Maoists And iPhones [Archive]

kasama-rl

21st November 2007, 19:15

In an article called Refusal to Resist Crimes Against Humanity is Itself a Crime (http://revcom.us/a/109/avakian-resistance-en.html) Avakian (head of the Revolutionary Communist Party) recently wrote:

"Not all, but still too many, Americans—especially within the middle strata, although not only there—are in a real sense falling into acting like children, easily distracted with toys. 'Here at midnight tonight—the new i-Phone!' People will line up, and fight each other to get in line, to get the new i-Phone, but they can’t bring themselves to mobilize against the torture and the wars and everything else that is being done by their government, in their name and right before their eyes—this is not even really being hidden."

I need to respond -- speaking as a Maoist and as someone who believes in serving (not blaming) the people. There is a lot wrong with BA's uninformed rant that needs to be unraveled.

* * * * * *

First on whether we can say that the masses of people are committing a "crime" of complicity.

There are huge problems in how to bring people to a fighting front against this system -- at a time when so many are both infuriated and passive. But what claim to leadership can anyone have who so crudely charges the masses themselves with "complicity" or even "crime"!?

To think this is about people being merely "distracted" or childish is (need I really say?) very shallow.

True: the masses don't *see* alternatives, so they don't create alternatives. They *believe* that the Dems will end the war -- or more precisely they confuse their hopes and projections with belief. They are buffered, pacified, atomized, bombarded by lies, not monolithic and restless.

This verdict conflates two things: the willingness of the masses to act, and their willingness to act along specific lines DEMANDED by this small political group. For communists to confuse this is to lose the mass line completely.

These cheap shots about "complicity" point the spearhead down, at a time when this party is itself falling painfully and crudely short.

And look: what is going to happen now? The political juice of this country will now flow into the elections. there will not be an impeachment movement (unless some new scandal or war erupts) -- october 5 2006 was the last window for that. Now the huge sucking sound will be the elections. And there are huge contradictions within that -- because the leading democrats will not (and do not now) oppose ending the war. (Hillary's call for continuing both U.S. bases and combat operations until the end of her first term is only the most blatant example.) There will be a "stop hillary" effort by the Daily Koz folks.... and then what? If an attack on Iran emerges (and the Dems fall in line with that), huge eruptions are possible.

Who can think that this party has positioned itself (and advanced forces in society) wisely or well to deal forcefully and creatively with that coming storm?

What about the cascading DE-motion of organizing and struggle in the universe of the RCP?

* * * * * * * *
Second point:

The old CP railed in the 1960s against people who played electric guitars. Now Avakian rails against people who try iPhones in the 21st century.

It is really conservative cluelessness mascarading as scientific truth and radical visions!

Let's step back and ask what is really involved and what really excites people:

The change happening in mass media today is far more rapid than the shift to radio that happened in Weimar Germany.

Forms of technology, streams of data, means of independent creation, undermining of traditional hegemonic ideological centers, method of new dissemination -- all this is mushrooming and morphing in unprecedented ways. And people are creatively learning to use this to "get around" so much of the previous institutionalized crap and constraint in society.

Yet, the RCP is a party that clearly doesn't have a clue about really using the explosive potential of the internet, youtube, interactive discussion.... except as a stodgey one-way repeat of nineteenth century newspaper paradyms.

Yes: people line up when a new leap may be happening in the merger and delivery of info-paths -- as phone and internet and multimedia come together in a cool new way.

Yes some people want to be on the cutting edge of that -- and struggle to participate in the new ways human society is handling information, art and ideas.

Was there some silliness and corporate hype in the frenzy over the iPhone -- obviously. Is there privilege in the way technology is marketed and distributed -- obviously.

Is that the essence of the matter? Obviously not.

Perhaps rather than babbling uninformed nonsense about iPhones, more communists should investigate (gawd, do some real investigation!) into how the convergence of devices is potentially IMPACTING and TRANSFORMING the future of modern political discourse!

* * * * *
In “Bringing Forward Another Way,” Avakian writes:

“I want to say, just for the record, that at times I myself have been acutely disappointed by—and, yes, have cursed in graphic terms—the people in this society who are sitting by and doing nothing in the face of atrocities and horrors committed by their government and in their name…’”

This is bitter, mean-spirited "blame the people, curse the people" nonsense.

I will close with some quotes from Mao that provide a valuable AND TRULY COMMUNIST orientation:

"As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them, but should befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward."

As for speaking without knowing, Mao said:

"A Communist must never be opinionated or domineering, thinking that he is good in everything while others are good in nothing; he must never shut himself up in his little room, or brag and boast and lord it over others."

kasama-rl

21st November 2007, 22:58

here is a related quote:

“The politics of the ‘possible’ is the politics of monstrosity. To adhere to, or acquiesce in, the politics of the ‘possible’ is to support, and actually to facilitate, monstrosity.”

Bob Avakian,
Chairman of the RCP,USA

It is worth thinking through, and debating, what that means. The politics of the possible refers to those who think that it is possible that the democrats will make a difference, and that nothing else is currently possible.

Are the people who hold these illusions actually supporting and faciliating "monstrosity." Is it really that simple?

msucommie77

21st November 2007, 23:48

i don't like the democrats, but what is the realistic alternative? Revolution? yes. Now? no way, ain't gonna happen. I wouldn't say people are facilitating "monstrosity", but perhaps have the wool over their eyes if they think the Dems can make major changes, or are being realistic and would rather have bourgeois center-right running the country rather than the bourgeois far right.

The green party is the only other "leftish" party on the national ballots normally, and i'm sure as hell not going to vote for Nader, although i think Cynthia McKinney may run for president as a green, and even then all that's going to happen is more of a majority for the Republicans if lots of people vote green.

I don't know what is to be done, but i do know that Bob Avakian and his cult are nuts.

i wonder what would happen to the RCP if Avakian kicked the bucket? Would Dix take over as the new head of the cult? I don't find him very inspiring to listen to.

kasama-rl

22nd November 2007, 16:18

my view has always been that revolution is practical and reasonable. While trusting the democrats seems like a bizarre mix of fantasy, raw deception, and repeated self-deception.

Reformism is impossible, Revolution IS the "realistic alternative."

as lenin said "without state power all is illusion."

Rawthentic

22nd November 2007, 17:01

Well, I think this is a very important question. The Party's conception here, and if you read Bringing Forward Another Way you can get a sense of this, is that people who know about these war crimes and crimes against humanity and the leaps the US is making toward fascism... torturing masses of people, and gearing up for a war with Iran... if people know all of that, and they sit on their asses and watch Dancing With the Stars and do nothing about this, then it makes them complicit with these crimes. It's as if a person witnesses a rape, and decides not to stop it because they wanted to play the latest video game.

There is a particularity to the society that we are living in. This is not the same situation as China during the revolution. We live in an imperialist society that is surging forward toward fascism while murdering millions of people and getting ready to unleash possible nuclear war on Iran, one of the most horrifying things ever in human history, and all the while, the people in this society are living off of the profits of it. So there is a particularity to the need for people to act... we have a responsibility to the people of the world to refuse to just sit by while we know that these crimes are being done in our names.

History will judge what people we do. History held those millions of Germans who knew very well what was going on accountable for sitting by complicitly why the Nazis carried out their nightmare on the world. People asked "WHY DIDN'T YO DO ANYTHING?!" History will judge us the same...

This is not simply about 'blaming the masses', but pushing forward those who are conscious of the the happenings in society today to really get to do something about it.

So this has nothing to do with gadgets or shit like that, but action by the conscious people living in an imperialist nation that is committing horrible crimes.

Nothing Human Is Alien

22nd November 2007, 18:53

We live in an imperialist society that is surging forward toward fascism while murdering millions of people and getting ready to unleash possible nuclear war on Iran, one of the most horrifying things ever in human history, and all the while, the people in this society are living off of the profits of it.

I'll be sure to tell everyone that at the food bank next week.

Really, if everyone were "profiting" from that, then it would be in their interests to keep it going. So, if you believe that, you're presenting a moralistic argument, i.e. that people should "do the right thing." That has nothing to do with communism.

In reality, the vast majority of people in the U.S., the workers, are not "profiting" from imperialism at all, and that's why our wages are falling while bonuses for CEO's continue to climb to new heights.

Dros

22nd November 2007, 19:34

Rawthentic

22nd November 2007, 22:33

I'll be sure to tell everyone that at the food bank next week.

Really, if everyone were "profiting" from that, then it would be in their interests to keep it going. So, if you believe that, you're presenting a moralistic argument, i.e. that people should "do the right thing." That has nothing to do with communism.

In reality, the vast majority of people in the U.S., the workers, are not "profiting" from imperialism at all, and that's why our wages are falling while bonuses for CEO's continue to climb to new heights.

I never said anyone, I would be the last one to take on an MIMite perspective.

The living standards for the vast majority of people in imperialist nations are higher than those of the majority in the 3rd world nations. Imperialism causes this.

What I am saying, and the RCP, is that there is a need and responsibility to act in the face of all the world is going through.

Great Helmsman

22nd November 2007, 22:48

People buying Iphones do not constitute the masses; Americans, for the most part, aren't representative of the masses.

Avakian is wrong as well, because these people are not simply deluded or distracted by shiny bobbles. This is their real existence. While liberals and socialists decry a culture of materialism, it's actually a pretty accurate portrayal of an American's thought. They are taking the gift offered to them: the loot and plunder of the exploited world. And what reason do they have to give it up?

kasama-rl

23rd November 2007, 02:10

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 22, 2007 10:47 pm
People buying Iphones do not constitute the masses; Americans, for the most part, aren't representative of the masses.

they are part of the masses, if not "representative of the masses."

If you get the difference.

this is a complex planet we live on..... there is huge degrees of stratification, and there are many layers of contradictions. But many DIFFERENT kinds of people are oppressed (or threatened) by the madness of modern capitalism. We should not have a view that thinks that only the most poor, or most ground down are oppressed.

And many kinds of people make contributions... and they make those contributions in ways that aren't always the crudely stereotypical views of "struggle."

It is very valuable to grasp how the world is changing -- how information is changing, how media re morphing, how art is spread, how discussion now take place. To think this is all just a bunch of privilege is very very shortsighted.

I have in my mind some crancky dogmatist in the 1920s complaining "what is this new fangled radio that all these middle class people are lining up for?"

but mean while hitler was (rather brilliantly) learning to exploit the new world of mass media that radio represented.

Why should only fascists be on the cutting edge? why should only corporatoins be eager to grasp the value of all this?

We need to be bold and creative and free of all the shackles of conservative and puny thinking.

kasama-rl

23rd November 2007, 20:16

Comrade "Live for the people" wrote:

Well, I think this is a very important question.

We agree.

The Party's conception here, and if you read Bringing Forward Another Way you can get a sense of this, is that people who know about these war crimes and crimes against humanity and the leaps the US is making toward fascism... torturing masses of people, and gearing up for a war with Iran... if people know all of that, and they sit on their asses and watch Dancing With the Stars and do nothing about this, then it makes them complicit with these crimes.

I don't agree.

First on method: when we criticize one piece, don't tell us to go read another piece.

And besides I have READ "bringing forward" very closely. And I quoted it.

Avakian said "I want to say, just for the record, that at times I myself have been acutely disappointed by—and, yes, have cursed in graphic terms—the people in this society who are sitting by and doing nothing in the face of atrocities and horrors committed by their government and in their name…”

This is a wrong assessment, and a wrong method. it is a wrong way to view the people. it is a wrong way to analyze their paralysis. It underestimates the degree to which the errors of the communists (and Avakian himself) have contributed to this problem. And it is wrong on how to treat even the backwardness of the people.

It is moralist and guilt-tripping.

there is corruption in imperialism. There is a phenom of people being "bought off" -- and even wanting to "protect mine" by killing people all over the world.

But if you aren't succeeding in organizing the resistance and convincing the people -- then fucking work harder and smarter.

It's as if a person witnesses a rape, and decides not to stop it because they wanted to play the latest video game.

I don't think that is a fair or accurate analogy.

If millions of people were actually WITNESSING Abu Ghraib they would act. If they actually understood what this occupation is like (because they ACTUALLY WITNESSED it) many more of them would act.

Part of the problem is that they are cushioned, and separated from it.

the bigger problem is that they don't see a way to act, and the left hasn't PROVIDED ONE that they can connect with.

And even the good starts (NION and WCW) have been weakened by things that the leadership has done. And now blames the people.

There is a particularity to the society that we are living in. This is not the same situation as China during the revolution. We live in an imperialist society that is surging forward toward fascism while murdering millions of people and getting ready to unleash possible nuclear war on Iran, one of the most horrifying things ever in human history, and all the while, the people in this society are living off of the profits of it.

We know this.

But let's put it another way: there was huge debate in the world whether to blame the German people for Hitler, or to recognize that it was the imperialists who imposed hitler, and recognize that the German people too suffered from this.

The Communists were (then) on the side of saying "We oppose this theory of collective guilt." For important reasons.

It was wrong then, and wrong now. Wrong in principle, and historically wrong.

Blame the masses -- misunderstands the problem. And (i repeat) it is a way of disguising the problems that THE COMMUNISTS need to fix, and that play some role in the problems too.

History will judge what people we do.

History will also judge communists who curse the masses, while not developing living ways to lead and organize the people.

Great Helmsman

23rd November 2007, 21:55

Why do communists want $600 Apple marketing gimmicks?

rosa-rl

23rd November 2007, 22:51

One, I agree with kas that there is a lot of 'blame the masses' going on here.

from the Bob quote: are in a real sense falling into acting like children, easily distracted with toys.

Who said that adults should not play with toys and act like children? In some ways we need to be able to recall what it is like to be a kid and what it is like to dream and play. Too often adults stop dreaming and start just existing.

People need play. They need fun and 'gadgets' often have provided that fun - especially now in such a fast paced society where its almost necessary to be able to take that fun with you - be it a laptop, an i-pod or a phone.

Technology advances, play changes and the way people stay connected change. I stay connected mostly through chat and instant messages but at least I am less isolated from other people than if I didnt have this laptop - which was by no means cheap.

In many ways, some of the new technology places these types of communication MORE in reach of the masses... the people stuck at work 10, 12, 14 hours a day or spending hours on public transportation getting from point a to point b. Ever try to use a laptop on a bus? :blink:

I would also take a guess that most people in this discussion on this board have a gadget - a computer - in order to access it - or they are using one. If they are not then they have a different gadget :)

And what is wrong with video games? I think that they are a lot of fun and provide a lot of stress release. I started palying with the magnovox (that was BEFORE attari) and I am really looking forward to getting up enough money to get an x-box 360. These games have provided hours of fun and interaction first between me and my dad and now between me and my son who also played sonic with his grandpa.

And yes, i will admit to playing Maple Story!

And all this fun (including the vcr and cable) doesnt make me one bit less of an activist or communist. If anything it brings me closer to people - i know what they are talking about and there is shared experience (and sometimes shared experience points).

What the masses are goofing off with doesnt have much to do with if they are comming out into the streets or not. Games have always been played by people. It seems to be one of those qualities that makes us human. We like to play and dream.

This new technology also gives us ways to connect with other people that we might otherwise not be able to connect with or ever even get to know to start with! It raises the possibilities.

If i can't dance...

RosaRL

ps:
kas said:
"If millions of people were actually WITNESSING Abu Ghraib they would act. If they actually understood what this occupation is like (because they ACTUALLY WITNESSED it) many more of them would act.

Part of the problem is that they are cushioned, and separated from it.

the bigger problem is that they don't see a way to act, and the left hasn't PROVIDED ONE that they can connect with."

This is interesting since a lot of the people who actually really get what is happening are ON THE INTERNET - you cant get the information really from Fox or CNN - seriously... and this would be a good reason that the masses need to get connected - need to have the 'gadgets'... something - anything - with a web browser.

Also, while the left hasnt provided a way to act that the masses can connect with often the best way to find what is going on - protest, events and so on is actually online right now.

Faux Real

23rd November 2007, 23:35

Great post rosa-rl, I agree with every word.

The only drawback I see with embracing technological advances is that without limits, sooner or later we would become detatched from "real world", never meeting people face to face, and living in some virtual world. (Unless nigh-instant teleporters are invented!)

But yes, the left really needs to tap into what people think is fun and channel that towards a model of what we envisage. Hopefully that's not dull, anti-humour, anti-fun social relations. That would be alienating as much as people are under capitalism.

rosa-rl

24th November 2007, 06:09

revolt said:

"The only drawback I see with embracing technological advances is that without limits, sooner or later we would become detatched from "real world", never meeting people face to face, and living in some virtual world. (Unless nigh-instant teleporters are invented!)"

First, I see little chance that such an extreem could be reached due to the fact that humans are highly social creatures and need contact with other humans to be able to thrive. A world without hugs seems rather unthinkable to me no matter how high tech communications can get.

Also, technology is very much a part of the real world and socially an important part of how the world works - not just in relations between people but also in the organization of production itself. Ironically perhaps, losing touch with technology and its significance is part of the detachment that the left already has.

The left has a long history - especially the 'communist' of downgrading the importance of technology and the importance of love, laughter and fun to the human condition while guilt-tripping those who venture to engage in even life's most simple pleasures.

I totally agree with the quote in your signature:

"Who wants a world in which the guarantee that we shall not die of starvation entails the risk of dying of boredom?"

Rosa-RL

Faux Real

24th November 2007, 07:08

There's no doubt that technology is important to our advancement as a species.

What I meant to emphasize was that with all these digital mediums with which to communicate, more and more it seems like people are becoming more and more isolated from those around us, not in communicating but in the sense that the person we're trying to talk to isn't physically in front of us.

YouTube, cell phones, forums, text messages, radios, mp3 players. The convenience and utility these provide is paramount to me, but taking a second look I have a feeling that we're losing that face-to-face aspect of socializing that has defined humanity for so long. I guess we're adapting pretty well though.

But what the hell do I know, I spend too much time on computers. :P

I totally agree with the quote in your signature:
One of my favorites, and thank you. :)

kasama-rl

26th November 2007, 00:23

some relevant issues i see:

1) communists have historically been on the cutting edge of science and technology. Is this still true?

2) Are the changes in technology (cell phones, internet, mp3s, podcasts, youtube video interctivity, texting and so much more) basically a matter of "toys and privilege" or are these important changes for humanity?

3) When the people don't act the way we wish, should we conclude they are complicit with the system, and committing crimes themselves?

patient persuasion

28th November 2007, 07:21

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 26, 2007 12:22 am
3) When the people don't act the way we wish, should we conclude they are complicit with the system, and committing crimes themselves?
This is the important issue I find with the essay. And the problem which I see is one which I outlined in another post about the RCP - a substitution of ideology for organization.

Now, I understand pretty clearly that there is A relationship between one's ideology and their organizing practice. In fact, it's a very important relationship. But, the problem I've noticed with the RCP is that there seems to be almost no organizing of oppressed communities/ghettos happening - rather, there's a heavy focus on drawing lines in the sand and "forcing" people to confront the issues of the day and take a side.

Is it wrong for people to be confronted with the fact that the CIA is torturing people and locking them up in secret detention centers? Of course not - people should be discussing these important issues! But is making them take a stand equal to preparing them organizationally to overthrow the state? Hell no. People can have the right moral position on any number of issues, but in the end that in no way determines how organized they are to challenge the institutions, and the system, which perpetrates the crimes which they have taken a stand against.

The same goes for ideology - you can have the greatest ideology and theoretical positions on different historical moments, but it in now way determines how organized you are. We absolutely NEED good theory, but we also need good organizing skills. And IMHO, believing that one (organizing) magically flows from and corresponds to the other (ideology, positions) is mistaken.

Dros

28th November 2007, 23:42

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 26, 2007 12:22 am
some relevant issues i see:

1) communists have historically been on the cutting edge of science and technology. Is this still true?

2) Are the changes in technology (cell phones, internet, mp3s, podcasts, youtube video interctivity, texting and so much more) basically a matter of "toys and privilege" or are these important changes for humanity?

3) When the people don't act the way we wish, should we conclude they are complicit with the system, and committing crimes themselves?
1.) It should be. More needs to be done to get our prwsence felt through the internet. It is an invaluable resource through which we can gain members for our cause.
2.) Yes. This is obviously correct. The point is that there are good and bad ways for these to be used/produced. I suggest you look at "Societ of the Spectacle" by Gud Debord. While I don't agree with everything he says, it is at least an interesting work on consumerism.
3.) No. They are complicit witht the system when they witness things that are clearly atrocious and don't act. The Nazi metaphor is totally applicable here.

Dros

28th November 2007, 23:48

Originally posted by patient persuasion+November 28, 2007 07:20 am--> (patient persuasion @ November 28, 2007 07:20 am)
kasama-[email protected] 26, 2007 12:22 am
3) When the people don't act the way we wish, should we conclude they are complicit with the system, and committing crimes themselves?
This is the important issue I find with the essay. And the problem which I see is one which I outlined in another post about the RCP - a substitution of ideology for organization.

Now, I understand pretty clearly that there is A relationship between one's ideology and their organizing practice. In fact, it's a very important relationship. But, the problem I've noticed with the RCP is that there seems to be almost no organizing of oppressed communities/ghettos happening - rather, there's a heavy focus on drawing lines in the sand and "forcing" people to confront the issues of the day and take a side.

Is it wrong for people to be confronted with the fact that the CIA is torturing people and locking them up in secret detention centers? Of course not - people should be discussing these important issues! But is making them take a stand equal to preparing them organizationally to overthrow the state? Hell no. People can have the right moral position on any number of issues, but in the end that in no way determines how organized they are to challenge the institutions, and the system, which perpetrates the crimes which they have taken a stand against.

The same goes for ideology - you can have the greatest ideology and theoretical positions on different historical moments, but it in now way determines how organized you are. We absolutely NEED good theory, but we also need good organizing skills. And IMHO, believing that one (organizing) magically flows from and corresponds to the other (ideology, positions) is mistaken. [/b]
I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Of course orginization does not magically flow out of theory. But it is also important to educate people about the atrocities being committed by the government. That is not an orginizational principle but a good political stratedgy.

black magick hustla

29th November 2007, 00:17

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 22, 2007 10:32 pm

The living standards for the vast majority of people in imperialist nations are higher than those of the majority in the 3rd world nations. Imperialism causes this.

No it does not. It is a very simplistic economic analysis comrade.

The first world countries have such an advanced infrastructure, that even if imperialims was cut off, the workers shouldn't receive lower wages.

Whether imperialism makes the bourgeosie more willing to give "concessions" (I.E. be willing to exploit workers "less"), that is another question. The thing is that most of the revenues of imperialism generally end up in the pockets of the bourgeosie, not the workers.

America has enough industrial capacity to bring the industry inside. Hence, why America has one of the biggest industrial outputs of the world.

kasama-rl

29th November 2007, 15:50

Originally posted by Marmot+November 29, 2007 12:16 am--> (Marmot @ November 29, 2007 12:16 am)
Live for the [email protected] 22, 2007 10:32 pm

The living standards for the vast majority of people in imperialist nations are higher than those of the majority in the 3rd world nations. Imperialism causes this.

No it does not. It is a very simplistic economic analysis comrade.

The first world countries have such an advanced infrastructure, that even if imperialims was cut off, the workers shouldn't receive lower wages.

Whether imperialism makes the bourgeosie more willing to give "concessions" (I.E. be willing to exploit workers "less"), that is another question. The thing is that most of the revenues of imperialism generally end up in the pockets of the bourgeosie, not the workers.

America has enough industrial capacity to bring the industry inside. Hence, why America has one of the biggest industrial outputs of the world. [/b]
Well, it is simple, but not simplistic.

It is precisely true that imperialism caused, deepens and enforces the huge inequalities in the world.

Yes imperialist countries have more productive forces and infrastructures. Why is that?

It is in part because there has been a huge, historic flow of wealth from South to North over the last two centuries. The ruination of Indian artisan production (at one pole) meant the growth of British industry on the other. Or, as it was once said, every brick in Liverpool is cemented using blood from the slave trade.

