The Great Leap Forward [Archive]

RNK

3rd December 2007, 12:44

A few months ago I did a rather shallow investigation of the extent of the deaths of the GLF, comparing death rates with other historical human catastrophies. Interestingly, on a per-population basis, the GLF was not nearly as devestating as many other natural and economic disasters of history; the Irish Potato Famine, for instance, killed a much, much higher percentage of the population.

But 1.) why did it actually collapse?

Typically, many leftists will hold nothing back cheerleading the failure of the GLF but when asked why it failed come up short; or shrug it off as due in whole to Mao. Somehow.

The causes of the GLF's failure (besides the aforementioned ecological reasons) are mainly due to mis-management on the part of the CCP, the stagnation and impotence which rampaged through the mid-tiers (and in some cases upper echelons) of local and national officials, and, in part, Mao's own disconnection with the conditions of the masses. By the time of the GLF, many Party officials and political and economic officers had become too "comfortable" in their positions and had become ineffective; others were worried about replacement and reported inflated figures of agricultural production. The implimentation of Mao's "home-brewed industry" also played a part; many communes were directed to create industrial materiel in woefully inferior home-made processing facilities which resulted in substantial manpower being utterly wasted as the products made proved completely unusable.

2.) was that failure inevitable? Did it spring from the theory behind the policy (People's Communes) or specific implementation?

It's almost impossible to say whether or not it could have been prevented entirely. Obviously ecological disasters can't be avoided, but it is very hard to estimate just how much could have been done to blunt the negative effects of it.

and 3.) what should have been done instead/to make it better?

It's my opinion that by the time of the GLF the officials in the Party had local and national officials had become to complacent with their duties and the Party itself become too detached from the masses, not by its own design but by negligence of the situation. Technological inferiority aside, the CCP should have been more involved and more buried in the population; it should have served, to use an analogy, as more of a function for the masses to organize on the national level, rather than an independant entity charged to organize them.

bezdomni

3rd December 2007, 18:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:02 pm
Like the Cultural Revolution, it was an adventure that ended up in a mess. If it were not for the planned economy that China had, the results would have been far more prolonged, if not permanent.
lol, would you care to demonstrate how the planned economy saved China from a "permanent" economic disaster?

You do realize what you just said is almost laughably anti-materialist, right?

manic expression

3rd December 2007, 23:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:43 pm
A few months ago I did a rather shallow investigation of the extent of the deaths of the GLF, comparing death rates with other historical human catastrophies. Interestingly, on a per-population basis, the GLF was not nearly as devestating as many other natural and economic disasters of history; the Irish Potato Famine, for instance, killed a much, much higher percentage of the population.
Granted, RNK, but they happened an entire century apart. That makes quite a bit of difference and it needn't be glossed over.

Typically, many leftists will hold nothing back cheerleading the failure of the GLF but when asked why it failed come up short; or shrug it off as due in whole to Mao. Somehow.

The causes of the GLF's failure (besides the aforementioned ecological reasons) are mainly due to mis-management on the part of the CCP, the stagnation and impotence which rampaged through the mid-tiers (and in some cases upper echelons) of local and national officials, and, in part, Mao's own disconnection with the conditions of the masses. By the time of the GLF, many Party officials and political and economic officers had become too "comfortable" in their positions and had become ineffective; others were worried about replacement and reported inflated figures of agricultural production. The implimentation of Mao's "home-brewed industry" also played a part; many communes were directed to create industrial materiel in woefully inferior home-made processing facilities which resulted in substantial manpower being utterly wasted as the products made proved completely unusable.

First, I don't think anyone here is "cheerleading" the failure of the GLF, that's a strawman at best. Secondly, Mao DID take some responsibility for the catastrophe the GLF proved to be and resigned from his government post as a result.

I agree with your second paragraph for the most part.

It's almost impossible to say whether or not it could have been prevented entirely. Obviously ecological disasters can't be avoided, but it is very hard to estimate just how much could have been done to blunt the negative effects of it.

The GLF failed because of the reasons you stated above, ecological factors played a big role, but one of many others.

It's my opinion that by the time of the GLF the officials in the Party had local and national officials had become to complacent with their duties and the Party itself become too detached from the masses, not by its own design but by negligence of the situation. Technological inferiority aside, the CCP should have been more involved and more buried in the population; it should have served, to use an analogy, as more of a function for the masses to organize on the national level, rather than an independant entity charged to organize them.

This is the crux of the issue: why were members of the CCP "complacent" and "detached"? Let me ask you, how did this come about and what mistakes were made by the CCP in this regard?

Axel1917

4th December 2007, 06:48

Originally posted by SovietPants+December 03, 2007 12:09 pm--> (SovietPants @ December 03, 2007 12:09 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 07:02 pm
Like the Cultural Revolution, it was an adventure that ended up in a mess. If it were not for the planned economy that China had, the results would have been far more prolonged, if not permanent.
lol, would you care to demonstrate how the planned economy saved China from a "permanent" economic disaster?

You do realize what you just said is almost laughably anti-materialist, right? [/b]
The rabidly anti-communist Avakian worshiper accusing me of being anti-materialist!? Talk about hypocrisy! :lol:

I think that the answer should be self-evident to those that are actually Marxists, a plan being able to make use of resources more effectively, actually able to distribute things properly instead of capitalist anarchy, etc. It was such advantages of a planned economy that saved the USSR from Nazi Germany in WWII, in spite of Stalin's disastrous policies as well.

Do you think that capitalism could have made a recovery from this? Obviously not very well.

bezdomni

4th December 2007, 19:33

The rabidly anti-communist Avakian worshiper accusing me of being anti-materialist!? Talk about hypocrisy!

A grantite being dogmatic! Well, I'd never!

Where have I ever "worshipped" Avakian? Or even presented his leadership in a religious, non-materialist way?

That's a pretty serious criticism, I'd like you to back it up (with quotes). Otherwise, you're just talking out ya ass and are trying to distract the argument from your own obvious lack of materialist understanding.

a plan being able to make use of resources more effectively, actually able to distribute things properly instead of capitalist anarchy, etc. It was such advantages of a planned economy that saved the USSR from Nazi Germany in WWII, in spite of Stalin's disastrous policies as well.

So you think things were distributed effectively and properly during the Great Leap Forward? What was wrong with it then? :wacko:

Furthermore, what do you mean by the effects of the Great Leap Forward would have been prolonged, if not permanent? A crucial part of it was the planned ecnomy, so, in response to your second question, how could capitalism have a "great leap forward" since the GLF implied a planned, socialist economy?

Your argumentation makes no sense.

Axel1917

5th December 2007, 06:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:32 pm

A grantite being dogmatic! Well, I'd never!

Where have I ever "worshipped" Avakian? Or even presented his leadership in a religious, non-materialist way?

That's a pretty serious criticism, I'd like you to back it up (with quotes). Otherwise, you're just talking out ya ass and are trying to distract the argument from your own obvious lack of materialist understanding.

And as applejacks put it, if you bothered reading your own literature, you would realize that the RCP is a personality cult:

"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."

Source: From Ike to Mao and Beyond by Bob Avakian

And just look at your newspapers, website, etc. The observer is bombarded with Avakian's quotes, likeness, etc. One of the three points of the Repulsive Cult of Personality (RCP) is "Our leader is Bob Avakian." It is not very hard to prove. Others have started threads in the past proving the cult of Avakian.

So you think things were distributed effectively and properly during the Great Leap Forward? What was wrong with it then? :wacko:

No, I am saying that they were able to recover relatively quickly due to a planned economy. Of course, if it were democratically planned and not bureaucratically planned, the adventure of the Great Leap Forward would have never happened.

Furthermore, what do you mean by the effects of the Great Leap Forward would have been prolonged, if not permanent? A crucial part of it was the planned ecnomy, so, in response to your second question, how could capitalism have a "great leap forward" since the GLF implied a planned, socialist economy?

Your argumentation makes no sense.[/quote]

The effects were terrible - millions of people died, iron production plummeted in 1961, starvation, food shortages, etc. What I meant is that if these things happened in a backward capitalist China, the recovery would not have gone very well, if there was even a recovery at all. If a capitalist China did some kind of policy that ended up screwing up production, making people starve, etc., recovery would not have gone so well.

bezdomni

5th December 2007, 16:24

And as applejacks put it, if you bothered reading your own literature, you would realize that the RCP is a personality cult:

"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."

Source: From Ike to Mao and Beyond by Bob Avakian

And just look at your newspapers, website, etc. The observer is bombarded with Avakian's quotes, likeness, etc. One of the three points of the Repulsive Cult of Personality (RCP) is "Our leader is Bob Avakian." It is not very hard to prove. Others have started threads in the past proving the cult of Avakian.

If you read the party's 1995 declarations on revolutionary leadership and individual leaders, you will notice that the words "cult of personality" are not used, because they do not get to the essence of how revolutionary leadership should be promoted. The words "cult of personality" imply a sort of religiosity that is not consistent with Marxist materialism.

Instead, we use "culture of appreciation", which gets more at the essence of what should exist around Bob Avakian. While some individual supporters of the RCP may not consistently put forward Chairman Avakian's leadership in a materialist way, I think the party more or less consistently does.

What liberals and trots love to do is say "well, there's a 'cult of personality' around Avakian...so we everything he says is automatically false." That's horrible reasoning, and people generally just do it to avoid actually engaging with what Bob Avakian says.

Is what Avakian saying true? I've yet to see you address that, and that is what is important.

Anyway, you accuse me of religiously "worshipping" Bob Avakian. This is a huge fucking lie, and a straight up ad hominem attack against me. If you can't back it up then shut the fuck up.

Also, you should actually read the literature you cite. I have that book on my shelf right in front of me, he was trying to be provocative in saying that on the radio...explaining what a "cult of personality" is (the party was still using that terminology at the time of the interview) and how revolutionary leadership needs to be presented in a critical and materialist way.

The culture of appreciation focuses on the line of the leadership, not the individual leader as a person. Like...nobody gives a fuck what Bob Avakian's favorite food is or how he likes to spend his free time. I mean, yeah maybe it is interesting, but it is politically irrelevent. The party doesn't publish, for example, if Bob Avakian beats Alan Woods at chess or something.

However, it would publish his line against Woods' economism (if it were even relevent enough to bother with, society faces much greater contradictions that require attention)...which presumably would be the line of the party.

No, I am saying that they were able to recover relatively quickly due to a planned economy. Of course, if it were democratically planned and not bureaucratically planned, the adventure of the Great Leap Forward would have never happened.

In your opinion, what was the Great Leap Forward then? What was a realistic historical alternative to the Great Leap Forward?

The effects were terrible - millions of people died, iron production plummeted in 1961, starvation, food shortages, etc. What I meant is that if these things happened in a backward capitalist China, the recovery would not have gone very well, if there was even a recovery at all. If a capitalist China did some kind of policy that ended up screwing up production, making people starve, etc., recovery would not have gone so well.

So...you say things were "distributed properly" because of the planned economy; yet there were drastic food shortages that led to millions of deaths?

This leads me to question your idea of what proper distribution looks like...

manic expression

5th December 2007, 16:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:23 pm
If you read the party's 1995 declarations on revolutionary leadership and individual leaders, you will notice that the words "cult of personality" are not used, because they do not get to the essence of how revolutionary leadership should be promoted. The words "cult of personality" imply a sort of religiosity that is not consistent with Marxist materialism.

Instead, we use "culture of appreciation", which gets more at the essence of what should exist around Bob Avakian. While some individual supporters of the RCP may not consistently put forward Chairman Avakian's leadership in a materialist way, I think the party more or less consistently does.

What liberals and trots love to do is say "well, there's a 'cult of personality' around Avakian...so we everything he says is automatically false." That's horrible reasoning, and people generally just do it to avoid actually engaging with what Bob Avakian says.

Is what Avakian saying true? I've yet to see you address that, and that is what is important.
To jump into the tangential argument, you can't change something by changing what you call it. Calling it a "Culture of appreciation" doesn't change the fact that it's ridiculous and borders on a cult of personality on its best days.

The argument here is that communist parties should not be built around some infallible leader. The RCP is, and then some. Whether or not Avakian has some good points is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

RCPers always try to use the "well you don't appreciate Avakian's actual ideas!" smokescreen, when it has nothing to do with the problem.

bezdomni

5th December 2007, 17:14

To jump into the tangential argument, you can't change something by changing what you call it. Calling it a "Culture of appreciation" doesn't change the fact that it's ridiculous and borders on a cult of personality on its best days.

There hasn't been a qualitative change. There doesn't need to be. We just don't use the words "cult of personality" because they do not get to the essence of how revolutionary leadership should be presented, since the world "cult" presupposes some sort of dogmatic religiosity.

The argument here is that communist parties should not be built around some infallible leader.

We are in agreement. Nobody says Bob Avakian is incapable of making mistakes.

Although...Trotsky seems to be fairly untouchable within a lot of Trot groups. When have Grant or Woods criticized Trotsky? When has any Trotskyist (Cliff doesn't count) criticized Trotsky seriously?

RCPers always try to use the "well you don't appreciate Avakian's actual ideas!" smokescreen, when it has nothing to do with the problem.

Well, actually, it does. Because you are dismissing revolutionary ideas on the grounds that you dislike the way other people present an individual person.

It's not like Bob Avakian sits around and says "hey, tell everyone I'm a god and that they need to worship me" and then the central committee says "sure thing boss!"

That's fucking ridiculous. "Cult of personality" or not, Bob Avakian is right and has brought a lot to Marxism.

Anyway...you say that it's bad to have lots of quotes by Bob Avakian on our website and in our paper. Well why can't we have quotes from Avakian, but you can have quotes from Marx and Lenin and Trotsky? Why does Avakian get such special consideration among revolutionary leaders?

If we said "If you want to change the world, you need to be familiar with Marx/Lenin", nobody would have a problem. In fact, that is more or less something that Chavez has said.

Everybody makes special considerations when they're talking about the RCP and its leadership (especially Avakian). It is put up to scrutiny comparable to no other communist party in the first world. I think that is very telling about the people who are against the party and also about the party itself.

Cryotank Screams

5th December 2007, 17:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:47 am
The rabidly anti-communist Avakian worshiper
Thanks for ruining a perfectly good and potentially interesting thread. <_<

manic expression

5th December 2007, 17:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:13 pm
There hasn't been a qualitative change. There doesn't need to be. We just don't use the words "cult of personality" because they do not get to the essence of how revolutionary leadership should be presented, since the world "cult" presupposes some sort of dogmatic religiosity.

The argument here is that communist parties should not be built around some infallible leader.

We are in agreement. Nobody says Bob Avakian is incapable of making mistakes.

Although...Trotsky seems to be fairly untouchable within a lot of Trot groups. When have Grant or Woods criticized Trotsky? When has any Trotskyist (Cliff doesn't count) criticized Trotsky seriously?

RCPers always try to use the "well you don't appreciate Avakian's actual ideas!" smokescreen, when it has nothing to do with the problem.

Well, actually, it does. Because you are dismissing revolutionary ideas on the grounds that you dislike the way other people present an individual person.

It's not like Bob Avakian sits around and says "hey, tell everyone I'm a god and that they need to worship me" and then the central committee says "sure thing boss!"

That's fucking ridiculous. "Cult of personality" or not, Bob Avakian is right and has brought a lot to Marxism.

Anyway...you say that it's bad to have lots of quotes by Bob Avakian on our website and in our paper. Well why can't we have quotes from Avakian, but you can have quotes from Marx and Lenin and Trotsky? Why does Avakian get such special consideration among revolutionary leaders?

If we said "If you want to change the world, you need to be familiar with Marx/Lenin", nobody would have a problem. In fact, that is more or less something that Chavez has said.

Everybody makes special considerations when they're talking about the RCP and its leadership (especially Avakian). It is put up to scrutiny comparable to no other communist party in the first world. I think that is very telling about the people who are against the party and also about the party itself.
There hasn't been a qualitative change. That's precisely the problem.

Avakian's role in the RCP is drastically different than Trotsky's position in Trotskyist groups. The "trot" organization I work with actually made a conscious effort to reassess Trotsky's initial analyses; we do not put any significant emphasis on the theory of Permanent Revolution, but uphold Trotsky's deformed worker state analysis, as well as his role in defending the Russian Revolution from bureaucratic devolution. I can only speak for the organization I support.

Anyway, the point here is that the RCP plasters Avakian's pictures, quotes and the like on their website, on their publications and on everything they do. Can you not realize the problems that this so-called "culture of appreciation" brings? Can you not see how it intimately resembles a cult of personality, just with different words?

I am criticizing the RCP's insistence on putting Avakian on a whimsical pedestal instead of looking to real revolutionary examples and writings. When your pictures and quotes of Avakian FAR outweigh those of Marx, Engels and Lenin combined, there is something wrong.

Again, Avakian's ideas are secondary here.

Why is it OK for other groups to quote Lenin and Trotsky and Marx and Engels and Sankara and Che and Castro and Malcolm X and Fred Hampton? The fact that there are multiple figures being quoted makes a difference, for one. Having Avakian quotes would be fine if they went along with other quotes, right?

This is my last post on the subject, we've both raised our points and I respect your position in the end.

bezdomni

5th December 2007, 19:00

This is my last post on the subject, we've both raised our points and I respect your position in the end.

I think this is something that we should get in to. These are important political questions. If you disagree with my position, then disagree with it. If you think I am wrong then tell me why I am wrong.

We have to be materialists about this. I want you to criticize me, so that we can both have a better understanding of what's going on here.

There hasn't been a qualitative change. That's precisely the problem.

How? You haven't addressed how this is problematic...you just say that it is.

I don't think you have a materialist understanding of revolutionary leadership.

Why is it OK for other groups to quote Lenin and Trotsky and Marx and Engels and Sankara and Che and Castro and Malcolm X and Fred Hampton? The fact that there are multiple figures being quoted makes a difference, for one. Having Avakian quotes would be fine if they went along with other quotes, right?

Have you actually read anything published by the RCP? Avakian is not the only person in the party who is promoted (Carl Dix, Raymond Lotta, Sunsara Taylor, Ardea Skybreak...), nor are people in the party the only people who are ever referenced to in the paper or in publications by the party. The paper and other publications consistently heavily reference the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao...among others.

So either you are basing all of your conclusions on incorrect assumptions about how the party puts forward Bob Avakian (which comes from you not really understanding what you are talking about), or you are deliberately making distortions. You are either a bullshitter or a liar. Either way, that's fucked up.

Anyway, the point here is that the RCP plasters Avakian's pictures, quotes and the like on their website, on their publications and on everything they do. Can you not realize the problems that this so-called "culture of appreciation" brings? Can you not see how it intimately resembles a cult of personality, just with different words?

Yeah, but the thing is that I have no liberal objections to the cult of personality. I think that those words, however, do not get to the essence of what it is actually supposed to be and blur how revolutionary leadership needs to be promoted.

"Culture of appreciation" is just a better words for "cult of personality". As I have said, the word cult implies something immaterialist, which is not the way we should present leadership.

Let's see what the party has to say about this:

First, I think you have some petty-bourgeois objections to revolutionary leadership already.

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.

...

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".

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.

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.

I think also the people in the anti-leadership camp have a misunderstanding of what it means to be a revolutionary leader. It's not a life of comfort and luxury (unless you're the leader of the SWP, apparently), it is a life 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."

manic expression

5th December 2007, 19:42

I think this is something that we should get in to. These are important political questions. If you disagree with my position, then disagree with it. If you think I am wrong then tell me why I am wrong.

We have to be materialists about this. I want you to criticize me, so that we can both have a better understanding of what's going on here.

Understood. However, you have to realize that I will try not to insult you unnecessarily. I felt I came close to doing so in the last post, and so I edited it. I'll try harder to keep it constructive.

How? You haven't addressed how this is problematic...you just say that it is.

I don't think you have a materialist understanding of revolutionary leadership.

It is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, it elevates individual leadership and obscures daily struggle. Bob Avakian, to me, is NOTHING compared to the worker who tries to organize his or her workplace, or the undocumented worker who warns his neighbors about la migra, or MANY OF THE LEADERS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY. This is another point: how are you going to put Avakian on that pedestal and practically ignore Malcolm X and Fred Hampton and Reed and other leaders who have played huge roles in our movement? It's all Avakian country in the RCP, I don't see any citations of other leaders who made contributions that make Avakian look absolutely insignificant. It's favoritism.

Secondly, it's monolithic. The RCP has changed "cult of personality" to "culture of appreciation", but the stigma that is tied to the former should rightfully be associated with the latter. It's the same thing. Lenin never wanted any statues built of him (the Stalinists went against this wish for their own interests), Castro would never stand for his face to be thrown up in Cuba. THAT is leadership. THAT is not what I see from the RCP. All I see from the RCP is: "Bob Avakian is our leader". That gets us nowhere fast.

Have you actually read anything published by the RCP? Avakian is not the only person in the party who is promoted (Carl Dix, Raymond Lotta, Sunsara Taylor, Ardea Skybreak...), nor are people in the party the only people who are ever referenced to in the paper or in publications by the party. The paper and other publications consistently heavily reference the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao...among others.

So either you are basing all of your conclusions on incorrect assumptions about how the party puts forward Bob Avakian (which comes from you not really understanding what you are talking about), or you are deliberately making distortions. You are either a bullshitter or a liar. Either way, that's fucked up.

I've marched with the RCYB and distributed their newspaper. I do have a familiarity with their line (and as such, I don't demonize them like other leftists, I simply have criticisms when it comes to things like these). Yes, I know about Carl Dix and the rest, but you are fooling no one if you're saying that they get the same attention as Avakian. Even if they did, that would present another problem: it's all within the RCP itself. Not only is this monolithic, but insular.

SovietPants, don't call me a liar, you know that's not what I'm here for. I don't hate the RCP by any stretch of the imagination and have defended them on this very forum (that's a fact). Can someone put forth criticisms of such a subject without being called "either a bullshitter or a liar"? I'm trying to keep this constructive, and maybe I'm not doing the best job, but I'll ask you to do the same.

Yeah, but the thing is that I have no liberal objections to the cult of personality. I think that those words, however, do not get to the essence of what it is actually supposed to be and blur how revolutionary leadership needs to be promoted.

"Culture of appreciation" is just a better words for "cult of personality". As I have said, the word cult implies something immaterialist, which is not the way we should present leadership.

I have practical objections to the cult of personality. So have revolutionary leaders throughout history (Lenin and Castro being good examples). Leadership means being a leader, not a slogan and not an icon. Yes, that may not be the goal of what the RCP does, but that's what it comes across as, and that is a problem whether one likes it or not.

First, I think you have some petty-bourgeois objections to revolutionary leadership already.

Please don't throw that around carelessly. Let's get to the issue.

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.

This argument is a strawman, first of all. I have not put this question into the abstract, I've proposed numerous solutions and suggestions on how to better present the RCP's line. What's more is that I've shown how the most significant leaders of our movement have been against being used as a symbol. Bob Avakian's opinion means nothing next to Lenin's actions; the former has actively been made a banner and slavisly portrayed, the latter made a revolution and was against any cult or culture of either personality or appreciation.

What kind of "historical era" makes personality cults valid? Has imperialism changed since Lenin's time?

The rest of this seems to be addressing anarchist objections to "leadership structures and hierarchies". Completely irrelevant to me.

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.

So what "dynamics of the system" am I under the influence of when I object to putting Avakian before virtually every other revolutionary?

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.

Uneven development means that some workers are more conscious than others. That is the vanguard. That is not one person. Furthermore, you stunt development when you focus your attention on one leader, who just happens to presently lead your organization.

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".

And yet, according to the RCP, development of consciousness must stem from Avakian. This is contradictory IMO.

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.

Individual leaders are not banners and icons. They are supposed to act like leaders and lead instead of posing for pictures and framing their own quotes.

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.

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.

So, first, Avakian is the "best you have to offer"? Not Marx, not Engels, not Lenin? That is enough to make one's head spin. If that was not enough, the idea that Avakian EMBODIES "the people themselves" borders on mysticism.

I think also the people in the anti-leadership camp have a misunderstanding of what it means to be a revolutionary leader. It's not a life of comfort and luxury (unless you're the leader of the SWP, apparently), it is a life 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."

The leader of the SWP lives in luxury? If only he was able to live in France like Avakian. Don't give me that.

So, what you're saying is that Avakian has made more sacrifices than anyone else? Like what? Sacrificing his portraits for Revolution newspaper? Sacrificing his quotes for his website? The only thing the RCP seems intent on glorifying is how glorified Avakian is at the given moment.

Dros

5th December 2007, 21:12

I'm glad we've all come to a new understanding of the Great Leap Forward! :lol: :lol: :lol:

It is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, it elevates individual leadership and obscures daily struggle. Bob Avakian, to me, is NOTHING compared to the worker who tries to organize his or her workplace, or the undocumented worker who warns his neighbors about la migra, or MANY OF THE LEADERS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY. This is another point: how are you going to put Avakian on that pedestal and practically ignore Malcolm X and Fred Hampton and Reed and other leaders who have played huge roles in our movement? It's all Avakian country in the RCP, I don't see any citations of other leaders who made contributions that make Avakian look absolutely insignificant. It's favoritism.

Secondly, it's monolithic. The RCP has changed "cult of personality" to "culture of appreciation", but the stigma that is tied to the former should rightfully be associated with the latter. It's the same thing. Lenin never wanted any statues built of him (the Stalinists went against this wish for their own interests), Castro would never stand for his face to be thrown up in Cuba. THAT is leadership. THAT is not what I see from the RCP. All I see from the RCP is: "Bob Avakian is our leader". That gets us nowhere fast.

Disagree.
1.) Saying that Bob Avakian has not actively contributed to the class struggle is purposterous. He was in the Panthers, coordinated students in the '60's, etc... He has done a lot for the actual struggle.
2.) Malcolm X was not a communist. He was a nationalist identity theorist. But more generally, Avakian's works present a new understanding of communism and communist theory that the RCP wants people to engage. I think he is unique in this.
3.) The work of Bob Avakian is NEW! People know Mao. People know Lenin. Old news. But they are discussed because they are still incredibly important. Avakian's work is perhaps in focus more because they are trying to integrate it and to educate people with it.
4.) I think the culture of appreciation is an effective revolutionary tool. People know who the leader of a movement is. There were cultures of appreciation around King, Malcolm X, Huey P. Newton, etc. This provides a face for the masses, and repolarizes politics by acknowledging the leadership(as well as making it more effective).

