RCP

[Dros]

What is up with the RCP?

What do they do? How do you join? How does their party work?

Are there any other revolutionary Marxist-Leninist (Maoist) orginizations in the US?

[black magick hustla]

only those worthy of comrade avakians blessing can join

[Organic Revolution]

The RCP is a group of revolutionary paper sellers with Bob Avakian on the brain. They don't (in my experience) do or organize radically, and when there are strikes and actions, they are there to sell papers.

I have no idea how to join, maybe pray to the high altar of Avakian, but pretty much there whole organization is based on paper selling, or working the the revolution books bookstore.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:43 pm
Are there any other revolutionary Marxist-Leninist (Maoist) orginizations in the US?
You could join the MIM... :lol:

[Pawn Power]

I think to become a party member you must get the approval of two existing members. But to just become a allied paper seller you can just contact them.

I thik LefyHenry worked with them for a while so he probably knows the details.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Organic Revolution+November 04, 2007 07:50 pm--> (Organic Revolution @ November 04, 2007 07:50 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 01:43 pm
Are there any other revolutionary Marxist-Leninist (Maoist) orginizations in the US?
You could join the MIM... :lol:[/b]
Hahaha. No thanks. I'm not (that) crazy.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How about the Single Spark Collective (http://www.singlespark.org/)? I don't agree with them, but maybe it's what you're looking for.

[Panda Tse Tung]

http://www.frso.org/

Thats the third.

Simple as it is:

RCP = traditional maoists (strong party, but they have a very high level of..... appreciation for their Chairman)
MIM = left-wing maoists (leaning to some really... 'radical' idea's. 'Secret' and small)
FRSO = right-wing maoists (leaning to Dengist and quite small)

[bezdomni]

What is up with the RCP?

Revolution Newspaper, Organ of the RCP (http://www.revcom.us)

About the RCP, USA (http://revcom.us/rcp-e.htm)


What do they do? How do you join? How does their party work?

The Party Exists for No Other Reason Than to Serve the Masses and to Make Revolution (http://revcom.us/a/Leadership_Resolutions/revolutionary_leadership.htm)

In order to join the RCP, you have to have a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line, accept the general points of orientation of the party, accept democratic centralism on all other line issues, abide by points of discipline for party members (not stealing shit from the masses, not vandalizing the homes or personal property of proletarians, not saying racist or sexist things..etc).

Pawn Power was right (generally) in the way that you actually go about for membership. Comrades have to write a short essay about what revolution means to them and why they want revolution and have approval from two party members from their local branch. After that, a vote for the applicant occurs at the next local branch meeting and if there is a majority, the comrade becomes a probationary member of the RCP for a year (I think).

There might be some slight inaccuracies...but generally that is how membership works. I don't know if there is a copy of the constitution of the RCP online, but it goes into all the details about party membership.


Are there any other revolutionary Marxist-Leninist (Maoist) orginizations in the US?

The RCP is the largest and most widely recognized party that identifies as Marxist-Leninist-Maoist in the United States.

There are other parties and organizations that identify with MLM (like the MIM) or uphold Maoist China while not explicitly being MLM (Party for Socialism and Liberation, Worker's World Party).


The RCP is a group of revolutionary paper sellers with Bob Avakian on the brain. They don't (in my experience) do or organize radically, and when there are strikes and actions, they are there to sell papers.

The RCP's tactic is to strengthen the rebellions of the masses while bringing revolutionary communist ideology to them. The RCP supports the spontaneous struggle of the masses (strikes, demonstrations, riots...etc), but recognizes that more has to be done in order to overthrow this system and create a new one.



Three Main Points

What do we in the Revolutionary Communist Party want people to learn from all that is exposed and revealed in this newspaper? Mainly, three things:

1) The whole system we now live under is based on exploitation—here and all over the world. It is completely worthless and no basic change for the better can come about until this system is overthrown.

2) Many different groups will protest and rebel against things this system does, and these protests and rebellions should be supported and strengthened. Yet it is only those with nothing to lose but their chains who can be the backbone of a struggle to actually overthrow this system and create a new system that will put an end to exploitation and help pave the way to a whole new world.

3) Such a revolutionary struggle is possible. There is a political Party that can lead such a struggle, a political Party that speaks and acts for those with nothing to lose but their chains: The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

This Party has the vision, the program, the leadership, and the organizational principles to unite those who must be united and enable them to do what must be done. There is a challenge for all those who would like to see such a revolution, those with a burning desire to see a drastic change for the better, all those who dare to dream and to act to bring about a completely new and better world: Support this Party, join this Party, spread its message and its organized strength, and prepare the ground for a revolutionary rising that has a solid basis and a real chance of winning.

[bezdomni]

RCP = traditional maoists (strong party, but they have a very high level of..... appreciation for their Chairman)

We do appreciate the works and ideas of chairman avakian, but we do not dogmatically uphold all things that the chairman says simply because he says them. The RCP agrees with Mao's line against "commandism".

Furthermore, didn't the bolsheviks have a high level of appreciation for comrade lenin? Didn't the CCP have a high level of appreciation for chairman mao? Don't we all have a high level appreciation for the works of Marx and Engels?

Then what is wrong with critically appreciating bob avakian?


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

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

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

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

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

Some Points on the Question of Revolutionary Leadership and Individual Leaders (http://revcom.us/a/Leadership_Resolutions/revolutionary_leadership_points.htm)


It is interesting to note that the RCP is the only significant surviving organization from the revolutionary movement of the 60s and 70s. It grew out of the Revolutionary Youth Movement II, which developed shortly after the SDS disintegrated.

[black magick hustla]

actually nvm

[Lenin II]

They are often ripped upon for being Stalinist, and indeed they do have a cult of personality. But quite frankly, they have a far darker attitude than the pro-democrat CPUSA and I admire that.


RCP = traditional maoists (strong party, but they have a very high level of..... appreciation for their Chairman)

To say the least. Needless to say, they aren't too popular with the Spartacist League. :P I find such sectarianism tragic. The unity of action in American communist and socialist parties is wanting, and all at a time when the people long for a left party.

[bezdomni]

Lenin II, read my post.

"Cult of personality" implies a putting forward and accepting leadership dogmatically, as if leaders are superhuman and incapable of making mistakes. The RCP makes it perfectly clear that Bob Avakian's ideas need to be approached critically, and that he as an individual is human and very capable of making mistakes, just as any other revolutionary leader.

[ShineThePath]

There are some things to be said as a Maoist on this site about the various groups. As a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade (youth Wing of the RCP) and still a Maoist in the movements of struggle.

RCP's current line as a Maoist organization has been addressed previously on this thread a Polemic by a former YBer' (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71551&view=findpost&p=1292400517).

It seems to me this line is general correct, and as a Maoist it is upsetting seeing RCP devolve into what it is now. The current instrumentality of the Cult of Personality to polarize politics is just simply the wrong line, they have only alienated many people from its ranks and creeped people out. No one is taking up Bob Avakian.

Maoists need to do something new and better than hacking out memoirs for BA.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I used to be a member of the YB also. Then the YB was dissolved about like 6 months ago or something here in NYC, so I just remained with Revolution. I hate to say it but Organic Revolution isn't really that far off the mark. Its a paper selling group of individuals with no goal in trying to build a mass vanguard. It has basically dismissed the working class (although it pays it partial lip service).

I'm a candidate in the Party for Socialism and Liberation (http://www.pslweb.org/) right now, and let me say its scary to think that I considered staying with the RCP. The RCP was going nowhere. The PSL has its shit together. You should PM if you have any questions on the RCP or on the PSL. I don't really like discussing the RCP, but I think its something that should be set straight

[ShineThePath]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:42 am
I used to be a member of the YB also. Then the YB was dissolved about like 6 months ago or something here in NYC, so I just remained with Revolution. I hate to say it but Organic Revolution isn't really that far off the mark. Its a paper selling group of individuals with no goal in trying to build a mass vanguard. It has basically dismissed the working class (although it pays it partial lip service).

I'm a candidate in the Party for Socialism and Liberation (http://www.pslweb.org/) right now, and let me say its scary to think that I considered staying with the RCP. The RCP was going nowhere. The PSL has its shit together. You should PM if you have any questions on the RCP or on the PSL. I don't really like discussing the RCP, but I think its something that should be set straight
I have to really ask in what sense does "PSL have their shit together?" The question is from one Maoist to a former one, who is taking the route of Marcyite Trotskyism of PSL.

Some things I have to ask...

1) There has yet to be a statement put out by them about the reasons they have split with WWP. What are the differences between WWP and PSL that caused the split?

2) PSL still upholds various revisionist countries on the basis they are Socialist, including China, DPRK, Vietnam, etc. Why has it taken this approach toward these quite reactionary State-Capitalist regimes?

3) What does Henry mean by "Mass Vanguard?"

Further, LeftyHenry, wouldn't it be more honest to speak about your political differences with the RCP rather than the tactics? The fact is that more than anything the question of political line was more important. Your line has been directly contradictory to that of the RCYB because you are yourself not a Maoist. So even if we were talking about a functional Maoist party that uses Mass Line, you still have direct differences over the question of what is Revisionism and Social-Imperialism.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:23 am
Lenin II, read my post.

"Cult of personality" implies a putting forward and accepting leadership dogmatically, as if leaders are superhuman and incapable of making mistakes. The RCP makes it perfectly clear that Bob Avakian's ideas need to be approached critically, and that he as an individual is human and very capable of making mistakes, just as any other revolutionary leader.
Really? In RCP materials, I read time and time again that BA is indispensable to the revolution, that if you want to make a revolution, you need to know him.

[Herman]

I don't think it's healthy for any party to uphold their leader in the way the RCP does.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Van Binsbergen+November 05, 2007 02:05 pm--> (Van Binsbergen @ November 05, 2007 02:05 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 01:23 am
Lenin II, read my post.

"Cult of personality" implies a putting forward and accepting leadership dogmatically, as if leaders are superhuman and incapable of making mistakes. The RCP makes it perfectly clear that Bob Avakian's ideas need to be approached critically, and that he as an individual is human and very capable of making mistakes, just as any other revolutionary leader.
Really? In RCP materials, I read time and time again that BA is indispensable to the revolution, that if you want to make a revolution, you need to know him. [/b]
Read what I posted earlier "questions on revolutionary leadership and individual leaders".

Bob Avakian's leadership is incredibly important to the revolution, and if he were to sell out to or be taken by the enemy, it would be a serious blow to the cause of proletarian revolution. However, we cannot be idealists and say that without chairman avakian, we cannot make revolution. That would be incorrect and lead to dogmatism, which is deeply contrary to MLM.

Do you think it would have been possible for comrades in Russia to make revolution if they were not familiar with Lenin? Could the masses have made revolution in China if they were not familiar with the ideas of chairman Mao?

what would the sixties have been without the leadership of the BPP?

[ShineThePath]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:42 am

Really? In RCP materials, I read time and time again that BA is indispensable to the revolution, that if you want to make a revolution, you need to know him.
Read what I posted earlier "questions on revolutionary leadership and individual leaders".

Bob Avakian's leadership is incredibly important to the revolution, and if he were to sell out to or be taken by the enemy, it would be a serious blow to the cause of proletarian revolution. However, we cannot be idealists and say that without chairman avakian, we cannot make revolution. That would be incorrect and lead to dogmatism, which is deeply contrary to MLM.

Do you think it would have been possible for comrades in Russia to make revolution if they were not familiar with Lenin? Could the masses have made revolution in China if they were not familiar with the ideas of chairman Mao?

what would the sixties have been without the leadership of the BPP?
While you maintain we can't be Idealist, you move precisely do doing quite that.

Let us put it this way, will the Masses be polarized around the Cult of Personality around Bob Avakian? This is the question at main, and what you fail to realize is that Communists just don't faithfully promote a leader without that political practice means in raising consciousness of the Masses.

Your use of the examples of Lenin and Mao are just not apt. What Cult of Personalities have instrumentality in is polarizing politics in a way that puts forward the pole of a revolutionary line within the context of on going Revolutions against, lets say Revisionism. The matter of fact is, there are two lines in which one can approach what is "Culture of Appreciations," the line of Mao Zedong which saw the use as mere instrumentality to raise the level of politics, or the Lin Biao (Kim Il Sung) line of pure faith.

The RCP asserts that without Avakian, revolutionary development is not impossible? Can you give reason why instead of asserting.

If we were speaking of the line of RCP, we might get to something faster. But this is precisely what the RCP is avoiding, what is the trajectory and the line of this "new synthesis?" What element here is ground breaking? And of course why is Avakian of such a special caliber that he is irreplacable?

[Rawthentic]

Let us put it this way, will the Masses be polarized around the Cult of Personality around Bob Avakian? This is the question at main, and what you fail to realize is that Communists just don't faithfully promote a leader without that political practice means in raising consciousness of the Masses.
No the masses are not mobilized around a cult of personality, that is obvious. The leader, in this case Avakian, disseminates revolutionary line. While I sometimes disagree with how leadership is put forward, I do agree now that it is vital.



If we were speaking of the line of RCP, we might get to something faster. But this is precisely what the RCP is avoiding, what is the trajectory and the line of this "new synthesis?"
The new synthesis is used to describe the various contributions of the RCP and Avakian that go beyond MLM. They include things like the, "On the Possibility of Revolution," Avakian's theory of "A Solid Core With A Lot of Elasticity," the call for people to become "emancipators of humanity" rather that to take revenge on their oppressors (ie: We want revenge for what you've done, or we want another world?), this concept of "our flag is the red flag of the international proletariat" that puts forward this concept of having a single red flag that unites the whole international proletariat rather than individual national flags such as the soviet/chinese flags, the concepts such as the new role of dissent in socialist society that Avakian has been putting forward (including allowing reactionaries to publish books in socialist society), etc. etc. etc.

There is a whole lot to the new synthesis, so it's very hard to encapsulate here. I think though that there is an overall trend and theme in the new synthesis that we as communists have to approach everything from the point of view of what is going to really lead to the emancipation of all of humanity, and accepting nothing less than that.

I guess the best place that I can think of to get a feel for the new synthesis would be to read Avakian's talk "Bringing Forward Another Way," and also it would be good to couple this with "The Seven Talks" at Bob Avakian.net (http://bobavakian.net). Also, a shorter article that carries the general theme of the new synthesis is Avakian's article "The Three Alternative Worlds" where he contrasts revolutionary communism to revisionism. Finally, a very, very good read would be to read the self-criticism that was in the paper of an article the paper ran on elections. If you would like to read that, here it is:

A Read Criticizes Revolution (http://revcom.us/a/096/elections-criticism-en.html)

Editor's Response (http://revcom.us/a/096/elections-reply-en.html)

[bezdomni]

Let us put it this way, will the Masses be polarized around the Cult of Personality around Bob Avakian?

I don't think the intention of the party is to create a cult of personality around Avakian. So, no. The masses will not be polarized around a cult of personality in any way that is conducive to making communist revolution.

However, engaging with the works of bob avakian and the line of the RCP can and does repolarize society.


. The matter of fact is, there are two lines in which one can approach what is "Culture of Appreciations," the line of Mao Zedong which saw the use as mere instrumentality to raise the level of politics, or the Lin Biao (Kim Il Sung) line of pure faith.

I have no disagreement with this, and I do not think the RCP has any disagreement with this. The RCP calls on the masses to critically assess what avakian puts forward - how is that in any way similar to Lin Biao's line?


The RCP asserts that without Avakian, revolutionary development is not impossible? Can you give reason why instead of asserting.


Without revolutinary leadership, revolutionary development is impossible. Bob Avakian is a revolutionary leader and apparently represents the line and orientation of the party very well because the Central Committee has elected him as the chairman for all of these years.

While the revolutionary struggle can and will continue without Bob Avakian, that does not mean we should be ready and willing to have him killed or jailed by the bourgeoisie or something.

Furthermore, how are my analogies to other revolutionary leaders not apt? If anybody is saying that there is something superhumanly special about Bob Avakian, it's you, because it seems like you are treating him with much more disdain than you would other revolutionary leaders.


And of course why is Avakian of such a special caliber that he is irreplacable?

All revolutionary leaders are irreplacable, because they bring their unique understanding of Marxism to the masses and make it applicable to present social conditions. There is literally no other leader like Bob Avakian in the world today. That does not mean Bob Avakian is the "best" leader in the world, or that his leadership is superior to the leadership of all other revolutionary communists in the history of the world.

If Bob Avakian were killed or jailed or if he burned out, obviously he would have to be replaced. It definitely be a blow to our movement, but there are certainly other people who will step up when they are needed. Life would go on without Bob Avakian, revolution would still be possible. Nobody denies this. However, I don't understand why we should discourage people from engaging with Bob Avakian or other revolutionary leadership (which is what I assume comrades who think the RCP is a "cult of personality" because they put forward their leadership would promote).

[Killer Enigma]

"Movements come and movements go
Leaders speak, movements cease
When their heads are flown."

[ShineThePath]

GOOD

Hopefully an honest debate with the YBers' who ignored the other posts.


Originally posted by "Soviet Pants"+--> ("Soviet Pants") don't think the intention of the party is to create a cult of personality around Avakian. So, no. The masses will not be polarized around a cult of personality in any way that is conducive to making communist revolution[/b]

Should I believe you or my lying eyes? What should I call mass work projects such as the Engage Committee! (http://www.engagewithbobavakian.org/)? I am quite interested. What is exactly the reason for promoting the Memoirs, what is the political basis and necessity around Mass work around an autobiography? How is this not an aspect of promoting Personality as the primary means of polarizing Politics?

Look at example what RCP was putting forward around WCW, that specifically there was a re-polarization of society around Christian Fascists, and Bob Avakian was being promoted (INDIVIDUALLY) during this time as someone who needs to be taken up as the Personality to get people around.

Of course let us speak to how Revolution paper has literally devolved into a promotion kit for Bob Avakian. Every center fold is around Bob Avakian's articles and speeches, sometimes some of this has little to do with actual politics and is just about Bob Avakian. Such as Bob Eats Cornbread (http://revcom.us/a/064/ba-hs-en.html).

What about campaigns of getting these Memoirs out to academics to teach to classes? If they wanted to promote real engagement and line, why not promote the other various works by Avakian on politics...at the same time, was not there Conversations with Bill Martin?


I have no disagreement with this, and I do not think the RCP has any disagreement with this. The RCP calls on the masses to critically assess what avakian puts forward - how is that in any way similar to Lin Biao's line?

Lin Biao put out the line that Mao Zedong was irreplacable, and that one of his words are worth a thousand others. His line was that of blind faith in order to put forward a Commandist militarist state with a religiousity to leadership. RCP continually claims that Bob Avakian is irreplacable, they have an active movement right now to promote him as such. Remember the words of the the great BA.

I remember, for example, being challenged by someone interviewing me -- I believe this was on a college radio station in Madison, Wisconsin -- who asked insistently: "Is there a 'cult of personality' developing around Bob Avakian?" And I replied: ‘I certainly hope so -- we've been working very hard to create one.

Thanks to Kasama for that quote, I missed that while reading the Memoirs...

Source: From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist, page 393, Insight Press, 2005


Without revolutinary leadership, revolutionary development is impossible. Bob Avakian is a revolutionary leader and apparently represents the line and orientation of the party very well because the Central Committee has elected him as the chairman for all of these years.

RCP has changed its line over the course of over 30 years, I wouldn't make it as monolithic as you think, the RCP doesn't make its debates of the CC open, so I can't tell you "how well" Bob Avakian has been "representing" the line of the Party. However just because he represents the line of his Party, that doesn't mean such a line is correct, nor does it say anything of what that line actually is. One of the most evident development in the question of line has happened over the course of the last 4-5 years. RCP has done less mass work and more promotion of Bob Avakian...there has been an increasing effort to consolidate questions around the political practice of that work, and there has been obviously for such a period of time MANY supporters and travellers who have left because of such a direction.


While the revolutionary struggle can and will continue without Bob Avakian, that does not mean we should be ready and willing to have him killed or jailed by the bourgeoisie or something.

Who is saying such? The question is whether his line is genuinely the correct line and whether or not it is raising the consciounsess of the Masses. Is the Mass Line expressed through Memoir sales and DVD showings? Is it expressed through lack of Mass organizing and work? I am not sure...it seems the only peopel RCP has organized through the years are an assorted array of Liberals and Right-Wing lunes (Ron Paul, Alex Jone types).

Further, my disdain is because of the fact that a so-called Maoist is going around claiming to have made new break throughs and a new synthesis on no basis. I don't want to have Avakian "arrested" or whatever, but he is certainly Replacable since he is putting forward the WRONG line on the methodology of leadership.


However, I don't understand why we should discourage people from engaging with Bob Avakian or other revolutionary leadership (which is what I assume comrades who think the RCP is a "cult of personality" because they put forward their leadership would promote).

Straight up dishonesty. RCP NEVER puts forward other leaders besides Bob Avakian. Is anyone engaging on the question of Prachanda Path? The new documents from the Maoist parties in Southeast Asia? RCP puts all analysis through the lense of Avakian's line, there is no engagement...that is just what it is.


"Live for the Proles"
The new synthesis is used to describe the various contributions of the RCP and Avakian that go beyond MLM. They include things like the, "On the Possibility of Revolution," Avakian's theory of "A Solid Core With A Lot of Elasticity," the call for people to become "emancipators of humanity" rather that to take revenge on their oppressors (ie: We want revenge for what you've done, or we want another world?), this concept of "our flag is the red flag of the international proletariat" that puts forward this concept of having a single red flag that unites the whole international proletariat rather than individual national flags such as the soviet/chinese flags, the concepts such as the new role of dissent in socialist society that Avakian has been putting forward (including allowing reactionaries to publish books in socialist society), etc. etc. etc.

Lot to dissect here.

This is a synthesis, but it has nothing novel to the theory of Marxism, and hardly anything which is insightful or unsaid by this movement.

First let us dig into the whole Solid Core with a Lot of Elasticity, why is such a formulation a genuine contribution? It is the methodology of leadership, it is called Mass Line, it is called the principles of Democratic Centralism. Are things so poor and Commandist in the RCP that this needs to be articulated a new?


call for people to become "emancipators of humanity" rather that to take revenge on their oppressors (ie: We want revenge for what you've done, or we want another world?),

This is a line that is actually opposed to People's Justice and is a Humanist liberal line. What RCP calls "revenge line" is actually the making of history of the masses...that is, History is the Slaughterboard, and there is a need for making Revolution. There is nothing wrong with justice for the Masses, and sometimes that Justice comes in punishing the old reactionary class. Bob Avakian actually putting forward this transcendentalist ethics in place for letting the People get Justice is bewildering.


this concept of "our flag is the red flag of the international proletariat" that puts forward this concept of having a single red flag that unites the whole international proletariat rather than individual national flags such as the soviet/chinese flags

This is not a contribution to the theoretical practice of Marxism, this is a pragmatic question of forms. In fact it is quite WRONG, the question isn't what symbols we have on the flag, the question is the politics behind the form. Further it is contradiction to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, to have national liberation.


the concepts such as the new role of dissent in socialist society that Avakian has been putting forward (including allowing reactionaries to publish books in socialist society

I will repeat my quesiton of whether Avakian wants "revolution without revolution." As Zizek would say, decaffinated coffee.

Once again, how is this a contribution to the theory of Marxist political practice? How is anyone denying this as a necessity?

What Avakian isn't saying though is how the political practice of making Revolution and within the revolutionary context, how this can even be done. Bob Avakian proceeds into making a leap into the question, he is assuming the saftey of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, he is assuming that we have secured State Power.

What Bob Avakian doesn't talk about ever is how we fight counter-revolutionaries, how we take on Revisionism.

[Rawthentic]

I remember, for example, being challenged by someone interviewing me -- I believe this was on a college radio station in Madison, Wisconsin -- who asked insistently: "Is there a 'cult of personality' developing around Bob Avakian?" And I replied: ‘I certainly hope so -- we've been working very hard to create one.
I'd like to see the context in which this was said, if it all.


This is a line that is actually opposed to People's Justice and is a Humanist liberal line. What RCP calls "revenge line" is actually the making of history of the masses...that is, History is the Slaughterboard, and there is a need for making Revolution. There is nothing wrong with justice for the Masses, and sometimes that Justice comes in punishing the old reactionary class. Bob Avakian actually putting forward this transcendentalist ethics in place for letting the People get Justice is bewildering.
Avakian's line is a revolutionary communist one. Should we fight for a radically new world, or to get some revenge because we couldn't do it in the old society. Of course under socialism there will be mass trials to hold reactionary criminals responsible. But my point here that socialist society and the whole process needs to be conducted with communism in mind, the emancipation of humanity. Thus, under socialism, the proletariat needs to unite with and transform all strata in its own interests. It won't do that with "revenge" in its mind.


This is not a contribution to the theoretical practice of Marxism, this is a pragmatic question of forms. In fact it is quite WRONG, the question isn't what symbols we have on the flag, the question is the politics behind the form. Further it is contradiction to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, to have national liberation.

Nothing to do with what I was speaking to.


What Bob Avakian doesn't talk about ever is how we fight counter-revolutionaries, how we take on Revisionism.
I'm beginning to doubt your honesty on several things. Avakian has countless articles on Revolution and talks about the contradictions in socialist society and how to "lkeep the fires burning" (cultural revolution) to defeat the restoration of capitalism (as happened in the Soviet Union and China). I recommend all those here to really look at the site (revcom.us) and see for themselves if what ShinethePath is saying is true.

[ShineThePath]

Originally posted by "Live for the People"
I'd like to see the context in which this was said, if it all.

I have already given where the reference is from.

Source: From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist, page 393, Insight Press, 2005

There have been quotes similar by himself on Michael Slate's radio show and there was a large debate by YBers' and supporters on Indymedia exactly about this...whether or not promoting a Personality Cult is correct.