Why is the U.S. wealthy? And why is Brazil (which is just as old, and settled at the same time) so poor? Is it because the people of imperialist countries are more industrious, more resource rich or more deserving? No.

It is because there are global structures (which define world imperialism) that create and then enforce great inequalities.

A great deal can be laid bare about this -- historically, structurally. There are changes in the dynamics over time (from the extraction of slaves, to the extraction of resources, to the extraction of surplus value from manufacturing)....

But the short story is this: Marx revealed how the working of capitalism create great misery at "one pole" and great wealth at the other. In his time, this happened largely WITHIN the capitalist countries of europe and the U.S. -- but since then, the functioning of world capitalism has created a situation where the "pole" of misery and the "pole" of wealth also have a geo-political North-South dimension.

Put another way: the exploitation of class by class is an important production relation of capitalism. But in many ways, the dominance of a few imperialist countries over the whole of humanity (a form of national oppression) is also a key and defining feature of imperialism.

black magick hustla

29th November 2007, 19:15

Originally posted by kasama-rl+November 29, 2007 03:49 pm--> (kasama-rl @ November 29, 2007 03:49 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:16 am

Live for the [email protected] 22, 2007 10:32 pm

The living standards for the vast majority of people in imperialist nations are higher than those of the majority in the 3rd world nations. Imperialism causes this.

No it does not. It is a very simplistic economic analysis comrade.

The first world countries have such an advanced infrastructure, that even if imperialims was cut off, the workers shouldn't receive lower wages.

Whether imperialism makes the bourgeosie more willing to give "concessions" (I.E. be willing to exploit workers "less"), that is another question. The thing is that most of the revenues of imperialism generally end up in the pockets of the bourgeosie, not the workers.

America has enough industrial capacity to bring the industry inside. Hence, why America has one of the biggest industrial outputs of the world.
Well, it is simple, but not simplistic.

It is precisely true that imperialism caused, deepens and enforces the huge inequalities in the world.

Yes imperialist countries have more productive forces and infrastructures. Why is that?

It is in part because there has been a huge, historic flow of wealth from South to North over the last two centuries. The ruination of Indian artisan production (at one pole) meant the growth of British industry on the other. Or, as it was once said, every brick in Liverpool is cemented using blood from the slave trade.

Why is the U.S. wealthy? And why is Brazil (which is just as old, and settled at the same time) so poor? Is it because the people of imperialist countries are more industrious, more resource rich or more deserving? No.

It is because there are global structures (which define world imperialism) that create and then enforce great inequalities.

A great deal can be laid bare about this -- historically, structurally. There are changes in the dynamics over time (from the extraction of slaves, to the extraction of resources, to the extraction of surplus value from manufacturing)....

But the short story is this: Marx revealed how the working of capitalism create great misery at "one pole" and great wealth at the other. In his time, this happened largely WITHIN the capitalist countries of europe and the U.S. -- but since then, the functioning of world capitalism has created a situation where the "pole" of misery and the "pole" of wealth also have a geo-political North-South dimension.

Put another way: the exploitation of class by class is an important production relation of capitalism. But in many ways, the dominance of a few imperialist countries over the whole of humanity (a form of national oppression) is also a key and defining feature of imperialism. [/b]
Nobody is arguing that the american successes are partly based on imperialism. When the white settlers came, they were an extension of the already advanced Great Britan.

Nobody is arguing that third world countries have been ravaged by neocolonies.

What I am arguing is that, right now, imperialism is not in the material interests of first world countries. American workers don't enjoy "superprofits" of imperialism. In fact, american workers have to cope with the fact that a lot of work is going overseas, trillions are spent outside instead than in colleges, healthcare, etc.

Implying otherwise has very serious connotations--arguing that american workers are "parasitical".

kasama-rl

29th November 2007, 20:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:14 pm
What I am arguing is that, right now, imperialism is not in the material interests of first world countries. American workers don't enjoy "superprofits" of imperialism. In fact, american workers have to cope with the fact that a lot of work is going overseas, trillions are spent outside instead than in colleges, healthcare, etc.

Implying otherwise has very serious connotations--arguing that american workers are "parasitical".
i think you are wrong on both points:

first, clearly everyone in the U.S. (and similar countries) are affected by the flow of superprofits into the U.S. They don't PERSONALLY get SUPERPROFITS, of course -- but the wealth flow of imperialism deeply affects the tissue and dynamics of society.

Just one example: can't we even say that gleening the garbage in the U.S. cities is very different from going through the garbage in Manila? think about even the poorest person in the U.S., walking into an emergency ward. They get outrageously inferior health care to those with status and money -- but they get care that two billion people on the planet can't aspire to.

There are dynamics of imperialism that impact the short-term interests of various strata -- including workers in particular industries. It is also true of the CAPITALISTS of some industries. And in the short term interests: the manufacturing in China drops the costs of many products (not just because "wages are low in China" but more fundamentally because of the structure of imperialism as a system).

But you can't gauge it, or limit it by such shortterm questions.

Overall imperialism affects the tissue of society -- the funds don't just lfow to the "top" of the U.S. -- it affects the whole society, its articulation (the trains run, the electricity doesn't go off, the food supply is diverse and reliable), and its development. It affects social mobility -- and people's hopes and dreams.

And to ignore that, is to ignore reality..

Second, this does not at all mean that "american workers are parasitical" or that they are not exploited.

Go among the farmworkers, for a simple example: is the condition of immigrant workers in florida better than it was back in Oaxaca? Often it is. That is wh y there is a labor flow. Is the wealth and money and other conditions that draw these immigrants rooted (ironically and perversely) in the exploitation and plunder of their homecountries, of course. Is their current situation (picking fruits in florida) THEREFORE "parasitical" -- obviously not.

Workers can oppressed in the U.S. and exploited in the U.S. -- and yet (dialectically) also live in a social formation deeply marked by the North South divide (and those inequalities on a world scale.)

black magick hustla

30th November 2007, 20:00

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected]ovember 29, 2007 07:59 pm

i think you are wrong on both points:

first, clearly everyone in the U.S. (and similar countries) are affected by the flow of superprofits into the U.S. They don't PERSONALLY get SUPERPROFITS, of course -- but the wealth flow of imperialism deeply affects the tissue and dynamics of society.

Just one example: can't we even say that gleening the garbage in the U.S. cities is very different from going through the garbage in Manila? think about even the poorest person in the U.S., walking into an emergency ward. They get outrageously inferior health care to those with status and money -- but they get care that two billion people on the planet can't aspire to.

There are dynamics of imperialism that impact the short-term interests of various strata -- including workers in particular industries. It is also true of the CAPITALISTS of some industries. And in the short term interests: the manufacturing in China drops the costs of many products (not just because "wages are low in China" but more fundamentally because of the structure of imperialism as a system).

But you can't gauge it, or limit it by such shortterm questions.

Overall imperialism affects the tissue of society -- the funds don't just lfow to the "top" of the U.S. -- it affects the whole society, its articulation (the trains run, the electricity doesn't go off, the food supply is diverse and reliable), and its development. It affects social mobility -- and people's hopes and dreams.

And to ignore that, is to ignore reality..

Second, this does not at all mean that "american workers are parasitical" or that they are not exploited.

Go among the farmworkers, for a simple example: is the condition of immigrant workers in florida better than it was back in Oaxaca? Often it is. That is wh y there is a labor flow. Is the wealth and money and other conditions that draw these immigrants rooted (ironically and perversely) in the exploitation and plunder of their homecountries, of course. Is their current situation (picking fruits in florida) THEREFORE "parasitical" -- obviously not.

Workers can oppressed in the U.S. and exploited in the U.S. -- and yet (dialectically) also live in a social formation deeply marked by the North South divide (and those inequalities on a world scale.)
There is a lot of things wrong with this, comrade.

healthcare, electricity, running water, and good public transportation are not only enjoyed in imperialist countries--in fact, in mexico city, many working class people enjoy this.

Have you ever seen the omnibuses and the subways in Mexico city? They can be compared in quality, to the european ones.
"
A lot of parts in Mexico are really fucked up, particuarly in the south. However, the "wealthy" cities are not "imperialist" at all.

Second, you are confusing imperialism with "dependence": although they are related, they are not the same. Outright imperialism are american multinationals that directly own, through private property, a lot of the wealth of the third world countries. Dependence could be that even if the industries in a certain country are owned by the state or the national bourgeosie--due to the bargaining power of the Imperialists, they are still at a disadvantage. One very simple example is how the third world countries are forced by their economic circumstance to sell their resources very cheaply in order to import technology from the "first world".

Now this dynamic can be broken, but it requires vast resources and a centralized economy. Stalin effectively broke with this dynamic of "depéndence", and many other countries, like Algeria, did this to a certain degree.

My point is that even if imperialism is "sawed off", America could still buy resources cheaper due to their bargaining power. And even if America becomes somewhat isolated, what would simply happen is that a lot of the service sector would dissolve, and the industry would have to go inside the american borders. This is why the american government tries so hard in subsidizing "farms" in the US, because nobody wants to farm anymore.

Second, not all the plight of the third world has to do with the Imperialists. For example, it is true that the imperialists ravaged Africa and they sunk it even more. However, it is also true that subsaharan africa, except from some few exceptions (A lot of the sudanese former city-states, like Mali) were pretty primitive before the imperialists came. This has nothing to do with "blacks being stupid" but with the geographical surroundings. The thing is, that the jungle in subsaharan africa didn't yield as nutritious food as Asia and Europe did. Yam for example, one of the crops that was very important in Africa, was much more difficult to grow and less nutritious than wheat. The inneficcient food output made it more difficult to create a big enough surplus that could lead to a more complex and advanced division of labor.

I am not apologizing for imperialism--it is a great factor for how terrible the conditions in the third world are. However, saying that it is all the fault of the imperialists is unmaterialistic and simplistic.

kasama-rl

1st December 2007, 20:23

i don't believe that health care and services in Mexico City are comparable to the same things in the U.S. -- and that is particularly true when you compare what is available for the lowest classes (and less true when you compare the services for the elites).

It is true that there is a major gap between the swollen third world cities and the surrounding misery of much of the countryside -- and that too is a result of how imperialism is shattering feudal and small producer agriculture, and turning that process into a pole of misery and an ocean of cheap labor.

I won't answer your every point, but leave you with the last word on most of them.

I don't think you are right -- I don't think the u.s. could last a half day with a severing of the circuits of trade and production. and that a study of "how food gets to NYC" or "the twenty places your car and its components were assembled" will give a sense of how profoundly (a ) the world is now interconnected, and (b ) how profoundly that is UN EQUAL and producing major effects at both ends of the North south (imperialist country / oppressed country) divide.

Qwerty Dvorak

1st December 2007, 20:31

There is a common law principle that, with some exceptions, one cannot be punished for an omission. That is to say, in order for one to be guilty there must be an act--refusing or declining to act with the end result that harm or suffering is brought upon someone else, although morally reprehensible, cannot constitute criminal liability.

Dros

1st December 2007, 21:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:30 pm
There is a common law principle that, with some exceptions, one cannot be punished for an omission. That is to say, in order for one to be guilty there must be an act--refusing or declining to act with the end result that harm or suffering is brought upon someone else, although morally reprehensible, cannot constitute criminal liability.
I don't care about "law". We are talking about morality. That argument could be used to justify the (in)action of people during the holocaust. Knowing about atrocity and not acting to prevent is complicity.

black magick hustla

1st December 2007, 21:46

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 01, 2007 08:22 pm
i don't believe that health care and services in Mexico City are comparable to the same things in the U.S. -- and that is particularly true when you compare what is available for the lowest classes (and less true when you compare the services for the elites).

It is true that there is a major gap between the swollen third world cities and the surrounding misery of much of the countryside -- and that too is a result of how imperialism is shattering feudal and small producer agriculture, and turning that process into a pole of misery and an ocean of cheap labor.

I won't answer your every point, but leave you with the last word on most of them.

I don't think you are right -- I don't think the u.s. could last a half day with a severing of the circuits of trade and production. and that a study of "how food gets to NYC" or "the twenty places your car and its components were assembled" will give a sense of how profoundly (a ) the world is now interconnected, and (b ) how profoundly that is UN EQUAL and producing major effects at both ends of the North south (imperialist country / oppressed country) divide.
it is true that the healthcare doesn't compares to the american healthcare, but its not that terrible as many western people believe.

Believe me, I have gone through social healthcare in mexico, its not that bad.

If you don't believe there is running water and electricity, and very good transportation in Mexico city, I invite you to go there for a while.

I think it is sometimes a sign of western chauvinism to believe that all of Latin America is a hellhole. There are cities were normal life is sometimes even comparable to european or american standards. More than 50 percent in Mexico city, for example, have internet access at their homes.

I never argued a lot of the food in the US comes from third world countries--and this is what I was adressing in my last post.

kasama-rl

2nd December 2007, 02:51

at this point you are arguing against arguments i (pretty obviously) didn't make.

I think the issues are pretty clear for all readers.

so I'll leave you with the "last word" on this part of the discussion.

Red Heretic

4th December 2007, 01:39

Kasuma, I think this forum thread is frankly really silly and unprincipled.

I think your arguement against Avakian here is really in the most basic sense a straw man arguement. Avakian's polemic here has nothing at all to do with condemning the iPhone or new technology. What Avakian is trying to get at here is critiquing some of the consumerist hysteria that we are seeing, where people will do things like at the mall and sleep there for day, and then trample over one another, maybe even trampling someone to death, to get their hands on the latest "tickle-me-elmo" or some other consumerist craze. Avakian's line is not at all "anti-technology , as you are trying to lead people to believe with this post. If comrades watch the DVD, Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, and What It's All About, we see Avakian talking in multiple different sections about the need for us to learn from new forms of communication and the need to use them (particularly I believe he refers to the internet) to wage key political struggles. The RCP has also approached me on multiple different occassions to ask me about doing online political work and asked if I could write up my different experiences online so that they could learn from these different things.

For middle class white people who know what the U.S. is doing out there in the world... If they have full knowledge of all of horrors of this war, and they refuse to take one day off of work to resist these things, but they'll take two weeks off of work to camp outside of Best Buy to beat up and trample people for a tickle-me-elmo, well, I'm sorry but that's immoral. And yes, I do think we need to call people out when they do this shit, and we need to light a fire underneath their asses that they have a moral responsibility to do something about what their government is doing to the people of the world.

kasama-rl

4th December 2007, 21:15

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 04, 2007 01:38 am
Kasuma, I think this forum thread is frankly really silly and unprincipled.

I think your arguement against Avakian here is really in the most basic sense a straw man arguement. Avakian's polemic here has nothing at all to do with condemning the iPhone or new technology. What Avakian is trying to get at here is critiquing some of the consumerist hysteria that we are seeing, where people will do things like at the mall and sleep there for day, and then trample over one another, maybe even trampling someone to death, to get their hands on the latest "tickle-me-elmo" or some other consumerist craze. Avakian's line is not at all "anti-technology , as you are trying to lead people to believe with this post. If comrades watch the DVD, Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, and What It's All About, we see Avakian talking in multiple different sections about the need for us to learn from new forms of communication and the need to use them (particularly I believe he refers to the internet) to wage key political struggles. The RCP has also approached me on multiple different occasions to ask me about doing online political work and asked if I could write up my different experiences online so that they could learn from these different things.

For middle class white people who know what the U.S. is doing out there in the world... If they have full knowledge of all of horrors of this war, and they refuse to take one day off of work to resist these things, but they'll take two weeks off of work to camp outside of Best Buy to beat up and trample people for a tickle-me-elmo, well, I'm sorry but that's immoral. And yes, I do think we need to call people out when they do this shit, and we need to light a fire underneath their asses that they have a moral responsibility to do something about what their government is doing to the people of the world.
Just because you may not agree with me, does not mean i'm unprincipled.

I think it is important for people to struggle over the way forward, over outlook and goals. And i think we need to do this without quickly or casually or falsely labeling our opponents as "unprincipled" or "enemies" or "dishonest" or whatever.

Just because you don't agree with my points, doesn't make me unprincipled. See?
And there is a whole legacy among communists where opponents get labeled as "enemies" in this way -- and we need to criticize that method (which is a form of self-serving political truth), and then we need to break with it in practice.

I plan to apply a principled method towards you, brother.

And, in fact, I believe my remarks have been both quite principled and (what is a separate matter) -- they are also correct.

And the heart of it is not matters of technology but how we communists should view the masses of people (including those who are not yet responding to our political work at this particular moment.)

* * * * * *

The statement by Avakian is one that dismisses whole sections of the middle classes as corrupt -- and responding to "toys" in an infantile way. And the lining up for iPods was given (by Avakian) as an example.

My point is several things:

We should have a different approach to the masses of people.

Mao wrote: "As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them, but should befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward."

Is this a correct method, redheretic? I think it is. Maoists talk about "not pointing the spearhead downwards" but learning to "point the spearhead up" -- because the basic blame belongs on the rulers not the ruled. And that is a matter of Marxist class analysis and communist "class stand."

Or is Avakian's approach better than Mao's, when Avakian now talks about explicitly about both cursing and blaming the masses. And when he encourages supporters to jack up people as being "complicit" or when he openly says (in the article i was criticizing) that the masses themselves are guilty of "crime."

Avakian openly acknowledges that his approach is opposed to Mao's when he says: "Now, as Maoists, we're not supposed to blame the masses when things don't go well. But goddamnit — I want to blame the masses a little bit!"

Is that correct?

I think the issue here is the mass line -- our view of the role of the people in history.

And also think that part of the issue is that the RCP's methods are quite self-isolating, and that instead of "blaming the masses" (in a self-serving and self-righteous way) the party should be more self-critical. And we should all be more soberly critical of the party and its increasingly mistaken approaches!

* * * * * *

Second, you yourself use a method that I think is wrong: You misrepresent my views, and then (in a huff) refute your own strawman.

For example You write: "Avakian's line is not at all 'anti-technology,' as you are trying to lead people to believe with this post."

Note: you put "quotes" around "anti-technology" as if it was what I had actually said (which it wasn't).

In fact, what I said was: that Avakian's SPECIFIC analysis of the (now-faded) iPhone excitement was superficial and uninformed.

I said that, in fact, that many people are interested in new tech events because they are interested in the rapid changes in how information and culture are delivered (not merely because they fascinated with privilege and toys in an infantile and corrupted way.)

You are free to disagree with my point, but it is not correct to distort it the way you did.

You then make a correct observation that Avakian TALKS about paying attention to such things.

(In my observations) the RCP TALKS about all kinds of things, that then don't characterize their practice. More important example: They talk about "critical thinking" and then train people to be very UN-critical thinkers.

I too have been asked by the RCP to help with their web work and write up my ideas. But my point is that I argued for ten years that they should have an email address for their website, and didn't even get a response... and that's just one simple example.

What do you think about a movement that dreams of promoting the DVD talk -- but forbids putting teasers on youtube? Think about it!

Do we judge a political movement by their talk? Or what?

It is a principle of Marxism (and science generally) that you can't judge a social movement by its own self-description or even its talk -- but by what it actually represents and does (which is often quite different from how it "packages" itself in words.)

* * * * * *

You write: "For middle class white people who know what the U.S. is doing out there in the world... If they have full knowledge of all of horrors of this war, and they refuse to take one day off of work to resist these things, but they'll take two weeks off of work to camp outside of Best Buy to beat up and trample people for a tickle-me-elmo, well, I'm sorry but that's immoral. And yes, I do think we need to call people out when they do this shit, and we need to light a fire underneath their asses that they have a moral responsibility to do something about what their government is doing to the people of the world."

I think this is an important political question, and is really at the heart of this thread. Meaning: it is not a "silly" issue or "silly" thread at all.

Let me answer like this: Your remark here expresses the very one-sided and un-dialectical training people get around the RCP.

Are you seriously suggesting that people with "full knowledge of this war" are taking two weeks off to camp at Best Buy? Puleeez!

Is this a materialist analysis? Or is it the kind of hype that comes from the RCP these days (a partial truth hyped into moralist exaggeration?)

First, who has "full knowledge of all the horrors of this war"? That is absolutist. No one has full knowledge of all the horrors (obviously). And we communists are RESPONSIBLE for getting people MORE knowledge (not assuming that peole already know, or that they are immoral for not already knowing).

What about rising to OUR responsibility? And being self critical about OUR short-comings? Perhaps we have not learned how to speak to the masses correctly -- perhaps newspapers like Revolution are often unreadable or incomprehensible to the basic people.

And one reason that many people are not active is that they actually DON'T really understand what is going on. They often think (and here I'm even talking about people who are actively against the war) the U.S. shouldn't have invaded, but that they *may* provide some stability while some new arrangements are worked out.

Or take the Macintosh-lovers who lined up for iPhone... do you think that if you polled them you would find MORE people who HAD attended antiwar demos than other places in the population? I think you would because of the political inclinations of many Mac people.

Should we really tar them with the brush of "complicity" cuz they bought a new phone?!

More to the point: The RCP is confusing two things... taking actions against the war, and taking actions AROUND THE SPECIFIC PLANS the RCP is "organizing."

In fact, many people believe (falsely) that by supporting the Democrats and defeating the Republicans they ARE taking EFFECTIVE action against the war. And that they will help end it in 2008.

Now this is a wrong view. It is riddled with illusions. But it is not as simple as your "black or white" world -- where they are just "immoral."

But the subjective views of the masses are objective to the communists: I.e. they are part of the objective conditions that we must work to transform through our labors. (Are we the "foolish old man who moved mountains" or should we be "the arrogant know-it-alls who blamed the people"?)

Many people don't SEE any other ways of acting.

And the RCP has not successfully organized in ways that make their campaigns visible for many people. (And as I argued above, i think there are errors in the RCP approach that contribute to this continuing frustrating impotence and puniness of the party's initiatives.)

So I think there needs to be a little less hype and emotional guilt-tripping -- and quite a bit more dialectical unraveling of the real contradictions. There needs to be more humility and self-critical examinations by the communism, and more respect of the masses of people.

Now, it is true that it is frustrating and maddening that there is not more mass resistance to this war (and the larger "War on Terrorism").

It is true that the people (even those inclined to oppose the war) are caught up in many paralyzing illusions (about the Democrats, about the possibility of the U.S. army "doing some good," about the idea that U.S. occupation -- for all its injustice -- may still be better than an unrestrained Iraqi civil war.)

But what should our attitude be toward the illusions and paralysis of the masses of people? To posture like we are so self-righteous (because we happen to have some consciousness), to "blame" and even "curse" (!) the masses.

* * * * * * **

And yes, many progressive people are shying away from the RCP's plans and projects. Why is that? Isn't it because they find the Party's ways of self-promotion to be troubling (especially its explicit cult of personality around Avakian)? If a party has a dogmatic style or a creepy vibe that contributes to its isolation among all kinds of people -- is that too the fault of the masses? How about a little modesty and self-interrogation.

Just one small, but revealing example:

In this week's Revolution there is a sentence in an article. A distribution team went to an anti-war demo to sell subscriptions. They wrote in a breathless, zombified and self-praising report (http://revcom.us/a/111/bay-area-corresp-en.html):

"Our orientation was that we had exactly what people needed – the truth in preparation for revolution."

The newspaper so loved this way of talking so much that they worked the phrases into the title for the article.

Now from a communist point of view is this correct? No.

First of all, the party does not have "exactly what the people need" -- No, its approach is quite flawed. And its analysis has problems.

And more, on a deeper methodological level, this whole self-image is simply metaphysical (and not dialectical) -- we never have "exactly" what the people need.

We always have only "relative truth" -- ideas that "divide into two." We always have much to learn... including from the masses.

What happened to Mao's orientation:

"The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge"

(From the Red Book, the section on Mass Line, p118)

Think of the deep difference between what Mao is saying, and the outlook and assumptions promoted here by Revolution newspaper!

