in the city and became so poor that once he lost his shoes, he had to walk around barefoot until he found a friend who lent him money for new shoes. He also had a job in a library which according to him was "so low people avoided me"


Marx&#39;s views on class are very clear

of course, but even if you do claim that Marx was proletarian, Engels definately wasn&#39;t. What&#39;s your point?

[Rawthentic]

Henry, the CL is 3 years old, and we have expanded so quick, I can&#39;t keep track. The RCP is 32 years old, and that just speaks for itself.

The reason you haven&#39;t seen members is because I don&#39;t believe there are any in NYC, bu there are in Virginia, DC, and around there. I know you have the impression that we are in internet organization, but you are greatly mistaken.


of all the critiscisms of Avakian, this is the oddest one
You vacillated from Miles&#39; point again. He was talking about Avakian not being tested in truly revolutionary times and of intense class struggle. It is in those times that we will see what he is made of.


of course, but even if you do claim that Marx was proletarian, Engels definately wasn&#39;t. What&#39;s your point?
Thats communism is a proletarian ideology, period. Even if Lenin and Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, and Mao were not, times and conditions change. I don&#39;t understand why, as a self-described communist, you intend to blur class lines. Miles&#39; analysis on this petty-bourgeois outlook is in his previous posts in this thread.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+April 15, 2007 08:09 pm--> (LeftyHenry &#064; April 15, 2007 08:09 pm)I know for a fact that I have never ever ever ever never ever seen the Communist League ANYWHERE here and neither have any of my comrades to my knowledge or people I&#39;ve talked to at rallies or on streets.[/b]
We&#39;re not in NYC, as hlv said. I don&#39;t necessarily consider that a bad thing, but it would be nice to build our presence there.

As for outside of NYC, if they haven&#39;t seen us, they&#39;re not paying attention. We have people at every major demonstration and event. Now, admittedly, we&#39;re not always showing the flag, but we&#39;re there.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:09 pm
Of all the critiscisms of Avakian, this is the oddest one. In 40 years he has produced countless works; Could We Really Win?, Democracy: Can&#39;t We Do better than That?, Bullets, From a Harvest of Dragons, Mao&#39;s Immortal Contributions, articles in Revolution, Revolutionary Worker, and the Red Papers as well as the talks, On the upcomin civil war, Conquer the World, Phoney Communism is Dead, Long Live real communism, etc etc etc.... yet with all that marxist-leninist work, and all those anti-capitalist books, you insinuate he is a traitor fake communist? After 40 years? By your definition of a revolutionary NO ONE in America is a revolutionary&#33;
I never "insinuated" that. What I said is that, given his class background and the fact that he has not faced a serious revolutionary test, the potential exists for him to betray you -- yes, even after 40 years.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:09 pm
That does happen. I&#39;ve seen people relate at almost every disscussion the RCP holds to real life scenarios at their job and at school. Myself included.
This is a fudge. I didn&#39;t say anything about them relating experiences, I was talking about them asking you for political leadership in a concrete situation. There&#39;s a difference.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:09 pm
that&#39;s what the supporter base of the party is built on. That&#39;s how a great deal of supporters and members came to the party. What about the CL? I&#39;ve never even heard of them off of this website, and there are times where I like CL analysis, and would like to check out a paper but they&#39;re no where to be found.
There&#39;s a reason why we put PDF files of our publications on our website. To put it bluntly: by popular demand. More than once, League members have met people who have taken the initiative and downloaded copies of The Worker [Communist] or Working People&#39;s Advocate/Voz de la Gente Trabajadora or Workers&#39; Republic, and have made copies for them to distribute among co-workers, neighbors, friends, etc.

Often times, this takes place in locations where we don&#39;t have members -- Seattle, Albuquerque, Indianapolis, Houston, etc. This is what I mean by others stepping into your shoes when your shoes aren&#39;t there. This is how you build a solid periphery and support base. So, just because you haven&#39;t seen a copy of our publications in your immediate area doesn&#39;t mean we&#39;re confined to this website -- or any website, for that matter.


[email protected] 15, 2007 08:09 pm
of course, but even if you do claim that Marx was proletarian, Engels definately wasn&#39;t. What&#39;s your point?
My point is that Marx took class questions seriously, and your comrade calling them "identity politics" is classical petty-bourgeois socialist garbage.

Miles

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Henry, the CL is 3 years old, and we have expanded so quick, I can&#39;t keep track. The RCP is 32 years old, and that just speaks for itself.

fair enough, but that definatly means that your organization shouldn&#39;t be talking about the RCP&#39;s revolutionary credibility even if these 32 years weren&#39;t revolutionary, the RCP stayed consistant. Will the CL even exsist 29 years from now? Quite a few parties have not.


You vacillated from Miles&#39; point again. He was talking about Avakian not being tested in truly revolutionary times and of intense class struggle. It is in those times that we will see what he is made of.

right and I said that by his definition, no one in the country is a revolutionary and thus none of your comrades can be trusted. Sounds pretty strange.


you intend to blur class lines. Miles&#39; analysis on this petty-bourgeois outlook is in his previous posts in this thread.

but the thing is that many of the greatest revolutionaries have not been proletarian. Of course it is the proletariat that makes the revolution but to segregate from the petty bourgeiosie completly can be detrimental to the forces of the revolution. We should accept anyone who accepts the proletarian line and the united front under the proletariat leadership because that can only serve to help the revolution in manpower. So what do you think about Engels anyway? Do you just reject him as a petty bourgeios traitor? or what?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Miles,

I&#39;ll respond to your post tommorow, I still have work to do and need to get some sleep, but this has degenerated into "my organization is better than yours says me, no it isn&#39;t mine is better says me, no it isn&#39;t, yes it is"

[Rawthentic]

But who was the one that started talking about the CL? You.


right and I said that by his definition, no one in the country is a revolutionary and thus none of your comrades can be trusted.
Sure they can. We are all proletarians and we dont elevate ourselves beyond reason.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:20 am
Actually, it was a polemical flourish. But since you want to take it seriously, we can do that. To say that the RCP has "always made it principle to bring forward proletarian youth" is rubbish. I know and have known enough RCP/RCYB members over the years, including a couple who became League supporters, to know that: a) it is not something they have "always" done, and b) it is not something that is "always" (if, by such a term, we can generally mean "at all times, in all places") done today.

I know for a fact that the local RCP leadership here has steadfastly refused to send younger members into any of the auto plants here, even though current and former members have offered to get them in. Moreover, those same local leaders have placed a lot of pressure on their two remaining autoworkers in Detroit to take the buyouts and leave their base of work for more than 20 years to die on the vine -- without replacing them in the plant and without attempting to maintain the connections they&#39;ve made over the years. According to the people I&#39;ve talked to about it, the local RCP leaders "sound like MIM people" on this question.

That&#39;s some way to "bring forward" the proletariat -- young or otherwise.

What you write is interesting, and I have no reason to question the honesty of what you&#39;re saying here. However, let me point out two things to you: First, they may indeed be accepting of what you&#39;re peddling ... while you are there. The key to know whether or not your views are making any headway is when the relations move from friendly to serious -- when it&#39;s no longer "Tell so-and-so she needs to bring me a fucking Wanted t-shirt", and it becomes "I have a situation at my job/around here that some of us wanted to talk to you about" -- that is, when it moves from relatively passive acceptance to active initiation.

I think these two comments encapsulate the overall incorrect line which the CL holds... economism. Comrade, you need to read and dig into Lenin&#39;s important work "What is to be Done?"

In this work, Lenin discuss "what is the role of communists?" Lenin makes the point that the masses are perfectly capable of leading their day to day struggles. They do not need communists to organize their unions for them. They do that stuff perfectly fine on their own&#33; The ONLY thing that the masses need communists for is revolution, to raise their sights and consciousness to revolution, and to lead them in making it.

This Menshevik line of trying to bring about revolution through organizing the daily struggles of the masses for them is revisionist, opportunistic, and economist, and has never led to revolution, ever.

The principle task of communists is to distribute a revolutionary newspaper. A newspaper which serves as the hub and pivot of the revolution, which builds for insurrection, and allows a vanguard party to rapidly unleash millions and millions of people in the revolutionary seizure of power.

People need to check out the very important talk by Bob Avakian, Communism: A Whole New World And The Emancipation of All Humanity – Not "The Last Shall Be First, And the First Shall Be Last" (http://bobavakian.net), where he digs into this question.

***

But going back to your question and redirecting it toward what the RCP is struggling for the masses to do, I do think the basis is there for the masses to take up these papers and to serve as emancipators of humanity. I&#39;ve seen on countless occasions proletarians going door to door in their own neighborhoods with Revolution Newspaper, and these proletarians were unaware that we were walking through that part of the neighborhood. Many proletarians have come forward and become regular distributors of Revolution.


Second, building on the first, they may be taking and passing out issues of Revolution ... when you bring them. But what if you don&#39;t bring them? Will they come and get them so they don&#39;t break consistency? Will they attempt to step into your shoes if yours shoes don&#39;t step in the neighborhood/workplace?

Many do, hell yeah. We are not at the point where we have a revolutionary people yet, but there are many, many proletarians who are regular distributors of Revolution.


Comrade, be excited about what you&#39;ve seen so far. But understand that it is only the first step -- and understand that you&#39;re not the first organization to get such a response ... and you won&#39;t be the last. Don&#39;t get "dizzy with success", as the saying goes.

Hahaha, it&#39;s like what Fred Hampton talked about "high on the people." Anyway, how many other "communist" groups do you know of who go to the hood? Honestly, I&#39;ve never heard of another one.


But that&#39;s not really the point. My point is this: The test of a revolutionary does not come in the periods of relative calm, when the class struggle is at an ebb, when a measure of "social peace" exists. The test of a revolutionary comes in times of revolution -- of sharp class struggle, of social warfare.

I think it&#39;s a combination of both... How many supposedly "revolutionary leaders" of the 60&#39;s are still around today? How many leaders besides the Avakian have never lost their sight of revolution through terrible periods like the 80&#39;s? How many of them are doing jack-shit today?


If we take this as the standard, then Avakian has yet to be really tested. In fact, he has yet to see the inside of the testing room.

I disagree. Let&#39;s dig into this history. Avakian as a leader was shaped by his participation in the struggle for Black liberation in the 60&#39;s. He was even invited to be a secret member of the BPP by Huey Newton himself. He was a part of huge upsurges which threatened the entire foundation of US imperialism&#33; He led struggles against Deng Xaioping and capitalist restoration in China. He struggled for the defense of the international communist movement by being a leader in the forging of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. And after all of that, in a time when building for revolution is so hard, he has never given up or compromised on the revolutionary road.


Therefore, it is incumbent on you, as a self-described communist, to learn as much as you can about communist method and how it applies to the real world. You need to study Marx and other communist thinkers, analyze what they wrote and decide for yourself what is correct and what is not, based both on historical experience and your own knowledge.

Of course&#33;


Look at all sides, including those that you know are anathema to your political viewpoint.

History is not always written by the winners, so don&#39;t let the "winners" be the only ones to shape your historical outlook.

Most importantly, take what you&#39;ve learned and subject it to the test of history and the class struggle.

Don&#39;t be afraid to make mistakes -- only people who do nothing make no mistakes -- and don&#39;t be afraid to learn from your mistakes. The difference between a communist and a revisionist (to use your terminology) is that the communist admits and learns from their mistakes; the revisionist compounds their mistakes with more mistakes.

Hell yeah man&#33;


Remember, there may come a time when you have to step into the role that you currently assign to Avakian. Will you be ready?

Comrade, I&#39;m really flattered, but I don&#39;t consider myself anywhere even close to the caliber of a revolutionary leader as Avakian. Material conditions have a way of generating new revolutionary leaders, but ones on the level of Avakian are extremely rare.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:35 am
Because Avakian has contributed dipshit to the creation of an international communist party with national "cells" per se, he is little more than an opportunist, regardless of his so-called "contributions to Marxist theory."
How about being the leading revolutionary in the forging of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, the world-wide union of genuine communist parties that includes the Peruvian Communist Party and the Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist), which aims to someday become a new Internationale?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:10 pm
I&#39;ll respond to your post tommorow, I still have work to do and need to get some sleep, but this has degenerated into "my organization is better than yours says me, no it isn&#39;t mine is better says me, no it isn&#39;t, yes it is"
To be honest, this entire thread has that air to it. With a subject line like "the cult of avakian", can it be otherwise?

Seriously, though, if you want to argue the politics, start a thread about Avakian&#39;s politics and their relevance.

Miles

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13, 2007 08:35 pm
I believe that there is a direct correlation between the overwhelmingly large petit-bourgeoisie in the USA (and the other imperialist countries for that matter) and the "we don&#39;t need any leaders" line. For instance, I&#39;ve never heard Black proletarians talking about "we don&#39;t need any leaders." Rather, Black proletarians talk about how much love they have for leaders like Malcolm X, Huey Newton, and Fred Hampton.
So you are saying that anarchists are petite-bourgeois and that there are no black anarchists? Way to generalize there.... :blink:

[Martin Blank]

[i]Originally posted by Red Heretic+April 16, 2007 12:06 am--> (Red Heretic &#064; April 16, 2007 12:06 am)I think these two comments encapsulate the overall incorrect line which the CL holds... economism. Comrade, you need to read and dig into Lenin&#39;s important work "What is to be Done?"

In this work, Lenin discuss "what is the role of communists?" Lenin makes the point that the masses are perfectly capable of leading their day to day struggles. They do not need communists to organize their unions for them. They do that stuff perfectly fine on their own&#33; The ONLY thing that the masses need communists for is revolution, to raise their sights and consciousness to revolution, and to lead them in making it.

This Menshevik line of trying to bring about revolution through organizing the daily struggles of the masses for them is revisionist, opportunistic, and economist, and has never led to revolution, ever.

The principle task of communists is to distribute a revolutionary newspaper. A newspaper which serves as the hub and pivot of the revolution, which builds for insurrection, and allows a vanguard party to rapidly unleash millions and millions of people in the revolutionary seizure of power.

People need to check out the very important talk by Bob Avakian, Communism: A Whole New World And The Emancipation of All Humanity – Not "The Last Shall Be First, And the First Shall Be Last" (http://bobavakian.net), where he digs into this question.[/b]
I&#39;ll take this criticism seriously, even though I strongly disagree with it.

What is economism? Economism is the view that revolutionary political action will somehow arise spontaneously from daily economic struggles, and that there is no need to organize the political struggle against capitalist rule -- that "participation in, i.e., assistance to, the economic struggle of the proletariat" is enough to bring about a proletarian revolution. There are, of course, variations to the economist theme -- the most popular of which is commonly promoted by Trotskyist groups, which seek "to lend the economic struggle a political character".

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&#39;re wondering, RH, that&#39;s why the League has participated in your organization&#39;s "World Can&#39;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.

So, that said, let&#39;s deal with the specifics RH raises. He writes: "In this work, Lenin discuss &#39;what is the role of communists?&#39; Lenin makes the point that the masses are perfectly capable of leading their day to day struggles."

Working people are capable of leading their daily struggles ... to a certain conclusion. But that conclusion is not necessarily one that advances the class struggle. In addition, daily struggles are more than economic; they are political, cultural and social as well. Most importantly, though, providing leadership does not necessarily mean taking practical control. What is the role of communists? To provide political leadership. That we do in small as well as in large things.

To do something less, to step away from those struggles that "raise their sights and consciousness to revolution" and somehow expect them to magically come to such conclusions on their own is, by definition, a bow to spontaneity -- a hallmark of economism, among other revisionist doctrines.

"They do not need communists to organize their unions for them."

I agree. But engaging in organizing at the point of production does not equal "organiz their unions for them". Many times, such organizing is done against the union structures and officials. The work of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers is a good historical example of this.

But again, I was not simply talking about workplace organizing or "economic work" in general. If you look back to what I wrote, you&#39;ll see that I did not limit my comments in such a way.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
But going back to your question and redirecting it toward what the RCP is struggling for the masses to do, I do think the basis is there for the masses to take up these papers and to serve as emancipators of humanity. I&#39;ve seen on countless occasions proletarians going door to door in their own neighborhoods with Revolution Newspaper, and these proletarians were unaware that we were walking through that part of the neighborhood. Many proletarians have come forward and become regular distributors of Revolution.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
Many do, hell yeah. We are not at the point where we have a revolutionary people yet, but there are many, many proletarians who are regular distributors of Revolution.
An interesting set of assertions. As before, I have no basis to question its validity, even though I would feel better about it if I had seen a similar response during the times I&#39;ve observed Revolution distributors in similar situations.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
Hahaha, it&#39;s like what Fred Hampton talked about "high on the people." Anyway, how many other "communist" groups do you know of who go to the hood? Honestly, I&#39;ve never heard of another one.
Some of us don&#39;t have to "go to the hood". We live in the hood. This gets back to my point about slumming.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
I think it&#39;s a combination of both... How many supposedly "revolutionary leaders" of the 60&#39;s are still around today? How many leaders besides the Avakian have never lost their sight of revolution through terrible periods like the 80&#39;s? How many of them are doing jack-shit today?
A lot of them are around. A lot of them are not. In fact, most of the leaders of self-described socialist and communist groups today come from that generation. They&#39;re in the same general age range as Avakian, and were active in the antiwar and Civil Rights/Black Power movements.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
I disagree. Let&#39;s dig into this history. Avakian as a leader was shaped by his participation in the struggle for Black liberation in the 60&#39;s. He was even invited to be a secret member of the BPP by Huey Newton himself.
I would be interested in some kind of confirmation of this, outside of what Avakian says. Forgive me for being skeptical, but comrade Newton is dead and cannot confirm or deny this assertion.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
He was a part of huge upsurges which threatened the entire foundation of US imperialism&#33;
You mean the antiwar movement? The Civil Rights/Black Power movement? A lot of people, many of whom are still active today, were involved in those actions.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
He led struggles against Deng Xaioping and capitalist restoration in China.
That&#39;s not really saying much, given that he was in the U.S. when he did it. I&#39;ve led struggles against the war in and occupation of Iraq, too, but that&#39;s not saying a lot, given the material reality of the situation.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
He struggled for the defense of the international communist movement by being a leader in the forging of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. And after all of that, in a time when building for revolution is so hard, he has never given up or compromised on the revolutionary road.
Again, many other self-described socialists and communists can say similar things.

For example, James Robertson, the leader of the Spartacists, can say he "struggled for the defense of the international communist movement by being a leader in the forging of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist). And after all of that, in a time when building for revolution is so hard, he has never given up or compromised on the revolutionary road."

David North, the leader of the WSWS/ICFI, can say he "struggled for the defense of the international communist movement by being a leader in the reorganizing and forging of the International Committee of the Fourth International and the World Socialist Web Site. And after all of that, in a time when building for revolution is so hard, he has never given up or compromised on the revolutionary road."

The leaders of the SWP/U.S., PLP, LRP, etc., etc., etc., can say similar, and the only reason you can disagree with them is because you have political differences.


Red [email protected] 16, 2007 12:06 am
Comrade, I&#39;m really flattered, but I don&#39;t consider myself anywhere even close to the caliber of a revolutionary leader as Avakian. Material conditions have a way of generating new revolutionary leaders, but ones on the level of Avakian are extremely rare.
Comrade, don&#39;t be flattered. The fact is that it is necessary to prepare yourself for such a situation. What if he&#39;s assassinated? What if he&#39;s detained and sent to Gitmo? What then?

Objective conditions are not the only factor in creating communist theoreticians. You have to rise to what conditions demand; that&#39;s the subjective factor. Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. You may want to see Avakian as "extremely rare", but that is no excuse to denigrate yourself and your own abilities.

Miles

[Enragé]

bullshit. That&#39;s why they would be the vanguard wouldn&#39;t it? Because the worker are looking for leaders to a) represent them b) guide them and c) apply theory to the revolutionary practice no matter if its an institutionalized vanguard or a non-institutionalized vanguard.

No, not bullshit.

Vanguards become institutionalised when you form them into a force capable and willing to take state power, when you have a vanguard in a mass party that draws power to itself.

in any case, this is not the core of the argument.


well yes it is a contradiction but in a non-egalitarian society, it can&#39;t be ended only socialism can end the contradiction as the proletariat and the masses seize power, they will all become leaders, Bob Avakian speaks to this line


So
in order to establish a non-egalitarian society (i.e a society where everyone leads, nobody is lead), you call upon people to follow a leader (Avakian), be led.
Now how does that make sense?

For some reason, you seem to think that pre-revolutionary organisation has no effect on the post-revolutionary situation, which is nonsense.
If the revolution has been carried out through means of "the one leads the others are led", then this will have its consequences in post-revolutionary society, in other words; post revolutionary society will mimic the structure of the workers&#39; movements of the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary era. You can make this a positive force, by grassroots organisation and democratic movements, or a negative one, by continuing the old way of "the one leads and the others are led".


are you kidding? That&#39;s a major part of Maoism and Leninism, critical objective thinking. Leaders, in particular theoreticians, inspire people to then think critically. Books, pamphlets, lectures, etc.. all do the same, to mix up inspiration with uncritical following of a leader is plain silly.


Untill the leader(s) of the movement see(s) his/their power threatened and pulls the plug on the big ol&#39; cultural revolution.
Let a hundred flowers bloom.. on the graves of the dissidents

In any case, encouraging people to follow, is completely anti-thetical to critical, objective thinking.


no on the contrary the RCP and its supporters put forward Bob Avakian as an experienced leader with the theory and the organizational skills to inspire the masses to rise up. That is what the purpose of a vanguard leader is. Definately not "meet the new boss, same as the old" to claim that is upsurd. Bob Avakian has been speaking the exact opposite for decades. To claim that Bob Avakian is the same as George Bush, Lenin the same as the Tsar, and Mao the same as Chiang Kai-Shek is dellusional.


Well this is already a completely different tone than that crossroads article.
In this wording, i still have my problems with putting one forward as the great inspirator, i get where the RCP is coming from.
but then put that in your article, not;
"More than anyone, Bob Avakian has pointed to the answers to the excruciating questions now posed before humanity and shown the pathways to solve the agonizing problems. As part of that, he’s invited as many people as possible into the process of figuring it all out—in order both to truly find the answers and to prepare the masses to rule. He is a leader for these times…a truly revolutionary leader with a truly revolutionary vision and method.