But my point here that socialist society and the whole process needs to be conducted with communism in mind, the emancipation of humanity. Thus, under socialism, the proletariat needs to unite with and transform all strata in its own interests. It won't do that with "revenge" in its mind.

What is new then? How is this then maintained as a contribution? Are you suggesting that Lenin, Stalin, Mao and other great revolutionaries were leading out of a need to fill their urge for Revenge? This is absurd, these Communists have always worked to raise the consciousness of the Masses to understand the historical needs of eliminating the 4 Alls.

Further, what is this talk of the "Emancipation of Humanity?" This is a clear sing in the degrade of the level of class consciousness. The Emancipation of Humanity is the liberation of oppressed and exploited Peoples from the 4 alls, a revolutionizing of Society. Further this emanicipation is not adialectical, in that there is a final harmony in Communism...but rather struggle continues in new forms, with new relations...this is how History is made.


Nothing to do with what I was speaking to.

If it is not what you're saying, then what are you saying? The fact that Avakian realizes there is an International character in the struggle of the Proletariat and Oppressed Peoples against Imperialism isn't a break through... Was it not Marx who said Workers of the WORLD, Unite!


I'm beginning to doubt your honesty on several things. Avakian has countless articles on Revolution and talks about the contradictions in socialist society and how to "lkeep the fires burning" (cultural revolution) to defeat the restoration of capitalism (as happened in the Soviet Union and China). I recommend all those here to really look at the site (revcom.us) and see for themselves if what ShinethePath is saying is true.

I am not stating that Avakian hasn't said anything on the matter, what I am speaking of concretely is your statements. That is, this whole matter of "dissidence" under Socialism. It is not a real analysis or breakthrough because it simply lacks any insight of the practical politics of the context of Revolution. These things are quite easy to say, but have no value and worth when it is not given any context but just posited into a future non-existing state.

To consider this a contribution, Avakian must be temporal, and speak of tis relation to our practice NOW (which he only loosely does with the Solid Core, Elasticity bit) or give them the contextuality of a revolution which is happening or past.

For example, it has been almost over a year now the Maoists in Nepal have announce their intention of learning from the 20th century and opening up their politics in a new way, even accepting multiple party government. Why has RCP and Bob Avakian not talked of this issue?

[Red Heretic]

I have already given where the reference is from.

Source: From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist, page 393, Insight Press, 2005

There have been quotes similar by himself on Michael Slate's radio show and there was a large debate by YBers' and supporters on Indymedia exactly about this...whether or not promoting a Personality Cult is correct.

Yes, Avakian did say that in his memoir, but when the RCP used to talk about "cult of personality" it did not mean to them what you are making that phrase out to be. It meant to them popularizing, promoting, and defending a revolutionary leader. The RCP does not use that term anymore, and uses the term "culture of appreciation" because it gets more to the essence of what it is trying to create.

People should grow up and get over these petty attacks about "altars to Avakian" and all of this bullshit. Don't you have anything better to do? That isn't the RCPs line. These attacks have no substance whatsoever. Why do people feel they have to sit here on the internet all day making up this shit? It must be very flattering to the RCP and Avakian.

How about people engage the content of what the RCP is saying about Avakian? The RCP is asserting that Avakian is a leader of the caliber of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. That is something very rare, and if it is true, it means that Avakian is extremely important to the world revolution. Is that true, or not true?


RCP NEVER puts forward other leaders besides Bob Avakian.

Oh bullshit. They put forward the leadership of many of their leaders. They promote the leadership of people like Sunsara Taylor, Carl Dix, Larry Everest, Raymond Lotta, and many other people.

However, it is also true that none of these leaders are of the same caliber of leadership as Comrade Avakian.


Is anyone engaging on the question of Prachanda Path?

Where do you get this shit? You have no fucking clue what goes on within the RCP.


What Avakian isn't saying though is how the political practice of making Revolution and within the revolutionary context, how this can even be done. Bob Avakian proceeds into making a leap into the question, he is assuming the saftey of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, he is assuming that we have secured State Power.

Did you happen to see the new theoretical work, "On the Possibility of Revolution" that ran in Revolution recently? It is a very, very important article on this question that I think that comrades should study very, very thoroughly.

On the Possibility of Revolution (http://revcom.us/a/102/possibility-en.html)

[Brownfist]

Red Heretic
How about people engage the content of what the RCP is saying about Avakian? The RCP is asserting that Avakian is a leader of the caliber of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. That is something very rare, and if it is true, it means that Avakian is extremely important to the world revolution. Is that true, or not true?


Com. Red Heretic has basically asked the question that I think that is really important about this debate, especially in relation to the "culture of appreciation". Within the Maoist movement there has been a consistent debate about the "cult of personality" and its desirability. I do not think this is necessarily the best place to have that debate, but I do think the relevant debate is situated in whether "Avakian is a leader of the caliber of Marx, Lenin, or Mao". I would like to give an opportunity for the comrades who are supporters of the RCP and Bob Avakian to please elaborate upon this statement, and please do not simply answer "because of the new synthesis". If you believe that the new synthesis is really important for the overall development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, please explain why. So what is Avakian's real contributions. I mean numerous theorists have provided a series of important contributions to the debates and development of MLM like Louis Althusser, Alain Badiou etc. however, we do not argue that they are of the same "caliber" as Marx, Lenin or Mao. Also, another question I have is that of Stalin because I know that there has been a series of debates about the role of Stalin in the development of MLM.

Prachanda Path
I do think that it is most likely that there are people within the party that are attempting to understand the development of Maoism in Nepal and the line of "Prachanda Path". However, there has been no external report of any position of the RCP on this. Furthermore, there has been no public inflection on whether Nepalese line has any applicability to the North American situation. Indeed, I am not holding my breath for any kind of public statement about the recently surfaced document of the CPI(Maoist) on urban strategy, but that does not mean that there is no discussion within some committee on it. Indeed, it does seem that for the last few months that all discussion or public support for the Nepalese has ceased within the public realm of the RCP, including the party newspaper. One could argue that this is due to a security concern due to the CPN(Maoist) being made an illegal organization, however, this has not stopped solidarity work before e.g. the Peru solidarity work in the early 90's. Furthermore, Com. Parvati will be speaking at a public event in NYC so that does suggest that something has changed.

On the Possibility of Revolution
Com. Red Heretic is right that this is an important editorial piece because it does suggest that there are numerous line differences with the RCP(Canada) for example, which till now have not been as clear. I do not want to comment on the article itself because I think that requires its own thread and discussion, however, I would like someone to clarify the role of the editor in the RCP newspaper. Does the editorial response in Revolution constitute the formal line of the party on this question? The reason I ask is because often, especially in earlier communist history, the editorials of the party newspaper did not reflect necessarily the views of the party or the CC of the party unless clearly stated otherwise. Thus, would it be fair to assume that this is indeed the line of the CC? I would like to have this clarified because any polemics on that question must be directed towards the right person.

[ShineThePath]

Originally posted by "Red Heretic"+--> ("Red Heretic")Yes, Avakian did say that in his memoir, but when the RCP used to talk about "cult of personality" it did not mean to them what you are making that phrase out to be. It meant to them popularizing, promoting, and defending a revolutionary leader. The RCP does not use that term anymore, and uses the term "culture of appreciation" because it gets more to the essence of what it is trying to create.[/b]

Whether or not it uses the term "Culture of Appreciation" vs "Cult of Personality" is a question of pragmatics, it has nothing to do with the actual Line in question. This is a sly way of avoiding what RCP practice is, and I should know...I defended the Cult of Personality of Bob Avakian for a long time. There was debates on Indymedia between supporters of the RCP and others about the question of what the Cult of Personality is, and whether it is principled.

I have, in itself, no liberal objections to Cult of Personality. There might at times be instrumentality to them in the sense they correctly polarize politics. This is surely the case in the Culture Revolution, it polarized politics about who is in power and the trajectory of China. A reasonable Marxist argument can be made here.

RCP has tried to imply such polarization around Bob Avakian is possible in the context of the United States. This has proven to be wrong, and much more, just plain creepy. As I have said in other posts, I was ashamed and embarrassed for myself and what I looked like in hacking out Memoir promotion. I was no longer doing Revolutionary Communist work, I was promoting a Juche appreciation of Bob Avakian.

That is not perhaps what RCP wanted the Cult to be, but this is what it has become objectively. Bob Avakian and the work to promote him is a point of consolidation, of Unity. There is no wrangling over the question of whether or not he is leading a "break," it is a question of loyalty if you want to remain in the YB. It must be accepted. There is no "wrangling" over these questions, no elasticity...but a center of gravity so strong you have only the singularity (or Insularity).


People should grow up and get over these petty attacks about "altars to Avakian" and all of this bullshit. Don't you have anything better to do? That isn't the RCPs line. These attacks have no substance whatsoever.

RCP probably didn't decide to have "altars" (but neither did Chen Boda), but they did have Parties where we spoke of our "favorite passages" from the Memoir. Such asChicago (http://revcom.us/a/053/bareading-en.html), NYC, and else where.

Mobile Shaw also told us he was all we've got.

I am not sure how many people have to tell you they don't dig this shit, before you start taking the hint...wrapping up whatever "breaks" Avakian is making through this pure promotion of Personality is getting us nowhere.


How about people engage the content of what the RCP is saying about Avakian? The RCP is asserting that Avakian is a leader of the caliber of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. That is something very rare, and if it is true, it means that Avakian is extremely important to the world revolution. Is that true, or not true?

I have and continued to do so....You specifically, Red Heretic, I have challenged on a number of sites to maintain a consistent debate about this. But all of this flonders, for what really is true of what Avakian is supposedly "rupturing" from is the old hat line of Humanism. What is contributive is a synthesis, but has the secondary character of already explicating the current correctness of MLM. He isn't the 4th Flame.


Originally posted by "Red Heretic"+--> ("Red Heretic")
RCP NEVER puts forward other leaders besides Bob Avakian.

Oh bullshit. They put forward the leadership of many of their leaders. They promote the leadership of people like Sunsara Taylor, Carl Dix, Larry Everest, Raymond Lotta, and many other people.[/b]

You have quoted me way out of context for your instrumental point about the durable leadership of RCP. What I meant, and it is in the paragraph from which you quoted me, is that RCP never and WILL never have any leadership go public who have a line which is departing from the "rupture" of RCP. That is, those people you mention are either a part of a monolithic party group in the public and for "wrangling." There is no real "engagement" in the RCP or wrangling, it is merely a wrangling of what Bob Avakian has to say. There is and will never be an "Engage Sunsara Taylor" or Ray Lotta campaign. And you admitt so.

Let me tell ya, my opinion is that some of those people you have mentioned are of the same stuff Bob is made out of...and our caliber is the same...


"Red Heretic"@

Is anyone engaging on the question of Prachanda Path?

Where do you get this shit? You have no fucking clue what goes on within the RCP.

You will be surprised what "Left Trainspotters" know. But I don't know this on the basis or gossip...it is just a fact that RCP hasn't run a story on Nepal in over a year. There has been a whole wide circle of silence over the matter, and where other countries are developing "World People's Resistance Movement" groups to support the Nepalese, etc. RCP has done nothing. When was the last event they hosted for them? Why has there been nothing at least from Li Ornesto about Nepal?

Why hasn't Bob Avakian commented on Prachanda Path...that is a bit more befuddling, since Prachanda Path is saying it has certain Universality to it that is beyond the Nepalese context.


"Red Heretic"
Did you happen to see the new theoretical work, "On the Possibility of Revolution" that ran in Revolution recently? It is a very, very important article on this question that I think that comrades should study very, very thoroughly.

I will give it a look at...Take a look at the Massline.info site (http://www.massline.info/), I think it is something that should be studied "very, very thoroughly" as well.

[Red Heretic]

I'll reply in the morning. I'm exhausted.

[NaxalbariZindabad]

Com. Parvati will be speaking at a public event in NYC

Can anybody give me more details about this ?? Thanks in advance.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Brownfist+November 06, 2007 07:17 am--> (Brownfist @ November 06, 2007 07:17 am)
Com. Red Heretic has basically asked the question that I think that is really important about this debate, especially in relation to the "culture of appreciation". Within the Maoist movement there has been a consistent debate about the "cult of personality" and its desirability. I do not think this is necessarily the best place to have that debate, but I do think the relevant debate is situated in whether "Avakian is a leader of the caliber of Marx, Lenin, or Mao". I would like to give an opportunity for the comrades who are supporters of the RCP and Bob Avakian to please elaborate upon this statement, and please do not simply answer "because of the new synthesis". If you believe that the new synthesis is really important for the overall development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, please explain why. So what is Avakian's real contributions. I mean numerous theorists have provided a series of important contributions to the debates and development of MLM like Louis Althusser, Alain Badiou etc. however, we do not argue that they are of the same "caliber" as Marx, Lenin or Mao.

On the Possibility of Revolution
Com. Red Heretic is right that this is an important editorial piece because it does suggest that there are numerous line differences with the RCP(Canada) for example, which till now have not been as clear. I do not want to comment on the article itself because I think that requires its own thread and discussion, however, I would like someone to clarify the role of the editor in the RCP newspaper. Does the editorial response in Revolution constitute the formal line of the party on this question? The reason I ask is because often, especially in earlier communist history, the editorials of the party newspaper did not reflect necessarily the views of the party or the CC of the party unless clearly stated otherwise. Thus, would it be fair to assume that this is indeed the line of the CC? I would like to have this clarified because any polemics on that question must be directed towards the right person. [/b]
I really appreciate your post Brownfist. I'm not an RCP member, so let's see if I can do this half the justice it deserves...

I think that the new synthesis represent a leap ahead in the science MLM, and that it concentrates very key things in how we are going to get to communism. For comrades who unfamiliar with the new synthesis, I would like to post a brief except from Avakian defining it:


Bob Avakian
I want to move on now—everything that’s been spoken to so far forms, in one aspect, a kind of a background for this—to speak more directly and fully to the question: What is the new synthesis?

The first point that needs to be made is that this is something that is dealing with real world contradictions—it’s not some idealist imaginings of what it would be nice to have a society be like. When we talk about a world we want to live in, it is not a utopian notion of inventing a society out of whole cloth and then trying to reimpose that on the world once again. But it is dealing with real-world contradictions, summing up the end of a stage (the first stage of socialist revolutions) 1 and what can be learned out of that stage, attempting to draw the lessons from that and dealing with real-world contradictions in aspects, important aspects, that are new. It is a synthesis that involves taking what was positive from previous experience, working through and discarding what was negative, recasting some of what was positive and bringing it forward in a new framework. So, again, it’s dealing with real-world contradictions—but in a new way.

I personally do not believe without the key points that are being made in the new synthesis, that we will be able to get to communism. If we just repeat previous socialist experiences without learning from them... repeating the way that intellectuals were treated, and parading intellectuals around with dunce caps on their heads... If we keep suppressing the viewpoints of reactionaries and not trying to learn from even them, repeating a lot of the dogmatism like what happened with Lysenko in the Soviet Union or the slogan that our Chinese comrades had that everything that is good for the proletariat is true... and if we keep repeating the exact same method through which leadership has been given... well, that isn't going to get us where we need to go. We're not going to get to communism that way, and we're not going to achieve the "four alls" that Marx talked about.

This is part of why I believe this call on the proletarians to become emancipators of all humanity is so important. It's why I think Avakian's theory of having a solid core leadership with all of this elasticity and things going in all kinds of different directions is so important, and that this theory is important both leading the revolutionary seizure of power, as well as playing a very important role in maintaining proletarian rule after the seizure of power. It's why I think that the break with a lot of the old epistemology and how you get at the truth... saying that "all truth is good for the proletariat and getting to communism" is so important, and proceeding from that point of view to allow reactionaries to publish books under socialism, while both criticizing them and trying to learn anything we can from them. I also think documents like "On the Possibility of Revolution" (which I posted earlier) that put forward a new revolutionary strategy based on carefully analyzing centuries of the experience of the International Communist Movement and the proletariat are extremely important (and by the way ShineThePath, I think that one of the theories that was encapsulated in Prachanda Path regarding changes in the oppressed countries and its implications for waging revolutionary war is wrangled with in this article if comrades study it carefully, see the first point under "Upholding Some Basic Principles").

This new synthesis is a huge break with a lot of what has been in the international communist movement... and I believe it is key to getting to communism.


Also, another question I have is that of Stalin because I know that there has been a series of debates about the role of Stalin in the development of MLM.

Well, I don't really have a whole lot of time to go into this before I go to class, but I would recommend comrades listen to this radio interview with Avakian that is one two questions... The first on "Isn't it dangerous to put so much into an individual leader?" and the second is an interview on the question of Stalin. Cormades can listen to this here:

http://bobavakian.net/sound/slate/BTS-01-25-05-48.mp3



On the Possibility of Revolution
Com. Red Heretic is right that this is an important editorial piece because it does suggest that there are numerous line differences with the RCP(Canada) for example, which till now have not been as clear. I do not want to comment on the article itself because I think that requires its own thread and discussion, however, I would like someone to clarify the role of the editor in the RCP newspaper. Does the editorial response in Revolution constitute the formal line of the party on this question? The reason I ask is because often, especially in earlier communist history, the editorials of the party newspaper did not reflect necessarily the views of the party or the CC of the party unless clearly stated otherwise. Thus, would it be fair to assume that this is indeed the line of the CC? I would like to have this clarified because any polemics on that question must be directed towards the right person.

I don't think the internet is a very good place to talk about this article, given the subject matter. However, I do just want to clarify two quick points...

1. I don't agree with your first point, the RCP's previous revolutionary strategy has been clear if comrades had read the Draft Programme or watched the DVD, Revolution. However, this is a break with a lot of that. It is a break with the particular strategy of "armed insurrection followed by people's war" and "The October Road" it had been putting forward, and it is putting forward something new.

2. Revolution Newspaper is the Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, not an eclectic mish-mash of ideas. I think comrades can feel pretty sure that anything published in it is the RCP's line.

[Red Heretic]

I have and continued to do so....You specifically, Red Heretic, I have challenged on a number of sites to maintain a consistent debate about this. But all of this flonders, for what really is true of what Avakian is supposedly "rupturing" from is the old hat line of Humanism. What is contributive is a synthesis, but has the secondary character of already explicating the current correctness of MLM. He isn't the 4th Flame.

I actually wasn't directing that comment about not engaging toward you. I was actually referring to some of the shit that was on the front page.


What I meant, and it is in the paragraph from which you quoted me, is that RCP never and WILL never have any leadership go public who have a line which is departing from the "rupture" of RCP.

*GASP!* YOU MEAN THAT THE RCP IS A DEMOCRATIC CENTRALIST ORGANIZATION?! Those fuckers!


There is no real "engagement" in the RCP or wrangling, it is merely a wrangling of what Bob Avakian has to say.

Again, you have no clue what the debates are internally within the RCP. Stop lying!



You will be surprised what "Left Trainspotters" know. But I don't know this on the basis or gossip...it is just a fact that RCP hasn't run a story on Nepal in over a year. There has been a whole wide circle of silence over the matter, and where other countries are developing "World People's Resistance Movement" groups to support the Nepalese, etc. RCP has done nothing. When was the last event they hosted for them? Why has there been nothing at least from Li Ornesto about Nepal?

Why hasn't Bob Avakian commented on Prachanda Path...that is a bit more befuddling, since Prachanda Path is saying it has certain Universality to it that is beyond the Nepalese context.

They told you why they aren't commenting yet! They are trying to fully understand the developments in Nepal first. Here:

"It was reported in the media that on November 21, formal agreements were signed in Nepal between Chairman Prachanda, the leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and Girija Prasad Koirala, the Prime Minister of the current government of Nepal.

According to the U.S. media, the background leading up to this has been a country beleaguered by “out of bounds” rebels. But, in fact, it is the old state in Nepal—including its army and the social conditions it has enforced on the people—that has been widely exposed to very broad masses of people in Nepal as an oppressive and illegitimate power. In opposition to this, the new people’s power in large parts of the countryside—brought into being by ten years of Maoist-led people’s war and a people’s army—has created important beginnings of something truly liberating. This, along with the huge struggle in April 2006, involving many class forces against the Nepalese monarchy, has brought events in Nepal to this current juncture, which now poses major questions about how to go forward from here.

We need to understand this current agreement more fully, and in particular the thinking of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). We do believe that revolution is what’s needed. In Nepal that means a new democratic revolution which is a step in a socialist revolution there, and part of a struggle toward the goal of communism worldwide. This requires a whole new state—a revolutionary state which gives backing to the masses of people in making deep changes, including in fundamental economic and social relations. The people’s war in Nepal set out ten years ago to do that, and it has now reached a very important crossroads. While the path to revolution is not straight, all major steps in any revolutionary process need to be understood and evaluated in relation to achieving these fundamental goals."


I will give it a look at...Take a look at the Massline.info site (http://www.massline.info/), I think it is something that should be studied "very, very thoroughly" as well.

I have already read all of this. I have found most of it to be a straw man arguement. Ask any of my roommates, the RCP constantly gets on my ass about how I don't practice mass line enough, that I'm not writing up what I learn from the people, that I'm not learning what the people are thinking, etc. etc. etc. To say that the RCP doesn't practice mass line just strikes me as silly...

[blackstone]

It is a synthesis that involves taking what was positive from previous experience, working through and discarding what was negative, recasting some of what was positive and bringing it forward in a new framework.

What's so groundbreaking about that? It seems pretty common sense to me.

"Out with the old, in with the new"

Or am i missing something? If so, feel free to correct me comrade.

[Red Heretic]

What's so groundbreaking about that? It seems pretty common sense to me.

"Out with the old, in with the new"

Or am i missing something? If so, feel free to correct me comrade.

Well that is the whole thing... it is a new synthesis that goes well beyond anything else that we have had before, and is trying to speak to key political questions of how we are going to get to communism.... that in itself is groundbreaking.

I mean... you could say the same thing about Mao. What's so groundbreaking about Mao's new theories like protracted people's war and cultural revolution? They're "just new theories." At the same time... we need those to get to communism.

[ShineThePath]

Red Heretic, I tire of responding to a defensive manic. I suggest you approach this debate in a tone that is meaningful and actually deal with the things I say. Rather than bold facing "YOU LIAR" .


I actually wasn't directing that comment about not engaging toward you. I was actually referring to some of the shit that was on the front page.

But all such jokes and attacks on the RCP are based on the reality that RCP DOES promote a Cult of Personality. They actively promote personality in order to polarize politics, so quite frankly, how do you think masses should respond to this? I hardly see any progress in this "Engage! Project" to do exactly this. It is far more creepy to people than anything.


*GASP!* YOU MEAN THAT THE RCP IS A DEMOCRATIC CENTRALIST ORGANIZATION?! Those fuckers!

Umm...Line struggle in Parties and debates within have a character of some level of security. However lets look at other Maoist parties, debates on line have a public character as well of engagement. This was happening with the CPN (M), it also is taking place with the CPI (M), this line engagement had very open phases in the Philippines.

Historically, Bolsheviks and CPC always had such discourses come out to the public for discussion. Lenin's disagreements with Trotsky or Zinoviev, Mao battling the dogmatism of Wang Ming.

The excuse of "Democratic Centralism" is really an excuse for no honest 'wrangling' or debate. No development of leadership to become the "caliber" of Bob Avakian.



Again, you have no clue what the debates are internally within the RCP. Stop lying!

Again, you have no clue what the debates are internally within the RCP. Stop lying!

I am not sure why you become so defensive about such statement. What I speak about is the public display of the Party, I am making no insight into what is happening in the Central Committee...though I am suspecting a lot...What I am damn referring to is the public.

On another level, Red Heretic, you know little to nothing of what is happening outside your locality it seems...it seems to you, all these former YBers' are just "liars." Long time YBers' like me and Andrea are conspiring I guess...


They told you why they aren't commenting yet! They are trying to fully understand the developments in Nepal first.

Yes I remember this when it came out, and for over a year and half, silence....how long do the developments of revolution in the world can't be spoken about? Literally silence.

Once again, there hasn't even been news in Revolution about developments in Nepal. If you went to that paper to learn solely about what is happening in Nepal, you'd be clueless...some Internationalism, "we remain silent until we can pronounce you revolutionary or revisionist." How is that "wranling" over the Truth, how is that not being Instrumentalist?

It is a cynical pragmatism toward our revolutionary Comrades.


I have already read all of this. I have found most of it to be a straw man arguement. Ask any of my roommates, the RCP constantly gets on my ass about how I don't practice mass line enough, that I'm not writing up what I learn from the people, that I'm not learning what the people are thinking, etc. etc. etc. To say that the RCP doesn't practice mass line just strikes me as silly...

What is quite silly and absurd that RCP considers selling memoirs and paper pushing as the sole focus of Mass Line. Where is the summation process in the RCYB for example? It surely is not happening amongst us. Where is the work amongst the masses in their struggles to raise consciousness to that of a Revolutionary Communist one? I don't see it...and I'd like to to believe you Red Heretic, I doubt very much your little local YB is any different from the ones that I have known and heard from others.

The Mass Line is a process of engagement with the masses in their concrete realities, taking their scattered Ideas and synthesizing with the lense of Revolutionary Communism, and then summing up the practices that come from the synthetic line in practice.

[ShineThePath]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 06, 2007 05:34 pm

What's so groundbreaking about that? It seems pretty common sense to me.

"Out with the old, in with the new"

Or am i missing something? If so, feel free to correct me comrade.

Well that is the whole thing... it is a new synthesis that goes well beyond anything else that we have had before, and is trying to speak to key political questions of how we are going to get to communism.... that in itself is groundbreaking.

I mean... you could say the same thing about Mao. What's so groundbreaking about Mao's new theories like protracted people's war and cultural revolution? They're "just new theories." At the same time... we need those to get to communism.
No you can't actually, there is something definitive about the theory of Protracted People's War that seperates it out from other developments in Marxism. However if this is what you think is the ground breaking stuff of Mao Zedong, then you are sadly needing a bit more study.