Which is correct?

What does it mean (politically, philosophically, methodologically) for a party to train its people to believe dogmatically that: "We have the truth."

Go read the article -- not a glimmer of learning from the people. The whole thing glistened with self praise (in a glazed quasi-religious way).

Is that a scientific, or a communist or a Maoist approach?

I don't think so.

And that is what I was criticizing -- at its source -- in the approach that Avakian (http://revcom.us/a/109/avakian-resistance-en.html) is putting out (an approach towards himself and his supposed grasp of "the truth", and a related disrespectful approach toward the masses who are seen as sinfully turning away from "the truth).

Think about what I'm saying as YOU struggle over how to do your mass work among the masses. I urge you to struggle to correctly apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the important fight to "prepare minds and organize forces for revolution."

Rawthentic

4th December 2007, 23:09

I've been talking with RedHeretic about this issue through another channel. I would like to post what he has told me, because I know he is busy with real revolutionary political work than intent on internet criticizing those who actually do political work:

People are living in Tony Soprano's house in great extravagance because of what Tony Soprano is doing out in the world. However, the Tony Soprano analogy is much deeper than
that (including the immigrant maids who have no stake at all in what Tony Soprano is doing) and we should have a fully materialist understanding of this, so you should read the actual excerpt from Bringing Forward Another Way.

People living in Tony Soprano's house have a moral responsibility to do something about what Tony Soprano is doing... and yes, we are waging a struggle on the moral realm of the superstructure. We are fighting for a communist morality, a morality of love and devotion to the masses of people and to liberation, alongside deep hatred for the oppressors and oppression. This is a key struggle to be waging in the current situation that we are in. Here is a short excerpt from "Making Revolution and Emancipating All of Humanity" that is running in the paper right now that speaks to why this is a key struggle if we are going to do what we are serious about doing:

"But, fundamentally (and, so to speak, underneath all this) freedom does lie in the recognition and transformation of necessity. The point is that this recognition and the ability to carry out that transformation goes through a lot of different “channels,” and is not tied in a positivist or reductionist or linear way to however the main social contradictions are posing themselves at a given time. If that were the case—or if we approached it that way—we would liquidate the role of art and much of the superstructure in general. Why do we battle in the realm of morals? It is because there is relative initiative and autonomy in the superstructure. And the more correctly that’s given expression, the better it will be, in terms of the kind of society we have at a given time and in terms of our ability to recognize necessity and carry out the struggle to transform necessity."

let's take a look at the way that Avakian is formulating it:

"Not all, but still too many, Americans—especially within the middle strata, although not only there"

So, in a certain sense, this is not really being directed at our people, our base, the proletariat. They ARE mobilizing! They are coming out and saying we aren't going to take this shit in Jena. They are saying HELL NO to the attacks on immigrants and shutting down the entire country when these attacks come down on them. But let's run with this example of Jena I have just raised...

In Jena, where the FUCK were the white people? Hundreds of these middle class white "progressives" here in Houston absolutely refused to come with us to Jena. On the buses out of Houston, with hundreds of people, the only white people were RCP supporters and two anarchists. That's IT! It's absolutely unacceptable. These people are way too fucking comfortable and were basically just turning their heads while the state tried to lynch six Black youth.

I'm not saying that the middle strata are the only ones who can be complicit with these crimes, but this is who we are directing this at.

Well man, what do you think about this point around people who actually consciously allowed the holocaust to go forward?
Is it a crime for people living in imperialist countries to be complicit with one of the greatest crimes in humanity history? Do they not have a responsibility to act while they are profiting off of this and these crimes are being done in their names?

I mean, it's not like we are going to the masses in the oppressed countries who have nothing to do with this and calling them complicit... We are challenging people in this society to confront reality and to realize their responsibility to the masses of people around the world.

At the same time, no one should be nasty to the masses or try to alienate them. We need to struggle with them to get them to see this, but there is still a general method of unity-struggle-unity that we need to apply as revolutionary communists.

Here are a few excerpts from Bringing Forward Another Way that speak to this:

""Living in the House of Tony Soprano"

Here I want to bring up a formulation that I love, because it captures so much that is essential. Soon after September 11 someone said, or wrote somewhere, that living in the U.S. is a little bit like living in the house of Tony Soprano. You know, or you have a sense, that all the goodies that you've gotten have something to do with what the master of the house is doing out there in the world. Yet you don't want to look too deeply or too far at what that might be, because it might upset everything—not only what you have, all your possessions, but all the assumptions on which you base your life.

This is really capturing something very powerful, not only in a general sense but also more specifically in terms of what is pulling on a lot of people who should be in motion very vigorously and with real determination against the outrages that are being perpetrated in their name and by their government—by this ruling class, and by the core that's at the center of power now in the U.S.

When this analogy, or metaphor, of "living in the house of Tony Soprano" was first brought forward (or when I first heard of it, at least), in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, it was very timely and relevant. But September 11th was a rude announcement that there's a price to be paid for living in Tony Soprano's house, for continuing to go along with these profoundly unequal relations in the world and the way that your government, and this system fundamentally, bludgeons people in the world into conditions of almost unspeakable suffering in order to keep this whole thing going and in order, yes, for some "goodies" to be handed out to sections of the population in the "house"—not only "goodies" in an economic sense but also in the form of a certain amount of stability, and a certain functioning of democracy (bourgeois democracy) within the U.S. itself. All that is being shaken up now. Now, you don't just get the goodies for "living in Tony Soprano's house"—you get the "strangers" out in the backyard at night. "They're out there somewhere." It's a different world. It isn't the same equation as it was, even a decade or so ago—it's not the same now "living in Tony Soprano's house."

It is not that everything was all smooth and nice for everybody in this house—for many people in the U.S. that has been far from the case—and it is not that nobody was aware of things going on in the world, of what "Tony Soprano" was doing to people out there all over the world. In fact, one of the ironies is that a lot of people have been somewhat aware of this, but when the terms get sharpened up, some people want to pull back from what they themselves know. And so we have to get into real and sometimes sharp struggle with people.

This is a point I believe I made in one of those recent 7 Talks—and, in any case, it is a very important point to emphasize: There is a place where epistemology and morality meet.

There is a place where you have to stand and say: It is not acceptable to refuse to look at something—or to refuse to believe something—because it makes you uncomfortable.

And: It is not acceptable to believe something just because it makes you feel comfortable.

Ultimately, especially in today's world, to do that is a form of complicity, and we should struggle with people about that.

And it also won't work to apply that kind of approach. You'll just end up in a very bad place, reinforcing both of the "historically outmodeds" and being on the wrong side of what needs to happen in the world, if you follow that approach out to its logical conclusion.

We need a different world than one where there are a few houses of Tony Soprano, surrounded by a seemingly endless sea of suffering and oppressed humanity, living in terrible squalor and under undisguised tyranny; where the power, wealth and privilege of the relative few depends on, and is grounded in, the exploitation and misery of the many (and where, even within "Tony Soprano's house" itself, there are many who are treated as little better than second-class members of the family, or as despised servants). This is a world that cannot, and should not, go on as it is.

Even before people are won to the communist standpoint and program, to fully deal with this, there is a struggle to be waged and they can be won to the broad position that we need a different world. We can struggle about what that world should be, and how it should be brought into being; but this dynamic we're on is going to lead to a disaster for humanity, including all of those who are trying to hide from it, in one form or another, or are thinking that if they remain passive, somehow it will pass them by."

and

"The Only Hope the Masses Have—and the Responsibility We Have

This is the only chance the masses have. They don't have any other chance. Mobile Shaw23 was right: we are collectively the only hope the masses of people have. Of course, there are other communists throughout the world. But collectively we are the only hope the masses of people have and the only hope the world has—hope that all this craziness and destruction and sacrifice that's coming anyway is going to turn toward something much better. We must not shrink from that role. And we must never forget that this is our role, through everything we're doing. Even when we're sitting down and having a cup of coffee with people—and overall in working our way through a lot of things that are short of revolution—we can't ever forget that this is what it's all got to be aimed for. We've got to have those broad arms and that sweeping vision; and, as I've said before, we've got to go be willing to go right to the brink of being "drawn and quartered," without allowing that to actually happen, in order to move all this forward.

This is our responsibility. If there's going to be a united front from a strategic standpoint—and if it's going to be a united front under the leadership of the proletariat—in both aspects, and in the essence of this, it requires our leadership. It requires lots of people, from many different strata, taking a lot of initiative and doing a lot of creative things and being unleashed in ways that are unexpected and surprising to us—positively, not only negatively!—but it requires our leadership in overall and fundamental terms.

As I've spoken to a number of times, there are plenty of contradictions, including acute ones, within the proletariat itself, broadly speaking. To point to a very glaring and acutely posed one now, take the contradictions between Black masses, on the one hand, and Latino masses and immigrants, on the other hand. I was talking about this with some comrades not long ago and we were observing (with perhaps slight but unfortunately not great exaggeration) that 90% of the Black masses have a bad line on the immigrants and 90% of the immigrants have a bad line on the Black masses! That's the reality we're dealing with. And how is that going to change? Where are the understanding and the programmatic policies going to come from to lead and mobilize people in a radically different direction and to achieve a synthesis that unites them on the basis of their fundamental interests? Nowhere else than from the standpoint of communism and through our playing our role as a communist vanguard. These are the realities. I don't believe that statement is hyperbole. And if these realities don't show you the need for a communist vanguard, then I don't know what will.

We've got to work and struggle our way through this—through all these contradictions, including those that are fostered between different sections of the basic masses. Where do the fundamental interests of the masses—all these masses—lie? And even the white proletarians—who are not just a few, around and about, but who number in the millions and millions—what are their fundamental interests? And how do those interests get expressed? Or the middle strata in society, including the huge numbers who are straining against the hold of their prejudices and illusions—how are they going to get moved in a way that's going to lead toward a positive resolution out of all the turmoil and upheaval that has been and will increasingly be unleashed in the world—a resolution in the interests of humanity?

We have two things going for us, against all the very big things that we have to confront, the gigantic and momentous things we have to go up against, the very daunting things. One is our dialectical materialist outlook and method, our scientific approach to reality. And the other is reality itself and its motion and development, which that outlook and methodology reflect and encompass. Are the fundamental and essential interests of the masses of people going to be served by Black masses lining up with reactionaries against the immigrants, while the immigrants are mobilized around a line that all Black people are lazy and don't want to work? We know the answer to that—and we should never forget the answer to that. And we should go deeply into this with the masses of people, both in the ideological dimension and practically in terms of what we mobilize them to do and how we mobilize them to take the political stage.

So we have to be, at one and the same time, working among the middle strata and building a metaphorical—or political and ideological—fire under the middle strata, in a good way, by bringing forward increasing numbers of people, particularly from among the basic masses, as revolutionaries, as communists, as emancipators of humanity. And we have to recognize the need to not just engage with, but to struggle—yes, sometimes sharply, but in any case consistently, and at the same time in a principled way and from a lofty plane—to wage struggle with people while having an orientation of striving to win people over and of uniting the greatest number possible at any time, in order for people of all strata to be moved in the way they need to be moved. But we do need to light this political and ideological fire, and we really need to be taking the whole thing, this whole communist thing, very boldly out in every corner of society, particularly among the basic masses, but among every strata. If we don't do that, then the attempts, as important as they are, to work among various strata—and to build united fronts involving people of many different ideological and political viewpoints and perspectives, including major united front efforts like World Can't Wait—will not succeed, will not break through on the level and scale they need to. "

An attempt to compare Mao and Avakian at this point is horribly wrong. For one, Mao led a revolution in a deeply backward nation, while what we are dealing with here is the most advanced and powerful imperialist nation. In addition, those quotes that you misplace here by Mao are in reference to the most to the proletariat, while Avakian's works and positions in this issue are directed toward the middle strata, not the proletariat.

RedHeretic has for years worked with the Party and Revolution newspaper; please don't come here and fill us with how the practice is with the Party or how "un-critical' they are.

kasama-rl

5th December 2007, 01:37

This is an interesting point:

Live for the people writes: "An attempt to compare Mao and Avakian at this point is horribly wrong. For one, Mao led a revolution in a deeply backward nation, while what we are dealing with here is the most advanced and powerful imperialist nation. In addition, those quotes that you misplace here by Mao are in reference to the most to the proletariat, while Avakian's works and positions in this issue are directed toward the middle strata, not the proletariat."

I don't see any evidence that Mao was only talking about one strata or certainly the poorest strata.

In china the masses were considered four classes "proletarian, peasantry, middle class and progressive national bourgeosie."

And it is not like we treat the proletariat as "the masses," and not the middle classes.

In fact, Avakian's analysis is the two 90/10s... part of which is the view that 90 percent of the people in the united states have an interest in socialism.

That was a correct analysis, which all this new talk of complicity and "tony soprano's house" seems intended to negate.

* * * * * * *

In passing LFTP, let me make a methodological criticism:

Both you and RedHeretic chose to start your remarks with personal attacks (ad hominem attacks).

You wrote: "I would like to post what he has told me, because I know he is busy with real revolutionary political work than intent on internet criticizing those who actually do political work."

Once again, the implication seems to be that no one has a right to criticize you, or the RCP, or Avakian.... since these are people "who actually do political work."

This method is wrong on a number of levels:

1) People can "do work" of many kinds, but have a wrong line.

2) It is an oblication of communists to "go against the tide" and criticize wrong lines and roads.

3) Responding to principled political critiques by making personal aspertions is not a correct method, and detracts from a principled struggle over line.

4)I don't agree that political and ideological struggle online is some "internet criticizing" which should be dissed and put in a special category. Why is line struggle sitting in a meeting room ok, but line struggle ONLINE some distainful activity?

5) On what possible basic can you assume that I (for example) don't "do political work" but only RedHeretic does? This is the kind of self-righteous self-praise that I'm talking about -- assuming a moral posture above poeple. And in this case you are implying a criticism of me WITHOUT having a clue of who I am and what I do.

So once again, I want to urge you to be principled, brother. Study the lines, and struggle over right and wrong. Don't make assumptions about people... and don't respond to a political observation by making a personal attack.

More later!

Dros

5th December 2007, 03:01

In fact, Avakian's analysis is the two 90/10s... part of which is the view that 90 percent of the people in the united states have an interest in socialism.

That was a correct analysis, which all this new talk of complicity and "tony soprano's house" seems intended to negate.

I think you are clearly misinterpreting the Tony Soprano metaphor. He is explaining that living in the U.S. is like living in the house of a mobster because the U.S. is robbing the world through imperialism. Furthermore, he is saying that their is a tendency to ignore or disregard where this material wealth comes from. I see this as being true. Your denunciation is based on no scientific analysis, simply this appeal to a commandment "THOU SHALT NOT MASS-BLAME." And I don't even think he is blaming the masses here. What he is doing is saying that this phenomenon objectively exists and that we need to understand it and address it as communists.

bezdomni

5th December 2007, 03:58

kasamarl, do you work with the RCP?

Even if what you are saying is true, it doesn't imply that the RCP isn't the vanguard of the proletariat in the United States...it implies that there is an incorrect line in the RCP.

Anyway, I don't think the RCP is "blaming" the masses. I think it is pointing out that complacency with the shit this system does is fucked up. It is struggling against a tendency within the masses, especially the middle strata.

Rawthentic

5th December 2007, 05:46

especially the middle strata.

And that is what the article is mainly pointing at, not the proletariat, who really are mobilizing.

Like in "Tony Soprano's" house, there are people here who enjoy the spoils of imperialism, while really knowing how those spoils come. Those people have the responsibility to resist that. Anyway, my last post says this better.

Anyway, I fully agree with SovietPants' post. Breaking over an incorrect line, if that is what we are dealing with here, is very anti-communist and...trotskyist. That's why the Party uses democratic centralism, and this is proven in how it has transformed throughout its history.

Red Heretic

5th December 2007, 09:05

Just because you may not agree with me, does not mean i'm unprincipled.

Both you and RedHeretic chose to start your remarks with personal attacks (ad hominem attacks).

I don't engage in personal attacks. I would appreciate it if you would engage in what I actually said. What I said was that this thread is unprincipled... which it is!

What you have been doing here in this thread is attacking Avakian for a line that he was not at all putting out, and misleading people as to what the actual line and methodology of the RCP is.

For example:

Mao wrote: "As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them, but should befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward."

Is this a correct method, redheretic? I think it is. Maoists talk about "not pointing the spearhead downwards" but learning to "point the spearhead up" -- because the basic blame belongs on the rulers not the ruled. And that is a matter of Marxist class analysis and communist "class stand."

Or is Avakian's approach better than Mao's, when Avakian now talks about explicitly about both cursing and blaming the masses. And when he encourages supporters to jack up people as being "complicit" or when he openly says (in the article i was criticizing) that the masses themselves are guilty of "crime."

Here we see that you are trying to mislead people into believing that pointing out when people in imperialist countries are complicit is somehow in contradiction with uniting and struggle with them for a higher synthesis. That Mao quote is right on, and it is in no way in contradiction with the line of the RCP or Bob Avakian.

And what is this bullshit about "jacking up the masses?" Where did Avakian say that we should go "jack up the masses?" He said nothing of the sort. In fact, he said the exact opposite of that, that we should no go "jack people up." He said that we have to unite with people, and struggle with them to see that if they don't act... if they let this regime carry out all of it's horrors on the masses of people, then they are complicit. Yes we have to unite with people, and yes we have to struggle with people, sometimes very sharply. If we don't struggle with them, if we don't bring them the truth, then we're not doing them any good, and we're not doing the masses of people all over the world any good either.

Here is what Avakian has actually said:

Now, we shouldn't shriek at people, we shouldn't actually get strident and shrill, but we also shouldn't be liberal and avoid struggle with people, even sharp struggle where necessary, so long as it is on a lofty and principled basis. We and others who are involved in World Can't Wait are not doing this because this is "our thing." We are doing this because of what's going on in the world and the stakes that are intensifying all the time.

Of course, there have been important positive things brought forward by World Can't Wait and in connection with its efforts—and it is important to build on the positive things. But there needs to be a challenge carried out, and we shouldn't shy away from it or shrink from it. We should join this struggle—in a good way. If you just go out and try to jack people up with no substance, that's no good. But we have to get into the substance of this with people. These two "historically outmodeds" are reinforcing each other; this dynamic is very bad and will lead to far worse disaster—if we don't lead people to break out of this. World Can't Wait was, and is, a vehicle for people to do that. What mainly needs to be done, on a whole larger scale still, is to show people, in a living way, why what is represented, and called for, by World Can't Wait is necessary, and how it can make a crucial difference. But we also have to join the issue of complicity with them. There was that slogan back in the '60s, which was not fully scientific, but it was more good than bad and more correct than incorrect: "You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem." That kind of orientation was not wrong. If you drew the lines irrevocably and you didn't try to win people over when they were on the wrong side (or were trying to sit on the sidelines), well then, yes, that would be wrong. And if you didn't make any kind of materialist analysis of what are the actual driving forces underlying things, and what are actually the ruling and decision-making forces in society—then, yes, that would be wrong. But it is not wrong, and in fact it is very necessary, to pose the challenge to people: Look, there's a great earthquake here, and neither side of the way the earth is separating is going to lead to anything but disaster; we've got to forge another way, you've got to be part of that—and you've got to get out of your "comfort zone" to do it.

kasama-rl

5th December 2007, 17:38

Thanks for replying in some detail.

i look forward to dealing with different parts of what you are raising. We can work to sort out the truth and falsehood of various parts of this.

* * * * * *

But first a side question on these charges you keep making (that seem like a diversion and attack to me):

how exactly is this thread unprincipled? Many different views are expressed in the thread (some correct, others incorrect.)

But how is the thread itself unprincipled?

And weren't you imply that I was unprincipled by kicking it off with my remarks?

* * * * * *

You seem to agree that personal attacks are wrong. Cool.

But it still seems like you are making them. Let me show you what appears (to me) as unfounded and hostile statements:

you wrote: "Here we see that you are trying to mislead people into believing that pointing out when people in imperialist countries are complicit is somehow in contradiction with uniting and struggle with them for a higher synthesis. That Mao quote is right on, and it is in no way in contradiction with the line of the RCP or Bob Avakian."

You are making claims about my MOTIVES....

You are not dealing with the content of my summations. But charging that I am somehow dishonest.

Am I really "trying to mislead people"? Consciously? You think i "know the truth" but am consciously trying to spread falshehood?

Let's be materialist: do you have a basis for making claims about my motives? Are they relevant in this discussion of a party's line? Why would you "go there"?

I don't feel I have to defend my own motives (and waste peoples time with that). I think it is obvious that i'm not TRYING to mislead anyone, but honestly putting forward my best understanding...

Lets deal with our different perceptions of what Avakian is saying... and dig into where the truth lies. (And lets not make pronouncements about bad motives as the opening part of each post. OK?)

Lets follow mao "Seek truth from facts."

I will dig into your view of Avakian's statements, and the differences with my view later. (I have some other things to do right now)>

Red Heretic

7th December 2007, 19:18

Look Kasama, I think that you're engaging in a little bit of hyperbole here, but the basic essence of you last post... that we should engage over the actual content, well, that's true. The comments I made previously regarding whether you were being principled in your posts here were done in passing, and alluded to the fact that I believe you know better, but that was not the point of my post or what's principle here. I think you've done some things in this thread, like trying to pin my own shortcomings and LFTP's shortcomings in methodology on the RCP, even when you know that we are not RCP members, and try use our posts to attack the RCP. The RCP's methodology and approach are worlds apart from what you try to characterize them as.

But again, I want to reiterate that the question of your personal methodology is not what is principle here. I believe that people should be engaging with what Avakian is actually saying rather than trying to use a polemic of Avakian's that was criticizing consumerism to claim that "Avakian rails against people who try iPhones." No he doesn't, and that's not the Party's line.

You are not dealing with the content of my summations. But charging that I am somehow dishonest.

Contrary to the way you are characterizing things, I posted only two sentences that alluded to the methodology you are using in this thread. The overwhelming majority of my posts were directed at the actual content of what Avakian is bringing forward, and you didn't reply to that.

kasama-rl

10th December 2007, 21:12

I'm glad we agree that we should engage over the actual content. And lets do that. I owe you a detailed answer and it will come soon. (I am very busy at the moment, but promise to return to this.)

RedHeretic, you write: "The RCP's methodology and approach are worlds apart from what you try to characterize them as."

Ok. That is what I will return to. But can we agree on this: That IF my characterization PROVES to BE correct, then the party's current methodology and approach are wrong? That too would be an important starting point for "unity struggle unity." For now (and I apologize for my momentary brevity) let me limit my response to two related things that we can chew on:

First: There is Avakian's blunt statement that "terms have to be presented sharply to people." (http://rwor.org/quick/088en.htm)

And this is part of what we have to dig into. This (by the way) is the same major talk where he talks about cursing and blaming the people -- in a way that (as he openly admits) is a conscious departure from Maoist approaches to the people.

Now I want to give you a link to a recent poster by the RCP which (i assume) embodies an example of what it means to present terms sharply -- and (more important) WHAT THEY NOW THINK THE TERMS ARE.

(In other words, I'm all for presenting the CORRECT terms sharply! The issue is that this party increasingly thinks that the terms including blaming the masses, and shouting at them.)

This poster is called: "ATTENTION WHITE PEOPLE! WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?!?" (http://revcom.us/a/111/white-people-en.html)

You can read it yourself and decide.

First criticism I have: It is a criticism of white RACISTS and white RACISM. But it is apparently written with the assumption that this includes white people IN GENERAL.

There is, of course, a profound problem that many white people don't have nearly enough appreciation for the oppression of Black people. This poster makes some arguments and gives some facts (in the RCP's usual style of "use twenty words when five would do").