“Where are the leaders?”

Here is a leader, one you urgently need to check out, engage with, and follow.
"

portraying him like he&#39;s the new godsent messiah, our great new leader. Have some critical objective thinking ;)


yeah ever heard of the soviets? That IS a state because its suppressing a class.

Which is why i never get into arguments about what is and what isnt a state since you end up with a debate about semantics.


um no it doesn&#39;t because the state allows it to preserve its dominance, having no state would allow great breathing room for fascists to mobilize


if the state is a federation of worker-councils defended by means of democratic popular militias, you wont find a single serious anarchist disagreeing with you.


That&#39;s exactly what Chairman Avakian has been fighting for since the 1960s.

then tell him to stop putting himself on a fucking pedistle&#33;


yes all they have to do is take state power, me and my friends are planning to do that tonight wanna join? After that we&#39;ll go for a drink. Oh yeah I forgot, a socialist state would have worker militias, police, a People&#39;s Liberation Army, and etc...

pre-revolutionary organisation of worker&#39;s movements have their influence of the post-revolutionary society. i.e, if you put avakian as the great leader and messiah pre-revolutionary, he will remain so after the revolution in the eyes of many (instead of thinking critically, what mr. Avakian says is truth).
Now, every historical (quasi-)leninist country organised a hierarchical military, completely anti-thetical to the idea of democratically controlled worker-militias, and from there the burocracy expanded its power. Part of the reason why they were able to make these blatant infringement on marxist as well as leninist thought was because the vast majority of people followed the new leadership like a flock of sheep.


No one is claiming that. And he is not "the" leader, he is the foremost leader of the central committee in which there are more than one leader

then put an end to the confusion and put that in your article.


Leaders aren&#39;t made by "winning a debate" or disscussion, they are made by holding the correct line regarding theory and practice and speaking it to the masses, and organizing the masses towards it. Thus there is NO difference between a leader who emerges during the spontaneous uprising and the leader who emerges from working tirelessly to create an uprising other than that the latter has been tested and tried before the moment and has been consistant, definately not a spot of the moment opportunist.

err no
but thats not the difference between an institutionalised leader and a natural one.
The difference is that an institutionalised leader has institutionalised power (i.e that goes beyond persuasion, inspiration, organisational talent etc), for example control of the military, the state, the party apparatus.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

My point is that Marx took class questions seriously, and your comrade calling them "identity politics" is classical petty-bourgeois socialist garbage.

Miles

well I have no idea what he meant so you should take that up with him, but while yes Marx did take class questions seriously he was not much of a proletarian and Engels definately wasn&#39;t, yet despite being the non-proletarian communists you swore were the downfall of 20th century socialism, they layed the basis of scienctific proletarian revolution very thouroughly and devoted their lives to fighting for it. They didn&#39;t live in "revolutionary times" either. So, does this mean they are NOT revolutionaries?


We&#39;re not in NYC, as hlv said. I don&#39;t necessarily consider that a bad thing, but it would be nice to build our presence there.

oh I see. Well then that explains that. Although at events outside of New York I have been to, I&#39;ve seen the SWP, the Sparts, Worker&#39;s World, the PSL, and even Freedom Road but never the CL, and I was all up and down those protests selling papers, talking to the masses, or participating in direct action. Maybe its because of this


we&#39;re not always showing the flag, but we&#39;re there.

which would allow to you to everywhere at every event at any time.


I never "insinuated" that. What I said is that, given his class background and the fact that he has not faced a serious revolutionary test, the potential exists for him to betray you -- yes, even after 40 years.

Well I think that being a spokesman for the Black Panthers while they were the top FBI domestic threat with all the infiltrations as well as his part is the RYMII while it was playing the part of the BPP for all workers, as well as just being a major founder in the Revolutionary Union, the Revolutionary Internationalist Party, and the Revolutionary Communist Party and leading it despite bullshit bloated charges being brought against him and etc are as much as a test as anyone in the past 40 years can have had.


This is a fudge. I didn&#39;t say anything about them relating experiences, I was talking about them asking you for political leadership in a concrete situation. There&#39;s a difference.

that&#39;s why they come, that&#39;s why the hook up with the RCYB or the RCP, because they&#39;re looking for strong leaders in a revolution to destroy the sewer system that is capitalism, and its precisly because the RCP has such strong centralized, but connected leadership that it is one of the largest if not the largest revolutionary communist organization in the states.


There&#39;s a reason why we put PDF files of our publications on our website. To put it bluntly: by popular demand. More than once, League members have met people who have taken the initiative and downloaded copies of The Worker [Communist] or Working People&#39;s Advocate/Voz de la Gente Trabajadora or Workers&#39; Republic, and have made copies for them to distribute among co-workers, neighbors, friends, etc.

oh okay I see


Vanguards become institutionalised when you form them into a force capable and willing to take state power, when you have a vanguard in a mass party that draws power to itself/

leadership will always have power. There is no such thing as a powerless vanguard as it would have no point. We&#39;re just arguing semantics here and its dumb because you&#39;re making no sense at all.


So
in order to establish a non-egalitarian society (i.e a society where everyone leads, nobody is lead), you call upon people to follow a leader (Avakian), be led.
Now how does that make sense?

Look, that is a very real contradiction, but for now, in capitalist class society, it is something we need to use to our advantage to win because without strong leadership, and leadership and a state that can suppress counter-revolution and bourgeiosie remnants, the revolution will be lost. What needs to happen is that during socialism these contradictions need to be broken down. This happens when we break down the mental-manual labor contradiction and when the leadership rigidly follows the mass line staying connected to the masses and they become more and more adjusted to socialism. like Avakian says in the second piece, this will need to be enforced, and that was what the cultural revolution was exactly&#33;

This is what Avakian says on that (http://rwor.org/a/1222/ba2dem.htm)
Also here he talks about that (http://rwor.org/a/1217/badem4.htm)


Untill the leader(s) of the movement see(s) his/their power threatened and pulls the plug on the big ol&#39; cultural revolution.
Let a hundred flowers bloom.. on the graves of the dissidents

Well the hundred flowers campaign was open to the workers and peasants and masses, NOT bourgeiosie Koumitang-remnants and Japanese Imperialists.

The cultural revolution&#39;s defeat is not an example of that. It is an example of the bourgeios hijacking the state, making a comeback. Bob Avakian took a very strong stand against the hijackers and was one of, if not the first to realize this, and condemn it thouroughly and has been speaking against this type of false leadership all his life as the masses would have to do in socialism.


Well this is already a completely different tone than that crossroads article.

the crossroads article is meant to be a boom introduction to Bob Avakian for those who envision a completely different world but feel like "communism is dead" "our last leader was Huey Newton, now all is lost". I still think that text puts him in the light that I was getting at. And the RCP is not making him look like a messiah, it recognizes that the masses make world history, but also the leader and leaders are part of the equation.


if the state is a federation of worker-councils defended by means of democratic popular militias, you wont find a single serious anarchist disagreeing with you.

Yes except for all those ones who whine about Leninism.

[Rawthentic]

well I have no idea what he meant so you should take that up with him, but while yes Marx did take class questions seriously he was not much of a proletarian and Engels definately wasn&#39;t,
So he was one-half proletarian? He was proletarian, period. He broke from his class background. Miles is correct in saying that blurring the line between classes is petty-bourgeois garbage. Communism is a proletarian ideology, hands down.

And its cool what Avakian did back then, but it was not a proletarian movement. At least not an intense or sharp one. The 60s were a mixture of many movements.


And the RCP is not making him look like a messiah, it recognizes that the masses make world history, but also the leader and leaders are part of the equation.
That may not be their intention but...

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+April 16, 2007 07:19 pm--> (LeftyHenry &#064; April 16, 2007 07:19 pm)well I have no idea what he meant so you should take that up with him[/b]
I did. I was writing to him originally.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:19 pm
but while yes Marx did take class questions seriously he was not much of a proletarian and Engels definately wasn&#39;t
I suggest you read the biographies of Marx and Engels written by Lenin.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:19 pm
yet despite being the non-proletarian communists you swore were the downfall of 20th century socialism, they layed the basis of scienctific proletarian revolution very thouroughly and devoted their lives to fighting for it. They didn&#39;t live in "revolutionary times" either. So, does this mean they are NOT revolutionaries?
They lived in different times, over a century ago, when "de-classing" and changing classes were not only possible, but relatively easy.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:19 pm
oh I see. Well then that explains that. Although at events outside of New York I have been to, I&#39;ve seen the SWP, the Sparts, Worker&#39;s World, the PSL, and even Freedom Road but never the CL, and I was all up and down those protests selling papers, talking to the masses, or participating in direct action.
Were you at the January 27 protest in D.C.? Were you in Boston on March 24? We had very public presences at those events.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:19 pm
Maybe its because of this


we&#39;re not always showing the flag, but we&#39;re there.

which would allow to you to everywhere at every event at any time.

Scoff if you want, but we do attend more events than we talk about publicly.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:19 pm
Well I think that being a spokesman for the Black Panthers while they were the top FBI domestic threat with all the infiltrations as well as his part is the RYMII while it was playing the part of the BPP for all workers, as well as just being a major founder in the Revolutionary Union, the Revolutionary Internationalist Party, and the Revolutionary Communist Party and leading it despite bullshit bloated charges being brought against him and etc are as much as a test as anyone in the past 40 years can have had.
As I said about the assertions that Avakian was asked to be a member of the BPP by comrade Newton, I want to see some corroboration of this. I will not take Avakian&#39;s word for it, and neither should you.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:19 pm
that&#39;s why they come, that&#39;s why the hook up with the RCYB or the RCP, because they&#39;re looking for strong leaders in a revolution to destroy the sewer system that is capitalism, and its precisly because the RCP has such strong centralized, but connected leadership that it is one of the largest if not the largest revolutionary communist organization in the states.
The RCP is one of the larger self-described communist groups out there, but each group of similar size can and will say similar things about their organization of choice, in terms of being "one of the largest if not the largest revolutionary communist organization in the states".


[email protected] 16, 2007 07:19 pm

There&#39;s a reason why we put PDF files of our publications on our website. To put it bluntly: by popular demand. More than once, League members have met people who have taken the initiative and downloaded copies of The Worker [Communist] or Working People&#39;s Advocate/Voz de la Gente Trabajadora or Workers&#39; Republic, and have made copies for them to distribute among co-workers, neighbors, friends, etc.

oh okay I see
Hey, we&#39;re just starting and have only been around over two years. And yet, our publications are printed and distributed in the thousands -- and sometimes tens of thousands -- already each issue. Some organizations that have been around as long as the RCP still labor to reach that kind of audience.

Miles

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13, 2007 04:36 am
There literally has never been anything like his leadership in the United States.
:lol: That&#39;s what we&#39;ve been saying all along&#33;

[RNK]

There&#39;s a fine line between someone who leads others, and someone who is merely a representative of the whole, merely a "cog" in the machinery of the "masses". In the end, the performance of an organization is judged on its performance as a whole, not on the performance of an individual piece of "machinery".

That said, I&#39;m fine with Avakian&#39;s existence, so long as the RCP pursues an answerable policy in the party members electing their representatives. I do not believe he has any sort of authoritarian control over the Party. I disagree with the way the Party handled his leadership -- how he is so shamelessly advertised as an almost mythological figure of unimaginable wisdon -- but that decision is theirs. If you don&#39;t like it, join the RCP yourself, and try and change things (or see if things can be changed). But don&#39;t sit on the sidelines and make unproductive criticisms.

[50cal_words]

This is my reply to the whole forum. This whole thing is stupid. Avaian sounds exactly like Jim jones, the people who follow him sound like the people who followed jim jones (ex. "Follow bob avakian, we need him&#33;" what the fuck???) and he sounds exactly like the kind of fucker who&#39;ll take the communist manifesto, change one sentence and say he&#39;s invented a whole new political theory. On the other hand, there&#39;s no real reason to attack his ideas so blindly. each side is making satements and assumptions by the bucketload with absolutely no facts to support them. i&#39;ll respect bob avakian, but i wont follow him.

[Sickle of Justice]

could someone please start a new thread, maybe in intro, or put a link to a site explaining who this guy is? his politrix etc? i&#39;ve never heard of him. id like to know about any leftist, and its really uncool (wow im a hippie) to open a thread specifically to bash one of our own. or maybe not one of our own. whatever, in anycase, it would be apreciated greatly if someone could send me an informational thingy about Avakian, and not biased.

[Rawthentic]

Dude, anything you see on Avakian will be biased, one way or the other. I suggest you dig through Practice, I believe in the last 2 or 3 pages there is a thread all on him. Or just do a main search on "Avakian" or "RCP".

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Fight&#045;For&#045;Revolutionary&#045;War&#33;@April 13, 2007 12:28 am
yes funny how people can&#39;t even come up with decent critiscism and critiques, just anti-communist shitty rhetoric. Only CdL and hasta have actually pursued this from what I&#39;ve seen.
Actually, since your RCP is a Maoist organization, it should not be glorifying it&#39;s leader in such a way that he is an infallable demi-god.

The RCP has been widely criticized on the Left for creating a cult of personality around the Bob Avakian. The literature of the RCP uses the term "culture of appreciation" to distinguish "leadership by political line" from doing whatever any given leader says (which is commandism), and this is why it&#39;s wrong:

"Commandism is wrong in any type of work, because in overstepping the level of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of voluntary mass action it reflects the disease of impetuosity."
~ Mao Tse-Tung, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung

Your own theory shows that the RCP is following commandism, which is denounced by Mao, and therefore it would be a revisionist trait. Also, since I have not seen a single ounce of self-criticism on their website about the commandism, and the possiblity of reversing this and treating Avakian like a person rather than a messiah, I will say this:
I denounce Bob Avakian and the "Revolutionary Communist Party", due to their hypocrisy and their revisionist rhetoric, as we can see from their commandism all over their website. I will withdraw this denunciation and apoligize for it once the RCP stops their commandist, and therefore revisionist, ways, and starts following their ideology (Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought) correctly.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

how are we commandist? The RCP doesn&#39;t think of him as a demi-god, only as a leader. You have taken to revisionism Comrade, because leadership does not equal worship. RCP supporters and members are encouraged to think critically as marxists and that&#39;s what we do. We bring up critiscisms of Avakian and we struggle together to grasp a better understanding. That&#39;s how Democratic Centralism works. We don&#39;t glorify him, we just promote him as a revolutionary leader who has alot to say that people should hear but that is in no way saying he is a god or whatever that is shallow anti-marxist rhetoric

[Rawthentic]

"The earth is quakin&#39;/ Follow Bob Avakian" -- 1980s chant.

Thats cultish. From Sunsana Taylor, a Revolution contributor:


"Because I have followed and studied Chairman Avakian I do have answers and something to say to people&#33; To know that there is somebody that we can have so much confidence in let me tell you, things can get really crazy in the middle of such an intense struggle. . . . It&#39;s easy to stress out in the middle of all this, but it&#39;s important to step back for a minute and see that our Chairman is leading us to solve all these problems. He&#39;s somebody who is voluntarily and very eagerly saying that he will give his life to the people and there&#39;s a lot riding on what he does. But he doesn&#39;t stop and complain. He solves the problems and he leads people to solve the problems. I try to emulate that and it makes a big difference".

The truth is that Avakian is a great self-promoter, using language like "dialectical relationship" and "unity as well as opposition".

The message that is put out, and is not accidental, is that people now dont feel the need to "stress" themselves out with building a proletarian revolution, because Bob Avakian knows what needs to be done and he will "solve our problems."

[OneBrickOneVoice]

that&#39;s the exact purpose of leadership: inspiration and a voice in a sea of darkness essentially. That first chant was from the fucking 1980s. Like everything in the 1980s it was a bit quirky. Why don&#39;t you try reading Avakian&#39;s works before you make sectarian attacks

[Rawthentic]

Wow, a "sectarian attack"? Come on comrade, it was a simple criticism.

I have read Avakian&#39;s works, and there is nothing great about them. People in the League make the same works, although from a proletarian point of view.

Here&#39;s the thing: the "cultishness" of that time is still here&#33;

I have met RCPers, or supporters, and we talk, and the only thing that they know how to say is that Avakian knows this or that and he knows the road that has to be taken.

If he was against cultism, he would clearly explain why he doesnt represent that, and make historical parallels as to why that happened in Russia and China. But he doesnt, he just says that it wont end up in "new masters" but of course fails to explain why. They just say, "when Stalin died in 1953, capitalist forces inside the Communist Party, headed by Nikita Khrushchev, staged a coup";"after Mao died in 1976, rightist forces, led by Deng Xiaoping from behind the scenes, staged a coup . . ."

It doesnt help when an entire new newspaper was launched in 2005 basing itself on Avakian or advertising the 11 hours of DVD on Avakian talks.

Cultism reveals its very class nature. If you can&#39;t take a criticism about your sect, its a problem. So don&#39;t go insulting.

[Genosse Kotze]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 29, 2007 02:32 am
"The earth is quakin&#39;/ Follow Bob Avakian" -- 1980s chant.

Thats cultish. From Sunsana Taylor, a Revolution contributor:


"Because I have followed and studied Chairman Avakian I do have answers and something to say to people&#33; To know that there is somebody that we can have so much confidence in let me tell you, things can get really crazy in the middle of such an intense struggle. . . . It&#39;s easy to stress out in the middle of all this, but it&#39;s important to step back for a minute and see that our Chairman is leading us to solve all these problems. He&#39;s somebody who is voluntarily and very eagerly saying that he will give his life to the people and there&#39;s a lot riding on what he does. But he doesn&#39;t stop and complain. He solves the problems and he leads people to solve the problems. I try to emulate that and it makes a big difference".

The truth is that Avakian is a great self-promoter, using language like "dialectical relationship" and "unity as well as opposition".

The message that is put out, and is not accidental, is that people now dont feel the need to "stress" themselves out with building a proletarian revolution, because Bob Avakian knows what needs to be done and he will "solve our problems."
Oh, you&#39;re soo busted&#33; If one reads the section entitled "Defense of the Cult of Bob" you&#39;ll see the exact same points--word for word. You quoted the quote from this page but then tried to pass the rest off as your own. Tisk, tisk comrade

http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/36cCult.html

It would appear that fight-for-revolutionary-war was right after all. If you take issue with Bob Avakian over something, no problem, I&#39;m starting to think he&#39;s full of it too; read one of his books, or at least listen to some of his talks online, and then proceed from there but don&#39;t just rip off something from an article, you got from wikipedia&#39;s page on the RCP.


If he was against cultism, he would clearly explain why he doesnt represent that, and make historical parallels as to why that happened in Russia and China. But he doesnt, he just says that it wont end up in "new masters" but of course fails to explain why. They just say, "when Stalin died in 1953, capitalist forces inside the Communist Party, headed by Nikita Khrushchev, staged a coup";"after Mao died in 1976, rightist forces, led by Deng Xiaoping from behind the scenes, staged a coup . . ."

This bit from your last post is also ripped off from the same article.

[Rawthentic]

I also take my ideas from Karl Marx&#39;s writings, such as the Communist Manifesto and Capital. Will I be condemned as well?

That article puts forward very real and legitimate critcisms. You should engage that and see if you can refute it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 29, 2007 03:43 am




Wow, a "sectarian attack"? Come on comrade, it was a simple criticism.

true. My mistake. That was a critiscism, but I think it was a bit shallow. You read Avakian&#39;s works and judge him at that value not on some pretext of maoist state-capitalism.


I have read Avakian&#39;s works, and there is nothing great about them. People in the League make the same works, although from a proletarian point of view.

now you&#39;re plagirizing from Miles. <_< miles said the same thing I think on this thread. I won&#39;t even bother with the sectarian attack here (proletarian point of view blah) but if you did actually read anything by Avakian, what works? And what was wrong with them? Make a point by point analysis of what he wrote if you think he was incorrect. That&#39;s the only way we&#39;re going to settle this at all.


Here&#39;s the thing: the "cultishness" of that time is still here&#33;

cults worship people, they separate themselves from the masses, they kill themselves by drinking cool-aid. The RCP is not a cult because it has a fucking leader. Leaders do not equal cult. the defintion of culture of personality is devotion to a leader. Well in that case yeah, but when you make it sound the way you do you purposely are deviating from the truth in pursuit of shallow ultra-left opportunist rhetoric.


I have met RCPers, or supporters, and we talk, and the only thing that they know how to say is that Avakian knows this or that and he knows the road that has to be taken.


all RCP supporters and members I have met are well learned politically but see Bob Avakian as the leader of today and so promote his works here and there but that&#39;s hardly what you&#39;re claiming.


If he was against cultism, he would clearly explain why he doesnt represent that, and make historical parallels as to why that happened in Russia and China. But he doesnt, he just says that it wont end up in "new masters" but of course fails to explain why. They just say, "when Stalin died in 1953, capitalist forces inside the Communist Party, headed by Nikita Khrushchev, staged a coup";"after Mao died in 1976, rightist forces, led by Deng Xiaoping from behind the scenes, staged a coup .

No actually Avakian has disscussed this in depth. Check out his shit On getting over the two great humps. He deals with leadership. Also the RCP sidebar on the website has some shit on leadership. I think we&#39;ve already explained why this isn&#39;t so.


It doesnt help when an entire new newspaper was launched in 2005 basing itself on Avakian or advertising the 11 hours of DVD on Avakian talks.

how is it basing itself on Avakian? Avakian did give a filmed talked and its very good. I think it is a pretty groundbreaking talk because it delves into why we need revolution, how we&#39;re going to do it, and what a revolutionary society is going to look like. I&#39;ve only seen parts but people who have seen all of it tell me they come out of it feeling inspired and changed because it is such a revolutionary piece.

The reason why the paper changed its name is because it better reflected the mission of our party. Our paper should be up front. The RW had over 1000 issues out and Revolution was basically a reflection of the party moving into the 21st century. There is a much more thorough editorial on the RCP website under the ABOUT section.

Our paper is thorough, covers all the issues from a revolutionary communist perspective and brings forward another way. What does you paper do? It&#39;s a page and its street presence is non-exsistant.