Mao's main contributions to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism have largely to do with the methodology of leadership, how the masses are brought forward to making Revolution.

How the Bourgeois class comes through the Party because the relations to production take on a new form that Bourgeoise Right gives rise to.

A Break with mechanical Marxism which put forward the development of the means of production as primary and instrumentalized the people as cogs which must realize their natural class consciousness. Mao Zedong piloted foward by putting forward that "politics in command" must lead the development of Socialism. What is primary in Socialism is still the Class Struggle.

What we must do to hold down the Bourgeoisie in this context.

Further, the developments of Mao Zedong, or what is known as "Maoism" is a collective synthesis of revolutionaries in China. Mao Zedong definately was its leader and main contributor to these ground break developments. We have to also speak in another breath of Zhang Chunchiao, Yen Waoyuan, Jiang Qing, and others.

Same with Marx, who at the time must be understood in relation to Engels, Hegel, Dietzgin, etc. Or Lenin with his relation to Plekhanov and his rupture from him, his debates in the ICM.

Instead of telling people that Avakian is on the same level or Mao or Lenin, demonstrate it. You have only in part.

I would also add the works of hundreds of others that have contributed in their ways to the hundred of flowers blooming, that we should be able to understand.

[Brownfist]

Comrade Red Heretic I would like to press you on two points:



(Bob Avakian)
I want to move on now—everything that’s been spoken to so far forms, in one aspect, a kind of a background for this—to speak more directly and fully to the question: What is the new synthesis?

The first point that needs to be made is that this is something that is dealing with real world contradictions—it’s not some idealist imaginings of what it would be nice to have a society be like. When we talk about a world we want to live in, it is not a utopian notion of inventing a society out of whole cloth and then trying to reimpose that on the world once again. But it is dealing with real-world contradictions, summing up the end of a stage (the first stage of socialist revolutions) 1 and what can be learned out of that stage, attempting to draw the lessons from that and dealing with real-world contradictions in aspects, important aspects, that are new. It is a synthesis that involves taking what was positive from previous experience, working through and discarding what was negative, recasting some of what was positive and bringing it forward in a new framework. So, again, it’s dealing with real-world contradictions—but in a new way.


I personally do not believe without the key points that are being made in the new synthesis, that we will be able to get to communism. If we just repeat previous socialist experiences without learning from them... repeating the way that intellectuals were treated, and parading intellectuals around with dunce caps on their heads... If we keep suppressing the viewpoints of reactionaries and not trying to learn from even them, repeating a lot of the dogmatism like what happened with Lysenko in the Soviet Union or the slogan that our Chinese comrades had that everything that is good for the proletariat is true... and if we keep repeating the exact same method through which leadership has been given... well, that isn't going to get us where we need to go. We're not going to get to communism that way, and we're not going to achieve the "four alls" that Marx talked about.

This is part of why I believe this call on the proletarians to become emancipators of all humanity is so important. It's why I think Avakian's theory of having a solid core leadership with all of this elasticity and things going in all kinds of different directions is so important, and that this theory is important both leading the revolutionary seizure of power, as well as playing a very important role in maintaining proletarian rule after the seizure of power. It's why I think that the break with a lot of the old epistemology and how you get at the truth... saying that "all truth is good for the proletariat and getting to communism" is so important, and proceeding from that point of view to allow reactionaries to publish books under socialism, while both criticizing them and trying to learn anything we can from them. I also think documents like "On the Possibility of Revolution" (which I posted earlier) that put forward a new revolutionary strategy based on carefully analyzing centuries of the experience of the International Communist Movement and the proletariat are extremely important (and by the way ShineThePath, I think that one of the theories that was encapsulated in Prachanda Path regarding changes in the oppressed countries and its implications for waging revolutionary war is wrangled with in this article if comrades study it carefully, see the first point under "Upholding Some Basic Principles").

This new synthesis is a huge break with a lot of what has been in the international communist movement... and I believe it is key to getting to communism.

Com. Red Heretic I would like to give you a further opportunity to explain the new synthesis because perhaps you misunderstood the question I asked or did not have adequate time to answer the question to the best of your ability (which unfortunately is the danger of the internet model). But, I would like to say that what you have described does not seem to be a "new synthesis", but rather seems to be a rehashed Kojevian Hegelianism and does not seem to provide anything in the way of being new, but rather just seeks to reaffirm the tradition that has been party of Communism for the last 100 years. Indeed, unfortunately it seems so old that it continues to make most of the mistakes of Kojevian Hegelianism. Please, explain what you have described is a break from earlier dialectical epistemologies that have been employed in the movement, and why this warrants Avakian being on the same level as Marx, Lenin and Mao.




What I meant, and it is in the paragraph from which you quoted me, is that RCP never and WILL never have any leadership go public who have a line which is departing from the "rupture" of RCP.


*GASP!* YOU MEAN THAT THE RCP IS A DEMOCRATIC CENTRALIST ORGANIZATION?! Those fuckers!

I would like to better understand what you mean by democratic centralism. This is because I think that this is a very specific kind of democratic centralism that was not that which actually was employed in our movement till the death of Lenin. I mean there is a lot of evidence that polemics between key members of the CCCP were publicly published in which members of the party and the working class generally were allowed to read. Indeed, the minutes from the 2nd congress from the Comintern and the Congress of Baku (which were taken by Stenographers) were publicly available for people to read, and there seems to have been a vivid debate about line and practice inside and outside the party, and between members of the party and fellow travelers. Perhaps, you could explain what you think democratic centralism is and whether the current model is actually more desirable than the model that was originally employed.

[ShineThePath]

Originally posted by Red Heretic to Brownfist
I personally do not believe without the key points that are being made in the new synthesis, that we will be able to get to communism. If we just repeat previous socialist experiences without learning from them... repeating the way that intellectuals were treated, and parading intellectuals around with dunce caps on their heads... If we keep suppressing the viewpoints of reactionaries and not trying to learn from even them, repeating a lot of the dogmatism like what happened with Lysenko in the Soviet Union or the slogan that our Chinese comrades had that everything that is good for the proletariat is true... and if we keep repeating the exact same method through which leadership has been given... well, that isn't going to get us where we need to go. We're not going to get to communism that way, and we're not going to achieve the "four alls" that Marx talked about.

What really is hard about this is what is being provided by Red Heretic as "theoretical ruptures" on the level of a Lenin or Mao to the theory of Marxism are not in their essence theoretical at all. There is nothing here that is departing or givign critique to the Theory of either the Bolsheviks or Maoists. Criticizing certain events retrospectively and saying we have to do better isn't a rupture if it is not connected and rooted to a new methodology, it is nothing. Now Bob Avakian is saying he has a new methodology embodied in his "epistemological break;" however I can find nothing here that is not in its essence an already told by us by those who take up corresspondence theory. That is Truth corressponds to the Objective world in some way or form...what is quite telling to me is, this is just an uninteresting assertion. The question is what is the relation of us toward Truth and the world, which is the Dialectical Materialist view of the world in contrast to the vulgar materialist. This is to me more interesting, and just stipulating Truth is the World is saying nothing.

So this methodology of Avakian's embodied in his talk on Epistemology is itself not a break in any sense, so his criticisms stem from his own concerns of revolution, the fact Lysenko was promoted was a failure of the scientific outlook Marxists have always promoted...Avakian, if he is criticizing from an already known conception of Truth by Marxism, is making the immanent criticism.

I would like to hear from Red Heretic, what he thinks about this so-called "Epistemological Break." Specifically, I want to hear nothing of its speculative implications that have been made by himself and other RCP supporters, rather I am concerned of its obvious implications on our relation of truth to the world. Epistemology is quite frankly a question of Truth and this relation, and the way in which RCP uses this novel new term in their circles seems a matter of instrumentality than anything else.


This is part of why I believe this call on the proletarians to become emancipators of all humanity is so important. It's why I think Avakian's theory of having a solid core leadership with all of this elasticity and things going in all kinds of different directions is so important, and that this theory is important both leading the revolutionary seizure of power, as well as playing a very important role in maintaining proletarian rule after the seizure of power. It's why I think that the break with a lot of the old epistemology and how you get at the truth... saying that "all truth is good for the proletariat and getting to communism" is so important, and proceeding from that point of view to allow reactionaries to publish books under socialism, while both criticizing them and trying to learn anything we can from them. I also think documents like "On the Possibility of Revolution" (which I posted earlier) that put forward a new revolutionary strategy based on carefully analyzing centuries of the experience of the International Communist Movement and the proletariat are extremely important (and by the way ShineThePath, I think that one of the theories that was encapsulated in Prachanda Path regarding changes in the oppressed countries and its implications for waging revolutionary war is wrangled with in this article if comrades study it carefully, see the first point under "Upholding Some Basic Principles").

This is largely just mostly incoherent philosophically, this would make a Polus proud in its round about way of speak about the subject. Lets look critically at some assertions here.

First, are the Proletariat the "emancipators" of all Humanity? If we are speaking of oppressive relations in the sense of the 4 alls, then it must be said yes. The aim of Communism is to eliminate such relations of Capital and to turn the power relations differently. However this idea that some how that this has not been a part of our tradition is simply incorrect, and wrong. It is assuming that all oppressive relations were understood by Communists and merely tossed them aside for a "workerist" conception of the world. I don't believe this to be the case, Communists and other revolutionaries struggling for over centuries have discovered new relations of oppression, and such relations were never always fully understood, but brave comrades did their best scientifically show such relations are based on the exploitive relations of Capital and its symptom of Ideology. Let us not forget, RCP has just recently changed its offical position on the question of Homosexuality, which at first it understood as a degenerate Bourgeois phenomena...and at this, most of modern science agreed until two decades ago (perhaps showing that "Truth" shouldn't be followed as a scientism). However the development and understandings that were made showed, at the very at least amongst Revolutionaries, that such a position was rooted in the patriarchial old relations...a remainder of Ideology from backward institutions and more modern ones such as the Military. In the psychological sciences, it was only pure pressure from oppressed peoples in the Queer community that set science straight.


saying that "all truth is good for the proletariat and getting to communism" is so important

This particularly a very, paradoxically, an instrumentalist way of understanding truth. What you are saying in one breath is that Truth is for-itself, it is in itself and has a pure form, objective without the need of our relation. But then how is it possible that "all truth is good for the proletariat," this is giving it a use-value. Further, why is Truth not good for the Bourgeoisie?

What is being demonstrated here is the real fact that instrumentality is part of the politics in action, that is, it is a part of our Praxis.

Lets put it another way...the Reality of a thing isn't necessarily what is True. That is Truth Value of propositions have the circularity of relying on, once again, us to reflect the material world. Truth is in its very nature, instrumental, to subject. A Subject desires to know the world, it knows it fully, but always through the subject.
What can be said is I am no pure objective observer. I am a militant revolutionary subject, I exist in the world, my consciousness is a material of this world and it is in it, it is real. It is not just a mirror or tabla rasa...neither am I God.

BUT this is all the more important, the only way to come to a scientific rigor of Truth, of knowing the world, is through a pure Partisan position of the Dialectical Materialist.


I also think documents like "On the Possibility of Revolution" (which I posted earlier) that put forward a new revolutionary strategy based on carefully analyzing centuries of the experience of the International Communist Movement and the proletariat are extremely important (and by the way ShineThePath, I think that one of the theories that was encapsulated in Prachanda Path regarding changes in the oppressed countries and its implications for waging revolutionary war is wrangled with in this article if comrades study it carefully, see the first point under "Upholding Some Basic Principles")

I think Red Heretic, you need to study more what CPN (M) is claiming universal of their approach before you begin to say that article is addressing it. I have read that article, and while I like a lot coming out of it, I see nothing there is addressing what is substantive from the CPN (M). Red Heretic, you should try to read Basanta's article on the International Dimensions of Prachanda Path (http://nepal.singlespark.org/?id=worker10gg) and Bhattari's Epochal Ten Years (http://nepal.singlespark.org/?id=worker10AA)


This new synthesis is a huge break with a lot of what has been in the international communist movement... and I believe it is key to getting to communism.

Is there now an Avakian Thought?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by ShineThePath+November 06, 2007 06:24 pm--> (ShineThePath @ November 06, 2007 06:24 pm) Red Heretic, I tire of responding to a defensive manic. I suggest you approach this debate in a tone that is meaningful and actually deal with the things I say. Rather than bold facing "YOU LIAR" .



Again, you have no clue what the debates are internally within the RCP. Stop lying!

Again, you have no clue what the debates are internally within the RCP. Stop lying!
[/b]
STP, I never called you a liar. I don't engage in personal attacks. I asked you to stop lying. I felt that you were being dishonest. I don't call you names, please don't call me names.



I actually wasn't directing that comment about not engaging toward you. I was actually referring to some of the shit that was on the front page.

But all such jokes and attacks on the RCP are based on the reality that RCP DOES promote a Cult of Personality. They actively promote personality in order to polarize politics, so quite frankly, how do you think masses should respond to this? I hardly see any progress in this "Engage! Project" to do exactly this. It is far more creepy to people than anything.

No, they are not based on reality. This is a dishonest straw man arguement. The RCP does not have "altars" or dogmatic cult worship of Avakian. It promotes Avakian in a materialist way according to what it believes to be objectively true about the importance of the need to both project and defend Avakian. This is worlds apart from religious worship of a person. If people do do shit like that, they should be called out, because that goes directly up against the RCP's line, and it does much more harm to both Avakian's leadership and the RCP than good.


The excuse of "Democratic Centralism" is really an excuse for no honest 'wrangling' or debate. No development of leadership to become the "caliber" of Bob Avakian.

It has nothing to do with that! Whether or not you have access to the information regarding the internal struggles within the RCP has nothing at all to do with whether or not there is broad, lively debate and wrangling internally within the RCP, and wrangling about all of these questions.


Once again, there hasn't even been news in Revolution about developments in Nepal. If you went to that paper to learn solely about what is happening in Nepal, you'd be clueless...some Internationalism, "we remain silent until we can pronounce you revolutionary or revisionist." How is that "wranling" over the Truth, how is that not being Instrumentalist?

It is a cynical pragmatism toward our revolutionary Comrades.

How can a political party write about something if it has not developed an actual ideological line on it? I think you are missing the whole points of Revolution Newspaper. Revolution is not just some bourgeois news service where here about some different things that are going on. The point of this newspaper is to be the "hub and pivot of the revolutionary movement."


What is quite silly and absurd that RCP considers selling memoirs and paper pushing as the sole focus of Mass Line.

That isn't at all what the RCP thinks. The RCP tries to go out to the masses of people and to learn from them, and to concentrate their ideas...

From the RCP draft programme:


Originally posted by RCP Draft [email protected]
The mass line is the method through which the party both learns from and leads the masses. To apply the mass line means to seek out and learn from the ideas of the masses and to apply the science of Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism to concentrate what is correct in these ideas, distilling and synthesizing them into a more all-sided and correct reflection of reality and what must be done to change it. The party then takes this back to the masses in the form of line and policies, works to win the people to take these up, and unites with the masses to carry them out...summing up the results and then repeating the process.

The mass line is an ongoing process which links theory with practice and the vanguard with the masses in an ever-deepen*ing way—all in the service of the masses’ fundamental revolutionary interests.


ShineThePath
I'd like to to believe you Red Heretic, I doubt very much your little local YB is any different from the ones that I have known and heard from others.

I do not work with the RCYB. I am a part of something else that is very different.



The Mass Line is a process of engagement with the masses in their concrete realities, taking their scattered Ideas and synthesizing with the lense of Revolutionary Communism, and then summing up the practices that come from the synthetic line in practice.

That is true! And it's exactly what the RCP does.

[black magick hustla]

Dudes.

I will just be brief here. Regardless of the whole "marxist justification" or whatever behind the "culture of appreaciation" shit, it creeps out normal americans. Its unhealthy, it scares people away.

This is why you get so much shit thrown at you from people at revleft.

If you want to grow you have to drop that avakian shit. It makes people not take you seriously when you have in your website in big font letters "Our leader is Bob avakian!". It doesnt polarizes anyone it creeps people away, period.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:51 pm
Com. Red Heretic I would like to give you a further opportunity to explain the new synthesis because perhaps you misunderstood the question I asked or did not have adequate time to answer the question to the best of your ability (which unfortunately is the danger of the internet model). But, I would like to say that what you have described does not seem to be a "new synthesis", but rather seems to be a rehashed Kojevian Hegelianism and does not seem to provide anything in the way of being new, but rather just seeks to reaffirm the tradition that has been party of Communism for the last 100 years. Indeed, unfortunately it seems so old that it continues to make most of the mistakes of Kojevian Hegelianism. Please, explain what you have described is a break from earlier dialectical epistemologies that have been employed in the movement, and why this warrants Avakian being on the same level as Marx, Lenin and Mao.
Hmmm, perhaps my response did not fully delve into some of these questions. I tried to very briefly just touch on some of the different concepts that are a part of the new synthesis, and did not really elaborate on them enough. It's las if someone asked you, what were Mao's contributions? You could write 10 textbooks based on that single sentence alone.

I really don't have time to write a textbook here, but I would like to say that what Avakian is bringing forward directly goes up against the approach to epistemology that has existed in previous socialist societies. Avakian is saying that we should actively encourage dissent, and that we should try to learn even from reactionaries. He is saying that we should actually devote some of the resources of the socialist state to printing the books of reactionaries, so that we can try to learn from some of these people. That has never existed before! The vision of a new kind of socialist state with real contested elections and things going in all kinds of different directions to the point where it looks like the party is literally going to be ripped apart before everything comes back together again... with the part holding on to all of this elasticity and playing a solid core role... is something very different. It's a radically different approach to the socialist state. This formulation of the proletariat as "the emancipators of humanity" is a little bit of a different formulation than what has existed before as well...

In light of this, I want to post several articles that explain these things far better than I would ever be able to do here, and to briefly touch on why each article is important:

1. Views on Socialism and Communism: A Radically New Kind of State, A Radically Different and Far Greater Vision of Freedom (http://rwor.org/avakian/Avakianviewson.html). This is a very key piece. It delves into Avakian's theory of "a solid core with a lot of elasticity" in the relation to the socialist state, among other things...

2. Reader Criticizes Revoluton Article on Elections (http://rwor.org/a/096/elections-criticism-en.html) and The Editors Respond (http://rwor.org/a/096/elections-reply-en.html) This important correspondence to Revolution Newspaper and the self-criticism from the Revolution editors contrasts the new synthesis in relation to elections with what has existed in the past...

3. Bob Avakian in a Discussion with Comrades on Epistemology - On Knowing and Changing the World (http://rwor.org/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm) This was a key piece on the epistemology that Avakian is bringing forward...


I would like to better understand what you mean by democratic centralism. This is because I think that this is a very specific kind of democratic centralism that was not that which actually was employed in our movement till the death of Lenin. I mean there is a lot of evidence that polemics between key members of the CCCP were publicly published in which members of the party and the working class generally were allowed to read. Indeed, the minutes from the 2nd congress from the Comintern and the Congress of Baku (which were taken by Stenographers) were publicly available for people to read, and there seems to have been a vivid debate about line and practice inside and outside the party, and between members of the party and fellow travelers. Perhaps, you could explain what you think democratic centralism is and whether the current model is actually more desirable than the model that was originally employed.

I don't know much about the historical examples you are mentioning. Were these debates published in the midst of these sharp inner-party debates? The RCP's line can be found in the points of discipline:


Points of Discipline for Party Members

1. Don’t use drugs or get drunk or function in an altered state of consciousness.

2. Do not steal anything from the masses, not even a needle or a piece of thread; return everything you borrow.

3. Don’t raise money for yourself in the name of the Party; turn in all money raised to support the organization.

4. Women are the equals of men in every respect. They should be treated as comrades in the revolutionary struggle, not as property or prizes. Such things as physically or verbally abusing women or treating women (or any human being) as sexual objects are completely opposed to everything we stand for.

5. We are proletarian internationalists. We should promote respect for the cultures and languages of oppressed peoples and equality among all nationalities. Don’t insult or ridicule other people’s race or nationality, not even in jokes.

6. Don’t use your position as a political leader among the masses for personal gain, financially, to take sexual advantage, etc.

7. Don’t attempt to get people to support or join the Party by threatening them. Party members must use the method of persuasion and education among the masses.

8. Our methods of struggle must be consistent with our principles and objectives and proceed from an analysis of who are our friends and who are our enemy—for example, don’t poster or graffiti the businesses or homes of small property owners without their agreement. Middle-class people are potential allies of the proletariat, and our ability to win large numbers of them to at least “friendly neutrality” is crucial for the success of the revolution. Only the bourgeoisie and die-hard accomplices of the bourgeoisie should be treated* as enemies.

9. Don’t settle arguments, disputes, or contradictions in the Party or among the masses through fistfights or other violent means. Contradictions among the people should be solved through the methods of discussion and persuasion.

10. Don’t remain silent at meetings and then gossip afterwards. Say all you know and say it without holding back anything.

11. Don’t let things slide when a person has clearly made an error, for the sake of remaining on friendly terms with that person. Party members must at all times fight for what is correct, wage principled line struggle and not fear criticism and self-criticism.

12. Don’t engage in personal attacks, pick fights, curse people or seek revenge because you have been criticized.

13. Don’t use leadership positions to suppress criticism or to retaliate; don’t use your position of leadership to lord it over others or to act like a “bigshot.”

14. Don’t discuss inner-Party struggle or business outside the Party.

15. Practice criticism and self-criticism.

To my knowledge, this isn't any different from the ideological lines that have existed historically. It's also no different than what the Nepalese comrades have either, to my knowledge. I think that perhaps while some of these things you are mentioning may have occurred... that was not necessarily the actual line of the various different parties historically.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:09 am
Dudes.

I will just be brief here. Regardless of the whole "marxist justification" or whatever behind the "culture of appreaciation" shit, it creeps out normal americans. Its unhealthy, it scares people away.

This is why you get so much shit thrown at you from people at revleft.

If you want to grow you have to drop that avakian shit. It makes people not take you seriously when you have in your website in big font letters "Our leader is Bob avakian!". It doesnt polarizes anyone it creeps people away, period.
While white middle class youth on revleft might "throw shit" at people for promoting Avakian's leadership, that isn't what I've gotten from Black proletarians in the projects. Do proletarians get "creeped out" by the promotion of leaders, or have they had great love for their leaders? Were they ashamed of Malcolm X? of Huey Newton?

I think you are ignoring the main question Marmot. Is what the RCP saying about Avakian true, or is it not true?

[RNK]

Actually, I'd disagree with you Marmot -- the majority of Americans are sublime and used to such glorification of single leaders (one of the reasons, I've heard, the RCP has pushed it so much). It's the majority of the activist community who are creeped out by it, and probably rightly so.


Do proletarians get "creeped out" by the promotion of leaders, or have they had great love for their leaders? Were they ashamed of Malcolm X? of Huey Newton?

There's a difference. The majority of the "Culture of appreciation" around these figures occured only after their death or incarceration, where the masses spontaneously rose up to support them. The appreciation of these figures was not so engineered as it is for Chairman Avakian.

To use a synonym, the love for Malcom X, Huey Newton, and other figures such as Che, Marcos, Lenin, etc, came from the bottom up; it seems the love for Avakian is created (and I dare say enforced) from the top down.

[Brownfist]

Com. Red Heretic,
I would say that the 2nd Congress of the Comintern was probably one of the most important conferences that has ever been held in the Marxist tradition. And the minutes to that Congress which was held in 1920, appeared in publication by the Publishing House of the Communist International in 1921! In this conference fundamentally important debates took place, within the context of a world that was completely hostile and dangerous for the USSR, including: Discussion on the role of the Communist Party in the proletarian revolution; Report on National and Colonial Question (including on the Black Nation thesis), the requirements for admission into the Comintern etc. I mean these are the fundamental debates and underlying documents of our revolutionary movement and have helped shape our history. These minutes were available after a year!

Lets even go further back. The fundamental debates between Lenin, Luxemburg etc prior to the revolution were openly available to everyone. This means fundamentally important debates around imperialism, the correct method for revolution, party structure etc. Someone could have argued that those debates should occur behind shadowy doors, but there was a notion of freedom in that movement which demanded that the working class participate in the debates about policy, line and ideology. This is the very tradition that either: 1) you are dismissing as not having happened; 2) are saying happened but is no longer necessary/desirable in our current situation.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:34 am
Com. Red Heretic,
I would say that the 2nd Congress of the Comintern was probably one of the most important conferences that has ever been held in the Marxist tradition. And the minutes to that Congress which was held in 1920, appeared in publication by the Publishing House of the Communist International in 1921! In this conference fundamentally important debates took place, within the context of a world that was completely hostile and dangerous for the USSR, including: Discussion on the role of the Communist Party in the proletarian revolution; Report on National and Colonial Question (including on the Black Nation thesis), the requirements for admission into the Comintern etc. I mean these are the fundamental debates and underlying documents of our revolutionary movement and have helped shape our history. These minutes were available after a year!
That's interesting... but those aren't actual internal party debates. I suspect that perhaps it is a little big different with the comintern...

[RGacky3]

While white middle class youth on revleft might "throw shit" at people for promoting Avakian's leadership, that isn't what I've gotten from Black proletarians in the projects. Do proletarians get "creeped out" by the promotion of leaders, or have they had great love for their leaders? Were they ashamed of Malcolm X? of Huey Newton?

I think you are ignoring the main question Marmot. Is what the RCP saying about Avakian true, or is it not true?

Black OR White OR Brown Proletarians have different attitudes towards leaders, the same way White OR Black OR Brown middle class youth do, your making insane generalizatoins.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:53 pm

While white middle class youth on revleft might "throw shit" at people for promoting Avakian's leadership, that isn't what I've gotten from Black proletarians in the projects. Do proletarians get "creeped out" by the promotion of leaders, or have they had great love for their leaders? Were they ashamed of Malcolm X? of Huey Newton?