So, what you're saying is that Avakian has made more sacrifices than anyone else? Like what? Sacrificing his portraits for Revolution newspaper? Sacrificing his quotes for his website? The only thing the RCP seems intent on glorifying is how glorified Avakian is at the given moment.

Don't be absurd. Noone said that. But he has made sacrifices (not that that is important). He got divorced, fell out with his parents, saw his friends killed, and went into exile in France. Also, the fact that his entire life has been dedicated to revolution should be mentioned...

manic expression

5th December 2007, 21:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:11 pm
Disagree.
1.) Saying that Bob Avakian has not actively contributed to the class struggle is purposterous. He was in the Panthers, coordinated students in the '60's, etc... He has done a lot for the actual struggle.
2.) Malcolm X was not a communist. He was a nationalist identity theorist. But more generally, Avakian's works present a new understanding of communism and communist theory that the RCP wants people to engage. I think he is unique in this.
3.) The work of Bob Avakian is NEW! People know Mao. People know Lenin. Old news. But they are discussed because they are still incredibly important. Avakian's work is perhaps in focus more because they are trying to integrate it and to educate people with it.
4.) I think the culture of appreciation is an effective revolutionary tool. People know who the leader of a movement is. There were cultures of appreciation around King, Malcolm X, Huey P. Newton, etc. This provides a face for the masses, and repolarizes politics by acknowledging the leadership(as well as making it more effective).
1.) So he contributed more than Fred Hampton or the founders of the Panthers? Right.
2.) Malcolm X was a revolutionary who came to a materialist perspective. He was assassinated for taking a revolutionary course. He contriubted FAR more to the working class struggle than Avakian ever will.

So Avakian has a good grasp of Maoist thought? Great. Does that mean his face and quotes have to be everywhere? No. He is being slavishly portrayed and everyone knows it.

3.) Lenin is not "old news". I guess we should just throw out our copies of the Communist Manifesto and read Avakian's stuff, then. I mean, it was written over 150 years ago, Bob Avakian is the future!

Seriously, this argument is so brittle a summer breeze would break straight through it. Theories do not get old just because they were made a few decades ago. Sorry.

4.) The "culture of appreciation" stunts revolutionary politics. It concentrates on a person instead of a struggle. Lenin never stood for such a policy, neither does Castro. I'll learn from their examples of real leadership over the self-aggrandizing tactics of Avakian. Calling the movements around other figures "cultures of appreciation" is intellectual lazy, because they portrayed their leaders in fundamentally different ways (maybe not Huey P. Newton, but most others).

The masses don't need a face, they need a revolutionary program. Concentrate on the latter and you won't need the former.

Don't be absurd. Noone said that. But he has made sacrifices (not that that is important). He got divorced, fell out with his parents, saw his friends killed, and went into exile in France. Also, the fact that his entire life has been dedicated to revolution should be mentioned...

I was responding directly to what the other poster said, so it's hardly absurd.

Many people have made many sacrifices. Hell, a significant portion of the Black Panthers sacrificed blood or years of their lives. If you think getting a divorce, getting your parents pissed at you and being forced into France is enough to become an idol for a party, that is setting the bar quite low. In fact, I don't think there even should be a bar in the first place. That is the crux of the issue.

This is getting off topic. I think this will be my last post on the subject.

Cryotank Screams

5th December 2007, 21:33

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 03:41 pm
The leader of the SWP lives in luxury? If only he was able to live in France like Avakian.
Avakian may live in France but atleast he doesn't sell a loft to a capitalist for 1.87 million.

manic expression

5th December 2007, 23:14

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 05, 2007 09:32 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 05, 2007 09:32 pm)
manic [email protected] 05, 2007 03:41 pm
The leader of the SWP lives in luxury? If only he was able to live in France like Avakian.
Avakian may live in France but atleast he doesn't sell a loft to a capitalist for 1.87 million. [/b]
a.) Please cite evidence.
b.) Be sure to let Engels know about that.
c.) Bob Avakian is still guilty of promoting his own ego ahead of the working class.

Cryotank Screams

5th December 2007, 23:38

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 07:13 pm
a.) Please cite evidence.
b.) Be sure to let Engels know about that.
c.) Bob Avakian is still guilty of promoting his own ego ahead of the working class.
A).

"In 2007, it was widely reported that Barnes at Waters sold their New York condo for over US$1.8million."-Wiki.

"A two-bedroom loft at 380 West 12th Street, a 109-year-old building on a cobblestone block by the Hudson River, was sold by American socialist leaders Jack Barnes and Mary-Alice Waters. Their buyers, Sony BMG Music Entertainment vice president Ole Obermann and his fiancée, Stephanie Jakubiak, paid $1,872,500.

...

"I don’t want to hurt the sellers’ feelings at all, but they definitely had a funky style in terms of how they did the apartment,” said Mr. Obermann. That means there are sliding stained-glass doors, plus a wall of bookshelves. (Ms. Waters is the president of publishing house Pathfinder Press, which publishes Marx and Trotsky, and Mr. Barnes, too.)

“Personally, our tastes are different and we’ll probably do something different,” the buyer said. “It will be open, airy, simple, whereas when it was done 15 years ago there was a lot of light-colored wood shelving.” He’s adding six or so wireless speakers, “a nice music system.”

...

Edward Ferris of Brown Harris Stevens was the listing broker."-New York Observer.

B). The discussion wasn't on Engels, (I know he had money due to his father), but that's not what we're discussing.

SovietPants made the comment that being a revolutionary leader isn't about 'comfort and luxury (unless you're the leader of the SWP)'. You responded with 'Avakian lives in France' which I guess was suppose to infer Avakian was living better and in more luxery than Barnes, however I don't see Avakian selling estates for large sums of cash (to a capitalist no less) and other such exploits.

C). Cite evidence that Avakian personally promoted himself over the proletariat.

Dimentio

5th December 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:01 pm
Obviously it didn't succeed. I guess my question is why? Is there a theoretical reason why it failed? Ecological problems certainly played a role. But 1.) why did it actually collapse? 2.) was that failure inevitable? Did it spring from the theory behind the policy (People's Communes) or specific implementation? and 3.) what should have been done instead/to make it better?
It failed because everyone where basically ordered to just produce one thing. The means justified the ends. It focused on "togetherness" and "mobilisation", not skill. First the steel production idiocy, then killing all the birds idiocy, then killing all the insects idiocy...

manic expression

5th December 2007, 23:52

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 05, 2007 11:37 pm
B). The discussion wasn't on Engels, (I know he had money due to his father), but that's not what we're discussing.

SovietPants made the comment that being a revolutionary leader isn't about 'comfort and luxury (unless you're the leader of the SWP)'. You responded with 'Avakian lives in France' which I guess was suppose to infer Avakian was living better and in more luxery than Barnes, however I don't see Avakian selling estates for large sums of cash (to a capitalist no less) and other such exploits.

C). Cite evidence that Avakian personally promoted himself over the proletariat.
If you're criticizing a communist for selling something they happened to have, then be consistent. You should be just as critical of Engels, as he SOLD the factory he inherited.

According to these reports (one of which is from wikipedia, which I don't trust at all), Barnes sold something he happened to own. Just like Engels.

Avakian is in France. Is this the supposed "sacrifice" the RCP talks about? I guess so.

c.) I've seen the website, I've read the newspaper (and distributed it once as well). Don't try to tell me Bob Avakian isn't smeared all over the place. As I've said before, this sort of personality cult puts emphasis on one person (and their ego) over the real struggles of the working class. I've explained this multiple times.

Cryotank Screams

6th December 2007, 00:37

Just happened to have? No, no. Barnes bought and then sold the property, whereas Engels inherited (just happened to have) and then sold; there's a difference. Also, Engels used his money to fund revolution and so forth, where is the money that Barnes has going? Towards revolution or to his pocket? Regardless Barnes isn't 'just like Engels.' I also don't see what Avakian moving has to do with anything or how it proves he is living in luxury. As for sacrifices he has made, I couldn't tell you seeing as I'm not a member nor well versed on the RCP but perhaps SovietPants or some other member could elaborate more on this.

As for 'C' you didn't fulfill my request or prove your accusation. Yes, Avakian's quotes and name is on their website excessively but you still haven't proven (with evidence) that he personally has put and promoted himself over the proletariat as you claim he is guilty of doing.

manic expression

6th December 2007, 01:20

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 06, 2007 12:36 am
Just happened to have? No, no. Barnes bought and then sold the property, whereas Engels inherited (just happened to have) and then sold; there's a difference. Also, Engels used his money to fund revolution and so forth, where is the money that Barnes has going? Towards revolution or to his pocket? Regardless Barnes isn't 'just like Engels.' I also don't see what Avakian moving has to do with anything or how it proves he is living in luxury. As for sacrifices he has made, I couldn't tell you seeing as I'm not a member nor well versed on the RCP but perhaps SovietPants or some other member could elaborate more on this.
Find a reliable source that shows he bought it, and at what value. Values for property can change, you know this as well as I do. If the property did go up in value, then it is very much like Engels' situation; coming into property of value and selling it.

And how do you know it's still in his pocket?

Avakian's "sacrifices" is precisely what I'm getting at here. Living in France doesn't seem to be a big sacrifice to me. Now, before you try to misrepresent my words again, the whole focus on "sacrifice" is from the RCP, not me (check the quotes upthread).

As for 'C' you didn't fulfill my request or prove your accusation. Yes, Avakian's quotes and name is on their website excessively but you still haven't proven (with evidence) that he personally has put and promoted himself over the proletariat as you claim he is guilty of doing.

That's a fallacious request and you know it. I'm giving a subjective argument, and it presently stands. When the RCP starts cutting back on Avakian and putting in Marx, Engels, Lenin and other real revolutionary leaders who actually made contributions to the movement, then I'll reconsider. Until then, Avakian is putting himself (and his ego) ahead of these revolutionaries AND the working class movement. How? You don't constantly put your own face up and expect it to help revolutionary consciousness. Avakian is doing precisely that, and it is counterproductive at best.

ON EDIT:

"It isn’t clear when Mr. Barnes and Ms. Waters bought the place or how much they paid, but city records date back to 1993, when apartments were massively cheaper."

It seems they were very much in Engels' situation. Care to comment?

Dros

6th December 2007, 01:22

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 09:22 pm
1.) So he contributed more than Fred Hampton or the founders of the Panthers? Right.
2.) Malcolm X was a revolutionary who came to a materialist perspective. He was assassinated for taking a revolutionary course. He contriubted FAR more to the working class struggle than Avakian ever will.

So Avakian has a good grasp of Maoist thought? Great. Does that mean his face and quotes have to be everywhere? No. He is being slavishly portrayed and everyone knows it.

3.) Lenin is not "old news". I guess we should just throw out our copies of the Communist Manifesto and read Avakian's stuff, then. I mean, it was written over 150 years ago, Bob Avakian is the future!

Seriously, this argument is so brittle a summer breeze would break straight through it. Theories do not get old just because they were made a few decades ago. Sorry.

4.) The "culture of appreciation" stunts revolutionary politics. It concentrates on a person instead of a struggle. Lenin never stood for such a policy, neither does Castro. I'll learn from their examples of real leadership over the self-aggrandizing tactics of Avakian. Calling the movements around other figures "cultures of appreciation" is intellectual lazy, because they portrayed their leaders in fundamentally different ways (maybe not Huey P. Newton, but most others).

The masses don't need a face, they need a revolutionary program. Concentrate on the latter and you won't need the former.

Don't be absurd. Noone said that. But he has made sacrifices (not that that is important). He got divorced, fell out with his parents, saw his friends killed, and went into exile in France. Also, the fact that his entire life has been dedicated to revolution should be mentioned...

I was responding directly to what the other poster said, so it's hardly absurd.

Many people have made many sacrifices. Hell, a significant portion of the Black Panthers sacrificed blood or years of their lives. If you think getting a divorce, getting your parents pissed at you and being forced into France is enough to become an idol for a party, that is setting the bar quite low. In fact, I don't think there even should be a bar in the first place. That is the crux of the issue.

This is getting off topic. I think this will be my last post on the subject.

1.) So he contributed more than Fred Hampton or the founders of the Panthers? Right.

Yes and no. In terms of theoretical contribution, his analysis is more pertinent and more thorough. In terms of his struggle, no one would say that he alone has made more of a difference than the entire BPP. Further, he respects and acknowledges these leaders while learning from their mistakes.

Oh and just as an aside there were "cultures of appreciation" around Dr. Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale, and Malcolm X.

2.) Malcolm X was a revolutionary who came to a materialist perspective. He was assassinated for taking a revolutionary course. He contriubted FAR more to the working class struggle than Avakian ever will.

I have great respect for Malcolm X. But on the level of theory and analysis, he is totally wrong. He was an identity politics idealogue nationalist who spread Islam. He did a lot for Black people, true. In terms of expanding Marxist theory he contributed 0.

So Avakian has a good grasp of Maoist thought? Great. Does that mean his face and quotes have to be everywhere? No. He is being slavishly portrayed and everyone knows it.

It means we should engage his works. That is what the RCP tries to do.

3.) Lenin is not "old news". I guess we should just throw out our copies of the Communist Manifesto and read Avakian's stuff, then. I mean, it was written over 150 years ago, Bob Avakian is the future!

Seriously, this argument is so brittle a summer breeze would break straight through it. Theories do not get old just because they were made a few decades ago. Sorry.

I think everybody knows that is a straw man. You understand my point (or else your pretty stupid).

The argument was that all communists have a general understanding of what Lenin wrote. So, the paper isn't going to run "What is to Be Done?" in every other issue. It would be silly. The point is, Avakian in contemporary and we feal that it is important that people gain a knowledge of what he is saying. My comments should not be taken in a hyper-literal way as an attack on Lenin. I respect Lenin as one of the most important revolutionary leaders in history (see my avatar). The point is, in revolutionary circles, he is pretty well read.

4.) The "culture of appreciation" stunts revolutionary politics. It concentrates on a person instead of a struggle. Lenin never stood for such a policy, neither does Castro. I'll learn from their examples of real leadership over the self-aggrandizing tactics of Avakian. Calling the movements around other figures "cultures of appreciation" is intellectual lazy, because they portrayed their leaders in fundamentally different ways (maybe not Huey P. Newton, but most others).

Cultures of appreciation are an important tool to personalize the revolutionary movement, to repolarize politics, and to galvanize the vanguard. As mentioned earlier, all of your idols in the BPP understood this. What is so fundementally different about them?

Next time, perhaps you can add some analysis to your rhetoric.

neither does Castro

I don't give a flying fuck what Krushchev's state capitalist sock-puppet thinks.

Many people have made many sacrifices. Hell, a significant portion of the Black Panthers sacrificed blood or years of their lives. If you think getting a divorce, getting your parents pissed at you and being forced into France is enough to become an idol for a party, that is setting the bar quite low. In fact, I don't think there even should be a bar in the first place. That is the crux of the issue.

I was simply refuting your silly argument that people need to make sacrifices to be good leaders. I never compared his sacrifice to theirs BECAUSE IT IS FUNDEMENTALLY IRRELEVANT!

This is getting off topic. I think this will be my last post on the subject.

This is the second time you've said that. It is important that you engage this issue.

manic expression

6th December 2007, 01:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:21 am
Yes and no. In terms of theoretical contribution, his analysis is more pertinent and more thorough. In terms of his struggle, no one would say that he alone has made more of a difference than the entire BPP. Further, he respects and acknowledges these leaders while learning from their mistakes.

Oh and just as an aside there were "cultures of appreciation" around Dr. Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale, and Malcolm X.
No. That's a big no. The fact that you're trying to tell me Avakian should be, in any way, put before any of the main Black Panthers proves my point.

Don't make me laugh. Every "culture of appreciation" the RCP has on the sidelines is dwarfed by Avakian's "culture". To suggest that they are comparable in the smallest degree is comic gold.

I have great respect for Malcolm X. But on the level of theory and analysis, he is totally wrong. He was an identity politics idealogue nationalist who spread Islam. He did a lot for Black people, true. In terms of expanding Marxist theory he contributed 0.

Malcolm X was a revolutionary leader who did far more than Avakian could ever hope to. That speaks for itself.

It means we should engage his works. That is what the RCP tries to do.

Again, you're trying to put lipstick on this and make it look better. It is what it is, changing the words around won't help you. The RCP isn't "trying to engage his works", the RCP is trying to make him an idol instead of the leader he apparently calls himself. Any cursory glance at Revolution newspaper is enough to verify this.

The argument was that all communists have a general understanding of what Lenin wrote. So, the paper isn't going to run "What is to Be Done?" in every other issue. It would be silly. The point is, Avakian in contemporary and we feal that it is important that people gain a knowledge of what he is saying. My comments should not be taken in a hyper-literal way as an attack on Lenin. I respect Lenin as one of the most important revolutionary leaders in history (see my avatar). The point is, in revolutionary circles, he is pretty well read.

"General understanding" isn't really what we should be satisfied with. Lenin's works should be understood far deeper than that. Instead of engaging Lenin's works, however, the RCP "engages" (read: overemphasizes) Bob Avakian. That makes no sense, and smacks of a cult. I know you respect Lenin, but until the RCP stops putting Avakian in front of Lenin, I won't understand their line in this regard.

And I trust you know the difference between publishing someone's writings and glorifying their existence. The RCP does the latter as well. "Bob Avakian is our leader" on the front page isn't engaging someone's work.

Cultures of appreciation are an important tool to personalize the revolutionary movement, to repolarize politics, and to galvanize the vanguard. As mentioned earlier, all of your idols in the BPP understood this. What is so fundementally different about them?

Next time, perhaps you can add some analysis to your rhetoric.

Personality cults do none of the sort. They turn people's perspectives away from the day-to-day struggles that (should) define our movement, they needlessly uplift people who should be acting like leaders and not banners, they stifle theoretical development by turning people from Marx and Engels and Lenin to Bob Avakian and more. Personality cults stunt revolutionary thought and activity; revolutions are not made by the enamoured.

One of the BPP's biggest mistakes was starting personality cults. Invoking this or that name was enough to stop discussion and the potential for real activity. That's exactly what I see the RCP doing (on its best days).

I don't give a flying fuck what Krushchev's state capitalist sock-puppet thinks.

Of course you wouldn't. You only like whoever the RCP tells you to. So while Castro, someone who has actually led a revolution and defended it from both reactionaries and Stalinists like yourself, is thrown to the side, while Bob Avakian is showered with praise. That, my friends, is the delusion I am talking about.

Oh, and I see you neglected to comment on how Lenin took the exact same position. Do you even try to learn from the example of the Bolsheviks?

It's curious you use the state capitalist analysis, especially when one considers that it is inherently self-contradictory.

I was simply refuting your silly argument that people need to make sacrifices to be good leaders. I never compared his sacrifice to theirs BECAUSE IT IS FUNDEMENTALLY IRRELEVANT!

I never made that argument. The RCP presented it first. Look upthread.

This is the second time you've said that. It is important that you engage this issue.

No, it really isn't important, but let's carry on anyway.

Rawthentic

6th December 2007, 04:56

Again, you're trying to put lipstick on this and make it look better. It is what it is, changing the words around won't help you. The RCP isn't "trying to engage his works", the RCP is trying to make him an idol instead of the leader he apparently calls himself. Any cursory glance at Revolution newspaper is enough to verify this.
Nowhere has the Party or Revolution newspaper called for the 'glorification' of Avakian, much less him becoming an 'idol.' Revolution newspaper puts out the important theoretical works of their chairman, and always insist that people take a critical look at them.

Bob Avakian. That makes no sense, and smacks of a cult. I know you respect Lenin, but until the RCP stops putting Avakian in front of Lenin, I won't understand their line in this regard. Such leadership and line that he puts forward is absolutely critical, and is inspiring to many people. It's no small reason as to why hundreds of people in NY and LA each went to watch his DVD talk, Revolution. Such things inspire people into action (I know that this has happened to me).

Avakian is someone that has analyzed the objective conditions in the US, today. Lenin's theories are fundamental to the RCP, but Avakian has built on that here, today.

Personality cults do none of the sort. They turn people's perspectives away from the day-to-day struggles that (should) define our movement, they needlessly uplift people who should be acting like leaders and not banners, they stifle theoretical development by turning people from Marx and Engels and Lenin to Bob Avakian and more. Personality cults stunt revolutionary thought and activity; revolutions are not made by the enamoured.
First of all, the RCP is not a personality cult; it never has been. It has never called for the deification and uncritical following of Avakian. His works are one that concentrates the theories of Marx, Lenin, and Mao to today's conditions, which is why people are exposed more to that. Do you think it would be better for someone who knows nothing of science to be given a volume by Darwin or a book by a scientist with a modern application?

Should the 'day-to-day struggles' 'define' our movement? Or the far-reaching revolutionary communist one? The proletariat can already handle its day-to-day struggles, and probably far better than we can. The task of communists is to lead major political battles that can and do repolarize society (take for example, the Jena 6, anti-war, Oct. 22 Against Police Brutality, Defend Science, etc.)

bezdomni

6th December 2007, 06:41

Any cursory glance at Revolution newspaper is enough to verify this.

Perhaps the reason you think the way you do about the RCP and Bob Avakian is because you've only ever taken a "cursory" glance at Revolution newspaper?

manic expression

6th December 2007, 18:03

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 06, 2007 04:55 am
Nowhere has the Party or Revolution newspaper called for the 'glorification' of Avakian, much less him becoming an 'idol.' Revolution newspaper puts out the important theoretical works of their chairman, and always insist that people take a critical look at them.
Again, you're trying to change the essence of something by calling it something else. The RCP glorifies Avakian. Whether you call it "putting out his theoretical works" or "appreciaton" or anything else, it is what it is.

Putting out someone's theoretical works is one thing. Using his name and face as slogans for very un-theoretical purposes ("Bob Avakian is our leader" isn't quite theoretical) is quite another. Misrepresentation doesn't work here.

Avakian is someone that has analyzed the objective conditions in the US, today. Lenin's theories are fundamental to the RCP, but Avakian has built on that here, today.

Many people have analyzed the objective conditions of the US, today. That does not give anyone the right to use them as a sort of idol or banner. Furthermore, the fact remains that the RCP all but ignores Lenin in this regard. Thus, Avakian is treated with a great amount of "appreciation", while Lenin and Marx and Engels are not. That is all one needs to know about a group's theoretical emphasis.

By the way, the quote you used is messed up. Just to let you know.

First of all, the RCP is not a personality cult; it never has been. It has never called for the deification and uncritical following of Avakian. His works are one that concentrates the theories of Marx, Lenin, and Mao to today's conditions, which is why people are exposed more to that. Do you think it would be better for someone who knows nothing of science to be given a volume by Darwin or a book by a scientist with a modern application?

Should the 'day-to-day struggles' 'define' our movement? Or the far-reaching revolutionary communist one? The proletariat can already handle its day-to-day struggles, and probably far better than we can. The task of communists is to lead major political battles that can and do repolarize society (take for example, the Jena 6, anti-war, Oct. 22 Against Police Brutality, Defend Science, etc.)

The RCP isn't a personality cult? They admit as much! When they use "culture of appreciation", they openly state that it is just like a "personality cult" with different words.

I think people should read Darwin first and then move to modern applications. That's how scientists are trained. You don't give medical students lessons in new technology before making sure they know the basics. That's how communists should be trained as well.

The revolutionary communist movement is day-to-day struggle. It is a constant class war that manifests itself at every workplace, factory, mine and beyond. Communists are proletarians, and they must lead class struggle in all aspects; furthermore, they must bring to the fore revolutionary ideas and actions. Glorifying Bob Avakian does none of this, and probably hampers it. That is the problem at hand.

Dros

6th December 2007, 23:15

No. That's a big no. The fact that you're trying to tell me Avakian should be, in any way, put before any of the main Black Panthers proves my point.

Don't make me laugh. Every "culture of appreciation" the RCP has on the sidelines is dwarfed by Avakian's "culture". To suggest that they are comparable in the smallest degree is comic gold.

In what way? Are you honestly going to tell me that Huey Newton and Bobby Seale have contributed more to Marxist-Leninist theory than Bob Avakian? That is absurd. While Bobby Seale has written some books, they are either cook books or histories of the BPP. These men contributed little in the way of theory.

As for struggle, Bobby Seale was friendly with Avakian. The reason the RCP talks about Avakian is because the purpose of a culture of appreciation is to get people engaged in the party and with the struggle that is currently going on. The culture of appreciation has nothing to do with who's more important. It is a leadership stratedgy and is fundementally different from a "cult of personality" in the sense that it was used during Stalin's time. For Stalin (who had the first personality cult) it was impossable to criticize his, he was literally worshiped and seen to be infalible. This is totally untrue for Bob Avakian who we are encouraged to engage and criticize etc.

Perhaps instead of making ridiculous statements you can provide arguments next time.

Again, you're trying to put lipstick on this and make it look better. It is what it is, changing the words around won't help you. The RCP isn't "trying to engage his works", the RCP is trying to make him an idol instead of the leader he apparently calls himself. Any cursory glance at Revolution newspaper is enough to verify this.

In what way? I make no apologies for this. I see it as a very important revolutionary tactic.

"General understanding" isn't really what we should be satisfied with. Lenin's works should be understood far deeper than that. Instead of engaging Lenin's works, however, the RCP "engages" (read: overemphasizes) Bob Avakian. That makes no sense, and smacks of a cult. I know you respect Lenin, but until the RCP stops putting Avakian in front of Lenin, I won't understand their line in this regard.

If you go into any depth, you will read and gain a deep understanding of Lenin's work. It's less emphasized not because it's less important than Avakian (no one in the RCP has EVER said that) but for methodological reasons (culture of appreciation as a revolutionary tactic) and because the point is to open up a discussion on Bob Avakian's actual work.

And I trust you know the difference between publishing someone's writings and glorifying their existence. The RCP does the latter as well. "Bob Avakian is our leader" on the front page isn't engaging someone's work.