[Rawthentic]

Our paper is thorough, covers all the issues from a revolutionary communist perspective and brings forward another way. What does you paper do? It&#39;s a page and its street presence is non-exsistant.
The Worker is two pages, as well as its Spanish edition, the Working Peoples Advocate is 12-15 pages, Liberation is 15, Worker&#39;s Republic is about...45. Talk about sectarianism, but one can always tell that they can&#39;t take the heat when it comes to this, so I won&#39;t go down to your level.


You read Avakian&#39;s works and judge him at that value not on some pretext of maoist state-capitalism.
I have. I judge based on his past, his class nature and positions. So far, the "class line" has been refuted, as well as the real meaning behind the "fight for the middle." I mean, I can PM you with sources that prove that the RCP is recruiting in Harvard. ;)

And I don&#39;t use state-capitalism as a pretext, so I don&#39;t know where you get that from.


now you&#39;re plagirizing from Miles. dry.gif miles said the same thing I think on this thread. I won&#39;t even bother with the sectarian attack here (proletarian point of view blah) but if you did actually read anything by Avakian, what works? And what was wrong with them? Make a point by point analysis of what he wrote if you think he was incorrect. That&#39;s the only way we&#39;re going to settle this at all.
So because I paraphrase Miles on something that is correct, its plagiarizing? Ridiculous. And yes, we do hold a consistent proletarian view, because unlike some "leaders" who come to the proletariat as "saviors" who have never lived a proletarian reality and then claim to have a proletarian "class line" (sic), we are all working people and hold this outlook. Idealist.


Well in that case yeah, but when you make it sound the way you do you purposely are deviating from the truth in pursuit of shallow ultra-left opportunist rhetoric.
Ultra-leftism. I remember you called the FPM that before.

Anyway, your sectarian attacks and language, as well as empty rhetoric really show how much you have degenerated. And I though otherwise. :angry:

[black magick hustla]

I have. I judge based on his past, his class nature and positions. So far, the "class line" has been refuted, as well as the real meaning behind the "fight for the middle." I mean, I can PM you with sources that prove that the RCP is recruiting in Harvard. ;)

You know there are people who get full rides in Harvard or big scholarships right?

Not everybody in Harvard is rich.

David Gilbert came out of Columbia, and I believe he was one of the best American radicals.

[Rawthentic]

I agree Marmot, but for a majority, it is not like that.

Do you see what I mean?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Worker is two pages

Exactly, aka a doubled sided piece of paper. This is your main party paper, the only one I&#39;ve seen distributed before. It comes out what? Biweekly? How the fuck do you cover 2 weeks in 2 pages thoroughly? How are you going to bring people to your party through your exposures in 2 damn pages?&#33; when I got it, I read like a article and put it with all the other leaflets I collected: crumpled up in my pocket where I may read them later but most likely not. How in 2 damn pages are you going use your paper as a collective organizer as Lenin stated it must be in What is To Be Done?


the Working Peoples Advocate is 12-15 pages

when does this come out? Once a month right? This is waaaaay to long to be a collective organizer, and while it is definately long enough for exposures; it can&#39;t keep up to date with the shit that&#39;s goin on what happens if some crime of the capitalist system like the shooting of Sean Bell happens in the middle of the month? This is great for a fucking theoretical journal not a collective organizer, revolutionary perspective on news, or a exposure of the capitalist system.

Nevermind the fact that you have too many publications to keep track of. The Russian Social Democrats were the same Pre-Bolshevism. Their papers were shit&#33; that&#39;s why Lenin said in WITBD, we need one central paper

That&#39;s what the RCP&#39;s paper Revolution does, and its what Revolutionary Worker did.


Talk about sectarianism, but one can always tell that they can&#39;t take the heat when it comes to this, so I won&#39;t go down to your level.

okay how am I sectarian? You can&#39;t take a healthy critiscism so you shout sectarianism. Sectarianism is the shallow title of this thread. My analysises are merely critiscisms, just as Miles&#39; comments are critiscisms of the RCP.


I have. I judge based on his past, his class nature and positions. So far, the "class line" has been refuted, as well as the real meaning behind the "fight for the middle." I mean, I can PM you with sources that prove that the RCP is recruiting in Harvard. ;)

the RCP recruits everywhere and doesn&#39;t leave any option out because even in the places you&#39;d least expect there are people looking for revolution that&#39;s why the RCP is probably the largest Communist Party in the USA which has stayed revolutionary. In the past week I&#39;ve been active with the RCP in Harlem, a working class black neighborhood, The West Village, a mixed middle class neighborhood, NYU a generally better off university, and Kingsbridge, a predominantly chicano working class neighborhood in the Bronx.

The fight for the middle is the strategic way to win a revolution. By aiming the barrel of your guns at sympathetic petty bourgeoisie individuals rather than the bourgeois, you are doomed to fail. Especially in a society where class definitions are jumbled up like in the States. Every lasting revolution has drawn from the middle strata where it be students, scientists, teachers, intellectuals, and small shopkeepers because the more the merrier.

Bob Avakian broke with his class background 40 something years ago. He has devoted his life to proletarian revolution so don&#39;t give me that shit. His postions are uncompromisingly Communist, Anti-Imperialist, and Revolutionary


So because I paraphrase......

ill wait for which works you&#39;ve read and your critiscisms.

[Rawthentic]

Exactly, aka a doubled sided piece of paper. This is your main party paper, the only one I&#39;ve seen distributed before. It comes out what? Biweekly? How the fuck do you cover 2 weeks in 2 pages thoroughly? How are you going to bring people to your party through your exposures in 2 damn pages?&#33; when I got it, I read like a article and put it with all the other leaflets I collected: crumpled up in my pocket where I may read them later but most likely not. How in 2 damn pages are you going use your paper as a collective organizer as Lenin stated it must be in What is To Be Done?
So because Lenin said so, it must be? Hmm. The point is that our paper has four articles in it that relate directly to working people, and is a great way in which people have been introduced to the League. Its no small reason that there are reports that working people in New Mexico amongst other places voluntarily print and make hundreds of copies of it to pass out amongst themselves. There is no reason for you to believe this, after all, its what people tell us at demonstrations, but I mean, its not like the RCP has proven accounts that working people do the same as they do for the League. Wanna know what I did with the RCP paper I got on May Day last year? Ask my fireplace, and thats after I attempted to pass out at school, and got no reception. But the spanish translation of the Worker....


Nevermind the fact that you have too many publications to keep track of. The Russian Social Democrats were the same Pre-Bolshevism. Their papers were shit&#33; that&#39;s why Lenin said in WITBD, we need one central paper
We are not living in the early 1900s, get over it. And our paper isnt shit. We don&#39;t need one central paper just because you say so. We are more involved with working people than many "communist" parties 4 times our size, and our publications play a big part in that.

[cenv]

Exactly, aka a doubled sided piece of paper. This is your main party paper, the only one I&#39;ve seen distributed before. It comes out what? Biweekly? How the fuck do you cover 2 weeks in 2 pages thoroughly? How are you going to bring people to your party through your exposures in 2 damn pages?&#33; when I got it, I read like a article and put it with all the other leaflets I collected: crumpled up in my pocket where I may read them later but most likely not.
Well, comrade, thanks for telling us what our "main party paper" is. Unfortunately, I think we should be the one&#39;s making those decisions. Have you ever noticed that we have other papers and literature?

And as with your criticism of our organization in the other thread, you seem to ignore the fact that quality is just as important as quantity. What working-class folks want isn&#39;t necessarily a 25-page harangue. They want a fairly concise publication that they can relate to.

Once again, if you have qualitative criticisms, hey, go ahead. But "LOL UR PAPER IS ONLY 2 PAGES&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;" doesn&#39;t really disillusion me as to the nature of the League.


How in 2 damn pages are you going use your paper as a collective organizer as Lenin stated it must be in What is To Be Done?
Well, actually, our organization is more interested in advancing working-class struggle than making sure Lenin and the almighty ideology of "Marxism-Leninism" would approve of our activities. Anyway, just read my above response.


Nevermind the fact that you have too many publications to keep track of. The Russian Social Democrats were the same Pre-Bolshevism. Their papers were shit&#33; that&#39;s why Lenin said in WITBD, we need one central paper
I apologize if you find the way we arrange our publications aesthetically displeasing. However, we find that it works fine. You could at least tell us why we need one "central paper." And "because Lenin said so" doesn&#39;t count.


that&#39;s why the RCP is probably the largest Communist Party in the USA which has stayed revolutionary.
Yeah. Don&#39;t take into account the fact that it&#39;s existed for over thirty years. :rolleyes:


The fight for the middle is the strategic way to win a revolution. By aiming the barrel of your guns at sympathetic petty bourgeoisie individuals rather than the bourgeois, you are doomed to fail. Especially in a society where class definitions are jumbled up like in the States. Every lasting revolution has drawn from the middle strata where it be students, scientists, teachers, intellectuals, and small shopkeepers because the more the merrier.
Hmm... so either we make one of our key principles "fighting for the middle" or we are "aiming the barrel of our guns at sympathetic petty-bourgeois individuals." This is probably the same shit logic that makes RCP members think "either we build a cult of personality around Chairman Bob and uphold him as the glorious leader who will show us the light or our movement degenerates into total chaos."

And, err, I&#39;m not so sure about students and teachers being petty-bourgeois.

[Rawthentic]

Hmm... so either we make one of our key principles "fighting for the middle" or we are "aiming the barrel of our guns at sympathetic petty-bourgeois individuals."
Yeah, and aren&#39;t we working on a non-proletarian League support group? Yes.

And did you know Cenv that 2 of our League members in the East Coast are ex-members of the RCP who left for the same criticisms we bring up and are now very active with the League? So, it goes to show the validity of our criticisms.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:12 pm

While guys like Avakian are dicking around in France, others are doing real work towards revolution.

He faces a large prison sentence if he returns to the United States.
Wasn&#39;t this long sentence the result of a hooligan tactic involving attempting to throw red paint on Deng Xiaopeng? If so, that is totally counterproductive and totally undermines Avakian&#39;s credibility.


the RCP recruits everywhere and doesn&#39;t leave any option out because even in the places you&#39;d least expect there are people looking for revolution that&#39;s why the RCP is probably the largest Communist Party in the USA which has stayed revolutionary.

Size isn&#39;t really a good argument. Look where the CPSU got - it had millions of members, billions of dollars&#39; worth of funding, and ran the second most powerful nation on Earth. Where did it get? Size is nothing without correct perspectives, ideas, method, etc.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I bet Avakian didn&#39;t mention that his "leadership role" is called commandism; and commandism is a revisionist trait, according to "Quotations of Chairman Mao Zedong". Therefore, he is being a hypocrite by claiming to be anti-revisionist but acting otherwise. Explain that Lefty Henry.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20, 2007 12:05 am
I bet Avakian didn&#39;t mention that his "leadership role" is called commandism; and commandism is a revisionist trait, according to "Quotations of Chairman Mao Zedong". Therefore, he is being a hypocrite by claiming to be anti-revisionist but acting otherwise. Explain that Lefty Henry.
Explain how Chairman Avakian is Commandist? Because he was elected to that postion by the central committee and party cadre continously? Is that commandist?


Wasn&#39;t this long sentence the result of a hooligan tactic involving attempting to throw red paint on Deng Xiaopeng? If so, that is totally counterproductive and totally undermines Avakian&#39;s credibility.

um okay well I don&#39;t think that&#39;s true, I&#39;ve heard it was for something like "assaulting a police officer" but if it was? So? That doesn&#39;t undermine his credibility, Direct Actions show that you&#39;re not all talk.


Size isn&#39;t really a good argument. Look where the CPSU got - it had millions of members, billions of dollars&#39; worth of funding, and ran the second most powerful nation on Earth. Where did it get? Size is nothing without correct perspectives, ideas, method, etc.

and the RCP has both size and correct line. It has analyized the successes and failures of the socialist experience and put forward a plan for making revolution in the current and developing a much better society then the one in place. The CPSU did make accomplishments while it was socialist. It collectivized agriculture, made all property public, set up health clinics and communal kitchens, got the workers and peasants really involved in collectivizing this land, liberated womyn from the backwards semi-fuedal system, and etc.. when it became revisionist, it failed.


Hmm... so either we make one of our key principles "fighting for the middle" or we are "aiming the barrel of our guns at sympathetic petty-bourgeois individuals."

no I&#39;m just speaking from the line that Voz puts forward.


And did you know Cenv that 2 of our League members in the East Coast are ex-members of the RCP who left for the same criticisms we bring up and are now very active with the League? So, it goes to show the validity of our criticisms.

nooo the validity of your critiscisms would be shown if you didn&#39;t know all the people in your organization :lol:


Well, comrade, thanks for telling us what our "main party paper" is.

yeah well i kinda assume the one being distributed, not hidden away is the main party paper


And as with your criticism of our organization in the other thread, you seem to ignore the fact that quality is just as important as quantity. What working-class folks want isn&#39;t necessarily a 25-page harangue. They want a fairly concise publication that they can relate to.

Our publication is conscise and something that the masses really can relate to. a double sided leaflet is just that a leaflet. It&#39;s not gonna captivate the masses in the way a longer weekly paper does like Revolution. Are you suggesting that the working class is so stupid that it can&#39;t read shit that is longer than 2 pages? That would be upsurd.


Once again, if you have qualitative criticisms, hey, go ahead. But "LOL UR PAPER IS ONLY 2 PAGES&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;" doesn&#39;t really disillusion me as to the nature of the League.

that&#39;s not what I&#39;m saying. I&#39;m saying a leaflet isn&#39;t a paper. A paper is a paper because it offers a thorough revolutionary perspective on news, exposures on the horrors of the capitalist system, and acts as a collective organizer. I&#39;m sorry but that is not possible in a 2 page biweekly leaflet.


Well, actually, our organization is more interested in advancing working-class struggle than making sure Lenin and the almighty ideology of "Marxism-Leninism" would approve of our activities. Anyway, just read my above response.

maybe instead of going "PSHSHASS LOOK AT LENIN HE&#39;S A MONKEY&#33;&#33;&#33;" and then mocking how people follow his line, you could take a second and ask yourself why do these people follow his line? by doing that, you&#39;ll realize that the paper being a collective organizer creates party unity and involves the masses in our organization. You can&#39;t do that in 2 pages AND provide a thorough perspective on the days news AND provide exposures of the capitalist system. Now if you need me to explain why a newspaper should give the news or why a communist paper should expose the crimes of the capitalist system just say the word...<_<


I apologize if you find the way we arrange our publications aesthetically displeasing. However, we find that it works fine. You could at least tell us why we need one "central paper." And "because Lenin said so" doesn&#39;t count.

again, now Lenin isn&#39;t quite god. Like all leninists I like to think of him as god :lol: but Lenin said shit for a reason. Lenin said we should have one central paper because all our promotion, resources, writing, and exposures can be in one solid document to evaluate. Also so you don&#39;t have the mess that we&#39;re discussing here and how you claim the Worker isn&#39;t your main paper and I assume it is because its the only shit I was given.


"either we build a cult of personality around Chairman Bob and uphold him as the glorious leader who will show us the light or our movement degenerates into total chaos."

And, err, I&#39;m not so sure about students and teachers being petty-bourgeois.

um no. Cults kill each other through suicide, cults worship people, all the RCP has is leadership, strong tested leadership which has made solid contributions on the front of making revolution in the belly of the beast. Every revolution has had leadership, this one will be no different, and Bob Avakian is a solid leader, He&#39;s been fight for proletarian revolution for over 40 years. That&#39;s the type of leadership we need. This is a pathetic arguement and it has really been refuted countless times just because the RCP promotes its leader and its leadership it becomes a cult? Notice how this only comes from people safe behind their computer monitors? Whenever the Party goes to barrios and working class neighborhoods, to the projects, we get the opposite sentiments; where the fuck is our leadership like we had in the days of the Black Panthers? I think thats why the RCP has attracted the following it has.

[Rawthentic]

You can call the Worker a leaflet or a novel if you&#39;d like, the point is that we know that hundreds of working people can and do relate to it. I&#39;ve seen it, I&#39;ve heard it, no doubt. So, calling the Worker a "leaflet" is inconsequential, because working people relate to it very well, they don&#39;t care what you call it.

The rest of your post is not worth responding too.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don&#39;t want to get involved in this again, as I don&#39;t have the time but;


Kingsbridge, a predominantly chicano working class neighborhood in the Bronx.

Umm.. I lived there for a while, and it is not "predominantly chicano." It is predominantly Dominican and Puerto Rican, with some Albanians and Greeks.

[Rawthentic]

After what CdL said, I now get to question Henry&#39;s honesty.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 20, 2007 02:15 am
You can call the Worker a leaflet or a novel if you&#39;d like, the point is that we know that hundreds of working people can and do relate to it. I&#39;ve seen it, I&#39;ve heard it, no doubt. So, calling the Worker a "leaflet" is inconsequential, because working people relate to it very well, they don&#39;t care what you call it.

The rest of your post is not worth responding too.
Workers also relate to television shows, movies and music. Your "paper", by your own standards, is as revolutionary as Scrubs.

Anyway, for every time you&#39;ve seen a worker "relate to" the Worker, I&#39;ve seen a worker relate to Revolution.

Lenin wrote in Chapter V of What is To Be Done? that "A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser"

This is what Revolution does that The Worker fails to do.

[Rawthentic]

Thats stupid. What I meant is they relate to it in that it talks about their very own issues.


This is what Revolution does that The Worker fails to do.
Exactly how? Thats simply not true, because you dont know how we function or what we are involved in.

[cenv]

yeah well i kinda assume the one being distributed, not hidden away is the main party paper
Err... I&#39;m really curious how you concluded that we were "hiding away" our other publications. It&#39;s really quite odd how you seem to know all this stuff about the League that we don&#39;t know.

Actually, we recently had a comrade asking how to get color copies of Workers&#39; Republic because some bookstores were going to stock it. And I know the literature we printed out for the anti-war protest many League members attended in Washington DC -- The Worker was hardly the only one. So contrary to your somewhat baseless assertion, we actually have comrades distributing the other publications and literature we produce.

You seem to be struggling very hard to figure out what our "main party paper" is, so I&#39;ll give you a hint: we don&#39;t have one.


Our publication is conscise and something that the masses really can relate to. a double sided leaflet is just that a leaflet. It&#39;s not gonna captivate the masses in the way a longer weekly paper does like Revolution.
Heh, I&#39;m sure "the masses" were quite "captivated" by your last issue ("Special Issue on Bob Avakian" :lol: ).


Are you suggesting that the working class is so stupid that it can&#39;t read shit that is longer than 2 pages?
Oh, trust me, if I thought the working class was "stupid," I would join an organization that asserted the need for a "leader" above the working class, not an organization that advocates direct control and self-leadership by the working class.


that&#39;s not what I&#39;m saying. I&#39;m saying a leaflet isn&#39;t a paper. A paper is a paper because it offers a thorough revolutionary perspective on news, exposures on the horrors of the capitalist system, and acts as a collective organizer. I&#39;m sorry but that is not possible in a 2 page biweekly leaflet.
If you say so. :rolleyes:

If we call it a "leaflet", will that make you happy?

If you&#39;d like, though, I could also talk to Miles about changing the font size.


You can&#39;t do that in 2 pages AND provide a thorough perspective on the days news AND provide exposures of the capitalist system.
Well, I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that there&#39;s more to the Communist League than The Worker.


again, now Lenin isn&#39;t quite god. Like all leninists I like to think of him as god laugh.gif but Lenin said shit for a reason. Lenin said we should have one central paper because all our promotion, resources, writing, and exposures can be in one solid document to evaluate. Also so you don&#39;t have the mess that we&#39;re discussing here and how you claim the Worker isn&#39;t your main paper and I assume it is because its the only shit I was given.
There are also advantages to having a variety available.

For instance, let&#39;s say your party really fucks up a certain issue of their "central paper." Let&#39;s say they decide to devote an entire issue of Revolution to just talking about how awesome Bob Avakian is. This obviously makes for an absolutely horrible publication. Now it&#39;s time for you to distribute the "paper." What&#39;re your choices?

1) Distribute this edition of your paper anyway despite the fact that when people read it they conclude that the RCP is just a Bob-Avakian-fan-club and decide not to take the organization seriously.

2) Just don&#39;t distribute a paper this week.

3) Distribute an old edition of the paper and make it look like your organization doesn&#39;t produce regular publications.

Well then. Now let&#39;s say the League really fucks up a certain issue of The Worker. Let&#39;s say they decide to devote an entire issue of it to just talking about how awesome Cenv is. This also makes for a pretty bad publication. However, League members can just decide to distribute a different publication or different League literature. No harm done

Obviously, this isn&#39;t the only reason we have more than one "paper." I&#39;m just pointing out that both approaches have advantages.


I think thats why the RCP has attracted the following it has.
Once again, you seem to be forgetting that the RCP has been around for more than thirty years. Of course, it&#39;s convenient to laugh at the relatively small size of the League (around 50 members) and then brag about how big your party is... but you have to remember that your party has been around more than ten times as long as the League.

How many members does the RCP have anyway?


Lenin wrote in Chapter V of What is To Be Done? that "A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser"

This is what Revolution does that The Worker fails to do.
If you say so&#33;

[Rawthentic]

I don&#39;t want to seem like a troll, but Cenv, your humor is great, I love it.

Like this:

Heh, I&#39;m sure "the masses" were quite "captivated" by your last issue ("Special Issue on Bob Avakian" l :lol: ).


If you&#39;d like, though, I could also talk to Miles about changing the font size.


1) Distribute this edition of your paper anyway despite the fact that when people read it they conclude that the RCP is just a Bob-Avakian-fan-club and decide not to take the organization seriously.



But anyway, these petty criticisms about our paper is ridiculous, there is nothing concrete they can say about the League.

[bezdomni]

Thats stupid. What I meant is they relate to it in that it talks about their very own issues.
That is what all magazines do. Who the fuck would even bother to read something that they couldn&#39;t relate to?

Just because a worker can "relate to something" because it "talks about their own issues" doesn&#39;t mean that specific something is innately revolutionary.

Workers can also relate to periodicals like People Magazine or Time. Is Popular Science the new organ of the Vanguard of the Proletariat? :lol:


How many members does the RCP have anyway?
Anybody who says they know doesn&#39;t know, and anybody who does know wouldn&#39;t say.