I think you are ignoring the main question Marmot. Is what the RCP saying about Avakian true, or is it not true?

Black OR White OR Brown Proletarians have different attitudes towards leaders, the same way White OR Black OR Brown middle class youth do, your making insane generalizatoins.
Are you saying there is not institutionalized white privilege and oppression of blacks in the united states?

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by SovietPants+November 07, 2007 07:07 pm--> (SovietPants @ November 07, 2007 07:07 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 10:53 pm

While white middle class youth on revleft might "throw shit" at people for promoting Avakian's leadership, that isn't what I've gotten from Black proletarians in the projects. Do proletarians get "creeped out" by the promotion of leaders, or have they had great love for their leaders? Were they ashamed of Malcolm X? of Huey Newton?

I think you are ignoring the main question Marmot. Is what the RCP saying about Avakian true, or is it not true?

Black OR White OR Brown Proletarians have different attitudes towards leaders, the same way White OR Black OR Brown middle class youth do, your making insane generalizatoins.
Are you saying there is not institutionalized white privilege and oppression of blacks in the united states? [/b]
It is ridiculous and racist to say that all white middle class people think one way, while all black proletarians think the opposite.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+November 07, 2007 05:45 am--> (Red Heretic @ November 07, 2007 05:45 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:09 am
Dudes.

I will just be brief here. Regardless of the whole "marxist justification" or whatever behind the "culture of appreaciation" shit, it creeps out normal americans. Its unhealthy, it scares people away.

This is why you get so much shit thrown at you from people at revleft.

If you want to grow you have to drop that avakian shit. It makes people not take you seriously when you have in your website in big font letters "Our leader is Bob avakian!". It doesnt polarizes anyone it creeps people away, period.
While white middle class youth on revleft might "throw shit" at people for promoting Avakian's leadership, that isn't what I've gotten from Black proletarians in the projects. Do proletarians get "creeped out" by the promotion of leaders, or have they had great love for their leaders? Were they ashamed of Malcolm X? of Huey Newton?

I think you are ignoring the main question Marmot. Is what the RCP saying about Avakian true, or is it not true? [/b]
Too bad I am not "white middle class youth" lol.

Too be frank, I have listened to soime of Avakian's speeches and he has a lot of good stuff to say. However, "having the correct line" doesnt implies "personality cult"

[Overman]

The RCP in my opinion has the most coherent and consistent arguments for Communism among all other radical leftwing groups operating in North America which really isn't saying much since Communism is never realizeable given the present form of humanity.

Blaming the failure of achieving a Communist society or the ills of present society is sort of like blaming Hitler for his supporters putting him in power. Who's really powerful? A lone madman or the hysterical, cheering, unthinking crowd that put him in a position to exercise total power?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Everyday Anarchy+November 08, 2007 01:21 am--> (Everyday Anarchy @ November 08, 2007 01:21 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:07 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 10:53 pm

While white middle class youth on revleft might "throw shit" at people for promoting Avakian's leadership, that isn't what I've gotten from Black proletarians in the projects. Do proletarians get "creeped out" by the promotion of leaders, or have they had great love for their leaders? Were they ashamed of Malcolm X? of Huey Newton?

I think you are ignoring the main question Marmot. Is what the RCP saying about Avakian true, or is it not true?

Black OR White OR Brown Proletarians have different attitudes towards leaders, the same way White OR Black OR Brown middle class youth do, your making insane generalizatoins.
Are you saying there is not institutionalized white privilege and oppression of blacks in the united states?
It is ridiculous and racist to say that all white middle class people think one way, while all black proletarians think the opposite. [/b]
Do you disagree that "being determines consciousness"?

Why is the proletariat a special class? Is it because it is "wrong" to exploit and we need to end that by creating some sort of "worker's republic"? Or is it because the proletariat is the class with nothing to lose but its chains and is the only class in history capable of abolishing class society as a whole and being the liberators of humanity?

Obviously there are ideological and material divisions within the proletariat and among the middle classes themselves, but that does not mean fundamentally that there are not very important differences between the proletariat and the middle classes.

Yes, the middle classes can be allies of the proletariat, and yes, they play a large role in the revolutionary transformation of society. But communist revolution, by its nature, must have a proletarian character and be firmly rooted in the proletariat.

It is idealist and fucked up to say that this system doesn't structurally privilege white people and oppress black people. To not acknowledge the fact that black people are an oppressed nation in the United States is to ignore material reality.

[blackstone]

Comrade SovietPants, I do not believe that was the issue the comrade was addressing.

[RGacky3]

Sovietpants just did in his last post what almost all Vanguardists to extreamly extreamly well. Take a common sense issue that can be talked about in simple concrete terms, and write about 3 paragraphs of abstract ideological hogwash that completely ignores the common sense issue I was talking about to begin with.

All I, and other comrades were saying, is you can't make stupid huge generalizations.

[Marsella]

1. Don’t use drugs or get drunk or function in an altered state of consciousness.

That is so puritan all I can do is :lol:

Is this a Christian Party or a Communist Party?

But drugs or alcohol does not raise one's theoretical level!

*Terrors!*

I remember someone telling me that in Seattle the RCP forbade its members from associating with the degenerate anarchists! :lol:

It might be false but it would certainly coincide with the above.


2. Do not steal anything from the masses, not even a needle or a piece of thread; return everything you borrow.

I've also read such in the 10 Commandments!

But then again I would consider it thievery if I bought one of their papers. :(


3. Don’t raise money for yourself in the name of the Party; turn in all money raised to support the organization.

This is a business after all people!


4. Women are the equals of men in every respect. They should be treated as comrades in the revolutionary struggle, not as property or prizes. Such things as physically or verbally abusing women or treating women (or any human being) as sexual objects are completely opposed to everything we stand for.

Agree.


5. We are proletarian internationalists. We should promote respect for the cultures and languages of oppressed peoples and equality among all nationalities. Don’t insult or ridicule other people’s race or nationality, not even in jokes.

Agree.


6. Don’t use your position as a political leader among the masses for personal gain, financially, to take sexual advantage, etc.

A whiny 17 year old is not a political leader 'amongst the masses.'

Any sexual matters between a member of a party and someone outside the party is purely of their concern only.

And who would want to get 'intimate' with an RCP member?

*shudders*


7. Don’t attempt to get people to support or join the Party by threatening them. Party members must use the method of persuasion and education among the masses.

'Get the fuck in me party or I'll break your neck!' :lol:


8. Our methods of struggle must be consistent with our principles and objectives and proceed from an analysis of who are our friends and who are our enemy—for example, don’t poster or graffiti the businesses or homes of small property owners without their agreement. Middle-class people are potential allies of the proletariat, and our ability to win large numbers of them to at least “friendly neutrality” is crucial for the success of the revolution. Only the bourgeoisie and die-hard accomplices of the bourgeoisie should be treated* as enemies.

Small business owners are our potential allies?

If they ever criticise the bourgeoisie it is for their own interest, to decrease the completion which is swamping the markets and decreasing their profits.

Such competition may make them fall into the class of the proletariat but then they are not petty-bourgeoisie.

They are never allies of the proletariat.


9. Don’t settle arguments, disputes, or contradictions in the Party or among the masses through fistfights or other violent means. Contradictions among the people should be solved through the methods of discussion and persuasion.

Contradictions? It sounds like mystical dialectic talk. :(


10. Don’t remain silent at meetings and then gossip afterwards. Say all you know and say it without holding back anything.

If someone farts, don't stay silent!

(apart from Avakian)


11. Don’t let things slide when a person has clearly made an error, for the sake of remaining on friendly terms with that person. Party members must at all times fight for what is correct, wage principled line struggle and not fear criticism and self-criticism.

12. Don’t engage in personal attacks, pick fights, curse people or seek revenge because you have been criticized.

Swearing is utterly un-proletarian through and through!

Why, I have never heard a worker utter a single vulgarity.

Obviously the RCP leadership has never gone to a worker's pub. They would storm out in disgust! :lol:


13. Don’t use leadership positions to suppress criticism or to retaliate; don’t use your position of leadership to lord it over others or to act like a “bigshot.”

Who is that guy...I forget his name...Bob Avakian.

Let's just look at a typical RCP paragraph:

Historic Talks by Bob Avakian - Get The Word Out!


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.

If anyone can link that 'Let's Celebrate Bob Avakian Day' picture I would very much appreciate it! :lol:


14. Don’t discuss inner-Party struggle or business outside the Party.

The first rule of RCP is not to talk about RCP!

The second rule of RCP is to talk about RCP!


15. Practice criticism and self-criticism.

What does self-criticism really amount to?

Lets be honest, it really involves some 'rebel' who has breached 'party rules' getting up in front of his 'peers' and explaining how he has strayed from such and such's ideals.

Its dogmatism.

Self-criticism has nothing to do with Marxism.

Criticism of ideas and historical happenings is what its all about.

[Herman]

Martov, you little ol' Menshevik! How dare you criticize Bob Avakian's brilliant analysis of current American class struggle? I follow marxism-leninism-maoism-bobavakianism! Struggle ye masses for a bobavakianist society! :lol:

[bezdomni]

I would like to note how the last few comments have been extremely childish and have not actually engaged with any political questions whatsoever. I think it is becoming very evident who is actually serious about revolution here, and who is simply masquerading as a radical.



That is so puritan all I can do is laugh.gif

Is this a Christian Party or a Communist Party?

But drugs or alcohol does not raise one's theoretical level!

*Terrors!*

I remember someone telling me that in Seattle the RCP forbade its members from associating with the degenerate anarchists! laugh.gif

It might be false but it would certainly coincide with the above.

You're misinterpreting the intention of this point of discipline. Party members (which is very distinct from party supporters) cannot be getting drunk or using illegal drugs for two main reasons:

1) When comrades use illegal drugs, they are giving the enemy a perfect excuse to arrest them and discredit them. It is bad strategy to open ourselves to attacks unnecessarily, so that is why the use of illegal drugs is discouraged within the party.

I am a supporter of the RCP and I openly smoke marijuana. Lots of it. In fact, I was (a little) stoned when I made my last post.

There is no anti-drug agenda within the RCP, and I am sure there are many many more supporters of the RCP who are like me. In fact, if the RCP was actually anti-drugs, it would make organizing among the masses very difficult.

Furthermore, I would bet that a lot of older party members (like...people who were around in the 60s and 70s) have smoked their fair share of pot.

That said, it is important to know when to put the bong down and pick up the gun. Revolutionaries can't spend all their time smoking weed, and obviously it is a horrible idea to mix drugs with political work. People who bring weed to protests (especially protests where confrontation with the police is very likely) are stupid.

2) Party members deal with lots of sensitive information. They know the identities of other local party members, they probably have a general idea about the activities local party members and supporters are engaged in, and they themselves may or may not engage in extra-legal political work. For this reason, party members can't get drunk or take other substances that might cause them to let more information slip out than is wise.

It's a matter of protecting the members of the party and the supporters of the party, not depriving them from feeling good.

The Party's line regarding drugs has always been that they would be legal in socialist society.


I've also read such in the 10 Commandments!

But then again I would consider it thievery if I bought one of their papers.

Do you think it's perfectly acceptable to steal stuff from proletarians or to deface their homes?

How can you expect the proletariat to support a party that allows its members to steal from them?

It isn't a moralistic "stealing is wrong" statement, revolutionary situations require stealing money from banks, arms from the military and seizing the means of production. However, stealing a can of spraypaint from a proletarian is not going to get us any closer to socialism.


This is a business after all people!

How do you suppose a revolutionary army will finance itself? How do you suppose a revolutionary newspaper will be printed? For free?

Revolution requires funding and your truly childish statements don't change that one bit. Even mensheviks have to fund themselves!


A whiny 17 year old is not a political leader 'amongst the masses.'

Any sexual matters between a member of a party and someone outside the party is purely of their concern only.

And who would want to get 'intimate' with an RCP member?

*shudders*

Again, you are ignoring the actual political content of this issue.


Small business owners are our potential allies?

If they ever criticise the bourgeoisie it is for their own interest, to decrease the completion which is swamping the markets and decreasing their profits.

Such competition may make them fall into the class of the proletariat but then they are not petty-bourgeoisie.

They are never allies of the proletariat.

I think you should re-read Marx. Small businesses are crushed by monopolization and thus small business owners are oftentimes potential allies of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Of course, some "small business" owners end up becoming part of the bourgeoisie or find a new way to work for the bourgeoisie (low-level management, bankers...etc).

There are lots of gas stations, local bookstores and other small privately-owned places, especially in proletarian neighborhoods, that carry revolution newspaper. If we alienated ourselves from these class allies, then a major means of distributing a revolutionary communist line would be taken away.


Contradictions? It sounds like mystical dialectic talk.

I prefer dialectical materialism to infantile pseudo-marxist economism.

Do you think that it is acceptable to settle disputes within the party with violence?



Swearing is utterly un-proletarian through and through!

Why, I have never heard a worker utter a single vulgarity.

Obviously the RCP leadership has never gone to a worker's pub. They would storm out in disgust!

You're deliberately misinterpreting what was written. That's fucked up.

And no, saying that doesn't violate any points of discipline. It doesn't say "don't swear", it says swearing at people blindly instead of actually addressing political questions in a cool, detached manner is a bad way to handle disputes within the party and among the masses.

Again, do you agree or don't you?


The first rule of RCP is not to talk about RCP!

The second rule of RCP is to talk about RCP!

The RCP is a democratic centralist organization. The party has internal freedom of discussion and external unity of action. This is what makes a revolutionary party capable of leading the masses to revolution.


What does self-criticism really amount to?

Lets be honest, it really involves some 'rebel' who has breached 'party rules' getting up in front of his 'peers' and explaining how he has strayed from such and such's ideals.

Its dogmatism.

Self-criticism has nothing to do with Marxism.

Criticism of ideas and historical happenings is what its all about.

What the hell are you on about? Do you think people should not admit that they are wrong when they know they are?

When a person in the party holds an incorrect line, it is important that comrades challenge that line and that the person who holds that line understands why their line is incorrect.

In fact, this applies to the party itself. Self-criticism is very important, and without it, the party would split every time there was a substantial internal disagreement (like trots).


Sovietpants just did in his last post what almost all Vanguardists to extreamly extreamly well. Take a common sense issue that can be talked about in simple concrete terms, and write about 3 paragraphs of abstract ideological hogwash that completely ignores the common sense issue I was talking about to begin with.

You have done in all of your posts what almost all liberals posing as radicals do - refuse to address important political questions when you are pressed on them.



Martov, you little ol' Menshevik! How dare you criticize Bob Avakian's brilliant analysis of current American class struggle? I follow marxism-leninism-maoism-bobavakianism! Struggle ye masses for a bobavakianist society!

What a profound and meaningful statement. I hereby cut all relations I have to the RCP because of this comrade's deep, hard-hitting analysis.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:15 pm
That is so puritan all I can do is :lol:

Is this a Christian Party or a Communist Party?

But drugs or alcohol does not raise one's theoretical level!

*Terrors!*
I think you misunderstand the reason for that. That first point is there as a security point. In the 1960's many, many comrades, including many Black Panthers would be thrown in prison for huge sentences for possessing pot... undercover cops would give certain people weed, and then immediatly raid comrades' houses and then frame them with the maximum possible sentences. The bourgeoisie used drugs as a political weapon against revolutionaries.

Also, getting drunk or being high puts you in a position where you cannot control your actions and can leak all sorts of information that could lead to the imprisonment or deaths of revolutionary comrades.


I remember someone telling me that in Seattle the RCP forbade its members from associating with the degenerate anarchists! :lol:

It might be false but it would certainly coincide with the above.

That's ridiculous. People have a great relationship with the anarchists here in Houston. I love to go hang out at their bookstore too.



2. Do not steal anything from the masses, not even a needle or a piece of thread; return everything you borrow.

But then again I would consider it thievery if I bought one of their papers. :(

So you think that it's ok to steal from oppressed people?


Small business owners are our potential allies?

If they ever criticise the bourgeoisie it is for their own interest, to decrease the completion which is swamping the markets and decreasing their profits.

Such competition may make them fall into the class of the proletariat but then they are not petty-bourgeoisie.

They are never allies of the proletariat.

Yeah, when the revolution comes, let's just shoot the small bookshop owners who were supporting the cause of the proletariat. We can raid the gas stations and shoot their owners too, that sounds great. Fuck trying to politically win the to the cause of the proletariat!



Swearing is utterly un-proletarian through and through!

Why, I have never heard a worker utter a single vulgarity.

Obviously the RCP leadership has never gone to a worker's pub. They would storm out in disgust! :lol:

That is NOT what it is talking about. RCP members curse like fucking pirates. Have you never listened to Avakian talk? :lol:


What does self-criticism really amount to?

Lets be honest, it really involves some 'rebel' who has breached 'party rules' getting up in front of his 'peers' and explaining how he has strayed from such and such's ideals.

Its dogmatism.

Self-criticism has nothing to do with Marxism.

Criticism of ideas and historical happenings is what its all about.
I've also read such in the 10 Commandments!

I think that you don't know what Mao or the RCP are talking about when they refer to criticism or self-criticism. Criticism and self-criticism are a process through which comrades investigates and identify their actual political lines. It is not some stupid ritual where people stand up and say "i did such and such and i'm really sorry. will you forgive me?"

Criticism and self-criticism is a process actually identifies and refutes incorrect political lines. Lines such as individualism, dogmatism, opportunism, etc.

However, it is also true that during the later days in China, criticism and self-criticisms were reduced to this petty-ritual that you are talking about, and people like Deng Xaioping would get up and say they were really sorry while ignoring their actual revisionist/phoney-communist political lines.

[RGacky3]

You have done in all of your posts what almost all liberals posing as radicals do - refuse to address important political questions when you are pressed on them.

Such as what? I believe the thing I was talking about was that you were making a gross generalizatoin of saying all black people think alike and all white middle class people think alike.

[Herman]

What a profound and meaningful statement. I hereby cut all relations I have to the RCP because of this comrade's deep, hard-hitting analysis.

Whatever those relations are, i'm sure you can find another party which has more chance of getting people to revolt than the RCP.

If the RCP stops promoting Bob Avakian as the "leader of the RCP", you will find that potential communists will start to find the RCP's ideas interesting (which they are) and perhaps might even join the RCP!

There is nothing wrong with having a certain spokesperson for the party, who might be seen as the "intellectual" leader, but promoting him in such a "cultish" way is certainly wrong.

To be honest, Avakian sums up well maoism and what Mao says. He's a good orator too. However, he has not contributed anything new to marxism, nor should he be the 'de facto' and unquestionable leader which a revolution needs. Chairman Avakian might be well versed in marxism, but he is no Lenin.

[ShineThePath]

I am NOT a supporter of the RCP.

However

Martov, I might be new to this forum, but as I read through some very top notched posts and discussion, you often have a way of degrading discussions to a point of absurdity. I would like to ask that you deal with what people are saying in the concrete, of the thought being put forward rather than posting up some hackneyed response that is in line with your own infantile sectarian tendency.

The tendency that you exhibit shows well, and your attacks against Points of Unity as, don't be a drug addict or a drunk, don't steal from the people or organizations, is very peculiar.

Deal with the RCP is for what it is, and don't degrade this conversation.

On another matter, Red Heretic's post and Soviet Pant's apologism there of has been disappointing.


Originally posted by "Red Heretic"
While white middle class youth on revleft might "throw shit" at people for promoting Avakian's leadership, that isn't what I've gotten from Black proletarians in the projects. Do proletarians get "creeped out" by the promotion of leaders, or have they had great love for their leaders? Were they ashamed of Malcolm X? of Huey Newton?

When this is criticized rightly, Soviet Pants defends such Race Baiting tactics here on this thread as well, and both are disgraceful. It shows the very instrumentality of their way of debating.

Red Heretic and Soviet Pants, I might be an ex-RCYBer, but this is precisely the kind of identity politics that were fought in the RCYB and the RCP maintains a good job in doing this. To put forward a line that is so blatantly anti-Masses is essentially no better than Trot groups who have a familiar way of dealing with criticism.

Baiting people on race and not on the content of what they were saying is a fallacy of the Ad Hominem sort. I don't care if it is a fucking Bourgeois Liberal, what you must deal with is the content of their statements.

Further, this is of course going to something that both are not really looking at. The reality is, RCP is definately not take as seriously as it could be because of the cult of personality, because of its feeling of creepiness, and that is pervasive throughout the Left, whether they are White or Black. The argument that Black people are more receptive to Cults of Personality is just ridiculous.

I will be posting more on the questions of Ideology and politics tomorrow, but before this discussion gets derailed into Anarchist vs Red insults, lets strive for a bit fo rigor.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:38 am








I have to really ask in what sense does "PSL have their shit together?" The question is from one Maoist to a former one, who is taking the route of Marcyite Trotskyism of PSL.


Its not really that I'm a former Maoist. I guess I'm a Marxist-Leninist but I don't really see it as much of a change other than that I'm gonna call it like I see it, social imperialism is bullshit anti-communism. Other than that my views on Mao, my full support for him, for people's war, for the cultural revolution are the same. It's just that I'm not dogmatic. I still carry my Red Book in my bookbag wherever i go ;). I'm definately not a a trotskyist and the PSL isn't either. The PSL is Marxist-Leninist.


1) There has yet to be a statement put out by them about the reasons they have split with WWP. What are the differences between WWP and PSL that caused the split?

There actually was. the PSL split because the WWP was stagnant. It had alot of the problems I had with the RCP. It was an old party which had failed to win over mass support and had become dominated by a bureacracy. In other words, it had become detached from Democratic Centralism, the mass line and thus the masses.

A new party was necessary to unite the working class. The RCP blames the masses for not being active (extremely reactionary!), but the PSL recognizes it the way Lenin did, the Left isn't doing enough of a good job. A party may have good politics, but if it is degenerate and in decay politically, if it isn't lively and reaching out to the masses in broad ways recruiting, building, and struggling, then it cannot lead a revolution.

I decided to join the PSL because it is a party which knows how to organize and has a lively atmosphere as well as the solid line.


2) PSL still upholds various revisionist countries on the basis they are Socialist, including China, DPRK, Vietnam, etc. Why has it taken this approach toward these quite reactionary State-Capitalist regimes?

These countries had socialist revolutions. The fact that you write that off is just reactionary. I think the DPRK is socialist, and China and Vietnam are socialist states which have had major capitalist incurrsions into them, their vanguards, at the expense of the working class. It's up to the working class to fight back and defend what's left of their socialist states in those countries. See, a state cannot become capitalist overnight because of right wing leadership. Socialism is created by the people and the working class, not by the leaders. Leaders like Deng Xioping and Boris Yeltsin fought to overturn the achievements of the people (one faster than the other), but in China's case it has been a slow process.

The PSL doesn't "uphold" China and Vietnam perse, it recognizes that capitalist relations exsist and they are the cause of everything that has gone wrong there


3) What does Henry mean by "Mass Vanguard?"

A bolshevik party, not a clandestine newspaper. A party which educates, recruits, and engages with the masses, not one which just tries to hawk them a newspaper and shoo away membership like alot of parties on the left today are like.


Further, LeftyHenry, wouldn't it be more honest to speak about your political differences with the RCP rather than the tactics? The fact is that more than anything the question of political line was more important. Your line has been directly contradictory to that of the RCYB because you are yourself not a Maoist. So even if we were talking about a functional Maoist party that uses Mass Line, you still have direct differences over the question of what is Revisionism and Social-Imperialism.

I guess I always was against the Social imperialism revisionism line, but that's one question. For a while I did sorta agree with it. I think though, that this, while something I disagreed with, was secondary to tactical problems I had because if you don't apply Mass Line correctly, you can never make a revolution no matter what your line is.

[Rawthentic]

Further, this is of course going to something that both are not really looking at. The reality is, RCP is definately not take as seriously as it could be because of the cult of personality, because of its feeling of creepiness, and that is pervasive throughout the Left, whether they are White or Black. The argument that Black people are more receptive to Cults of Personality is just ridiculous.
Straw man. The proletariat, and in particular the super-exploited section (black and latino) welcome leadership when they see it is in their interests. We see this with Fred Hampton, Huey Newton, and Malcolm X, as well as Cesar Chavez (he was a farm worker union organizer, not a communist). In my city, there is a yearly Cesar Chavez day where farm workers march and pay their respects to a leader.

The view that we don't need strong leadership is a petty-bourgeois view, mainly because they are a class that does not want to be ruled upon at all, but in reality is being manipulated by all sorts of different forces.

[RGacky3]

Straw man. The proletariat, and in particular the super-exploited section (black and latino) welcome leadership when they see it is in their interests. We see this with Fred Hampton, Huey Newton, and Malcolm X, as well as Cesar Chavez (he was a farm worker union organizer, not a communist). In my city, there is a yearly Cesar Chavez day where farm workers march and pay their respects to a leader.


Again, giant massive generalization.

One big reason poor people are succeptable to leadership is because they are more desperate and easier to manipulate because of that. Thats why its not only Malcom X and Cesar Chavez, but also the church, also in many cases Racists, really anyone why gives them a hope, or a chance.

I think this attude is negative and should be combated, the fact that some of them welcome leadership does'nt make it positive.

Also, I think this concept of some of putting blacks and latinos into a seperate section of super-exploited, is rediculous. Why not put chineese and eastern european immigrants in that section as well, their may be less of them but they are just as exploited, deviding the proletariat up into race is a dangerous thing.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:56 am
When this is criticized rightly, Soviet Pants defends such Race Baiting tactics here on this thread as well, and both are disgraceful. It shows the very instrumentality of their way of debating.

Red Heretic and Soviet Pants, I might be an ex-RCYBer, but this is precisely the kind of identity politics that were fought in the RCYB and the RCP maintains a good job in doing this. To put forward a line that is so blatantly anti-Masses is essentially no better than Trot groups who have a familiar way of dealing with criticism.