There are, of course, white racists -- as this video shows clearly: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...732885998&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2030703163732885998&hl=en) -- and they are a chunk of the white population (not just individuals). Just to sharpen this up: I suspect that about 15 percent of white people are pretty deeply racist. Another 15 percent are rather consciously anti racist. And that people in the middle are a complex mix -- understanding some things not others, feeling opposed to raw bigotry but influenced on many levels by the struggle over summation in society. (These are rough percentages, but they underscore why i think the blanket insult aimed at "white people" to be so wrong.)

To put it another way: It is true that many white people assumed OJ Simpson was guilty and were horrified when he was acquited. And this reflected a number of illusions about the police and their gathering of evidence.

However, it was ALSO TRUE that when the LA rebellion broke out (in 1992 after the acquittal of cops for brutalizing Rodney King), the great majority of white people felt sympathy and outrage (over the injustice of that acquittal). And this was commented on by the RCP at the time.

But the views and sensibilities of the RCP have changed since then. And there is now a much more bitter, hostile and frustrated tone toward the people (which reflects an underlying and wrong set of verdicts and strategic assumptions).

This "Attention White People" poster and its wrong line trains its readers (including communists, Black people and others obviously) to assume that this racism CHARACTERIZES "white people" as a whole.

This is factually wrong and politically really awful -- and a major tailing of the worst, negative and bitter assumptions of the non-revolutionary currents among Black nationalists.

Second criticism: The closing lines of this poster are:

Wake the Fuck Up!
This system has always been about white supremacy.
Stop thinking with its racist values.
Stop seeing with its racist eyes.
Start resisting it.
Get with the Revolution!

And this tone of "wake the fuck up!" has gotten very popular with the RCP -- a "shout at the masses" tone and viewpoint.... where people are treated like stupid, little shits that need knock upside the head.

It reminds me of the way some fundamentalists think the people are rat-nasty little sinners and shits -- and need to be told what to think and what to do with a strong stern and condemning voice.

A QUESTION: Do you think there is a reason that the RCP SOUNDS like the fundamentalists they claim to hate? Can there be a common thread of self-righteous and self-appointed holiness?

All this is a sharp departure from the RCP's earlier approach of "arm around the masses' shoulder" when struggling over backward views. (And there are many backward views among the people -- all sections of the people, including the most oppressed! We have to deal with a lot of apathy, hatred of other people, absorbtion of bourgeois lies etc. among ALL sections of the people.)

This poster (and the larger method it embodies) is bitter, hostile, and frankly insulting to the people (especially since literally millions of white people HATE racism, and basically know and support the contents of a poster like this.)

At one level, it assumes that people DON'T NEED CONSCIOUSNESS -- but that they need a moral slap in the face. The blame the people line assumes that people (in the U.S. generally) "know" what their government is doing, but don't give a fuck. And that it is apathy and complicity and collaboration that are the problem....

Think of how far that is from the assumptions of Lenin's "what is to be done?" which sees the need of exposure to actually BRING OUT what people IN FACT DON'T KNOW.

My point here is overall method -- it is the RCP's new hostile strategic view of the masses. And their shrill self-righteous tone of shouting and jamming people.

It won't work. But worse, it trains those it touches in a wrong and non-communist method.

Communists serve the people. We struggle to PREVENT "contradictions among the people" from becoming antagonistic.

And while it is frustrating to be conscious and outraged -- and encounter people who are much less conscious and backward (on this or that questions). But this method is outrageous.

* * * * * *

The contradictions surrounding the backwardness of many white people are "contradictions among the people..." And Maoism has a rich insight into how to handle them. I'm going to quote a bit from Mao on this (for obvious reasons).

Mao writes in his famous work "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People"

We are confronted by two types of social contradictions - those between ourselves and the enemy and those among the people themselves. The two are totally different in their nature.

On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957), 1st pocket ed.. p. 2.

To understand these two different types of contradictions correctly, we must first be clear on what is meant by "the people" and what is meant by "the enemy". . . At the present stage, the period of building socialism, the classes, strata and social groups which favour, support and work for the cause of socialist construction all come within the category of the people, while the social forces and groups which resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist construction are all enemies of the people.

Ibid., pp. 2-3.

The contradictions between ourselves and the enemy are antagonistic contradictions. Within the ranks of the people, the contradictions among the working people are non-antagonistic, while those between the exploited and the exploiting classes have a non-antagonistic aspect in addition to an antagonistic aspect...

Since they are different in nature, the contradictions between ourselves and the enemy and the contradictions among the people must be resolved by different methods. To put it briefly, the former are a matter of drawing a clear distinction between ourselves and the enemy, and the latter a matter of drawing a clear distinction between right and wrong. It is, of course, true that the distinction between ourselves and the enemy is also a matter of right and wrong. For example, the question of who is in the right, we or the domestic and foreign reactionaries, the imperialists, the feudalists and bureaucrat-capitalists, is also a matter of right and wrong, but it is in a different category from questions of right and wrong among the people.

On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957), 1st pocket ed., pp. 5-6.

Here is a statement by Mao worth thinking about deeply:

"To criticize the people's shortcomings is necessary, . . . but in doing so we must truly take the stand of the people and speak out of whole-hearted eagerness to protect and educate them. To treat comrades like enemies is to go over to the stand of the enemy."

"Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art" (May 1942), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 92.

And finally here (also from the Red Book):

"We must make a distinction between the enemy and ourselves, and we must not adopt an antagonistic stand towards comrades and treat them as we would the enemy. In speaking up, one must have an ardent desire to protect the cause of the people and raise their political consciousness, and there must be no ridiculing or attacking in one's approach."

Note: "...there must be no ridiculing or attacking in one's approach."

* * * * *

Now I was involved, quite a bit, in the development and debate over the RCP's Draft Programme (http://revcom.us/margorp/a-nat.htm) so I can't help but be aware of how different this line is from the Party's own previous official approach.

"The socialist revolution aims to achieve the unity of the masses of people on a revolutionary basis. "

It talks about "overall guiding principles that promote equality, not inequality; unity, not division between different peoples; and that serve to eliminate, not foster, exploitation and oppression."

Note: promote "unity not division between different peoples."

Or here:

"The proletarian state will work to resolve these matters [meaning the horrific oppression of minority nationalities in the U.S.] in a way that promotes equality and unity throughout society and that promotes internationalism. Only the proletariat and its state are capable of tackling and resolving these questions in such a way."

Look at this new poster (which specifically was done after this call by Avakian for more "sharp" posing of "terms.")

Is this how revolutionary communists builds unity on a revolutionary basis?
Is this how we view and talk to the masses of people?

No.

[more to come, i promise]

RNK

14th December 2007, 11:07

I'll just pipe in with my two-cent drivel as I haven't paid much attention to the content of this thread, outside of many usages of the word Avakian...

But it seems to me that RCPUSA supporters spend quite a lot of time essentially arguing that when Bob and the RCPUSA say something, they don't actually mean it, or they actually mean something else, or their words are misconstrued... now this could be acceptable once in awhile, but it seems every statement or position taken by Bob or the RCPUSA requires quite a struggle of supporters trying to convince others (and perhaps themselves) that what would otherwise be unacceptable is actually just a misunderstanding or miscommunication.

Dros

15th December 2007, 21:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:06 am
I'll just pipe in with my two-cent drivel as I haven't paid much attention to the content of this thread, outside of many usages of the word Avakian...

But it seems to me that RCPUSA supporters spend quite a lot of time essentially arguing that when Bob and the RCPUSA say something, they don't actually mean it, or they actually mean something else, or their words are misconstrued... now this could be acceptable once in awhile, but it seems every statement or position taken by Bob or the RCPUSA requires quite a struggle of supporters trying to convince others (and perhaps themselves) that what would otherwise be unacceptable is actually just a misunderstanding or miscommunication.
Or maybe there is just a lot of distortions about what the line and methodology of the RCP really are...

Rawthentic

16th December 2007, 04:04

I'd agree with drosera here. There is much more depth to the RCP's line than what people take in at face value. I don't mean to say that the RCP or Avakian are always correct or above criticism, mind you.

kasama-rl

16th December 2007, 16:16

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 16, 2007 04:03 am
I'd agree with drosera here. There is much more depth to the RCP's line than what people take in at face value. I don't mean to say that the RCP or Avakian are always correct or above criticism, mind you.
ok.

You are free to assert there is "more" to the line. but assertion is not a discussion. I am not arguing that the line of the RCP has no depth, I am arguing that it has serious flaws.

Let's get further into it.

I have quoted in detail the change in the party's line, and the increasing talk of blaming (even cursing) the masses, accusing people of 'crime" for not supporting RCP sponsored events, and a tone where "if you make a criticism, you must be an unprincipled enemy."

In words there is talk about "debate" and "dissent" -- but how are real and serious criticisms treated?

So, if you think the line has been misrepresented.... fine, fair enough. Then make your own quotes, bring your understanding of this to the table...

And lets "wrangle" and "engage."

After engaging with Avakian's new synthesis i think it falls short of the communist theory we need in some important and basic ways.

If you don't agree, fine, fair enough.... but but you can't just assert "depth"

Bring it! Let's dig into it in a principled and above board way!

Here is the issue at the heart of this thread: how does the RCP conceive of creating a revolutionary movement, why hasn't it developed any political base over the last decades, and how is it responding to the evident failures of its recent initiatives (and what is the real reason they are failing?)

Just so you know: I will be posting in a few areas later this week:

first: What is theoretically wrong in the RCP's assertion that Avakian is a "special, rare, unique and irreplaceable" leader of a special "caliber" who is making contributions on the level of "a Lenin or a Mao." why is this not a materialist view of leaders? And why is it wrong to assert that we must now accept Avakian's body of work as the next key leap in Marxism?

And second, I will dig some into what is wrong with the party's new theory of "enriched what-is-to-be-doneism" -- which reversed what was written in their own New Draft Program of 2001. How is it different from a materialist view of how we "prepare minds and organize forces for revolution"?

Third: What happened to the RCP's internationalism? We have been looking for a new communist revolution (the world hasn't had one since 1949!) and now that the Nepali Maoists are getting in a position to take power, the RCP has gone completely silent. Where is the organizing against U.S. intervention? Where is the hardhitting campaign against the lies heaped on the Maoists in Nepal?

I repeat: what happened to the most basic and well understood precepts of internationalism?

Or let's dig into THIS question:

If it is supposedly a crime when the masses sit silent while the U.S. government occupies Iraq, what do we call it when communists are silent as a genuine revolutionary movement faces heavy challenges and threats?

[stay tuned]

Dros

16th December 2007, 23:04

I have quoted in detail the change in the party's line, and the increasing talk of blaming (even cursing) the masses, accusing people of 'crime" for not supporting RCP sponsored events, and a tone where "if you make a criticism, you must be an unprincipled enemy."

In words there is talk about "debate" and "dissent" -- but how are real and serious criticisms treated?

That is not in any of my experience true. There is no talk of "blaming" the masses and the parts of the RCP line you are addressing are not aimed at the masses of people. Noone has said it is a crime to not support RCP sponsered events. It is criminal to know what is going on and not act. There is serious appathy amoungst the liberal or progressive part of the bourgoisie and the petty bourgoisie and that needs to be addressed.

There is real debate and dissent going on. All of my experience with the party has clearly shown me that there is really vibrant discussion, criticism, and self criticism with regards to line and method.

So, if you think the line has been misrepresented.... fine, fair enough. Then make your own quotes, bring your understanding of this to the table...

And lets "wrangle" and "engage."

The party has consistently tried to facilitate discussion of its line and methodology. RCP people are often the most willing to get into a political argument and engage in these issues very broadly. This is, in my experience, a very real sentiment and methodology within the party.

After engaging with Avakian's new synthesis i think it falls short of the communist theory we need in some important and basic ways.

If you don't agree, fine, fair enough.... but but you can't just assert "depth"

Bring it! Let's dig into it in a principled and above board way!

Great. That would be very good and is what the RCP has consistently encouraged.

Here is the issue at the heart of this thread: how does the RCP conceive of creating a revolutionary movement, why hasn't it developed any political base over the last decades, and how is it responding to the evident failures of its recent initiatives (and what is the real reason they are failing?)

I don't think those statements are true. The RCP (and its affiliated orginizations) is one of the largest communist orginizations in the country. It has book stores and activists all around the country and is quite broadly active in many cities. It is not trying to expand its self into a very huge orginization. That is not the role of the Vanguard.

first: What is theoretically wrong in the RCP's assertion that Avakian is a "special, rare, unique and irreplaceable" leader of a special "caliber" who is making contributions on the level of "a Lenin or a Mao." why is this not a materialist view of leaders? And why is it wrong to assert that we must now accept Avakian's body of work as the next key leap in Marxism?

I don't think anyone has stated he has made contributions of the caliber of Lenin or Mao. Nor has anyone stated that you need to accept his views. The RCP has attempted to open up a discussion of his views far more broadly.

And second, I will dig some into what is wrong with the party's new theory of "enriched what-is-to-be-doneism" -- which reversed what was written in their own New Draft Program of 2001. How is it different from a materialist view of how we "prepare minds and organize forces for revolution"?

Okay.

Third: What happened to the RCP's internationalism? We have been looking for a new communist revolution (the world hasn't had one since 1949!) and now that the Nepali Maoists are getting in a position to take power, the RCP has gone completely silent. Where is the organizing against U.S. intervention? Where is the hardhitting campaign against the lies heaped on the Maoists in Nepal?

Firstly, the RCP has repeatedly stated that it is in support of the Nepali communists. I think it is fair to say that the RCP has not been as vocal as it should in that support but there are real reasons for that. But generally this is a valid criticism.

If it is supposedly a crime when the masses sit silent while the U.S. government occupies Iraq, what do we call it when communists are silent as a genuine revolutionary movement faces heavy challenges and threats?

The RCP is not silent. They support the RIM and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in there peoples war.

Here is ten years worth of RCP reporting on the People's War in Nepal.

Revolution reports on Nepal (http://www.rwor.org/s/nepal.htm)

I would very much like you to expand on why you disagree with Avakian.

kasama-rl

16th December 2007, 23:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:03 pm

If it is supposedly a crime when the masses sit silent while the U.S. government occupies Iraq, what do we call it when communists are silent as a genuine revolutionary movement faces heavy challenges and threats?

The RCP is not silent. They support the RIM and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in there peoples war.

Here is ten years worth of RCP reporting on the People's War in Nepal.

Revolution reports on Nepal (http://www.rwor.org/s/nepal.htm)

your reply is substantive, drosera. And I will reply, over the coming week.

For now let me reply to your last point.

What kind of "support" are you referring to?

Is the RCP organizing people to oppose U.S. counterinsurgency or arming of the Nepali army? No.

Is the RCP organizing people to demanding that the Nepali Maoists not be (unfairly!) on the list of "terrorist organizations"? No. Even Jimmy Carter spoke against that madness and unjustice. Where is the RCP?

And has the RCP even used their newspaper to cover the struggle and events, and the work of the Maoists? No.

You gave a link to the Revolution Nepal page. Good. Now, just go there.

What is the last time the RCP wrote an article supporting the revolution in Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)?

It is May 2006. (Since then they have only published one article on Nepal, by the AWTW news service that Revolution reprinted a year ago.)

Why this complete silence for a year and half?

Yes there was PREVIOUS support for the revolution in nepal. My point is that IT HAS STOPPED -- while the dangers and struggle in Nepal have continued under difficult conditions.

So where is ANY sign of support for a year and a half?

I repeat my question:

If it is supposedly a crime when the masses sit silent while the U.S. government occupies Iraq, what do we call it when communists are silent as a genuine revolutionary movement faces heavy challenges and threats?

[more on your other points will come in the next days]

Dros

17th December 2007, 00:38

What kind of "support" are you referring to?

Financial (I believe), political, and ideological support. For instance, one of the ways the RCP is curently putting forward Avakian is through the "Revolution" DVD. In this, he talks about the support for the CPN(M) and is met with loud applause.

Is the RCP organizing people to oppose U.S. counterinsurgency or arming of the Nepali army? No.

A point that I have stated is a noteworthy, but not damning criticism. As communists, we must always be self critical. This is a weakness that needs to be addressed but it is not sufficient for me to renounce the party or whatever.

Is the RCP organizing people to demanding that the Nepali Maoists not be (unfairly!) on the list of "terrorist organizations"? No. Even Jimmy Carter spoke against that madness and unjustice. Where is the RCP?

A fair criticism.

And has the RCP even used their newspaper to cover the struggle and events, and the work of the Maoists? No.

You gave a link to the Revolution Nepal page. Good. Now, just go there.

I did. They had a reporter there. There has been substantial coverage. More is necessary I agree. I think the proper action would be to write a letter to the editor of Revolution asking them to contine coverage and to more vigorously support Comrade Prachanda and the CPN(M).

Yes there was PREVIOUS support for the revolution in nepal. My point is that IT HAS STOPPED -- while the dangers and struggle in Nepal have continued under difficult conditions.

So where is ANY sign of support for a year and a half?

I repeat my question:

If it is supposedly a crime when the masses sit silent while the U.S. government occupies Iraq, what do we call it when communists are silent as a genuine revolutionary movement faces heavy challenges and threats?

It is, as I said before, a valid, but not damning criticism. It should be addressed and it would be good if you helped the RCP address this problem.
Edit: fixed quotes.

kasama-rl

17th December 2007, 01:14

Li Onesto is the reporter who went there. But she too has been silent for the last year and a half. There is no sign of support for a year and a half... because there is no support.

As for writing a letter: it is not as if they are unaware that they have stopped supporting. I'm not against people protesting these errors both publicly and privately -- but I am not naive enough to think that they will "listen" to the criticism.

they are silent because the Nepalis have not accepted Avakian's new synthesis, and have disagreements with key parts of it (on philosophy and practice, on his theory of democracy, on his view of how tactics serve strategy, and other issues.)

In other words, support has stopped because the RCP doesn't think that you can be a communist if you don't "engage" and adopt their synthesis. It is a wrong view of struggle and internationalist responsibilities in the communist movement.

Even if the RCP later "start" supporting again (which they might for various reasons) , this current silence over all this crucial time is really intolerable and wrong!

And this is true for the other Maoist movements too: India has a lot of complex struggle and developments. Where is the coverage? The philippines.... and so on.

There aren't even honest criticism? or analysis. just silence.

Nothing but avakian, standing there alone (in their minds)... but not in reality.

think about it.

Dros

18th December 2007, 21:58

Li Onesto is the reporter who went there. But she too has been silent for the last year and a half. There is no sign of support for a year and a half... because there is no support.

Why haven't they edited out the support in the DVD that they are currently promoting?

As for writing a letter: it is not as if they are unaware that they have stopped supporting. I'm not against people protesting these errors both publicly and privately -- but I am not naive enough to think that they will "listen" to the criticism.

Ok. But as Maoists we should not be afraid to engage in constructive criticism and self criticism.

they are silent because the Nepalis have not accepted Avakian's new synthesis, and have disagreements with key parts of it (on philosophy and practice, on his theory of democracy, on his view of how tactics serve strategy, and other issues.)

That is really a rather absurd claim. I challenge you to back that up with any kind of evidence. The RCP does not interfere with the revolutionary ideology of other movements even within the RIM. Those disagreements existed even when there was loud and vocal support.

In other words, support has stopped because the RCP doesn't think that you can be a communist if you don't "engage" and adopt their synthesis. It is a wrong view of struggle and internationalist responsibilities in the communist movement.

Ummm... No! That is really an incredible claim.

Nothing but avakian, standing there alone (in their minds)... but not in reality.

1.) I thought you didn't have a problem with supporting leadership?
2.) Then why did they support Prachanda to begin with?

Dros

18th December 2007, 22:31

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 17, 2007 01:13 am
There aren't even honest criticism? or analysis. just silence.
I have already stated that this was a valid point that needs to be addressed. Honest criticism is for improvement. I don't think you even want to improve the RCP's line.

As for the silence, I asked some people and there were a few answers. Note: these answers are not the reason why this is the case, it is simply the opinion of some other people around the RCP.

They are listed below:
1.) The CPN(M)'s decision to enter the coalition government is disturbing and to some extent represents a break from or even a betrayal of revolutionary Maoism. While I disagree with the decision to end the war, I understand that there are numerous reasons why the CPN(M) might have chosen to do so. I also see that this might have moved the RCP do be less vocal in there support.
2.) Internal disagreements within the RIM. The CPN(M) may be involved in a struggle with other RIM leaders (which may or may not include the leadership of the RCP) which has caused the newspaper to not "take a side" or whatever.

Several others which I don't recall.

I have also emailed RCP Publications and hope to get a response and the official version of why this is the case.

kasama-rl

18th December 2007, 23:56

you are taking a lot of initiative exploring for yourself these line question.

I applaud that. And I believe, when you explore it more deeply, that my characterizations are correct.

I suggest you add another question to your investigation:

You think it is incredible that the RCP would think that avakian's synthesis is a dividing line.

Here is the heart of it: The RCP now holds that the appreciation of Avakian is a "cardinal question."

A cardinal question is those issues that are a dividing line between communism and revisionism (i.e. between revolution and counterrevolution.)

The RCP holds that "appreciation of Avakian" is a dividing line ON THE SAME LEVEL as whether or not to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat or the need for a vanguard party.

Once you learn that the RCP holds "avakian is a cardinal question" you will realize that the "incredible" is not so incredible.

On the other points you raise: there is a remarkable thing happening, where a party that has not succeeded in developing a revolutionary people thinks that (from afar, from the other end of the earth) they can evaluate the tactics of a leading communist party.

For example, you heard from various RCP supporters that they didn't like this or that tactice of the CPN(M).

I have two points to make on that:

1) It is not materialist or scientific to think that you can sum up complex tactics simply based on "general principles" without a detailed knowledge of the struggle and conditions. On the surface it merely seems arrogant, but in its essence it is a form of idealism and dogmatism. (And is one of the reasons that the RCP has trouble getting a following).

2) even if someone had serious questions about one or another tactic of a leading party, it is really wrong (in my opinion) to simply stop political support for that revolution.

this is a serious problem. It makes me ask "what happened to internationalism?"

Dros

19th December 2007, 01:53

you are taking a lot of initiative exploring for yourself these line question.

I applaud that. And I believe, when you explore it more deeply, that my characterizations are correct.

I hope we can (continue to) have a mutually educational dialogue.

Here is the heart of it: The RCP now holds that the appreciation of Avakian is a "cardinal question."

I have never heard the RCP or anyone with the RCP state that, and if it is somewhere stated, I think that is a misinterpretation of what they mean by "cardinal question". I know for a fact that that is not the meaning of the RCP's line and that is not the attitude or the possition of the RCP people that I know.

The RCP holds that "appreciation of Avakian" is a dividing line ON THE SAME LEVEL as whether or not to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat or the need for a vanguard party.

Again, that is clearly not the line of the RCP.

On the other points you raise: there is a remarkable thing happening, where a party that has not succeeded in developing a revolutionary people thinks that (from afar, from the other end of the earth) they can evaluate the tactics of a leading communist party.

For example, you heard from various RCP supporters that they didn't like this or that tactice of the CPN(M).

I have two points to make on that:

1) It is not materialist or scientific to think that you can sum up complex tactics simply based on "general principles" without a detailed knowledge of the struggle and conditions. On the surface it merely seems arrogant, but in its essence it is a form of idealism and dogmatism. (And is one of the reasons that the RCP has trouble getting a following).

2) even if someone had serious questions about one or another tactic of a leading party, it is really wrong (in my opinion) to simply stop political support for that revolution.

this is a serious problem. It makes me ask "what happened to internationalism?"

I think it is important to be constantly critical of the tactics of our own party and other Communist movements. I do find it troubling that the CPN(M) called off the war right as the could have seized power. But I also understand, as do these people, that there is a multitude of personal and material factors that make it impossible for us to fully evaluate that.

Also, the RCP is quite a large orginization compared to other leftist orginizations and is one of the more widely active groups. The reason we have not got a movement like the one in Nepal and elsewhere is that there is currently not a revolutionary situation in the country. That makes actual revolution quite hard.