It's explaining who the leadership of the party is. It is not glorifying.

Personality cults do none of the sort. They turn people's perspectives away from the day-to-day struggles that (should) define our movement, they needlessly uplift people who should be acting like leaders and not banners, they stifle theoretical development by turning people from Marx and Engels and Lenin to Bob Avakian and more. Personality cults stunt revolutionary thought and activity; revolutions are not made by the enamoured.

Why is there now a dichotomy with Marx, Engels, and Lenin on one side and Avakian on the other. WE READ ALL OF IT!

Your argument also lacks any analysis. Why is this true. It goes against all of my actual experience.

One of the BPP's biggest mistakes was starting personality cults. Invoking this or that name was enough to stop discussion and the potential for real activity. That's exactly what I see the RCP doing (on its best days).

The BPP recognized the powerful politcial tool that is the culture of appreciation. Huey Newton was a remarkable man. It is not wrong to appreciate and study the works of revolutionary leadership.

Of course you wouldn't. You only like whoever the RCP tells you to. So while Castro, someone who has actually led a revolution and defended it from both reactionaries and Stalinists like yourself, is thrown to the side, while Bob Avakian is showered with praise. That, my friends, is the delusion I am talking about.

Ummm.... No. I do occasionally disagree with the RCP. Moreover, that's not an attack at my argument. Castro is a totalitarian but licker of the reactionary, bourgois, revisionist forces who seized power in the USSR and destroyed socialism. Castro is a state capitalist who's revolution has done little to advance socialism. Instead, he has installed a new Bourgoisie. Good job.

Oh, and I see you neglected to comment on how Lenin took the exact same position. Do you even try to learn from the example of the Bolsheviks?

Lenin never took a stance on cults of personality because they only appeared a decade after his death! The fact that he didn't set one up around himself is meaningless. Also, your argument strikes me as ironically a little cultish. "The Great Lenin didn't do it so it's obviously bad."

It's curious you use the state capitalist analysis, especially when one considers that it is inherently self-contradictory.

Was that an argument or just a random sentence?

Edit: Deleted accidental quotes.

Dros

7th December 2007, 02:00

Again, you're trying to change the essence of something by calling it something else. The RCP glorifies Avakian. Whether you call it "putting out his theoretical works" or "appreciaton" or anything else, it is what it is.

Putting out someone's theoretical works is one thing. Using his name and face as slogans for very un-theoretical purposes ("Bob Avakian is our leader" isn't quite theoretical) is quite another. Misrepresentation doesn't work here.

In what way is appreciating equal to glorifying? How do we glorify Avakian at all? Again, cults of personality require a religious approach which the RCP does not take.

Many people have analyzed the objective conditions of the US, today.

Name some people who have done it with the thoroughness and in the scientific way that Avakian does.

That does not give anyone the right to use them as a sort of idol or banner. Furthermore, the fact remains that the RCP all but ignores Lenin in this regard. Thus, Avakian is treated with a great amount of "appreciation", while Lenin and Marx and Engels are not. That is all one needs to know about a group's theoretical emphasis.

When has anyone in the party EVER made Avakian an idol?

And in what way are Marx and Lenin ignored. Perhaps you should look at the line right above "Our leader is Bob Avakian". You'll notice it says "Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism". Or perhaps you should read Avakian. He is constantly referencing Marx, Lenin, and Mao. So no. We do appreciate (and are fundementally grounded in) the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao.

The RCP isn't a personality cult? They admit as much! When they use "culture of appreciation", they openly state that it is just like a "personality cult" with different words.

Personality cult implies something religious. It isn't and has never been religious with its approach to leadership. That is why they changed it to culture of appreciation.

I think people should read Darwin first and then move to modern applications. That's how scientists are trained. You don't give medical students lessons in new technology before making sure they know the basics. That's how communists should be trained as well.

The RCP is fundementally grounded in the basics. Reading Avakian has improved my understanding of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

The revolutionary communist movement is day-to-day struggle. It is a constant class war that manifests itself at every workplace, factory, mine and beyond.

That is only a part of it. We are not a labor movement or a giant global labor union with radical rhetoric. We must be a political movement that fights for the emancipation of humanity.

Communists are proletarians,

No they're not. They're communists.

they must bring to the fore revolutionary ideas and actions. Glorifying Bob Avakian does none of this, and probably hampers it. That is the problem at hand.

Appreciating and engaging Bob Avakian galvanizes the movement and repolarizes the proletariat in its ideology.

Rawthentic

7th December 2007, 03:31

manic expression

7th December 2007, 04:27

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 07, 2007 03:30 am
You can call it 'glorify' it that makes you feel better, but the fact is that he is put forward in such a way because his line is the correct one and best represents the Party.
This is rich. I'm calling it "glorification" because that's exactly what it is. More than that, it's needless and slavish glorification. Again, you're trying to escape reality by switching words around. Don't.

His line best represents the party? How about Marx's or Lenin's (or even Mao's)?

While it is important for communists to support the daily struggles of the proletariat, we need to lead the major political battles that really raise the sights of the proletariat to revolution. The labor movement's definition is basically a higher wage for a day's work, which is reformist. Communists are not workers who 'want communism', they are not trade union secretaries or some narrow shit like that, they are the 'tribunes of the people', those who dedicate their lives to the Party, the masses, and revolution.

No. Daily struggles of the proletariat ARE our movement. That includes fighting imperialism, mind you. This is the essence of what we are fighting for, and I truly think the RCP is missing this in a big way.

Communists are vanguard workers. They need to be leading their class. They are workers who want communism, and they are workers who know how to establish it. That is the heart and soul of communism in theory and in practice. Not Bob Avakian.

Bringing forward Bob Avakian's line to such society wide struggles is crucial to reopening society to a point where a revolution is possible. It doesn't speak to higher wages, but to transforming society in a radically different way with the view of getting to communism and nothing less.

You "bring forward" Avakian's line above everyone else's, including the founders of our movement. That is unacceptable and inexplicable and smacks of a cult. The transformation of society is done by conscious and educated communists, not idols.

drosera99 Please respond to one of my posts, or at least condense them. It's awfully tedious to read through two posts addressed to me. Until you make one concise post, I reserve the right to nitpick what I respond to (which is more for my own sanity than anything else).

In what way is appreciating equal to glorifying? How do we glorify Avakian at all? Again, cults of personality require a religious approach which the RCP does not take.

The RCP admits that it wants to create a "cult of personality". They just changed it to "culture of appreciation" for PR purposes.

When has anyone in the party EVER made Avakian an idol?

And in what way are Marx and Lenin ignored. Perhaps you should look at the line right above "Our leader is Bob Avakian". You'll notice it says "Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism". Or perhaps you should read Avakian. He is constantly referencing Marx, Lenin, and Mao. So no. We do appreciate (and are fundementally grounded in) the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao.

Marx and Lenin's works are "put forward" as much as Avakian's? That's simply not true, Avakian's works and rhetoric and photo shoots get precedence over Marx and Lenin. That, again, speaks for itself. Furthermore, your ideology may be such, but you might as well call it Avakianism and leave it at that, until you're ready to seriously make Marx and Lenin (and Mao) centerpieces of your party instead of Bob. That's the issue, stop moving the goalposts.

The RCP is fundementally grounded in the basics. Reading Avakian has improved my understanding of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

You're putting Avakian in front of the basics, so no, you're not grounded in something you blatantly ignore.

You claim to be so grounded, and yet you can't understand how Lenin completely disapproved of any sort of cult toward himself. Try reading up on how the Bolsheviks actually operated before the Stalinist takeover. Those are the basics you and Avakian lack.

No they're not. They're communists.

So communists are not proletarians? Tell me, what class do communists then belong to?

"Fundamentally grounded in the basics" my _! :lol:

Appreciating and engaging Bob Avakian galvanizes the movement and repolarizes the proletariat in its ideology.

Again, you're trying to change something by switching the words. You praise and glorify Avakian and nothing less.

Furthermore, you don't even consider communists proletarians, so how do you expect to change the proletariat in its ideology when you're not even part of the same class?! Please think things through.

bezdomni

7th December 2007, 05:57

This is rich. I'm calling it "glorification" because that's exactly what it is. More than that, it's needless and slavish glorification. Again, you're trying to escape reality by switching words around. Don't.

Examples please?

Where is Avakian presented in a manner not consistent with materialism?

His line best represents the party? How about Marx's or Lenin's (or even Mao's)?
lolz, his line represents the party better than Marx, Lenin or Mao's because none of those three are members of the party.

You are pretending like we don't talk about Marx or Lenin or Mao though and only put forward Avakian's leadership...that is not true. We put forward Avakian in a manner different from other people because he is the chairman of the party, so it makes sense that his works are treated different from people who are not the chairman of the party.

The reason we promote Bob Avakian is the same reason the Bolsheviks promoted Lenin, he had the most advanced line, and it was most relevant to the time.

Daily struggles of the proletariat ARE our movement.
Yeah, if you're an economist.

Lenin harshly criticizes this line in What is to be Done.

Communists are vanguard workers. T

No...communists are communists. Lots are workers, but not necessarily all are workers.

The trot line that a communist party should be a "worker's party" is really incompatible with Lenin's position in Two Tactics and WITBD.

You "bring forward" Avakian's line above everyone else's, including the founders of our movement.

Because Avakian is the leader of our movement today. I think that your fetishism of Marx and Lenin is actually quite idealist. It isn't who says things that is important, it is what they are saying. Unless you can actually point out where Avakian's line contradicts Marxism-Leninism in some crucial way, there is no difference in putting forward something that Avakian says or something that Marx or Lenin says.

Your line seems to have more of a dogmatic personality cult aspect than anything else, since you place so much importance on quoting the hell out of Marx and Lenin but not Avakian for some reason.

The RCP admits that it wants to create a "cult of personality". They just changed it to "culture of appreciation" for PR purposes.

It was changed because "cult of personality" does not get to the essence of it. It implies a sort of religiosity that needs to be avoided. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.

Furthermore, your ideology may be such, but you might as well call it Avakianism and leave it at that, until you're ready to seriously make Marx and Lenin (and Mao) centerpieces of your party instead of Bob. That's the issue, stop moving the goalposts.

Why should we not promote the works of chairman Avakian? Is he wrong? I don't understand why you think we should ignore Avakian but not Marx, Lenin and Mao.

Tell me, what class do communists then belong to?

Various classes. Isn't that pretty obvious?

Furthermore, you don't even consider communists proletarians, so how do you expect to change the proletariat in its ideology when you're not even part of the same class?!

Was Lenin a proletarian? Does Lenin say that everybody in the Communist party needs to be a proletarian? Has that ever been true for any communist party in history?

Yes, the party seeks to have as many proletarians in its ranks as possible...and it derives its line from the proletariat (mass line), but your notion that the communist party needs to be a "worker's party" is the sort of economist idealism that Lenin rails against in WITBD.

Rawthentic

7th December 2007, 22:35

So communists are not proletarians? Tell me, what class do communists then belong to?
The ideology, the world outlook of the proletariat, can be taken up by anyone that is fed up with how things are and wants to find the scientific method.

Equating the class outlook of the proletariat with individual, or groups of proletarians is economist, in essence.

Lenin took up this communist ideology, as did Marx, Engels, and Mao.

No. Daily struggles of the proletariat ARE our movement. That includes fighting imperialism, mind you. This is the essence of what we are fighting for, and I truly think the RCP is missing this in a big way.

And I said:

While it is important for communists to support the daily struggles of the proletariat, we need to lead the major political battles that really raise the sights of the proletariat to revolution. The labor movement's definition is basically a higher wage for a day's work, which is reformist.

Respond to that, don't regurgitate your position.

blackstone

7th December 2007, 22:41

How the hell did this shit turn into a thread about Avakian? There's plenty of threads about Avakian and the cult of personality. Let's keep this about The Great Leap Forward. It's far more interesting.

bezdomni

8th December 2007, 00:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:40 pm
How the hell did this shit turn into a thread about Avakian? There's plenty of threads about Avakian and the cult of personality. Let's keep this about The Great Leap Forward. It's far more interesting.
Trots did it to avoid actually talking about the Great leap forward.

grove street

8th December 2007, 02:06

Originally posted by SovietPants+December 08, 2007 12:32 am--> (SovietPants @ December 08, 2007 12:32 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 10:40 pm
How the hell did this shit turn into a thread about Avakian? There's plenty of threads about Avakian and the cult of personality. Let's keep this about The Great Leap Forward. It's far more interesting.
Trots did it to avoid actually talking about the Great leap forward. [/b]
Word is born

The Great Leap Foward failed to fullfil its original goals for a number of reasons> The two most biggest contributing factors were ecological (flooding) and a Soviet pull out leaving an unprepared and ill equpied country to take the task of rapid and somewhat over ambitious industrilisation into their own hands. For those that claim that the Great Leap Foward was bound to fail are portraying an extremely idealist view and are making conclusions based upon their own conceived opinion that is completley dispatched from reality. Yes Mao did put all his eggs in one basket when it came to steel production, but this is because of the original mutal aid agreement between the USSR and China that would of enabled China to specialise in steel production. The most important lesson learned from the Great Leap Foward is the need for a consistent and well spread out economy with strong emphasies on self reliance.

Now on another note I personally don't know much about Bob Avakin, but I've started to read some of his work and I have found them very interesting. It seems to me that many of the people on this forum have turned to attaking him personally because they can't put in the effort to attack him from an ideological perspective.

manic expression

8th December 2007, 03:35

Xiao Banfa

8th December 2007, 03:46

The Great Leap Foward failed to fullfil its original goals for a number of reasons... a Soviet pull out leaving an unprepared and ill equpied country to take the task of rapid and somewhat over ambitious industrilisation into their own hands.

The "Great" Leap Forward happened before the soviet pull out.

Mao, by that time, had outlived his earlier progressive role as a nationalist revolutionary and had become a power crazed egomaniac who thought he understood agriculture.

Instructing the peasants to build iron smelters to melt their fucking pots and pans as well as making peasants plant their crops closer together (causing them to rot)illustrates this.

Unfortunately comrades like Liu Xiao Qi weren't able to kick the mad bastard out of the leadership. Mao could have done something useful like working in the countryside since he was so keen on sending people there.

Dros

8th December 2007, 04:47

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 08, 2007 03:45 am
Unfortunately comrades like Liu Xiao Qi weren't able to kick the mad bastard out of the leadership.
Actually, they did. It's called the revisionist coup that fucked up China.

manic expression

8th December 2007, 05:36

Originally posted by drosera99+December 08, 2007 04:46 am--> (drosera99 @ December 08, 2007 04:46 am)
Xiao [email protected] 08, 2007 03:45 am
Unfortunately comrades like Liu Xiao Qi weren't able to kick the mad bastard out of the leadership.
Actually, they did. It's called the revisionist coup that fucked up China. [/b]
Mao and his clique set in motion what came to fruition during the "revisionist coup". His emphasis on bureaucracy and the complete dearth of worker democracy is precisely what caused the destruction of the revolution in China (not to mention the failure of the GLF). The "revisionist coup" was the inevitable result of bureaucratic deformities.

bezdomni

8th December 2007, 05:42

What's this? What happened to, "Oh, you need to engage this issue! It's important! Make sure you reply!"? Changing your tune whenever it's convenient is disingenuous and insulting.

The last post about the Great Leap Forward was a) between you and RNK and b) on the first page.

The last two and a half pages have been more or less about Avakian.

Stalinists, once again, show themselves for the two-faced cowards they really are. Go fawn over your mullah.

lol

In case you were wondering, I'm not responding to your posts on Avakian, because I've made it abundantly clear what the issues are and recieved no constructive contributions. None of you have addressed the question, you've only changed words around and tried to move the goalposts. Your actions verify my suspicions.

I don't think I have argued anything incorrect or done anything dishonest. The only thing that has been abundantly clear is that you're making the same arguments over and over again.

Funny how no one's responded to my post on the GLF, which was a complete disaster and a vintage example of why Stalinist bureaucracies fail.

I think RNK did a satisfactory job explaining the GLF.

manic expression

8th December 2007, 06:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:41 am
The last post about the Great Leap Forward was a) between you and RNK and b) on the first page.

The last two and a half pages have been more or less about Avakian.
Please, do you really expect me to fall for this?

Here's what you had to say regarding "discussion" of the Avakian cult:

I think this is something that we should get in to. These are important political questions. If you disagree with my position, then disagree with it. If you think I am wrong then tell me why I am wrong.

We have to be materialists about this. I want you to criticize me, so that we can both have a better understanding of what's going on here.

Just admit it: you encouraged this "discussion" and then tried to blame us for getting off topic. Like I said, two-faced cowardice.

I don't think I have argued anything incorrect or done anything dishonest. The only thing that has been abundantly clear is that you're making the same arguments over and over again.

SovietPants, your entire argument consists of changing around words and expecting this to make a difference. You have not even addressed what I've been arguing, you've ignored it and persisted in your attempts to obscure the issue. The reason I've been putting forth the same arguments is because you (not only you, but also drosera99 and Live for the People) have utterly failed to respond to them.

This hasn't been a discussion, it is a mere showcase of the incoherent and deluded RCP mindset.

I think RNK did a satisfactory job explaining the GLF.

I think you should read this thread again and see that my reply to RNK's "satisfactory job" never got a response. Funny.

Axel1917

8th December 2007, 06:16

If you read the party's 1995 declarations on revolutionary leadership and individual leaders, you will notice that the words "cult of personality" are not used, because they do not get to the essence of how revolutionary leadership should be promoted. The words "cult of personality" imply a sort of religiosity that is not consistent with Marxist materialism.

You forget the fact that Bob Avakain said there was a cult of personality himself. Yo guys are good at contradicting yourselves.

Instead, we use "culture of appreciation", which gets more at the essence of what should exist around Bob Avakian. While some individual supporters of the RCP may not consistently put forward Chairman Avakian's leadership in a materialist way, I think the party more or less consistently does.

Uh, again, Avakian himself said cult of personality. I guess you guys just act like fundies and ignore facts when they get in the way.

What liberals and trots love to do is say "well, there's a 'cult of personality' around Avakian...so we everything he says is automatically false." That's horrible reasoning, and people generally just do it to avoid actually engaging with what Bob Avakian says.

Actually, Maoism has been refuted by history. Pointing out the personality cult is just a starting point, showing your anti-materialism.

Is what Avakian saying true? I've yet to see you address that, and that is what is important.

Yes, what he is saying is true - there is a cult of personality around him.

Anyway, you accuse me of religiously "worshipping" Bob Avakian. This is a huge fucking lie, and a straight up ad hominem attack against me. If you can't back it up then shut the fuck up.

Oh, no, the profanity monger attacks! :rolleyes: First you whine about perceived abusive language from me, then you go on to use it yourself! I will bet you jumped ship just because you had friends in the RCP and none in the IMT.

And since when have you Stalinists been able to back up your assertions? All your regimes did was to kill off Bolsheviks and "refute" them when they were no longer able to answer anything.

Also, you should actually read the literature you cite. I have that book on my shelf right in front of me, he was trying to be provocative in saying that on the radio...explaining what a "cult of personality" is (the party was still using that terminology at the time of the interview) and how revolutionary leadership needs to be presented in a critical and materialist way.

And you read the Trotsky, etc. that you criticize?

The culture of appreciation focuses on the line of the leadership, not the individual leader as a person. Like...nobody gives a fuck what Bob Avakian's favorite food is or how he likes to spend his free time. I mean, yeah maybe it is interesting, but it is politically irrelevent. The party doesn't publish, for example, if Bob Avakian beats Alan Woods at chess or something.

And this just comes to cult of personality with a different name. Lenin never had a "culture of appreciation." He did not have any exalted status. He was just another comrade in the eyes of every Bolshevik. Avakian, on the other hand, has his quotes, picture, likeness, etc. bombarding anyone that sees the RCP website, paper, etc.

However, it would publish his line against Woods' economism (if it were even relevent enough to bother with, society faces much greater contradictions that require attention)...which presumably would be the line of the party.

You should not use a word when you don't know its definition. You use economism as your latest swearword. You accuse Trotsky of it, yet playing a leading role in the October revolution, organizing the red army, destroying the white armies, etc. is going far beyond trade union consciousness! You never understood What is to be Done? Lenin clearly stated that we need to enter unions to convert trade union consciousness to socialist consciousness. You sectarians avoid the unions and write Leninism off as "workerism." And for good reason too - you shy away from the workers because you don't trust them. You don't want them to be empowered. You think they are just sheep that need Shepherd Avakian.

Maoism, on the other hand, is mainly divided into three categories:

MIMites
Avakianites
Reformist and liberal hacks

And you can often wind up with a Maoism composed of all three of these components! Given its Menshevism, Maoism today is largely de facto reformism. They support "progressive" bourgeois (this sharply contradicts the April Theses!) politicians and the like.

In your opinion, what was the Great Leap Forward then? What was a realistic historical alternative to the Great Leap Forward?

A bureaucratic adventure, to say the least. Democratic planning and voluntary collectivization would have worked instead, but those things are incompatible with Stalinist totalitarianism.

So...you say things were "distributed properly" because of the planned economy; yet there were drastic food shortages that led to millions of deaths?

This leads me to question your idea of what proper distribution looks like...

It is self evident that distribution is never effective with bureaucratic planning. China had something better than capitalism, so it did make a recovery, but bureaucratic ways made the adventure of the Great Leap Forward and eventually restored capitalism.

The Great Leap Forward is a classic example of the failures of Stalinism.

bezdomni

8th December 2007, 07:22

Just admit it: you encouraged this "discussion" and then tried to blame us for getting off topic. Like I said, two-faced cowardice.

Somebody asked why we were talking about Avakian. I gave the reason.

I think it's good to talk about this, but we definitely did stray from the topic.

"Cowardice" would imply that I was the one changing the topic and refusing to answer your questions or try to learn from your arguments. I am fairly confident that is not what I am doing here.

SovietPants, your entire argument consists of changing around words and expecting this to make a difference. You have not even addressed what I've been arguing, you've ignored it and persisted in your attempts to obscure the issue. The reason I've been putting forth the same arguments is because you (not only you, but also drosera99 and Live for the People) have utterly failed to respond to them.

What have I failed to respond to? I'm not negating the existence of a "cult of personality", I am saying that those words are bad to use and the party doesn't use them because "culture of appreciation" gets to the essence of what is actually being done better.

You pretend like I am saying there is some sort of qualitative difference, when I have made it clear that there is not. The "cult of personality" is better phrased as "culture of appreciation" because that is what it is. As I have said numerous times, the "cult of personality" implies a sort of religiosity that needs to be avoided.

You forget the fact that Bob Avakain said there was a cult of personality himself. Yo guys are good at contradicting yourselves.

Actually, I addressed it much earlier. When Avakian said that on the radio show, first, he was trying to be provocative and get into the same questions on the radio as we are getting into here (namely, what is the role of revolutionary leadership and how should it be promoted).

Second, Maoists do not have an objection to the cult of personality (better termed "culture of appreciation"). As long as leadership is presented in a materialist way that encourages criticism, I do not see how it is contrary to marxism.

Uh, again, Avakian himself said cult of personality. I guess you guys just act like fundies and ignore facts when they get in the way.

No, you just like to ignore my explanations.

Actually, Maoism has been refuted by history. Pointing out the personality cult is just a starting point, showing your anti-materialism.

This is wrong on a lot of levels. First of all, saying "Maoism has been refuted by history" is all too similar to "communism is dead". I think this stems from a misunderstanding of Marxism, which needs to be understood as a science. Just because there are certain shortcomings of a revolution, does that mean the ideas and methods used generally by the revolution are "disproven"?

Marxism, like other sciences, evolves by paradigm shifts that correspond to social changes. Maoism is a higher synthesis of Marxism-Leninism, not a simple "system" to be "implemented".

At any rate, where have Trotskyists even had a revolution? At least Maoists have experience to learn from!

Oh, no, the profanity monger attacks! rolleyes.gif First you whine about perceived abusive language from me, then you go on to use it yourself! I will bet you jumped ship just because you had friends in the RCP and none in the IMT.

:lol: :lol:

I was actually pretty good friends with one of the editors of Socialist appeal, and some other people from the Providence branch. I drank with several of them.

I "jumped ship" because the IMT has a horribly economist line and because I think Trotskyism is a crappy line in general.

And since when have you Stalinists been able to back up your assertions? All your regimes did was to kill off Bolsheviks and "refute" them when they were no longer able to answer anything.

Have you backed up a single assertion in your entire post?

The "Stalinists" quite successfully shot down Trotsky's crap time after time when he was still in the Central Committee. I don't think that contradiction was handled correctly (Stalin should have relied on the masses to struggle against Trotskyism, rather than by dealing with it bureaucratically and thusly never repudiating that incorrect line in society)...but to say that Stalin never addressed the Trotskyists is ridiculous and shows nothing more than a flagrant disregard for history.

Read "On the Opposition" by Stalin.

And you read the Trotsky, etc. that you criticize?

Yes.

And this just comes to cult of personality with a different name. Lenin never had a "culture of appreciation." He did not have any exalted status. He was just another comrade in the eyes of every Bolshevik. Avakian, on the other hand, has his quotes, picture, likeness, etc. bombarding anyone that sees the RCP website, paper, etc.

uh...Lenin's work was distributed en masse, and his image was pretty prevalent in Soviet propaganda and art.

You accuse Trotsky of it, yet playing a leading role in the October revolution, organizing the red army, destroying the white armies, etc. is going far beyond trade union consciousness!

Nobody denies that Trotsky played an important role in the Russian Revolution, but his line was crappy. For example, Trotsky proposed extending the policies of war communism until after the civil war.

There are lots of other gross misunderstandings of Leninist theory and tactic that Trotsky expressed.

Lenin clearly stated that we need to enter unions to convert trade union consciousness to socialist consciousness.

Yes, but he also says we need to create a political struggle outside of the economic struggle in order to make a communist revolution - which is very contrary to what Trots like to do.

Being in the unions is good, and the RCP does do work in unions. However, we fundamentally focus on creating a political struggle against the bourgeoisie and reactionaries; rather than simply trying to give the economic struggle itself a political characteristic (i.e. economism).