Baiting people on race and not on the content of what they were saying is a fallacy of the Ad Hominem sort. I don't care if it is a fucking Bourgeois Liberal, what you must deal with is the content of their statements.

Further, this is of course going to something that both are not really looking at. The reality is, RCP is definately not take as seriously as it could be because of the cult of personality, because of its feeling of creepiness, and that is pervasive throughout the Left, whether they are White or Black. The argument that Black people are more receptive to Cults of Personality is just ridiculous.

I will be posting more on the questions of Ideology and politics tomorrow, but before this discussion gets derailed into Anarchist vs Red insults, lets strive for a bit fo rigor.
My intent was not "race baiting." I was was attempting to get at the essence of the anti-leadership line that exists in this thread and on these internet forums, but that almost never exists within the mostly depply oppressed super-exploited sections of the proletariat. It is a matter of class outlook, and more specifically, a petty-bourgeois line that we see present here.

I would like to quote from the RCP's 1995 Resolution On Leadership and Individual Leaders:


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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that if comrades read this, they can get a sense of what I was trying to get at... the class backgrounds of these actual political lines. We see a perfect example of what I was talking about here with RGacky3's post. RGacky says:


One big reason poor people are succeptable to leadership is because they are more desperate and easier to manipulate because of that. Thats why its not only Malcom X and Cesar Chavez, but also the church, also in many cases Racists, really anyone why gives them a hope, or a chance.

I think this attude is negative and should be combated, the fact that some of them welcome leadership does'nt make it positive.

Here we see, RGacky is looking at leadership in a vacuum. This person personally doesn't see the need for leadership because they are looking at the world in a vacuum, without revolution being posed to themself in a life and death way. They personally don't need leadership in the immediate sense, so when they see that the proletariat needs leadership, they dismiss it because the proletariat needs leadership! It's a sort of paradox.

Proletarians need revolutionary leaders that lead them to seize power, and to get out of this rotten system. People living in the projects more often than not see this very sharply. Those living in the suburbs? Well, not so much.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

that isn't what I've gotten from Black proletarians in the projects

this is brought up alot by RCP supporters but in my experience, there is comparitively much less work done amongst the super-exploited working class then is needed. In fact, there is just about as much work done amongst the Upper middle class in Colombia and the Upperwest Side and Chelsea here

[kasama-rl]

lets dig into this:

It is true that there are people in society who have political principles against leadership (which is a way of saying they are not for organization). This is a reflection of individualism (and of hopes in individual solutions). Sometimes this appears among anarchists (who have leaders, but often undermine them). And (at some level of abstraction) this is related to the atomized life of some forces in the middle strata -- small shopkeepers, careerists, professionals, etc.

And, among the oppressed, there is a much stronger sense that organization is all we have, and that visionary and strong leaders are essential for any progress (especially radical and far reaching change.)

All that is true...

But it is a big logical leap to say "If you don't uphold Avakian, you must not like leadership."

In fact, it is possible to have a profoundly communist view of leadership, and not think that Avakian has actually solved the key problems of the U.S. revolution.

One example: In 1980, Avakian announced that it was necessary to "chart the uncharted course" -- meaning that no one before had correctly identified the political strategies for making revolution in a country like the U.S., and this uncharted course needed to be developed.

Ok.... but has it been? Has the RCP and Avakian developed a mass revolutionary movement with deep roots among the people? No. Do they have political base areas among the oppressed? No. They tried and failed in many attempts to do this.

Have they grown as a party? No. Their biggest day was the day they were founded in 1975. They have no section of the people, no neighborhood, no campus, no housing project where they set the terms and can count on the loyalty and support of the people. That is revealing, after 35 years.

So can you have a correct synthesis (a new and radically different communist theory) if you haven't been able to solve some of the most basic problems of revolution that you took up decades ago?

Again: we revolutionary communists need strong and visionary leadership. We need to defend them from attack. We need to make our views known among the people.

But saying you are "a lenin" don't make it so.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 09, 2007 09:30 pm
lets dig into this:

It is true that there are people in society who have political principles against leadership (which is a way of saying they are not for organization). This is a reflection of individualism (and of hopes in individual solutions). Sometimes this appears among anarchists (who have leaders, but often undermine them). And (at some level of abstraction) this is related to the atomized life of some forces in the middle strata -- small shopkeepers, careerists, professionals, etc.

And, among the oppressed, there is a much stronger sense that organization is all we have, and that visionary and strong leaders are essential for any progress (especially radical and far reaching change.)

All that is true...

But it is a big logical leap to say "If you don't uphold Avakian, you must not like leadership."

I actually wasn't arguing that. I think there have actually been different ideological lines that were presented in this thread and in that post I was trying to argue against the anti-leadership line.



One example: In 1980, Avakian announced that it was necessary to "chart the uncharted course" -- meaning that no one before had correctly identified the political strategies for making revolution in a country like the U.S., and this uncharted course needed to be developed.

Ok.... but has it been? Has the RCP and Avakian developed a mass revolutionary movement with deep roots among the people? No. Do they have political base areas among the oppressed? No. They tried and failed in many attempts to do this.

...

They have no section of the people, no neighborhood, no campus, no housing project where they set the terms and can count on the loyalty and support of the people. That is revealing, after 35 years.

What does that mean, "setting the terms?" This seems like a very subjective concept. I do not agree that the RCP has not developed bases among these different sections of society, if that's what you were getting at. The RCP has developed a base in many different sections of society, on many different campuses, and in many different proletarian neighborhoods (inlcuding both neighborhoods and cities in my city that I am aware of). By this, I mean that it has developed strong political ties, and I think we are seeing a lot more of this with the emergence of the Revolution Clubs...

But this isn't the dictatorship of the proletariat! I don't think revolutionaries would see the kind of thing that you're talking about until they have seized power, or until they are in the process of waging revolutionary war.


Have they grown as a party?

Again, I don't think that is how reality works. Look at the Bolshevik revolution. Was there a steady growth of the Bolshevik party over a very long period of time? Or was there a sudden explosion of support for the Bolshevik party when there was the emergence of a revolutionary people, and a revolutionary situation?


So can you have a correct synthesis (a new and radically different communist theory) if you haven't been able to solve some of the most basic problems of revolution that you took up decades ago?

I think this is a straw man arguement. When Einstein set out to understand that "equal forces" (pushing and pulling the universe to cancel one another out) that he believed were maintaining a static universe, he was never able to do that. However, while he was setting out to do that, he made enormous breakthroughs in psychics, and without him we might be in a totally different situation today in regards to our understanding of the workings of the universe. Since Einstein never solved the problem he set out to solve, does that mean that he does not represent a massive leap forward in physics?

At the same time, I do believe the Avakian and the RCP are really grappling with this question, and are making massive breakthroughs. In Bringing Forward Another Way, Avakian talked about the two things that the RCP does not know hoes to do. Here's a quote:


I want to speak to something I have formulated previously (I believe it was the "Reaching/Flying"27 series that ran in our newspaper a few ago), where I spoke about "two things we don't know how to do"—namely, meeting repression and actually winning when the time comes. Now the point of saying these are two things we don't know how to do is not to project some phony posture of humility: "We're very modest—there are some things we know how to do, in fact there are really important things we don't know how to do. Isn't that great?" No, it's very bad, it's a very real problem, that we don't know how to do these things. The point is to call attention to the fact that we'd better work on these things—in the appropriate way and not in inappropriate ways.

The two things he discussed that we do not know how to do were "resisting the heightening repression" that we are going to come up against as we do what we are trying to do, and:


The other thing that I have said we don't know how to do is, when the time comes, be able to win. We don't know how to get over the first hump of seizing power through a mass revolutionary upsurge. To put it bluntly and somewhat crudely, to emphasize the reality people face: Those who rule the U.S.—and much of the world—are some powerful nasty motherfuckers who have an ideological solid core that doesn't give a fuck about killing millions of people, is firmly convinced that it represents everything good in the world and that any opposition to it, especially of any essential or fundamental nature, represents a concentration of evil in the world and needs to be stamped out. We should reflect on that very seriously.

Since that time, when Avakian says this, I believe there have been huge leaps in the RCP's ideology in response to this challenge from Avakian. I believe this was most concentrated in this new theoretical article I keep raising, On the Possibility of Revolution (http://revcom.us/a/102/possibility-en.html).

[RGacky3]

Here we see, RGacky is looking at leadership in a vacuum. This person personally doesn't see the need for leadership because they are looking at the world in a vacuum, without revolution being posed to themself in a life and death way. They personally don't need leadership in the immediate sense, so when they see that the proletariat needs leadership, they dismiss it because the proletariat needs leadership! It's a sort of paradox.

Proletarians need revolutionary leaders that lead them to seize power, and to get out of this rotten system. People living in the projects more often than not see this very sharply. Those living in the suburbs? Well, not so much.

You completely ignored my explination of proletarians willing to give up independence out of desperation, they did it for hitler as well.

Why does the proletariat need leadership anymore than someone else does? I say they do not, I say they need to empower themselves and fight in solidarity, rather than act like a helpless child who needs someone to tell them what to do.


It is true that there are people in society who have political principles against leadership (which is a way of saying they are not for organization). This is a reflection of individualism (and of hopes in individual solutions).

No other way to discribe these 2 sentances other than 2 piles of old dog turds. Not for organization? Are you serious? Anarcho-Syndicalists and other Anarchists have been organizing workers for decades, and actually organising them to lead themselves, not trying to subject them like Leninists do. A reflection of individualism? I would have to say that the concept that one guy or a couple guys opinions and ideas are somehow superior than that of the others is a reflection of egotism, the rejection of leadership is a reflection of egalitarianism.


And, among the oppressed, there is a much stronger sense that organization is all we have, and that visionary and strong leaders are essential for any progress (especially radical and far reaching change.)

This is parroted a lot, but very fiew times is it shown to be factual or positive, where are you getting these facts from? Any statistics?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:44 am
You completely ignored my explination of proletarians willing to give up independence out of desperation, they did it for hitler as well.

Why does the proletariat need leadership anymore than someone else does? I say they do not, I say they need to empower themselves and fight in solidarity, rather than act like a helpless child who needs someone to tell them what to do.
They do need to fight in solidarity and to see the power that they have, that they are the makers of history, and that they can move mountains when they come together. However, the masses do not just spontaneously see the road to revolution. They spontaneously rebel against the capitalists, but they do not spontaneously see how to wage revolutionary war and to ultimately seize power and make a world wide revolution. That's where communists and communist leadership come in.

The masses do not just spontaneously gain all of the knowledge that is concentrated in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which is a concentration over over 100 years of the experience of the international proletariat. Nor do the masses just spontaneously know how to build a power plant, or spontaneously know how to design a computer, etc. etc. etc. These things take concentrated scientific understandings of how the world works, and leadership to be carried out.

And again, there is a specific class background to the line that you have... you look at leadership in a vacuum. This is a very petty-bourgeois class outlook...

[RGacky3]

This is a very petty-bourgeois class outlook...

That statement is really meaningless.


They spontaneously rebel against the capitalists, but they do not spontaneously see how to wage revolutionary war and to ultimately seize power and make a world wide revolution. That's where communists and communist leadership come in.

What makes the so-called communist leadership better equiped to wage war or make revolution. Also what happens with communist leadership is inevitably the leadership siezes power.


The masses do not just spontaneously gain all of the knowledge that is concentrated in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which is a concentration over over 100 years of the experience of the international proletariat.

Understanding Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not at all neccessary for a revolutoin, unless you want to set in a Maoist state, which I'm not for.


Nor do the masses just spontaneously know how to build a power plant, or spontaneously know how to design a computer, etc. etc. etc. These things take concentrated scientific understandings of how the world works, and leadership to be carried out.


the fac that the masses do not know the sciences (most of them at least), does'nt justify a Vanguard or whatever, it justifies scientists :P.

[kasama-rl]

LeftHenryML wrote: "I'm gonna call it like I see it, social imperialism is bullshit anti-communism."

This is an important question, and we should all call it like we see it.

Such matters need to be analyzed on a rather high plane of historical and economic analysis -- studying the development and functioning of the U.S.S.R. through its various deep changes.

However, just for a moment, I would like to share some personal experience:

I went to Eastern Europe in the late 60s, and traveled for a month through Czechoslovakia right after the Soviet invasion.

This invasion split many people in the revolutionary movement -- with Castro (and forces like the Marcyites) supporting the invasion, and the Maoists opposing it as an example of imperialism.

I went there with quite an open mind -- to see what I could learn.

What I can tell you is that I found a society (in eastern europe) that had zero (zero!) signs of being liberated or socialist. The people there (and I mean widely) HATED their government and the Soviet occupiers.

Just some examples: everywhere I went I saw factories with slogans painted on their walls that said "Husak Rusak" (Husak was the Czech party leader imposed by the Soviet invasion, and the slogan meant Husak the Russian.)

Several students told me that when Soviet tanks rolled into their city (prague) they risked their lives to go talk to the Soviet soldiers. They all spoke russian, and would climb up on the tanks to talk, or jump on the trucks passing through... and ask the soldiers what they thought they were doing, and ask them to leave. The students all told me that this tactic had such a powerful impact on the soldiers that the invaders pulled out all Russian speaking troops, and sent in Mongolian speaking troops to occupy Prague -- to prevent any fraternization between the people and the occupying forces.

Talking to people (day and night) I learned how de-politicized and alienated this socalled "socialist" society was. Over and over people would tell me: "We are officially 'socialist' cuz World War 2 left us in the Russian sphere of influence, but that is not how the society runs."

The outlook of the people made it clear that they had not gone through any revolutionary process -- and were not in any way involved in "emancipating themselves." Their views (and I met lots of kids my own age from East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the USSR) were completely INDISTINGUISHABLE from people in the west -- and generally they were less conscious than most student I knew in the U.S. at that time. The whole experience of Soviet occupation had de-politicized them. They were completely unfamiliar with Marxism, and were hostile to it (to them it was just the bullshit their oppressors used to keep them in line... like civics classes in the U.S.) They thought of politics as something that could "get you in trouble" or else was something solely for brownnosers and careerists.

People were not living in a "totalitarian" nightmare (the way I had been taught) -- they were willing to debate, and talk, and express their views. But i never met a single person (not one out of hundreds) who liked the system in Czechoslovakia, or who supported the Soviet troops who were prowling everywhere with weapons. It was all HATED, deeply, including by the occasional people I met who were pro-socialist in various ways. (I met several people just DYING to read Mao's writings, which were predictably completely illegal and suppressed in eastern Europe.)

While we were in Prague, a woman from the Czech party took us out for the night. She took us to a strip tease bar, and was very proud to show it off. I was confused and upset by this... and asked her why she was so proud of this. To her this was a sign of modernization and a relaxing of hated controls over the peoples culture. I tried to talk (in a primitive way) about the oppression of women, and why I thought it was wrong to objectify women, and have a meatmarket sex industry. And here is the amazing part: It was not just that this (supposedly) "communist" woman disagreed with me, she had NO FUCKING IDEA what i was talking about. She had no sense of any struggle for the emancipation of women, or any level of critique of mainstream patriarchy. Her views on women were find a good guy, get married, have kids, build a good live, and kinda support all the bullshit ways women were treated (including by being economically forced to strip for tourist dollars.) In other words, even the party members had zero political consciousness and betrayed no signs of having gone through any genuine political or revolutionary process. And it was not just her.

At one point I talked to a Russian guy, who had a PhD in Marxism Leninism (!). And I was eager to talk to him about ideological matters -- and the split between the Maoists and the pro-Soviet forces. So I asked him "What do you think of Mao?" He put his fingers on either side of his eyes, pulling them back into slits and blurted out "Ching chang china man." After making that "joke" he explained to me that the white european countries (including the U.S.) should unite against the danger of all the yellow hordes in east asia....

These people were not exceptions -- this was the level (and the politics) i saw everywhere from in Eastern Europe. And i have many more stories like this I could tell later, if you want.

In other words, I came away with a profound insight: Eastern Europe was capitalist. It had not had a revolution. These forces were utterly bourgeois (and their armies were oppressors of the people.)

Over the next years I studied this more deeply -- studying the way such capitalist relations emerged in the USSR etc. -- but i came away a Maoist, and convinced that Mao was right "the rise to power of revisionism had meant the rise to power of the bourgeoisie."

[Ismail]

@kasama-rl, excellent post.

I agree with Hoxha on this issue.

"Lenin stresses that the revolution is carried Out by the people of each country, that it is not exported. This does not mean that the Marxist Leninists, wherever they are militating, should not feel themselves in solidarity, should not be linked with one another by the purest feelings of proletarian internationalism, and should not assist the struggle of the proletariat and peoples of other countries for their liberation. On the contrary, all communists, all proletarians, all the revolutionary forces in the various countries are duty bound to assist the revolution in each particular country and all over the world, through propaganda, agitation, material aid, the example of their determination and selflessness, and by faithful adherence to Marxism-Leninism. Of course, success in the utilization of this assistance depends, first of all, on the preparation of the proletariat and its party, on the development of the revolutionary struggle in this or that country." - Imperialism and the Revolution (1979), chapter 3 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch3.htm)

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:28 pm
@I agree with Hoxha on this issue.

"Lenin stresses that the revolution is carried Out by the people of each country, that it is not exported. This does not mean that the Marxist Leninists, wherever they are militating, should not feel themselves in solidarity, should not be linked with one another by the purest feelings of proletarian internationalism, and should not assist the struggle of the proletariat and peoples of other countries for their liberation. On the contrary, all communists, all proletarians, all the revolutionary forces in the various countries are duty bound to assist the revolution in each particular country and all over the world, through propaganda, agitation, material aid, the example of their determination and selflessness, and by faithful adherence to Marxism-Leninism. Of course, success in the utilization of this assistance depends, first of all, on the preparation of the proletariat and its party, on the development of the revolutionary struggle in this or that country." - Imperialism and the Revolution (1979), chapter 3 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch3.htm)
Hoxha has a nationalist point of view... he sees every country as so distinct that the outside world can not wash over....

But that is not the case....

First of all, look at the russian empire -- it had a revolution in 1917 that started among russian workers in the large cities but spread through many nationalities (countries) of the empire -- including the Caucasus, Ukraine, and Central Asia.

It did not succeed in reaching and seizing power in some part of the empire (i.e. poland, finland, and the three baltic countries).

Yes, it was a problem that "revolution" came to eastern europe via the Soviet army driving out the Nazis... so that the socialist process had only a shallow basis among the masses there. (East Germany was an exception -- for various reasons the new state of DDR had much more of a basis among the people than say in Poland.)

But the main problem is not that revolution was "exported" but that it was reversed -- i.e. that socialism was overthrown in the USSR as capitalist roaders seized power and transformed the society.

[Louis Pio]

Yes, it was a problem that "revolution" came to eastern europe via the Soviet army driving out the Nazis... so that the socialist process had only a shallow basis among the masses there. (East Germany was an exception -- for various reasons the new state of DDR had much more of a basis among the people than say in Poland.)


Now im not really interested in your discussion about that american party.

But I tend to disagree with you on this point, have you ever been to DDR? I've been their plentey and I don't think your right, the system only had a base at first course of the russians and therefore only in a small part of the population. Later their broadened their support by giving good lifes to people "within the system". Chekoslovakia and hungaria is a totally other example in my oppinion, there people held great hopes in the red army and the things they hoped they would accomplish, however since the "liberation" only made states in the image of the degenerated soviet union the workers took to the streets and fought against them, Hungary 1956, Chekoslovakia 1968.

[bezdomni]

The RCP does not consider any of the Warsaw Pact countries other than the U.S.S.R. to actually be socialist countries because those countries never had a proletarian revolution.


That statement is really meaningless.


Yeah, if you're an idealist and reject the notion that being determines consciousness. Which you do, regardless of if you think you do or not.

Do you think there is no such thing as a petty-bourgeois line, or petty-bourgeois "socialist" tendencies?


What makes the so-called communist leadership better equiped to wage war or make revolution. Also what happens with communist leadership is inevitably the leadership siezes power.


Communist leadership doesn't "make revolution" per se, rather, communist leadership raises consciousness among the masses to create a revolutionary situation, and leads the masses through the revolutionary abolition of class society.

It would be more correct to say communist leadership leads the masses to make revolution.

Again, you are taking a liberal idealist view of society rather than a marxist materialist one. You think that individual leaders can hold positions of power solely by themselves and for themselves. You make no distinction between leaders of the proletariat and leaders of the bourgeoisie, and in doing so, you make no distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In your view, class analysis is something abstract and essentially meaningless.

The question is what is fundamental about socialist society? Who, in fact, seizes power? Is it the leadership of the communist party exclusively that holds all positions of power - or does the proletariat as a class have power?

You need to look at this from a class perspective, otherwise, your line is nothing more than liberalism dressed up in radical rhetoric.



Understanding Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not at all neccessary for a revolutoin, unless you want to set in a Maoist state, which I'm not for.

There is no such thing as a "Maoist state". There is only a socialist state, which is what Maoists are in favor of creating.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in both its practical and theoretical aspects, is the most advanced and liberating ideology in human history. Without a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist understanding of society and revolution, the creation of socialism and the liberation of humanity will be impossible.


the fac that the masses do not know the sciences (most of them at least), does'nt justify a Vanguard or whatever, it justifies scientists

The fact that the masses are not trained in making revolution necessitates the existence of a core of revolutionaries that carries out revolutionary work (propaganda, agitation, organization) and trains the masses to make revolution themselves. The revolutionary vanguard also learns from the masses and sums up their experiences to get a solid idea of what is going on. The vanguard relies entirely on the masses.

"Learn from the masses, and then teach them."
-Mao

Revolution requires a rigorously scientific understanding of society - which is something that the masses do not spontaneously have. Just as we need scientists to research and work in science, we need revolutionaries to study and work with revolution.


Take a common sense issue that can be talked about in simple concrete terms, and write about 3 paragraphs of abstract ideological hogwash that completely ignores the common sense issue I was talking about to begin with.

As Lenin said, "One sentence of falsehood requires ten pages of truth to explain it."

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:27 am

Yes, it was a problem that "revolution" came to eastern europe via the Soviet army driving out the Nazis... so that the socialist process had only a shallow basis among the masses there. (East Germany was an exception -- for various reasons the new state of DDR had much more of a basis among the people than say in Poland.)


Now im not really interested in your discussion about that american party.

But I tend to disagree with you on this point, have you ever been to DDR? I've been their plentey and I don't think your right, the system only had a base at first course of the russians and therefore only in a small part of the population. Later their broadened their support by giving good lifes to people "within the system". Chekoslovakia and hungaria is a totally other example in my oppinion, there people held great hopes in the red army and the things they hoped they would accomplish, however since the "liberation" only made states in the image of the degenerated soviet union the workers took to the streets and fought against them, Hungary 1956, Chekoslovakia 1968.

If I understand what you are saying: You are saying that people of Eastern Germany felt conquered by the Soviet Army, while people of CSSR and Hungary felt liberated.

My direct experience with DDR and east germans is limited. I have been in east germany and talked to east germans (before that country was annexed to West Germany). And i studied the writings of both government supporters and opponents within the DDR. But my knowledge is not that deep -- more like sketchy impressions.

Certainly many Germans (in east and west) were glad to see hitler fall, and there was some genuine support for the armies that came through -- especially if they helped restore social functioning and food supplies.

It is a problem of the dominant line of the Soviet Union that they treated the Germans as a conquered people -- rather than a liberated one. And that kind of narrow nationalism extended to their treatment of other peoples in eastern Europe too.

In any case, their policy was to carry out social transformations slowly, so as not to provoke mass turmoil over the changes, rather than to lead mass turmoil to carry out social transformations.

To put it another way, by analogy: One of the problems of Soviet land collectivization in the early 1930s was that the Soviet state also used that process to INCREASE the amount of grain extracted from the peasants -- so that the peasants (not surprisingly) saw collectivization as a process of squeezing them harder rather than as a process of liberating them for a better life.

Similarly, the processes in eastern europe convinced many people that the moves toward "socialist" forms (in economy, state, culture etc) was part of Russian domination, not part of a larger process of liberation.

When I was in CSSR (Czechoslovakia) people would point to the red star on the national flag and say "The Russians even demanded a right to occupy a piece of our flag."

That alienation was hard to overcome.... and created a deep alienation among the people to the various changes that were coming (and which were essentially imposed).

There was resistance to this in several countries: In Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, Poland at several times and CSSR in 1968. My experience was with the last of these.

You are right that much of the social support for these governments came from people who saw their standards of living improved -- and this was particularly true in East Germany which was an imperialist power in its own right and by far the most prosperous of the "east bloc" countries.

My point is that there were two problems we are dealing with here:

First, the liberation of central and eastern Europe happened in ways that left the new governments isolated from the people, and functionally seen as agents of a new occupying power.

Second, the larger problem was the rise of revisionist, nationalist and ultimately imperialist politics in the USSR -- that shaped the whole process, and meant that ultimately what was being "built" there was a form of state capitalism, not socialism.

I have raised this against LeftHenry's analysis, which opposes Maoism's theory of social imperialism. And I think that a materialist approach to these complex events and changes reveals that there was, in fact, a rise of social imperialism (socialist in name, imperialist in essence), after a certain point.

I don't uphold the theory of "degenerated soviet union" -- for various reasons.

First: It implies an ideal somewhere, that then degenerates. This is platonic idealism, not materialism. There are no ideal forms.

Second, this is a theory that holds that the socialist base of the Soviet Union continued to be revolutionary, for decades after the superstructure (the party and the state) had fallen into counterrevolutionary hands. I don't think that is actually how things work -- and i don't think that the base is a machinery that runs in progressive directions after the heights of power have been seized by reactionary forces.

Third, i think that what happened in the Soviet Union was not a "degeneration" from a previously "real" workers state. There was a socialist period, within which very powerful rightist and nationalist forces arose, and then there was a change of power (in the mid-fifties after the death of Stalin) in which something new and reactionary emerged firmly in command. (the events and trends were very complex, but that is a short one sentence summation).