I do agree that that would not be a sufficient reason to end vocalizing support. But you must also consider the other potential reasons that the RCP has made this decision. There are very complex reasons for this and I am quite confident that it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the CPN(M) does not read Avakian's work. The RCP has not tried to promote Avakian's works as the official ideology of the RIM. I consider Avakian a worthy leader and a potent theorist for the RCP as well as the international Communist Movement. I do not (nor does the party) consider him to be the dividing line between Maoism and revisionism.

kasama-rl

19th December 2007, 03:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:52 am

Here is the heart of it: The RCP now holds that the appreciation of Avakian is a "cardinal question."

I have never heard the RCP or anyone with the RCP state that, and if it is somewhere stated, I think that is a misinterpretation of what they mean by "cardinal question". I know for a fact that that is not the meaning of the RCP's line and that is not the attitude or the position of the RCP people that I know.

The RCP holds that "appreciation of Avakian" is a dividing line ON THE SAME LEVEL as whether or not to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat or the need for a vanguard party.

Again, that is clearly not the line of the RCP.
Well, do this my friend, before you get too intense....

go to the nearest RCP supporter... and just ask if they think appreciation of Avakian's contributions (as the new synthesis of marxism) is a "cardinal question for communists."

ask if the "appreciation" of avakian is a dividing line between communism and revisionism (in their opinion).

It is very simple.

Because it is the heart of the RCP's line today. AND I suspect no knowledgable supporter of that party will deny it. (After all, all truth helps the proletariat, right? even the hidden truth about this party's core line about its ideology!)

They may try to confuse the issue. and avoid the question.

Just go try it....

Rawthentic

19th December 2007, 05:21

even the hidden truth about this party's core line about its ideology!)
Comrade, I think that it is dishonest on your part to attempt to make an argument by using statements that you simply cannot prove.

You claim that the RCP has secrets in its line and ideology. Can you prove it? No, you cannot. Please keep anecdotes and assumptions out of here.

And comrade drosera99, I really encourage you to ask RCP supporters about what comrade kasama-rl speak about: the issue about whether appreciating Avakian is a 'cardinal question.' You will surely receive an answer with a lot of depth and that reveals the complexity of the party's line, that reveals the party's line and what they really mean, not as comrade kasama-rl attempts to portray it as, it's simply not as simple as he makes it out to be. When you talk with them, you shall see what I mean.

kasama-rl

19th December 2007, 12:44

yes exactly....

we need to excavate what the line is in full complexity, depth and precision. And of course, what you will discover is that what I have written is precisely true....

And then... once we have uncovered what the line ACTUALLY is, then we need to debate whether it is CORRECT (which is the real issue.)

* * * * *

And (of course) don't take my word for it alone -- when you get the various interesting and full explanations from your own discussions with the party, come here and let's dissect and discuss them.

and LFTP..... elaborate for us the answers you got, please.

* * * * *

And while you ask your questions... here are some things to make sure you ask:

1) Is it argued that Avakian is a "special, rare, unique and irreplacable leader" who is "on the level of a Lenin or a Mao." And does this mean he has opened a door through which the whole world (literally) has to pass: that his synthesis (and his alone!) is key to all of humanity's liberation.

2) Is it argued that Avakian's synthesis is the key dividing line (cardinal question) between marxism and revisionism (i.e. between revolution and counterrevolution among communists).

3) Is it argued that "it is there for the taking"... meaning that a qualitative new leap of Marxism has been made (in its essentials), even while it is still developing. And that the key struggle in the international communist movement is to get engagement with that synthesis (so that all of humanity can pass through that door.)

4) Is it argued that you don't need to lead a revolution, or a revolutionary movement, or test any of your theories in practice, in order to develop such a new synthesis. That you can determine the future ways that socialist society can be led, without testing them (as Mao did) in a base area, or a new socialist country? And is it argued that this epistemology is different from and more correct than the opposing epistemology concentrated in Prachanda Path (for example) which says you develop theory by applying MLM to a living revolutionary process, and learning from that practice.

5) Is it argued that not to apply HIS synthesis means that communism could "be lost, perhaps for generations"?

And while we are exploring these central views of the RCP's cult of personality...

There are important questoins about internationalism (and the lack of internationalism!) to explore.

Ask why the RCP does not even REPORT ON the struggles of Maoists in the world (not India, not Philippines, not Peru and not even Nepal where the world's first communist revolution in over fifty years may be about to happen).

Why exactly is it correct to be silent?

why are there no support committees informing people about this revolution in Nepal?
why is there no struggle to oppose the listing of Nepal's communists on the U.S. "terrorism list"?

Why does this Maoist party in the U.S. think it can decide (from afar) that the Maoists of nepal are wrong to enter negotiations, or temporarily hold up their war while they go on political offensives, or that they should enter (temporarily) a government formed on the basis of the anti-monarchy upsurge? What is the epistemology behind that?

Where has the most basic internationalism gone?

So these are all questions to raise and explore.

And then, once we have excavated the line... lets talk about what we (as communists) should think about this!

* * * * * *

I agree (deeply) with LFTP that anecdotes are not the issue -- but uncovering and then critiquing the actual line.

And it is a serious problem when a party makes the key and defining elements of its line beyond reach, unknown... unarticulated (in public).

How then can there be supervision of the party? How can the incorrect be uncovered? Where is the fearless stand of truth?

Where is the mass line?

Rawthentic

19th December 2007, 17:37

I agree (deeply) with LFTP that anecdotes are not the issue -- but uncovering and then critiquing the actual line.

And it is a serious problem when a party makes the key and defining elements of its line beyond reach, unknown... unarticulated (in public).

How then can there be supervision of the party? How can the incorrect be uncovered? Where is the fearless stand of truth?

Where is the mass line?
lol, you obviously don't agree with me comrade. Here you once again repeated that "key and defining elements of its line beyond reach, unknown." Listen, you cannot prove that the Party keeps its line a secret from the masses, so why do you insist on bringing that up?

You are trying to make us believe that there is a sea of lies and incorrect lines that we cannot "expose" because it is the RCP's fault, since they are the ones that hide everything. Nice try, but let's focus on what you really can prove.

As far as those questions go, I honestly encourage all comrades to take this up with the RCP, and I said, to find the reality of what is the RCP's line. In fact, I am in the process of doing this myself, and can hopefully come back with the answers some time later.

kasama-rl

19th December 2007, 22:00

well look: It would be a funny world if we couldn't talk about what political forces were up to and thinking until THEY decided to write about their decisions and ideas. Imagine if we applied that principle to politics generally: Can we not talk about bourgeois politicians until they publicly discuss what they are doing and thinking? Obviously not (or we would not be in position to expose and oppose torture for example.)

The RCP is obviously not a bourgeois or reactioinary party -- but it is similarly not true that we are prevented from discussing their line and polities until THEY choose to come clean in public.

It is obvious to everyone that RCP support for nepal has stopped. It is certainly obvious to the Nepali communists. And it is probably obvious to any bourgeois observors who pay attention. So why can't we talk about it? The Nepalis talk about their criticisms of the RCP's method and outlook... so why should we pretend this doesn't exist?

If you talk to the RCP people, you know they say Avakian must be promoted as a "special, unique, rare and irreplacable" person -- and those specific words should be used. Why pretend it isn't true? Can't we discuss whether this is a correct line or not? Why do we have to wait until they choose to publish their policies somewhere?

What if they NEVER publicly publish their policies and arguments -- does it mean we can never criticize their wrong line on the cult of personality, or what the existing developments of MLM are?

REvolution newspaper says this about Avakian's synthesis:

“At a time when the ‘science of revolution’ demands a leap in its understanding in a number of crucial realms, he has stepped forward to fill that great need. The contributions that we have outlined here are essential to the further and future advance of the revolutionary cause and communist project; they are a treasure for humanity.” (emphasis in original).

This carefully chosen cheerful words are (if you read them closely) the public, popular form of saying Avakian is the cardinal question.

The word "essential" here means that those who don't take up "the contributions we have outlined here" are not understanding how to make the "further and future advance" of the communist project.

This is not a mystery. And it is not true (by the way).

So what I am raising that there needs to be a discussion of WHY this party has stopped international support for other revolutions (like Nepal).

And what the basis is that they think Avakian is the dividing line (essential) between further advance and not advancing (i.e. between marxism and revisionism).

Don't be a sophist.

Just cuz someone has their sock in a pocket, doesn't mean we can't know it is there, or even know stuff about that sock.

The RCP had decided to keep its most key and determining lines (about their synthesis and about their approach to international revolutions) unpublished...
but they are discussed publicly verbally -- so can be known.

I realize you are in an isolated area LFTP... and so haven't discussed these things directly with the RCP supporters. But some of us have.

and more to the point: lets get into the right and wrong here.

Don't agree that communists should find ways to publicize and popularize important international revolutions?

Isn't that basic to being an internationalist?

Rawthentic

20th December 2007, 03:36

I realize you are in an isolated area LFTP... and so haven't discussed these things directly with the RCP supporters. But some of us have.
I have met and discussed these things, with Bay Area comrades. I encourage you to call them or e-mail them to prove it.

The point here is that you cannot prove what they are hiding if they are hiding anything at all. We all know that torture occurs in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, its been proven. This issue about the RCP being secretive, has not, and until you can come up with the evidence to prove it, keep it out of the discussion.

So why can't we talk about it? The Nepalis talk about their criticisms of the RCP's method and outlook... so why should we pretend this doesn't exist?
Like I said here, completely missing the point. Of course we can criticize the RCP's silence on Nepal, I know that I do, and I know that others with connections to the Party have troubles with this, but it is being reviewed by supporters and the party itself. This is beside the point, though.

The word "essential" here means that those who don't take up "the contributions we have outlined here" are not understanding how to make the "further and future advance" of the communist project.
This once again, is a strawman of the Party's line. The issue here is not whether Avakian's theories are a 'cardinal question.' The Party line is that we cannot get to communism if we simply try to repeat MLM, and so the Party believes that Avakian has brought forward advances in MLM. Whether right or not, that is the party line, and there is more depth to it than what you make it seem.

If you talk to the RCP people, you know they say Avakian must be promoted as a "special, unique, rare and irreplacable" person -- and those specific words should be used.
This is not a secret, everybody with anybody connections to the Party knows that this is the Party line. For the record, they are not trying to say that a revolution would be impossible, because revolutions rely on the masses. But it would be true that his death would be a blow to the international communist movement.

What if they NEVER publicly publish their policies and arguments -- does it mean we can never criticize their wrong line on the cult of personality, or what the existing developments of MLM are?
But they do publish them! All the time! And that is what needs to be engaged. Not what you make us believe about their "secret lines!"

NaxalbariZindabad

20th December 2007, 07:13

(forgive my poor english)

I don't want to comment too much about this debate, because I feel that, as a Maoist residing in Canada, I should not take an important place in this discussion since I (unfortunately) never had the chance to have direct contacts with the RCP,USA, and the information I have about this organization is quite limited, since it only comes from Internet.

However, I guess the info I have from the Internet is enough to comment on the issue about the RCP,USA being secretive or not:

Comrade LFTP, maybe kasama-rl is exagerrating this issue (I don't know), but I think he's right when he says that the RCP,USA doesn't publish its line on some important questions.

There is, of course, the example of Nepal. Suddenly, when the CPN(m) entered the coalition government, Revolution newspaper stopped talking about Nepal. It is surely not a coincidence and I don't think it would be speculation to say that, since one year and a half, the RCP,USA must certainly have developed its positions on Nepal, which are not made public.

But there are also other examples. It seems to me that Revolution newspaper never expresses support for CPI(maoist) in India and CPP in Philippines. The RCP,USA has, without a doubt, a political line explaining this. Maybe this line is right. Maybe this line is wrong. That is not the question here. The thing is that the RCP,USA has apparently never published* a document explaining why they don't openly support CPI(maoist) and CPP.

My goal here is not to blame RCP,USA supporters for this, but just to say it is true that some elements of the RCP,USA line are not public.

---
* If I'm wrong about this, please tell me where I can find such a document. I would be very interested to know the RCP,USA opinion on these questions.

kasama-rl

20th December 2007, 08:56

As many of you may know, a major polemic has now been published over the issues that defined this thread.

It is called "Nine Letters to My Comrades (http://mikeely.wordpress.com)."

Its subtitle is: "Getting Beyond Avakian's New Synthesis."

Letter 1: A Time To Speak Clearly (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/1-a-time-to-speak-clearly/)
Letter 2: A Gaping Hole Instead of Partisan Bases (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/)
Letter 3: Forays, Wrong Turns and Blaming the People (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-3/)
Letter 4: Truth, Practice and a Confession of Poverty (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-4/)
Letter 5: Particularities of Christians and Fascists (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-5/)
Letter 6: The Theory Surrounding “A Leader of This Caliber" (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-6/)
Letter 7: Whateverism in Evaluating Avakian (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-7/)
Letter 8: On the Cult of Personality: Revisiting Chen Boda’s Ghost (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-8/)
Letter 9:Traveling Light, Coming from Within (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-9/)
I expect to say a lot more about this... cuz there is a lot to dig into here.

But I just wanted to call this out now. So others can get a chance to explore it.

[img]http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/web-polemic.jpg' alt='' width='500' height='512' class='attach' /> (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/web-polemic.jpg)

Dros

20th December 2007, 17:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:12 am
the RCP,USA doesn't publish its line on some important questions.
Thank you very much for your input.

I don't know if this is true. I doubt very much that the RCP has secret lines. I find it much more likely that they don't have lines on certain issues because there is disagreement within the party as to what line to take.

Rawthentic

20th December 2007, 17:52

kasama-rl, comrade, I don't see anything "breakthrough" in your letters. To me, they seem the same strawmen arguments you have been putting through here. I know you have good intentions.

Either way, for the sake of truth, I plan to go through all those letters, with the help of other supporters that are close to the Party, and analyze and criticize them to find what is true, and what is not.

NaxalbariZindabad

20th December 2007, 17:54

Originally posted by drosera99+--> (drosera99)Thank you very much for your input.[/b]
It's quite possible that I'm wrong, and maybe I should not have written anything. But there's still no need to be sarcastic.

drosera99
I find it much more likely that they don't have lines on certain issues because there is disagreement within the party as to what line to take.

Ok, I agree this a valid hypothesis. Still, in communist parties, majority opinions prevail on minority opinions, which implies that disagreements on a line very rarely prevent its adoption in the long run. But alright, I'll be fair and respect the Maoist principle "No investigation no right to speak." Maybe there are important disagreements within the RCP,USA on the Philippines, India and Nepal.

Dros

20th December 2007, 18:59

It's quite possible that I'm wrong, and maybe I should not have written anything. But there's still no need to be sarcastic.

I wan't being sarcastic! This debate has been between three or four people for a long time and I appreciated your comment. I was trying to welcome you comrade!

Originally posted by drosera99
I find it much more likely that they don't have lines on certain issues because there is disagreement within the party as to what line to take.

Ok, I agree this a valid hypothesis. Still, in communist parties, majority opinions prevail on minority opinions, which implies that disagreements on a line very rarely prevent its adoption in the long run. But alright, I'll be fair and respect the Maoist principle "No investigation no right to speak." Maybe there are important disagreements within the RCP,USA on the Philippines, India and Nepal.

Or maybe there is international politics going on that has made it disadvantages for the RCP to take a stance.

NaxalbariZindabad

20th December 2007, 23:49

I wan't being sarcastic! I was trying to welcome you comrade!

:blush: Ok then, forgive my misunderstanding and thanks for the welcome. It seems that, since I was anticipating a negative reaction to my post, I misread yours.

Or maybe there is international politics going on that has made it disadvantages for the RCP to take a stance.

Another valid hypothesis, which seems to me much more likely than to say "in years of debate, a majority position hasn't emerged in the RCP,USA on the issues of Philippines and India, and (more recently) about developments in Nepal".

But if the reason why the RCP,USA doesn't talk publicly about some particular events in Asia is indeed the nature of politics within the int'l communist movement, this would fuel the theory that the party is holding back, for the moment, some elements of its line. Which -- by the way -- could very well be a legitimate decision, since nothing says that all debates in the ICM must be public. However, it is my opinion that revolutionaries should still publicize and build support for the work of other Maoist parties, even if they have (public or private) disagreements with them on some questions.

Dros

20th December 2007, 23:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:48 pm
Another valid hypothesis, which seems to me much more likely than to say "in years of debate, a majority position hasn't emerged in the RCP,USA on the issues of Philippines and India, and (more recently) about developments in Nepal".

But if the reason why the RCP,USA doesn't talk publicly about some particular events in Asia is indeed the nature of politics within the int'l communist movement, this would fuel the theory that the party is holding back, for the moment, some elements of its line. Which -- by the way -- could very well be a legitimate decision, since nothing says that all debates in the ICM must be public.
Could be. I don't think the RCP conceals its line (which is not to say that I'm right per se). It seems more likely to me that due to this internal political struggle (assuming there is one) they have decided not to take a position.

kasama-rl

21st December 2007, 23:29

Let me give you an example to think about:

During the Vietnam war, the struggle (in Vietnam) was led by the Vietnamese Workers Party. It was a party halfway between revisionism and marxism.

There were many things they did that we didn't and couldn't understand. For example they launched the Tet offensive in 1968 (which had a devasting effect on the grassroots movement for peoples war in southern Vietnam.) And they offered to allow the puppet government to join an coalition government with the liberation forces. And (in 1972) they pretty openly called on the people in the U.S. to support McGovern for president.

But they WERE leading a revolution.... and a major liberatoin struggle against the U.S.

And though we had many questions about their line, and even though we had (in the RU at that time) different views on their line.....

WE SUPPORTED THE VIETNAMESE REVOLUTION AND THE VIETNAMESE REVOLUTIONARIES.

We didn't have to support each action they were taking -- but we DID HAVE TO OPPOSE U.S. intervention, and lies.

That struggle was fundamental to the radical movement of that time. There was a major article in the first issue of Revolution (the new monthly newspaper of the Revolutionary Union -- which later formed the RCP) -- supporting the people of indochina in their revolutionary struggle.

This kind of internationalism is crucial (especially if you live in the heart of imperialism!)

And to say that "we may not have unity about this or that move" or "we may have internal debates over this or that detail of their revolution...." is not right. it is not correct.

it is a denial of internationalism.

Here we are in 2007 (almost 2008). There has not been a new successful communist revolution since 1949.

And the Nepali comrades are close. They are in their endgame. And what is the stand of the revolutionary communists in the U.S.: shameful, intolerable silence.

No support work. No exposure of U.S. intervention.

I hope our agitation FORCES them to finally speak. At least in oppositon to U.S. lies and intervention.

But how can anyone defend such silence?
Is "we have questions about their line" really a reason to be SILENT on the revolutoinary struggle of millions led by our comrades?

What kind of internationalism is that?

Dros

21st December 2007, 23:56

I've said it once, I'll say it again: you are bringing forward a good criticism. It should be expressed within the party, not outside and against it. That is the core of democratic centralism.

The Vietnam analogy is flawed (and on a side note I think everybody now agrees that the Vietnamese are totally revisionists so...). If the US declared war on Iran, we would support the struggle against imperialism just as the RCP did then. That is the essence of the Vietnam issue: not Marxism but anti-imperialism.

The RCP does continue to support the RIM and the People's War being fought in Nepal and elsewhere. There does need to be more visible support. But as has been brought up, there are reasons (that don't include the new synthesis) about why that is.

kasama-rl

22nd December 2007, 00:24

First you are historically mistaken about vietnam. No one agrees that the Vietnamese were totally revisionist. In the period I am talking about (under Ho Chi Minh) they were not revisionists -- they were in the middle ground (they were centrists) and this is the line (and always has been) of the RCP. Once Ho died, the revisionist Le Duan came to power.

But even assuming your analysis is correct.... are you saying we were right to support the struggle "led by revisionists", but should not support this struggle in Nepal led by Maoist comrades?!

Explain the logic of your answer.

* * * * * *

On the more important point you raise:

Why should a communist party not be publicly criticized if it abandons internationalism?
where is that written?

And people who are not "under democratic centralism" are free to make their criticisms publicly, in fact that is the only place they can make criticisms.

And here is the disconnect discussed in the 9 LETTER (http://mikeely.wordpress.com): there is all kinds of talk about "hearing the interrogation of others" and having people"engage" widely and deeply with the line, and having lots of "debate"....

but in reality, you have been trained to reject or suspect the interrogation of others, to see it as dangerous. To think if people "engage" but disagree -- then there must be something wrong (with them apparently...) and so on.

Below that obvious hypocrisy is a problem of line.... of subjective idealism.

Look: there is a major and catastrophic denial of internationalism going on.

The warning needs to be sounded, and not just by me. And not just is quiet (ignored) criticisms handed timidly over to those who are creating and enforcing this shameful silence about the world's most prominent revolution!

Rawthentic

22nd December 2007, 03:12

Is "we have questions about their line" really a reason to be SILENT on the revolutoinary struggle of millions led by our comrades?
For the record, I agree with kasama.

Regardless of whether the Party has disagreements with the Maoists in Nepal, they need to show some support in the paper, and in practice. If not that, at least a highlight of the disagreements with them.

Didn't Revolution newspaper publish an article of the Philippine revolutionary, Jose Maria Sison?

Dros

22nd December 2007, 04:27

First you are historically mistaken about vietnam. No one agrees that the Vietnamese were totally revisionist. In the period I am talking about (under Ho Chi Minh) they were not revisionists -- they were in the middle ground (they were centrists) and this is the line (and always has been) of the RCP. Once Ho died, the revisionist Le Duan came to power.

Hence my usage of the present tense. I was referring to today as an historical footnote to our other conversation.

But even assuming your analysis is correct.... are you saying we were right to support the struggle "led by revisionists", but should not support this struggle in Nepal led by Maoist comrades?!

Where have I said that? We all agree! You, me, and LFTP have all said that the RCP should be more vocal in its support for the CPN(M). That is a valid criticism. The problem that I have is that you seem more interested on destroying the RCP as an orginization than on engaging their line and working to strengthen it.

Why should a communist party not be publicly criticized if it abandons internationalism?
where is that written?

I never said that either. You split with the party. I don't know why and it is not for me to judge. My point is, we as Maoists need to practice criticism in a constructive way. You have yourself stated that even if the RCP changes those elements of its line that you disagree with, you would still denounce it. That is not constructive criticism and that is not the correct way to change the party for the better.

but in reality, you have been trained to reject or suspect the interrogation of others, to see it as dangerous. To think if people "engage" but disagree -- then there must be something wrong (with them apparently...) and so on.

To the contrary. All of my experience with the RCP has shown a focus on critically engaging the Chairman. I only wish more people honestly dealt with his work instead of with their particular problem with party methodology. We have the same personality cult argument over and over again. You actually are attempting through these letters to engage the line on some level and I commend that.

The warning needs to be sounded, and not just by me. And not just is quiet (ignored) criticisms handed timidly over to those who are creating and enforcing this shameful silence about the world's most prominent revolution!

Again a fair point. It is one that a.) has a cause and b.)definitely needs to be addressed.

RNK

22nd December 2007, 05:35

The problem that I have is that you seem more interested on destroying the RCP as an orginization than on engaging their line and working to strengthen it.

Most likely because he, like many, view the errors of the RCP as more than simply a technicality or some other minor grievance, and rather see them as having a negative impact which must be stopped at any cost. Just a thought.

Dros

22nd December 2007, 17:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:34 am

The problem that I have is that you seem more interested on destroying the RCP as an orginization than on engaging their line and working to strengthen it.

Most likely because he, like many, view the errors of the RCP as more than simply a technicality or some other minor grievance, and rather see them as having a negative impact which must be stopped at any cost. Just a thought.
I think that is unfair. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the RCP but to say that they haven't had a tremendously possative influence is absurd (to me). The RCP is still one of the largest leftist orginizations in the country. They have brought communism and education to thousands and continue to work for and with the proletariat, something few other orginizations still do.

patient persuasion

22nd December 2007, 17:51

Originally posted by drosera99+December 22, 2007 05:05 pm--> (drosera99 @ December 22, 2007 05:05 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 05:34 am

The problem that I have is that you seem more interested on destroying the RCP as an orginization than on engaging their line and working to strengthen it.