They support "progressive" bourgeois (this sharply contradicts the April Theses!) politicians and the like.

How does uniting all forces that can be united contradict Lenin's position in his April Theses? Also, when and where does the RCP back bourgeois politicians?

A bureaucratic adventure, to say the least. Democratic planning and voluntary collectivization would have worked instead, but those things are incompatible with Stalinist totalitarianism.

Those meaningless abstractions you're making are really persuading me!

The Great Leap Forward is a classic example of the failures of Stalinism.

What did Stalin have to do with the GLF?

manic expression

8th December 2007, 14:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:21 am
Somebody asked why we were talking about Avakian. I gave the reason.

I think it's good to talk about this, but we definitely did stray from the topic.

"Cowardice" would imply that I was the one changing the topic and refusing to answer your questions or try to learn from your arguments. I am fairly confident that is not what I am doing here.
Just stop. The "reason" you gave was disingenuous and dishonest. You tried to blame the tangent on others, when it was you who actively promoted the "discussion". That is two-faced and cowardly.

Why do you persist in defending the indefensible? Just admit it and move on.

What have I failed to respond to? I'm not negating the existence of a "cult of personality", I am saying that those words are bad to use and the party doesn't use them because "culture of appreciation" gets to the essence of what is actually being done better.

You pretend like I am saying there is some sort of qualitative difference, when I have made it clear that there is not. The "cult of personality" is better phrased as "culture of appreciation" because that is what it is. As I have said numerous times, the "cult of personality" implies a sort of religiosity that needs to be avoided.

This is exactly what I'm saying. The RCP ADMITS that they WANT a "cult of personality", and yet here you are, objecting to the use of those very words. They use "culture of appreciation" because it sounds nicer. There is no difference, and that is precisely the issue: the RCP is a personality cult, and no amount of wordplay will change this.

Second, Maoists do not have an objection to the cult of personality (better termed "culture of appreciation"). As long as leadership is presented in a materialist way that encourages criticism, I do not see how it is contrary to marxism.

Yes, and this is the problem. Maoists are too concerned about slavishly praising their leader (like other Stalinists) than to build a serious revolutionary movement. Personality cults ARE contrary to revolution; they put emphasis where it shouldn't be. Lenin was against them, but then again, Stalinists care little what Lenin did or said anyway.

What did Stalin have to do with the GLF?

Don't be thick. Mao was a Stalinist. He pursued a Stalinist path. The GLF was a result of Stalinist failure.

bezdomni

8th December 2007, 19:52

You tried to blame the tangent on others, when it was you who actively promoted the "discussion".

For all intense purposes, I do not consider what Axel has brought to this thread any sort of "discussion". Axel was creating a tangent as divergence, you, on the other hand, are at least actually engaging with these questions while Axel is just being dogmatic.

Axel started the tangent to avoid other questions, we tried to turn it into an actual discussion. None of us came in here and said "HEY LET'S TALK ABOUT BOB AVAKIAN!", but when it is brought up, we are not going to let people dogmatically attack our leadership. I don't think there is anything cowardly about it at all.

This is exactly what I'm saying. The RCP ADMITS that they WANT a "cult of personality", and yet here you are, objecting to the use of those very words. They use "culture of appreciation" because it sounds nicer. There is no difference, and that is precisely the issue: the RCP is a personality cult, and no amount of wordplay will change this.

No, we use the words culture of appreciation because it gets to the essence of what we are trying to promote. What is so hard to understand about this!?!?!?!?

What we are trying to promote is the works and line of Bob Avakian and all of our revolutionary leadership in a materialist way to be taken up by the masses and looked at critically!

This means that we promote Avakian as a concentration of our party's line, not as a great individual leader who we cannot live without and who will magically take us to somewhere better if we just give him all of our money and faith. That's not what the RCP is about, that's not what the cult of personality is about and that's not what MLM is about!

Yes, and this is the problem. Maoists are too concerned about slavishly praising their leader (like other Stalinists) than to build a serious revolutionary movement. Personality cults ARE contrary to revolution; they put emphasis where it shouldn't be. Lenin was against them, but then again, Stalinists care little what Lenin did or said anyway.

There was a culture of appreciation around Lenin. Like I said, his works were distributed to the masses and were regularly published in the party's paper. People were encouraged to engage with the ideas promoted by Lenin and discuss them openly throughout society. That is the essence of the culture of appreciation.

Don't be thick. Mao was a Stalinist. He pursued a Stalinist path. The GLF was a result of Stalinist failure.

What is a "Stalinist path"? Not allowing socialism to be overthrown by reactionaries or crumble internally? If so, then long live the Stalinist path!

Dros

8th December 2007, 21:09

This is exactly what I'm saying. The RCP ADMITS that they WANT a "cult of personality", and yet here you are, objecting to the use of those very words. They use "culture of appreciation" because it sounds nicer. There is no difference, and that is precisely the issue: the RCP is a personality cult, and no amount of wordplay will change this.

What is so hard to understand about this? The RCP changed the term from "cult of personality" to "culture of appreciation" because they realised that what they were trying to set up was not the same kind of religious adoration that existed around Stalin! They decided that "culture of appreciation" better reflected the methodological goals of the RCP.

We've all said this around a dozen times.

Yes, and this is the problem. Maoists are too concerned about slavishly praising their leader (like other Stalinists) than to build a serious revolutionary movement. Personality cults ARE contrary to revolution; they put emphasis where it shouldn't be. Lenin was against them, but then again, Stalinists care little what Lenin did or said anyway.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Perhaps next time you can try to provide some arguments with your dogma.

And why don't you address my point about Lenin? Personality cults appear AFTER Lenin died so HOW COULD HE BE AGAINST THEM on as a methodology?

Actually, Maoism has been refuted by history. Pointing out the personality cult is just a starting point, showing your anti-materialism.

Wow. That's a new breakthrough in materialist dialectics and argumentation. You're right. Maoism sucks. I'm going to became a revisionistic economist menshevik.

Mao and his clique set in motion what came to fruition during the "revisionist coup". His emphasis on bureaucracy and the complete dearth of worker democracy is precisely what caused the destruction of the revolution in China (not to mention the failure of the GLF). The "revisionist coup" was the inevitable result of bureaucratic deformities.

No. Mao and his vanguard prevented the rise to power of capitalist bourgois reformists for over a decade before the coup finally occured. Most of the people who were running China (and became a capitalist Bourgoisie) were denounced by Mao by name.

Funny how no one's responded to my post on the GLF, which was a complete disaster and a vintage example of why Stalinist bureaucracies fail.

Fun fact. The Soviet Union's economy under Stalin had the greatest growth rate of any economy in all of human history ever. That's not to say many mistakes both in line and in methodology weren't made, but it does show that your absurd dogmatism is unmaterialist.

bezdomni

8th December 2007, 22:08

I agree with the bulk of your above post comrade, but I want to ask what you mean by:

Fun fact. The Soviet Union's economy under Stalin had the greatest growth rate of any economy in all of human history ever. That's not to say many mistakes both in line and in methodology weren't made, but it does show that your absurd dogmatism is unmaterialist.

Specifically what you mean by "economic growth rate". That word gets thrown around in bourgeois economics, but I've never heard of any way to actually measure the growth of an economy.

Do you mean that it was industrializing faster than any other country? If so, then yes, that is true...but also kind of meaningless since most of the capitalist world had already industrialized.

manic expression

8th December 2007, 22:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:51 pm
For all intense purposes, I do not consider what Axel has brought to this thread any sort of "discussion". Axel was creating a tangent as divergence, you, on the other hand, are at least actually engaging with these questions while Axel is just being dogmatic.

Axel started the tangent to avoid other questions, we tried to turn it into an actual discussion. None of us came in here and said "HEY LET'S TALK ABOUT BOB AVAKIAN!", but when it is brought up, we are not going to let people dogmatically attack our leadership. I don't think there is anything cowardly about it at all.
SovietPants, let me make this as non-confrontational as possible (which is difficult, considering the fact that you basically insulted me). You blamed the tangential discussion on Trotskyists who were trying to create a diversion. I was the main Trotskyist component of that discussion. However, it was you who encouraged me to participate when I stated that I would let you have the last word. I don't appreciate this, and I'm not sure why you're trying to defend it.

No, we use the words culture of appreciation because it gets to the essence of what we are trying to promote. What is so hard to understand about this!?!?!?!?

This is exactly what I'm saying. This amounts to wordplay and nothing more. If you call it "culture of appreciation", "critical engagement", "anti-revisionism" or anything else, it's still the same exact thing: a personality cult. That is not what communists should be promoting.

What we are trying to promote is the works and line of Bob Avakian and all of our revolutionary leadership in a materialist way to be taken up by the masses and looked at critically!

That's simply a misrepresentation and you know it. The RCP does not humbly "promote" Avakian's works or display them reasonably; the RCP glorifies Avakian with abandon.

Oh, and what happened to promoting the works of Marx and Engels and Lenin? Should that not be looked at critically? I look at the RCP and I don't see it promoted at all. That tells the real story here.

This means that we promote Avakian as a concentration of our party's line, not as a great individual leader who we cannot live without and who will magically take us to somewhere better if we just give him all of our money and faith. That's not what the RCP is about, that's not what the cult of personality is about and that's not what MLM is about!

Avakian IS your party's line. Actually, Avakian IS your party. Changing words around does not change this fact.

There was a culture of appreciation around Lenin. Like I said, his works were distributed to the masses and were regularly published in the party's paper. People were encouraged to engage with the ideas promoted by Lenin and discuss them openly throughout society. That is the essence of the culture of appreciation.

Wrong. Lenin was appreciated, but that is an entirely different matter. There was no "culture of appreciation", there was comradely discussion. Lenin's works were published, but did Pravda state "Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (aka Lenin) is our leader"? No, and they would have been rightfully admonished by Lenin himself if they had. That is how the vanguard works; that is not what Maoists do.

What is a "Stalinist path"? Not allowing socialism to be overthrown by reactionaries or crumble internally? If so, then long live the Stalinist path!

No, quite the opposite. The Stalinist path is when a bureaucracy is established, which accumulates material interests separate from the proletariat. This inevitably leads to the restoration of capitalism. It happened in the USSR, it happened in China. History proves that deformed worker states are no substitute for socialism.

drosera99

What is so hard to understand about this? The RCP changed the term from "cult of personality" to "culture of appreciation" because they realised that what they were trying to set up was not the same kind of religious adoration that existed around Stalin! They decided that "culture of appreciation" better reflected the methodological goals of the RCP.

We've all said this around a dozen times.

My word, and you claim NOT to be dogmatic? Look, the fact that the RCP just changed around the words without changing the essence of their policy PROVES what we're saying: the RCP IS A CULT OF PERSONALITY. It was done for PR purposes, full stop. So, really, there is no difference between the RCP's "culture of appreciation" and "cult of personality".

Keep rewording everything. Maybe this time you'll convert someone.

Perhaps next time you can try to provide some arguments with your dogma.

Is that what High Priest Avakian told you to say?

And why don't you address my point about Lenin? Personality cults appear AFTER Lenin died so HOW COULD HE BE AGAINST THEM on as a methodology?

Wow, that argument takes a special kind of stupid. Right, Lenin was dead when those personality cults appeared. Being dead, he was hardly capable of voicing his objections. However, when he was alive, he strongly denounced anything of the sort. After the Stalinist takeover, they went against his wishes and his policies and created a personality cult.

No. Mao and his vanguard prevented the rise to power of capitalist bourgois reformists for over a decade before the coup finally occured. Most of the people who were running China (and became a capitalist Bourgoisie) were denounced by Mao by name.

You mean how China was re-establishing capitalism before Mao's body was cold? Mao's reliance on bureaucracy and his refusal to set up any sort of worker democracy was EXACTLY why China is the way it is today. If Mao was actually interested in preserving socialism past his lifespan, he would have put power in the hands of the workers. Instead, bureaucrats and paper pushers were given the reigns of the state, and their material interests were separate from the working class. This lack of class analysis is what doomed the revolution in China, as it has doomed every Stalinist misadventure.

Fun fact. The Soviet Union's economy under Stalin had the greatest growth rate of any economy in all of human history ever. That's not to say many mistakes both in line and in methodology weren't made, but it does show that your absurd dogmatism is unmaterialist.

Sure, good stuff happened. However, the WAY in which Stalin went about this (he actually stole the 5 Year Plan from Trotsky, but that's another example of Stalinist betrayal) is what caused the downfall of socialism. By destroying worker democracy and democratic centralism (he even abolished the Congress of the Soviets, the cornerstone of the worker state), Stalin laid the foundation for the eventual return of capitalism to the Soviet Union. Stalin's bureaucratic deformities finally brought down the worker state (which is what happened in China as well).

grove street

9th December 2007, 01:53

Originally posted by manic expression+December 08, 2007 05:35 am--> (manic expression @ December 08, 2007 05:35 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:46 am

Xiao [email protected] 08, 2007 03:45 am
Unfortunately comrades like Liu Xiao Qi weren't able to kick the mad bastard out of the leadership.
Actually, they did. It's called the revisionist coup that fucked up China.
Mao and his clique set in motion what came to fruition during the "revisionist coup". His emphasis on bureaucracy and the complete dearth of worker democracy is precisely what caused the destruction of the revolution in China (not to mention the failure of the GLF). The "revisionist coup" was the inevitable result of bureaucratic deformities. [/b]
LOL

Burecratic is a word that seems to be thrown around alot by you Trots and as usual like most other Trotskyist slurs has little connection to the actual material conditions and experiences that so called Stalinist countries went through

Lenin"s Russia was as burecratic as Mao"s China if not more. This was the result of the material conditions facing undeveloped countries like Russia and China. There was little choice but for a burecratic administration to take control over the country and the industrilisation process as the Bourgeise had failed to complete their historical task and the Proletriate was still underdeveloped and not ready to take over.

What most amazes me however is this claim that Stalin and Mao were increasing the role of burecracy even though there is ample proof that the role of burecracy was being decreased by Stalin through his democratic reforms and Mao through the Cultural Revolution>

It"s no wonder that Trotskyists have never had a revolution of their own as they"re to busy demonsing other revolutions>

Cryotank Screams

9th December 2007, 02:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:40 pm
How the hell did this shit turn into a thread about Avakian? There's plenty of threads about Avakian and the cult of personality. Let's keep this about The Great Leap Forward. It's far more interesting.
Much agreed comrade.

Dros

9th December 2007, 05:32

Look, the fact that the RCP just changed around the words without changing the essence of their policy PROVES what we're saying: the RCP IS A CULT OF PERSONALITY. It was done for PR purposes, full stop. So, really, there is no difference between the RCP's "culture of appreciation" and "cult of personality".

Wow. I thought this would be pretty simple. I guess I have to explain it again. Orginally, as applied by Stalin, the Cult of Personality was this religious thing where Stalin couldn't be wrong and everyone had to adore him. The RCP used this term to describe their leadership tactics which had nothing to do with religiosity. However, they decided that this term implied this religious and unscientific version of Marxism which is inconsistent with the RCP line. So they changed the word to more accurately reflect the methodology that the RCP uses to put forward its leadership. So, yes they said they had a cult of personality. But it wasn't a cult of personality in the sense that Stalin had one. It was always a culture of appreciation. They changed the term to more accurately reflect what they were doing.

Is that what High Priest Avakian told you to say?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Have you actually read anything I have said?

Wow, that argument takes a special kind of stupid.

Congrats! You've learned the tactics of using ad hominem attacks when you have nothing smart to say! Bravo.

Lenin was dead when those personality cults appeared. Being dead, he was hardly capable of voicing his objections.

Correct.

However, when he was alive, he strongly denounced anything of the sort.

Several things worth noting here.
1.) YOU are being very cultish. "Lenin didn't like it so it MUST be wrong!" How religious of you.
2.) Just because Lenin didn't use/like something doesn't mean it's wrong. He never used a cell phone. Guess why? THEY WEREN'T INVENTED YET! Maybe Lenin didn't like chocolate chip cookies. Does that make them bad?

Sure, good stuff happened. However, the WAY in which Stalin went about this (he actually stole the 5 Year Plan from Trotsky, but that's another example of Stalinist betrayal) is what caused the downfall of socialism. By destroying worker democracy and democratic centralism (he even abolished the Congress of the Soviets, the cornerstone of the worker state), Stalin laid the foundation for the eventual return of capitalism to the Soviet Union. Stalin's bureaucratic deformities finally brought down the worker state (which is what happened in China as well).

This is hillarious.
1.) Stalin stole Trotsky's plan? How can you steal an idea in a democratic society? Look, I have tremendous respect for Trotsky and lot's of criticism of Stalin. Perhaps it's time to stop fighting about shit that happened seventy years ago.
2.) I'd also like to point out that lot's of Trotskyists criticize Stalin for implementing TROTSKY's plan and then blame him for the bad parts.
3.) Yes. Stalin had a faulty methodology. I am not married to Stalin nor am I (or the RCP) uncritical of him.

Do you mean that it was industrializing faster than any other country? If so, then yes, that is true...but also kind of meaningless since most of the capitalist world had already industrialized.

Yes. What's impressive is that in 1918 the USSR was a backwards agrarian economy and that by the end of WWII they were a world superpower. The USSR under Stalin accomplished the most incredibly rapid industrialization, doing in twenty or thirty years what had taken Europe one hundred. The point is that "Stalinism" can succeed in important ways.

Rawthentic

9th December 2007, 05:39

The bottom line is that a 'cult of personality' implies a religious, uncritical following of a leader. In the case of the RCP, it does not exist.

Never does the Party put him forward as some sort of Jesus, and always encourage people to engage his line and criticize it.

Maybe the Party should put forward the works of Marx and Engels and Lenin more, but the simple reason Avakian is put forward in such a way is because his line is a concentration of all their ideas, put into modern conditions.

manic expression

9th December 2007, 19:55

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 09, 2007 01:52 am
LOL

Burecratic is a word that seems to be thrown around alot by you Trots and as usual like most other Trotskyist slurs has little connection to the actual material conditions and experiences that so called Stalinist countries went through

Lenin"s Russia was as burecratic as Mao"s China if not more. This was the result of the material conditions facing undeveloped countries like Russia and China. There was little choice but for a burecratic administration to take control over the country and the industrilisation process as the Bourgeise had failed to complete their historical task and the Proletriate was still underdeveloped and not ready to take over.

What most amazes me however is this claim that Stalin and Mao were increasing the role of burecracy even though there is ample proof that the role of burecracy was being decreased by Stalin through his democratic reforms and Mao through the Cultural Revolution>

It"s no wonder that Trotskyists have never had a revolution of their own as they"re to busy demonsing other revolutions>
Good strawman, bad argument.

Lenin's Russia saw a bureaucracy, yes, for it was necessary. However, by the 1930's, it was no longer so necessary. By that point, the bureaucrats had conquered political power within the Soviet state. So, while it was at first necessary, these deformities later developed to the point of self-perpetuation.

What marks Lenin's Russia from Stalin's or Mao's China is worker democracy and worker control. Stalin abolished the Congress of the Soviets, Mao never even lifted a finger to establishing any sort of working class democratic organs of government. Lenin, on the other hand, made workers councils the foundation of the worker state. This is truly the big difference.

Stalinists never really make revolutions, they just squander them. I'll be supporting working class democracy in Cuba while you glorify the failure of Mao and Stalin.

drosera99

The RCP used this term [cult of personality] to describe their leadership tactics which had nothing to do with religiosity. However, they decided that this term implied this religious and unscientific version of Marxism which is inconsistent with the RCP line. So they changed the word to more accurately reflect the methodology that the RCP uses to put forward its leadership. So, yes they said they had a cult of personality. But it wasn't a cult of personality in the sense that Stalin had one. It was always a culture of appreciation. They changed the term to more accurately reflect what they were doing.

So the RCP wants to establish a "cult of personality", yes? I thought so. Thanks for playing.

Several things worth noting here.
1.) YOU are being very cultish. "Lenin didn't like it so it MUST be wrong!" How religious of you.
2.) Just because Lenin didn't use/like something doesn't mean it's wrong. He never used a cell phone. Guess why? THEY WEREN'T INVENTED YET! Maybe Lenin didn't like chocolate chip cookies. Does that make them bad?

1.) Not really. Actual revolutionaries don't slavishly glorify leaders, they expect leaders to act like leaders. The Bolsheviks never had any of this "culture of apprecation" (aka "cult of personality" with words changed around) nonsense, because it is completely against the principles of communist organization. The vanguard is made up of class conscious workers, not Avakian-conscious cultists. The actual principles of the Bolsheviks is something Stalinists love to reject.
2.) The concept of a cult of personality was not technologically too advanced for Lenin. It's not like someone invented the idea in 1925. Lenin ACTIVELY REJECTED the idea of such a policy, while Stalinists ACTIVELY PURSUE it. Personality cults are not like chocolate chip cookies, they're not about personal preference; they're about correct leadership and organization. Chocolate chip cookies? Are you that desperate?

This is hillarious.
1.) Stalin stole Trotsky's plan? How can you steal an idea in a democratic society? Look, I have tremendous respect for Trotsky and lot's of criticism of Stalin. Perhaps it's time to stop fighting about shit that happened seventy years ago.
2.) I'd also like to point out that lot's of Trotskyists criticize Stalin for implementing TROTSKY's plan and then blame him for the bad parts.
3.) Yes. Stalin had a faulty methodology. I am not married to Stalin nor am I (or the RCP) uncritical of him.

1.) As I said, that's another argument.
2.) Yes, because Trotsky was very vocal in his condemnation of the bureaucratic apparatus. That's why he was expelled, exiled and murdered.
3.) Understood. However, you are anti-revisionist, no?

Live for the People

The bottom line is that a 'cult of personality' implies a religious, uncritical following of a leader. In the case of the RCP, it does not exist.

Never does the Party put him forward as some sort of Jesus, and always encourage people to engage his line and criticize it.

Maybe the Party should put forward the works of Marx and Engels and Lenin more, but the simple reason Avakian is put forward in such a way is because his line is a concentration of all their ideas, put into modern conditions.

Again, dancing around the issue. The RCP has no qualms about creating a cult of personality. The have admitted as much. They changed the words around to "culture of appreciation" because it sounds fuzzier. No real difference (and RCP supporters have claimed that there has been no real change).

Yes, the RCP should promote Marx, Engels and Lenin far more. Glad we can agree on something.

Rawthentic

9th December 2007, 21:26

Again, dancing around the issue. The RCP has no qualms about creating a cult of personality. The have admitted as much. They changed the words around to "culture of appreciation" because it sounds fuzzier. No real difference (and RCP supporters have claimed that there has been no real change).
No, you are dancing around the issue. I said that building a 'cult of personality' around Chairman Avakian implies that he is religiously followed. If you can prove where the RCP promotes this as opposed to a critical understanding of leadership, I will sever all ties with the RCP.

What marks Lenin's Russia from Stalin's or Mao's China is worker democracy and worker control. Stalin abolished the Congress of the Soviets, Mao never even lifted a finger to establishing any sort of working class democratic organs of government. Lenin, on the other hand, made workers councils the foundation of the worker state. This is truly the big difference.
Socialism is so much deeper than 'worker control'. I shall quote kasama-rl from another thread:

1) I don't believe that socialism equals "direct worker control." It never has, it never will. And there are some deep reasons for that.

First of all, socialism requires that production (the use of society's resources) be developed in the interests of the people and of the people's highest interests (i.e. the ongoing revolution for communism worldwide). And directing production (and all of society) in that direction (on that socialist road) CAN'T simply be done by direct worker control.

there needs to be overall social direction of the process.

For example: Society needs to move away from internal combustion engines toward mass transportation. How is that done? By direct worker control of the auto plants? By a democratic decision made by the transit workers and their representatives? No, clearly such a decision has to be made (and then planned and then carried out) on a society-wide level -- by a political process. It can't be done on the basis of plant floor decisionmaking.

And then, in important ways, those society wide decisions have to be carried out at the plant floor -- even (ironically) if the majority of workers there don't agree.

for example: Strip mining is a capitalist industry that we may not want to continue under socialism -- because it destroys the environment we (the revolutionary people) need to be the custodians of. But (in my experience) strip miners themselves are often pretty "pro-strip mining" because without that industry, they can't stay and live in these rural areas so easily. So the decision about strip mining has to be made at a social level, and then it has to be carried out even if the workers themselves (in one place or another) don't agree with it.

so this is an argument for society-wide political decisions, for a planned economy etc.
and those needs of socialism are in contradiction to making an absolute out of direct worker control.

2) to raise the level of discussion a notch:

we can't resolve the world historic divide of North South (and the "seal of parasitism" on the U.S.) if the working people in the U.S. simply decide ("for themselves") at each point what is in THEIR best interests.

The interests of working people are complex. They have both long term and historic interests (for revolution, socialism and communism) -- but they also often have short-term, sectoral and individual interests. (So that historically white workers on the railroads supported the exclusion of black people and women because the restricted access to the jobs increased their ability to have some limited security.)

On a theoretical level, one way to say this is: If each factory and workplace makes its decisions for itself, and starts from the analysis of its own interests, if we have "worker control" rooted in factory decision making, then (inevitably and pretty quickly) we will have a commodity market in goods, we will have the expansion (not restriction) of the law of value. Ironically a system of "worker control" at the factory level would produce a society wide market system -- and would be a means to restore capitalism (in the most literal sense).

This is not a hypothetical: worker control of factories in Yugoslavia was the form through which capitalism was continued there after world war 2 -- under Tito the national markets were maintained, and factories remained the cost accounting locus of decision making, and "brought their goods to market" and made "their own decisions."

Another famous example: in the Spanish civil war there were notorious examples of "workers democracy" undermining the war effort against the fascists. For example where a shoe factory council voted to produce fashion shoes for export rather than boots for the anti-fascist army -- because it was "in the workers interests" (i.e. the workers in THAT factory) would be able to pay themselves more.

The point here is not that "workers are greedy and should have no say" (not at all!)-- the point is that IF decisions are made locally, at the lowest factory level, you CAN'T have socialist planning and you can't have socialism.

3) so what do you need?