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:40 am
The fact that the masses are not trained in making revolution necessitates the existence of a core of revolutionaries that carries out revolutionary work (propaganda, agitation, organization) and trains the masses to make revolution themselves. The revolutionary vanguard also learns from the masses and sums up their experiences to get a solid idea of what is going on. The vanguard relies entirely on the masses.

"Learn from the masses, and then teach them."
-Mao

Revolution requires a rigorously scientific understanding of society - which is something that the masses do not spontaneously have. Just as we need scientists to research and work in science, we need revolutionaries to study and work with revolution.
I agree strongly with all the points you make here.

And it is a contradiction: On the one hand, the masses must emancipate themselves (ultimately) or it doesn't happen. You can't "substitute" yourself for the masses (even in a benevolent or wellmeaning way) or it won't happen (and in fact all kinds of bad things will happen.)

And yet, the masses don't automatically or spontaneously "know" what they NEED to know to emancipate themselves.

And (as you say) this necessitates the organization of the advanced and conscious forces among the masses -- to lead a process by which revolution is possible, and by which a new society can emerge.

My issues with the RCP is that this dynamic has turned out badly: The party has had a great deal of difficulty establishing deep roots and influence among oppressed people in the U.S. (not for lack of trying). And therefore often ends up substituting itself for the masses (or for a larger political process) in ways that end up badly.

There is an ideological trend now (within the RCP, articulated by Avakian) of blaming the masses -- of saying that people who don't act now (specifically under the party's leadership and in answer to the party's calls) are complicit in the crimes of imperialism.

This is rather simplistic, and basically incorrect. It is a wrong approach to the people.

There is corruption in U.S. society that seeps into the political views of all strata -- that is undeniable. It is very frustrating that the political activity we have is far less than we need (and far less than the situation demands). But to go from there to blaming (and even openly "cursing") the masses of people is incorrect -- and very counterproductive.

And it ignores some serious self-critical examination that the communist forces need to make about their own methods, and assumptions -- which tend to have created various "mass initiatives" rather artificially and just expecting people to flood in -- without forming coalitions, building a base, etc. These plans "look good on paper" -- but are really out of touch with both the objective situation and the methods by which more struggle and more radical consciousness can be built.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

I would say the biggest problem is the eclectic nature of Maoism, which still crops up, albeit in a different form, in Avakian's work. That being said, I highly admire Avakian's work, particularly his speeches, which bring Communist theory into practical modern life. The problem is however, when he gets into a long rant about epistomology and philosophical issues. It literally puts me to sleep sometimes. I think that he could rectify this by bringing in more real-life analogies and relating it to things everyone experiences or sees in their personal life; something like he did in the speech: NBA- Marketing the Minstrel Show.

I think the World Can't Wait program is a little short-sighted as well; if they drive out the Bush regime(which they probably won't), a great deal of people will "rest on their laurels". I could see us getting another Clinton type figure who basically does all kinds of horrible things while nobody notices, simply because he's not Bush and not a Republican.

I don't see Avakian as a cult-figure either. I can totally understand why people would admire him; and sometimes some people might go a little too far in their praise. I certainly don't see him cultivating such a cult, and his constant push for critical thinking is the exact opposite of what we should expect from a potential cult leader. Critical thinking is to cult leaders what garlic is to vampires.

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 14, 2007 03:06 pm
I would say the biggest problem is the eclectic nature of Maoism, which still crops up, albeit in a different form, in Avakian's work. That being said, I highly admire Avakian's work, particularly his speeches, which bring Communist theory into practical modern life. The problem is however, when he gets into a long rant about epistomology and philosophical issues. It literally puts me to sleep sometimes. I think that he could rectify this by bringing in more real-life analogies and relating it to things everyone experiences or sees in their personal life; something like he did in the speech: NBA- Marketing the Minstrel Show.

I think the World Can't Wait program is a little short-sighted as well; if they drive out the Bush regime(which they probably won't), a great deal of people will "rest on their laurels". I could see us getting another Clinton type figure who basically does all kinds of horrible things while nobody notices, simply because he's not Bush and not a Republican.

I don't see Avakian as a cult-figure either. I can totally understand why people would admire him; and sometimes some people might go a little too far in their praise. I certainly don't see him cultivating such a cult, and his constant push for critical thinking is the exact opposite of what we should expect from a potential cult leader. Critical thinking is to cult leaders what garlic is to vampires.
Can you describe this eclecticism that you believe is inherent in Maoism?

I think that Avakian has done important work keeping revolution as a living political question in the U.S.

I think that philosophical questions may "put you to sleep" if you don't understand the importance of philosophy for making the rev. Not every question can be connected to the nitty-gritty of "their personal life" -- or, if it was connected that way, it might not be handled correctly (because the "personal life" of each of us is not necessarily a correct analogy for the larger forces in society).

However I think you are wrong about the creation of the cult of personality: it is very deliberate. It is not just a spontaneous enthusiasm by a few younger overly excited supporters -- it is organized and demanded.

The RCP insists you are not a communist if you don't believe: "Avakian is a Lenin -- rare, unique, special and irreplaceable leader who is re-conceiving Marxism and communism." They consider this a dividing line question (a "cardinal question") for communists today. I.e. it is not just "some people" but a basic position of the Party today.

You write: "I certainly don't see him cultivating such a cult."

I am quite certain you are mistaken. Just one example: in 2005, Avakian wrote: “I remember, for example, being challenged by someone interviewing me -- I believe this was on a college radio station in Madison, Wisconsin -- who asked insistently: ‘Is there a “cult of personality” developing around Bob Avakian?’ And I replied: ‘I certainly hope so -- we've been working very hard to create one.’”

I think that trying to establish prestige and credibility in that kind of an artificial way is bound to fail.

As for the promotion of critical thinking: my experience is that this is said in words (that people should think critically) and yet in practice there is a strong push to accept Avakian's views rather UNcritically. There is a disconnect here that goes to the core of the current escalating problems of this party.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Well in the case of RCP I think the issue could be better termed "ambiguity". In other words, they seem to speak of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but at the same time Avakian keeps talking about the need to "struggle" with these people and those people, without a lot of talk about what this would actually entail. I agree that we must have dissent, and open discussion- but to what extent? I would be willing to endorse public forums, but I don't believe in giving state resources like printing presses or TV stations to potential counter-revolutionaries. That's just me however; I can't even say what the RCP's exact position is on that because I simply don't see it spelled out.

As for philosophical issues, I personally understand them- but I think that people need to understand that the average working man or woman has little time for political discussion. I'm simply saying that we should devote more time to working these philosophical issues out as they relate to real situations, rather than remaining in the realm of abstract discussion, which brings me to another point. I have read through the Party Program and I don't see much discussion as to HOW socialism will be constructed. We get the usual Marxist basics, but where is a practical explanation of how this will be accomplished, particularly in relation to the massive technological changes we have seen in the last century? This is something that any M-L party ought to be thinking about.

As for that last part, I have yet to see RCP members act in such a way; but I was thinking about contacting them, and perhaps I should do a test of that nature. I will tell them openly that while I agree with certain concepts of Mao, I do not support M-L-M and don't acknowledge Maoism as a legitimate successor to M-L, with my explanations as to why. When I get the result I will report back here.

Incidentily, if I still lived in the US I would consider joining the RCP, but I escaped.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:40 am
.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in both its practical and theoretical aspects, is the most advanced and liberating ideology in human history. Without a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist understanding of society and revolution, the creation of socialism and the liberation of humanity will be impossible.

Jesus christ SP, you almost make it sound like a theology.

[Marsella]

SovietPants

Bob Avakian's leadership is incredibly important to the revolution, and if he were to sell out to or be taken by the enemy, it would be a serious blow to the cause of proletarian revolution. However, we cannot be idealists and say that without chairman avakian, we cannot make revolution. That would be incorrect and lead to dogmatism, which is deeply contrary to MLM.


Without revolutinary leadership, revolutionary development is impossible. Bob Avakian is a revolutionary leader and apparently represents the line and orientation of the party very well because the Central Committee has elected him as the chairman for all of these years. (:lol: )

While the revolutionary struggle can and will continue without Bob Avakian, that does not mean we should be ready and willing to have him killed or jailed by the bourgeoisie or something.

Furthermore, how are my analogies to other revolutionary leaders not apt? If anybody is saying that there is something superhumanly special about Bob Avakian, it's you, because it seems like you are treating him with much more disdain than you would other revolutionary leaders.


All revolutionary leaders are irreplacable, because they bring their unique understanding of Marxism to the masses and make it applicable to present social conditions. There is literally no other leader like Bob Avakian in the world today. That does not mean Bob Avakian is the "best" leader in the world, or that his leadership is superior to the leadership of all other revolutionary communists in the history of the world.


If Bob Avakian were killed or jailed or if he burned out, obviously he would have to be replaced. It definitely be a blow to our movement, but there are certainly other people who will step up when they are needed. Life would go on without Bob Avakian, revolution would still be possible (thank goodness! :( ). Nobody denies this. However, I don't understand why we should discourage people from engaging with Bob Avakian or other revolutionary leadership (which is what I assume comrades who think the RCP is a "cult of personality" because they put forward their leadership would promote).

This isn't a personal attack on you SP, but I certainly find this...unusual.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 14, 2007 03:40 pm--> (Marmot @ November 14, 2007 03:40 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 06:40 am
.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in both its practical and theoretical aspects, is the most advanced and liberating ideology in human history. Without a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist understanding of society and revolution, the creation of socialism and the liberation of humanity will be impossible.

Jesus christ SP, you almost make it sound like a theology. [/b]
If I do, then I am doing a great disservice to my politics.

Communists seek to have a scientific understanding of society, as such, we have to approach our own ideology critically and scientifically. You won't get that with anarchists, you won't get that with trotskyists, or ultralefitsts - their line, methods and programmes cannot lead to communist revolution.

Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (http://revcom.us/a/ideology/mlm.htm)

Trying to make revolution today without the contributions of Mao would be like trying to make revolution in 1880 without the contributions of Marx, or trying to make revolution in 1917 without the contributions of Lenin.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is constantly investigating itself - it is not fixed in dogmatism, it is dynamic and capable of changing with the world.



This isn't a personal attack on you SP, but I certainly find this...unusual.

What the in hell is that supposed to mean? :blink:

If anything is unusual, it is a person who proudly aligns himself with menshevism while somehow still having the audacity (or perhaps, stupidity) to declare himself a revolutionary.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:31 pm
almost make it sound like a theology.
If I do, then I am doing a great disservice to my politics.

Communists seek to have a scientific understanding of society, as such, we have to approach our own ideology critically and scientifically. You won't get that with anarchists, you won't get that with trotskyists, or ultralefitsts - their line, methods and programmes cannot lead to communist revolution.
[/quote]
The question is not aligning oneself with marxism-leninism-maoism-marmotism or whatever. The question is aligining oneself with communism, and creating a synthesis from the different tactics and ideas communists around the world had.

You want to talk about ultraleftism and about them not carrying "revolutions"? Fine. The new "additions" brought by mao have only been succesful militarily. The things that went alright with the chinese communists were already derived from older ideas. "maoist" things that are praised by maoists like "the cultural revolution" were a gigantic failure--after all, the Chinese "socialist" state degenerated much more quickly than even the "revisionist hellhole" USSR.

Why "maoism"? Why is it so special? There are much better examples of existing "socialist" states, like Cuba, that didnt suffer hyper bureacratization and survived imperialist encroachment, and they didn't follow "magical maoism".

The economic analysis maoists bring forth is a joke. Its such a terrible simplification of how things work--they see everything as a "zero sum" economy, and they speak more about defeating those "darn" imperialists than defeating the international bourgeosie--including the iraqi bourgeosie etc.

The cult of personality is nothing more than an old tactic based on the dynamics of class society. And no, people praising Malcom X is much different than the engineered "cult" built upon Avakian. Besides, communists seek to build a world without "gods and masters", and seek to agitate people to think independendlty and not look upon icons. If trying to encourage this kind of thinking--the destruction of gods and masters--is "petty bourgeois" simply because in its current state of alienation, workers live in a dreamish world of "great personalities" and "gods"--I will damn well encourage every worker and peasant to embrace this kind of "petty bourgeois" thinking.

Finally the RCP has "bourgeois political" aspirations of becoming the state, as if the "party", as every other bourgeois party, is above everything. Communists organize centralized parties in order to agitate and educate--they dont have bourgeois political aspirations. Otherwise this defeats one of the most important tenets of communism--democracy. How can you empower the mayority if the party that is going to install itself as the state is so difficult to join?

I have no problerms with communist parties being selective of their membership and acting against the present opinion of workers. However this is because communist organizations agitate and educate, they don't strive to install themselves as the governing bodies. (unless individual members are chosen in the future socialist state as leaders democratically)

[RGacky3]

Do you think there is no such thing as a petty-bourgeois line, or petty-bourgeois "socialist" tendencies?

What I think is that the terms "Petty-Bourgeois line" are really meaningless, and are really only a way for maoists to bash non maoists ideologies, you throw those terms around but never explain what you mean, by petty bourgeois socialist tendencies and other meaning less marxist terms.


Communists seek to have a scientific understanding of society, as such, we have to approach our own ideology critically and scientifically. You won't get that with anarchists, you won't get that with trotskyists, or ultralefitsts - their line, methods and programmes cannot lead to communist revolution.

Nonsense, 100%, a "scientific understanding of society" would only be possible if human actions could be predicted mathimatically, and that experiments can be done and replicated with the exact same results.

Communists approach their own ideology dogmatically trying to fit complex world issues into their narrow way of thinking, and completely ignoring anything that does'nt fit into their ideology.


Communist leadership doesn't "make revolution" per se, rather, communist leadership raises consciousness among the masses to create a revolutionary situation, and leads the masses through the revolutionary abolition of class society.
It would be more correct to say communist leadership leads the masses to make revolution.


All right, what makes the "Communist Leadership" better equiped to lead.


You think that individual leaders can hold positions of power solely by themselves and for themselves. You make no distinction between leaders of the proletariat and leaders of the bourgeoisie, and in doing so, you make no distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In your view, class analysis is something abstract and essentially meaningless.

I think that individual leaders, WILL ALWAYS, put their own power, and their own pristiege above the common good, thats inevitable.

The difference between leaders of the proletariat and the leaders of the bourgeoisie is really in name only, if there is nothing to guarantee that these so called "leaders of the proletariat" are accountable to the people they claim to lead, then they will act just the same way bourgeoisie leaders do, selfishly and authoritarian.

Nice line of logic though :P, although complete bullshit.

[bezdomni]

The question is not aligning oneself with marxism-leninism-maoism-marmotism or whatever. The question is aligining oneself with communism, and creating a synthesis from the different tactics and ideas communists around the world had.

That is precisely what MLM seeks to do.

We learn from our past mistakes and our successes. We learn from the mistakes and successes of others, and we reach a higher synthesis from this. The more we learn, the more able we are to lead revolution.


The new "additions" brought by mao have only been succesful militarily. The things that went alright with the chinese communists were already derived from older ideas. "maoist" things that are praised by maoists like "the cultural revolution" were a gigantic failure--after all, the Chinese "socialist" state degenerated much more quickly than even the "revisionist hellhole" USSR.


What precisely was a "failure" of the cultural revolution? Were there failures within the Cultural Revolution, were mistakes made? Absolutely.

However, does that mean the Cultural Revolution was fundamentally a failure? Certainly not!


Why "maoism"? Why is it so special? There are much better examples of existing "socialist" states, like Cuba, that didnt suffer hyper bureacratization and survived imperialist encroachment, and they didn't follow "magical maoism".

Maoism isn't some dogmatic way of looking at things that magically makes us perfect communists who can do no wrong. It is the highest synthesis of Marxism and gives us the basis for critically and correctly analyzing society and ourselves.

Cuba is not a socialist state, because it never broke with imperialism. There was a really good article from A World to Win about Che Guevara that addresses the question of Cuba's political economy pretty well. I'd recommend reading it.

A World to Win - The C.I.A. Murder of Ernesto Che Guevara (http://www.aworldtowin.org/wordpress/index.php?paged=2)


The economic analysis maoists bring forth is a joke. Its such a terrible simplification of how things work--they see everything as a "zero sum" economy, and they speak more about defeating those "darn" imperialists than defeating the international bourgeosie--including the iraqi bourgeosie etc.

Can you point to any specific shortcomings of Maoist economic theory, or is that just blind dogmatism?

Furthermore, do you believe it is not necessary to defeat imperialism in order to have a revolution in an oppressed country? Also, how do you distinguish "imperialists" from "international bourgeoisie"? The defeat of imperialism is the defeat of the international bourgeoisie!


. Besides, communists seek to build a world without "gods and masters", and seek to agitate people to think independendlty and not look upon icons.

Do you think the RCP puts Bob Avakian forward as a "god" or "master"? Or do they put him forward in a materialist and critical way?

I linked this earlier, but it was a few pages back. It goes into the question of revolutionary leadership in general, and then specifically on the leadership of chairman avakian.


If trying to encourage this kind of thinking--the destruction of gods and masters--is "petty bourgeois" simply because in its current state of alienation, workers live in a dreamish world of "great personalities" and "gods"--I will damn well encourage every worker and peasant to embrace this kind of "petty bourgeois" thinking.


We should definitely encourage the destruction of gods and masters, however, it is very important to distinguish between a "leader" and a "master". We should also encourage approaching leadership critically, because dogmatism is very dangerous in our movement.

You do acknowledge that communist revolution requires communist leadership, correct?

I think Bill Martin approaches this question really well in Marxism and the Call of the Future


...the thing is that the very intellectuals who will often criticize the vanguard idea, at the very same time they don't have any problem with understanding themselves as being a certain kind of vanguard, playing a certain function of trying to centralize some thinking and taking it forward. So there's a kind of irony to me in terms of the way some people will address this.



Finally the RCP has "bourgeois political" aspirations of becoming the state, as if the "party", as every other bourgeois party, is above everything. Communists organize centralized parties in order to agitate and educate--they dont have bourgeois political aspirations. Otherwise this defeats one of the most important tenets of communism--democracy. How can you empower the mayority if the party that is going to install itself as the state is so difficult to join?

The party does not seek to become the state, it seeks to lead the proletariat to the seizure of state power. As Mao said, "without state power, all is illusion."

There is also a difference between the role of the party before and after the revolution.

Draft Programme of the RCP,USA Part II: The Party Under Socialism and the Transition to Communism (http://revcom.us/margorp/a-party2.htm)

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:39 pm

The party does not seek to become the state, it seeks to lead the proletariat to the seizure of state power. As Mao said, "without state power, all is illusion."



Draft Programme of the RCP,USA Part II: The Party Under Socialism and the Transition to Communism (http://revcom.us/margorp/a-party2.htm)
I beg to differ


From the article you linked us too

But, in the new socialist society, the party will occupy the strategic positions of leadership in the government, the armed forces, the economy, and society as a whole

[bezdomni]

What I think is that the terms "Petty-Bourgeois line" are really meaningless, and are really only a way for maoists to bash non maoists ideologies, you throw those terms around but never explain what you mean, by petty bourgeois socialist tendencies and other meaning less marxist terms.

No, we have explained precisely what we mean. Marx explains what petty-bourgeois socialism is in The Communist Manifesto:


B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

...

In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois régime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes, should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.

This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture.

Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable hangover.

The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 3 (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm)


Nonsense, 100%, a "scientific understanding of society" would only be possible if human actions could be predicted mathimatically, and that experiments can be done and replicated with the exact same results.

Communists approach their own ideology dogmatically trying to fit complex world issues into their narrow way of thinking, and completely ignoring anything that does'nt fit into their ideology.


Uh...social relations (which are what matter, since the entire goal of socialist revolution is to change social relations)can be explained scientifically. Maybe you've heard of economics? Sociology, perhaps?


All right, what makes the "Communist Leadership" better equiped to lead.

You already asked this question and I already answered it. Ask a different one.


I think that individual leaders, WILL ALWAYS, put their own power, and their own pristiege above the common good, thats inevitable.

woowoowoo! welcome to liberalism 101!



The difference between leaders of the proletariat and the leaders of the bourgeoisie is really in name only, if there is nothing to guarantee that these so called "leaders of the proletariat" are accountable to the people they claim to lead, then they will act just the same way bourgeoisie leaders do, selfishly and authoritarian.

:blink:

Do you even claim to take a class analysis?

[Marsella]

If anything is unusual, it is a person who proudly aligns himself with menshevism while somehow still having the audacity (or perhaps, stupidity) to declare himself a revolutionary.

How do I align myself with 'menshevism?'

Martov is just a nick. Menshy is what Palachinov abuses me as. :lol: But then again, I scarcely consider Leninists and Maoists more than middle-class revolutionaries.

And thanks for the personal attack when I specifically said I wasn't attacking you.

I find it unusual, as most people do, over the level of emphasis laid on Avakian.

[Rawthentic]

But then again, I scarcely consider Leninists and Maoists more than middle-class revolutionaries.
how scientific.

but then again, menshevism is idealist and anti-marxist

interestingly enough, those 'middle-class' revolutionaries are the only ones that have made led revolutions.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The RCP does not consider any of the Warsaw Pact countries other than the U.S.S.R. to actually be socialist countries because those countries never had a proletarian revolution.

Then couldn't you rightfully consider China as not 'socialist,' considering that it was based on peasant guerrillas, and not on a mass proletarian movement? There were no 'soviets' in the historic sense, which signifies that there was no independent role played by the working class.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 15, 2007 12:30 am

The RCP does not consider any of the Warsaw Pact countries other than the U.S.S.R. to actually be socialist countries because those countries never had a proletarian revolution.

Then couldn't you rightfully consider China as not 'socialist,' considering that it was based on peasant guerrillas, and not on a mass proletarian movement? There were no 'soviets' in the historic sense, which signifies that there was no independent role played by the working class.
The Chinese revolution was led by the proletariat, but it drew a substantial amount of its strength from the peasantry (as did the Russian Revolution, but in a different way).

When around 80% of the population are peasants, you're going to need to win over the peasantry to the side of revolutionary communism. This also comes with obvious tactical implications (ie, protracted people's war).

One of the contributions Avakian has made to Marxist theory is the adaptation of protracted people's war to the conditions of an advanced imperialist country, like the United States.

Red Heretic can probably answer this question a lot better than I can.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 15, 2007 12:30 am
Couldn't you rightfully consider China as not 'socialist,' considering that it was based on peasant guerrillas, and not on a mass proletarian movement? There were no 'soviets' in the historic sense, which signifies that there was no independent role played by the working class.
No. China's revolution was still a grassroutes action taken up by the people. Revolution must be bottom up. That is the point. There was no uniting the proletariat, no seizure of private property and no building of the Dictatorship. Soviet social imperialism in the age of Stalin is still imperialism. Instead of a revolution, the USSR invaded, put their communist party in power and economically exploited those countries. Not socialism.

[Rawthentic]

Mao Tse-tung broke from orthodox 'communists' such as the Comintern's line of 'proletarianization' of the CCP led by Li-li san in the Central Committee. They wanted a return to urban insurrections amongst the workers in the larger cities.

Mao analyzed this and what he drew is that if they did resort to the orthodox line, they would easily be annihilated by the bourgeois forces that concentrated in the countryside. So what became the strategy is to win over the peasantry (like SP said, 80% of the pop.) and then proceed to the cities that led to a proletarian seizure of power.

In these types of situations, the peasantry is the main force, and the proletariat is the leading force. Just because the proletariat was so much smaller meant nothing. Thats like saying the bourgeoisie didn't lead the French Revolution because it was so much smaller than the peasantry.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by LFTP
So what became the strategy is to win over the peasantry (like SP said, 80% of the pop.) and then proceed to the cities that led to a proletarian seizure of power.
This said, then the RCP is working in contradiction to Mao Zedong thought, as they don't have much of a presence, even in the mid-sized cities.

The peasantry isn't just going to throw in with a party they've never heard of, especially with the kind of anti-Communist bigotry out in the country. Add Avakian's personality cult to that.

Of course, this is assuming that Mao's strategy of leaving the cities until last will work---which it won't.

How do you think the RCP can overcome it's problems and lead a revolution here? I'm curious.

[bezdomni]

In these types of situations, the peasantry is the main force, and the proletariat is the leading force. Just because the proletariat was so much smaller meant nothing. Thats like saying the bourgeoisie didn't lead the French Revolution because it was so much smaller than the peasantry.

Well put comrade.


The peasantry isn't just going to throw in with a party they've never heard of, especially with the kind of anti-Communist bigotry out in the country. Add Avakian's personality cult to that.

lol there is no peasantry in the United States.


How do you think the RCP can overcome it's problems and lead a revolution here? I'm curious.

Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity (Part I) (http://revcom.us/avakian/makingrevolution/makingrevolution02-en.html)

On the Possibility of Revolution: A letter from a reader and a response (http://revcom.us/a/102/possibility-en.html)

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

[Labor Shall Rule]

But alas, they weren't "the leading force," they were auxiliaries to the peasant forces. In the "white areas" they had a network of spies that created labor disputes in order to financially strain their war industries. There was no nation-wide strikes, no factory committees, and most of all, no political bodies of proletarian expression.

The "orthodox" line is the correct line. The fact is that the Chinese "Red Army" was headed by communists, but that is superfluous when you correctly examine their social base. It was an army of peasant detachments that was lead by declassed intellectuals and semi-intellectuals that had no prior involvement in the worker's struggle. This is not to say that the peasant could not achieve socialist consciousness, but that his petit-bourgeois consciousness concludes that the prejudices held on their farms would be carried to the policies of the army and the state that it formed. I thought history has taught us that powerful proprietary and reactionary tendencies are found in peasant armies? The slaughter of urban workers and intellectuals in Cambodia, producing out of steel ingots in the backyard of peasants, and the "anarchist" army of Makhno should prove what you get when the peasantry commands a movement.