Most likely because he, like many, view the errors of the RCP as more than simply a technicality or some other minor grievance, and rather see them as having a negative impact which must be stopped at any cost. Just a thought.
I think that is unfair. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the RCP but to say that they haven't had a tremendously possative influence is absurd (to me). The RCP is still one of the largest leftist orginizations in the country. They have brought communism and education to thousands and continue to work for and with the proletariat, something few other orginizations still do. [/b]
I think it's definitely sectarian - a practice commonly employed by the likes of the Spartacist League - to see the RCP as somehow "holding back" the revolution.

Simply put - they don't have anywhere near the influence needed to actually be holding back a revolutionary movement. None of the Leninist groups around now do - ISO, spart, swp, etc etc.

Does this mean that the RCP can't have a negative influence on things? Well, it's possible that they can - but is that really issue in contention here?

Much more interesting is the recurring theme of - if you disagree with these things you should struggle them out WITHIN the party rather than WITHOUT, because doing the latter implies you're trying to "destroy" the party. I don't see anything wrong with the method used in the 9 Letters, or with Mike E's spirit of criticism in general.

The one thing I have noticed is that there is a tremendous amount of focus on the problems of the RCP. Frankly, while I agree with many of the criticisms put forth in the letters, I don't think they are completely unique to the RCP - I think some of the info-dieting, the "of special caliber" way of thinking, lack of pedagogical skills in disseminating revolutionary consciousness, and the poor track record in building base areas amongst oppressed communities - these are flaws of most all Leninist groups.

This leads me to my point: I'm very supportive of the 9 Letters, but I would definitely like to see much more work done in the direction of WHAT IS TO BE DONE now? We see the limitations of current groups - but where is the collective work pointing towards the ORGANIZATIONAL direction (because I believe we all agree that organization is key) that revolutionaries should go now.

I feel that would be a much more interesting conversation than merely criticizing the RCP and figuring out whether or not they are the "vanguard of the proletariat."

repeater138

22nd December 2007, 18:24

This leads me to my point: I'm very supportive of the 9 Letters, but I would definitely like to see much more work done in the direction of WHAT IS TO BE DONE now? We see the limitations of current groups - but where is the collective work pointing towards the ORGANIZATIONAL direction (because I believe we all agree that organization is key) that revolutionaries should go now.

This is right on. The letters, I think, are a starting point. They are particularly aimed at the RCP, but much of the critical content is valid in relation to the Left in general.

I think the letters holds back, and rightfully so, in promulgating a clear alternative, exactly because it is going to have to be developed in a collective process.

I see no reason not to start that conversation here and now.

What kind of things do you think we can or should be doing to develop the new politics necessary for the North American revolution?

I, as one could gather from my above sentence, think that we really have to envision any revolution in the U.S. as being a part of a larger North American revolution (including Mexico). What do you think about that?

What do you think are the key blindspots that need to be addressed to form a Theory of a North American revolution? What concrete knowledge do we need? Where and how should we investigate? Who should we bring to the table in this discussion? How is this all going to relate to direct political organizing of the masses?

Dros

22nd December 2007, 19:45

Originally posted by patient [email protected] 22, 2007 05:50 pm
Much more interesting is the recurring theme of - if you disagree with these things you should struggle them out WITHIN the party rather than WITHOUT, because doing the latter implies you're trying to "destroy" the party. I don't see anything wrong with the method used in the 9 Letters, or with Mike E's spirit of criticism in general.

Much more interesting is the recurring theme of - if you disagree with these things you should struggle them out WITHIN the party rather than WITHOUT, because doing the latter implies you're trying to "destroy" the party. I don't see anything wrong with the method used in the 9 Letters, or with Mike E's spirit of criticism in general.

This statement was directed specifically at Kasama-rl who has specifically stated that even if the RCP did change its line he still would not support them. Even if the RCP had the line he wanted he would not support the RCP. That, and the whole spirit of his criticism, suggests that this is not a well intentioned attempt to improve the RCP as a revolutionary party.

Also, I think that, while the RCP hasn't got enough of a base, they have in fact made deep in roads towards establishing one and do have deep ties with the proletariat (opposed to MIM for example). They have by far the largest and most influential base of any leftist group in the US and are and will continue to be the Vanguard of the proletariat. That said, there needs to be progress. Ely's critic of internationalism in the RCP is very important and legitimate. It needs to be addressed. The party does need to do more to get in touch with the oppressed masses. My problem here is that this is an attempt by an ex-party member to attack the party. It is not aimed at improving the party or the revolution but at assaulting the specific orginization of the RCP.

Andrei Kuznetsov

22nd December 2007, 21:44

Even if the RCP had the line he wanted he would not support the RCP.

AT WHAT POINT has Kasama-RL said that at all?

If the RCP were to turn its course completely around and negate the current general line, and do a thorough criticism... I would possibly give serious consideration to rejoining the RCYB. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

There is a very good reason that the 9 Letters are called "Letters to Our Comrades"- because those who worked on the 9 Letters still see a great deal of revolutionary potential and passion within the RCP that can still be harnessed and catapulted to make something far better.

I have great faith in my comrades who are still in the RCYB. I love them, care about them, and see them as revolutionaries at heart- albeit very deluded by a line that could isolate and destroy the RCP (a party that I loved and was fiercely devoted to for 5 1/2 years) without outside help. That's why I support and uphold these 9 Letters, because they could really help bring our COMRADES and FRIENDS in the RCP out of the muck and into something better. What that will be, I'm not sure- and I think we're still in the process of figuring that out. But to be brief: this is NOT just an attack on the RCP. It is a call to action, and it is a call for Maoists to help rebuild a much better thing.

The party does need to do more to get in touch with the oppressed masses. My problem here is that this is an attempt by an ex-party member to attack the party. It is not aimed at improving the party or the revolution but at assaulting the specific orginization of the RCP.

I personally, as a former RCYB member, am very behind the 9 Letters, because frankly trying to struggle within the Youth Brigade and with the Party became fruitless.

Have you ever seen the movie North Country?

There is an interesting point where the main character tries to go to her boss to complain about sexual harassment in the workplace. When she confronts her boss, he laughs at her, and when she still insists, he says "if it's that big of a problem, take it up with your union". So, thus, she goes to her union representative. When she discusses the harassment with him, he says "this isn't my problem; if you have a problem, talk to your boss".

This really struck a chord, because (now this is HEARSAY, you don't necessarily have to believe me) I have watched an interesting methodology arise in the RCYB and the RCP develop in discussing contradictions:

1) A contradiction or disagreement comes up on a line question, and while there may be some initial struggle, eventually it is shut down with talk like "I don't know about you, but if you're serious about making a world worth living in, you'll get over this bullshit you're talking and get with what the Chair's saying... because I know I'M serious about making revolution, and if you are, you'll get with the program." Thus, struggle within the RCYB becomes fruitless. Afterwards, your are told "if it's that big of a problem, you should do a write-up and take it up with the Party".

2) You do a write-up and send your problem to the Party, and once you do, you basically get either the same guilt-tripping that you got with the RCYB, or you're told "this isn't my problem; if you have a problem, talk to your comrades in the Brigade".

Thus, you're thrown back into the cycle and it really weighs down, and it becomes clear that struggling WITHIN Party supporting circles goes nowhere. With such a situation, can you blame anyone from saying "If I can't change the Party and the Maoist movement from within, perhaps I can change it from WITHOUT?"

Something to think about.

Dros

22nd December 2007, 23:30

AT WHAT POINT has Kasama-RL said that at all?

Even if the RCP later "start" supporting again (which they might for various reasons) , this current silence over all this crucial time is really intolerable and wrong!

Right there.

As for the RCYB, I don't know. Never been there. What your saying about method runs contrary to all my experience with the RCP. But I think we all agree that North Country is a good movie.

But do keep in mind that the line expressed in these letters is unconditionally against the fixing of the RCP. It's very explicit. It is unwilling to work with the RCP to improve the movement. It calls for a new start. Basically, my impression is that this is supported by a bunch of ex-RCP/RCYB/RU people. The party should become aware that there needs to be something done. It is obviously alienating people. If this stagnation exists it should be dealt with. What the revolution DOES NOT NEED is another splinter group. The RCP has done great things. We need to do more but, until you can show me something that is a real, insurmountable problem with the RCP's line, I will continue to work with the RCP, to better the RCP's line, and to work with the people.

I think we should discuss the letters. We should discuss your actual problems with the party's line.

repeater138

23rd December 2007, 19:18

Drosera:

You are talking to people who have spent YEARS taking it up with the Party. Your hypothetical on the RCP actually putting forward a correct line, and your arguments about remaining silent and sending even MORE unanswered letters, all ignore the most salient fact of the matter: The RCP's line is wrong. Not just with regards to the international issue, but at its core. The leadership of Bob Avakian has been incorrect. This is the most important point here. No one is under any obligation to support that incorrect leadership, especially since it refuses to EVEN HEAR criticism. The maddening double talk of "wrangling" and the reality of passing the buck, is just too much.

Yes if the RCP changed their line, I would support them. But, for many of the reasons that Ely has laid out in his polemic, the RCP is not going to change its line on the question of Bob Avakian being the "cardinal question". For them to do that, at this point, would cause the dissolution of that Party. THEY painted themselves into a corner with this cult of personality around Avakian. They have had years to put up or shut up, to prove that his leadership was as correct and valuable as they say. They have failed to do that.

In the meantime reality is moving apace. The situation is getting worse and worse for humanity, and there is an obvious and massive LACK of leadership to address all this. Look at the RCP's main point, its message to the masses regarding Hurricane Katrina:

Point #3:

There is such a revolutionary leadership—the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, and its Chairman Bob Avakian. But to put things squarely and honestly, while the Party has been exerting real efforts to take up its responsibility in relation to the events surrounding hurricane Katrina, the ability of the Party to actually lead in these dire and urgent circumstances has been far short of what it needs to be. If the influence of the Party and its organized ties with masses of people had been much greater, leading into these events surrounding hurricane Katrina, the Party would be able to play a far greater role in raising the understanding of the masses of people as to what was happening and why: why the government and the whole ruling class reacted the way they have—with the loss of thousands of lives, and terrible suffering for hundreds of thousands more, much of which could have been prevented or significantly lessened—and what this says about the nature of their system and why we need a radically different system. The Party could have been playing a far greater role in enabling masses of people, in the areas immediately affected and throughout the country, to be organized to respond to these events and to wage organized political struggle, on a much higher level and in a much more powerful way, to force steps to be taken immediately to save hundreds and probably thousands of lives that have been, and are still being, needlessly lost. And all this could be having the effect of raising the consciousness and the organized strength of masses of people to a far higher level, with the necessary goal of revolution more clearly and sharply in view. These events surrounding hurricane Katrina and all that has been forced into the light of day in connection with this, has shown the great need for the Party to rise to its responsibilities and play its leadership role in this way, on a whole other level, and for masses of people to rally to, to support, to join and build, and to defend—this necessary and crucial revolutionary leadership, as embodied in the Revolutionary Communist Party and its Chairman Bob Avakian.

This very clearly states that this leadership is incapable of rising to the occassion of great moments of social rupture. It admits it. And its simple and simplistic answer to this is "Follow Bob Avakian". This is a statement which says, "We are your leaders" at the same moment that it admits its inability to lead. And this is hardly the only case.

To put it more abstractly, you argue for a two-into one line with regard to issues of line. You think that we should subordinate the TRUTH to the discipline of a Party with a wrong line. How long should we wait? Another 30yrs with the hopes that the RCP will change its line? Why should we wait at all anymore? Revolutionary forces and the Left in general are so weak and so dispersed that there is very little value in keeping these current manifestations on life support, especially if it requires denying obvious realities and substantiated facts regarding our overall situation and the particular lines of parties like the RCP. We have to start anew. One divides into two!

Your protestations reflect a fear of change, but significant change is going to be necessary for the development of powerful and lively revolutionary movement, both domestically and internationally.

To give credit to Avakian, he recognizes this. His New Synthesis is his answer to the needs of the moment. What we are saying is that when you compare his synthesis to this moment it falls FAR short. And therefore is not worthy of the kind of support that he and his party demand. Rather, we need a different and better synthesis.

Dros

23rd December 2007, 21:46

You are talking to people who have spent YEARS taking it up with the Party. Your hypothetical on the RCP actually putting forward a correct line, and your arguments about remaining silent and sending even MORE unanswered letters, all ignore the most salient fact of the matter: The RCP's line is wrong. Not just with regards to the international issue, but at its core. The leadership of Bob Avakian has been incorrect. This is the most important point here. No one is under any obligation to support that incorrect leadership, especially since it refuses to EVEN HEAR criticism. The maddening double talk of "wrangling" and the reality of passing the buck, is just too much.

To give credit to Avakian, he recognizes this. His New Synthesis is his answer to the needs of the moment. What we are saying is that when you compare his synthesis to this moment it falls FAR short. And therefore is not worthy of the kind of support that he and his party demand. Rather, we need a different and better synthesis.

What exactly is wrong with the RCP's line. I understand your issues with their method. Explain the problems in the new synthesis.

As for the third point, that is not what is being said. They have said that they need much deeper and broader ties with the proletariat. That is always going to be true for the vanguard. The vanguard will always need to strive to better integrate itself into the masses.

As for the whole start a new thing: I think that that is not a really practical revolutionary stratedgy. On the one level, I still don't see what is wrong with the RCP. On another level, I am skeptical about a.) splitting an already very divided movement again and b.) having to start all over rebuilding the party. It has taken a long time for the RCP to get this kind of base. And it does have a much broader base with the masses. That should not be wasted. And as Kasama brougth up with regards to Nepal, it is unfair to "criticize an opporation from an arm chair". You might like to think that your going to do a hell of a lot better and build a really great party with deep ties to the masses but you probably are going to run into the same problems the RCP has.

Another important point is that while these letters have been ripping on the RCP, Ely does not propose an alternative. He has not made a new party. He has not tried to engage the RCP on these issues (to my knowledge). He has not been able to provide anything new.

There is this talk about how Avakian's analysis is insufficient but there is a.) no alternative analysis and b.) no alternative orginization.

patient persuasion

24th December 2007, 06:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:45 pm

What exactly is wrong with the RCP's line. I understand your issues with their method. Explain the problems in the new synthesis.

As for the third point, that is not what is being said. They have said that they need much deeper and broader ties with the proletariat. That is always going to be true for the vanguard. The vanguard will always need to strive to better integrate itself into the masses.

In many ways (and I believe rcp supporters would agree) there is no dichotomy between line and method. method flows from and corresponds to line.

I completely agree that there will always be a greater need to develop roots amongst the working class oppressed masses - and that will most always be true for organizations that they need to better integrate themselves in order to develop a fighting base.

THE problem I see is that the rcp's method will not lead to a deepening of ties - or a sinking of roots amongst the proletariat. their line and their method, IMHO, in many ways prevent them from developing these significant ties that we've both acknowledged will always be needed by organizations attempting to challenge the sate.

It has taken a long time for the RCP to get this kind of base. And it does have a much broader base with the masses. That should not be wasted.

I'm not an expert, or high enough on the chain of knowledge, to know what this base consists of - but I get the impression you think it's bigger, and more significant, than it actually is in reality.

Another important point is that while these letters have been ripping on the RCP, Ely does not propose an alternative. He has not made a new party. He has not tried to engage the RCP on these issues (to my knowledge). He has not been able to provide anything

that's what i'm sayin' - and i agree that the discussion should start now. problem is the internet probably isn't the best place for putting it all out there considering the bourgeoisie is over our shoulders.

kasama-rl

24th December 2007, 18:43

A note on "where's the internationalism":

The RCP did their annual round up of the "year in pictures" (http://revcom.us/a/114/2007-year-in-struggle-en.html) in this issue of their newspaper Revolution.

Go look.

What stands out (to me) is three things:

1) literally no mention of the life-and-death struggle for revolution in south asia (no mention of Nepal, or India, or even Bhutan.)

2) No mention of the major leap in international communist unity and struggle represented by the "International Seminar" organized by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) on the theme of "Imperialism and Proletarin REvolution in the 21st Century."

This event happened at the very end of 2006, but its announcement was in 2007, so one would think it would be included among the important events (for communists and internationalists!) in this year.

In fact I don't think this event was even mentioned in Revolution newspaper (http://revcom.us) this year. (Even though the RCP was listed as an observer of the seminar).

It was covered (in depth) on the Maoist magazine The Worker #11 which appeared in July 2007.

3) I similarly noticed that there has been no mention (in Revolution) of the horrific Gaur Massacre in Nepal (which took place in April 2007) where a death squad killed 28 Maoists and supporters, and wounded 50, who were alligned with the Madhesi Liberation Front. Here is a video discussion (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i2lpX19h7L4)

What does it mean that even such a major event happens without a word?

Dros

24th December 2007, 20:49

In many ways (and I believe rcp supporters would agree) there is no dichotomy between line and method. method flows from and corresponds to line.

I agree and never meant to imply otherwise. What is your problem with the new synthesis that Avakian is putting out?

THE problem I see is that the rcp's method will not lead to a deepening of ties - or a sinking of roots amongst the proletariat. their line and their method, IMHO, in many ways prevent them from developing these significant ties that we've both acknowledged will always be needed by organizations attempting to challenge the sate.

What is wrong with their method and how would you improve it?

I'm not an expert, or high enough on the chain of knowledge, to know what this base consists of - but I get the impression you think it's bigger, and more significant, than it actually is in reality.

I speak only about what I have seen. There are the Revolution Bookstores. I have met party members randomly (ie without planning to) selling paper in NY and other places. They are more visible and more out there in the world (at protests, selling the paper,etc) than any other leftist orginization in the US.

that's what i'm sayin' - and i agree that the discussion should start now. problem is the internet probably isn't the best place for putting it all out there considering the bourgeoisie is over our shoulders.

The critics of the RCP need to form a new, revolutionary, Maoist orginization to be taken as a serious, viable alternative.

NaxalbariZindabad

24th December 2007, 20:54

About the internationalism issue, I think one of the things we should do (for starters) is create a "Committee to Support the Revolution in Nepal" and a "Committee to Support the Revolution in India" *, just like it was done previoulsy to support our Peruvian comrades (see this page: http://csrp.org).

By the way, I'm not suggesting this in opposition to RCP,USA (not at all). It's not something that needs to be in opposition to existing parties -- the work of such committees and MLM parties can very well be complementary.

What do you think?

-----
* The reason I'm not putting Philippines in the list is that, even though there should be MUCH more support for the philippine revolution internationally, there are already many Philippines support groups, while there are almost none in support of the revolutions in Nepal and India.

repeater138

24th December 2007, 22:03

The critics of the RCP need to form a new, revolutionary, Maoist orginization to be taken as a serious, viable alternative.

Look, it is not just the critics of the RCP who need to form a new revolutionary organization or who would benefit from such an occurrence. All the people of the world would greatly benefit from a vibrant and rooted revolutionary movement in the U.S. and North America in general. The problem is that in rushing to simply form another "vanguard" we will more than likely end up reproducing the very sectarianism and narrow thinking that has kept revolution limited to the social niche it now exists in. We need a thorough accounting of our situation, as we also develop roots with the masses, and develop theoretical leaps coalescing all this practice. And we do not have to have all of this prepackaged and wrapped with a bow before we can criticize the incorrect line of the RCP which claims to have all the answers for these problems.

This is an ending and a beginning. The problems in the RCP must be addressed as part of moving forward. But these criticisms have broader relevance to the larger left and sectarian parties in particular. This is not just about the RCP, but it is the point on which this author knows the most and can speak with confidence.

At any rate, it is clear that this is the most in-depth and thorough engagement with Avakian to date. The claim that these criticisms cannot be taken seriously until they are manifested in a fully formed competing sect more or less proves the point of the polemic. That is, the RCP's talk of "wrangling" and engagement is not taken seriously by the RCP and its supporters. Rather, in depth criticisms are blown off as not to be taken seriously because they don't meet the arbitrary standards of the RCP and its supporters.

kasama-rl

24th December 2007, 23:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:02 pm
That is, the RCP's talk of "wrangling" and engagement is not taken seriously by the RCP and its supporters. Rather, in depth criticisms are blown off as not to be taken seriously because they don't meet the arbitrary standards of the RCP and its supporters.
I agree with whatyou posted repeater... except for this last two sentences.

I don't assume that the RCP's supporters will blow off these criticisms. We will see. That future is still unwritten.

The "9 Letters" pose a real political challenge and engagement to Avakian's new synthesis.

And I (personally) assume that many in the Brigade and the RCP, and many around them, will be very interested in reading and discussing such a critical engagement. And I think quite a few will agree with it -- especially after they have taken the necessary time to struggle through it from many sides, and consider it in relation to reality.

Avakian's new synthesis is overblown and very flawed -- but it has not been subjected to much public debate of any rigor or depth. Let's see what happens as the polemic gets around.

I hope this thread is one of the places we will see it. And another is (of course) in the discussion on the Kasama site itself (http://mikeely.wordpress.com)

bezdomni

24th December 2007, 23:59

Has it occurred to you that perhaps it is your line and not the party's is incorrect?

1) literally no mention of the life-and-death struggle for revolution in south asia (no mention of Nepal, or India, or even Bhutan.)

Revolution newspaper is not a news source. The RCP stands firmly with its comrades in Nepal, India, Bhutan and firmly supports the people's wars all over the world.

I think there are two things that are important here:
1) The paper is not a "news source", it is a collective organizer, agitator and propagandist. Covering the people's war in Nepal and India is not its main task, its task is to expose the contradictions in capitalist society and emphasize the necessity of revolution.
2) Even if you think the paper can and should cover the people's wars all over the world...this criticism doesn't require you to split with the party or cease giving it your support.

2) No mention of the major leap in international communist unity and struggle represented by the "International Seminar" organized by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) on the theme of "Imperialism and Proletarin REvolution in the 21st Century."

Again, is the task of revolution newspaper to report on revolutions elsewhere or to raise the consciousness of the masses to make a revolution here?

A World to Win != Revolution newspaper for a reason, you know. Although both are very important.

3) I similarly noticed that there has been no mention (in Revolution) of the horrific Gaur Massacre in Nepal (which took place in April 2007) where a death squad killed 28 Maoists and supporters, and wounded 50, who were alligned with the Madhesi Liberation Front. Here is a video discussion

What does it mean that even such a major event happens without a word?

I'll repeat my same criticism that this doesn't seem to be the task of revolution newspaper, and that your thinking so doesn't mean you have to break with the party.

I don't see what you are trying to get at by bringing up all of the things revolution newspaper doesn't write about.

kasama-rl

25th December 2007, 00:48

The reason to split with a party are two things:

a) fundamental criticisms of its general line

b) the assessment that it will not change to a correct line through struggle.

All the other things we are discussing here are MANIFESTATIONS of a larger general line... concentrated in Avakian's new synthesis, and in the insistance that the support for that synthesis is a "cardinal question" for communists (i.e. that it is a dividing line between marxism and revisionism comparable to the dictatorship of the proletariat).

Here is what the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordprocess.com) say:

"Even if a turn of events pumped new life into old “vehicles” (including the RCP itself), the heart of the problem would remain untouched. Specific, voluntarist verdicts are fully consolidated at the heights of the RCP. When they say “the train has left the station” — they truly mean that the debate over those verdicts within that party is over. So be it.

Forging a way forward requires moving beyond all this, even as this party’s leadership presses ahead, white-knuckled, on the course it has set.

Meanwhile, five minutes out that door is a beautiful blue planet crammed with contradiction and life. The rush into the future does not hang by any single thread — but it does demand something of us. One way or another, something different has to raise its head. It is now left for revolutionary communists, both inside and outside the RCP, to re-conceive as we re-group.