There are three different things that define the relations of production in a society:

a) the ownership system (i.e. who makes the macro decisions of society and on what basis)

b) the relations IN production (the social relations in carrying out production)

c) relations of distribution (how are goods, wages and social wealth distributed to the people and by what standards)

All three of those (together) make up the relations of production. And all three are involved in creating (and deepening) the socialist realtions in a society.

In the soviet union, they thought (wrongly and mechanically) that only the first on mattered.

They thought that if there was state ownership of the land and economy, then you had socialism, and the only other thing to decide was efficiency and motivation. so they nationalized everything, they put everything under state planning -- but the relations of production were not that different from capitalism, and the distribution relations started to widen inequalities (not narrow them) as the 1930 went on.

One of the important lessons we sum up (thanks to Mao and the four) based on theSoviet experience is the importance of working on all three of these aspects of the relation of production.

Because without that the overall relations return to capitalism.

If you have "state ownership" but the intersts of the masses are not really represented by the state -- then how is it socialism?

If you have "worker control" but the proletariat AS A CLASS can't carry out (or plan) the radical historic and internationalist transformations it needs to make, then how is it socialism?

If you have a narrowing of the inequalities, but really it is done through a welfare state where the larger transformation aren't happen, then how is it socialism?

You need a larger planned economy, but in which the relations IN production are a center of revolutionary struggle too. And you need a process where the masses of people are INCREASINGLY politicized, increasingly conscious of the larger line questions of society, and increasingly intervening (directly and indirectly) in the decisionmaking process (not on the basis of their narrow, personal self interest, but with an increasingly CONSCIOUS understanding of the transformations needed to reach communism.)--link (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73499&st=75&#entry1292430917)

Kasama-rl hits the spot with this post.

In terms of 'working class democracy', yes, it did of course exist in China. There were factory committees, and new organs of worker power. The communes, for one, or something like the 700 new factory organizations in the city of Shangai (and Beijing) that were created during the GPCR. Just in Beijing, there were 900 newspapers, most of them made by students and workers.

In factories and other workplaces, traditional forms of "one-man management" were dissolved. New "three-in-one" combinations of rank- and-file workers, technicians, and Communist Party members took responsibility for day-to-day management of factories and other types of work. Workers spent time in management and managers spent time working on the shop floor.

But, as comrade Kasama-rl proves, this type of democracy is not what dictates whether there is socialism or not. Things are far more complex than that. To put it simply, 'worker control' of factories and such cannot revolutionize society and achieve the 4 Alls.

manic expression

9th December 2007, 23:26

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 09, 2007 09:25 pm
No, you are dancing around the issue. I said that building a 'cult of personality' around Chairman Avakian implies that he is religiously followed. If you can prove where the RCP promotes this as opposed to a critical understanding of leadership, I will sever all ties with the RCP.
This is bordering on the childish. The RCP has stated that it WANTS a "cult of personality". They changed the words to "culture of appreciation" ONLY because it wasn't fuzzy enough for some ears. There was no qualitative change, and RCP supporters have stated precisely as much on this forum.

Your own party encourages a cult of personality. You're simply unwilling to recognize this. That IS your tie with the RCP.

Socialism is so much deeper than 'worker control'. I shall quote kasama-rl from another thread:

Kasama-rl hits the spot with this post.

In terms of 'working class democracy', yes, it did of course exist in China. There were factory committees, and new organs of worker power. The communes, for one, or something like the 700 new factory organizations in the city of Shangai (and Beijing) that were created during the GPCR. Just in Beijing, there were 900 newspapers, most of them made by students and workers.

In factories and other workplaces, traditional forms of "one-man management" were dissolved. New "three-in-one" combinations of rank- and-file workers, technicians, and Communist Party members took responsibility for day-to-day management of factories and other types of work. Workers spent time in management and managers spent time working on the shop floor.

But, as comrade Kasama-rl proves, this type of democracy is not what dictates whether there is socialism or not. Things are far more complex than that. To put it simply, 'worker control' of factories and such cannot revolutionize society and achieve the 4 Alls.

I'll deal with Kasama-rl's post later. Let me say this, however: socialism means worker control. Everything else follows this condition.

You are really denying history if you want to claim that there was substantive worker control in China. The Party was the source of power and everyone knew this. In the Soviet Union, originally, the Soviets were the source of power while the Bolshevik party was a party. The same goes for Cuba today. Stalinists go against this constantly, and this is their downfall.

Rawthentic

9th December 2007, 23:33

I'll deal with Kasama-rl's post later. Let me say this, however: socialism means worker control. Everything else follows this condition.
Yes, please deal with it.

This is bordering on the childish. The RCP has stated that it WANTS a "cult of personality". They changed the words to "culture of appreciation" ONLY because it wasn't fuzzy enough for some ears. There was no qualitative change, and RCP supporters have stated precisely as much on this forum.
So prove where it promotes a religious following of Avakian.

You are really denying history if you want to claim that there was substantive worker control in China. The Party was the source of power and everyone knew this.
The party, along with all the organs of peasant and proletarian power. Everybody knows that the Cultural Revolution brought such organs and new ones to height.

manic expression

10th December 2007, 00:24

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 09, 2007 11:32 pm
So prove where it promotes a religious following of Avakian.
"Cult of personality". Furthermore, you're making an incredible strawman. Do you burn incense to Avakian? No. Do you slavishly portray and glorify him? Most definitely.

As I said, changing words around is not an actual argument.

The party, along with all the organs of peasant and proletarian power. Everybody knows that the Cultural Revolution brought such organs and new ones to height.

What thick ignorance. The Party ran everything, this has not changed from then to now. The Cultural Revolution was almost a civil war, and at the very least a situation of complete chaos. Mao triggered it because he was bitter about having to step down from his post in the government after the failure of the GLF (full circle).

Dros

10th December 2007, 02:28

So the RCP wants to establish a "cult of personality", yes? I thought so. Thanks for playing.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Wow. Perhaps you should stop saying the same thing over and over again when everybody has clearly addressed this issue dozens of times. It's okay to admit you were incorrect.

1.) Not really. Actual revolutionaries don't slavishly glorify leaders, they expect leaders to act like leaders. The Bolsheviks never had any of this "culture of apprecation" (aka "cult of personality" with words changed around) nonsense, because it is completely against the principles of communist organization. The vanguard is made up of class conscious workers, not Avakian-conscious cultists. The actual principles of the Bolsheviks is something Stalinists love to reject.

I'm pretty sure your argument was that because Lenin didn't use cultures of appreciation they must be wrong. Sounds kinda religious doncha think?

2.) The concept of a cult of personality was not technologically too advanced for Lenin. It's not like someone invented the idea in 1925. Lenin ACTIVELY REJECTED the idea of such a policy, while Stalinists ACTIVELY PURSUE it. Personality cults are not like chocolate chip cookies, they're not about personal preference; they're about correct leadership and organization. Chocolate chip cookies? Are you that desperate?

Show me where Lenin actively criticized in words the methodology of cultures of appreciation. I find it hard to beleive that he criticized something that didn't exist yet. And even if he did, the Cults of Personality set up around Stalin have nothing to do with the way Avakian is put forward. We do not defend the religiosity associated with the Cult of Stalin.

1.) Stalin stole Trotsky's plan? How can you steal an idea in a democratic society? Look, I have tremendous respect for Trotsky and lot's of criticism of Stalin. Perhaps it's time to stop fighting about shit that happened seventy years ago.
2.) I'd also like to point out that lot's of Trotskyists criticize Stalin for implementing TROTSKY's plan and then blame him for the bad parts.
3.) Yes. Stalin had a faulty methodology. I am not married to Stalin nor am I (or the RCP) uncritical of him.

1.) As I said, that's another argument.
2.) Yes, because Trotsky was very vocal in his condemnation of the bureaucratic apparatus. That's why he was expelled, exiled and murdered.
3.) Understood. However, you are anti-revisionist, no?[/QUOTE]

1.) Right. Stalin stole Trotsky's awesome as hell plan to industrialize the Soviet Union.
2.) What does that have to do with my original point?
3.) Ummm.... No. I'm a closit Dengist Krushchevite. Yes I am anti-revisionist. What's your point?

I'll be supporting working class democracy in Cuba

I'm going to assume you mean capitalism with a smiley face sticker on it when you say "working class democracy." How can you criticize bureaucracy, Stalin, and be a Trotskyist and support that revisionist sham?

Dros

10th December 2007, 02:38

Originally posted by manic expression+December 10, 2007 12:23 am--> (manic expression @ December 10, 2007 12:23 am)
Live for the [email protected] 09, 2007 11:32 pm
So prove where it promotes a religious following of Avakian.
"Cult of personality". Furthermore, you're making an incredible strawman. Do you burn incense to Avakian? No. Do you slavishly portray and glorify him? Most definitely.

As I said, changing words around is not an actual argument.

The party, along with all the organs of peasant and proletarian power. Everybody knows that the Cultural Revolution brought such organs and new ones to height.

What thick ignorance. The Party ran everything, this has not changed from then to now. The Cultural Revolution was almost a civil war, and at the very least a situation of complete chaos. Mao triggered it because he was bitter about having to step down from his post in the government after the failure of the GLF (full circle). [/b]
It's not a straw man. Religiosity implies an uncritical methodology that does not exist in the RCP.

Yes the RCP used the term "cult of personality" to describe what they were doing. They changed the term not to reflect a change in line but to more accurately reflect the methodology put forward. The term cult of personality implies religion. The RCP abandoned this term because it never reflected the intent of the party. This is the last time I'm going to say this. Deal with this argument or shut the hell up.

Why don't you research the GPCR instead of spewing bourgois propaganda.

manic expression

10th December 2007, 02:51

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Wow. Perhaps you should stop saying the same thing over and over again when everybody has clearly addressed this issue dozens of times. It's okay to admit you were incorrect.

Sorry, drosera99, but you haven't made an actual argument yet. Let me know when you make a point, because so far you've just been using wordplay. The RCP wants to establish a cult of personality. This is an indisputable fact. Sorry.

I'm pretty sure your argument was that because Lenin didn't use cultures of appreciation they must be wrong. Sounds kinda religious doncha think?

Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and every other serious revolutionary rejected personality cults because of their intrinsic anti-revolutionary character. Marxism is not about glorifying any single leader; Lenin was right about this, and I uphold his reasoning.

YOU seem to reject Lenin's actions and ideas.

To have a Lenin avatar and spit on his policies, it takes a special kind of stupid, indeed.

Show me where Lenin actively criticized in words the methodology of cultures of appreciation. I find it hard to beleive that he criticized something that didn't exist yet. And even if he did, the Cults of Personality set up around Stalin have nothing to do with the way Avakian is put forward. We do not defend the religiosity associated with the Cult of Stalin.

Lenin never allowed a statue of himself to be built. He expressly asked that he not be glorified after he died. These are all facts that I can prove for you.

The RCP's "culture of appreciation" IS a cult of personality. RCP supporters have stated that there is no real difference between the two, it's just that one sounds fuzzier than the other.

Again, you are using wordplay as your last defense.

I'm going to assume you mean capitalism with a smiley face sticker on it when you say "working class democracy." How can you criticize bureaucracy, Stalin, and be a Trotskyist and support that revisionist sham?

Just as I thought, the desperate use of ultra-leftism is employed. Cuba has done exactly what the Soviet Union failed to do: ceaselessly resist a reliance on bureaucracy. The rectification process in the 1980's replaced bureaucratic processes with direct working class control and involvement; this allowed Cuba to withstand the collapse of their only major trade partner. Cuba is an example of a healthy worker state. China is an example of the inevitable result of Stalinist bureaucratic deformities.

It's not a straw man. Religiosity implies an uncritical methodology that does not exist in the RCP.

Yes the RCP used the term "cult of personality" to describe what they were doing. They changed the term not to reflect a change in line but to more accurately reflect the methodology put forward. The term cult of personality implies religion. The RCP abandoned this term because it never reflected the intent of the party. This is the last time I'm going to say this. Deal with this argument or shut the hell up.

Why don't you research the GPCR instead of spewing bourgois propaganda.

Please keep your responses to one post, drosera99. It's not that hard.

The RCP's "culture of appreciation" is no different from a personality cult. When someone qualifies "personality cult" with religiosity and expects me to meet that qualificaiton, that IS a strawman and it IS disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Typical Stalinists, moving the goalposts when they can't win a straight argument.

Let me ask you: does a "cult of personality" HAVE to contain such elements? Not necessarily. They can resemble a religious praise, but that is not a necessity.

Furthermore, prove to me that the cult of Avakian is NOT unswerving.

On the Cultural Revolution, it's abundantly clear what actually happened in China and why. Mao used "the people" as pawns in a bureaucratic power-play. It wouldn't be so disgusting if it wasn't so destructive.

grove street

10th December 2007, 08:40

Originally posted by manic expression+December 09, 2007 07:54 pm--> (manic expression @ December 09, 2007 07:54 pm)
grove [email protected] 09, 2007 01:52 am
LOL

Burecratic is a word that seems to be thrown around alot by you Trots and as usual like most other Trotskyist slurs has little connection to the actual material conditions and experiences that so called Stalinist countries went through

Lenin"s Russia was as burecratic as Mao"s China if not more. This was the result of the material conditions facing undeveloped countries like Russia and China. There was little choice but for a burecratic administration to take control over the country and the industrilisation process as the Bourgeise had failed to complete their historical task and the Proletriate was still underdeveloped and not ready to take over.

What most amazes me however is this claim that Stalin and Mao were increasing the role of burecracy even though there is ample proof that the role of burecracy was being decreased by Stalin through his democratic reforms and Mao through the Cultural Revolution>

It"s no wonder that Trotskyists have never had a revolution of their own as they"re to busy demonsing other revolutions>
Good strawman, bad argument.

Lenin's Russia saw a bureaucracy, yes, for it was necessary. However, by the 1930's, it was no longer so necessary. By that point, the bureaucrats had conquered political power within the Soviet state. So, while it was at first necessary, these deformities later developed to the point of self-perpetuation.

What marks Lenin's Russia from Stalin's or Mao's China is worker democracy and worker control. Stalin abolished the Congress of the Soviets, Mao never even lifted a finger to establishing any sort of working class democratic organs of government. Lenin, on the other hand, made workers councils the foundation of the worker state. This is truly the big difference.

[/b]
Your argument surrounding the role of burecracy within the Soviet Union of the 1930's is once again dispatched from materialist reality of the time. Yes Russia was no longer Fedualist and full scale industrilization was well under its way along with a highly conncessios working class. There was however one problem the USSR was still a nation that was under threat> The Imperalist nations were of cause hoping for it to fail especially because the Soviet Union set an example to the Workers of not only undeveloped countries subjugated under Imperalism like China< but also the workers in the Imperalist countries themselves who were under going the economic hardship of the Great Depression> If you are a student of history you Should be well aware that the ImperalIst nattions played a big part in the development of Fascism in Europe and the events leading up to WII> The majority of Imperalist nations supported the rise of Fascism including America and Britian because of Germany"s and Italy"s militant enthusiasim to invade the USSR>

The USSR was under threat by one of the largest and most advanced military"s in the world that was receving ample support from Imperalism all over the world and was not just calling for the fall of the USSR< but also for enslavement and racial extermenation of its people> The USSR had no choice but to develop and develop fast>

Your second argument is also untruthul> Stalin did not abolish the Soviets there was defently changes to how the system operated especialy during the rapid industrilization and war time but the workers council remained and their sphere of influence was increased> On top of this Stalin increased the number of working class members in the Party>

For more information about the role of Workers councils in the USSR I reccomend that you read "Stalin"s Democratic Reforms" By Grover Furr

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Now onto China> You are sadly even more mistaken< Mao criticised Stalin for not doing enough to get rid of burecracy and increase workers democracy> Mao made many movements towards increasing workers democracy from the Peopels Communes to the Cultural Revolution which saw workers taking full control over industry and whole towns and cities>

I would recommend getting a hold of the Shangaia Text book which speaks alot about the expereinces of the Culutral Revolution< This is a book that is banned in China>

manic expression

10th December 2007, 17:12

Originally posted by grove street+December 10, 2007 08:39 am--> (grove street @ December 10, 2007 08:39 am)
manic [email protected] 09, 2007 07:54 pm
Good strawman, bad argument.

Lenin's Russia saw a bureaucracy, yes, for it was necessary. However, by the 1930's, it was no longer so necessary. By that point, the bureaucrats had conquered political power within the Soviet state. So, while it was at first necessary, these deformities later developed to the point of self-perpetuation.

What marks Lenin's Russia from Stalin's or Mao's China is worker democracy and worker control. Stalin abolished the Congress of the Soviets, Mao never even lifted a finger to establishing any sort of working class democratic organs of government. Lenin, on the other hand, made workers councils the foundation of the worker state. This is truly the big difference.

Your argument surrounding the role of burecracy within the Soviet Union of the 1930's is once again dispatched from materialist reality of the time. Yes Russia was no longer Fedualist and full scale industrilization was well under its way along with a highly conncessios working class. There was however one problem the USSR was still a nation that was under threat> The Imperalist nations were of cause hoping for it to fail especially because the Soviet Union set an example to the Workers of not only undeveloped countries subjugated under Imperalism like China< but also the workers in the Imperalist countries themselves who were under going the economic hardship of the Great Depression> If you are a student of history you Should be well aware that the ImperalIst nattions played a big part in the development of Fascism in Europe and the events leading up to WII> The majority of Imperalist nations supported the rise of Fascism including America and Britian because of Germany"s and Italy"s militant enthusiasim to invade the USSR>

The USSR was under threat by one of the largest and most advanced military"s in the world that was receving ample support from Imperalism all over the world and was not just calling for the fall of the USSR< but also for enslavement and racial extermenation of its people> The USSR had no choice but to develop and develop fast>

Your second argument is also untruthul> Stalin did not abolish the Soviets there was defently changes to how the system operated especialy during the rapid industrilization and war time but the workers council remained and their sphere of influence was increased> On top of this Stalin increased the number of working class members in the Party>

For more information about the role of Workers councils in the USSR I reccomend that you read "Stalin"s Democratic Reforms" By Grover Furr

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Now onto China> You are sadly even more mistaken< Mao criticised Stalin for not doing enough to get rid of burecracy and increase workers democracy> Mao made many movements towards increasing workers democracy from the Peopels Communes to the Cultural Revolution which saw workers taking full control over industry and whole towns and cities>

I would recommend getting a hold of the Shangaia Text book which speaks alot about the expereinces of the Culutral Revolution< This is a book that is banned in China> [/b]
The fact is that the bureaucracy did not have to develop in such a manner that it would hamper worker democracy as it did. The bureaucrats overran the Soviet state and instituted self-serving deformities during this period. The consolidation of the nomenklatura, the defeat of Stalin's rivals within the Party (coincidentally, just about every remaining Bolshevik was killed; "Koba, why did I have to die?" - Bukharin), abolition of the Congress of the Soviets and other policies support this claim. These things DID happen for actual reasons: Russia was backward and isolated and many revolutionaries had been killed during the civil war. This allowed the bureaucracy to fortify its position within the worker state, to the detriment of the working class.

The reason the USSR defeated fascism was because the working class rose to the occassion. The bureaucrats almost completely botched the whole deal, but the Soviet soldiers fought gallantly and stopped the Nazi advance. The Soviet Union was completely unprepared for the fascist attack, even though communists still surviving in Germany (don't ask me how) were sending evidence of the buildup and of the perparations (one communist was able smuggle out a copy of a manual given out to all Nazi soldiers that gave them instructions on how to speak Russian phrases, find farming collective heads, communist party members, etc.).

Yes, the Congress of the Soviets were abolished and the role of the Soviets effectively ended. Stalin's "Supreme Soviet" had no independence and was no voice of the working class. It is laughable to suggest Stalin preserved worker democracy in any form.

And membership was not what you say, the actual stats from the Party itself suggested otherwise.

Mao did nothing to promote worker democracy, or what little he did was frightfully ineffective. The Party controlled everything, this has remained unchanged from Mao to Deng and beyond. Mao's disdain for worker democracy was exposed in his treatment of the Shanghai Commune, in which (following the delusional advice of Stalin) he offered no resistance to Chiang and allowed Chiang to suppress the rebellion and murder tens of thousands of workers.

And the Cultural Revolution was nothing more than a power-play by Mao. He was still bitter over stepping down, and tried to use the Red Guards to his favor. The result was complete chaos that bordered on a civil war. People who had supported the communists from day one were sent to labor camps, people were punished for basically no reason. The Cultural Revolution is a vintage example of Stalinist failure.

Red Heretic

10th December 2007, 18:21

I'm not an RCP member, and I can't really speak for them, but I'd like to try to clear up some of the confusion that exists in this thread to the best of my knowledge.

I would like to clear up some things about this question of "cult of personality" and "culture of appreciation." Yes, for many years, the RCP openly used the term cult of personality, but it did not use that term in a religious, dogmatic sense. However, it did not believe that that term "cult of personality" really "got to the essence" of what it is trying to create, so it stopped using that term and started using the term "a culture of appreciation" which gets to the essence of what it has always been trying to create.

The term "cult of personality" does not in my opinion represent some sort of religious cult as many people on this board and off this board who attack Avakian and Mao try to imply. That term has been used for decades by our movement, including during the period of history in which Mao's leadership was promoted and contrasted with the leadership of the phoney communists in China who were trying to take things back to capitalism. However, the term really doesn't get to the essence of what the RCP wants.

So what is this "culture of appreciation" that the RCP wants to exist around Avakian's leadership? The RCP wants a situation where millions of people are engaging with the body of work, method, and approach that Avakian is bringing forward. It wants a situation where if the US imperialists try to go after him, they can't because the political costs would be too great for them, and millions of people are stepping out to defend him from attack.

And why? Because he's a really articulate? Because he's magical? Because he's our new god? NO, NO, and NO!

Let's get into the content of this! The RCP says that Avakian "bringing forward an advanced understanding, a heightened understanding, of what revolution and communism are all about and how to move toward the objective of revolution and communism, as well as a method for engaging and struggling through the contradictions that are inevitably going to be encountered in that process." (emphasis mine)

They are saying he is of the caliber of leadership of a Lenin or a Mao. There is no other leader like this in this country. No other leader that is making these path breaking analyses, critically re-envisioning our entire movement. If we are serious about getting to communism, we should be serious about honestly engaging with what Avakian is bringing forward, and seeing if it is true or not. And if Avakian really is a leader of this caliber, then we have a responsibility to both project and protect his voice.

manic expression

10th December 2007, 18:34

Another "I'm not a member of the RCP, but I love everything they do" poster. So convenient.

I would like to clear up some things about this question of "cult of personality" and "culture of appreciation." Yes, for many years, the RCP openly used the term cult of personality, but it did not use that term in a religious, dogmatic sense. However, it did not believe that that term "cult of personality" really "got to the essence" of what it is trying to create, so it stopped using that term and started using the term "a culture of appreciation" which gets to the essence of what it has always been trying to create.

You, like all the other Avakinianists, don't understand the complete ineptitude of this argument. The RCP's policy has remained the same, no matter what fuzzy words they use to describe their actions. As such, the "culture of appreciation" is NO DIFFERENT from the "cult of personality". Can you get this through your head? Can you?

"The essence" is exactly the same: slavishly glorifying a leader and going against what Marxism and Bolshevism and revolution is about. You can use whatever term seems warm and cuddly, but it really doesn't change "the essence" of how anti-materialist the RCP's "culture cult" is.

As I've said a million times, when RCPites claim that they're not religious about praising Avakian, it's a strawman because they qualify it themselves and expect other people to meet that unnecessary and tangential qualification. Follow? So, while the RCP's glorification of Avakian reaches levels that compete with Iran, your insistence that it "isn't religious" doesn't touch the real issue: the fact that Avakian is being blindly portrayed as "great leader", when he should be ACTING LIKE A LEADER.

The RCP wants a situation where millions of people are engaging with the body of work, method, and approach that Avakian is bringing forward.

Translation: The RCP wants a situation where millions of people unswervingly follow Avakian's line.

Reading between the lines: The RCP wants a monolithic movement, not a self-conscious movement of the working class.

In the interest of fairness, I'll let Red Heretic have the last word. Hopefully s/he'll quell our suspicions of slavish glorification, of monolithic mindsets, of anti-materialist actions.

They are saying he is of the caliber of leadership of a Lenin or a Mao. There is no other leader like this in this country. No other leader that is making these path breaking analyses, critically re-envisioning our entire movement. If we are serious about getting to communism, we should be serious about honestly engaging with what Avakian is bringing forward, and seeing if it is true or not. And if Avakian really is a leader of this caliber, then we have a responsibility to both project and protect his voice.

I guess not.

Red Heretic

10th December 2007, 18:57

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 10, 2007 06:33 pm
Another "I'm not a member of the RCP, but I love everything they do" poster. So convenient.
Manic, I place that at the beginning of my posts so that I can be clear to any new posters on this board that I am no rep of the RCP, and that sometimes I say things don't reflect their line. I don't want my line projected onto the RCP.

You, like all the other Avakinianists, don't understand the complete ineptitude of this argument. The RCP's policy has remained the same, no matter what fuzzy words they use to describe their actions. As such, the "culture of appreciation" is NO DIFFERENT from the "cult of personality". Can you get this through your head? Can you?

I don't need your hysterical personal attacks, Manic. I don't engage in personal attacks, please, extend me the favor.

No, in content, the RCP's creation of a "culture of appreciation" is no different than when it was promoting of "cult of personality." The difference is that actual term. One gets to the essence of what the RCP wants, and the other is really confusing. Terminology is an important question for people who are serious about getting at the truth.

Translation: The RCP wants a situation where millions of people unswervingly follow Avakian's line.

Reading between the lines: The RCP wants a monolithic movement, not a self-conscious movement of the working class.

Quite the contrary. When the RCP talks about people engaging with Avakian, it is talking about people critically grappling with his works, seeing what is true and what's not. Let's get into Avakian's works, and see if what he is saying is true or not. Let's engage with these works critically. This is what's needed.

Repeatedly, the RCP has stated that it would be a serious problem if people were following uncritically. That is how a movement falls into dogmatism.