That information isn&#39;t made public.


Exactly how? Thats simply not true, because you dont know how we function or what we are involved in.

Well, for starters. One would be very hard pressed to agitate, propagandize and organize with only two pages...

The matter of producing and distributing a paper is a very serious one. A party&#39;s paper and the way they treat it is very telling about their line and if they are actually capable of leading the masses to revolution.

A paper that fails to properly agitate, propagandize and organize the masses is a paper that fails to create a revolutionary situation.



Heh, I&#39;m sure "the masses" were quite "captivated" by your last issue ("Special Issue on Bob Avakian" ).

Uh...that was like two months ago.

The last issue was (mostly) about immigrant&#39;s rights and the struggle of undocumented workers in the United States.

I know because I was distrubing it last night at a Tom Morello concert (which kicked ass). :D


Well, I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that there&#39;s more to the Communist League than The Worker.

I am not going to argue with you that there should be more to a party than it&#39;s paper, because I agree with that. However, a party is nothing without a newspaper.

If you haven&#39;t already, I recommend reading Chapter V of What is to be Done. Lenin does a great job of explaining the importance of a party&#39;s newspaper.

[Rawthentic]

Just because a worker can "relate to something" because it "talks about their own issues" doesn&#39;t mean that specific something is innately revolutionary.

Then I think if you check out the Worker archives you will see the answer. We don&#39;t need to spout about "revolution" in every corner of our publications, the very nature of the League and content of our pubs are revolutionary in their own right.

And I&#39;ll be reading Chapter 5 of What is To Be Done? right now, since I own the book.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 02:18 am
I don&#39;t want to get involved in this again, as I don&#39;t have the time but;


Kingsbridge, a predominantly chicano working class neighborhood in the Bronx.

Umm.. I lived there for a while, and it is not "predominantly chicano." It is predominantly Dominican and Puerto Rican, with some Albanians and Greeks.
wtf?? Albanians and Greeks? eh? since when? Yeah there Puerto Ricans and Dominicans but lots of Chicanos too. Where in Kingsbridge? I did work around Bronx Science and Lehman


After what CdL said, I now get to question Henry&#39;s honesty.

oh my fucking god you&#39;re such a joke&#33; Does the fact that CdL claims that Kingsbridge is more Dominican and Puerto Rican than Chicano change anything? Did he challenge the class status? Or any of the other neighborhoods?


You can call the Worker a leaflet or a novel if you&#39;d like, the point is that we know that hundreds of working people can and do relate to it. I&#39;ve seen it, I&#39;ve heard it, no doubt. So, calling the Worker a "leaflet" is inconsequential, because working people relate to it very well, they don&#39;t care what you call it.

The rest of your post is not worth responding too.

okay good master-debating, really, very good master-debating :lol: "trust me, working people DO relate to the Worker, they really do&#33;&#33;

i don&#39;t care, i&#39;m pointing out that it goes in the trash more often then its even read, and it doesn&#39;t act as something a party can be built on since its so short.


Err... I&#39;m really curious how you concluded that we were "hiding away" our other publications. It&#39;s really quite odd how you seem to know all this stuff about the League that we don&#39;t know.

because I assume the dude would be distributing both if they were of equal value? The Worker obviously is the pivot because it was the one material that the guy had, just as when a RCPer is by himself doing party work the one material he&#39;ll be sure to have is revolution, while if he&#39;s with others he may have Draft Programmes, Red Books, Silver Books, and etc...


Heh, I&#39;m sure "the masses" were quite "captivated" by your last issue ("Special Issue on Bob Avakian" ).

obviously when in 2 short weeks over half a million copies were distributed and read. People came to us on the streets and took bundles, walked 2 blocks down, and started distributing, came back and got more, other people spent hours dropping them off at their laundromats, hair salons, local bookstores etc... people came to the bookstore here in NYC and took bundles, people started engaging with the Chairman&#39;s works and shit like that so yeah.


Oh, trust me, if I thought the working class was "stupid," I would join an organization that asserted the need for a "leader" above the working class, not an organization that advocates direct control and self-leadership by the working class.

hmm because working class and leadership as a direct choice of working class base as well as leadership in the interest of the working class is "above" the working class? Makes boatloads of sense. That&#39;s why the revolutionary working class and peasantry worldwide are fighting revolutions with revolutionary vanguards at the forefront from India, to the Phillipines, to Peru, and now a new stage of struggle in Nepal


There are also advantages to having a variety available....

this is the most fucking upsurd waste of internet technology space shit ever&#33;&#33;[email protected]?&#33; :lol:

[Rawthentic]

okay good master-debating, really, very good master-debating laugh.gif "trust me, working people DO relate to the Worker, they really do&#33;&#33;

i don&#39;t care, i&#39;m pointing out that it goes in the trash more often then its even read, and it doesn&#39;t act as something a party can be built on since its so short.&#092;
There&#39;s nothing for me to prove here. I know it. I&#39;d like to see you prove it with Revolution?


obviously when in 2 short weeks over half a million copies were distributed and read. People came to us on the streets and took bundles, walked 2 blocks down, and started distributing, came back and got more, other people spent hours dropping them off at their laundromats, hair salons, local bookstores etc... people came to the bookstore here in NYC and took bundles, people started engaging with the Chairman&#39;s works and shit like that so yeah.
And like I said, working people print out and make hundreds of copies of the Worker and distribute them.



i don&#39;t care, i&#39;m pointing out that it goes in the trash more often then its even read, and it doesn&#39;t act as something a party can be built on since its so short.
Well seeing how we have grown a lot in just 3 years, the Worker has played a large role in this. I mean, in the face of hundreds of other "communist" parties that have been around for 3 decades.


hmm because working class and leadership as a direct choice of working class base as well as leadership in the interest of the working class is "above" the working class? Makes boatloads of sense.
I&#39;d sure love to see proof the Avakian rose from the ranks of the proletariat. :lol:


obviously when in 2 short weeks over half a million copies were distributed and read. People came to us on the streets and took bundles, walked 2 blocks down, and started distributing, came back and got more, other people spent hours dropping them off at their laundromats, hair salons, local bookstores etc... people came to the bookstore here in NYC and took bundles, people started engaging with the Chairman&#39;s works and shit like that so yeah.
I suppose like how they are captivated watching 3 hours of a talk show about a Party and why they now they are the ones to lead the revolution and all.

But, as always, never anything that hurts the League. But, you can always keep trying.

[NewEast]

What&#39;s the point of having such leader worship? It achieves nothing but scare people away. If the RCP didn&#39;t play the Dear Leader game, its membership would be twice as large. You are only discrediting yourselves. People like Blade Nzimande and Nina Andreeva are recognised and respected leaders who are looked up to because they deserve that sort of respect, not because they have a cadre that devotes so much energy to raving on about how great they are. By hyping him up so much it only looks as if Avakian is trying to set himself up as &#39;the next big thing&#39; in Marxist leaders.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

wtf?? Albanians and Greeks? eh? since when?

For decades.

Here, I looked in Wikipedia just to see what it said:

"Kingsbridge was once a neighborhood made up of predominately Irish immigrants. However beginning from the late seventies up to the millineum, the Irish population (immigrants and their descendants) has decreased significantly. They have been replaced by large numbers of Hispanics, Asians, and Southern Europeans of mainly Greek and Albanian stock."


Yeah there Puerto Ricans and Dominicans but lots of Chicanos too.

Unless there was a huge influx of Mexicans into the area recently, this just isn&#39;t true comrade. I just spoke to someone who lives on Kingsbridge and brought up the issue, and they said they don&#39;t even know of any Central Americans at all living near them.


Where in Kingsbridge? I did work around Bronx Science and Lehman

I lived at the end, across the street from Marble Hill projects; but of course I was all through Kingsbridge, and the rest of the BX, all the time.

Bronx High School of Science is in Bedford Park, which borders Kingsbridge Heights, which is a much richer area that Kingsbridge.

Bedford Park is about 9-10% Mexican, and Norwood is right there too, which is about 10% Mexican. Maybe you were in those areas?

I&#39;ve derailed the thread too much with this already; the claim that Kingsbridge was a Chicano neighborhood just really caught me.

[Axel1917]

um okay well I don&#39;t think that&#39;s true, I&#39;ve heard it was for something like "assaulting a police officer" but if it was? So? That doesn&#39;t undermine his credibility, Direct Actions show that you&#39;re not all talk.

Direct action is useless if it plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie.


and the RCP has both size and correct line. It has analyized the successes and failures of the socialist experience and put forward a plan for making revolution in the current and developing a much better society then the one in place. The CPSU did make accomplishments while it was socialist. It collectivized agriculture, made all property public, set up health clinics and communal kitchens, got the workers and peasants really involved in collectivizing this land, liberated womyn from the backwards semi-fuedal system, and etc.. when it became revisionist, it failed.

It was the leadership of the CPSU itself that sold out to capitalism, as they wanted to increase their privileges and be able to pass them down to their kids. Trotsky accurately predicted this in his The Revolution Betrayed.

There were indeed massive accomplishments in terms of living standards, but the CPSU still failed in the end. Russia and China today are 100% capitalist.

I don&#39;t understand why you spell women as "womyn." Is the RCP being influenced by that MIM crap?

I don&#39;t understand why Avakian gets so much focus. I can&#39;t visit the RCP site without being bombarded by his quotes an the like. It seems that he is treated as "someone higher" instead of just being another comrade of an organization. I think it may have a personality cultish hue to it. I don&#39;t recall Lenin getting such treatment, I don&#39;t see the US SWP bombarding people with Jack Barnes quotes, I don&#39;t see the CWI bombarding people with Taaffe quotes, we don&#39;t bombard people with Ted Grant quotes and treat him as "a higher being," I haven&#39;t seen any anarchist tendencies bombarding people with quotations from one "higher" person, etc.

The RCP seems to be...how to say...more in line than a lot of organizations I have seen, but I don&#39;t think that the Avakian bombardment really helps out. An RCP supporter I have encountered several times seems to begin virtually every sentence with "Bob Avakian says...," Bob Avakian wrote this and analyzed this...," etc. Some people seem to take a copy of Revolution just to get him to go away.

The RCP is better than another Maoist organization I have seen, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (they seem like a bunch of liberals to me.), but I don&#39;t think it is perfect.


If you haven&#39;t already, I recommend reading Chapter V of What is to be Done. Lenin does a great job of explaining the importance of a party&#39;s newspaper.

Or if one does not have time for that, I would at least recommend Lenin&#39;s article Where to Begin for starters.


Once again, you seem to be forgetting that the RCP has been around for more than thirty years. Of course, it&#39;s convenient to laugh at the relatively small size of the League (around 50 members) and then brag about how big your party is... but you have to remember that your party has been around more than ten times as long as the League.

How many members does the RCP have anyway?

I don&#39;t think that the number game really means anything. Again, without correct perspectives, ideas, method, etc., no organization, even if it is massive, will get anywhere.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

For decades.

Here, I looked in Wikipedia just to see what it said:

"Kingsbridge was once a neighborhood made up of predominately Irish immigrants. However beginning from the late seventies up to the millineum, the Irish population (immigrants and their descendants) has decreased significantly. They have been replaced by large numbers of Hispanics, Asians, and Southern Europeans of mainly Greek and Albanian stock."

Asians?? werd? Okay i made a mistake, its not like it was bat shit insane like I said it was a South African neighborhood or something. See it does say that there are a good number of hispanics and chicanos are hispanic.

As for you claim of it being rich, I&#39;m sorry but that&#39;s not quite true. It&#39;s not run down or anything but its definately not rich. Rich is like the Upper East Side or umm.. now soho

Bedford park is a boulevard i thought, not a neighborhood. And Kingsbridge heights and Kingsbridge are synonomous essentially or right next to each other. It&#39;s literally a stop away on the train from the kingsbridge station.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well I don&#39;t know about any of the other parties, but the SWP uses large parts of its party funds to fund its printing company, Pathfinder Press to publish its books by Barnes. But that doesn&#39;t matter. The reason why the RCP promotes the Chairman in the way it does is because he has a truly unique analysis. His works don&#39;t just break down the system in the US but really explain how we&#39;re gonna make a revolution here and what the future society will look like. People in the bolsheviks rallied to Lenin because he was fundamentally correct. He put forward the line that was correct to wage a revolution, and the masses knew that, and they were bolsheviks as written in WITBD. Bob Avakian has made similiar advances I think in analyizing and applying the foundations put down by Marx, Lenin, and Mao and further expanding on them. That&#39;s why the RCP takes the approach it does, I think unlike alot of the leaders of others parties, Chairman Avakian speaks intellectually to the masses, not as a separated intellectual speaking to the masses. He has devoted his life to revolutionary struggle and organization among the masses, and that&#39;s shit that people can get down with. When the RCP goes with its paper to the barrios and working class neighborhoods, we don&#39;t get the arguement that "ooo you guys have a leader" we get people pissed off at the fact that there are no leaders like the ones from the BPP, and looking for leadership to bring forward another way, that&#39;s why I think Revolution has been able to keep going the way it is, while there may be the occasional person who isn&#39;t that interested and just takes a paper because he feels akward, I think that happens with anything you do where you try to get in people&#39;s faces about changing the world, about class struggle, and liberation, but also about shit anything political whether it be global warming or whatever, I think though, far more people take the paper because they want another way, and that&#39;s why people pick up bundles and why we were able to get so many broadsheets out.

Also, how are direct actions bourgeois?

Lastly, I use the terms womyn, persynal, and etc... not because its part of the RCP&#39;s line, but because I think persynally that womman is a patriachial way of spelling left over from the time when english spelling was standardized. At this time period, the oppression of womyn was rampant even more than today and basic rights denied much more than today. Today womyn through struggle have gain rights, but the spelling "woman" is a symbol of patriachy, (which still definately exsists) as well as implies that wimmin are a subset of man.

[Rawthentic]

A Maoist organization that I like is the RCP of Canada. Very different in many aspects than this RCP. They speak of proletarian self-emancipation, and understand the correct role of the petty-bourgeoisie, being that of lackeys and servants to the bourgeoisie.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Asians?? werd? Okay i made a mistake, its not like it was bat shit insane like I said it was a South African neighborhood or something. See it does say that there are a good number of hispanics and chicanos are hispanic.

Yes, Asians too. Of course Chicanos are Latino, but Latinos are not all Chicanos.


As for you claim of it being rich, I&#39;m sorry but that&#39;s not quite true. It&#39;s not run down or anything but its definately not rich. Rich is like the Upper East Side or umm.. now soho

I didn&#39;t say rich, I said richer. Kingsbridge Heights is richer, generally speaking, than Kingsbridge.


Bedford park is a boulevard i thought, not a neighborhood.

It&#39;s a neighborhood and a road, same with Kingsbridge..


And Kingsbridge heights and Kingsbridge are synonomous essentially or right next to each other. It&#39;s literally a stop away on the train from the kingsbridge station.

Yeah, they&#39;re right next to each other; but separate. The reason they are separate is that Kingsbridge Heights is full of people with more money than those in Kingsbridge. This sort of thing goes on all over the U.S. I can name several examples.

[Genosse Kotze]

Alright, this is a very long thread indeed and I haven&#39;t really been part of this debate thus far, but I have put in a few comments here and there--all of them in support of Avakian. I support him because he seems to be the most prominent communist out there (the fact that this thread is so damn long is a testament to that). This is a hard time to be a communist, and although Avakian exhibits a lot of the worst of the Marxist tradition, it&#39;s important to have him out there creating this sort of debate, even if it&#39;s pissing a lot of people off, because at least it gets people talking about communism.

Since the CPUSA is nothing but an email service, cheerleading for the Democrats, the RCP seems to be the only other Leninist party out there, who&#39;s still active. So it gets my support in spite of some of its, and Avakian&#39;s, serious shortcomings, which I&#39;m going to try and touch on here.

Now, I don&#39;t think the RCP is a cult, and I think it&#39;s very petty to make Avakian out as being the new Jim Jones, but there is something to be said about the RCP being detached from the working class. In one of his talks available online he says "this [the RCP] is a communist party and not a workers&#39; party." Well, ok. I don&#39;t shit on the need to win over other sections of the population apart from workers. If you want to emancipate all of humanity, you&#39;ve got to get as many people as you can to be friendly to your cause. But within the first several minutes of part 2 of the talk Communism: A Whole New World And The Emancipation of All Humanity – Not "The Last Shall Be First, And the First Shall Be Last" he says "the communist movement has to be separated from the labor movement." Once again, as a political party I&#39;ll support it. I want revolution and a whole new world, and if I&#39;ve got to join the RCP to bring that into existence, so be it; but there are labor issues which need to be addressed right now, and can be, even short of revolution, which Bob Avakian makes it pretty clear the RCP won&#39;t be involved with. Communism and revolution are still my goals, but until that happens I want to try and improve working peoples&#39; conditions right here and now&#33; So, if you&#39;re a worker and want to fight for immediate improvements, I suggest getting involved with a union which doesn&#39;t shy away from direct action (such as the IWW). But talking long term, a vanguard party is the way to go. (Apart from having to pay double the dues) I don&#39;t see why one can&#39;t be involved with both simultaneously.


However, in one of his online talks (I can&#39;t recall which exactly, but I&#39;ll try and find out and post it when I can--I&#39;m trying to be thorough here) he says "you can&#39;t bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat via workers&#39; councils&#33;" Well, I&#39;m sorry Bob, but fuck you&#33; If we’re defining it as the monopoly of power by a class, I don’t see how direct control over their own work places isn’t the dictatorship of the proletariat. (if every store, factory, etc. were controlled by its workers, then the workers control the whole economy=dictatorship of the proletariat). Workers’ self-management is fundamental to the communist project and has been among the most inspiring demonstrations of emancipation where and whenever it has been applied. So, when Bob Avakian shits all over this, it leads one to suspect that his understanding of communism is really lacking.

But once again, by virtue of their pretty intense activism alone, I still support them even if Bob Avakian may not know what he&#39;s talking about.

…This post is a too long addition to an already too long thread. My bad folks.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

They speak of proletarian self-emancipation, and understand the correct role of the petty-bourgeoisie, being that of lackeys and servants to the bourgeoisie.


Not quite. They hold a similiar line. The RCP, USA believes in Proletarian self-emancipation. If you read the second section of the United Front part of the Draft Programme, you&#39;ll see that the RCP, USA believes that certain parts of the PB are thoroughly reactionary stormtroopers of the bourgeois (police, army, government bureacrats) but that other parts aren&#39;t and may be key in winning the revolution (small farmers who employ few or no workers, teachers, etc..) I mean how are small farmers who employ no one the servants of the bourgeois? They&#39;re squashed by the bourgeois, as the bourgeois imperialist companies attempt to drive them out.

Keine,

when I first became active with the RCP, I held much, much harsher critiscism then you seem to hold. You should stop by Revolution Books at 19th b/t 6th and 7th avenue sometime and talk to some people there about your views. We hold discussions every thursday at 7pm this june I think but there are RCPers there at all times pretty much. Now I see your critiscism of the chairman, could you provide the full context of these quotes because their interesting and i don&#39;t want to make a statement based on something out of context especially because I think I&#39;ve seen things that would be to the contrary. In particular on worker&#39;s councils

[cenv]

teachers
Since when have teachers been petty-bourgeois?

They sell their labor power for a wage (and have to spend a lot of time outside of work keeping up with their jobs), generally do not have much autonomy in their workplaces anymore, and by your admission will probably be key elements of the revolution.

[Genosse Kotze]

I’m still trying to fish out the exact quote where he said “you can’t bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat via workers’ councils,” but these talks are numerous and lengthy so it could take a while.

However, from minute 13 to 15 in part two of the talk Communism: A Whole New World And The Emancipation of All Humanity – Not "The Last Shall Be First, And the First Shall Be Last" he mentions workers&#39; councils as being limited. And on the one hand, considering the content of this part of the talk, I do see where he&#39;s coming from. Here he&#39;s discussing the shortcomings of movements such as national liberation struggles and feminism. These things taken alone are too narrow and, to use Avakian&#39;s phrase for it, "won&#39;t take us where we need to go." So what he&#39;s doing here, albeit mistakenly in my opinion, is lumping the workers&#39; struggle, and push for workers&#39; councils in particular, in with these other ones.

So, he&#39;s correct to point out that feminism and black liberation, in and of themselves, won&#39;t herald in a whole new, epoch of human history--the ultimate goal of anybody who calls him/herself a communist. But the working class isn&#39;t just another "identity group," as Avakian refers to these movements at one point in the talk. It&#39;s my understanding that, in fighting to liberate itself, the proletariat cannot help but fight for the liberation of all humanity. So, the victory of industrialized labor, in the form of workers&#39; self-management, would be quite significant, if not Communism&#39;s ultimate triumph altogether.

But this isn&#39;t the quote I really wanted to discuss, and I&#39;ll keep searching for it. And once again, I would like to support the RCP; no party or organization is perfect and made just for me and my outlook, my only trouble is that my impression of what he said was that being in the RCP automatically precludes you from being active in any other sort of endeavor, particularly labor related, which may deviate from the party line a bit. But yes. I do think heading over to Revolution Books to get more in depth about these concerns and others would be a good move.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:10 am

teachers
Since when have teachers been petty-bourgeois?

They sell their labor power for a wage (and have to spend a lot of time outside of work keeping up with their jobs), generally do not have much autonomy in their workplaces anymore, and by your admission will probably be key elements of the revolution.
Unnecessary pedantry.

Anyway, teachers (at least in the U.S.) are "labor aristocrats".

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Since when have teachers been petty-bourgeois?

because they work for the government, government employees are PB. They&#39;re protectors of the system just like the police and from teacher-to-teacher help spread misconception and lies that protect the system and keep the youth from challeging it.

[bolshevik butcher]

This is absoloute nonscense. Teachers are proletarians, so are low level civil servants and lots of other positions in the public service. Are people that work in the NHS and the job centre also petty bourgoirse? All positions i mentioned are hevily unionised and are made up of people who sell their labour time for a living.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I’m still trying to fish out the exact quote where he said “you can’t bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat via workers’ councils,” but these talks are numerous and lengthy so it could take a while.