This is not the place to actually make a positive accounting of “what we possess.” But we must start that soon. We need a process, a going, where we sort things through, think afresh and start to act, together.

When Mao’s Red Army abandoned their early base area, they carried with them all the hard-won apparatus of rebel state power: they brought archives, printing presses, factory equipment, rolls of telephone wire, furniture and more. That baggage cost them dearly in lives, when the heavily burdened column faced its first tests of fire. They then simply left off the boxes and machinery of their old apparatus. What they kept was that material that made sense when integrated into their new mode of existence. They were traveling light. They were ready to improvise, live off the land, and fight.

The analogy to our theoretical moment: We need to discard ruthlessly, but cunningly, in order to fight under difficult conditions. We will be traveling light, without baggage and clutter from earlier modes of existence. We need to preserve precisely those implements that serve the advance, against fierce opposition, toward our end goal. We need to integrate them into a vibrant new communist coherency — as we thrive on the run.

It is a great creative challenge. We don’t need a remake of the RCP, but better. The theoretical knife must cut deeper than that. There needs to be negation, affirmation, and then a real leap beyond what has gone before. We need a movement of all-the-way revolutionaries that lives in this 21st century. Not some reshuffling of old cadre, but the beginning reshuffling of a whole society.

* * * * * *

On the specific issue of Nepal and the truly shameful lack of internationalism by the RCP:

It is very revealing (revealing of underlying line questions) that this party does not report on, analyze and oppose U.S. intervention in Nepal.

The world has not seen a communist revolution since 1949, and as this struggle grapples with the huge problems of a final transition to power... there is silence from the main Maoist organization in the U.S.

If you don't think that is wrong.... well, I just have to disagree.

I am saying that the RCP does not support the Maoist parties in Nepal and India precisely because of their stand on Avakian's synthesis, and their disagreement with key elements of that synthesis (including Avakian's idiosyncratic views on democracy and dictatorship.) This is, in fact, the situation. And it corresponds with the available facts.

I note that you wrote: "The RCP stands firmly with its comrades in Nepal, India, Bhutan and firmly supports the people's wars all over the world."

ok. that is an assertion that I think is factually wrong.

So, comrade, let's get scientific... what exactly is your assertion based on?

My assertion is based on a year and a half of basic SILENCE (http://revcom.us/s/nepal.htm) by the RCPUSA on the revolutions in Nepal and India. No analysis in their press (with only one exception a year ago). No public work to oppose U.S. intervention. No campaigns to counter imperialist lies. and so on.

You may think such silence is "internationalism" -- please explain how you can believe that?

Dros

25th December 2007, 05:23

I am saying that the RCP does not support the Maoist parties in Nepal and India precisely because of their stand on Avakian's synthesis, and their disagreement with key elements of that synthesis (including Avakian's idiosyncratic views on democracy and dictatorship.) This is, in fact, the situation. And it corresponds with the available facts.

This is, frankly, absurd. If you heard the term "cardinal question" used at some point you are clearly misinterpreting what was meant. Noone that I have ever met or heard of has ever claimed that Avakian is a dividing line between Communism and revisionism. If the RCP has "stopped" supporting the CPN(M), the CPI(M), and others (which it hasn't) or has become less vocal in its support, it is absolutely not for this reason. There are two assertions that you have made over and over again and have not been able to defend at all. 1.) The RCP believes that Avakian's work represents the line between Communism and Revisionism. 2.) The RCP does not support orginizations that do not uphold Avakian. Neither of these claims have any actual evidence in support of them because neither of them are true at all.

Further, SovietPants brings up a good point. The role of the newspaper is to elevate class conciousness within the US with an emphasis on revolution. I personally believe that covering the other revolutions would be a good thing to do to that end but it is possible that the editors disagree.

I also think that Naxalbari brings up a good point. A support commitee should be formed. And for all your talk of internationalism and supporting the world revolution, all I see you doing is criticizing the RCP. Where is your support for Nepal, India, Bhutan, and the Phillipines?

bezdomni

25th December 2007, 06:39

Yeah. Let's get scientific. The "silence" you speak of exists about as much as Santa Claus (happy xmas).

All the other things we are discussing here are MANIFESTATIONS of a larger general line... concentrated in Avakian's new synthesis, and in the insistance that the support for that synthesis is a "cardinal question" for communists (i.e. that it is a dividing line between marxism and revisionism comparable to the dictatorship of the proletariat).

The RCP is a part of the RIM. The task of the RCP is to make revolution in the United States, not to tell people in the U.S. about what other RIM parties are doing.

The RCP's website links to RIM's website, which does have lots of articles on people's wars all over the world.

Also, just browsing revcom.us for a few seconds will show that your accusations of the RCP not being internationalist are essentially baseless. Or, in plain english, that they are just bullshit.

The People's War in Nepal (http://www.revcom.us/s/nepal.htm)

Support the People's War in Peru! (http://www.revcom.us/s/peru_e.htm)

You should also remember all of the articles that have been published in Revolution newspaper about events in Iraq, Palestine, Iran, Mexico...etc. I remember the first issue of Revolution that I took out to the masses had in-depth coverage of events in Oaxaca.

Here's another good one on Nepal that blows your criticism out of the water. Revolution #35, Feburary 19, 2006 - Celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the People's War in Nepal! (http://rwor.org/quick/035en.htm#a8)

Furthermore, the party puts forward the book written by comrade Li Onesto "Dispatches from the People's War in Nepal".

So, to accuse the party of not being internationalist and not speaking of the people's war in Nepal just doesn't match up with reality.

So there are two things here:
1) The RCP is a RIM party and as such is internationalist and has always staunchly supported the people's wars all over the world, even, at times, in its newspaper when it serves the purpose of propaganda or agitation.
2) The purpose of the party's newspaper is to raise the consciousness of the masses, not to serve as some sort of "leftist news source". If you want that then read A World to Win.

You are a good writer, kasama. It's unfortunate that you have broken with the party.

---------------

And just to add one more thing; every supporter of the RCP I have ever met is always brimming with excitement whenever they tell or receive news of the people's war internationally. I've never heard anyone say "well they don't put forward Avakian's higher synthesis so fuck them!"

Also, I have heard from a supporter of the RCP that the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) has actually used Avakian's synthesis in their press...although I can't read farsi, so I don't know to what extent this is actually true. I can ask him in the future about this.

black magick hustla

25th December 2007, 06:44

lol, the shining path are a bunch of murdering gangsters. i am sure some maoists would be offended of being associated with them. The CPN is much much better.

kasama-rl

25th December 2007, 11:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:38 am
And just to add one more thing; every supporter of the RCP I have ever met is always brimming with excitement whenever they tell or receive news of the people's war internationally. I've never heard anyone say "well they don't put forward Avakian's higher synthesis so fuck them!"
I won't repeat my points above about the party's cessation of political support for the Nepalese revolution.

However you raise an important and correct observation here:

I do believe that the supporters of the RCP ARE BRIMMING with internationalism and support for revolutions around the world. And I think that is IN SHARP CONTRAST to the view and actions of the party's leadership.

Yes, the party's supporters generally don't say "they don't support Avakian's synthesis so fuck em."

(Though, unfortunately, some supporters have been trained to think that with virtually no investigation or knowledge, they can critique this or that move or negotiation by the Nepali maoists based on general principles and personal impressions.)

But overall to put it crudely: The RCP as a party does not now support the other Maoist parties of the world (India, Nepal, Philippines are major ones) -- basically because of their stand on Avakian and his synthesis. And by contrast, the RCP's supporters do not share that view and are much more enthusiastic about their comrades around the world -- and are often bewildered by the party's silence, lack of public analysis, and seeming indifference.

As it is put in the first of the "9 Letters" (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/1-a-time-to-speak-clearly/):

Even the most revolutionary forces have been lagging seriously. In the thirty years since Mao’s death, there has not been another communist revolution, and a whole generation has grown up without revolutionary societies. Communism is not contending within the deep channels of the world’s politics, culture or thought. International efforts to regroup communist forces have not overcome long-standing fractures. As rapid changes rework this planet, there have rarely been parallel innovations in communist understanding and work.

The experience of the last century has convinced many that communist revolution has been a failed dream. And yet, rising from every corner of life, weighing on the brain like a living nightmare, there it is: the horrifying suffering of people and the mounting crimes of this system.

Faced with these challenges, revolutionary communism is dividing into two around us. Or to be more precise: Events are revealing how much this movement already exists as two, three, many Maoisms. Several distinct conceptions now contend among Maoists. [4] There is sharp struggle over how to make the breakthroughs we need in both communist theory and revolutionary practice.

In the accompanying footnote, it explains:

[4] There are, at this moment at least three “packages” making claims to some universal (i.e. global) applicability: Gonzalo Thought of the Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path), Prachanda Path of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and Avakian’s New Synthesis. Other major Maoist parties, like the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the Communist Party of the Philippines have their own distinctive analyses and approaches. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has taken initiatives to regroup the international communist movement on a new basis. (Worker 11 p.35)

bezdomni

25th December 2007, 20:10

Did you bother to look at the article by comrade Li Onesto?

Revolution Newspaper has published many articles expressing solidarity and calling for support with the CPN(M), which is exactly contrary to what you have said.

NaxalbariZindabad

25th December 2007, 20:44

Com. SovietPants, you apparently misunderstand what Kasama says. He doesn't say that the RCP,USA has never supported CPN(Maoist); he says that the party indeed did support the Nepalese Maoists in the past, but stopped to do so about a year and a half ago. So far the articles you mention aren't enough to prove him wrong, since they're quite outdated.

kasama-rl

25th December 2007, 21:01

I will say this yet again, slowly: Go to the link that YOU posted... SovietP....and look at the dates of the articles (again: on the link that YOU posted).

The People's War in Nepal (http://www.revcom.us/s/nepal.htm)

Which Li Onesto article are you referring to? The article she wrote in May 2006 -- A YEAR AND A HALF AGO? After which she and the RCP has not written ANY articles on this important revolution?

* * * * *

I repeat: The RCP supported the revolution in Nepal but ONLY until May 2006.

Before then: articles supporting the CPN(M) and the revolutionary movement in nepal -- with analysis, exposure of U.S. intervention etc.

After then: in the last year and a half, only one article. In the last year, zero articles.

That means: no support.
No exposure of U.S. intervention in Nepal.
No analysis of events in Nepal (or India).
No analysis of the developments in the mass movement and the actions of reactionaries (including not even the awful atrocity/massacre at Gaur.
No training of the advanced forces among the masses in internationalism, no preparing of the people to uphold this revolution under attack.

You say:

"Revolution Newspaper has published many articles expressing solidarity and calling for support with the CPN(M), which is exactly contrary to what you have said.

I repeat, patiently and carefully: show me ONE article in the last year (i.e. since December 2006).

* * * * *
Next experiment: Go to Li Onesto's website (http://lionesto.net/li_articles.html). The last article she wrote on Nepal was in May 1, 2006. Since then, the silence of non-support.

I have said this several times. Is any part of this not clear?

* * * * *

Third experiment:

Go to the RCP supporters you know and (criticially, carefully) ask them how the RCP is supporting the revolution in Nepal.

Sometimes you will hear: Of course, the RCP supports revolution in Nepal, and everywhere else in the world.

But for a Marxist, mere words are not proof of anything. You have to look at reality, at practice, at the larger picture.

So: where is ANY sign of support? Any analysis? Any public work among people in the U.S. opposing U.S. intervention? Any exposure of the system's lies about Nepal?

Also note this: the RCP has a very carefully written formulation. The formulation (http://revcom.us/a/072/nepalagree-en.html) is

"We do believe that revolution is what’s needed. In Nepal that means a new democratic revolution which is a step in a socialist revolution there, and part of a struggle toward the goal of communism worldwide. This requires a whole new state—a revolutionary state which gives backing to the masses of people in making deep changes, including in fundamental economic and social relations. "

Now, on the surface that sounds reasonable and even revolutionary. And of course the CPN(M) upholds (a) new democracy, (b) socialism © communism and (d) the need for a new state (to replace the overthrown monarchical/parliamentary state.

HOWEVER the CPN(M) has also analyzed that their revolutionary movement for socialism and communism needs to pass through a substage -- where it focuses on the overthrow of an ancient feudal monarchy (with a god-king), and then move through this anti-monarchical fight toward "people's democracy".

Mao's revolution also passed through such a substage (the anti-japanese war) where (for example) the Chinese Communists suspended the agrarian revolution for a period of years and formally enlisted their Peoples Liberation Army within the Nationalist Army (calling it the Eighth Route Army, and adopting nationalist uniforms etc.) Was that wrong? Can someone judge such things from 10,000 miles away without any connection to the revolutionary practice or deep investigation into the particularities of the country?

So when the RCP makes their formulation it is a way of saying they DO NOT support the specific current strategy and path chosen by the Maoists in Nepal -- because that strategy and path (i.e. that anti-monarchy substage) does not comply with the assumptions of the RCP's analysis "from afar."

In words the RCP says, "we support the struggle for New Democray and Socialism in Nepal" -- but in reality that means, "we do not support the CPN(M) and its Prachanda Path."

And, of course, practice (or LACK of practice) reveals what is really going on.

See?

This is wrong on many levels. It is sectarian. It is arrogant. It is a wrong epistemology and method. And it denies important support to the most important revolutionary movement in the world today.

What communist can tolerate this?

* * * * *

And here is where that leaves us in this thread:

In some ways, we can't get onto the substantive issue around Nepal and internationalism, until we handle this (basic and obvious) factual issue.

We can't debate WHY the RCP has withdrawn support.
We can't debate whether that is CORRECT OR NOT. We can't debate whether Avakian's synthesis is (in fact) the door through which all of the worlds people need to pass for liberation.

This is because those comrades still supporting the RCP on this thread are in some real DENIAL about the basic facts. They point to articles that don't exist. To support that doesn't exist. And they actually don't know the line of the RCP -- they are just telling us what they WISH AND ASSUME is the case.

So comrades, lets confront the facts -- the non-support. And then lets move on to debate whether it is correct or not.

I repeat: Where is the internationalism? (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/silence-a-years-end/)

Dros

26th December 2007, 17:38

In words the RCP says, "we support the struggle for New Democray and Socialism in Nepal" -- but in reality that means, "we do not support the CPN(M) and its Prachanda Path."

How are those two statements equivalent at all.

The RCP as a party does not now support the other Maoist parties of the world (India, Nepal, Philippines are major ones) -- basically because of their stand on Avakian and his synthesis.

Please respond to my post. I have dealt with how totally absurd and false this claim is. Either defend it or stop making it.

kasama-rl

26th December 2007, 18:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:37 pm

In words the RCP says, "we support the struggle for New Democray and Socialism in Nepal" -- but in reality that means, "we do not support the CPN(M) and its Prachanda Path."

How are those two statements equivalent at all.
they are not equivalent. They are in sharp contradiction.

One is lipservice. The other is the reality when you look at practice and the larger picture.

And, to my friend drosera: I'm not gonna play "does not"....."does so"...."does not" forever

I think the issues are pretty clear by now to anyone who has followed this thread, checked out the arguments, and looked at the links.

And once you get a chance to discuss this in depth with your best party contact, it will be clearer to you too....

I want to talk more about the issues involved:

a) why is there this tone of blame the masses?
b) how is this related to the general failures of mass work (including specifically around WCW and October 2006, but also since then)
c) what is wrong with the new synthesis of Avakian (and how does this connect with the problems of revolutionary moveement in the U.S., past and present)
d) what would it look like to have a genuinely revolutonary and internationalist current working among the masses of people preparing for revolution?

Dros

26th December 2007, 18:48

You have still failed to address my explanation as to why this might be the case. You insist on jumping to the conclusion that the RCP rejects the CPN(M) (which they don't) because they don't uphold Avakian. This is total absurdity.

kasama-rl

26th December 2007, 18:57

I didn't "jump to any conclusions."

I know this for a fact. This is not speculation or supposition.

Here are some of the facts:

The nepalese communists do not support Avakian's synthesis on the issues of democracy and dictatorship. They do not uphold his line on "two types of countries/two roads." They have a different view of Stalin and the experience of both China and Russia. And they do not believe (or "appreciate") that his views should be seen as a "new synthesis" of MLM -- they have their own synthesis called Prachanda Path. And they pretty openly call Avakian's method and approach "dogmatic."

And this is the reason that the RCP is silent... they have said nothing about the Nepali revolution in a year and a half (except for one reprint by others). They build no support. They have not created a campus chapter of support for the revolution. Or organized a convenition, or made a film, or created a newsletter of political support. nothing.

The reason is (first) because the Nepali comrades don't appreciate Avakian and his synthesis in a way that the RCP thinks is necessary -- and have not been willing to make public statements about him. And (second and obviously related) because the two parties have quite different approach on key questions of line, philosophy and ideology.

The reason I say this is because this is the reality. This is not speculation, or inductive reasoning, or "my guess." And because I have read and studied the RCP's analysis of their approach.

See?

There are objective reasons why the Nepali Maoists have a movement of millions, while Avakian has a movement of hundreds, and occasionally a few thousand -- having to do with the very different objective conditions in these two countries. But the real differences of line also are one reason (a secondary one) for the huge difference in level of practice: Avakian's synthesis is imho sterile, idealist, self-isolating, and a thirty-five-year failure: Let's discuss letter 2 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/) of the 9 letters.)

Dros

26th December 2007, 19:47

I know this for a fact. This is not speculation or supposition.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Show me some public party statements where this is stated.

The nepalese communists do not support Avakian's synthesis on the issues of democracy and dictatorship. They do not uphold his line on "two types of countries/two roads." They have a different view of Stalin and the experience of both China and Russia. And they do not believe (or "appreciate") that his views should be seen as a "new synthesis" of MLM -- they have their own synthesis called Prachanda Path. And they pretty openly call Avakian's method and approach "dogmatic."

All of which were true a year an half ago when the RCP was still vocally supporting the CPN(M). This is obviously the case and totally unimportant to this discussion.

Just as a sidenote, can you show me where the CPN(M) has stated that? It's not that I don't believe you. It is just that I would like to more deeply aquaint myself with their line.

And this is the reason that the RCP is silent... they have said nothing about the Nepali revolution in a year and a half (except for one reprint by others). They build no support. They have not created a campus chapter of support for the revolution. Or organized a convenition, or made a film, or created a newsletter of political support. nothing.

Which is a problem that I have repeatedly stated a.) needs to be addressed and b.) has a reason behind it stemming out of RIM politics of which you might not be aware.

The reason is (first) because the Nepali comrades don't appreciate Avakian and his synthesis in a way that the RCP thinks is necessary -- and have not been willing to make public statements about him. And (second and obviously related) because the two parties have quite different approach on key questions of line, philosophy and ideology.

That is totally absurd. Of course the second statement is true but it has always been the case. Your argument makes no sense. If the RCP doesn't support orginizations with different lines and methodologies, why did it support the CPN(M) to begin with?

The first statement is ridiculous and has no basis in fact at all. That has never been the party's line. Please stop referring to the RCP's "secret line" that has never been stated and you can not prove or document.

There are objective reasons why the Nepali Maoists have a movement of millions, while Avakian has a movement of hundreds, and occasionally a few thousand -- having to do with the very different objective conditions in these two countries. But the real differences of line also are one reason (a secondary one) for the huge difference in level of practice: Avakian's synthesis is imho sterile, idealist, self-isolating, and a thirty-five-year failure.)

Yes there are. They are opporating in a revolutionary situation. Your comparison is (and you know this is true) hopelessly flawed. The RCP's methodology over the past decades has made it the broadest and most powerful leftist orginization in the US in terms of membership, presence, and influence. Of course work needs to be done. But the RCP is not nearly as sterile as you might think.

kasama-rl

26th December 2007, 21:33

Your reference to the RCP's "secret line" is an important point -- because it is a departure from the whole history and practice of the RCP.

In the past the view of the party was (and I'm paraphrasing): "Open politically to the people, organizational details no body's business."

The line of the party was put out publicly.

This has changed in some fundamental ways (and the fact that Brigaders don't know key elements of the party's general line is quite a surprise and lesson to me.)

The fact that the party has been ORGANIZED around the principle of "Avakian as a cardinal question" is apparently unknown to most brigaders!

But let's be clear:

THE POLICIES ARE NOT HIDDEN, BUT ONLY THE FULL JUSTIFICATIONS AND REASONS FOR THOSE POLICIES.

Everyone can see that there is a huge and mushrooming cult of personality around Avakian. You don't HAVE to know their theory of "Avakian as the cardinal question" to know that this cult of personality is extreme (or that it is unjustified by reality).

Similarly everyone can SEE that the RCP has stopped supporting the Nepali Maoists... it is clear. You don't have to know that it is over the Nepalis political differences (and their overall lack of appreciation).... to see that this support has stopped.

See the difference?

The reasons for the RCP's silence on the Nepali Maoists, and its approach to the other Maoists of the world (specifically India and Philippines) are unstated. But for some reason the fact that this party is silent on Nepal is (for reasons I can't fathom) also still unknown to you.

But the fact that it is unknown (to you!) does not mean that it can't be proven or documented!

The fact that someone chooses not to publish their key beliefs (i.e. they spread them verbally or just act on them) does not, obviously, mean those beliefs can't be critically examined. Of course they can.... they can be excavated and criticized. And after all, the whole point of not publishing these things is (apparently) to AVOID precisely having them called out in public.

The silence of the RCP around the major communist movements in the world (i.e. India, Nepal and Philippines) is rather intolerable.

You don't have to read all their justifications to know that it is intolerable.

And I repeat: I think we have gone round and round about this plenty. You and I don't agree, drosera. And I am fine with that. And I believe all the readers of this thread can see the truth of the issue -- since it is pretty evident.

* * * * * *
On a somewhat separate point:

I listed some of the differences between the Nepali and U.S. parties:

The nepalese communists do not support Avakian's synthesis on the issues of democracy and dictatorship. They do not uphold his line on "two types of countries/two roads." They have a different view of Stalin and the experience of both China and Russia. And they do not believe (or "appreciate") that his views should be seen as a "new synthesis" of MLM -- they have their own synthesis called Prachanda Path. And they pretty openly call Avakian's method and approach "dogmatic."

and you wrote:

"
All of which were true a year an half ago when the RCP was still vocally supporting the CPN(M). This is obviously the case and totally unimportant to this discussion.

Well, actually it isn't obviously true. And things did change over the last year and a half. Go look at the last article the RCP published

http://revcom.us/a/072/nepalagree-en.html

It is about the peace agreement: their differences (over line) were manifested in differences over specific actions. When the Nepalis took those actions, when the peace treaty was signed and the CPNM temporarily entered the government (that emerged from the radical anti-monarchy upsurge), the RCP fell silent about them.

This is not mysterious. THAT explains the timing. You are wrong to imply that these differences always existed so the differences can't possibly explain the silence.

IN other words, you talk about "totally absurd" and you have this whole arrogant dismissive tone etc. -- but in fact you don't ACTUALLY know what you are talking about. And aren't studying the actual events and contradictions that deeply.

What is the point of having a method like this -- all bluster and no insight? If you want to be a communist, i suggest you apply a more scientific and materialist method.

Dros

26th December 2007, 22:22

But the fact that it is unknown (to you!) does not mean that it can't be proven or documented!

I do not contest this. My point is precisely that it is unknown and that it is ridiculous for you to assert that the RCP does not support the CPN(M) because they don't support Avakian. You are avoiding this issue. It is a completely false claim. There is no evidence and, despite numerous alternative explanations, you insist on repeating this bogus statement without any substantiation.

The silence of the RCP around the major communist movements in the world (i.e. India, Nepal and Philippines) is rather intolerable.

Again, I agree that internationalism must be improved on.

You don't have to read all their justifications to know that it is intolerable.

Right. But what is also intolerable is for you to continue to assert that the RCP does not uphold the CPN(M) because they disagree with Avakian.