The Russian Nardoniks used to accuse the Bolsheviks of "ignoring" the peasantry, of not carrying on work in the villages, and not leading the fire that was brewing in the countryside, and Lenin responded with how the party "will arouse and organize the advanced workers and through the workers we shall arouse the peasants." This was the "orthodox" line, and as far as I am concerned, it was an astounding success.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by SovietPants+November 14, 2007 08:41 pm--> (SovietPants @ November 14, 2007 08:41 pm)
The peasantry isn't just going to throw in with a party they've never heard of, especially with the kind of anti-Communist bigotry out in the country. Add Avakian's personality cult to that.

lol there is no peasantry in the United States. [/b]
I was using peasantry as a more polite alternative to 'hicks'.


Originally posted by [email protected]


How do you think the RCP can overcome it's problems and lead a revolution here? I'm curious.

Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity (Part I) (http://revcom.us/avakian/makingrevolution/makingrevolution02-en.html)

On the Possibility of Revolution: A letter from a reader and a response (http://revcom.us/a/102/possibility-en.html)
They are good reads, but what's missing is anyone attempting to put them into practice.


SovietPants
Draft Programme of the RCP, USA (http://revcom.us/margorp/progtoc-e.htm)
I've already read their draft programme.

[Rawthentic]

But alas, they weren't "the leading force," they were auxiliaries to the peasant forces. In the "white areas" they had a network of spies that created labor disputes in order to financially strain their war industries. There was no nation-wide strikes, no factory committees, and most of all, no political bodies of proletarian expression.
Don't be silly. You call yourself a 'materialist' and attempt o judge China based on Russian conditions.

Mao correctly analyzed Chinese conditions, which yes, were much different than in Russia. The Bolsheviks had never been slaughtered and murdered when they were organizing workers in a city. So, the CCP could either quit, or continue the revolution. They, of course, continued the revolution, but logically understood that they would have to win over the peasantry to the side of the proletariat (which they clearly did). Not only that, but when the Red Army came over the cities, new bodies of political expression were built for the proletariat, such as factory committees, worker's clubs, and the communes.

And this is of course completely besides the point. Communist revolution is not about individual workers "getting theirs" or any shit like that, its about the proletariat and its ideology (and the peasantry in China's case) that remold society in the interests of the proletariat and ultimately humanity.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 15, 2007 11:17 pm

But alas, they weren't "the leading force," they were auxiliaries to the peasant forces. In the "white areas" they had a network of spies that created labor disputes in order to financially strain their war industries. There was no nation-wide strikes, no factory committees, and most of all, no political bodies of proletarian expression.
Don't be silly. You call yourself a 'materialist' and attempt o judge China based on Russian conditions.

Mao correctly analyzed Chinese conditions, which yes, were much different than in Russia. The Bolsheviks had never been slaughtered and murdered when they were organizing workers in a city. So, the CCP could either quit, or continue the revolution. They, of course, continued the revolution, but logically understood that they would have to win over the peasantry to the side of the proletariat (which they clearly did). Not only that, but when the Red Army came over the cities, new bodies of political expression were built for the proletariat, such as factory committees, worker's clubs, and the communes.

And this is of course completely besides the point. Communist revolution is not about individual workers "getting theirs" or any shit like that, its about the proletariat and its ideology (and the peasantry in China's case) that remold society in the interests of the proletariat and ultimately humanity.
According to Peasant Russia, Civil War: The Volga Countryside in Revolution, roughly eighty-percent of the entire population was poor peasants. The "conditions" were analogus to each other.

I am not saying that they should of morally "quit," but that the correlation of the socioeconomic forces changed after the massacre - a bourgeois clique took control of the party with a mass of discontented proprietors to their back, which blocked out any intermediate, indeterminate, and vacillating position that they might of had with the urban working class. Well, we would agree with that if we were both 'materialists' of course. They used the slogan of a "revolutionary dictatorship" of the workers and peasants to hide the contradictory situation that then existed. As Trotsky wrote, "the epigones do their thinking not by means of social concepts, but by means of stereotyped phrases; formalism is the basic trait of bureaucracy."

The "soviet power" that existed in the countryside had an essentially rural, peripheral character, and entirely lacked support from the industrial proletariat. While the Left Opposition (within the Chinese party) was calling for the "reconstitution of the mass movement," and a "convocation of the constituent assembly," Mao and Wang Ming responded to these calls by calling them a "counterrevolutionary Trotskyist-Ch'en Tu-hsiu group." They were later rounded up, and subsequently shot.

[Rawthentic]

This is nothing new; you are literally advocating a strategy that will (and did) kill thousands of communists and workers in the cities. The strategy of the CCP was to encroach the cities from the countryside, winning over the peasants (thats why the peasant soviets were created) and then proceed to the cities which led to a proletarian seizure of power. I was correct, you are not a materialist, but a dogmatist (like most Trotskyists).

On a side note, the soviets always attempted to give greater representation to rural workers, teachers, and other proletarians, even though they were numerically outnumbered by the peasants.

So, yes, those who wanted to go along Li-li san's line are counter-revolutionary, although they shouldnt have been shot.

[Labor Shall Rule]

How would the proletariat 'seize power' by peasants marching into their cities? Allow me to repeat myself, there was no worker's soviets, no factory committees, and no neighborhood assemblies. If there is no political organization, then there is no power. If there was no independent role played by the proletariat, then there is no socialism.


When the Stalinists talk about a soviet government established by the peasants in a substantial part of China, they not only reveal their credulity and superficiality; they obscure and misrepresent the fundamental problem of the Chinese revolution. The peasantry, even the most revolutionary, cannot create an independent government; it can only support the government of another class, the dominant urban class. The peasantry at all decisive moments follows either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. So-called peasant parties may disguise this fact, but they cannot annul it. Soviets are the organs of power of.a revolutionary class in opposition to the bourgeoisie. This means that the peasantry is unable to organize a soviet system on its own. The same holds true for an army. More than once in China, and in Russia and other countries too, the peasantry has organized guerrilla armies which fought with incomparable courage and stubbornness. But they remained guerrilla armies, connected to a local province and incapable of centralized strategic operations on a large scale. Only the predominance of the proletariat in the decisive industrial and political centers of the country creates the necessary basis for the organization of a Red army and for the extension of a soviet system into the coutryside. To those unable to grasp this, the revolution remains a book closed with seven seals.

That is not 'dogmatist', that is fact. It is unmaterialist to say that a peasant army can march into the cities and put the proletariat in a spot of leadership.

Their strategy was to work within the "white areas," as well as colonially-held cities so they could agitate on the length of the workday, wages, and the right to organize. It was their realized task to first accomplish national objectives, redistribute land to the peasants, and concoct a constituent assembly. They supported the agarian and anti-imperialist movement, contrary to what Wang Ming wrote about them, but correctly believed that socialism could not be reached unless the insurgent peasants were being guided by the proletariat, rather than the other way around, which was unfortunately what occured in China.

[kasama-rl]

Many things are confused and revealed here.

First, revolution is an act of the masses. And in countries where the are large numbers of peasant clearly the alliance of workers and peasants is decisive for any revolution. In 1930s china, where the urban workers were about 2%of the population and the peasants were over 80% -- the revolutionary process was one of the revolutionary anti-feudal movement of the peasants being conducted as part of the world-historic transition to socialism.

These are complex contradictions -- but life (and revolution) by its nature consists of complex contradictions.

You can't solve these things "a priori" -- i.e. establishing truths (largely out of your head or invented principles) and then judging reality by those "truths".

for example, Labor shall rules announces "The peasantry, even the most revolutionary, cannot create an independent government; it can only support the government of another class, the dominant urban class."

Uh, is that really obvious, proven or (godforbid) true?

Why can't peasants support rural liberated zones formed under the leadership of communists (who represent the program and highest interests of the proletariat internationally)? Where is it written that this isn't impossible?

Who says the proletarians are necessarily an "urban class"? In china a greeat deal of the proletarians were in mining, railroad construction, river transport, and even various forms of rural hired labor. Is that so wrong? Why?

In Mao's political work, he organized among the Anyuan coal miners -- who were crushed in their uprisings. And some of the advanced core among them participated in "climbing Chingkang mountain" to establish the firest red base area there and the core of the red army.

Was that so wrong? Where is the law of communism that they broke?

In fact, everything Labor Shall Rule says is impossible (i.e.liberated zones formed based on agrarian revolution, becoming a national liberation war, that ultimately storms the enemy's urban strongholds and establishes a socialist country) actually happened in China.

But if our theories are rooted in dogma and apriori assumptions, then mere evidence, historical experience and events don't matter much!

If the world contradicts your dogma -- denounce the world, clutch the dogma!

The connection between the communist led revolution and the urban workers was complex. For a variety of reasons, the cities were strongholds of reaction (including in many areas Japanese occupiers), while in the rural areas the state aparatus was weak, and in many places the "government" consisted of rival warlords running this or that county and often waging war with each other. In such a patchwork countryside, communist forces could generate liberated areas, develop forces (including military forces) and carry out extensive practice in carrying out rural agarian revolution and red power.

this was not possible in the cities, where their organizations were hounded and repeatedly crushed.

So where is it written that red power couldn't develop in areas where the government was weak, and then capture the areas where the government was strong?

There are different issues here:

There are historical questions of "what actually happened in China?"

There are important questions about how we view revolution, and class, and progress.

And there are questions about how we free our minds from rigid, unscientific assumptions and are able to look at the ACTUAL conditions, and carve an ACTUAL road to revolution out of those living conditions.

[kasama-rl]

And this tussle over dogma is not merely (or mainly) a historic matter.

The same blindness toward reality that is expressed toward the Chinese experience, is obviously applied to what WE need to do here.

What should we do? And how should we identify it?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Have you even read any of my posts, comrade?

In reality, close to eighty percent of the country were tenant farmers, hired laborers, "middle" peasants, small shopowners, or landowners, while there was over twenty percent of industrial workers that were centered in Canton, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Fuzhou, Hangzhou, Wuhan, Shenyang, Tianjin, and Kunming.

In a typical Stalinist fashionesque, all socioeconomic factors are historically irrelevant. The urban working class is the proletariat; it is a conscious abstraction that Maoists use in saying that there were 'rural proletarians'. Though they are oppressed, and a portion of their labor is appropriated by their landlords or smaller proprietors, the social character of their production is entirely different, which is what any historical materialist would realize.

Engels made it clear, in The Peasant War in Germany and in The Principles of Communism, that the peasantry is incapable of leading a revolutionary movement.


The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.

The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.

The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.

The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.

[The Author]

When Engels made those comments in those two pamphlets mentioned above, it was probably more in relation to the material conditions at the time, of revolution only being possible in the most advanced countries. With the development of imperialism and monopoly-capitalism, however, the situation regarding what class would lead varied based on the national character of any particular country or colony and its relationship to imperialism.

During the Second Congress of the Comintern, Lenin outlined the possibility that revolutions could take place in countries with either a very small proletarian population, or in countries consisting entirely of peasants. Based on the social conditions in the countries concerned, either Workers' Soviets, Workers' and Peasants' Soviets, or Peasants' Soviets could be established. I quote from Lenin's Report Of The Commission On The National and Colonial Questions (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm#fw5)


The characteristic feature of imperialism consists in the whole world, as we now see, being divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an insignificant number of oppressor nations, the latter possessing colossal wealth and powerful armed forces. The vast majority of the world’s population, over a thousand million, perhaps even 1,250 million people, if we take the total population of the world as 1,750 million, in other words, about 70 per cent of the world’s population, belong to the oppressed nations, which are either in a state of direct colonial dependence or are semi-colonies, as, for example, Persia, Turkey and China, or else, conquered by some big imperialist power, have become greatly dependent on that power by virtue of peace treaties. This idea of distinction, of dividing the nations into oppressor and oppressed, runs through the theses, not only the first theses published earlier over my signature, but also those submitted by Comrade Roy. The latter were framed chiefly from the standpoint of the situation in India and other big Asian countries oppressed by Britain. Herein lies their great importance to us.

...

I should like especially to emphasise the question of the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. This is a question that has given rise to certain differences. We have discussed whether it would be right or wrong, in principle and in theory, to state that the Communist International and the Communist parties must support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of our discussion, we have arrived at the unanimous decision to speak of the national-revolutionary movement rather than of the “bourgeois-democratic” movement. It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consist of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist relationships. It would be utopian to believe that proletarian parties in these backward countries, if indeed they can emerge in them, can pursue communist tactics and a communist policy, without establishing definite relations with the peasant movement and without giving it effective support. However, the objections have been raised that, if we speak of the bourgeois-democratic movement, we shall be obliterating all distinctions between the reformist and the revolutionary movements. Yet that distinction has been very clearly revealed of late in the backward and colonial countries, since the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nations too. There has been a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often—perhaps even in most cases—the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes. This was irrefutably proved in the commission, and we decided that the only correct attitude was to take this distinction into account and, in nearly all cases, substitute the term “national-revolutionary” for the term “bourgeois-democratic”. The significance of this change is that we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie, to whom the heroes of the Second International also belong. Reformist parties already exist in the colonial countries, and in some cases their spokesmen call themselves Social-Democrats and socialists. The distinction I have referred to has been made in all the theses with the result, I think, that our view is now formulated much more precisely.

Next, I would like to make a remark on the subject of peasants’ Soviets. The Russian Communists’ practical activities in the former tsarist colonies, in such backward countries as Turkestan, etc., have confronted us with the question of how to apply the communist tactics and policy in pre-capitalist conditions. The preponderance of pre-capitalist relationships is still the main determining feature in these countries, so that there can be no question of a purely proletarian movement in them. There is practically no industrial proletariat in these cotmtries. Nevertheless, we have assumed, we must assume, the role of leader even there. Experience has shown us that tremendous difficulties have to be surmounted in these countries. However, the practical results of our work have also shown that despite these difficulties we are in a position to inspire in the masses an urge for independent political thinking and independent political action, even where a proletariat is practically non-existent. This work has been more difficult for us than it will be for comrades in the West-European countries, because in Russia the proletariat is engrossed in the work of state administration. It will reaaily be understood that peasants living in conditions of semi-feudal dependence can easily assimilate and give effect to the idea of Soviet organisation. It is also clear that the oppressed masses, those who are exploited, not only by merchant capital but also by the feudalists, and by a state based on feudalism, can apply this weapon, this type of organisation, in their conditions too. The idea of Soviet organisation is a simple one, and is applicable, not only to proletarian, but also to peasant feudal and semi-feudal relations. Our experience in this respect is not as yet very considerable. However, the debate in the commission, in which several representatives from colonial countries participated, demonstrated convincingly that the Communist International’s theses should point out that peasants’ Soviets, Soviets of the exploited, are a weapon which can be employed, not only in capitalist countries but also in countries with pre-capitalist relations, and that it is the absolute duty of Communist parties and of elements prepared to form Communist parties, everywhere to conduct propaganda in favour of peasants’ Soviets or of working people’s Soviets, this to include backward and colonial countries. Wherever conditions permit, they should at once make attempts to set up Soviets the working people.

This opens up a very interesting and very important field for our practical work. So far our joint experience in this respect has not been extensive, but more and more data will gradually accumulate. It is unquestionable that the proletariat of the advanced countries can and should give help to the working masses of the backward countries, and that the backward countries can emerge from their present stage of development when the victorious proletariat of the Soviet Republics extends a helping hand to these masses and is in a position to give them support.

[kasama-rl]

On a simple factual point:

LMR writes: "In reality, close to eighty percent of the country were tenant farmers, hired laborers, "middle" peasants, small shopowners, or landowners, while there was over twenty percent of industrial workers that were centered in Canton, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Fuzhou, Hangzhou, Wuhan, Shenyang, Tianjin, and Kunming."

This is simply factually wrong. Even if you do the math in this sentence, you have peasants and workers making 100% of the population -- think about it. There were ten million landlords along. Artisans were a larger class than the workers. There were millions of declasse rural poor forced into the cities living as lumpen or beggers. Where do they even appear?

In fact the working class was far smaller than you say.

In Russia it was about 15% of the population in 1917.
In the Chinese revolution it was far smaller, about 2% by some estimates i've read.

If you want to say that the Chinese population was 100% worker/peasant, and that worers were over 20% (!) at least tell us either what you are reading or smoking.

For my part, I went and reread Mao's famousAnalysis of Classes in Chinese Society (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm) -- which he wrote as he was preparing to launch the first liberated zones in china 1926.

I recommend that everyone check it out -- not just to straighten out any factual confustion, but particularly because it is an important work that teaches materialist method of analysis.

Anyway: to continue our discussion here. Mao writes the following:

"The proletariat. The modern industrial proletariat numbers about two million. It is not large because China is economically backward. These two million industrial workers are mainly employed in five industries--railways, mining, maritime transport, textiles and shipbuilding--and a great number are enslaved in enterprises owned by foreign capitalists. Though not very numerous, the industrial proletariat represents China's new productive forces, is the most progressive class in modern China and has become the leading force in the revolutionary movement."

Many important points are made here:

* The industrial proletariat is about 2 million (in a country of hundreds of millions).
* The main industries employing workers including railroads, mining and marine transport (as I pointed out in my earlier post) which were mainly industrial proletarian work OUTSIDE urban areas. And only two of the main industries (textiles and shipbuilding) are urban.
* In other words, Chinese cities (though relatively large) were not particularly proletarian -- they included a lot of artisan life, trade, warehousing, markets, residences of the rural and urban elites, and huge numbers of landless and desperate peasants driven from the countryside. Shanghai was an important exception.

My main point remains: If you want to analyse something you have to look at the thing itself, not try to deduce reality from your own preconceived notions and a priori formulas. Otherwise your logic will be circular and you will miss the essence (and the larger reality) of everything.

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 16, 2007 02:53 pm
This is nothing new; you are literally advocating a strategy that will (and did) kill thousands of communists and workers in the cities. The strategy of the CCP was to encroach the cities from the countryside, winning over the peasants (thats why the peasant soviets were created) and then proceed to the cities which led to a proletarian seizure of power. I was correct, you are not a materialist, but a dogmatist (like most Trotskyists).

On a side note, the soviets always attempted to give greater representation to rural workers, teachers, and other proletarians, even though they were numerically outnumbered by the peasants.

So, yes, those who wanted to go along Li-li san's line are counter-revolutionary, although they shouldnt have been shot.
I unite with the sentiment of "live for the people."

But some of the details are a little more complex:

First of all, the lines we are criticizing (the first and second Li Li-san line, and Wang Ming's lines) were in fact the lines advocated by the Comintern. So was the line that lead to the late 20s disasters in shanghai and canton (which in China were associated with the then-party leader Chen Duxiu).

These were differences within the communist movement -- sharp line struggles. And I don't think those holding the incorrect lines (whether in China or in Moscow) were literally "counterrevolutionaries."

There are real reasons not to fall into demonology: i.e. treating those who make mistakes as if they are enemies.

Part of what we need to draw from this is how communists learn from our mistakes. and how a winning strategy emerges.

Errors are part of the process (in both science and politics). And it doesn't help to simply act as if those who made or advocated or were influenced by early errors must have been on the wrong side.

Truth is not just "there for the taking" but emerges through a complex, protracted and collective struggle filled with errors, self-interrogation, and scrambling to recover.

It is far better to appreciate how we learn, and how we develop new and more correct ideas out of the problems revealed in older and less correct ideas. That is how leaps in theory and practice happen -- if we creatively study and sum up our experiences (good and bad).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What are you suggesting? That there be no revolution in China? The Chinese Revolution wasn't only Peasantry, it was also urban workers and students. If you look at how the People's Army gained control of cities, it was through the working class in those cities bringing down the bourgeois, and then the People's Army marching in. It wasn't an invasion or something. It was the work of union strikes, and factory cell agitprop, student demonstrations and etc... When Edgar Snow, a American Journalist, the first journalist to enter the red areas, visted china, he noted before entering the red area while in a white city that the political situation even here, was rocky, he recounts one large mass student and worker rally he walked past on his way to a train early on in his book.

Besides, also, the masses lived in the countryside. 80% by your account. A bit low I think but okay. You seem to ignore the fact that the vast majority of the peasantry are tenant farmers or hired laborers or small town craftsmen and such. those with nothing to lose but their chains, no property, selling their wage labor. Then also in the 20% which you claim are urban proletariat you forget about the urban bourgoise and petty bourgeoisie who often lived in the cities in great amounts.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The RCP does not consider any of the Warsaw Pact countries other than the U.S.S.R. to actually be socialist countries because those countries never had a proletarian revolution.

well Mao and his supporters in the CCP sure did up until the mid 60s this is evident in Mao's writings, in party writings, in the proletarian media. I think that's a bring break with Maoism and Marxism-Leninism.

And they did have their own revolutions. Almost every country had a revolution through the Anti-Fascist, Anti-Nazi resistances which were led by communists. You have to remember though that these countries were under fascism. This meant that all worker organization, unionization, all leftist and especially communist movements were crushed, their leaders tortured, jailed, and slaughtered. The alternative was to let a continuation of this go on. In West Germany many people kept the position they had in the Nazi government, is that the type of state Eastern Europe should've had? Or a socialist one?

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:20 pm

The RCP does not consider any of the Warsaw Pact countries other than the U.S.S.R. to actually be socialist countries because those countries never had a proletarian revolution.

well Mao and his supporters in the CCP sure did up until the mid 60s this is evident in Mao's writings, in party writings, in the proletarian media. I think that's a bring break with Maoism and Marxism-Leninism.

And they did have their own revolutions. Almost every country had a revolution through the Anti-Fascist, Anti-Nazi resistances which were led by communists. You have to remember though that these countries were under fascism. This meant that all worker organization, unionization, all leftist and especially communist movements were crushed, their leaders tortured, jailed, and slaughtered. The alternative was to let a continuation of this go on. In West Germany many people kept the position they had in the Nazi government, is that the type of state Eastern Europe should've had? Or a socialist one?

LHML raises some important points.

Yes, Mao and company didn't publicly talk about the restoration of capitalism in the USSR (and the rest of eastern europe) until the mid-60s.

They did, however, argue along with Stalin more than a decade earlier i.e. in the late 40s, that Yugoslavia has never become socialist after world war 2 (i.e. after 1945) -- but had taken the capitalist road under Tito (who in name was a "communist" but in reality was a capitalist roader).

And this pathbreaking Maoist analysis of Yugoslavia was an important opening for their emerging analysis of the rest of eastern europe -- and Mao's work "Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country?" (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html) was the first place where he raised the idea that state capitalism could be functioning in countries that had (in name!) become "socialist."

In 1963, Mao openly argued that the Soviet Union had become social imperialist -- i.e. thoroughly and decisively capitalist. (Capitalism of a historically new kind -- state bureaucrat monopoly capitalism where the fundamentally private and divided nature of capital was manifested through the operation of the law of value within the officially "state owned" ecnoomy.)

Now the CCP put forward that BOTH the Soviet Union and the rest of Eastern Europe were capitalist (including, poland, east germany, hungary, czechoslovakia, yugoclavia, and bulgaria.) They were vague on Romania (with the Chou Enlai/Deng forces tending to treat it as a socialist ally with party to party relations after 1963, and the more left forces holding that it was revisionist and capitalist -- which it was.) And the only country in eastern Europe clearly upheld as a socialist country was Albania.

However, I have never read from the Chinese party when they held that capitalist restoration took place, and whether they think any of those countries were actually ever socialist.

There were (obviously) some complex political and economic transformations going on in eastern europe after WW2. The main power was held by the Soviet army -- and in two countries Yugoslavia and albania) it was held by former resistance forces with major Soviet backing. Most of the forces who came to power (Ulbricht in DDR, Dimitrov in Bulgaria etc.) did not come from the anti-nazi resistance forces but from exiled communist groups within the Soviet Union who arrived with the Soviet troops.

The most interesting (and I believe revealing) part of your post was this remark:

"The alternative was to let a continuation of this go on. In West Germany many people kept the position they had in the Nazi government, is that the type of state Eastern Europe should've had? Or a socialist one?"

This expresses well what I think is so wrong about the Marcyite (i.e. PSL) view of both history and socialism.

In this view there is only "alternative" to the wrong line the Soviets had in eastern europe, and that is (apparently) imperialism and continued nazi influence.

Why are those the only two alternatives? Why can't we look back at this complex (and often tragic) historic experience and say "Gee, the Soviets and Stalin handled that wrong. And the revolutionary process that they tried to start there was pretty shallow, and didn't ever really take hold."

Your method of assuming there are only two alternatives is wrong on many levels. And so is any assumption that these awful revisioinist oppressive societies ARE an alternative to capitalism. They aren't an alternative... they are capitalism. And there are many ways of analyzing and uncovering that.

In an earlier post i wrote to you about my experiences in Czechoslovakia.... why don't you address that? That so-called "socialism" wasn't an "alternative" to what was happening to Western Europe -- it was socially INDISTINGUISHABLE (to me)... a perceptual impression since confirmed by more serious investigation and research below the surface.

I also don't think it is accurate that "anti-nazi resistances were led by communists."

Many of the resistances were led by revisionists -- who were imperialist chauvinists, and had no intention or plans to make revolution.

When La Pasionaria was accused (in spain) of betraying the revolution, she said "what revolution?" That sums up how UN-communist these forces were who were leading the French, Italian, Scandinavian etc. resistance against the nazis.

And after the war, they laid down their arms, and handed power over to the imperialists. And took their place (rather loyally) in the bourgeois political process (and no radical peep was ever heard from them again.)

If you want to discuss the history of these so-called "communist parties" (Italy, france, spain) after world war 2 we can.

But in fact the only parties that had much spark of revolution and real communism were in China (and to some extent Vietnam) and a few other places. And when openly counterrevoluotionary forces came to power in the Soviet Union (in the mid-fifties), all those parties (except for China, Albania and a few others) completely fell in line.