I know what you mean. I&#39;d still like to see the quote though, becausethe Draft Programme of the RCP, USA claims that revolutionary committees made predominantly of workers will be the embryotic form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As for your fear that the RCP doesn&#39;t get involved in the labor movement this isn&#39;t true. The RCP is one of the most active groups in the struggle for immigrant worker&#39;s rights and has reported on the struggle maybe 5 times on the front page in the past 2 months (8 issues) of Revolution.

When Worker&#39;s in the Smithfield Factory went on strike, Revolution and the RCP was the first group there reporting on it and standing in solidarity.

What Bob Avakian in my understanding is saying is that the reason why we can&#39;t just have a worker&#39;s republic is a) because this will just become the same as capitalist society with rulers and the oppressed unless it is moving towards communism b) the way that the proletariat needs to move towards communism is through interacting and uniting with all kinds of oppressed and angry bodies of the masses like black intelligestia, middle strata homosexuals, etc... people who may not be working class but have a real big stake in seeing a communist future where oppression of these groups is no more. He gives the analogy that a revolutionary situation, especially in the US is like an open umbrella closing. The open umbrella represents all these different forces, the closed umbrella represents these forces uniting around the proletariat. This is important and I think that what he&#39;s saying is that as communists we can&#39;t be narrow in our outlook because communism is more than just workerism, its the emancipation of all humanity through proletarian led revolution[/i]

[cenv]

because they work for the government, government employees are PB.
I&#39;m not sure whether you&#39;re trying to be funny.

That&#39;s like saying someone who works at Starbucks is bourgeois because Starbucks is owned by a member of the bourgeoisie.


They&#39;re protectors of the system just like the police and from teacher-to-teacher help spread misconception and lies that protect the system and keep the youth from challeging it.
Yes, teachers do unintentionally and unknowingly protect capitalism. But most workers do -- isn&#39;t that why the working class has the power to overthrow capitalism, because workers are the ones who keep it going?

A lot of workers do spread misconceptions and prevent the youth from challenging capitalism -- isn&#39;t that one of the main functions of the family under capitalism? In all cases, those workers aren&#39;t in a big conspiracy to keep the youth in the dark; they&#39;ve been duped into adhering to capitalist ideology just like everyone else.

You need to go a little deeper than just ideology. You have to actually look at things from a materialist perspective. Teachers are a group that...

1) Work for a wage.
2) Do not have any power over other workers.
3) Despite being "professionals," have very little autonomy in the workplace anymore. It&#39;s not as if they get to choose what they teach.
4) Work long hours, including both in the workplace and outside.

Just remember... there&#39;s a reason you hear about teachers going on strike so frequently.

The reason I pointed this out though, wasn&#39;t to derail this topic. I just thought it was interesting that the RCP has this policy about the "fight for the middle" and then justifies it by including occupations that are usually considered proletarian in with the petty-bourgeoisie.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 23, 2007 05:37 pm
This is absoloute nonscense. Teachers are proletarians, so are low level civil servants and lots of other positions in the public service. Are people that work in the NHS and the job centre also petty bourgoirse? All positions i mentioned are hevily unionised and are made up of people who sell their labour time for a living.
yes and that is precisely why they&#39;ll be so influential in the revolution, but they are civil servants in the government sector, they&#39;re part what makes the Dictatorship of the Bourgeois work whether they know it, like it, or not.


I&#39;m not sure whether you&#39;re trying to be funny.

That&#39;s like saying someone who works at Starbucks is bourgeois because Starbucks is owned by a member of the bourgeoisie.

ummmm no? That&#39;s not at all what I&#39;m saying. Why are cops Petty Bourgeois? Because they are the frontlines of the system. The Teachers are very similiar. They help indoctrinate students with bourgeois bullshit. Teachers differ from cops though, in that they are often very radical and make alot less, they often have little loyalty to the system when compared to cops which is why they&#39;ll join the proletarian revolution. At the same time, they fundamentally play the same role as cops.


Yes, teachers do unintentionally and unknowingly protect capitalism. But most workers do

um no. Not really. Workers sell their labor. Teachers sell their labor which is to indoctrinate youth on the evils of communism and the greatness of captialism. Bit of a difference.

[cenv]

um no. Not really. Workers sell their labor. Teachers sell their labor which is to indoctrinate youth on the evils of communism and the greatness of captialism. Bit of a difference.
Well, it&#39;s a spectrum. For instance, a high school teacher performs more indoctrination than a preschool teacher, and a history teacher performs more indoctrination than a math teacher.


they&#39;re part what makes the Dictatorship of the Bourgeois work whether they know it, like it, or not.
All workers are part of what makes the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie work.

Being "part of what makes the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie work" isn&#39;t enough to make someone petty-bourgeois. For instance, I&#39;ve already pointed out that one of the main functions of the family under capitalism is to spread bourgeois ideology.

A lot of workers protect capitalism. Try going and buying a carton of ice cream priced at &#036;4 but paying &#036;2 for it. The cashier, despite probably being a fellow proletarian, ain&#39;t gonna like that. By demanding that you pay the full price for the products you buy, that cashier is protecting capitalism and the profits of the bourgeoisie. That&#39;s his/her primary function. Does that make him/her petty-bourgeois? Of course not.

Teachers are very unlike cops. Cops aren&#39;t just unintentionally and unknowingly being tricked into spreading bourgeois ideology. They are very conscious of the fact that it&#39;s their duty to protect the current social order. That&#39;s why cops remain steadfastly loyal to capitalism in revolutionary times while teachers are down with the rest of the workers. Cops are naturally opposed to the workers and unhesitatingly serve the bourgeoisie. They&#39;re in an entirely different position than teachers.



As for your fear that the RCP doesn&#39;t get involved in the labor movement this isn&#39;t true. The RCP is one of the most active groups in the struggle for immigrant worker&#39;s rights and has reported on the struggle maybe 5 times on the front page in the past 2 months (8 issues) of Revolution.

One thing I&#39;m curious about is how Bob Avakian envisions workplaces being structured after the revolution. Care to explain briefly? I&#39;ve been through several of his speeches and writings, but he seems to be pretty vague with his terminology. Just curious.

[terroristmilitia]

Originally posted by SovietPants+June 23, 2007 02:03 pm--> (SovietPants @ June 23, 2007 02:03 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 02:10 am

teachers
Since when have teachers been petty-bourgeois?

They sell their labor power for a wage (and have to spend a lot of time outside of work keeping up with their jobs), generally do not have much autonomy in their workplaces anymore, and by your admission will probably be key elements of the revolution.
Unnecessary pedantry.

Anyway, teachers (at least in the U.S.) are "labor aristocrats". [/b]
I agree. In my area, teaching is a sweet gig. Just about a 9 to 5, ~&#036;50,000 / year with summers and weekends off, and you can strike if the school board won&#39;t give you your pay raise and moderate the teacher&#39;s benefit contributions. At a lot of jobs you&#39;re lucky if you can get two days in a row off. They might support the cancellation of all student loan debt, but I don&#39;t see them being much of a revolutionary force.

Personally, I think RCP&#39;s wasting its time trying to build a broad consensus for revolution, the bourgeois and labor aristrocacy have too much to lose. An hour&#39;s minimum wage in the U.S. is more than a lot of people in the world make in a week. Teachers make a hell of a lot more.

[Genosse Kotze]

Ummm, I do have a thing or to to say about teachers, but I do believe it&#39;s a bit off topic here.
...And I&#39;m still looking for that quote.

[RedHal]

Originally posted by terroristmilitia+June 24, 2007 11:36 pm--> (terroristmilitia &#064; June 24, 2007 11:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:03 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 02:10 am

teachers
Since when have teachers been petty-bourgeois?

They sell their labor power for a wage (and have to spend a lot of time outside of work keeping up with their jobs), generally do not have much autonomy in their workplaces anymore, and by your admission will probably be key elements of the revolution.
Unnecessary pedantry.

Anyway, teachers (at least in the U.S.) are "labor aristocrats".
I agree. In my area, teaching is a sweet gig. Just about a 9 to 5, ~&#036;50,000 / year with summers and weekends off, and you can strike if the school board won&#39;t give you your pay raise and moderate the teacher&#39;s benefit contributions. At a lot of jobs you&#39;re lucky if you can get two days in a row off. They might support the cancellation of all student loan debt, but I don&#39;t see them being much of a revolutionary force.

Personally, I think RCP&#39;s wasting its time trying to build a broad consensus for revolution, the bourgeois and labor aristrocacy have too much to lose. An hour&#39;s minimum wage in the U.S. is more than a lot of people in the world make in a week. Teachers make a hell of a lot more. [/b]
I agree with this, first world teachers have it good. Just because they are constantly going on strike does not mean they are exploited, you can live very confortably on a teacher&#39;s wage including all the benefits and plenty of leisure time.

I know a highschool teacher in a low income neighbourhood, he tells me that most of the staff look down on the kids and don&#39;t think they will amount to much in life. They are labour aristocrats, they benefit from the system but want more.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by GrandMonster Mao+June 23, 2007 08:54 pm--> (GrandMonster Mao @ June 23, 2007 08:54 pm)
bolshevik [email protected] 23, 2007 05:37 pm
This is absoloute nonscense. Teachers are proletarians, so are low level civil servants and lots of other positions in the public service. Are people that work in the NHS and the job centre also petty bourgoirse? All positions i mentioned are hevily unionised and are made up of people who sell their labour time for a living.
yes and that is precisely why they&#39;ll be so influential in the revolution, but they are civil servants in the government sector, they&#39;re part what makes the Dictatorship of the Bourgeois work whether they know it, like it, or not.


I&#39;m not sure whether you&#39;re trying to be funny.

That&#39;s like saying someone who works at Starbucks is bourgeois because Starbucks is owned by a member of the bourgeoisie.

ummmm no? That&#39;s not at all what I&#39;m saying. Why are cops Petty Bourgeois? Because they are the frontlines of the system. The Teachers are very similiar. They help indoctrinate students with bourgeois bullshit. Teachers differ from cops though, in that they are often very radical and make alot less, they often have little loyalty to the system when compared to cops which is why they&#39;ll join the proletarian revolution. At the same time, they fundamentally play the same role as cops.


Yes, teachers do unintentionally and unknowingly protect capitalism. But most workers do

um no. Not really. Workers sell their labor. Teachers sell their labor which is to indoctrinate youth on the evils of communism and the greatness of captialism. Bit of a difference. [/b]
Cops are not petty bourgeois.

[RNK]

Yes, cops are not petty bourgeois, as in, they have absolutely no relationship with the means of production (which, by definition, the petty bourgeoisie do, as they are small-time capitalists). However, they are just as bad, if not worse, for they are the enforcers of the system, the strong-arm, the "SS".

But it&#39;s semantics. They are part of the bourgeoisie&#39;s armed forces and their most visible tool for maintaining power.

[Rawthentic]

RNK, Marx and I would beg to differ:

"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating 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." - The Communist Manifesto

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 am
I agree with this, first world teachers have it good. Just because they are constantly going on strike does not mean they are exploited, you can live very confortably on a teacher&#39;s wage including all the benefits and plenty of leisure time.

I know a highschool teacher in a low income neighbourhood, he tells me that most of the staff look down on the kids and don&#39;t think they will amount to much in life. They are labour aristocrats, they benefit from the system but want more.
That is incorrect.

I don&#39;t think many realize this, but teachers are massively overworked; according to Mr. Stroebel, my Popular Literature and Film teacher, and the head of the Millcreek Education Association, "we use to have more flexible work hours before classes to fix our lesson plans and prepare for the upcoming class, but now we are very restricted". Mr. Caugherty, another one of my teachers, actually leaves in the housing projects of our city; is that not a testament of how teachers can not be deducted to &#39;labor aristocrats&#39;?

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I&#39;ll stop calling your leader a cult leader if you give me approximately 10 to 20 pages on your revcom.us website that either don&#39;t mention Avakian in any way, or slavishly praise him in any way.

You have all the time in the world. I&#39;ll be waiting... for quite a while. :D

[Taboo Tongue]

I don&#39;t like the RCP because of their views but especially because of my experience at their book store; regardless don&#39;t be such an asshole.


according to Google there is "about 1,250 [pages] from revcom.us" that don&#39;t include Avakian in anyway, I found some by hand just to double check.


http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/kam.htm
http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/881/hallow.htm
http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/tupac.htm
http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/885/setoff.htm
http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/889/burc.htm
http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/890-899/898/rose.htm
http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/890-899/892/concert.htm
http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/900-905/903/gins.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/905-09/909/dhoch.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/910-19/910/npr.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/910-19/917/rich.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/920/fela.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/921/music.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/924/phantm.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/925/interv.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/925/graf.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/925/rage.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/930-39/937/justic.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/930-39/937/sprewel.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/940-49/944/jeers.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/940-49/949/capeman.htm
http://revcom.us/a/v19/950-59/959/repo.htm

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Taboo [email protected] 18, 2007 12:58 am



according to Google there is "about 1,250 [pages] from revcom.us" that don&#39;t include Avakian in anyway, I found some by hand just to double check.



but how many are there total?

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+July 18, 2007 06:06 am--> (Pawn Power @ July 18, 2007 06:06 am)
Taboo [email protected] 18, 2007 12:58 am



according to Google there is "about 1,250 [pages] from revcom.us" that don&#39;t include Avakian in anyway, I found some by hand just to double check.



but how many are there total? [/b]
Probably 2 billion. :D

[Panda Tse Tung]

Your breaking your word here, and according to the revcom search-engine it&#39;s 2600. Dunno if thats only individual pages or times that Avakian is mentioned.

[Taboo Tongue]

about 1,220 from revcom.us for Avakian. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+site%3Arevcom.us+-Avakian&btnG=Search)
about 1,250 from revcom.us for -Avakian. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+site%3Arevcom.us+Avakian&btnG=Search)
about 2,580 from revcom.us. [total] (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=revcom.us&as_rights=&safe=off)

[Janus]

Merged

[RGacky3]

Before I start I first want to say, Kudos to the RCP for being one of the few Socialist groups in the US, actually doing something, trying to get up grass roots activism and educating people about Communism, I know they are active in my hometown LA, and they really work hard toward revolution rather than just sitting on their asses talking all day, like many other Socialist groups do.

I also know they&#39;ve been discussed before BUT:

I&#39;m not going to attack their Maoism because obviously thats their ideology but 2 things.

I believe the RCP have an attitude that blacks and latinos are the proletarian class in the United States and whites are not, and they focus almost 100% on those groups, but the fact is numberically (meaning not precentage wise), there are a lot more poor white people than there are black people, and also although race does have a lot to do with the American Class culture, why do things that could very well alienate poor whites, and re-inforce race tensions.

Also This Bob guy, I&#39;m not attacking anything he&#39;s said (although I don&#39;t agree with it by far), but I am attacking the attitude the RCP has toward him, why tie this person with the party, its pretty much kind of like HIS party, and he&#39;s the undisputed leader, its getting close to being a cult of personality, they call it a culture of appreciation, but I mean, Many Anarchists appreciate many people without putting them on almost a divine level, tieing his person in with the ideology. So why the Bob Avikan as leader thing, plus his in exile, his not in America, why would he continue to be the &#39;leader&#39;.

[quirk]

I&#39;m not even from the US never mind being a member of the RCP so I&#39;ll let them answer your questions but I just wanted to point out that Bob Avakian is in fact in the US. He was in exile in France for a good number of years but he has returned.

[Rawthentic]

I believe the RCP have an attitude that blacks and latinos are the proletarian class in the United States and whites are not, and they focus almost 100% on those groups, but the fact is numberically (meaning not precentage wise), there are a lot more poor white people than there are black people, and also although race does have a lot to do with the American Class culture, why do things that could very well alienate poor whites, and re-inforce race tensions.
Theres a special reason for this: the black and latino proletariat are at the bottom of capitalist class society, they are the super-exploited workers that suffer wage-slavery and racism.

And there are not more poor whites than poor blacks or latinos, that just false.

[RGacky3]

And there are not more poor whites than poor blacks or latinos, that just false.

I&#39;m not sure about that, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/table5.html, you speak very strong about things your not sure about.
Either way, why bring race into it, poverty is poverty no matter what your color.


Theres a special reason for this: the black and latino proletariat are at the bottom of capitalist class society, they are the super-exploited workers that suffer wage-slavery and racism.

Poor whites suffer wage-slavery, just as bad as poor blacks and latinos, and not all blacks and latinos suffer racism.

Even if that were the case, why do things to alienate poor whites, why not include them, why make race something even more devisive.

[Rawthentic]

Even if that were the case, why do things to alienate poor whites, why not include them, why make race something even more devisive.
The reality is that it is divisive under capitalism. Black and latino workers suffer the brunt of capitalist exploitation, they are the poorest sector in the US.

[RGacky3]

You just going to ignore those statistics? Ok.

[Rawthentic]

Umm, I dont need to see those government statistics to know that blacks and Latinos are the poorest people in the United States.

[RGacky3]

No your intuition is more credible I suppose, Or perhaps you&#39;ve traveled throughout the ENTIRE United States to know this, including all of rural America, but again I&#39;m sure there is SOMETHING behind that statement and not just your intuition, oh and I&#39;m sure the Government is lying as well to make white people seam just as poor as black and Latinos right?

Voz De La Gente Trabajadora, you could use some Humility, especially seeing as your name is "Voz De La Gente Trabajadora :P"

[redwinter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:35 pm
Before I start I first want to say, Kudos to the RCP for being one of the few Socialist groups in the US, actually doing something, trying to get up grass roots activism and educating people about Communism, I know they are active in my hometown LA, and they really work hard toward revolution rather than just sitting on their asses talking all day, like many other Socialist groups do.

I also know they&#39;ve been discussed before BUT:

I&#39;m not going to attack their Maoism because obviously thats their ideology but 2 things.

I believe the RCP have an attitude that blacks and latinos are the proletarian class in the United States and whites are not, and they focus almost 100% on those groups, but the fact is numberically (meaning not precentage wise), there are a lot more poor white people than there are black people, and also although race does have a lot to do with the American Class culture, why do things that could very well alienate poor whites, and re-inforce race tensions.

Also This Bob guy, I&#39;m not attacking anything he&#39;s said (although I don&#39;t agree with it by far), but I am attacking the attitude the RCP has toward him, why tie this person with the party, its pretty much kind of like HIS party, and he&#39;s the undisputed leader, its getting close to being a cult of personality, they call it a culture of appreciation, but I mean, Many Anarchists appreciate many people without putting them on almost a divine level, tieing his person in with the ideology. So why the Bob Avikan as leader thing, plus his in exile, his not in America, why would he continue to be the &#39;leader&#39;.
Wanted to clear up a couple points:

This is an excerpt from the Programme of the RCP on the nature of the US proletariat:

The proletariat in the U.S. is highly multinational, consisting of Black, white, Chicano, Puerto Rican, various other Latino and Asian-American nationalities, and millions of immigrants from the Third World and elsewhere. The majority of the poor in U.S. society are white, but the oppressed nationalities have rates of poverty that are two and three times greater than that of white people.

Large sections of the proletariat work in segregated, caste-like conditions. They are slotted into and stuck in low-paying and less desirable occupations and jobs. Owing to the whole history of oppression by the ruling class, in various forms down to today, Black, Latino and other oppressed nationalities and immigrants are disproportionately represented in the lower rungs of the proletariat and suffer high rates of unemployment, including high levels of more long-term unemployment.

(from http://www.rwor.org/margorp/a-uf2.htm - RCP Draft Programme)


Now, as far as what is the aggregate national composition of the areas that the RCP might happen to work in for whatever reasons, I don&#39;t know the answer to that. But this is the party&#39;s line on what constitutes the proletariat in this country.

On Bob Avakian- Just curious here, I&#39;d like to know what you think is intrinsically wrong with a cult of personality, or a culture of appreciation, or individual leadership in general?

[RGacky3]

Thanks for that excerpt, and its true that precentagewise Blacks and Latinos are poorer, but I aslo think that taking race out of the picture should help.

I think individual leadership is wrong because I don&#39;t think anyone should have authority over anyone else, no one is intrinsically better than any one else, when a &#39;cult of personallity&#39; is made a person is put above others as if he&#39;s better, and he is put above principles and individuals.

[redwinter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:26 pm
Thanks for that excerpt, and its true that precentagewise Blacks and Latinos are poorer, but I aslo think that taking race out of the picture should help.

I think individual leadership is wrong because I don&#39;t think anyone should have authority over anyone else, no one is intrinsically better than any one else, when a &#39;cult of personallity&#39; is made a person is put above others as if he&#39;s better, and he is put above principles and individuals.
Well, I do think that some people are better than others at doing certain things.

Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than I am. Gary Kasparov is better at chess. Einstein was a better physicist than I&#39;ll ever be. The list goes on...

However, we have to realize that revolution is a science like any other, and just like biology or physics there are certain people that make leaps in understanding the science and contribute to "knowing the world in order to change it."

As far as why the RCP upholds Bob Avakian, check out these two articles on leadership they put out a little while back:

Resolution: On Leaders and Leadership (http://www.rwor.org/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership.htm)
Some Points On the Question of Revolutionary Leadership and Individual Leaders (http://www.rwor.org/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership_points.htm)

[Floyce White]

From the point of view of petty-bourgeois radicals, lower-class people are uneducated and can&#39;t accomplish anything without professional managers making the plans and directing the work.

From the point of view of lower-class activists, radical petty bourgeoisie want to have bubblingly enthusiastic but unpaid employees for their political businesses too.

It&#39;s just hilarious how the article goes straight from discussing master/slave relations to playing down any possible dangers from "leader"/"follower" relations.

There is little to be said about the RCP that does not apply to the rest of the bunch. Bourgeois academia and its liberal guilt provides the money and self-proclaimed "organizing talent" for missionary work in the slums. Rebellious poor youth are recruited and disunited into dozens of micro-sects in the leftist swamp. Revolutionary leftism is one method for containing the rebellion of the poor and diverting it into pro-rich channels.

The liberal-conservative fraud that the demos rule--is not possible without the janitorial services of petty-bourgeois radicalism gathering up and burning out all the discontent. The specific demands of petty-bourgeois revolutionariness depend on their own families&#39; property-accumulation interests. However, to the dispossessed, it is only of minor tactical interest to know which possessor claims to own what. The salient fact is that petty-bourgeois revolutionariness is the faithful servant of capital.