In the future when you are claiming to be criticizing the RCP's line, it would be really helpful if you could quote things that the RCP is actually saying rather than making up lines for them.

I guess not.

Ok, you guess not. Why?

How was what I said "slavish glorification, of monolithic mindsets, of anti-materialist actions?" That's quite an assertion to not have any actual content to go with it.

Red Heretic

10th December 2007, 19:04

Actually, while we're getting into this thing about the need for people to follow Avakian critically, I want to say one more thing about Avakian's epistemology (how you get at the truth). Avakian is bringing forward this epistemological formulation that "All truth is good for the proletariat and getting to communism." This is a little bit of a different formulation than what has existed historically in our movement.

Even if the truth meant the destruction of our revolutionary movement, the RCP and Avakian are saying that we should go for it, and that that is good for the proletariat and getting to communism.

How is that at all the "slavish glorification, of monolithic mindsets, of anti-materialist actions" you spoke of?

manic expression

10th December 2007, 19:15

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10, 2007 06:56 pm
Manic, I place that at the beginning of my posts so that I can be clear to any new posters on this board that I am no rep of the RCP, and that sometimes I say things don't reflect their line. I don't want my line projected onto the RCP.
None of us are reps of any organization, really. We're posting on an internet forum. The disclaimer is to insulate the RCP, nothing less and nothing more.

I don't need your hysterical personal attacks, Manic. I don't engage in personal attacks, please, extend me the favor.

Go look at this entire thread. This is a continuation of a "discussion" that already has a lot of venom in it, and the gloves were taken off a few pages ago. I can't change what's been said.

No, in content, the RCP's creation of a "culture of appreciation" is no different than when it was promoting of "cult of personality." The difference is that actual term. One gets to the essence of what the RCP wants, and the other is really confusing. Terminology is an important question for people who are serious about getting at the truth.

The difference is the term. That is the point. There is no difference. It is a cult of personality.

Quite the contrary. When the RCP talks about people engaging with Avakian, it is talking about people critically grappling with his works, seeing what is true and what's not. Let's get into Avakian's works, and see if what he is saying is true or not. Let's engage with these works critically. This is what's needed.

Repeatedly, the RCP has stated that it would be a serious problem if people were following uncritically. That is how a movement falls into dogmatism.

In the future when you are claiming to be criticizing the RCP's line, it would be really helpful if you could quote things that the RCP is actually saying rather than making up lines for them.

They talk all the talk, but that's about it. "Critical engagement" sounds real nice until you see what they actually do, which has nothing to do with either "criticism" or "engagement".

Are you really trying to tell me that the RCP HASN'T fallen into dogmatism? As if the unquestioning character wasn't enough, the way they portray Avakian makes it worse. "Bob Avakian Is Our Leader" doesn't convince me that they aren't dogmatic.

How was what I said "slavish glorification, of monolithic mindsets, of anti-materialist actions?" That's quite an assertion to not have any actual content to go with it.

Ok, you guess not. Why?

Read that paragraph again. Critically.

Actually, while we're getting into this thing about the need for people to follow Avakian critically, I want to say one more thing about Avakian's epistemology (how you get at the truth). Avakian is bringing forward this epistemological formulation that "All truth is good for the proletariat and getting to communism." This is a little bit of a different formulation than what has existed historically in our movement.

Even if the truth meant the destruction of our revolutionary movement, the RCP and Avakian are saying that we should go for it, and that that is good for the proletariat and getting to communism.

How is that at all the "slavish glorification, of monolithic mindsets, of anti-materialist actions" you spoke of?

Avakian says he wants "truth" for the proletariat. Avakian wants himself for the proletariat. If you want some insight, read Marx, read Engels, read Lenin. The RCP does not promote these thinkers NEARLY as much as they promote Avakian. If they actually read Lenin and learned about what he believed, they would know that the founder of Leninism was completely against personality cults and "cultures of appreciation". If you want truth, learn the history of the Paris Commune, of the Russian Revolution, of the Cuban Revolution. The RCP is far more involved in "engaging" Avakian than any of these essential parts of our movement.

Don't talk to me of "truth" when you flatly refuse the obvious examples of Marx and the Bolsheviks.

Red Heretic

10th December 2007, 20:28

Go look at this entire thread. This is a continuation of a "discussion" that already has a lot of venom in it, and the gloves were taken off a few pages ago. I can't change what's been said.

Yes, I read it. I saw there is a lot of really unprincipled shit, and I don't think any of it is good. That's no excuse though. Part of becoming a communist is always being principled, but I also see that people get trained to do the exact opposite on this forum. It is really unfortunate.

They talk all the talk, but that's about it. "Critical engagement" sounds real nice until you see what they actually do, which has nothing to do with either "criticism" or "engagement".

Are you really trying to tell me that the RCP HASN'T fallen into dogmatism? As if the unquestioning character wasn't enough, the way they portray Avakian makes it worse.

No, I don't think the RCP has fallen into dogmatism. I think they are engaged in a vibrant search for the truth, and I've provided all kinds of quotes from them to back that up.

So you're saying they've fallen into dogmatism? Let's get into that. Do you have some quotes where Avakian was promoted in a religious way? Where they said things about Avakian that were untrue? Let's be materialist.

"Bob Avakian Is Our Leader" doesn't convince me that they aren't dogmatic.

Ok, does it convince you that they ARE dogmatic? Is that statement untrue? Does it assert Avakian has some sort of super-natural powers? That he is super-human?

I mean, that quote is true. Bob Avakian is the leader of the RCP, and so are the other two points that appear in that box at the front of Revolution Newspaper. Marxism-Leninism Maoism is the ideology of Revolution Newspaper, and the RCP is it's vanguard.

Read that paragraph again. Critically.

I have. I think it's true. I don't think there is any other leader of the caliber that Avakian is in this country, and I think that makes his leadership very important.

If you think that's not true, then let's talk about that. Is there another leader of this caliber in the US? Is it important to promote leaders of the caliber of Lenin and Mao? Should Lenin and Mao have been promoted when they were making these huge path breaking leaps or should we have hidden them.

I mean look, I think there should be a culture of appreciation around a lot of people. I think there should be a culture of appreciation around people making these massive leaps in all of the different spheres of society. A culture of appreciation around Stephen Hawking, around Michael Jordan, around Charles Darwin, around musicians and artists who make huge leaps in the development of new and exciting art forms, and on and on.

Avakian says he wants "truth" for the proletariat. Avakian wants himself for the proletariat.

Look, we can't have a conversation if all you're going to do is make baseless assertions about Avakian without giving a single shred of evidence.

If you want some insight, read Marx, read Engels, read Lenin. The RCP does not promote these thinkers NEARLY as much as they promote Avakian. If they actually read Lenin and learned about what he believed, they would know that the founder of Leninism was completely against personality cults and "cultures of appreciation".

I can't help but take a stab at the screaming irony here. You are putting forward Marx, Engels, and Lenin in an extremely dogmatic way! You are putting them forward as if their works are the absolute truth, and not a living science that needs to be critically developed and transformed as reality itself is transformed and as we deepen our understanding of things.

It's as if someone went into a Biology lab where these Biologists are making exciting new breakthroughs in our understanding of evolution through genetics, which is a big leap beyond Darwin, and yelling "If you want to know about Biology, you should be reading Charles Darwin!" Well, there a lot of good stuff in Darwin's works, some of it is true, and some of it is not true. But the point is to develop Darwinism as a living science and to go beyond Darwin's original work that laid the foundation for what we are doing today. If we just stuck to only what Darwin developed, we would never be able to achieve all of these breakthroughs that we are doing with the science of evolution in the field of genetics.

Bob Avakian's works are aimed at trying to go beyond Marx, Lenin, and Mao. They are aimed at taking us to a whole new, higher synthesis. They are aimed at being able to get us to communism. I'm sorry, but if you just narrowly and dogmatically try to follow the works that Marx, Engels, and Lenin (or Mao for that matter) without going beyond them as we run into all of these new contradictions and gain all of this new experience, well, that isn't going to get us to where we need to go. That isn't going to get us to communism.

Labor Shall Rule

10th December 2007, 20:41

An eleven-hour DVD? A committee called “Engage! A Committee to Protect and Project the Voice of Bob Avakian”? If you look through Revolution, the entire paper contains long speeches by the Chairman. His name is synonymous to the party.

The Revolutionary Communist Party believes in spreading the movement through purely intellectual methods - the distribution of their paper, and their 'political campaigns' do not and have not boosted revolutionary working class consciousness. The fact is that you can not tell curious folks to believe in something outside of their experience. It is, by nature, more difficult. There will be no "conversions" that can be brought about through one-on-one conversation or through literature.

manic expression

10th December 2007, 21:01

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10, 2007 08:27 pm
Yes, I read it. I saw there is a lot of really unprincipled shit, and I don't think any of it is good. That's no excuse though. Part of becoming a communist is always being principled, but I also see that people get trained to do the exact opposite on this forum. It is really unfortunate.
Then hopefully you can understand when I'm not showing too much patience. I started out this thread trying to show some respect for the RCP, now that's long gone. RCPers can thank themselves for antagonizing me.

No, I don't think the RCP has fallen into dogmatism. I think they are engaged in a vibrant search for the truth, and I've provided all kinds of quotes from them to back that up.

So you're saying they've fallen into dogmatism? Let's get into that. Do you have some quotes where Avakian was promoted in a religious way? Where they said things about Avakian that were untrue? Let's be materialist.

The RCP is involved in a dull search for whatever just came out of Avakian's mouth. They push his books, his talks, his pictures, everything; where's the criticism? They have rhetoric of "critical engagement", but they don't follow up on it (probably because they are being just as two-faced as some other Avakianists on this thread). Let's face facts: the RCP's rhetoric and program is dogmatic. There is no way around it.

Your quotes are nothing but empty rhetoric that sounds cute and fuzzy. Just like the disingenuous use of "culture of appreciation" to denote a full-blown personality cult, the RCP is dodging what they really do.

"Bob Avakian Is Our Leader". Just look on their website and their newspaper: every corner of it shows what I'm saying.

Oh, and something that's untrue about Avakian? How about "he's the same caliber leader as Lenin". Disgusting.

Ok, does it convince you that they ARE dogmatic? Is that statement untrue? Does it assert Avakian has some sort of super-natural powers? That he is super-human?

I mean, that quote is true. Bob Avakian is the leader of the RCP, and so are the other two points that appear in that box at the front of Revolution Newspaper. Marxism-Leninism Maoism is the ideology of Revolution Newspaper, and the RCP is it's vanguard.

Not entirely, but it confirms what I've suspected after working with the RCYB (and I have) and looking at what they promote.

The way they state Avakian's leadership is what makes it dogmatic. Pravda didn't put "LENIN IS OUR LEADER!" anywhere, because it would be ridiculous (not to mention Lenin himself would tear out anyone who pushed such rhetoric).

Again, you're making ridiculous qualifications and expecting ME to meet YOUR adjectives. Don't make strawmen, make an argument. You don't need to believe Avakian to be Zoroaster to be dogmatic, and your suggestion that they are necessary conditions for one another is quite wrong and ruins any "discussion" that might've existed here.

Sure, the quote is true, but it is also a fine example of glorification.

"Joseph Stalin has an awesome mustache!" It's a true quote, so why don't you put it on the front page?

I have. I think it's true.

Then there's no point in talking about this. If you ACTUALLY think Avakian is on par with Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, you are certifiably delusional.

As if your inexplicable glorification of the man wasn't enough (and before you cry foul, read your own words), Avakian isn't acting like a leader, he's acting like an idol. Leaders don't plaster their praises all over their publications, leaders don't engage in self-aggrandizement, leaders ACT LIKE LEADERS. Avakian could learn a thing or two by looking at examples of true revolutionaries instead of telling everyone how great of a leader he is.

A culture of appreciation around Stephen Hawking, around Michael Jordan, around Charles Darwin, around musicians and artists who make huge leaps in the development of new and exciting art forms, and on and on.

So "Charles Darwin Is Our Leader" should be on every cover of Nature? Please, that's slavish glorification of a person, and that takes away from pursuing scientific truth. What does that remind you of?

Look, we can't have a conversation if all you're going to do is make baseless assertions about Avakian without giving a single shred of evidence.

And you've made the humble assertion that Avakian is as adept at leadership as Vladimir Lenin. Where's the evidence for that? I guess I lack faith.

I can't help but take a stab at the screaming irony here. You are putting forward Marx, Engels, and Lenin in an extremely dogmatic way! You are putting them forward as if their works are the absolute truth, and not a living science that needs to be critically developed and transformed as reality itself is transformed and as we deepen our understanding of things.

Others have made the same fallacious claim as well. My promotion of Marx and Engels and Lenin and Connolly and Sankara and Castro and Malcolm X and otherwise is done NOT by glorifying them. I don't tell everyone that Castro is my leader, I look to the example of his leadership. The latter is NOT what the RCP does. Furthermore, the FACT that I promote MULTIPLE leaders and thinkers undeniably separates me from the Avakianists, who are patently monolithic.

None of the thinkers I promote are holders of absolute truth. I disagree with Lenin on various issues, and some of the other revolutionaries I look to disagree with Lenin. If you look at my quote of Connolly, his writings on religion do not match Lenin's writings on religion; I find Connolly's to be closer to what I see.

So, really, I promote multiple thinkers with whom I disagree with on many issues. If you are comparing THAT to the RCP's rhetoric on Avakian, you are simply incorrect.

It's as if someone went into a Biology lab where these Biologists are making exciting new breakthroughs in our understanding of evolution through genetics, which is a big leap beyond Darwin, and yelling "If you want to know about Biology, you should be reading Charles Darwin!"

No, the RCP is trying to educate people with only Avakian. They do not promote the fundamental works of Marx and Engels; the basis of our movement. What I am doing is akin to walking into a biology SCHOOL where they only look at current developments. Come on, read some Darwin before moving on.

This is ignoring the whole part about Avakian's analysis not being new or exciting or a breakthrough in any way, but that's besides the point (which probably won't stop you from writing a few paragraphs on it anyway).

Again, in the interest of fairness, I'll let you have the last word. Again, I hope your argument will refrain from glorifying Avakian.

Bob Avakian's works are aimed at trying to go beyond Marx, Lenin, and Mao. They are aimed at taking us to a whole new, higher synthesis. They are aimed at being able to get us to communism.

...I see.

Dros

10th December 2007, 21:41

Sorry, drosera99, but you haven't made an actual argument yet. Let me know when you make a point, because so far you've just been using wordplay. The RCP wants to establish a cult of personality. This is an indisputable fact. Sorry.

The RCP's "culture of appreciation" IS a cult of personality. RCP supporters have stated that there is no real difference between the two, it's just that one sounds fuzzier than the other.

The RCP's "culture of appreciation" is no different from a personality cult. When someone qualifies "personality cult" with religiosity and expects me to meet that qualificaiton, that IS a strawman and it IS disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Typical Stalinists, moving the goalposts when they can't win a straight argument.

Ok, fine. You don't want to address this issue. If you want to call the stratedgy around Avakian a cult of personality go ahead. Now please show what is wrong with the way it is implemented around
Avakian. Don't give generic arguments about the Cult of Stalin etc. because the way Avakian is put forward is totally different.

Furthermore, prove to me that the cult of Avakian is NOT unswerving.

The frequent use of the word "engage". The whole stratedgy is to argue and struggle over Avakian's work. At the RCP affiliated meetings I attend we do criticize the RCP and elements of Avakian's line occasionally.

Typical Stalinists, moving the goalposts when they can't win a straight argument.

Have you thought about being a comedian? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just as I thought, the desperate use of ultra-leftism is employed. Cuba has done exactly what the Soviet Union failed to do: ceaselessly resist a reliance on bureaucracy. The rectification process in the 1980's replaced bureaucratic processes with direct working class control and involvement; this allowed Cuba to withstand the collapse of their only major trade partner. Cuba is an example of a healthy worker state. China is an example of the inevitable result of Stalinist bureaucratic deformities.

Ummm..... Cuba has a Bourgoisie. Working class democracy in Cuba does not exist nor does socialism.

On the Cultural Revolution, it's abundantly clear what actually happened in China and why. Mao used "the people" as pawns in a bureaucratic power-play. It wouldn't be so disgusting if it wasn't so destructive.

The GPCR was a bottom up endeavor. It was grass routes. Ever heard of the Red Guard? And it exposed corrupt elements of the CCP. Mao fostered the destruction of capitalist roaders. I hope you understand that Deng Xiaoping was a disaster for China.

Edit: Removed long quote.

Dros

10th December 2007, 21:57

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 10, 2007 08:40 pm
The Revolutionary Communist Party believes in spreading the movement through purely intellectual methods - the distribution of their paper, and their 'political campaigns' do not and have not boosted revolutionary working class consciousness. The fact is that you can not tell curious folks to believe in something outside of their experience. It is, by nature, more difficult. There will be no "conversions" that can be brought about through one-on-one conversation or through literature.
I (kind of) disagree with you. I think the paper is very well received within the working class. It is perhaps not broadly read but where it is distributed, it gets well read. This is my experience. A great example of this is its incredible popularity in prison.

I do agree with some of your criticisms of methodology. I do think the Communist Movement (including the RCP) need to develop a larger presence within the working class. That being said, I think the RCP does this to a greater extent than some other groups, especially with their work in the housing projects.

Rawthentic

11th December 2007, 00:12

Whether the Party goes to protests, strikes, walk-outs, or ghettos, or barrios, the crucial aspect is that Revolution newspaper is the 'lifeline' between the masses and the communist vanguard. Above all else, this is the model that led to the seizure of power in Russia, with Pravda and the Bolsheviks. The communist newspaper educates the proletariat in happenings all around society, and pushes them to act correctly (which they have done and continue to do, thanks to the newspaper.)

And of course, you completely underestimate the importance of struggling with people, whether one on one, or whatever, about revolution and communism. Just last Saturday, I spent the night at a friend's house, and we spoke for hours about capitalism, socialism, how it relates to the situation, and he was extremely interested. Not only can this lead to further study, but to action.

Red Heretic

11th December 2007, 00:25

Then hopefully you can understand when I'm not showing too much patience. I started out this thread trying to show some respect for the RCP, now that's long gone. RCPers can thank themselves for antagonizing me.

Look Manic, I realize it wasn't just you who was unprincipled earlier in this discussion but that is no excuse for being unprincipled, or engaging in personal attacks. I want to encourage everyone posting in this thread, including the other youth who are supporters of the RCP like myself to be principled. Again I want to re-iterate that no one here in this thread is a member of the RCP, and people have said a lot of different things that are actually not the RCP's line. Those things should not be projected onto the RCP or used to claim that that is what the RCP is all about, when the RCP has a different line.

However, the fact remains that I really feel that there isn't any substance to what you are bringing forward here. I think that perhaps you do not know what dogmatism is. Either way, the fact remains that no, the RCP is not putting forward Avakian in some of of dogmatic sense, or claiming that everything he says is true. To the contrary, many things that Avakian has said no longer reflect the Party's line. The RCP is a vibrant collective Party full of debate and struggle, and an honest search for the truth. When they have done things wrong, they have been criticized. They have issued self criticisms, including both the newspaper staff and Avakian himself. It's ideology is not a static dogma, but rather a genuine search for the truth.

If you aren't going to seriously engage with the actual line of the RCP, I'm going to excuse myself from this thread, because I have more important things to do.

Labor Shall Rule

11th December 2007, 01:06

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 11, 2007 12:11 am
Whether the Party goes to protests, strikes, walk-outs, or ghettos, or barrios, the crucial aspect is that Revolution newspaper is the 'lifeline' between the masses and the communist vanguard. Above all else, this is the model that led to the seizure of power in Russia, with Pravda and the Bolsheviks. The communist newspaper educates the proletariat in happenings all around society, and pushes them to act correctly (which they have done and continue to do, thanks to the newspaper.)

And of course, you completely underestimate the importance of struggling with people, whether one on one, or whatever, about revolution and communism. Just last Saturday, I spent the night at a friend's house, and we spoke for hours about capitalism, socialism, how it relates to the situation, and he was extremely interested. Not only can this lead to further study, but to action.
The paper was extremely important, but there were several factors that lead to the spreading of working class consciousness, which were based on the objective circumstances that the urban working class and peasantry was under. To not presuppose that consciousness is only acquired through conscious activity, is to say the polar opposite of 'the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves' - it is to say that thought experiments can drive a movement. That is idealistic garbage.

I am sure that your friend learned something, but you have the task of bringing an analysis of the class struggle to workers that are involved in a daily fight for real basic human needs. Are you going to have a slumber party with every worker, chatting with them about the glory of socialism, and how capitalism is shit?

It is hard to convey a message in a timely and efficient manner, let alone a message that all of humanity must be emancipated from the horrors of capitalism through revolutionary means. It is complicated to ward off unavoidable misanthropic tendencies torwards a socialist program within a simple conversation, and normally, even if 'misconceptions' are cleared up they will nod their heads and maybe have memories of the conversation, but will not comprehend it because they never experienced it themselves.

As far as I am concerned, socialists need to be involved in bringing their analysis of class forces to the table, rather than dwell on identity politics, or on petty political campaigns. A small number of socialists, working very smart and joining with militant unionists on a combined program, can empower great numbers of workers into showing what they can do through their own independent action.

manic expression

11th December 2007, 02:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:40 pm
Ok, fine. You don't want to address this issue. If you want to call the stratedgy around Avakian a cult of personality go ahead. Now please show what is wrong with the way it is implemented around
Avakian. Don't give generic arguments about the Cult of Stalin etc. because the way Avakian is put forward is totally different.
About that: I've been addressing the issue. Namely, the fact that the RCP is dancing around their actual policies. They call their cult of personality something warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't change how it's a personality cult.

Your argument doesn't address anything significant, it's just wordplay.

The frequent use of the word "engage". The whole stratedgy is to argue and struggle over Avakian's work. At the RCP affiliated meetings I attend we do criticize the RCP and elements of Avakian's line occasionally.

Please. As has been stated, Revolution Newspaper is devoted to unquestionably printing his works, as well as blatantly stating its devotion to the man. Sure, your meetings may have criticized some of his line, but the RCP has never done so and will not do so unless they rid themselves of their cult of personality.

Have you thought about being a comedian?

Only as long as I have such good material.

Ummm..... Cuba has a Bourgoisie. Working class democracy in Cuba does not exist nor does socialism.

Ultra-leftist much? Good to know where you stand on this point: right with the ICC crazies. Sorry, but socialist property relations exist in Cuba; private property does not exist in Cuba. How can a society NOT be socialist when its mode of production and relations are socialist? Basic Marxism right there (which shows us a thing or two about Avakian's grasp of it).

The GPCR was a bottom up endeavor. It was grass routes. Ever heard of the Red Guard? And it exposed corrupt elements of the CCP. Mao fostered the destruction of capitalist roaders. I hope you understand that Deng Xiaoping was a disaster for China.

It was instigated by Mao. The Red Guards tore the country apart, fighting themselves at many points. China was basically mired in a civil war-like situation. Why? Mao wanted to make a power play against his rivals.

Mao "fostered the destruction of the capitalist roaders"? Good to see that China isn't capitalist today.... The REASON China is reintroducing the capitalist mode of production and capitalist property relations is because of Mao's policies. The bureaucracy had no interest in preserving the worker state.

Red Heretic

If you aren't going to seriously engage with the actual line of the RCP, I'm going to excuse myself from this thread, because I have more important things to do.

Avakian's line IS the RCP's line. I've read their newspaper, I've listened to their rhetoric. If you are going to deny this, then there is no point in discussing it; again, if you actually think Avakian is the equal of Lenin, that tells me everything I need to know about you and the organization you support.

Rawthentic

11th December 2007, 04:30

it is to say that thought experiments can drive a movement. That is idealistic garbage.
I never said that 'thought experiments drive movements', don't attempt to put words in my mouth for your sake. I'll quote RedHeretic:

Revolution Newspaper has to serve as a link between the Party and the masses, it has to be a hub through which the masses can get leadership from their vanguard party, or you are not going to actually be able to lead the masses of people in revolution. There is no fucking way that you are going to be able to go out and talk to all of the masses, or to give them the kind of deep in-depth analysis and truth that they get through Revolution Newspaper. The masses of people desperately need Revolution Newspaper! They need an analysis of how they can make revolution, they need an analysis of how the attacks on Black people are a part of the same system as the attacks on immigrants. They need communist leadership in order to become what we are calling on them to be... emancipators of humanity!

Aside from that, I agree that struggle is how consciousness comes to being, by taking this revolutionary communist line to the masses much more broadly (and this is being done, of course).

Rawthentic

11th December 2007, 04:43

Avakian's line IS the RCP's line. I've read their newspaper, I've listened to their rhetoric. If you are going to deny this, then there is no point in discussing it;
Of course comrade, he's the chairman. If his line was not a concentration of the Party's line, how could he be chairman?

grove street

11th December 2007, 05:29

Originally posted by manic expression+December 10, 2007 05:11 pm--> (manic expression @ December 10, 2007 05:11 pm)
Originally posted by grove [email protected] 10, 2007 08:39 am

manic [email protected] 09, 2007 07:54 pm
Good strawman, bad argument.

Lenin's Russia saw a bureaucracy, yes, for it was necessary. However, by the 1930's, it was no longer so necessary. By that point, the bureaucrats had conquered political power within the Soviet state. So, while it was at first necessary, these deformities later developed to the point of self-perpetuation.

What marks Lenin's Russia from Stalin's or Mao's China is worker democracy and worker control. Stalin abolished the Congress of the Soviets, Mao never even lifted a finger to establishing any sort of working class democratic organs of government. Lenin, on the other hand, made workers councils the foundation of the worker state. This is truly the big difference.