Marxism teaches that you can't judge or evaluate a political force by what they call themselves, or even what they themselves believe themselves to be. Nat Turner thought he was a prophet of god, but he wasn't. Duclos and Ulbricht and Gomulka claimed they were communists, but they werent. To make a real analysis of something, you have to look at its essence and its motion -- not at its label or superficial features.

I look forward to reading your response.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 19, 2007 05:18 pm
I also don't think it is accurate that "anti-nazi resistances were led by communists."

Many of the resistances were led by revisionists -- who were imperialist chauvinists, and had no intention or plans to make revolution.

When La Pasionaria was accused (in spain) of betraying the revolution, she said "what revolution?" That sums up how UN-communist these forces were who were leading the French, Italian, Scandinavian etc. resistance against the nazis.

And after the war, they laid down their arms, and handed power over to the imperialists. And took their place (rather loyally) in the bourgeois political process (and no radical peep was ever heard from them again.)
I thought I'd jump in here before joining the main argument.

The anti-Nazi resistance movements were definitely mixed, with all kinds of ideologies present. However, the communists DID play a major role in the resistance after the end of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. IIRC, American forces in France took control of Paris to ensure that the communists couldn't establish their own government after the Nazis abandoned the city.

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2007 05:46 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2007 05:46 pm)
kasama-[email protected] 19, 2007 05:18 pm
I also don't think it is accurate that "anti-nazi resistances were led by communists."

Many of the resistances were led by revisionists -- who were imperialist chauvinists, and had no intention or plans to make revolution.

When La Pasionaria was accused (in spain) of betraying the revolution, she said "what revolution?" That sums up how UN-communist these forces were who were leading the French, Italian, Scandinavian etc. resistance against the nazis.

And after the war, they laid down their arms, and handed power over to the imperialists. And took their place (rather loyally) in the bourgeois political process (and no radical peep was ever heard from them again.)
I thought I'd jump in here before joining the main argument.

The anti-Nazi resistance movements were definitely mixed, with all kinds of ideologies present. However, the communists DID play a major role in the resistance after the end of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. IIRC, American forces in France took control of Paris to ensure that the communists couldn't establish their own government after the Nazis abandoned the city. [/b]

Just to be clear: we agree. The Communist Parties of France, Italy, Spain and Scandinavia DID play a role in the anti-nazi resistances of those occupied countries.

My point (which I may not have made clearly enough) is that they were "communist" in name only. The Communist Parties of europe (and also the U.S.) had given up revolutionary politics in the late thirties -- and were rather grossly patriotic and non-revolutionary (even while some of them were active in anti-nazi activity.)

So the resistances were often led by Communist parties -- but they were not led by real communists (in any sense that we should accept).

By contrast, the anti-Japanese resistance which was led in many places by the Communist Party of China did include communist leadership. In the urban areas the aparatus was led by Liu Shaochi, and included all kinds of notoriously non-revolutionary politics (tailing slavishly behind the Nationalist party, for example).

Some forces inside the Communist Party of China had all kinds of illusions about western imperialism and the chances of a progressive "coalition government" with the Nationalists after the war. In other words the same currents that were so powerful in the rest of the world communist movement were present there in China too. But.... overall the leadership was in the hands of a core that was (nonetheless) quite revolutionary and genuinely communist -- including, in the first place, Mao Tsetung -- who was one of the few from that whole communist movement who would persevere through the 1950s with a revolutionary line.

Is that more clear?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:20 pm


And they did have their own revolutions. Almost every country had a revolution through the Anti-Fascist, Anti-Nazi resistances which were led by communists. You have to remember though that these countries were under fascism. This meant that all worker organization, unionization, all leftist and especially communist movements were crushed, their leaders tortured, jailed, and slaughtered. The alternative was to let a continuation of this go on. In West Germany many people kept the position they had in the Nazi government, is that the type of state Eastern Europe should've had? Or a socialist one?
No they did not have their revolution.

A minority led resistance, backed by USSR soldiers. establishing a "socialist" state is no revolution. Whether it was necessary or better than the alternative is an entirely different point, however that wasn't socialism.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 19, 2007 12:57 pm--> (Marmot @ November 19, 2007 12:57 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 11:20 pm


And they did have their own revolutions. Almost every country had a revolution through the Anti-Fascist, Anti-Nazi resistances which were led by communists. You have to remember though that these countries were under fascism. This meant that all worker organization, unionization, all leftist and especially communist movements were crushed, their leaders tortured, jailed, and slaughtered. The alternative was to let a continuation of this go on. In West Germany many people kept the position they had in the Nazi government, is that the type of state Eastern Europe should've had? Or a socialist one?
No they did not have their revolution.

A minority led resistance, backed by USSR soldiers. establishing a "socialist" state is no revolution. Whether it was necessary or better than the alternative is an entirely different point, however that wasn't socialism. [/b]
I don't see why those countries weren't socialist.

Revolutions are always started by a minority of the people. And if the USSR backs them, they aren't revolutionary? For the past two months I've been running into anarchists denouncing Stalin for not aiding the Spanish Anarchists, and all of the sudden countries recieving aid from the USSR can't be socialist?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 19, 2007 05:57 pm
Just to be clear: we agree. The Communist Parties of France, Italy, Spain and Scandinavia DID play a role in the anti-nazi resistances of those occupied countries.

My point (which I may not have made clearly enough) is that they were "communist" in name only. The Communist Parties of europe (and also the U.S.) had given up revolutionary politics in the late thirties -- and were rather grossly patriotic and non-revolutionary (even while some of them were active in anti-nazi activity.)

So the resistances were often led by Communist parties -- but they were not led by real communists (in any sense that we should accept).

By contrast, the anti-Japanese resistance which was led in many places by the Communist Party of China did include communist leadership. In the urban areas the aparatus was led by Liu Shaochi, and included all kinds of notoriously non-revolutionary politics (tailing slavishly behind the Nationalist party, for example).

Some forces inside the Communist Party of China had all kinds of illusions about western imperialism and the chances of a progressive "coalition government" with the Nationalists after the war. In other words the same currents that were so powerful in the rest of the world communist movement were present there in China too. But.... overall the leadership was in the hands of a core that was (nonetheless) quite revolutionary and genuinely communist -- including, in the first place, Mao Tsetung -- who was one of the few from that whole communist movement who would persevere through the 1950s with a revolutionary line.

Is that more clear?
Yes, that is more clear, thank you. And yes, we do agree.

However, on a tangential point, I am wary of labeling someone or something other than what they claim (in most circumstances). They call themselves communist, fair enough; they are terribly misled and incorrect communists, but it is only my place to add the qualifiers. That's just how I see it.

[kasama-rl]

I agree that revolutions are always started by a minority of the people.

And truth is always in the hands of a minority at first.

However in these countries the processes initiated after WW2 were very loosely connected with the masses of people.

There was a conscious policy of moving slowly... of tailor each step to bourgeois allies and the demands of the "western allies."

It was called the sausage approach: where a broad coalition was formed from the communists to the conservative right -- and then as the government stablized, the right was "sliced off" one slice at a time, until the government was a "peoples democracy."

In reality this approach failed to unleash the people -- and was openly terrified of the masses of people. It imposed changes (whether the masses understood them or were involved) by basing power on the guns of the Soviet army.

It meant that even if the changes were (in form and appearance) "progressive" -- they were often seen by the masses as a means of consolidating something from without. It was not understood or supported in many cases.

And the changes were very shallow in other ways:

In Poland the decision was made to basically leave the huge agricultural sector unchanged -- so that the large and intensely conservative Polish farm population was untouched by socialist revolution. The government made some inroads in urban areas -- but even there they relied heavily on police actions to ensure "support" -- by hunting down opponents there. this did not help much.

This led to situations where the mass outbreaks that happened were (over and over) AGAINST the new order -- Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, Poland in several waves.

Bertolt Brecht, the great communist writer, wrote a poem about the Berlin events of June 17, 1953, that captures the dillemma and bitterness of all this:

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

* * * * * *

If you want a blue wagon, you take a wagon and paint it blue.

But creating socialism is more complicated than that. You can literally bring in an occupying army and (even with the best of intentions) forcefully "paint" the society "socialist" -- but that doesn't make this real.

For the masses to be emancipated they have to emancipate themselves -- or else inevitably the essense of society will be one form or another of capitalism. Socialism is a process of revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism -- if you don't have a genuine living revolutionary movement of the masses, led by an organization with deep roots among them, you just don't have any transition or socialism. You have a travesty, a self-deception, a bitter charade.

When I was in eastern europe you could taste the results of this in the air. People hated everything about the society they lived in. They felt it had been imposed, and that every word about "liberation" and "socialism" was a lie, a deception -- that masked unspeakable corruption and theft.

* * * * * *

What is the point of this? It isn't mianly to make late verdicts on distant events.

It is because in these questions we can grapple with the key question of our world and our times: HOW will the people be emancipated?

How will we uproot capitalism and class society?

What is the alternative society needed to end oppression?

Some people have always thought that you just need to nationalize industry... that if it is state owned then it is "owned by the people" and the people will no longer be dominated by capital.

But a century of history shows that socialism is more than nationalized industry -- because the question then becomes "who does the state serve?"

Socialism is fundamentally a revolutionary process, not mainly some specific form of ownership.

Just as capitalism is a social relationship, so socialism is a different set of social relationships (a whole mode of production) and one that is in dynamic transition...

There are profound contradictions and problems within socialism -- and struggles over those contradictions continue to drive new social change -- either forward to communism or backward toward capitalism.

And to really understand that process -- to really understand what socialism is (and to understand those moments in history when we HAD socialist countries) -- we need to wrangle over these different "models" and experiences.

Otherwise we are in the risk of creating a new form of capitalism and deceiving ourselves (and worse, deceiving the people!).

We want to actually be communists, not deceivers or fools!

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 19, 2007 07:04 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 19, 2007 07:04 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:57 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 11:20 pm


And they did have their own revolutions. Almost every country had a revolution through the Anti-Fascist, Anti-Nazi resistances which were led by communists. You have to remember though that these countries were under fascism. This meant that all worker organization, unionization, all leftist and especially communist movements were crushed, their leaders tortured, jailed, and slaughtered. The alternative was to let a continuation of this go on. In West Germany many people kept the position they had in the Nazi government, is that the type of state Eastern Europe should've had? Or a socialist one?
No they did not have their revolution.

A minority led resistance, backed by USSR soldiers. establishing a "socialist" state is no revolution. Whether it was necessary or better than the alternative is an entirely different point, however that wasn't socialism.
I don't see why those countries weren't socialist.

Revolutions are always started by a minority of the people. And if the USSR backs them, they aren't revolutionary? For the past two months I've been running into anarchists denouncing Stalin for not aiding the Spanish Anarchists, and all of the sudden countries recieving aid from the USSR can't be socialist? [/b]
The Bolsheviks were backed by the majority of workers in the USSR, mass action etc.

The "socialist" states of the Eastern Bloc were established by Communist cadre and the Red Army. There was no mass action behind it. That is why the soviet tanks rolled in Hungary in '56.

[kasama-rl]

I think it is safe to say that the Bolsheviks had the support of a major part of the most conscious and active workers -- at many key moments of the revolutionary process.

I don't think there is any basis for saying they had a fixed and firm majority of the working class, or certainly any majority of the population.

There was a more complex dynamic: of sections providing active support, and others providing soft support, or neutrality or opposition.

And (as anyone who has read the history knows) the levels of support and opposition changed often.

While they had a high tide of support in october 1917 (when they seized power) they also had low points (like 1921) when there were rebellions against the bolshevik government within the navy and factories of Petrograd.

But the legitimacy of revolution does not rest on some mechanical arithmetic majority -- but on the fact that the cause of the revolution represents the highest interests of the great majority (even if they don't always know that) and on the dynamic support that the state power enjoys from the core of the masses -- the most active, conscious and selfsacrificing sections.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 19, 2007 08:06 pm
I think it is safe to say that the Bolsheviks had the support of a major part of the most conscious and active workers -- at many key moments of the revolutionary process.

I don't think there is any basis for saying they had a fixed and firm majority of the working class, or certainly any majority of the population.

There was a more complex dynamic: of sections providing active support, and others providing soft support, or neutrality or opposition.

And (as anyone who has read the history knows) the levels of support and opposition changed often.

While they had a high tide of support in october 1917 (when they seized power) they also had low points (like 1921) when there were rebellions against the bolshevik government within the navy and factories of Petrograd.

But the legitimacy of revolution does not rest on some mechanical arithmetic majority -- but on the fact that the cause of the revolution represents the highest interests of the great majority (even if they don't always know that) and on the dynamic support that the state power enjoys from the core of the masses -- the most active, conscious and selfsacrificing sections.
the bolsheviks were backed by the majority of workers (not peasants) when they seized state power.

Whether the white counterrevolution deformed the state to a certain extent, that is another question.

[kasama-rl]

well, marmot, here is the question, provoked by your INSISTANCE that the bolsheviks had a majority at one specific moment:

If the Bolshevik had NOT literally had an absolute majority of the workers.... would it have been wrong to seize power?

Does the fact that they DIDN"T have a majority of the workers at several later points mean they should have handed power back to the hangmen?

in general, revolution is made by an active minority, that swings broader sections in behind them in support or "active neutrality."

IMHO: there is no law that requires a majority of the population or of any particular class to justify revolution.

* * * * * *

I'm also confused by your discussion of something "deforming the state."

What does an undeformed state look like? And do the real factors in the real world then "deform it"?

this seems like a pretty mechanical and idealist way of looking at real things.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 19, 2007 08:41 pm
well, marmot, here is the question, provoked by your INSISTANCE that the bolsheviks had a majority at one specific moment:

If the Bolshevik had NOT literally had an absolute majority of the workers.... would it have been wrong to seize power?

Does the fact that they DIDN"T have a majority of the workers at several later points mean they should have handed power back to the hangmen?

in general, revolution is made by an active minority, that swings broader sections in behind them in support or "active neutrality."

IMHO: there is no law that requires a majority of the population or of any particular class to justify revolution.

* * * * * *

I'm also confused by your discussion of something "deforming the state."

What does an undeformed state look like? And do the real factors in the real world then "deform it"?

this seems like a pretty mechanical and idealist way of looking at real things.
See it like this:

In capitalism, the bourgeosie has totalitarian control on economic affairs, IE, the general board of directors in a factory is the ultimate authority. Because they form the economic backbone, political authority just springs from that.

If the workers cannot consciously control the means of production in the same way the bourgeosie does now, there is no socialism. Without democracy, there is no real socialism.

Without understanding this, communist cadre deform into petty bourgeois terrorism and adventurism.

The russian revolution was "deformed" by imperialist encirclment and by isolaton. The introduction of war communism (whether it was necessary or not) triggered an ever evolving bureacracy.

[kasama-rl]

no.

A thing is not "deformed" by having a context. You run out into a hard rain -- that does not make you "deformed" when your skin shivers or gets wet. It is just you interacting with your context.

The russian revolution was not "deformed" by having class enemies -- that was inherent in the process. All revolutions have these problems and will have these problems.

It is not like there is some magical "un-deformed" revolutionary process somewhere -- where the pure revolution DOESN'T face imperialists and reactionaries. that is a fantasy.

And your historical example is confused: The main problem of war communism was not bureaucracy -- but that it could not be sustained, since it was based on taking grain without payment from the farmers. And so it had to be followed by the NEP which was the unfortunately necessary accomodation and unleashing of internal capitalism -- markets in agricultural goods, some limited foreign investment, and state capitalist forms in the slowly reviving industries.

"Bureaucracy" is not the problem but the overthrow and transformation of capitalism.

All of life and progress is riddled with contradiction -- revolution does not exist except in opposition to counter revolution. Socialist transformation arrives entwined with efforts at capitalist restoration. Oppression gives rise to resistance.

These interactions are not "deformation" they are the real living dialectics of real living contradictions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Communist Parties of europe (and also the U.S.) had given up revolutionary politics in the late thirties -- and were rather grossly patriotic and non-revolutionary (even while some of them were active in anti-nazi activity.)

This is largely true. But, I think you fail to address the reasoning behind this. Was is that the leaders of these parties just abandoned revolution out of nowhere, or was it because many of the USSR-funded parties were forced to subordinate themselves to the diplomatic interests of the USSR?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A thing is not "deformed" by having a context. You run out into a hard rain -- that does not make you "deformed" when your skin shivers or gets wet. It is just you interacting with your context.

When you stand out in the rain for hours, and your immune system weakens and allows bacteria to make you ill, a change has taken place. You have gotten weaker. You have degenerated to an extent.


The russian revolution was not "deformed" by having class enemies -- that was inherent in the process. All revolutions have these problems and will have these problems.

It didn't degenerate by having class enemies, but rather by the effects that had and how that contradiction was dealt with.


It is not like there is some magical "un-deformed" revolutionary process somewhere -- where the pure revolution DOESN'T face imperialists and reactionaries. that is a fantasy.

No, but there is an example of a socialist revolution continuing on for decades and decades without degenerating.

[kasama-rl]

CDL writes: "But, I think you fail to address the reasoning behind this. Was is that the leaders of these parties just abandoned revolution out of nowhere, or was it because many of the USSR-funded parties were forced to subordinate themselves to the diplomatic interests of the USSR?"

I think it was that they subordinated revolutionary politics in Europe (and elsewhere) to the urgent state interests of the USSR.

After 1933, the Soviet and Comintern leaders summed up that new revolutions were unlikely, and focused on the desperate struggle to save the USSR from Nazi conquest. And they considered the (temporary) abandonment of revolutionary politics in the West an acceptable compromise, since they didn't see any prospects for revolution there anyway.

I think it was a mistake, and led to the inability to see and seize revolutionary possibilities that DID emerge during and after WW2.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In capitalism, the bourgeosie has totalitarian control on economic affairs, IE, the general board of directors in a factory is the ultimate authority. Because they form the economic backbone, political authority just springs from that.

Right. But the working class and the bourgeoisie aren't the same.

The working class can take political power first, while some capitalist property relations remain. Capitalist property relations weren't immediately abolished after the October Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, etc., but they were soon after.

As Marx wrote: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State..."


A minority led resistance, backed by USSR soldiers.

The real question is: Were capitalist property relations overturned, and were the capitalists ousted from power?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

After 1933, the Soviet and Comintern leaders summed up that new revolutions were unlikely, and focused on the desperate struggle to save the USSR from Nazi conquest. And they considered the (temporary) abandonment of revolutionary politics in the West an acceptable compromise, since they didn't see any prospects for revolution there anyway.

In other words, they sacrificed the interests of the working class as a whole in the interests of (what they incorrectly billed as) defending the interests of the working class in the USSR?


I think it was a mistake, and led to the inability to see and seize revolutionary possibilities that DID emerge during and after WW2.

On that, there can be no disagreement.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 09:12 pm

The real question is: Were capitalist property relations overturned, and were the capitalists ousted from power?
Whether capitalist "relations" were overturned or not, is not the real question. The real question is whether the workers were in control?

Capitalist relations can be overturned by many things.



The working class can take political power first, while some capitalist property relations remain. Capitalist property relations weren't immediately abolished after the October Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, etc., but they were soon after.

Political power didn't mean much until it was used to overturn capitalist relations.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Capitalist relations can be overturned by many things.

So, if they are overturned, but the workers aren't in power, what is the character of that sort of society?


Political power didn't mean much until it was used to overturn capitalist relations.

That's one way to put it.. but off of the original subject.

Of course the workers need to gain political power first, to overturn capitalist property relations; and if they don't use their power to do that, they will loose it. But that's a truism that goes without saying.. sort of like "if I wasn't wet, I'd be dry."

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 09:26 pm

Capitalist relations can be overturned by many things.




Political power didn't mean much until it was used to overturn capitalist relations.

That's one way to put it.. but off of the original subject.

D

So, if they are overturned, but the workers aren't in power, what is the character of that sort of society?

I have no idea. :)

I only know that it is not what marx wrote about.

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm

After 1933, the Soviet and Comintern leaders summed up that new revolutions were unlikely, and focused on the desperate struggle to save the USSR from Nazi conquest. And they considered the (temporary) abandonment of revolutionary politics in the West an acceptable compromise, since they didn't see any prospects for revolution there anyway.

In other words, they sacrificed the interests of the working class as a whole in the interests of (what they incorrectly billed as) defending the interests of the working class in the USSR?
I think it is not so simple:

They thought that defending the interest of Soviet Power in Russia WAS advancing the "interests of the working class as a whole."

They thought the international working class and the Soviet Union were "one."

And that the best way to advance the world revolution was to defend the soviet union, and make WHATEVER compromises were needed to do that.

And on one level, it looked (for a moment) like this had been successful. The "socialist camp" that came out of WW2 suddenly included a third of humanity -- from the middle of Europe across russia and china to the south china sea. It was a breath-taking leap in the size of "socialist" territory.

But there was an illusion -- because the "defense of the soviet union" did not appreciate the question of "what is happening to socialism in the USSR."

that's kinda the point...

And that "mighty socialist camp" was crumbling before it was really born -- and within a few years there was really only one socialist country -- China -- and the rest were falling in various ways into capitalist restoration.

So there are some complex contradictions here.

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 19, 2007 09:40 pm--> (Marmot @ November 19, 2007 09:40 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 09:26 pm

Capitalist relations can be overturned by many things.




Political power didn't mean much until it was used to overturn capitalist relations.

That's one way to put it.. but off of the original subject.

D

So, if they are overturned, but the workers aren't in power, what is the character of that sort of society?

I have no idea. :)

I only know that it is not what marx wrote about. [/b]
i believe the possibilities are either the society is on the socialist road or on the capitalist road. Either the revolutionary proletariat and its interests are directing the direction of society, or it is capitalist.

And really, the issue is not "what marx wrote about" -- since he wrote long before any real experience with real socialism. We know much more about these processes than Marx COULD know -- since practice is the necessary basis for correct theory.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by kasama-rl+November 19, 2007 09:59 pm--> (kasama-rl @ November 19, 2007 09:59 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:40 pm

Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 09:26 pm

Capitalist relations can be overturned by many things.




Political power didn't mean much until it was used to overturn capitalist relations.

That's one way to put it.. but off of the original subject.

D

So, if they are overturned, but the workers aren't in power, what is the character of that sort of society?

I have no idea. :)

I only know that it is not what marx wrote about.
i believe the possibilities are either the society is on the socialist road or on the capitalist road. Either the revolutionary proletariat and its interests are directing the direction of society, or it is capitalist.

And really, the issue is not "what marx wrote about" -- since he wrote long before any real experience with real socialism. We know much more about these processes than Marx COULD know -- since practice is the necessary basis for correct theory. [/b]
You are right.

However there are certain principles always implicit in the communist struggle, even before marx tried to make a theoretical framework about it: and one of them, is the struggle for the new, complete man that owns his surroundings.

The communist struggle, before the stalinist counterrevolution, was more than a dry, "economic struggle"--it was a tension against gods and masters. The early experimental vibrancy of the soviet experiment shows exactly this.

A struggle where the state "serves economically people", without understanding that the state must be the people themselves, and that generalized alienation must be smashed, is not socialist. Part of the misery of the working class, is not only not being able to bring food to the table, but the feel, the "estrangement", that the world you build you are unable to control.

[kasama-rl]

You wrote: "However there are certain principles always implicit in the communist struggle.... and one of them, is the struggle for the new, complete man that owns his surroundings."

Some simple questions:

How EXACTLY do you know these principles exist?

Where do they come from?
From the objective workings of human society, or from human creation?
What is a "new complete man"?
What makes him "complete"?
What makes him male?
What does it mean to "own his surroundings" -- what kind of ownership is that? Personal? Property?

The best critique of this kind of thinking is by Engels "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 20, 2007 03:27 am
You wrote: "However there are certain principles always implicit in the communist struggle.... and one of them, is the struggle for the new, complete man that owns his surroundings."

Some simple questions:

How EXACTLY do you know these principles exist?

Where do they come from?
From the objective workings of human society, or from human creation?
What is a "new complete man"?
What makes him "complete"?
What makes him male?
What does it mean to "own his surroundings" -- what kind of ownership is that? Personal? Property?

The best critique of this kind of thinking is by Engels "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)
Actually, it was written by marx himself (alienation of labor), if you bother reading his early manuscripts. However this kind of tension has been in history throughout millenia: whether it was spartacus, the diggers, the taborites, and now it is against capital.

Economics create the superstructure, there is no doubt about this. This is why, the historical objective of the proletarian is to have control over the economy of society. Economic and political control are intimately tied, and they are not as separate as trotskyists want to make you believe. Taking control of the world we build is taking control of our lives.

The book you are citing was book against utopian socialism. I am not an utopian socialist. utopian socialists are people who think that a minority of red jacobins can accomplish the historical objective of a whole class.

There has been workers' state that were not as horribly deformed as the USSR or the DPRK. There is generalized democracy in Cuba, for example.

[Rawthentic]

This is why, the historical objective of the proletarian is to have control over the economy of society.
Comrade, this is a very serious misunderstanding, and encapsulates the essence (maybe not the essence, but a large part of) of economism.

The historical objective of the proletariat is to achieve communism and emancipate all of humanity (or achieve the "Four Alls" as Marx talked on and Mao elaborated).

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 20, 2007 04:57 am

This is why, the historical objective of the proletarian is to have control over the economy of society.
Comrade, this is a very serious misunderstanding, and encapsulates the essence (maybe not the essence, but a large part of) of economism.

The historical objective of the proletariat is to achieve communism and emancipate all of humanity (or achieve the "Four Alls" as Marx talked on and Mao elaborated).
The emancipation of humanity is done through the proletariat, and this is done by the economic take over of society.

There is nothing remotely "anti-socialist" about this.

[RGacky3]

The historical objective of the proletariat is to achieve communism and emancipate all of humanity

What does Emancipation mean to you?

There is no historical objective for anyone, emancipation means everyone gets to choose their own objective, everyone decides for themself what they do, how they think, what they make, and you can never emancipate anyone by purposely centralizing power and authority.