Avakian&#39;s life story reads like a Woody Allen movie. His writings? There&#39;s some clear effort to favor petty employers and landlords (no doubt due to the petty-bourgeois background that he supposedly "broke with"). The rest could have been automated with a clever program to paraphrase old books and current sources. His writing style is better now than in the &#39;70s. Coincidentally, computers are better now than in the &#39;70s.

It&#39;s hard to take seriously a group that is best known for the publicity stunt of locking themselves in the Alamo. So let&#39;s concern ourselves with working-class outlook and build a party of workers--not a capitalist-worker alliance.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

To the RCP and it&#39;s members:

I apologize for calling your chairman a cult leader. I merely failed to understand your reasons for making him as prominent as he is. I have been ignorant, and acting upon information I got from others, and did not do any research on the matter. Nor am I really sure how to pronounce his last name. :huh:

Anyways, I shall, next time, research before I lunge into an argument rather than blast my baseless criticisms everywhere.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE

[RGacky3]

I apologize for calling your chairman a cult leader. I merely failed to understand your reasons for making him as prominent as he is. I have been ignorant, and acting upon information I got from others, and did not do any research on the matter. Nor am I really sure how to pronounce his last name.

Wow, Kudos to you man.


Revolutionary leftism is one method for containing the rebellion of the poor and diverting it into pro-rich channels.

Damn you caught us, how did you know? I was in the Capitalists pocket the whole time&#33;&#33;?

I&#39;ll read those articles and comment later.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Damn you caught us, how did you know? I was in the Capitalists pocket the whole time&#33;&#33;?

Dun dun dun&#33; :o
GET HIM&#33; *ninja monkey proletarians tackle to*

[PigmerikanMao]

The Revolutionary Communist Party are not Maoists because they fail to uphold Maoist principle in numerous ways. The RCP focuses it&#39;s propoganda on the US rather than the nations of the third world, trying to win the hearts of the labour aristocracy, but in Maoism, they are the last to be won over. A true Maoist party would aid revolutionary struggles in the third world, not publish a magazine.
The RCP does not support global cooperation with oppressed nations under attack by American Imperialism, but rather attacks each nation for its own reactionary problems. This fundamentally makes it more difficult for the nations of the third world to cooperate when they nitpick at eachothers flaws, giving more power to the oppressors. The RCP works for the American Empire in a certain capacity- this is not Maoist.
The RCP in engaged in supporting candidates in bourgeois elections, with no benefit to the working class, when actual Maoists remove themselves from the fake democracy entirely to bring down the bourgeoisie. Supporting bourgeois candidates, the different side to the same coin of capitalism, undermines the workers movement to a certain extent. This is not Maoist
The list could go on for a while...
I don&#39;t really mind the RCP, but they shouldn&#39;t declare themselves Maoist.

[Rawthentic]

Nor am I really sure how to pronounce his last name
Uh-vay-keean


The RCP focuses it&#39;s propoganda on the US rather than the nations of the third world, trying to win the hearts of the labour aristocracy, but in Maoism, they are the last to be won over. A true Maoist party would aid revolutionary struggles in the third world, not publish a magazine.
Maybe because they are a US party? And by the way, the RCP has a large black and latino proletarian support base.


The RCP in engaged in supporting candidates in bourgeois elections, with no benefit to the working class,
Proof?

I am extremely critical of the RCP, but I am not a hypocrite.

[PigmerikanMao]

Maybe because they are a US party? And by the way, the RCP has a large black and latino proletarian support base.
Any communist party must consider itself an internationalist party. Just because you&#39;re a communist in America doesn&#39;t mean you get to be lazy while you wait for the people&#39;s of the third world to set up the dominoes for you. Given that the RCP is based in the United States, the should be usin this base to recruit communists to help aid in revolutionary struggle, not hand out a newsletter.


Proof?
I am extremely critical of the RCP, but I am not a hypocrite.
Ever hear of the "World Can&#39;t Wait?" They&#39;re basically run by members of the RCP and endorsed by the party. They&#39;ve actively endorsed democratic candidates and promoted participation in the representative system.

[Rawthentic]

Any communist party must consider itself an internationalist party. Just because you&#39;re a communist in America doesn&#39;t mean you get to be lazy while you wait for the people&#39;s of the third world to set up the dominoes for you. Given that the RCP is based in the United States, the should be usin this base to recruit communists to help aid in revolutionary struggle, not hand out a newsletter.
Thats true, but unless you are an idealist, the Party focuses its work where it is based at, to create the material conditions for revolution that can aid the underdeveloped nations.


Ever hear of the "World Can&#39;t Wait?" They&#39;re basically run by members of the RCP and endorsed by the party. They&#39;ve actively endorsed democratic candidates and promoted participation in the representative system.
True. I agree.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 04:28 am
Thats true, but unless you are an idealist, the Party focuses its work where it is based at, to create the material conditions for revolution that can aid the underdeveloped nations.

I can&#39;t argue with that I guess. :lol:

[RGacky3]

On Leaders and Leadership resolution, Bob Avikan founded the Organization, and I believe he was the leadership the whole time, the articule does&#39;nt defend the authority position, they defend that Bob Avikan should hold it, I&#39;m not saying he should&#39;nt, I&#39;m saying there should be that authority position and that looking up to an individual as a leader, and when talk about everyone being a leader, but then about Bob Avikan being the leader of the Leaders, its kind of just sugar coating it :P.

The second article is more interesting.

at one point it says

But it is a fact of material reality that humanity has not yet reached a stage where it can afford to dispense with a formalized division of labor and leadership structures and hierarchies.

I don&#39;t see how that is true at all, historically its not true, many leaderless movements have come up and been very successful, and when you assume leaders are needed your assuming that a small group of people are simply smarter than the rest, which is untrue.


But as soon as the objectives broaden in scope beyond one&#39;s backyard to encompass and take responsibility for trying to make fundamental and comprehensive social changes--and certainly to achieve a revolutionary transformation of the whole way society is organized, and on a world scale--then the need for more formalized division of labor, structure and leadership becomes obvious.

again thats not true, you can have a large group of people angry at the system and want to change it and they DO change it, structure perhaps, but formalized leadership? I&#39;d like to know if there was any revolutoinary movement where early on it was leaderless, but the people asked for a leader ... No generally almost 100% its the leaders who promote themselves and take control.


then the fact that certain individual revolutionaries emerge as a concentration of this process, and themselves become a concentrated expression of the best qualities of revolutionary leadership--including a selfless dedication to the revolutionary cause and deep love of the masses, as well as a strong grasp of the scientific methodology needed to unleash the masses and chart the path of revolution in line with their objective interests

Thats all subjective.


There are for instance in the revolutionary movement real practical questions that pose themselves (and that must be addressed repeatedly in practice) concerning how to most fully unleash the conscious initiative of the masses of people and combat any tendencies they might have to want to "leave the driving to others". Similarly, inside the revolutionary ranks it is important to guard against the development of any kind of "employee mentality" of people who would just as soon accept, in uncritical and in uninspired fashion, any lines and policies emanating from "above".

When people are put in those positions those are natural reactions, beause these are the natural reactions of the situation, the way you stop it is get rid of the situation. Feeling like an employee is natural when your acting like one, i.e. taking instructions from above.


And without genuine revolutionary leaders to chart the course through the minefields, the people will not find the way to make real revolutionary breakthroughs when these are possible.

Again thats assuming somehow the leader is smarter than the people.

I hate to say it, but the RCPs concept of Leadership is very Utopian, as if leaders are some sort of Pure uncorruptable heros that just because they are leaders push the people to their best and unselfishly lead them. The fact is how can one determain that someone is pure and a true revolutionary, and more so than everyone else, you can&#39;t, and you cannot say that the person will not be corrupted, or infact be forced to be corrupted by their situation (which is how it usually happens).

I don&#39;t care how great Bob Avikan is, he could be a great guy and a great leader, but that does&#39;nt mean that he should have innate authority, and have his name attached to a workers party, he should&#39;nt even want that, you could be a saint but how does that proove that you should be a leader?

[applejacks]

RCP is a cult, always has been. This fact is more glaring now than ever. Nobody who is serious considers it anything but a cult. It is a multi-million dollar operation that basically suckers youth out of their allowance money, college students out of their loans and the mentally ill out of whatever it can. They recruit people on the basis of utopian posturing, end of the worldism and their guru. They recruit people to buy and sell the trinkets. That is what RCP does. Everything else they do is secondary.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

RCP is a cult, always has been. This fact is more glaring now than ever. Nobody who is serious considers it anything but a cult. It is a multi-million dollar operation that basically suckers youth out of their allowance money, college students out of their loans and the mentally ill out of whatever it can. They recruit people on the basis of utopian posturing, end of the worldism and their guru. They recruit people to buy and sell the trinkets. That is what RCP does. Everything else they do is secondary.

Would you like to back up that statement with some sources?


Ever hear of the "World Can&#39;t Wait?" They&#39;re basically run by members of the RCP and endorsed by the party. They&#39;ve actively endorsed democratic candidates and promoted participation in the representative system.

Not true. I have proof. You&#39;ll find some interesting articles here proving your statement wrong.

http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?searchw..._search&Itemid= (http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?searchword=Democrat&option=com_search&Itemid=)

[applejacks]

Would you like to back up that statement with some sources?

What exact sources would satisfy you?

How about their own statements about the cult of appreciation and the special status of their leader ad nauseam. Take a look at their own webpage for christ&#39;s sake. The nature of RCP isn&#39;t in dispute by serious people. RCP itself wears the cult with pride.

Here is one of many of my favorite passages from RCP:


There’s something growing here that can be sensed by hearing pieces of conversations caught in the wind. A youth in the gangster scene sees the DVD sampler and says, "Damn, watching that makes me think a muthafucker got to change the whole way he has been looking at things." In the projects down the street two men greet the neighbor who got them their DVD samplers by putting their fists to their hearts and shouting out, "B.A.&#33;" Farther away two young people talk outside a concert, and one begins to cry as he hears of the future envisioned by Bob Avakian—"People need this kind of leader to unleash their creativity."
There is something beginning here.

heh. The nature of this kind of stuff is rather apparent to most.

[bezdomni]

Presenting party leadership and organizing a cult are two entirely different things. You would do well to learn the difference, because otherwise you really look like a moron. I think some of the ways that the party presents Bob Avakian are silly...but it isn&#39;t a cult of personality. People are encouraged to think critically about what the chairman says and are encouraged to disagree if they think something is wrong.

A cult of personality, on the other hand, puts forward uncritical and mindless following of leadership. Something that has not ever been advocated by the Revolutionary Communist Party.

The RCP is fundamentally supported by the proletariat in the U.S., and all of the funds of the party are contributed from party member dues or donated from the masses of people.

And you say the party has "millions of dollars." How do you know what kind of funding the party has? That&#39;s not public information. So it is completely evident that you are talking out of your ass. You are nothing more an anti-communist provocteur and nobody should take you seriously.

If you think people taking up a revolutionary newspaper and organizing themselves around a communist party to create socialist revolution is something bad, then that makes me wonder what side of the class struggle you are really on.

[bezdomni]

On why the party works mostly with black and latino proletarians in the U.S.:

The U.S. political economy is completely dependent on the systematic superexpoitation of black workers and undocumented latino immigrant laborers.

While there are exploited white proletarians in the U.S., there is not a systematic and institutional oppression of white workers.

Therefore, the main force of revolution in the U.S. will be from the most oppressed section of society - black and latino proletarians.

[Rawthentic]

The RCP is fundamentally supported by the proletariat in the U.S., and all of the funds of the party are contributed from party member dues or donated from the masses of people.
Well now, lets not make it seem like the RCP has mass support. I will have to agree that it is one of the most active and well known parties though.

And also (and this is what I have seen, correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the RCPers I have met at protests in the Bay Area and where I live (and also what I&#39;ve seen in pictures) are white teenagers.

Now I dont know if that is the support base or just where I live.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:50 pm
Presenting party leadership and organizing a cult are two entirely different things. You would do well to learn the difference, because otherwise you really look like a moron. I think some of the ways that the party presents Bob Avakian are silly...but it isn&#39;t a cult of personality. People are encouraged to think critically about what the chairman says and are encouraged to disagree if they think something is wrong.

A cult of personality, on the other hand, puts forward uncritical and mindless following of leadership. Something that has not ever been advocated by the Revolutionary Communist Party.

The RCP is fundamentally supported by the proletariat in the U.S., and all of the funds of the party are contributed from party member dues or donated from the masses of people.

And you say the party has "millions of dollars." How do you know what kind of funding the party has? That&#39;s not public information. So it is completely evident that you are talking out of your ass. You are nothing more an anti-communist provocteur and nobody should take you seriously.

If you think people taking up a revolutionary newspaper and organizing themselves around a communist party to create socialist revolution is something bad, then that makes me wonder what side of the class struggle you are really on.
You took the words out of my mouth... and made them more intelligent sounding and well-said.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 09:35 pm

The RCP is fundamentally supported by the proletariat in the U.S., and all of the funds of the party are contributed from party member dues or donated from the masses of people.
Well now, lets not make it seem like the RCP has mass support. I will have to agree that it is one of the most active and well known parties though.

And also (and this is what I have seen, correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the RCPers I have met at protests in the Bay Area and where I live (and also what I&#39;ve seen in pictures) are white teenagers.

Now I dont know if that is the support base or just where I live.
And that matters... how?

Sure there are RCPers that are caucasian. They work to free all workers, and support their latino and african comrades. They work together to make a revolution.

Anyways, they don&#39;t have MASS support, but they&#39;re definately the largest communist party that advocates revolution in the US, or one of them.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 09:35 pm

The RCP is fundamentally supported by the proletariat in the U.S., and all of the funds of the party are contributed from party member dues or donated from the masses of people.
Well now, lets not make it seem like the RCP has mass support. I will have to agree that it is one of the most active and well known parties though.

And also (and this is what I have seen, correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the RCPers I have met at protests in the Bay Area and where I live (and also what I&#39;ve seen in pictures) are white teenagers.

Now I dont know if that is the support base or just where I live.
the majority of the support base of the RCP is black and latino workers. They are the people who are donating money to the party, buying the paper, criticizing us, telling us what they think and in many cases distributing the paper or doing other more serious work.

I&#39;ve met a lot of radical students that are supporters of the RCP and I&#39;ve met a lot of black and latino proletarians who are supporters.

I&#39;m not really sure really what percentages they would make up, like, not even enough to make a rough estimate...but party line, funding and a signficant amount of party membership is from the proletariat.

I didn&#39;t mean to imply that the RCP has mass support in the U.S. Although it would be nice if it did. :P

[applejacks]

You people are really moronic and should read the RCP&#39;s own literature. They just had a broadsheet where the goal is to raise a half million dollars.

[Rawthentic]

And whats wrong with raising 500 thousand dollars?


the majority of the support base of the RCP is black and latino workers. They are the people who are donating money to the party, buying the paper, criticizing us, telling us what they think and in many cases distributing the paper or doing other more serious work.
Yeah, thats important.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:57 am
You people are really moronic and should read the RCP&#39;s own literature. They just had a broadsheet where the goal is to raise a half million dollars.
Yeah, in order to fund their newspaper and other party materials. It would be nice if they sold their party flag.

However, their ability to even get close to that proves that they are one successful party.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That&#39;s how you judge a party&#39;s success?

The CPUSA used to bring in much more than that. I guess they&#39;re more successful than the RCP?

[applejacks]

I didn&#39;t say there was anything wrong with money in itself you dipshits. I said they are a multi-million dollar cult, which they obviously are. They rent/own prime real estate in several cities for their stores, they have numerous books and publications and materials to sell, that takes huge resources. They themselves are advertising a half million dollar fund drive for christ&#39;s sake. It isn&#39;t like one needs to see tax returns to know they have resources.

They are a cult and they even embrace it now. It isn&#39;t even like they deny it.

[Rawthentic]

I don&#39;t want to play devil&#39;s advocate, but I just don&#39;t see what&#39;s wrong with making a fund drive.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 18, 2007 04:50 pm
That&#39;s how you judge a party&#39;s success?

The CPUSA used to bring in much more than that. I guess they&#39;re more successful than the RCP?
:lol: just because they were able to bring in more before doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re successful now, at that time though, I very much think they were sucessful if they were able to do that. They must have had mass support to have attained such funds. Obviously since then though, they have degenerated completely.


I didn&#39;t say there was anything wrong with money in itself you dipshits. I said they are a multi-million dollar cult, which they obviously are. They rent/own prime real estate in several cities for their stores, they have numerous books and publications and materials to sell, that takes huge resources. They themselves are advertising a half million dollar fund drive for christ&#39;s sake. It isn&#39;t like one needs to see tax returns to know they have resources.

no actually the party is not a "multi-million dollar cult". Paying the rent is funded completely by sales of publications and programmes and shit at the store. I don&#39;t see what you have against trying to get funds so that the party&#39;s message can be spread more broadly amongst the masses. why the fuck would it have a fund drive if its filthy rich?

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by GrandMonster Mao+August 18, 2007 06:33 pm--> (GrandMonster Mao @ August 18, 2007 06:33 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 18, 2007 04:50 pm
That&#39;s how you judge a party&#39;s success?

The CPUSA used to bring in much more than that. I guess they&#39;re more successful than the RCP?
:lol: just because they were able to bring in more before doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re successful now, at that time though, I very much think they were sucessful if they were able to do that. They must have had mass support to have attained such funds. Obviously since then though, they have degenerated completely.


I didn&#39;t say there was anything wrong with money in itself you dipshits. I said they are a multi-million dollar cult, which they obviously are. They rent/own prime real estate in several cities for their stores, they have numerous books and publications and materials to sell, that takes huge resources. They themselves are advertising a half million dollar fund drive for christ&#39;s sake. It isn&#39;t like one needs to see tax returns to know they have resources.

no actually the party is not a "multi-million dollar cult". Paying the rent is funded completely by sales of publications and programmes and shit at the store. I don&#39;t see what you have against trying to get funds so that the party&#39;s message can be spread more broadly amongst the masses. why the fuck would it have a fund drive if its filthy rich? [/b]
Yeah, by the way, the RCYB&#39;s website&#39;s down.

[RNK]

The RCP focuses it&#39;s propoganda on the US rather than the nations of the third world, trying to win the hearts of the labour aristocracy, but in Maoism, they are the last to be won over. A true Maoist party would aid revolutionary struggles in the third world, not publish a magazine.

The RCP USA, as a member of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, is merely the "American front" of a much broader internationalist movement. The bulk of the efforts of the RCP are focused on doing what they can in the heart of imperialism&#39;s fortress. There is no need for the RCP to send armed cadres, funds or supplies to revolutionaries in the 3rd world -- in many cases they are far more capable of managing their own resources than the RCP is.


The RCP does not support global cooperation with oppressed nations under attack by American Imperialism, but rather attacks each nation for its own reactionary problems. This fundamentally makes it more difficult for the nations of the third world to cooperate when they nitpick at eachothers flaws, giving more power to the oppressors. The RCP works for the American Empire in a certain capacity- this is not Maoist.

To the contrary; the only nitpicking going on is the nitpicking between the bourgeois of each and every country who all deserve crticism. The RCP should not start collaborating with one bourgeoisie in order to weaken another -- it must unite the proletarians of the world against the bourgeoisie of the world and nothing less.


The RCP in engaged in supporting candidates in bourgeois elections, with no benefit to the working class, when actual Maoists remove themselves from the fake democracy entirely to bring down the bourgeoisie. Supporting bourgeois candidates, the different side to the same coin of capitalism, undermines the workers movement to a certain extent. This is not Maoist

First of all, you&#39;re stretching it here -- the RCP&#39;s activities with the WCW mass organization are purely part of its efforts against US imperialism within US borders -- simply because some parts of the WCW movement may be promoting candidates and collaborating with the bourgeoisie does not equate to the RCP doing the same. Secondly, I think it&#39;s very ironic that at one moment you&#39;re criticizing the RCP for refusing to collaborate with bourgeois and altogether imperialist components of another country&#39;s ruling class in order to face the US, and then turning around and criticizing them for allegedly doing exactly that within the US&#39; own borders.


Anyways, they don&#39;t have MASS support, but they&#39;re definately the largest communist party that advocates revolution in the US, or one of them.

They may not be one of the largest but they certainly are one of the most important, from both a theoretical and practical point of view. They have support in sectors of American society that most if not all other revolutionary organizations have absolutely no presence in.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by MilitantVL+August 18, 2007 07:27 pm--> (MilitantVL @ August 18, 2007 07:27 pm)
Originally posted by GrandMonster [email protected] 18, 2007 06:33 pm

Compañ[email protected] 18, 2007 04:50 pm
That&#39;s how you judge a party&#39;s success?

The CPUSA used to bring in much more than that. I guess they&#39;re more successful than the RCP?
:lol: just because they were able to bring in more before doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re successful now, at that time though, I very much think they were sucessful if they were able to do that. They must have had mass support to have attained such funds. Obviously since then though, they have degenerated completely.


I didn&#39;t say there was anything wrong with money in itself you dipshits. I said they are a multi-million dollar cult, which they obviously are. They rent/own prime real estate in several cities for their stores, they have numerous books and publications and materials to sell, that takes huge resources. They themselves are advertising a half million dollar fund drive for christ&#39;s sake. It isn&#39;t like one needs to see tax returns to know they have resources.

no actually the party is not a "multi-million dollar cult". Paying the rent is funded completely by sales of publications and programmes and shit at the store. I don&#39;t see what you have against trying to get funds so that the party&#39;s message can be spread more broadly amongst the masses. why the fuck would it have a fund drive if its filthy rich?
Yeah, by the way, the RCYB&#39;s website&#39;s down. [/b]
hopefully they&#39;re renovating it lol, the thing was really outdated and largely revolved around only Atlanta&#39;s chapter.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by GrandMonster Mao+August 18, 2007 09:24 pm--> (GrandMonster Mao @ August 18, 2007 09:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:27 pm

Originally posted by GrandMonster [email protected] 18, 2007 06:33 pm

Compañ[email protected] 18, 2007 04:50 pm
That&#39;s how you judge a party&#39;s success?