Your argument surrounding the role of burecracy within the Soviet Union of the 1930's is once again dispatched from materialist reality of the time. Yes Russia was no longer Fedualist and full scale industrilization was well under its way along with a highly conncessios working class. There was however one problem the USSR was still a nation that was under threat> The Imperalist nations were of cause hoping for it to fail especially because the Soviet Union set an example to the Workers of not only undeveloped countries subjugated under Imperalism like China< but also the workers in the Imperalist countries themselves who were under going the economic hardship of the Great Depression> If you are a student of history you Should be well aware that the ImperalIst nattions played a big part in the development of Fascism in Europe and the events leading up to WII> The majority of Imperalist nations supported the rise of Fascism including America and Britian because of Germany"s and Italy"s militant enthusiasim to invade the USSR>

The USSR was under threat by one of the largest and most advanced military"s in the world that was receving ample support from Imperalism all over the world and was not just calling for the fall of the USSR< but also for enslavement and racial extermenation of its people> The USSR had no choice but to develop and develop fast>

Your second argument is also untruthul> Stalin did not abolish the Soviets there was defently changes to how the system operated especialy during the rapid industrilization and war time but the workers council remained and their sphere of influence was increased> On top of this Stalin increased the number of working class members in the Party>

For more information about the role of Workers councils in the USSR I reccomend that you read "Stalin"s Democratic Reforms" By Grover Furr

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Now onto China> You are sadly even more mistaken< Mao criticised Stalin for not doing enough to get rid of burecracy and increase workers democracy> Mao made many movements towards increasing workers democracy from the Peopels Communes to the Cultural Revolution which saw workers taking full control over industry and whole towns and cities>

I would recommend getting a hold of the Shangaia Text book which speaks alot about the expereinces of the Culutral Revolution< This is a book that is banned in China>
The fact is that the bureaucracy did not have to develop in such a manner that it would hamper worker democracy as it did. The bureaucrats overran the Soviet state and instituted self-serving deformities during this period. The consolidation of the nomenklatura, the defeat of Stalin's rivals within the Party (coincidentally, just about every remaining Bolshevik was killed; "Koba, why did I have to die?" - Bukharin), abolition of the Congress of the Soviets and other policies support this claim. These things DID happen for actual reasons: Russia was backward and isolated and many revolutionaries had been killed during the civil war. This allowed the bureaucracy to fortify its position within the worker state, to the detriment of the working class.

The reason the USSR defeated fascism was because the working class rose to the occassion. The bureaucrats almost completely botched the whole deal, but the Soviet soldiers fought gallantly and stopped the Nazi advance. The Soviet Union was completely unprepared for the fascist attack, even though communists still surviving in Germany (don't ask me how) were sending evidence of the buildup and of the perparations (one communist was able smuggle out a copy of a manual given out to all Nazi soldiers that gave them instructions on how to speak Russian phrases, find farming collective heads, communist party members, etc.).

Yes, the Congress of the Soviets were abolished and the role of the Soviets effectively ended. Stalin's "Supreme Soviet" had no independence and was no voice of the working class. It is laughable to suggest Stalin preserved worker democracy in any form.

And membership was not what you say, the actual stats from the Party itself suggested otherwise.

Mao did nothing to promote worker democracy, or what little he did was frightfully ineffective. The Party controlled everything, this has remained unchanged from Mao to Deng and beyond. Mao's disdain for worker democracy was exposed in his treatment of the Shanghai Commune, in which (following the delusional advice of Stalin) he offered no resistance to Chiang and allowed Chiang to suppress the rebellion and murder tens of thousands of workers.

And the Cultural Revolution was nothing more than a power-play by Mao. He was still bitter over stepping down, and tried to use the Red Guards to his favor. The result was complete chaos that bordered on a civil war. People who had supported the communists from day one were sent to labor camps, people were punished for basically no reason. The Cultural Revolution is a vintage example of Stalinist failure. [/b]
You state that under Mao there was no workers democracy and the Party has always controlled everything> You are once again making assumptions with little evidence to back it up> Find out for yourself and read the Shangaia Text book there is a reason why this book is banned in China> The Cultural Revolution saw the role of the Party greatly decreased as more power and influence was given to workers councils with many of them sprouting up spontaniously>

The Cultural Revolution did have its flaws mostly coming from Mao being to trusting of the Red Guards telling officials to let them be so they can learn from their mistakes on their own> It was however a grass roots movement Mao didnt create the Red Guards nor did he give them orders he only told them to carry on what they were already doing< Challenging reactionary ideals>

Your statement that the Cultural Revolution was nothing more then Mao trying to take revenge on all those that criticised him is almost as absurd as people like Richard Pipes who claim that the Russian Revolution was nothing but Lenin trying to get revenge on the Tsarist regime for hanging his brother>

Labor Shall Rule

11th December 2007, 20:38

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 11, 2007 04:29 am

it is to say that thought experiments can drive a movement. That is idealistic garbage.
I never said that 'thought experiments drive movements', don't attempt to put words in my mouth for your sake. I'll quote RedHeretic:

Revolution Newspaper has to serve as a link between the Party and the masses, it has to be a hub through which the masses can get leadership from their vanguard party, or you are not going to actually be able to lead the masses of people in revolution. There is no fucking way that you are going to be able to go out and talk to all of the masses, or to give them the kind of deep in-depth analysis and truth that they get through Revolution Newspaper. The masses of people desperately need Revolution Newspaper! They need an analysis of how they can make revolution, they need an analysis of how the attacks on Black people are a part of the same system as the attacks on immigrants. They need communist leadership in order to become what we are calling on them to be... emancipators of humanity!

Aside from that, I agree that struggle is how consciousness comes to being, by taking this revolutionary communist line to the masses much more broadly (and this is being done, of course).
I never did put words in your mouth. I said that a focus on distributing the paper propagates, but it does not radicalize, revolutionize, or regenerize the working class. The working class is currently demoralized - there is no alternative affiliations that they can call their own, that they play a role, and that truly represents their interests - and a paper will not give them a burst of energy.

The 'revolutionary communist line' can not be plastered from the outside, it is apart of a wider objective process that is outside any party's control, no matter how strong their leadership is. Our duty is to not put our entire ideology on the table, an analysis of how the world works, but to draw out the class consciousness that makes such bigger ideas realistic.

There is something we can do though. The role of socialists is to become involved in the daily real-life struggles of the working class, and put our class analysis on the table, so a bridge can be offered between socialist politics and deeper class consciousness. We can build transitional organizations that help raise class-conscious activity of activist workers, which would in turn, enlarge the layer of workers who are more open to socialism in general. There are currently many transitional organizations - which include rank-in-file reform movements and caucuses rooted in the workplace and the unions. The Latino Workers Center in New York, the Black Workers For Justice in North Carolina, and the Xicano Development Center in Detroit are perfect examples of transitional organizations that reach across gender, racial, and ethnic lines to build an independent socialist movement.

Dros

11th December 2007, 21:11

About that: I've been addressing the issue. Namely, the fact that the RCP is dancing around their actual policies. They call their cult of personality something warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't change how it's a personality cult.

Your argument doesn't address anything significant, it's just wordplay.

Right. I understand your argument. You beleive that what exists around Avakian is a cult of personality. What is wrong with cults of personality?

Please. As has been stated, Revolution Newspaper is devoted to unquestionably printing his works, as well as blatantly stating its devotion to the man. Sure, your meetings may have criticized some of his line, but the RCP has never done so and will not do so unless they rid themselves of their cult of personality.

Yes. Revolution does print his works. He is the Chairman of the RCP and the purpose of the culture of appreciation is to engage his works. Do you think it is bad for people to read his works? Even if you disagree with him, isn't it still could do talk about it?

Only as long as I have such good material.

:D

Ultra-leftist much? Good to know where you stand on this point: right with the ICC crazies. Sorry, but socialist property relations exist in Cuba; private property does not exist in Cuba. How can a society NOT be socialist when its mode of production and relations are socialist? Basic Marxism right there (which shows us a thing or two about Avakian's grasp of it).

Cuba isn't socialist. There exists the dictatorship of the Bourgoisie (ie the so called Communist Party.) I don't think this is ultra-left at all. First of all, I don't think Castro was ever really communist. Further, he adopted the Krushchevite form of state capitalism. There was then a split between him and Che. You do acknowledge that Krushchev was a revisionist? If you do than it seems hard to beleive in Cuban socialism.

It was instigated by Mao. The Red Guards tore the country apart, fighting themselves at many points. China was basically mired in a civil war-like situation. Why? Mao wanted to make a power play against his rivals.

Mao did play an important role. But he did not in any meaningful sense cause it. Further, he did do it to accomplish a politcal goal and in that sense you are correct: he was trying to get rid of the capitalist roaders. Interestingly, most of the people who took power after his death were explicitly denounced by him such as Teng Hsiaoping. The GPCR did therefore succeed in delaying capitalist restoration by several years.

Mao "fostered the destruction of the capitalist roaders"? Good to see that China isn't capitalist today.... The REASON China is reintroducing the capitalist mode of production and capitalist property relations is because of Mao's policies. The bureaucracy had no interest in preserving the worker state.

Right. He tried to destroy them. Noone said he succeeded.

I agree also with Comrade Red Heretic. We should try to be more civil. We have both been rather rude. I personally apologize for anything I may have said that offended you. It was certainly not my intent to antagonize you.

:D

Rawthentic

12th December 2007, 04:14

I never did put words in your mouth. I said that a focus on distributing the paper propagates, but it does not radicalize, revolutionize, or regenerize the working class. The working class is currently demoralized - there is no alternative affiliations that they can call their own, that they play a role, and that truly represents their interests - and a paper will not give them a burst of energy.
Revolutionary politics, when brought forward in the correct way, transform people. So many people have found this communist paper and say, "fuck, finally, this is what we need!" Revolution newspaper is a Leninist newspaper and abides by What is to Be Done? That is to say, it educates the masses on happenings all around society, all from the communist standpoint.

Not only is it a collective propagandist, but a collective organizer. What does it mean when thousands of Black proletarians and even Black people from the middle strata come out in the thousands to support the Jena 6? Revolution newspaper played a vital part before, during, and will play a crucial part in the continuation of the struggle and how people far from it will be able to react and act on it.

Our task is not to fight for better wages (although that is important and must be supported) but to bring forward the sweeping view of communism and how we can really get there, what it means to build such a revolutionary movement, etc. I don't disagree with transitional organizations, but these are ones that need to be exposed to a revolutionary communist line, and adopt and act on a view that can really get us where we need to go.

manic expression

12th December 2007, 17:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:10 pm
Right. I understand your argument. You beleive that what exists around Avakian is a cult of personality. What is wrong with cults of personality?
I've explained what is wrong with a cult of personality multiple times. Please read my previous posts (my first few are probably what you're looking for).

Yes. Revolution does print his works. He is the Chairman of the RCP and the purpose of the culture of appreciation is to engage his works. Do you think it is bad for people to read his works? Even if you disagree with him, isn't it still could do talk about it?

They don't just print his works. They put his works before Marx's, Lenin's and other great thinkers of our movement. That is both monolithic and unacceptable. The RCP does not "engage" Avakian, the RCP glorifies his very existence.

Cuba isn't socialist. There exists the dictatorship of the Bourgoisie (ie the so called Communist Party.) I don't think this is ultra-left at all. First of all, I don't think Castro was ever really communist. Further, he adopted the Krushchevite form of state capitalism. There was then a split between him and Che. You do acknowledge that Krushchev was a revisionist? If you do than it seems hard to beleive in Cuban socialism.

It is fallacious to think that a society with SOCIALIST PROPERTY RELATIONS can have capitalist modes of production, a capitalist state or anything of the sort. Does private property exist in Cuba? No. Exactly. Let's make a materialist analysis, not an ideological one.

Tell me, what is "state capitalism"? Try to define that before making an argument with the term.

There was no split between Fidel and Che. That's been discussed on this forum before and there is no evidence for it.

I don't have to convince myself that Khrushchev was anything but the bureaucrat that he was. Why do you think that Khrushchev somehow reversed the course that Stalin had begun? There was no real shift in Soviet society; the deformities remained.

Mao did play an important role. But he did not in any meaningful sense cause it. Further, he did do it to accomplish a politcal goal and in that sense you are correct: he was trying to get rid of the capitalist roaders. Interestingly, most of the people who took power after his death were explicitly denounced by him such as Teng Hsiaoping. The GPCR did therefore succeed in delaying capitalist restoration by several years.

Mao instigated the whole situation. That was his biggest role, since he was too incompetent to control his power-play once it got out of hand. He wasn't trying to get rid of "capitalist roaders", he was trying to get rid of other rival bureaucrats. Mao's policies caused capitalist restoration by putting the bureaucracy in power instead of the workers.

Right. He tried to destroy them. Noone said he succeeded.

Even IF we assume what you say is correct, then Mao was simply incompetent AND allowed things to progress to such a dire situation before acting.

However, I don't agree with your premise. Why? As I've said, Mao was not for giving more power to the workers, he was for giving more power to himself. The Cultural Revolution was an attempt to re-conquer the bureaucratic apparatus for Mao. It spun out of control, but that was the intention, and in the end, it actually changed precisely nothing. The bureaucratic deformities were because of Mao, not in spite of Mao.

I agree also with Comrade Red Heretic. We should try to be more civil. We have both been rather rude. I personally apologize for anything I may have said that offended you. It was certainly not my intent to antagonize you.

Yes, I do think this conversation has been poisoned for awhile for many reasons. For instance, I felt insulted, and responded in kind; perhaps I should have let it go. I apologize for the rude things I have said as well.

I do think that although we rant and rave about stuff like this, I still hope that you and I can unite when it comes to furthering our movement. Perhaps I am naive, but honestly, can anti-revisionists, Trotskyists, revisionists and other communists put aside these differences and work together against capital? I hope against hope that we can. Is anyone else as naive as me?

Dros

12th December 2007, 21:18

I've explained what is wrong with a cult of personality multiple times. Please read my previous posts (my first few are probably what you're looking for).

I have gone over your posts. Culture's of appreciation are not intended to religiously glorify a leader but to repolarize politics around a revolutionary line and to put a face on a political movment. I think MLK is a great example of all of this.

They don't just print his works. They put his works before Marx's, Lenin's and other great thinkers of our movement. That is both monolithic and unacceptable. The RCP does not "engage" Avakian, the RCP glorifies his very existence.

I don't think anyone in the RCP has ever said that Avakian is more important than Marx, Engles, Lenin, or Mao. I think they put his line forward for several reasons a.) in his argument is the argument of all these others, b.) for the methodological purposes outlined above, c.) he's the party Chairman, d.) he is talking about the material conditions in the United States and is thus way more accessible to the masses.

It is fallacious to think that a society with SOCIALIST PROPERTY RELATIONS can have capitalist modes of production, a capitalist state or anything of the sort. Does private property exist in Cuba? No. Exactly. Let's make a materialist analysis, not an ideological one.

My whole point is that private property and capitalist property relations DO exist in Cuba. There IS a wealthy elite in Cuba. Now I understand that this is not codified, but it actually exists. That is the material fact of the matter.

Tell me, what is "state capitalism"? Try to define that before making an argument with the term.

The mode of production whereby a bourgois-bureaucratic class that is seperated from the proletariat directly controls the means of production through the state.

This did not exist under Stalin although Stalin allowed it to form. It did exist when Krushchev took power.

There was no split between Fidel and Che. That's been discussed on this forum before and there is no evidence for it.

I don't think a conclusion was reached and I think there is sizeable evidence such as Che's rejection of Krushchevite revisionism while Castro excepted it.

Mao instigated the whole situation. That was his biggest role, since he was too incompetent to control his power-play once it got out of hand. He wasn't trying to get rid of "capitalist roaders", he was trying to get rid of other rival bureaucrats. Mao's policies caused capitalist restoration by putting the bureaucracy in power instead of the workers.

Yes Mao encouraged the masses to rebel against capitalist roaders (who were also trying to institute further bureacracy). It makes no sense to argue that Mao didn't control the GPCR. That was the whole point. This action was the mass response of the proletariat to the corruption and revisionism that occured in the CCP. Mao's "policy" of cultural revolution delayed the capitalist restoration by a decade.

Even IF we assume what you say is correct, then Mao was simply incompetent AND allowed things to progress to such a dire situation before acting.

We as communists need to learn from experience, not denounce our revolutionary leaders as incompitent for not immediately knowing how to accomplish the most difficult task in history. That would be like you saying Lenin was incompetent for letting Stalin come into power.

Yes, I do think this conversation has been poisoned for awhile for many reasons. For instance, I felt insulted, and responded in kind; perhaps I should have let it go. I apologize for the rude things I have said as well.

I do think that although we rant and rave about stuff like this, I still hope that you and I can unite when it comes to furthering our movement. Perhaps I am naive, but honestly, can anti-revisionists, Trotskyists, revisionists and other communists put aside these differences and work together against capital? I hope against hope that we can. Is anyone else as naive as me?

Agreed. It is important to remember that while we have our differences, we agree 99%.

manic expression

12th December 2007, 23:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:17 pm
I have gone over your posts. Culture's of appreciation are not intended to religiously glorify a leader but to repolarize politics around a revolutionary line and to put a face on a political movment. I think MLK is a great example of all of this.

The glorification of MLK has done more to hinder activism than anything else. MLK is made out to be some sort of avatar for justice, when in fact it was the people in the steets who did the actual legwork. The organization of the civil rights movement was what counted, not some preacher who could say he had a dream. This is very much what I'm talking about.

I don't think anyone in the RCP has ever said that Avakian is more important than Marx, Engles, Lenin, or Mao. I think they put his line forward for several reasons a.) in his argument is the argument of all these others, b.) for the methodological purposes outlined above, c.) he's the party Chairman, d.) he is talking about the material conditions in the United States and is thus way more accessible to the masses.

I think they act like it when they put Avakian forward without putting forward other thinkers. It's monolithic and communists shouldn't stand for it.

My whole point is that private property and capitalist property relations DO exist in Cuba. There IS a wealthy elite in Cuba. Now I understand that this is not codified, but it actually exists. That is the material fact of the matter.

Private property exists in Cuba? Since when? It is not materialist to say that, because it has no basis in reality. They've nationalized all industries, and the worker state controls the means of production. How is it a worker state, you ask?

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Actually, if what you say is true, it's pretty convenient. My friend is looking to diversify his porfolio, and now he can buy stocks from all those privately-owned Cuban companies. He'll be delighted.

The mode of production whereby a bourgois-bureaucratic class that is seperated from the proletariat directly controls the means of production through the state.

This is irrational. Bureaucrats cannot own anything privately. Bureaucrats cannot pass on property to their kids. Bureaucrats cannot employ anyone. How is that possibly bourgeois? It's not, because bureaucrats cannot take up that position in the mode of production, especially when no capitalist mode of production exists in the first place.

This did not exist under Stalin although Stalin allowed it to form. It did exist when Krushchev took power.

What changed under Khrushchev that made it so "bourgeois"? Last I checked, private property didn't appear in Russia after 1956. What significant shift happened?

I don't think a conclusion was reached and I think there is sizeable evidence such as Che's rejection of Krushchevite revisionism while Castro excepted it.

Just because some people deny it doesn't mean it's not a conclusion. ;)

I just did a quick search, and all I could find was that Che didn't really take a stance on the Sino-Soviet split. Anyway, Cuba had already established ties with the Soviet Union, and Che had not opposed such a course, why would he reverse his decision?

Really, there is a complete dearth of evidence to suggest that there was ANY split between Che and Castro. If you want to make this argument, you'll have to produce something.

Yes Mao encouraged the masses to rebel against capitalist roaders (who were also trying to institute further bureacracy). It makes no sense to argue that Mao didn't control the GPCR. That was the whole point. This action was the mass response of the proletariat to the corruption and revisionism that occured in the CCP. Mao's "policy" of cultural revolution delayed the capitalist restoration by a decade.

Mao wanted to control the Cultural Revolution. He lost control of it as it descended into complete chaos and strife. Mao is at fault for what happened.

It did not delay capitalist restoration, it delayed Deng. The same result would have occured otherwise: it is a truism that bureaucrats want to restore capitalist relations.

We as communists need to learn from experience, not denounce our revolutionary leaders as incompitent for not immediately knowing how to accomplish the most difficult task in history. That would be like you saying Lenin was incompetent for letting Stalin come into power.

Stalin's takeover was not nearly completed by 1924. Lenin denounced Stalin, but that was all he could do. Not the same situation.

In the 1980's, Castro launched the "rectification" movement, which eliminated a reliance on bureaucracy in Cuban society. Worker democracy and direct community involvement replaced paperpushers. It's basically what allowed Cuba to withstand the fall of the USSR.

The thing is that Mao wasn't really trying to solve bureaucracy, he was trying to put himself back within the ranks of bureaucracy. Big difference.

Agreed. It is important to remember that while we have our differences, we agree 99%.

Well said, comrade.

Dros

13th December 2007, 01:57

The glorification of MLK has done more to hinder activism than anything else.

I totally disagree. MLK was a great leader and organizer during the civil rights movement and his "glorification" served the purpose of the civil rights movement: he repolarized politics and gained popularity for his movement and orginization.

MLK is made out to be some sort of avatar for justice, when in fact it was the people in the steets who did the actual legwork. The organization of the civil rights movement was what counted, not some preacher who could say he had a dream. This is very much what I'm talking about.

Of course that is true. Noone would say that MLK single handidly did this. The culture of appreciation around MLK galvanized "the people in the streets" as Avakian tries to do and as all leaders should do. That is like saying we should not appreciate Lenin because it was the rank and file Bolsheviks that effected the October Revolution.

I think they act like it when they put Avakian forward without putting forward other thinkers. It's monolithic and communists shouldn't stand for it.

What do you mean by monolithic and why is it bad?

Private property exists in Cuba? Since when? It is not materialist to say that, because it has no basis in reality. They've nationalized all industries, and the worker state controls the means of production. How is it a worker state, you ask?

Not in a very superficial sense. But in reality, it does. Property is used by the government class in much the same way that private property is used under capitalism.

Democracy in Cuba exists in a limited way but it is not
workers democracy. It is Bourgois democracy reincarnated. For instance, there are no worker's councils in Cuba. Things are run directly by the State and it's bureaucratic apperatice. I'm surprised your not shouting at it for being the worst and most corrupt example of Stalinism and revisionism.

This is irrational. Bureaucrats cannot own anything privately. Bureaucrats cannot pass on property to their kids. Bureaucrats cannot employ anyone. How is that possibly bourgeois? It's not, because bureaucrats cannot take up that position in the mode of production, especially when no capitalist mode of production exists in the first place.

Again, the state and the state apperatice (which is run by bureaucrats) has replaced the Bourgoisie as the dominant class oppressing the proletariat.

What changed under Khrushchev that made it so "bourgeois"? Last I checked, private property didn't appear in Russia after 1956. What significant shift happened?

The same thing I was talking about in Cuba. Krushchev was a revisionist who asside from promoting all kinds of wrong lines (Peaceful transition to Socialism et all for example) allowed for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to turn into the Dictatorship of the Bureaucratic Class.

I just did a quick search, and all I could find was that Che didn't really take a stance on the Sino-Soviet split. Anyway, Cuba had already established ties with the Soviet Union, and Che had not opposed such a course, why would he reverse his decision?

I don't see what the Sino-Soviet split has to do with anything.

He did not support ties with Soviet Union for diplomatic reasons. He did dispute USSR economic revisionism that was adopted by Castro.

Here is evidence:

I formally resign my positions in the leadership of the party, my post as minister, my rank of commander, and my Cuban citizenship. Nothing legal binds me to Cuba.
-Che in a letter to Castro

Che also wrote criticisms of the Soviet Union and was reportedly in the middle of his biggest at the time of his death.

Mao wanted to control the Cultural Revolution. He lost control of it as it descended into complete chaos and strife.

The whole point of cultural revolution is that it is uncontrollable.

Mao is at fault for what happened.

Yes. Mao is responsible for the farthest advance of socialism in human history.

Stalin's takeover was not nearly completed by 1924. Lenin denounced Stalin, but that was all he could do. Not the same situation.

And Mao denounced Deng. Very much a similar situation. I find it hard to hold Mao responsible for Chinese capitalism considering all he did to fight it.

In the 1980's, Castro launched the "rectification" movement, which eliminated a reliance on bureaucracy in Cuban society. Worker democracy and direct community involvement replaced paperpushers. It's basically what allowed Cuba to withstand the fall of the USSR.

Except that there is still a bureaucracy in Cuba (not necessarily a bad thing) and there is no worker's democracy (a bad thing).

Edit: Deleted really long quote.

manic expression

13th December 2007, 03:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:56 am
I totally disagree. MLK was a great leader and organizer during the civil rights movement and his "glorification" served the purpose of the civil rights movement: he repolarized politics and gained popularity for his movement and orginization.
If you talk to most people about the Civil Rights movement, they credit MLK for doing far more than he actually did. If you ask me, that is negative because it decreases the importance of everyday organization that allowed MLK to do anything in the first place.

Of course that is true. Noone would say that MLK single handidly did this. The culture of appreciation around MLK galvanized "the people in the streets" as Avakian tries to do and as all leaders should do. That is like saying we should not appreciate Lenin because it was the rank and file Bolsheviks that effected the October Revolution.

Lenin wasn't just a leader, he was also one of the most brilliant theorists of the last century. That's what sets him apart from someone like MLK IMO. Moreover, the way people appreciate Lenin is not how the RCP "appreciates" Avakian, and honestly, dead people should be getting far more praise than anyone else (and if you are going to compare Avakian to Lenin, I will fight you...not really, but you get my drift).

What do you mean by monolithic and why is it bad?

Monolithic in that it glorifies one person instead of looking to many. There are many other leaders that should get attention, respect and be read: Sankara, Connolly, Reed, Malcolm X...I could go on. Putting Avakian ahead of those thinkers and leaders (not to mention Marx, Engels and Lenin, which is just flat out wrong) is monolithic. It is bad because it is narrow-minded and ignores the history of our movement, as well as the wealth of knowledge and insight that comes with it. The RCP is ignoring most thinkers in favor of...Bob Avakian. I'll say it a million times, that's monolithic and communists shouldn't stand for it.

Not in a very superficial sense. But in reality, it does. Property is used by the government class in much the same way that private property is used under capitalism.

The "government class"? "In much the same way"? Don't give me that, you know that's not a materialist analysis. Property is not owned privately AT ALL. I make that statement with no qualifications, and the facts back me up. No one is privately employed, no one can inherit nada. That is not a superficial analysis, that is getting to the root of things.

Who owns the means of production in Cuba? The workers, which brings us to...

Democracy in Cuba exists in a limited way but it is not workers democracy. It is Bourgois democracy reincarnated. For instance, there are no worker's councils in Cuba. Things are run directly by the State and it's bureaucratic apperatice. I'm surprised your not shouting at it for being the worst and most corrupt example of Stalinism and revisionism.

Perhaps I should have been more specific:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

It goes up from there. This is the foundation of the Cuban government. This, really, is no different from a Soviet. Rest assured, this is no deformed worker state, this is a healthy example of worker democracy.

Again, the state and the state apperatice (which is run by bureaucrats) has replaced the Bourgoisie as the dominant class oppressing the proletariat.

The "state apparatus" has not replaced the bourgeoisie because it cannot. To be bourgeois, one must own property privately and profit from this directly. That is not what bureaucrats do, their existence is through an abuse of power.

The same thing I was talking about in Cuba. Krushchev was a revisionist who asside from promoting all kinds of wrong lines (Peaceful transition to Socialism et all for example) allowed for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to turn into the Dictatorship of the Bureaucratic Class.

No, I was asking for concrete changes in policy and societal dynamic. Class composition would have to change for your premise to be correct, right? Look at that and give me something.

I don't see what the Sino-Soviet split has to do with anything.

He did not support ties with Soviet Union for diplomatic reasons. He did dispute USSR economic revisionism that was adopted by Castro.

The Sino-Soviet split is what a lot of people think caused the phantom Che-Castro rift. Anyway, the Cubans accepted Soviet support because they needed it. That, however, did not make their system any less of a worker state.

Here is evidence:

Context is everything. Please tell me you read the next paragraph:

Reviewing my past life, I believe I have worked with sufficient integrity and dedication to consolidate the revolutionary triumph. My only serious failing was not having had more confidence in you from the first moments in the Sierra Maestra, and not having understood quickly enough your qualities as a leader and a revolutionary.

I have lived magnificent days, and at your side I felt the pride of belonging to our people in the brilliant yet sad days of the Caribbean [Missile] crisis. Seldom has a statesman been more brilliant as you were in those days. I am also proud of having followed you without hesitation, of having identified with your way of thinking and of seeing and appraising dangers and principles.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/04/01.htm

That letter cannot seriously be seen as evidence of any rift. Actually, it really does show how highly Che thought of Castro.

Che also wrote criticisms of the Soviet Union and was reportedly in the middle of his biggest at the time of his death.

He was kind of in the middle of a guerrilla war at the time of his death, I'm not really sure how important a critique of the USSR was as he was getting shot at in the Bolivian mountains.

The whole point of cultural revolution is that it is uncontrollable.

Then the whole point of cultural revolution is chaos.

Yes. Mao is responsible for the farthest advance of socialism in human history.

And what would that be manifest by? Civil war? Unchecked civil strife between neighbors? A bureaucratic power play gone awry? Sorry, socialists have done much better.

And Mao denounced Deng. Very much a similar situation. I find it hard to hold Mao responsible for Chinese capitalism considering all he did to fight it.

Let me say this: I am not saying Mao was in favor of capitalist restoration, that is not true. He did a great deal to fight such a direction. That being said, his policies set in motion exactly that. China did not see the same level of worker democracy as in the early USSR, and that was the downfall of socialism in China. Mao does not deserve to be demonized, but the results of his actions should be understood and avoided.

Except that there is still a bureaucracy in Cuba (not necessarily a bad thing) and there is no worker's democracy (a bad thing).

There are some paper-pushers, but they have such little influence it's not even worth talking about. More importantly, they do administrative tasks only, they do not formulate policy and they do not run the government. Those are tasks left solely to the Cuban workers, as in any socialist society.

Labor Shall Rule

13th December 2007, 03:32

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 12, 2007 04:13 am

I never did put words in your mouth. I said that a focus on distributing the paper propagates, but it does not radicalize, revolutionize, or regenerize the working class. The working class is currently demoralized - there is no alternative affiliations that they can call their own, that they play a role, and that truly represents their interests - and a paper will not give them a burst of energy.
Revolutionary politics, when brought forward in the correct way, transform people. So many people have found this communist paper and say, "fuck, finally, this is what we need!" Revolution newspaper is a Leninist newspaper and abides by What is to Be Done? That is to say, it educates the masses on happenings all around society, all from the communist standpoint.

Not only is it a collective propagandist, but a collective organizer. What does it mean when thousands of Black proletarians and even Black people from the middle strata come out in the thousands to support the Jena 6? Revolution newspaper played a vital part before, during, and will play a crucial part in the continuation of the struggle and how people far from it will be able to react and act on it.

Our task is not to fight for better wages (although that is important and must be supported) but to bring forward the sweeping view of communism and how we can really get there, what it means to build such a revolutionary movement, etc. I don't disagree with transitional organizations, but these are ones that need to be exposed to a revolutionary communist line, and adopt and act on a view that can really get us where we need to go.
It 'abides' by What Is To Be Done? A mass revolutionary worker's party can not be built through papers. The paper will not invent a revolution, but it can study, codify and point a way forward. The party, without transitional demands, will be a general without any soldiers.

When Engels said that unions and strikes are "schools of class war," he meant that workers changed consciousness through collective struggle, which is only possible through unionist organization. He called it "taking on the bourgeois directly," which is not 'economism', but politics. The "business unionism" of Gompers, and the leser evil of "service unionism," are both passive ideologies where workers are not active participants in their lives, but place their faith in the bureaucratic-run leadership.

As materialists, we believe that 'worker's self-initiative' is necessary for the change in consciousness. The RCP must realize that the only key to communist revolution is by recognizing that we have transitional demands in a non-revolutionary time, and that we need to build revolutionary working class consciousness, which is not built by a paper, but participation in the class struggle itself.

Rawthentic

13th December 2007, 04:36

It 'abides' by What Is To Be Done? A mass revolutionary worker's party can not be built through papers. The paper will not invent a revolution, but it can study, codify and point a way forward. The party, without transitional demands, will be a general without any soldiers.
Comrade, this is not about building a 'mass revolutionary worker's party", but a tempered revolutionary communist party. It is not a worker's party because that implies the narrow, economist mentality that we tail behind individual workers. It must be a communist party, made up the most resolute and advanced communists, those that can grasp Marxism and apply it correctly in leading the masses.

Let's see what Lenin says in What is to Be Done? :

Lenin says in WITBD?:

"Such workers, average people of the masses, are capable of displaying enormous energy and selfsacrifice in strikes and in street, battles with the police and the troops, and are capable (in fact, are alone capable) of determining the outcome of our entire movement – but the struggle against the political police requires special qualities; it requires professional revolutionaries. And we must see to it, not only that the masses “advance” concrete demands, but that the masses of the workers “advance” an increasing number of such professional revolutionaries. Thus, we have reached the question of the relation between an organisation of professional revolutionaries and the labour movement pure and simple. Although this question has found little reflection in literature, it has greatly engaged us “politicians” in conversations and polemics with comrades who gravitate more or less towards Economism. It is a question meriting special treatment. But before taking it up, let us offer one further quotation by way of illustrating our thesis on the connection between primitiveness and Economism." --emphasis added

"It is only natural to expect that for a Social-Democrat whose conception of the political struggle coincides with the conception of the “economic struggle against the employers and the government”, the “organisation of revolutionaries” will more or less coincide with the "organisation of workers". This, in fact, is what actually happens; so that when we speak of organisation, we literally speak in different tongues."

"The workers’ organisation must in the first place be a trade union organisation; secondly, it must be as broad as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow . On the other hand, the organisation of the revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of the organisation of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, must be effaced. Such an organisation must perforce not be very extensive and must be as secret as possible. Let us examine this threefold distinction." -- emphasis mine

As materialists, we believe that 'worker's self-initiative' is necessary for the change in consciousness. The RCP must realize that the only key to communist revolution is by recognizing that we have transitional demands in a non-revolutionary time, and that we need to build revolutionary working class consciousness, which is not built by a paper, but participation in the class struggle itself.
Communists must lead the proletariat in realizing and ultimately fulfilling their role of the liberation of humanity. Change in consciousness comes when communists lead the masses in strong political struggle, in the key struggles that not only affect all of society, but acutely express the need for revolution.

Dros

13th December 2007, 20:53

If you talk to most people about the Civil Rights movement, they credit MLK for doing far more than he actually did. If you ask me, that is negative because it decreases the importance of everyday organization that allowed MLK to do anything in the first place.

I disagree. I don't think that the Civil Rights Act would have passed when it did if it hadn't been for him and his efforts. Your attitude seems to reject the role of leadership at all.

Lenin wasn't just a leader, he was also one of the most brilliant theorists of the last century. That's what sets him apart from someone like MLK IMO. Moreover, the way people appreciate Lenin is not how the RCP "appreciates" Avakian, and honestly, dead people should be getting far more praise than anyone else (and if you are going to compare Avakian to Lenin, I will fight you...not really, but you get my drift).

But your still being "monolithic" about Lenin and you are still minimizing the "everyday" Bolsheviks by appreciating him. I don't see this as consistent at all.

Why should dead people be appreciated more?

I think Avakian and Lenin are comparable. Both lead small groups of revolutionaries (centered around a newspaper) prior to a revolution. The only reason anyone knows Lenin is that he lived throuh a revolutionary situation and capitalized ( :P ) on it. Lenin was a truly great theoretician. But I think Avakian has also contributed a lot (of course not as much) to Communism.

Monolithic in that it glorifies one person instead of looking to many. There are many other leaders that should get attention, respect and be read: Sankara, Connolly, Reed, Malcolm X...I could go on. Putting Avakian ahead of those thinkers and leaders (not to mention Marx, Engels and Lenin, which is just flat out wrong) is monolithic. It is bad because it is narrow-minded and ignores the history of our movement, as well as the wealth of knowledge and insight that comes with it. The RCP is ignoring most thinkers in favor of...Bob Avakian. I'll say it a million times, that's monolithic and communists shouldn't stand for it.

Avakian is put ahead because 1.) he is more contemporary and thus his analysis is often more pertinent, 2.) he is our party's chairman, 3.) in some instances he has contributed more to theory, and 4.) we use him to repolarize the working class and galvanize struggle. This is the whole point of a culture of appreciation.

The "government class"? "In much the same way"? Don't give me that, you know that's not a materialist analysis. Property is not owned privately AT ALL. I make that statement with no qualifications, and the facts back me up. No one is privately employed, no one can inherit nada. That is not a superficial analysis, that is getting to the root of things.

Fact: The government controls the means of production.
Fact: Class is determined by ones relationship to the means of production.
Fact: Workers do not govern Cuba. (I'll get to this a little latter.)
Thus: A.) Workers in Cuba are exploited and B.) The government has taken over the traditional role of the Bourgoisie, that is, the Government is exploiting the workers for "profit".

What is unmaterialist about that.

Also, there is private property in Cuba. Cuba does have a small private factor.

Now on Democracy in Cuba. The governement is controlled by the "Communist" Party. Candidates are screened (and in some instances appointed) by the CP. The workers also do not control the means of production. Worker's Democracy does not exist.

The "state apparatus" has not replaced the bourgeoisie because it cannot. To be bourgeois, one must own property privately and profit from this directly. That is not what bureaucrats do, their existence is through an abuse of power.

I didn't say they were Bourgoisie. I said they replaced the Bourgoisie as the dominant class in Cuban production relations. The Government "owns" the means of production. The Government is not a DoP. The workers are exploited. Socialism does not exist. (And if it did, you'd be contradicting Permanent Revolution by Trotsky. We wouldn't want to endorse Socialism in One Country now would we?

No, I was asking for concrete changes in policy and societal dynamic. Class composition would have to change for your premise to be correct, right? Look at that and give me something.

I'm pretty sure that was concrete. The last vestiges of working class democracy (which had been weakened by Stalin) were destroyed and a new exploiter class emerged out of the Soviet State.

Context is everything. Please tell me you read the next paragraph:

Yes. I've read the whole letter. It still seems very sentimental. Che always respected Fidel but obviously something impelled him to sever all ties with Cuba. The fact that Che still remembered fondly the revolution and still respected Castro does not mean that this split did not occur.

He was kind of in the middle of a guerrilla war at the time of his death, I'm not really sure how important a critique of the USSR was as he was getting shot at in the Bolivian mountains.

That is true. He was not writing the book when he was actually physically dying or even when he was in Bolivia. But he was writing a new criticism of the USSR.

Then the whole point of cultural revolution is chaos.

You can see it that way I guess. The point of the cultural revolution was to revolutionize the population and allow them to check the party when people in the party advance a wrong line.

And what would that be manifest by? Civil war? Unchecked civil strife between neighbors? A bureaucratic power play gone awry? Sorry, socialists have done much better.

Ummm... No civil wars happened.

But the point is clear. I didn't say everything was super happy fun. I said that it was the farthest advance. Socialism isn't going to be a nice leisurely strole in the park! It's going to be a time of upheavel and stuggle as the proletariat completes it's revolutionary task.

But the truth is, there was great workers democracy, women's liberation, leaps in art, culture, economic development etc. etc. etc.

manic expression

13th December 2007, 21:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:52 pm
I disagree. I don't think that the Civil Rights Act would have passed when it did if it hadn't been for him and his efforts. Your attitude seems to reject the role of leadership at all.
The Civil Rights Act passed because of LBJ and Bobby Kennedy as much as anyone else. Should we glorify them, too? I don't reject leadership, I accept leadership, I don't accept glorified individuals who should be acting like leaders.

But your still being "monolithic" about Lenin and you are still minimizing the "everyday" Bolsheviks by appreciating him. I don't see this as consistent at all.

Go look at what I said about monolithic views. I look to many leaders, not just Lenin. The RCP looks to exactly one. That is a problem.

The Bolsheviks did not treat Lenin in any glorified way. The saw him as an influential figure, which is completely different from what the RCP does.

Why should dead people be appreciated more?

They make less mistakes than living people do. They have a legacy. It's why Michael Jordan is seen in a different light from LeBron James. And no, that's not a direct comparison to Avakian at all.

I think Avakian and Lenin are comparable. Both lead small groups of revolutionaries (centered around a newspaper) prior to a revolution. The only reason anyone knows Lenin is that he lived throuh a revolutionary situation and capitalized ( :P ) on it. Lenin was a truly great theoretician. But I think Avakian has also contributed a lot (of course not as much) to Communism.

That's so inexplicable that I'm not even going to respond.

Avakian and Lenin are comparable? Ha! And you say you're not over-glorifying him?

Avakian is put ahead because 1.) he is more contemporary and thus his analysis is often more pertinent, 2.) he is our party's chairman, 3.) in some instances he has contributed more to theory, and 4.) we use him to repolarize the working class and galvanize struggle. This is the whole point of a culture of appreciation.

I'm more contemporary than Marx. Good to know Revolution newspaper will publish me ahead of the founder of the modern socialist movement.

Exactly, he's your party chairman. He should act that way instead of being used as some sort of one-man slogan.

Avakian has not, in any instance, contributed more than Lenin. Or Marx. Or even Sankara. No way.

Class struggle doesn't need Bob Avakian. To think as much is anti-materialist and, again, incredibly monolithic.

Fact: The government controls the means of production.
Fact: Class is determined by ones relationship to the means of production.
Fact: Workers do not govern Cuba. (I'll get to this a little latter.)
Thus: A.) Workers in Cuba are exploited and B.) The government has taken over the traditional role of the Bourgoisie, that is, the Government is exploiting the workers for "profit".

What is unmaterialist about that.

The government controls the means of production, and class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production. Yes. The workers, however, DO govern Cuba, and to suggest otherwise is in denial of the facts.

Even if they didn't govern Cuba (as in China and the USSR), you'd still be wrong. Why? You're fundamentally ignoring the individual relationship to the means of production. Look at the individual bureaucrat. Does he privately own the means of production? Of course not. Therefore, he is not bourgeois and cannot be. Basic materialist analysis.

Also, there is private property in Cuba. Cuba does have a small private factor.

I believe you're looking for private sector, and no, that's really not the case. Private property means owning the means of production. Having a family-run restaurant (which is the thing you're probably referring to) is not private ownership of the means of production. The Special Period is basically over, and as such the very small market that once existed is gone.

Now on Democracy in Cuba. The governement is controlled by the "Communist" Party. Candidates are screened (and in some instances appointed) by the CP. The workers also do not control the means of production. Worker's Democracy does not exist.

First, it is unaparalleled comedy for a Maoist to decry party influence in governmental affairs.

Anyway, you're just wrong. Candidates are not screened by the party, and they are certainly not appointed by the party. They are nominated in open meetings. In fact, something like 1/3 of the delegates to the National Assembly last election were not members of the party.

Just in case:

candidates are nominated not by any political party, but by the people themselves at open, public meetings or by their elected representatives who were themselves nominated in this way
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

I didn't say they were Bourgoisie. I said they replaced the Bourgoisie as the dominant class in Cuban production relations. The Government "owns" the means of production. The Government is not a DoP. The workers are exploited. Socialism does not exist. (And if it did, you'd be contradicting Permanent Revolution by Trotsky. We wouldn't want to endorse Socialism in One Country now would we?

This is what you said while trying to define "state capitalism":

The mode of production whereby a bourgois-bureaucratic class that is seperated from the proletariat directly controls the means of production through the state.

"Bourgeois-bureaucratic class". My point stands.

I'm pretty sure that was concrete. The last vestiges of working class democracy (which had been weakened by Stalin) were destroyed and a new exploiter class emerged out of the Soviet State.

Khrushchev really didn't change much aside from rhetoric. Stalin had gutted worker democracy completely and helped put the bureaucracy in their position. Khrushchev did nothing to alter this situation.

Yes. I've read the whole letter. It still seems very sentimental. Che always respected Fidel but obviously something impelled him to sever all ties with Cuba. The fact that Che still remembered fondly the revolution and still respected Castro does not mean that this split did not occur.

The letter proves that there was no split. Che knew there was a good chance of him dying in Bolivia, and so it is basically saying a final goodbye to someone he respects deeply; sentimentality is to be expected here. He "severed all ties with Cuba" because he was about to attempt to start a revolution elsewhere. It would be a diplomatic firestorm if the Cuban Minister of the Economy was part of a revolution in Bolivia.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence for this Castro-Che split, and the letter you cited shows as much.

That is true. He was not writing the book when he was actually physically dying or even when he was in Bolivia. But he was writing a new criticism of the USSR.

Even IF this is true, how would it matter?

You can see it that way I guess. The point of the cultural revolution was to revolutionize the population and allow them to check the party when people in the party advance a wrong line.

The way I see it is Mao checking the bureaucrats he didn't like by using the people as pawns. Look, a lot of people suffered in that mess who really had no reason to suffer. Mao was trying to put himself back in the halls of government.

Ummm... No civil wars happened.

But the point is clear. I didn't say everything was super happy fun. I said that it was the farthest advance. Socialism isn't going to be a nice leisurely strole in the park! It's going to be a time of upheavel and stuggle as the proletariat completes it's revolutionary task.

But the truth is, there was great workers democracy, women's liberation, leaps in art, culture, economic development etc. etc. etc.

The Cultural Revolution turned into a civil war-type situation. You had x Red Guards attacking y Red Guards who were attacking everything in sight. Complete chaos, and for what? Mao.

Socialism isn't a walk in the park, but it isn't pitting people against their neighbors in a bureaucratic power game. Socialism means worker democracy. Mao encouraged the first bit and ignored the second.

Do you know how much art was destroyed in the Cultural Revolution? Artists who had painted positive pictures of Mao were sent to labor camps (Shi Lu is one example). The entire thing was a disaster from start to finish.

Dros

14th December 2007, 01:43

The Civil Rights Act passed because of LBJ and Bobby Kennedy as much as anyone else. Should we glorify them, too? I don't reject leadership, I accept leadership, I don't accept glorified individuals who should be acting like leaders.

In what way is Bob Avakian not acting like a leader?

Go look at what I said about monolithic views. I look to many leaders, not just Lenin. The RCP looks to exactly one. That is a problem.

The RCP has one Chairman. It has several current leaders. And it actively advocates the ideology of other past leaders. We put forward Avakian's views as the most distilled line of the RCP in the US today.

They make less mistakes than living people do. They have a legacy. It's why Michael Jordan is seen in a different light from LeBron James. And no, that's not a direct comparison to Avakian at all.

What?! Come on. Lenin made mistakes. And Jordan isn't dead.

Glorifying dead people still causes all the harms your talking about and few of the benefits I'm talking about!

Avakian and Lenin are comparable? Ha! And you say you're not over-glorifying him?

Wow. We must not glorify people! We must not raise one individual above any other! How dare you compare anyone with Comrade LENIN?!

It doesn't make sense. Lenin was a human being. Like other humanbeings he made mistakes. Bob Avakian to is human. They were/are both revolutionary leaders. Why is it wrong to compare them?

I'm more contemporary than Marx. Good to know Revolution newspaper will publish me ahead of the founder of the modern socialist movement.

You have not (to my knowledge) made any new or great materialist analysis that sysnthesizes the line of the Vanguard party and distilled the experience of the socialist experience for the US.

Exactly, he's your party chairman. He should act that way instead of being used as some sort of one-man slogan.

In some ways, that is the role of the Chairman. He repolarizes the proletariat around our line.

Avakian has not, in any instance, contributed more than Lenin. Or Marx. Or even Sankara. No way.

For the first part of course he has not contributed more than those men. That's why our ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and NOT Avakianism.
He has contributed more in terms of theory and in terms of being a revolutionary leader to the proletariat of the US than Sankara who 99.999% of people haven't even heard of.

Class struggle doesn't need Bob Avakian. To think as much is anti-materialist and, again, incredibly monolithic.

Straw man. I have NEVER said that. Bob Avakian will probably die before the revolution proper starts. But the revolution will and can still happen without him. But if he were killed it would be a terrible loss.

The government controls the means of production, and class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production. Yes. The workers, however, DO govern Cuba, and to suggest otherwise is in denial of the facts.

Even if they didn't govern Cuba (as in China and the USSR), you'd still be wrong. Why? You're fundamentally ignoring the individual relationship to the means of production. Look at the individual bureaucrat. Does he privately own the means of production? Of course not. Therefore, he is not bourgeois and cannot be. Basic materialist analysis.

Again, I never said they were Bourgoisie, I said they replaced the Bourgoisie in it's historical role as exploiter class of the proletariat. I'm not suggesting that the individual bureaucrat privately owns the means of production. I am suggesting that the government as a whole, run by bureaucrats, controls the means of production, exploits the proletariat, and in all ways functions as a ruling class.

I have shown why Cuban workers democracy is a farce. Please explain to me why my analysis was incorrect.

I believe you're looking for private sector

:D Yup. Typo.

that's really not the case. Private property means owning the means of production. Having a family-run restaurant (which is the thing you're probably referring to) is not private ownership of the means of production. The Special Period is basically over, and as such the very small market that once existed is gone.

Actually, 1/5 of the labor force works in the private sector.

First, it is unaparalleled comedy for a Maoist to decry party influence in governmental affairs.

Party influence of a Communist Vanguard that is supported by the proletariat is one thing. The totalitarian rule of a "Communist" Party that claims to have democracy is totally different.

candidates are nominated not by any political party, but by the people themselves at open, public meetings or by their elected representatives who were themselves nominated in this way

The Communist Party of Cuba is constitutionally recognized as Cuba's only legal political party. In theory, no political party, including the Communist Party of Cuba, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any candidate. Candidates are theoretically to be nominated at local levels by the local population at small "Town Hall" type meetings, however, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights points out that in reality the Communist party has the final word on who is elected.

Now get me strait. I'm no fan of Cuba or Castro's but I don't hold that he hasn't done anything good or that he is terrible. I don't think Cuba is socialist etc...

This is what you said while trying to define "state capitalism":

I used "bourgois" as an adjective meaning "similar to or acting like the Bourgoisie". I did not in anyway mean to say that they were the Bourgoisie in a rigid sense. I apologize if my meaning was confused.

Khrushchev really didn't change much aside from rhetoric. Stalin had gutted worker democracy completely and helped put the bureaucracy in their position. Khrushchev did nothing to alter this situation.

That might be true to a certain extent that Stalin had contributed to this tendency. But Stalin was still actively working toward Communism (I justed posted a brief analysis of Stalin in the Learning... forum under something about China.) Krushchev however blatantly broke with Marxist-Leninist ideals, betrayed the revolution to state-capitalism and firmly established the dictatorship of the dictatorship if you will.

The letter proves that there was no split. Che knew there was a good chance of him dying in Bolivia, and so it is basically saying a final goodbye to someone he respects deeply; sentimentality is to be expected here. He "severed all ties with Cuba" because he was about to attempt to start a revolution elsewhere. It would be a diplomatic firestorm if the Cuban Minister of the Economy was part of a revolution in Bolivia.

How does the letter prove that at all? And that last part is an assertion.

Even IF this is true, how would it matter?

It would provide the basis for the Castro-Che split. Are you actually disputing that Che criticed the Soviet Union's economic system?

The way I see it is Mao checking the bureaucrats he didn't like by using the people as pawns. Look, a lot of people suffered in that mess who really had no reason to suffer. Mao was trying to put himself back in the halls of government.

What is this based on at all other than the way you see it?

The Cultural Revolution turned into a civil war-type situation. You had x Red Guards attacking y Red Guards who were attacking everything in sight. Complete chaos, and for what? Mao.

Don't beleive everything you read comrade. There were accesses during the GPCR to be sure but I have never heard of any such violence on a wide level.

Socialism isn't a walk in the park, but it isn't pitting people against their neighbors in a bureaucratic power game. Socialism means worker democracy. Mao encouraged the first bit and ignored the second.

That is simply untrue.

Do you know how much art was destroyed in the Cultural Revolution? Artists who had painted positive pictures of Mao were sent to labor camps (Shi Lu is one example). The entire thing was a disaster from start to finish.

That is one of the things that went wrong. Much art and culture was destroyed for the purpose of breaking with old ideas. That is certainly regrettable and it was a mistake that we in the communist movement need to learn from instead of blindly criticizing.