The CPUSA used to bring in much more than that. I guess they&#39;re more successful than the RCP?
:lol: just because they were able to bring in more before doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re successful now, at that time though, I very much think they were sucessful if they were able to do that. They must have had mass support to have attained such funds. Obviously since then though, they have degenerated completely.


I didn&#39;t say there was anything wrong with money in itself you dipshits. I said they are a multi-million dollar cult, which they obviously are. They rent/own prime real estate in several cities for their stores, they have numerous books and publications and materials to sell, that takes huge resources. They themselves are advertising a half million dollar fund drive for christ&#39;s sake. It isn&#39;t like one needs to see tax returns to know they have resources.

no actually the party is not a "multi-million dollar cult". Paying the rent is funded completely by sales of publications and programmes and shit at the store. I don&#39;t see what you have against trying to get funds so that the party&#39;s message can be spread more broadly amongst the masses. why the fuck would it have a fund drive if its filthy rich?
Yeah, by the way, the RCYB&#39;s website&#39;s down.
hopefully they&#39;re renovating it lol, the thing was really outdated and largely revolved around only Atlanta&#39;s chapter. [/b]
Have you ever met/contacted/talked to Bob Avakian?

If so, what&#39;s his e-mail/AIM s/n?

Where do you get an RCP flag?

[applejacks]

Go back and re-read what has been written. I guess I can&#39;t expect you to actually read the threads, let along your own moronic literature. I guess I can&#39;t blame you on the second count though.

I made a factual statement about RCP, I did not say anything was wrong with raising money in itself. Notice nobody is even disputing the factual statement I made anymore.

RCP is an idiotic cult and it is plainly obvious to nearly everyone.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:46 am
Go back and re-read what has been written. I guess I can&#39;t expect you to actually read the threads, let along your own moronic literature. I guess I can&#39;t blame you on the second count though.

I made a factual statement about RCP, I did not say anything was wrong with raising money in itself. Notice nobody is even disputing the factual statement I made anymore.

RCP is an idiotic cult and it is plainly obvious to nearly everyone.
You basically called them a multi million dollar idiotic cult. The "multi-million dollar" part was an attack on the successful funds. It&#39;s a large organization and they use the money for their newspapers, buses, those tours Karl Dix keeps going on, t-shirts, etc. The "cult" part is a misunderstanding of why Avakian is so prominent.
I have 2 reasons:

1) Throughout history, it is proven that revolutions succeed when they have strong leadership. From Lenin to Mao, they&#39;ve had parties with strong leadership. As you have seen, anarchist insurrections have failed due in part to NO leadership. However, political parties with strong leadership, like the RCP-USA, are almost impossible to destroy.

2) Avakian was prominent before the founding of the RCP as a member of the BPP, and in other groups. He was involved in a mass arrest of 800 people, and some other stuff I don&#39;t remember. The RCP&#39;s glad to be lead by a man that has done so many things like that.

[applejacks]

Uh -- I said twice, right here on this page, that there is nothing wrong with fund raising in itself. Wow, now, three times. It is amazing how you can be so dense on this, but considering you support a moronic cult, I shouldn&#39;t be surprised. But, while we&#39;re on the topic, right here on this page Grandmonster Mao states that he believes that raising funds is a mark of support among the masses. The Republican Party raises more funds than RCP and has more support among the population. This should tell you that funds and support among the population does not necessarily imply that an organization is revolutionary.

You say that the cult is a misunderstanding. No, it isn&#39;t. RCP does not even deny it now, they embrace it openly. They say that Avakian IS a leader of a caliber deserving of a cult. Is he or isn&#39;t he a leader of this caliber? Do you think Avakian deserves a cult? Yes or No. Please answer.

I have nothing against leadership, so it is odd that you go off about anarchism. I have something against cults - which RCP obviously is. Their main activity is to take allowance money from youth, loans from college students, and whatever they can from the mentally ill. There are plenty of suckers like you who buy the hype and will spend your money on idiotic trinkets. I would not be surprised if they did sell flags with Bob Avakian&#39;s face on it.

I have no idea what supporting the BPP and getting arrested have do to with any of this. David Horowitz was a white BPP supporter. Does he deserve an idiot cult too? If that is the bar you set for leadership, then you sure have set the bar low&#33;

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:31 pm
Uh -- I said twice, right here on this page, that there is nothing wrong with fund raising in itself. Wow, now, three times. It is amazing how you can be so dense on this, but considering you support a moronic cult, I shouldn&#39;t be surprised. But, while we&#39;re on the topic, right here on this page Grandmonster Mao states that he believes that raising funds is a mark of support among the masses. The Republican Party raises more funds than RCP and has more support among the population. This should tell you that funds and support among the population does not necessarily imply that an organization is revolutionary.

You say that the cult is a misunderstanding. No, it isn&#39;t. RCP does not even deny it now, they embrace it openly. They say that Avakian IS a leader of a caliber deserving of a cult. Is he or isn&#39;t he a leader of this caliber? Do you think Avakian deserves a cult? Yes or No. Please answer.

I have nothing against leadership, so it is odd that you go off about anarchism. I have something against cults - which RCP obviously is. Their main activity is to take allowance money from youth, loans from college students, and whatever they can from the mentally ill. There are plenty of suckers like you who buy the hype and will spend your money on idiotic trinkets. I would not be surprised if they did sell flags with Bob Avakian&#39;s face on it.

I have no idea what supporting the BPP and getting arrested have do to with any of this. David Horowitz was a white BPP supporter. Does he deserve an idiot cult too? If that is the bar you set for leadership, then you sure have set the bar low&#33;
Where does the RCP say it&#39;s a cult? Tell me.

Anyways, the Republican Party doesn&#39;t just rely on ordinary people that aren&#39;t class conscious, they rely very much on the rich and government lobbyists, along with corporate bourgoisie. Moreso than regular people. Does the RCP rely on bourgeois for funds? No. They rely on the masses; the class conscious proletariat.

The college people, youths, and "mentally ill"? By college people, do you mean students that were RCYB members or are RCP members? They&#39;re not stupid. They know they need their loans, so they might donate using spare money, such as some of their paycheck money from campus jobs, at least, what&#39;s left from buying food and stuff to survive. Also, how would they take stuff from the mentally ill? Steal it? That&#39;s illegal, and if they did steal from the mentally ill, the RCP would be abandoned and another Maoist party would&#39;ve taken it&#39;s place. Also, those trinkets would be used at protests. Your accusations have no reflections on reality, and if you really believe these conspiracy theories, you might be "mentally ill".

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:56 pm
On why the party works mostly with black and latino proletarians in the U.S.:

The U.S. political economy is completely dependent on the systematic superexpoitation of black workers and undocumented latino immigrant laborers.

While there are exploited white proletarians in the U.S., there is not a systematic and institutional oppression of white workers.

Therefore, the main force of revolution in the U.S. will be from the most oppressed section of society - black and latino proletarians.
Blacks and Latinos are not systematically oppressed any more than poor white folk, undocumented Lations maybe, but also undocumented anyone, exploitation is&#39;nt done by race, its done by opportunity. The Blacks and Lations are not the MOST oppressed, the Poor are the most oppressed, I posted Statistics before, there are more whtie poor people than Blacks and Latinos, but that should&#39;nt matter.


1) Throughout history, it is proven that revolutions succeed when they have strong leadership. From Lenin to Mao, they&#39;ve had parties with strong leadership. As you have seen, anarchist insurrections have failed due in part to NO leadership. However, political parties with strong leadership, like the RCP-USA, are almost impossible to destroy.

Lenins and Mao&#39;s revolutions were successfull in the sense that they took power, not that they implemented true Socialism, and ANarchist insurrections have succeded in the past, but were mostly destroyed not by lack of strong leadership, but generally other issues such as lack of material support, having to face a much stronger military force, and so on.

BTW I have a feeling that the desicion to keep Bob Avikan as the undisputed leader and ideological head of the RCP was mainly Bob Avikans first :P

[applejacks]

You&#39;re just digging yourself in deeper.


Does the RCP rely on bourgeois for funds? No. They rely on the masses; the class conscious proletariat.

Is that why they take out ads in The Nation magazine and have had a policy of seeking active celebrity support for decades? Not that there is anything wrong with such a policy, I am only mentioning it to show how you are full of shit.


They&#39;re not stupid.

I never said they were. Stop attributing things to me I have never said. They are naive and inexperienced, so they fall for the RCP.

I noticed you avoided my question. Here it is again, it is a simple yes or no question. Since you are so familiar with the RCP, you should be able to answer it with no problem:

They say that Avakian IS a leader of such a caliber that he deserves a cult. Is he or isn&#39;t he a leader of this caliber? Do you think Avakian deserves a cult? Yes or No. Real simple question.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Is that why they take out ads in The Nation magazine and have had a policy of seeking active celebrity support for decades? Not that there is anything wrong with such a policy, I am only mentioning it to show how you are full of shit.

Again, where in the hell are you getting this crap? May I at least have a source?


I never said they were. Stop attributing things to me I have never said. They are naive and inexperienced, so they fall for the RCP.

Read the freakin&#39; post.


I noticed you avoided my question. Here it is again, it is a simple yes or no question. Since you are so familiar with the RCP, you should be able to answer it with no problem:

They say that Avakian IS a leader of such a caliber that he deserves a cult. Is he or isn&#39;t he a leader of this caliber? Do you think Avakian deserves a cult? Yes or No. Real simple question.

No. No one does. Now where in the hell do you get this?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Lenins and Mao&#39;s revolutions were successfull in the sense that they took power, not that they implemented true Socialism,

umm no, They did implement true socialism. They worked to immediatly abolish private capitalist property and replace it with public and collective property, universal education, healthcare, housing, and etc were provided to the masses, a society where critical thinking and struggle against capitalism and capitalist relations was forged, sexism and racism were fought viciously, the people&#39;s needs were placed in charge rather than ruthless profit, it was socialism.


and ANarchist insurrections have succeded in the past, but were mostly destroyed not by lack of strong leadership, but generally other issues such as lack of material support, having to face a much stronger military force, and so on.

no, they just never happened because they are impossible. The Spanish Civil War lasted only because "Stalinist" International Brigadiers fought, died, and supplied the spanish and for the spanish resistance while the anarchists, trots, and revisionists killed each other off.


Blacks and Latinos are not systematically oppressed any more than poor white folk

bullshit. This system was built on rascism, it is rascism, and can&#39;t survive without it. Racism is profitable. Look at how immigrants are cheated to work for slave wages because they&#39;re "illegal spicks", look at how many establishments rely on such slave labor. Look at how black and latino communities have the worst schools, look at how you never hear about a "white" sean bell or amadou diallo or Rodney King or thousands of other non white police brutality victims. Ask yourself why in NYC 85% of all people frisked in 2006 were non whites yet the city is completely mixed. Why? Because this system targets and oppresses black and latinos, it tries to keep them intimidated, and against one another to stop them from revolting but all its doing is digging itself deeper


The Republican Party raises more funds than RCP and has more support among the population. This should tell you that funds and support among the population does not necessarily imply that an organization is revolutionary.

no but that&#39;s not even a question, the RCP and revolution are inseparable. It&#39;s one of the few large communist parties that has never and will never sell itself to reformism and the like.

Besides the RCP relies on the masses, The Republican and Democrats rely on corporations


Have you ever met/contacted/talked to Bob Avakian?

no I wish though, it would be pretty dope to talk to him.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

bullshit. This system was built on rascism, it is rascism, and can&#39;t survive without it. Racism is profitable. Look at how immigrants are cheated to work for slave wages because they&#39;re "illegal spicks", look at how many establishments rely on such slave labor. Look at how black and latino communities have the worst schools, look at how you never hear about a "white" sean bell or amadou diallo or Rodney King or thousands of other non white police brutality victims. Ask yourself why in NYC 85% of all people frisked in 2006 were non whites yet the city is completely mixed. Why? Because this system targets and oppresses black and latinos, it tries to keep them intimidated, and against one another to stop them from revolting but all its doing is digging itself deeper.

However, we can&#39;t say white people aren&#39;t treated like crap, exploited, and oppressed. Just not as much as the black and latino people. I should know; I&#39;m a dishwasher. =/

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:46 am
Go back and re-read what has been written. I guess I can&#39;t expect you to actually read the threads, let along your own moronic literature. I guess I can&#39;t blame you on the second count though.

I made a factual statement about RCP, I did not say anything was wrong with raising money in itself. Notice nobody is even disputing the factual statement I made anymore.

RCP is an idiotic cult and it is plainly obvious to nearly everyone.
Indeed, he is a a cult leader; other non-cult organizations merely regard any kind of leading theoretician as another comrade, not as "the leader we need." They also don&#39;t paste pictures and quotes of their leading theoreticians all over their websites either.

The RCP may have more money and members than some other organizations, but without a solid basis of correct theory, method, practice, etc., they are destined to get nowhere. Take the CPSU for a prime example - they had millions of members, billions of dollars&#39; worth of funding, and controlled the second most powerful nation on Earth, and yet, look where they wound up.


no but that&#39;s not even a question, the RCP and revolution are inseparable. It&#39;s one of the few large communist parties that has never and will never sell itself to reformism and the like.

Don&#39;t they support that liberal "World Can&#39;t Wait" thing? The whole "Drive out the Bush regime" at this point in time merely amounts to voting for the democrats.

I can see why the RCP, to my knowledge, is not very big in Minneapolis, MN; the guy I have encountered begins every sentence with "Bob Avakian says..." Most people have no idea who the hell Bob Avakian even is, and when they hear about Maoism, they are totally turned away. Most people I have seen take copies of Revolution from him just to get him to shut up and go away, complete with an annoyed look in their faces when the guy goes to find someone else. To start out every sentence like that clearly indicates cultism&#33;

The workers of the USA will never tolerate a bureaucratic apparatus controlling every aspect of their lives. Trotsky knew this, and history has proven it time and time again. Just ask any of them. Virtually none of them will support Stalinism/Maoism. Stalinism/Maoism is a dead letter over here. Chairman Bob&#39;s efforts are in vain. He will never be the USA&#39;s "Dear leader for life." Only workers&#39; democracy can appeal to the workers of the West, not being ruled over by the dear chairman representing a bureaucratic stratum. Even if they somehow got mass support, they would still fail to take down capitalism with their Stalinist-Menshevik two-stage "theory&#33;"

There is nothing wrong with raising money for a revolutionary organization, but when a cult does it, it truly makes one wonder where it is going. US &#036;500K? Does Chairman Bob want a new house or a sports car? Why is he so hell bent on secrecy? Is he afraid that the rank-and-file of the RCP will discover him living some kind of extravagant lifestyle? He was allowed back into the USA without getting into trouble, so why hide from people? Afraid that some RCP person will see that Ferrari of his? Many Maoists do like to enrich themselves at the expense of the struggle they are supposed to represent, as proven by the experience of Nepal; they could have easily seized power, but they decided to sell out to gain some comfortable parliamentary positions. I don&#39;t know of leading theoreticians and other such "high position" comrades of non-cult organizations living in secrecy. Why does Bob Avakian do it? It truly makes one wonder if he is hiding something from the RCP rank-and-file.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Don&#39;t they support that liberal "World Can&#39;t Wait" thing? The whole "Drive out the Bush regime" at this point in time merely amounts to voting for the democrats.

Yes, but those groups are NOT liberal. Prove that they are&#33; I don&#39;t see your sources or anything. Prove it, Trotskyite&#33;

[RGacky3]

Yes, but those groups are NOT liberal. Prove that they are&#33; I don&#39;t see your sources or anything. Prove it, Trotskyite&#33;

YEAH, PROOVE IT DICKWAD (high five).


umm no, They did implement true socialism. They worked to immediatly abolish private capitalist property and replace it with public and collective property, universal education, healthcare, housing, and etc were provided to the masses, a society where critical thinking and struggle against capitalism and capitalist relations was forged, sexism and racism were fought viciously, the people&#39;s needs were placed in charge rather than ruthless profit, it was socialism.


Thats very very very arguable, it was&#39;nt collective or even public property, it was state property, the profit motive was replaced with the power and Bolshevik Hegemony, I suppose you could call it Socialism, the same way you can call the United States Democratic.


no, they just never happened because they are impossible. The Spanish Civil War lasted only because "Stalinist" International Brigadiers fought, died, and supplied the spanish and for the spanish resistance while the anarchists, trots, and revisionists killed each other off.

simply Historically incorrect, the Stalinists (allied with the Republican liberals) fought against both the Fascists yes, but also very vicsiosly against the Anarchists, and opposed a Social Revolution in Spain (on the Cominterns orders because Stalin was afraid of pissing off the west), the government, including the stalinists, disarmed workers, reset hiarchies in the former collectivies farms and industries, and pretty mcuh crushed the Social revolution, the fascists did&#39;nt have to do it, the Communists did it for them.


bullshit. This system was built on rascism, it is rascism, and can&#39;t survive without it. Racism is profitable. Look at how immigrants are cheated to work for slave wages because they&#39;re "illegal spicks", look at how many establishments rely on such slave labor. Look at how black and latino communities have the worst schools, look at how you never hear about a "white" sean bell or amadou diallo or Rodney King or thousands of other non white police brutality victims. Ask yourself why in NYC 85% of all people frisked in 2006 were non whites yet the city is completely mixed. Why? Because this system targets and oppresses black and latinos, it tries to keep them intimidated, and against one another to stop them from revolting but all its doing is digging itself deeper

of caorse illigals are exploited, but thats juts because they can be, not because they are Latinos, they do it to Chineese as well, they do it to poor whites in the rural areas, they do ti to so called white trash, they do it to Eastern Europeans, they do it to whoever they can, if they can oppress poor blackas and poor latinos (and they can) they will, if they can oppress poor whites they will as well, if they can oppress poor asians they&#39;ll do that too, rascism may be a result of it, but its not the underlying cause of it, Capitalism is not inherently racist, its inherently exploitative. Again I&#39;ll ask you too look at the statistics, there are way more poor white people, then there are blacks and latinos, now you may not see them where you live, but they are there and should not at all be ignored.


no but that&#39;s not even a question, the RCP and revolution are inseparable. It&#39;s one of the few large communist parties that has never and will never sell itself to reformism and the like.

Besides the RCP relies on the masses, The Republican and Democrats rely on corporations

What the Hell are you talking about&#33;&#33;??? the RCP and the Revolution are inseperable??? NO THEY ARE NOT, if the RCP goes away, that does&#39;nt mean all hope of revolution is gone, before the RCP came about, there was still hope (more so) of revolution, and who says it will never sell itself to reformism, all it needs is Bob Avikian to change his mind, or get a little pragmatic, and there goes the RCP, and you can say "Ohh he&#39;ll never do it, he&#39;s prooved himself look at his Moral Fibre," But then you&#39;ve really got your head in the clouds.

The RCP does&#39;nt rely on the Masses, most of the Masses hav&#39;nt even heard of the RCP, the RCP relies on a couple young hard core Maoists, who are willing to do Bob Avians will.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:44 am





Yes, but those groups are NOT liberal. Prove that they are&#33; I don&#39;t see your sources or anything. Prove it, Trotskyite&#33;

YEAH, PROOVE IT DICKWAD (high five).

Stop trolling, militant makes a valid point. The World Can&#39;t Wait is firmly against the Democratic Party and sees it as complicit. The World Can&#39;t Wait wants to Drive Out the Bush Regime through mass resistance and mobilization, it&#39;s the only anti-war group which challenges the whole governmental programme. that&#39;s not liberal. From the Call of the World Can&#39;t Wait to Drive Out the Bush Regime:


Your government, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn&#39;t fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

People look at all this and think of Hitler — and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

Millions and millions are deeply disturbed and outraged by this. They recognize the need for a vehicle to express this outrage, yet they cannot find it; politics as usual cannot meet the enormity of the challenge, and people sense this.

There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing." People who steal elections and believe they&#39;re on a "mission from God" will not go without a fight.

There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into "leaders" who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.


Thats very very very arguable, it was&#39;nt collective or even public property, it was state property, the profit motive was replaced with the power and Bolshevik Hegemony, I suppose you could call it Socialism, the same way you can call the United States Democratic.


yeah meaning it was owned and served the people as a whole. "Profit" went to serving the people, aka funding their needs. That&#39;s socialism comrade.


simply Historically incorrect, the Stalinists (allied with the Republican liberals) fought against both the Fascists yes, but also very vicsiosly against the Anarchists, and opposed a Social Revolution in Spain (on the Cominterns orders because Stalin was afraid of pissing off the west), the government, including the stalinists, disarmed workers, reset hiarchies in the former collectivies farms and industries, and pretty mcuh crushed the Social revolution, the fascists did&#39;nt have to do it, the Communists did it for them.

No the "stalinists" played no political role in the civil war. They were only exsistant in the International Brigade, a Soviet organized volunteer brigade to fight fascism. The revisionists were the ones who fought the anarchists along with the trots. THey had their little sectarian fight and fucked everything up while the IB fought and died. the PCE broke with the comintern at least before the civil war if not before.


of caorse illigals are exploited, but thats juts because they can be, not because they are Latinos, they do it to Chineese as well .....

I think you miss the point though, the system was started and built with racist slavery as its backbone, systems can&#39;t fundamentally change they are what they are. To deny national oppression is upsurd. While what you say is true, my example was just one example and there is an abundance of other examples. Police oppression is a major one for example. Cops today act as modern day paddy rollers keeping black people in check. While there may be more poor whites that is only because there are more whites in this country, proportionately blacks get hit harder and more because its the way the system works


What the Hell are you talking about&#33;&#33;??? the RCP and the Revolution are inseperable??? NO THEY ARE NOT, if the RCP goes away, that does&#39;nt mean all hope of revolution is gone, before the RCP came about, there was still hope (more so) of revolution, and who says it will never sell itself to reformism, all it needs is Bob Avikian to change his mind, or get a little pragmatic, and there goes the RCP, and you can say "Ohh he&#39;ll never do it, he&#39;s prooved himself look at his Moral Fibre," But then you&#39;ve really got your head in the clouds.


I really don&#39;t think a revolution will happen without the type of leadership, the line, and the organizational skills the RCP has. While I definately don&#39;t think we are in a revolutionary time of any sort, what I was trying to say is that revolution is the backbone of everything the RCP says and does. To call it not revolutionary is upsurd. And Bob Avakian won&#39;t "change his mind" he has been fighting for communism for over 40 years, been arrested and charged with life for his beliefs, been active in the BPP and the FSM, and published a large amount of literature which has inspired thousands. Its hard to just "change your mind" after you&#39;ve made such contributions.


The RCP does&#39;nt rely on the Masses, most of the Masses hav&#39;nt even heard of the RCP, the RCP relies on a couple young hard core Maoists, who are willing to do Bob Avians will.

The RCP is funded completely by the donations of largely proletariat people buying the party&#39;s paper and etc.. here in NYC its not uncommon to be distributing the paper on the street or in the subway or at demos and here people tell me "oh I&#39;ll take a copy because my sister reads this" etc.. comments like that.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I wish I lived in Philadelphia. =/ I could then get my hands on Revolution Newspaper. No such luck, unfortunately.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Anyways, how do you join the RCYB?

[RNK]

Woah, calm down there Militant VL. There&#39;s absolutely no need to resort to petty sectarian bickery. Axel&#39;s assumptions may be incorrect and his analytical bias overwhelming, but you&#39;re only making things worse.


Virtually none of them will support Stalinism/Maoism.

First, the sooner you give up this archaic belief that Maoism = Stalinism, the sooner we can have an actual logical debate.

Second, seems to me the RCP has created far more mass support in 20 years (infact, even in the past 5 years) than "Trotskyism" ever has. It&#39;s easy enough to point and criticize from the sidelines, cheering for an ideology which is nothing more than the obscure writings of an obscure dead man. Even you, blinded by your "theory" you may be, can&#39;t escape the fact that the RCP and, to a degree, Avakian have tapped into a revolutionary potential which is probably far more potent than Trotsky could have dreamed of. But that&#39;s neither here nor there; the fact of the matter is is that the RCP exists now, and is gaining unprecedented successes by educating poor and working class people in the US and igniting revolutionary spirit in them, backed up with a critical analysis of modern society and a plan to change it.

Also I&#39;d like to point out that I think it&#39;s completely hilarious (in a good, non-insulting way) that MilitantVL was saying:


I denounce Bob Avakian and the "Revolutionary Communist Party", due to their hypocrisy and their revisionist rhetoric

less than a couple of months ago, and now he seems to be a very dedicated supporter of the RCP.


Don&#39;t they support that liberal "World Can&#39;t Wait" thing? The whole "Drive out the Bush regime" at this point in time merely amounts to voting for the democrats.

Marx himself urged that Communists can and should, when the situation permits, ally themselves with more liberal aspects of the political spectrum in order to achieve an immediate and independant objective. Hell, it&#39;s not nearly as bad as your "entryism" -- the IMT is nothing more than an international cheerleading squad for liberal parties worldwide. You&#39;re simply being hypocritical (again), which is, of course, what you do best.

"The Maoists in Nepal aren&#39;t revolutionaries&#33; They&#39;re nothing but a gang of violent thugs&#33;"

"Look&#33; The Maoists in Nepal joined the government and stopped being a gang of violent thugs&#33; TRAITORS&#33; COLLABORATORS&#33;"

:rolleyes:

[applejacks]

Is that why they take out ads in The Nation magazine and have had a policy of seeking active celebrity support for decades? Not that there is anything wrong with such a policy, I am only mentioning it to show how you are full of shit.

Again, where in the hell are you getting this crap? May I at least have a source?

Uh -- I don&#39;t need to give a source on this, you already have. Right there in your links. It says as much on the front page of the Engage&#33; webpage you link in your sig. But, if you must know, this isn&#39;t the first ad they have placed in The Nation. I guess it is too much to expect cultists and cultist wannabes to actually KNOW anything about their own organization and what it is putting forward in its own literature. As for targeting celebrities, they have done as much since at least Refuse and Resist. And, if you knew anything about the cult you support, you would know this.


the RCP and revolution are inseparable. It&#39;s one of the few large communist parties that has never and will never sell itself to reformism and the like.

Uh, okay. What does large have to do with anything? If size made a party revolutionary, then the Democrats would be the vanguard. And how exactly do you know that RCP won&#39;t sell out? Even the Chinese Communists became corrupted and sold out. Are you saying RCP has solved this problem?

Okay MilitantVL, thanks for answering. Too bad your answer isn&#39;t in line with RCP on the cult. How about you Grandmonster, do you think Avakian is a special caliber of leader who deserves the cult? Yes or no.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

well the RCYB to my knowledge is really only active in NYC, Seattle, Portland, Houstan, LA, and Chicago I think. The RCP is in other places, including Philly, but the YB is really in the cities where the RCP is most highly concentrated. Do you know anyone in your area who is like minded? Maybe you could form a Revolution Club in your school or neighborhood...

as for papers, the Party will send it to you. I sent you a link on how to get some a couple hours ago by PM :)

[Rawthentic]

Indeed, he is a a cult leader; other non-cult organizations merely regard any kind of leading theoretician as another comrade, not as "the leader we need." They also don&#39;t paste pictures and quotes of their leading theoreticians all over their websites either.
This is something that I definitely have a problem with, and I think other RCPers do as well. His leadership may be important, but it shouldn&#39;t be put out in such a way.


The RCP may have more money and members than some other organizations, but without a solid basis of correct theory, method, practice, etc., they are destined to get nowhere. Take the CPSU for a prime example - they had millions of members, billions of dollars&#39; worth of funding, and controlled the second most powerful nation on Earth, and yet, look where they wound up.
This is a good point. But who says that you have the correct theory? I am not a Maoist or a Stalinist, but it seems to me like Trotskyists are always bent on creating a pure theory, while the &#39;Stalinists&#39; are the most active, and dont have near as many splits as adherents of Trotsky do.


I can see why the RCP, to my knowledge, is not very big in Minneapolis, MN; the guy I have encountered begins every sentence with "Bob Avakian says..." Most people have no idea who the hell Bob Avakian even is, and when they hear about Maoism, they are totally turned away. Most people I have seen take copies of Revolution from him just to get him to shut up and go away, complete with an annoyed look in their faces when the guy goes to find someone else. To start out every sentence like that clearly indicates cultism&#33;
I do know that it is big in Houston and NYC, as well as the Bay Area. I mean, in NYC, they garnered 400 people to listen to Bob Avakian talk, and, while that may seem cultish, they are spreading the ideas of revolution and socialism to the people. I saw the video in LA and Watts where there were Revolution signs on buses and blacks and latinos were interviewed on the streets about what they thought of Avakian, and they all seemed to get positive responses. They dont seem to worry so much about &#39;cultism&#39; if that exists here, but they seem to be inspired by what Avakian is saying.

But I get to the point again where the way the RCP puts forward Avakian turns people off.


The workers of the USA will never tolerate a bureaucratic apparatus controlling every aspect of their lives.
Isnt that ignoring material conditions. There were material conditions that lead to bureaucratic degeneration in the Soviet Union and in China, but in the US it is different, and Avakian does criticize the introduction of one-man management in the Soviet Union, something that curtailed proletarian power.


Why does Bob Avakian do it? It truly makes one wonder if he is hiding something from the RCP rank-and-file.
Interesting point.

What I also do like about the RCP is that they have the only (to my knowledge) completely bilingual revolutionary newspaper, with the correct understanding that the super-exploited black and latino proletarians will play a central role in making revolution.

Does the IMT have that Axel? Do they have the support from blacks and latinos that the RCP has?

But I might add that I strongly dislike the fact that the RCP has largely ignored the worker&#39;s struggle in Venezuela, the occupied factories in INVEVAL and Sanitarios Maracay, something that IMT has taken a leading role in.

[The New Manifesto]

Well being seeing as MLM is an organazation sympathetic to my belifes i feel as if i have an obligation to join it. But one thing has stoped me. And that was the main issue addressed in this thread, the so called-personality cult of Chairman Bob.

Now this thread did little to ease my fears. When one member said compaired Bob to Mao, Marx and Lennin i nearly shit my pants&#33;


But their is no better and i have also learned from this thread that the RCP is at least DOING SOMTHING. I have a strong dislike for the personality cult but i will overlook that for a wise old man once said One ounce of action is better then a ton of theory. So dispite the fact that some members worship their chairmen, i will join the vanguard&#33;

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:13 am



Uh -- I don&#39;t need to give a source on this, you already have. Right there in your links. It says as much on the front page of the Engage&#33; webpage you link in your sig. But, if you must know, this isn&#39;t the first ad they have placed in The Nation.

and what&#39;s your point? The nation is the most broadly read progressive journal lots of self proclaimed progressives read it. the ad will turn alot of people&#39;s attention to BA and the party, and it&#39;ll get people to check his works out. I really don&#39;t see how this goes against trying to gain support from the masses.


I guess it is too much to expect cultists and cultist wannabes to actually KNOW anything about their own organization and what it is putting forward in its own literature.

how the fuck is the RCP a cult? Because it has leadership? oh i see. :rolleyes:


As for targeting celebrities, they have done as much since at least Refuse and Resist. And, if you knew anything about the cult you support, you would know this.

wtf?? your full of shit.


Indeed, he is a a cult leader; other non-cult organizations merely regard any kind of leading theoretician as another comrade, not as "the leader we need." They also don&#39;t paste pictures and quotes of their leading theoreticians all over their websites either.

RCP is not a cult. Cults commit mass suicides, cults worship people. The RCP is a revolutionary party with strong, intelligent leadership, one of the only parties with leadership with as much experience and leadership which has made such contributions. I guess then you think the bolsheviks were a cult, right? After all they were inspired by Lenin, and quoted lenin. They didn&#39;t do this because they were a cult, they did it because Lenin was a inspiring, passionate, and provactive thinker whose message was the way to a much better social order, just like Avakian is today I think.

Instead of blabbering out stupid comments why don&#39;t you read what the party has said on leadership

http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership.htm
http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/825/revolution...ship_points.htm (http://revcom.us/a/firstvol/825/revolutionary_leadership_points.htm)


This is something that I definitely have a problem with, and I think other RCPers do as well. His leadership may be important, but it shouldn&#39;t be put out in such a way.

an important part of maoism is critiscism and self-critiscism as well as the fostering of critical thinking and debate as a means of furthering the revolution. This was evident in how the PRC broke with the USSR&#39;s more beauracratic manner of handling the bourgeois right and fought it through mass resistance and critiscism; a bottom up grassroots movement led by the party rather than a top down form like Hoxha and Stalin which was riddled with flaws because it relied to little on the masses.

I think this is a good critiscism to be made. How the party puts out its leadership. I think that it can be done in better ways and perhaps less intensly but at the same time I think that the alot of support the party gets is because of the way it does things and the fact that it has the organizational structure and caliber of leadership that it does. People look to leaders because leaders are inspiring and good ones don&#39;t let you down. That&#39;s why every revolution has had strong leadership. I can&#39;t hammer that point enough. And when the party goes out to the projects, the barrios, working class neighborhoods, schools, etc... it never runs into critiscism of its leadership, people are glad to see it, people complain that we have no leaders to lead us out of this mess.


I can see why the RCP, to my knowledge, is not very big in Minneapolis, MN; the guy I have encountered begins every sentence with "Bob Avakian says..." Most people have no idea who the hell Bob Avakian even is, and when they hear about Maoism, they are totally turned away. Most people I have seen take copies of Revolution from him just to get him to shut up and go away, complete with an annoyed look in their faces when the guy goes to find someone else. To start out every sentence like that clearly indicates cultism&#33;

um bullshite. No one in the party talks like that. Definately no one in NYC. People do make references to stuff BA has said but what&#39;s wrong with that? He&#39;s promoting revolutionary communism and applying it to our material conditions, it makes sense to make some references to him. Here in NYC, most people aren&#39;t annoyed their disgusted at the crimes that are exposed in the newspaper or are interested. Sure there are people who just don&#39;t want to hear it, but lots and lots of people stop and talk and listen and are interested, if they don&#39;t they keep walking but quite a few don&#39;t.


Do they have the support from blacks and latinos that the RCP has?

No Trotskyist parties tend to be white only. I haven&#39;t met one non-white trotskyist here in NYC in all the demos I&#39;ve been to. Nor have I met one under 40. The Sparts have a youth group here, its hilarious, they&#39;re all like 50 year olds.


But I might add that I strongly dislike the fact that the RCP has largely ignored the worker&#39;s struggle in Venezuela

Revolution Newspaper is in the process of publishing a series on Venezula. So far the first part of the series was published a couple weeks ago (issue 94) and it was the cover story

http://revcom.us/a/094/chavez-en.html

[applejacks]

and what&#39;s your point?

Let me quote myself, since I already answered this right here on this page and the last one. It is funny how you people seem unable to read both my posts and your own literature:


Not that there is anything wrong with such a policy, I am only mentioning it to show how you (MilitantVL) are full of shit.

I was making the point to show how obvious it is that MilitantVL knows little about the organization he claims to support. It is also obvious that you know little about the historic practice of RCP, which has been to garner as much high-profile support as possible. Weren&#39;t you, Grandmonster, advocating Trotskyism like a few months ago? You also know little about your own cult.


how the fuck is the RCP a cult?

If you are too stupid to see this, I don&#39;t really know what to say. RCP has actively promoted the cult since the split with the RWHQ. It isn&#39;t like it is some kind of fucking secret. They call it "a culture of appreciation," and privately, they call it a cult. Adding three more letters to "cult" does not change the essence of what it is. The main thing RCPers do is buy and sell trinkets. If you think the main thing revolutionaries should be doing is buying and selling crappy books by Bob Avakian, then by all means do so. Get his face tattooed on your ass while your at it.


cults worship people

So does RCP and it is fucking obvious to nearly everyone.

Manifesto said RCP does stuff. Well, so do any number of organizations. Even the Democrats do stuff. One wonders what the RCP is up to anyway. It is no secret WCW is basically dead. Even when WCW was going, they were always second seat to ANSWER. RCP&#39;s idea of doing stuff means selling and buying shit.

The nature of RCP is not really disputed among serious people. Even within the RCP, the more hardcore people proudly admit it is a cult and defend it.

[applejacks]

Voz said:


I do know that it is big in Houston and NYC, as well as the Bay Area. I mean, in NYC, they garnered 400 people to listen to Bob Avakian talk, and, while that may seem cultish, they are spreading the ideas of revolution and socialism to the people. I saw the video in LA and Watts where there were Revolution signs on buses and blacks and latinos were interviewed on the streets about what they thought of Avakian, and they all seemed to get positive responses. They dont seem to worry so much about &#39;cultism&#39; if that exists here, but they seem to be inspired by what Avakian is saying.

You are seeing a certain image that is being projected by RCP. Image and reality are two different things. You saw a video produced by RCP and, besides your gullibility, this proves what exactly?

Oh wait, people in the ghetto are even greeting each other with a Bob Avakian salute. It says so right in the RCP newspaper. It must be true:


Panning up and out of these neighborhoods, the panorama of the city is beginning to look a little different. The same landmarks are still there, but there seems to be a pulsing that wasn’t apparent at the first sweeping view. There’s something growing here that can be sensed by hearing pieces of conversations caught in the wind. A youth in the gangster scene sees the DVD sampler and says, "Damn, watching that makes me think a muthafucker got to change the whole way he has been looking at things." In the projects down the street two men greet the neighbor who got them their DVD samplers by putting their fists to their hearts and shouting out, "B.A.&#33;" Farther away two young people talk outside a concert, and one begins to cry as he hears of the future envisioned by Bob Avakian—"People need this kind of leader to unleash their creativity."

[blackstone]

Originally posted by SovietPants+August 18, 2007 02:40 am--> (SovietPants @ August 18, 2007 02:40 am)
Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 09:35 pm

The RCP is fundamentally supported by the proletariat in the U.S., and all of the funds of the party are contributed from party member dues or donated from the masses of people.
Well now, lets not make it seem like the RCP has mass support. I will have to agree that it is one of the most active and well known parties though.

And also (and this is what I have seen, correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the RCPers I have met at protests in the Bay Area and where I live (and also what I&#39;ve seen in pictures) are white teenagers.

Now I dont know if that is the support base or just where I live.
the majority of the support base of the RCP is black and latino workers. They are the people who are donating money to the party, buying the paper, criticizing us, telling us what they think and in many cases distributing the paper or doing other more serious work.

I&#39;ve met a lot of radical students that are supporters of the RCP and I&#39;ve met a lot of black and latino proletarians who are supporters.

I&#39;m not really sure really what percentages they would make up, like, not even enough to make a rough estimate...but party line, funding and a signficant amount of party membership is from the proletariat.

I didn&#39;t mean to imply that the RCP has mass support in the U.S. Although it would be nice if it did. :P [/b]
Wait, you said the majority of the support base of RCP is black and latino workers and listed what they do, and you never mentioned anything of them participating IN the party. So the RCP is our great white hope?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No Trotskyist parties tend to be white only. I haven&#39;t met one non-white trotskyist here in NYC in all the demos I&#39;ve been to. Nor have I met one under 40. The Sparts have a youth group here, its hilarious, they&#39;re all like 50 year olds.

Ah, no. Sorry, you&#39;re way off here. You may want to be sure about things before you say them.

The Sparts have Black members, college students in their youth group, etc. There are other &#39;Trotskyist&#39; groupings with Puerto Rican members, Dominican members, Cuban members, Indian members, etc (i.e. IG, SWP*, etc.).

Most communist organizations in the U.S. are predominantly white though.

* I realize they no longer refer to themselves as Trostkyists, but many still refer to them as that.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

The nature of RCP is not really disputed among serious people. Even within the RCP, the more hardcore people proudly admit it is a cult and defend it.

GIVE US PROOF, DAMNIT&#33;

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Woah, calm down there Militant VL. There&#39;s absolutely no need to resort to petty sectarian bickery. Axel&#39;s assumptions may be incorrect and his analytical bias overwhelming, but you&#39;re only making things worse.

Sorreh. Just love to be the Drama Queen. :D

[The Advent of Anarchy]

less than a couple of months ago, and now he seems to be a very dedicated supporter of the RCP.

<_< I, unlike you, have a mind that doesn&#39;t stop thinking. I have ideological self-debates, self-criticisms, etc when ALL I WANNA DO IS EAT MY POP-TARTS&#33; X_x

[SonofRage]

Wow, if the RCP is good at one thing, it&#39;s getting people to argue about them on the internet. I think there&#39;s been more posts about them on here then any other group.

RCP has always been pretty open about calling for a cult of personality for their Chairman.

Apologies if this has been posted already ( I didn&#39;t go through the entire thread) but there are some good comments from former RCP members (folks I have known for a few years actually) here: http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2007...nists-vs-a.html (http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2007/07/communists-vs-a.html)

[Rawthentic]

RCP has always been pretty open about calling for a cult of personality for their Chairman.
I don&#39;t think thats true, comrade. They are always insisting for Avakian to be criticized as well as their line and their newspaper.

But like I said, the &#39;cult&#39; is not something that oppressed people and workers seem to care about so much, instead it seems like they enjoy having such a leader like GMM says.

In addition, I live in an area with thousands of farm workers, many who are undocumented and not unionized. These people look with great respect and admiration to Cesar Chavez, the farm worker leader in the 1960s who organized the United Farm Workers union. Today, the Union is still alive, and there is a Cesar Chavez day every year, where the farm workers march and commemorate their struggle. Cesar Chavez was put forward in a large way like Avakian is, and the farm workers saw that he was an asset to them. If I go and tell them that there is a cult on Chavez, they would throw me out.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:09 pm
Wow, if the RCP is good at one thing, it&#39;s getting people to argue about them on the internet. I think there&#39;s been more posts about them on here then any other group.

RCP has always been pretty open about calling for a cult of personality for their Chairman.

Apologies if this has been posted already ( I didn&#39;t go through the entire thread) but there are some good comments from former RCP members (folks I have known for a few years actually) here: http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2007...nists-vs-a.html (http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2007/07/communists-vs-a.html)
I think one of those reasons lie because RCP isn&#39;t well known outside of the internet, like Free People&#39;s Movement, RAAN and all these other groups. When i go rap to people in my community whether they lumpen or working class, they never heard of these groups. Never heard of Bob Avakian. Personally, i never heard of RCP until i began visiting this site.

[RGacky3]

Dude Voz your quoting me :wub: I&#39;m so flattered :D.


how the fuck is the RCP a cult? Because it has leadership? oh i see.


Theres a difference between leadership, centralized planning, and a person being intrinsictly tied to the party, when a guys name is tied in almost compleatly with the party, its not a leadership post, that people share, that different people at different times hold, its just one guy, who IS the leadership.


Cesar Chavez was put forward in a large way like Avakian is, and the farm workers saw that he was an asset to them. If I go and tell them that there is a cult on Chavez, they would throw me out.

Chavez is dead, he&#39;s not running things, Bob Avikian IS running things in the RCP.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Theres a difference between leadership, centralized planning, and a person being intrinsictly tied to the party, when a guys name is tied in almost compleatly with the party, its not a leadership post, that people share, that different people at different times hold, its just one guy, who IS the leadership.

The RCP has a Central Committee, you know. o.o

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What I also do like about the RCP is that they have the only (to my knowledge) completely bilingual revolutionary newspaper, with the correct understanding that the super-exploited black and latino proletarians will play a central role in making revolution.

What do you mean "completely bilingual revolutionary newspaper"?

Do you mean that they print their paper in English and Spanish?

They&#39;re not alone there.. the SWP, PSL, etc. have an English / Spanish publications, the Sparts, FPM, etc. have different English and Spanish publications..

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:47 pm

Theres a difference between leadership, centralized planning, and a person being intrinsictly tied to the party, when a guys name is tied in almost compleatly with the party, its not a leadership post, that people share, that different people at different times hold, its just one guy, who IS the leadership.

The RCP has a Central Committee, you know. o.o
Looking at your links, is the Central Comitte aka Enage&#33; A Comitte to Project and Protect the Voice of Bob Avakia?

[Rawthentic]

Do you mean that they print their paper in English and Spanish?
Yeah, at the same time as the English one, with full Spanish translation, as well as their website.

No offense, but the FPM&#39;s publications and website in Spanish has some gross grammatical errors.

I met some PSLers at an event, and only the back 2 pages were in Spanish.