Also, could you please provide me with a link to the CPN(M) line on Avakian?

This is not mysterious. THAT explains the timing. You are wrong to imply that these differences always existed so the differences can't possibly explain the silence.

Did the CPN(M) support Avakian? No. Did the RCP support the CPN(M)? Yes. Did the CPN(M) follow Prachanda Path in 2006? Yes. Did the RCP support them during that time? Yes. There is no corrolation. Your "the RCP doesn't like people who don't support Avakian" argument is simply untrue. Please substantiate this claim or stop making it!

But the fact that it is unknown (to you!) does not mean that it can't be proven or documented!

If you can document your claims, please do so.

With regards to the top of your post: Your argument is again deeply flawed. All you have shown is that it is possible to excavate the political causes out of policy. You have failed to justify your own analysis. There are numerous possible explanations (that I have put forward). You continue only to blindly put forward your own.

kasama-rl

26th December 2007, 23:04

the problem, my friend, is that you are unfamiliar with the politics and line of the organization you support. A friendly suggestion: before continuing in this vein, go talk to the party supporters you know, and ask them whether Avakian is the cardinal question among communists, whether they believe the Nepalis can reach socialism without "appreciating" and applying what avakian has "brought forward."

Just go ask them. When you have, come back and we will continue. And until then, let's just shift this discussion to another aspect of this....

* * * * * *

You said:

"The RCP's methodology over the past decades has made it the broadest and most powerful leftist orginization in the US in terms of membership, presence, and influence. Of course work needs to be done. But the RCP is not nearly as sterile as you might think."

This is (unfortunately) inaccurate.

I don't want to compare the RCP with other organizations -- because they too are rather weak and lacking in influence.

But there is nothing broad or powerful about the rcp -- about its membership or influence.

I was recently looking at a newspaper by the RCYB (the RCP's youth group) in the early 1980s (yes, they used to have a youth paper in addition to their weekly organ).

And it mentioned that the Brigade existed in 35 areas. And then in their masthead listed their contact addresses for a chunck of the (divided by east, west, north, south etc.)

In the twenty years since then, the RCP has lost influence and members (and the Brigade doesn't really exist anymore, and the youth organization is only in a few scattered areas).

Here is what I wrote in Letter 2 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/):

A painful place to start: The RCP has not developed, ever, a mass partisan political base for revolutionary communist politics anywhere, among any section of the people.

This political current has won recruits, in ones and twos, from people whose life and study gave them a inclination toward communism. But the language and banners of this movement have never connected. Revolutionary communists have never found the ways to fuse revolutionary politics with the aspirations of the masses. They have not created the thousands of “organized ties” or the “political base areas” that they worked for decades to build. The RCP never succeeded in transforming its racial or class composition — it has not trained or recruited significant numbers of new communists from the proletariat and oppressed nationalities despite all the efforts in that direction.

The RCP tried to take up the responsibilities of a vanguard force. But it has never succeeded in becoming a “party” — in the sense of actually leading a section of people that consciously supports its cause.

Any synthesis that does not solve or even acknowledge these basic problems has a gaping hole at its very core.

This is unfortunate but true. But we communists are fearless materialists.... the truth matters. And hype and wishful thinking create a particularly destructive cloud surrounding the RCP at this moment.

To be clear on what our approach and orientation should be toward such failure:

"Since we are talking bluntly here about failure, we need to talk about context. Reading an essay by the philosopher Slavoj Žižek recently, I stopped hard on this sentence:

“The greatness of Lenin was that in this catastrophic situation, he wasn’t afraid to succeed — in contrast to the negative pathos discernible in Rosa Luxemburg and Adorno, for whom the ultimate authentic act is the admission of the failure which brings the truth of the situation to light.”

Yes! There is far too much of this “negative pathos” around, as if we communists should chant, “We’re not worthy,” alongside Wayne and Garth. As if a shuffling, round-shouldered self-hatred would be the only possible proof that we communists “get” the lessons of our own past. That would be exactly wrong.

We need to excavate our shortcomings and listen to the criticism of others. But we will do so because the people of the world need a radically reconceived communist project. They need revolutionary internationalists in the U.S. to do our part well, here and now. We have something worthy to bring to this passage of history. And for that we must emulate Lenin’s hunger to win and his focus on grabbing the chance within the maelstrom.

This is a matter of intention, but not just intention. New truth emerges from the currently inexplicable — after practice reveals fissures in previous conceptions. We are at such a moment, not just around our own specific political practice, but at several levels of the human adventure.

thoughts?

Dros

27th December 2007, 05:36

You are unfamiliar with the politics and line of the organization you support.

No. I just stick to the varifiable and published (read actual) line the orginization follows. This is just another manifestation of the "secret line" argument. I have talked about Nepal with the RCPers in my area. Some of them are very critical of Nepal (there criticsims is not that they don't uphold Avakian) and others have been very supportive and stated that the Maoists are beginning to establish socialism in Nepal. Noone has ever said that the CPN(M) should not be supported because they don't uphold the new synthesis ever.

let's just shift this discussion to another aspect of this....

Why are you unwilling to prove this claim?

I don't want to compare the RCP with other organizations -- because they too are rather weak and lacking in influence.

Of course this is again true. The entire left is lacking in influence so it is totally unfair to criticize the RCP for not having
a mass partisan political base for revolutionary communist politics because there is not a revolutionary situation in the US and there is a lot of anti-communist propaganda (see Charlie Wilson's War) out there. But the fact remains that the RCP has made some in roads. Again, we need to make more and we need to constantly reaximine the methodology with regards to making deeper connections with the proletariat. But the RCP has made great progress, certainly head and shoulders above any other leftist orginization in the country (that I know of). When you go to protests the RCP is there. There is the book store which exists in many key cities (New York, Boston, LA, Berkley, Atlanta, Clevaland, Chicago, etc). The RCP does have a base and it does exist throughout the country. This should not be denied.

thoughts?

I don't see a negative pathos in the RCP but I do love Zizek. He was recently in my city and I got to see him talk! Very exciting.

I think the Party is trying to do this. That is what the ideology of enriched what-is-to-be-doneism is all about. I would be really interested in hearing your critique of this line as it seems to me to be a really good synthesis of revolutionary "stratedgery" for the US.

kasama-rl

27th December 2007, 07:29

all the questions you ask me (in that last post) are discussed in letter 2 in some detail.

I could post it here, but a link (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/) will do.

I'm not saying that reading that letter is the end of the discussion, but I do think that it would help if you read it first.

Rawthentic

27th December 2007, 17:24

Kasama-rl, this is not Russia 1917.

We have not had a revolutionary situation since the 60s. Do you really expect for people to just flock to the Party?

Did the masses flock to the Bolshevik Party in a steady sense up until 1917 or was there an explosion of support when the revolutionary situation and all those contradictions ripened?

Regardless of this, the RCP does have ties with the masses, although they are small. Not only that, but they recognize that their work has to be broader and more aggressive seeing the way that society is going (and I think this shows with the new mass movement of Revolution Clubs in neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, etc).

kasama-rl

27th December 2007, 17:42

These are good questions, LFTP....

And I would like to quote what I wrote in Letter 2: A Gaping Hole Instead of Partisan Bases (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/):

How much of this failure of the RCP comes from the difficult objective conditions in the U.S.? How much is rooted in flaws of the RCP’s line and approach?

Clearly both are involved and intertwined.

These have been “awful decades” for communist work here. The plunder of a whole world has nurtured a corrupt political stability. The people are deeply affected by illusions, pulls of passivity and dreams of advancing within this system.

Here is one sign that these objective difficulties are very real: The RCP is hardly the only organized trend to have had trouble. No radical, left or revolutionary forces have gotten durable traction since the ‘70s — not revolutionary Black nationalists, not anarchists, not soft-socialist trade union organizers, not the Greens. Various left trends have also had their moments of influence, but all failed to develop ongoing support for their larger programs. Most have fared far worse than the RCP. Oppositional politics has flowed into loose social and cultural movements that are often organized around pressuring for reforms.

The objective conditions are the main reason why there has not been either a mass revolutionary movement or the basis for any actual revolutionary attempts. And these conditions have acted back on the subjective factor (the lines within the party itself) exacerbating now one or another “pull” — sometimes toward non-revolutionary tailing of the mass movements, sometimes toward a sectified acceptance of “puny thinking,” and now increasingly toward rampant wishful thinking.

These are errors made by sincere and dedicated revolutionaries operating under frustrating political conditions — but they are errors nonetheless. While the RCP tried to “wrench” all it could out of each moment — practice has fallen very far short of their hopes, and also — I believe — short of what could have been done with different methods and plans.

There have been long-standing problems of method and approach in the RCP’s work — how it viewed itself, the masses and the revolutionary process — that have all contributed to the overall failure.

Communists have not successfully “charted the uncharted course” or mastered how to “do revolutionary work in a non-revolutionary situation.”

In other words, you are right that this is not a revolutionary situation, and (what is another way of saying the same thing) there are not at this moment broad masses of people in a revolutionary mood.

What I am saying is two things:

* The RCP has clearly failed at meeting the political goals that IT CONSIDERED possible to achieve in a non revolutionary situation. The RCP said that it intended to build political base areas in many major cities, where it would have the allegiance of significant sections of the people, and would (to some extent) be able to "set the terms" for how people related to each other and to the state. These would be comparable to "no go" areas in 70s Northern Ireland, or the radical shantytown of Raucana near lima in the 80s. etc.

The RCP said that it could and would build vibrant networks around its paper -- a growing readership of class conscious proletarians, and in its midst party organization.

The plans (which the party set for itself in the late 1980s and then with increasing focus on LA after 1992) have failed. And there has been no summation of that failure: no analysis, explanation, adjustment, just silence.

* My second point is that (despite the objective conditions) something more than this failure would have been possible -- if the party had been able to apply much more creative methods, had applied the mass line more correctly, and if it had not had a restless shifting from this project to that over and over.

You can read the details of that in Letter 2 (i.e. there is no reason to paste it in here, or attempt to rewrite it in this post).

It is possible to have a mass base in non-revolutionary periods, to have a growing (not shrinking) party, to have real manifested influence among the masses (in ways the RCP does not have). And these fact point to failures of line -- and in the final analysis a 'gaping hole" in Avakian's synthesis... right at its core.

NaxalbariZindabad

27th December 2007, 23:36

I don't want to change the subject, but just as a sidenote, I find the following quote quite interesting ; it hints that there could be less differences between RCP-USA's "pro-insurrection" strategy and RCP-Canada's "pro-PPW" strategy than one might think:

The RCP said that it intended to build political base areas in many major cities, where it would have the allegiance of significant sections of the people, and would (to some extent) be able to "set the terms" for how people related to each other and to the state. These would be comparable to "no go" areas in 70s Northern Ireland, or the radical shantytown of Raucana near lima in the 80s. etc.

Kasama, do you know where I could read more about the RCP-USA's positions on "political base areas" in imperialist countries?

kasama-rl

28th December 2007, 00:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:35 pm
I don't want to change the subject, but just as a sidenote, I find the following quote quite interesting ; it hints that there could be less differences between RCP-USA's "pro-insurrection" strategy and RCP-Canada's "pro-PPW" strategy than one might think:

The RCP said that it intended to build political base areas in many major cities, where it would have the allegiance of significant sections of the people, and would (to some extent) be able to "set the terms" for how people related to each other and to the state. These would be comparable to "no go" areas in 70s Northern Ireland, or the radical shantytown of Raucana near lima in the 80s. etc.

Kasama, do you know where I could read more about the RCP-USA's positions on "political base areas" in imperialist countries?
yes.

This was discussed and analyzed in the theoretical writings of the RCP in the last half of the 1980s. Especially in 1988.

If you go to letter 2 of the 9 letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com) you will find a discussion of this (combativity, base areas etc.) in the last half of that letter.

In the footnotes it gives references to issues of Revolution magazine where this was discussed. (In the footnotes).

Basically the RCP had a theoretical journal Revolution -- and there were repeated references to these matters in the issues from 1988 t0 1991. (UNfortunately they are not online so this requires finding print versions.)

I don't have the titles of all the articles handy.... but when I have a moment I will look through and try to come up with more specific titles. Ingeneral, though, the theoretical work of that period focused on these "shifts" to base areas, and their role in the preparation for revolution.

Andrei Kuznetsov

28th December 2007, 02:30

and in the final analysis a 'gaping hole" in Avakian's synthesis... right at its core.

Could you perhaps tell (or expound upon past what is said in the 9 Letters) what exactly you think is wrong with the Avakian's synthesis? What about the errors in his epistemology, or the nature of the cult surrounding him?

Dros

28th December 2007, 04:23

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 27, 2007 07:28 am
all the questions you ask me (in that last post) are discussed in letter 2 in some detail.
This whole conversation is a response to and refutation of the letter.

repeater138

28th December 2007, 05:35

Drosera, you don't seem to have actually read the full polemic. Your willful ignorance on whether the Party holds Avakian to be a "cardinal question" or not, is not the proof that they don't.

I believe Mike Ely when he says that the RCP holds Avakian to be a "cardinal question" because 1) he has been working with that Party for decades and was one of the editors of its newspaper. And 2) it accords with the statements and actions of RCP supporters. The Party put out a special issue early last year effectively stating that a communist revolution in the United States REQUIRED the leadership of Bob Avakian. Prior to that they said that the ONLY two choices facing the world was Avakian's leadership or George Bush's leadership. I have heard many people refer to Avakian as "our Lenin or Mao".

It is also clear that this is related to problems with international comrades. I can't say it is the only thing, but many people in the RCP actually do believe that they can judge whether the Nepalese are on the right path, at the same time that they pose Avakian's synthesis as a universal value by posing it against everything from islamism to Chavez' XXIst Century Socialism. The two positions together equate to a single position that if you do not embrace the synthesis of Avakian, you are not on the road to revolution. Moreover, this reflects a bizarre epistemological conception. The idea that the true road to revolution in countries oppressed by imperialism should arise in the United States from a leader who hasn't been anywhere near a revolution since the 70's is highly dubious to put it kindly.

Now Avakian's synthesis would be interesting if it could be put into practice by his own Party. But as I said in two comments on 9 Letters:

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-4/#comment-61

I can’t take the RCP's claims to engaging intellectuals very seriously. You bring up the points you just made and you get shrugged off in response. “Althusser? Isn’t he against dialectics?” And that suffices to finish the issue. What is worse is that you can point out where living thinkers today are coming into real conflict with Avakian’s ideas on epistemology, and rather than engage that, the followers of Avakian pass the buck by telling you to write a memo to someone up above them. Literally, with the very person putting forward a conflicting idea in the same building, and with the book laying on a table in front of them, rather than engage the issue or question they seek out this thinker’s signature on the Engage Bob Avakian list. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that when they say they want to engage intellectuals, what they really want is for intellectuals to engage Bob Avakian and take him seriously. In their minds this is a one way street, and this is expressed in their practice, which excludes any organized study of anything except the writings of Avakian. Where other ideas are engaged, if they’re engaged at all, they’re engaged superficially in order to give them a foot in the door to introduce Avakian. It’s an intellectual pyramid scheme. Get enough intellectuals engaging you, and signing on to that engagement, and all of a sudden you’re a voice to be taken seriously, even if most of your ideas are banal and derivative, and significant aspects of them are simply not true.

Attempts to take up Avakian’s challenge to investigate these issues unveiled the severe limitations of Avakian’s synthesis. Limitations that are not being addressed directly by the Party as a whole or by its membership on an individual basis. You can have your disagreements with them, but on this central issue no one will discuss it in any serious manner. The typical reaction has been to quickly end the discussion or to pass it on into the ether of party hierarchy. It is not surprising that Mike was told that the “train has left the station”, everything in their practice indicates this orientation.

Their defense of the cult of personality as an organizing principle, or an organizing truth, requires significant amounts of ignorance and denial. You can see this continuing over at a place like revleft where there is currently a discussion of the differences between the CPN(M) and the RCP. Defenses of the RCP have to appeal to ignorance, that is, their only defense is that much of this has not been put forward directly in writing in the Party’s press. Rather than find out the truth of the matter they fight a desperate rearguard action on the basis that the truth cannot be known. In the meantime you have several people from the Party, who worked with it closely for decades, saying that the RCP has made Avakian a “cardinal question”, and this claim on their part is verified by much of what the Party is doing and saying, even if they continue to equivocate on the issue in public.

Those few attempts to defend the “groundbreaking” nature of Avakian’s synthesis require a denial or ignorance of the history of these issues. The democracy question is a perfect example. Avakian’s concentration on the dialectic between dictatorship and democracy is effectively the same as that of Lenin, most obviously in State and Revolution. At any rate, it is not new. And if that is a central aspect of his synthesis it obviously does not justify claims of uniqueness and specialness since these ideas are not unique, they just aren’t attributed.

When confronted with this they argue that it doesn’t matter where the ideas come from but only if they are true or not. Fine, but if one of your ideas is that these ideas are unique and therefore justify such a label for the guy who uttered them, well then this particular idea (the idea of the cult of personality) is not true. Furthermore, Avakian’s understanding of epistemology is confused at best, flat out wrong at worst, and it also doesn’t acknowledge its debt to Lenin’s Empirio-Criticism.

The two additions that Avakian has made are 1) his epistemological rupture, which is banal as Mike has argued, and 2) his concept of “core with a lot of elasticity”, which is a simple restatement of dialectical tension, and as such is equally banal to the first. But what is most telling is that even these two basic points are not being put into play by the Party, and they cannot be put into play by the Party because central to their core is a concept which distorts truth and refuses dialectics, that is, the cult of personality, which fuses the truth of an idea with the material existence of a single human being.

I would add that your earlier talk about how much you like Zizek makes me wonder whether you understand that he has a conception of epistemology which is diametrically opposed to that of Avakian. I wonder to what extent you have even bothered to read the works of Zizek, and to what extent you "love him" simply because he wrote an intro for one of Avakian's books and signed on to the engage statement. I suspect that here, like so many other places where RCP supporters "engage" the ideas of others, your engagement has been very shallow.

To bring home a point, the 9 Letters explicitly does not deal in internal Party documents or relate internal discussions and meetings. This is a principled stand to respect the security of those involved. It does not mean that those conversations didn't happen, or that those documents don't exist. What it means is that your calls for documented proof are at best a cynical attempt to score points, and at worst a reckless call to damage the above referenced security. I think Mike has said all that he has to say on the matter, and many more people who worked on this polemic agree with him. It is for the RCP itself to clarify whether they hold Avakian as a cardinal question or not. Likewise, it is for them to clarify their position on the international situation. Your continued reliance on an argument from ignorance, reveals your overall lack of interest in the truth. Ask your comrades whether the Party holds Avakian's leadership as a "cardinal question" or not. Ask them how this line has interacted with international relations. Find the truth of the matter, and then come back here and talk.

You would know all this if you had read the Letters. For instance on the front page it says this:
Principled Restraint:
These letters attempt a critical excavation of political and ideological substance. However, they carefully avoid direct reference to internal events, documents, organizational structures and internal activities of specific personalities. This restraint means that potential documentation of some arguments remains submerged.

To see the full conversation at 9 Letters and read the letter which gives the background to this issue of epistemology, go to this link: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-4/

Red Heretic

28th December 2007, 08:45

repeater138

28th December 2007, 16:04

I would just like to briefly note that this whole "the RCP has a secret line about Avakian" and that the Party's central task was changed from "Create Public Opinion, Seize Power" to "Appreciation, Promotion, and Popularization" of Avakian is total bullshit. It is not the Party's line, and these sorts of distortions are very harmful.

But no one said that they changed their central task from "Create Public Opinion, Seize Power" (CPOSP) to "Appreciation, Promotion, and Popularization" (APP). First off, that's not the Party's central task. The Party's central task is a little more than simply CPOSP, isn't it more accurately "Create Public Opinion, Seize Power --- prepare minds and organize forces for revolution"? That's the formulation from the Draft Program. I would argue that the central task has changed, that this last part about organizing forces has been effectively dropped in favor of the work of APP. What I would say is that the RCP's line, that Avakian is a cardinal question, that his leadership is a dividing line issue, is now informing the way that the RCP pursues its central task. As far as I can tell "Create Public Opinion, Seize Power --- prepare minds and organize forces for revolution" is no longer the central task. It has changed back to simply CPOSP, and APP is now a defining characteristic of creating public opinion. Again, "appreciating and promoting" Avakian has become a defining aspect of the work of creating public opinion. In the pursuit of this other things have fallen to the side. Or to put it yet another way, in practice the work of organizing forces has lessened in relation to the rise of the work around APP.

Lets take a second look at that brief quote of yours from "Making Revolution":

One important aspect of boldly spreading revolution and communism everywhere is the work of building what we have characterized as a culture of appreciation, promotion, and popularization around the leadership, the body of work and the method and approach of Bob Avakian. Now, I recognize that some people (especially among the middle strata, frankly) may find it “immodest” (and perhaps, to some, strangely disturbing) for me to speak about this (and, for god’s sake, to refer to myself in the third person!). But, first of all and fundamentally, “modesty” (or “immodesty”) is not the essential issue, not the heart of the matter. This, like everything else, is a matter of a scientific approach—objectively assessing what is represented by a particular person and their role, their body of work and their method and approach—and it should be viewed and evaluated, by myself or anyone else, in this way and according to these criteria (and, let’s be honest, would those who object to my referring to myself in the third person here really be any less “put off” if I were to talk about “a culture of appreciation, promotion, and popularization around the leadership, the body of work and the method and approach of myself”?). No, the essence of the question is: what is objectively represented by this leadership, this body of work and method and approach, and what does this have to do with the larger question of transforming the world?

This translates to: An important aspect of their central task of boldly spreading revolution and communism everywhere (the CPO of the CPOSP) is the cult of personality around Avakian. But what you will notice is that a thorough search of the entire document never addresses "organizing forces for revolution". Is it ridiculous to think that the RCP is deemphasizing this part of their central task, in favor of a campaign to promote Avakian? It seems to me like they're saying as much, even if they won't say it clearly.

The two documents in question are here:
http://revcom.us/avakian/makingrevolution/
http://revcom.us/avakian/makingrevolution2/

At any rate, there is a very simple question to ask: Does the RCP as a Party hold Avakian's leadership to be a "cardinal question"?

Again, no one said that the cult of personality is secretly the Party's central task. What I have said is that the line surrounding Avakian's specialness, uniqueness, etc. That is, the line that his leadership is a "cardinal question", reflects HOW the RCP is now pursuing its work of CPOSP. That a second element of the central task has been quietly pushed to the side (the formulation from the draft program) as part of this. Your quoting of the central task as only "CPOSP" simply shows to what extent these assertions are true. And of course the Avakian quote is priceless.

repeater138

28th December 2007, 16:30

Actually after going through some of the Polemic (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/), Ely's position is even more particular than my own.

It seems he is saying that the part of the central task which has changed is around the newspaper as the hub and pivot of communist work. He says that now there are "two mainstays" the newspaper and then APP.

In other words, Ely does not make the claim that the RCP has dropped the "prepare minds and organize forces for revolution". That was my own interpretation.

Ely's argument is not that the old central task CPOSP has been replaced by the cult of personality (which the RCP calls AP&P) he is saying that the previous "what is to be donist" approach has been changed, and that the previous programs point about "newspaper and hub and pivot" has been changed to be the "two mainstays," and that therefore the text of the old program is outdated, and the new formulations are not public. (I.e. the operative formulations of the RCP's core work are still hidden).

kasama-rl

28th December 2007, 17:42

It is true that Avakian goes into some detail on AP&P recently in REvolution.

But I want to make three brief points:

a) This has been the RCP's guiding line for years. So it has been hidden before now. In other words, the revelation of this is in fact proof of what we are discussing.

This is the first time in the RCP's history where key and decisive parts of their line (defining views, summations and formulations) are not made public to the masses of people. This is happening for several reasons.

b) This recent discussion of the cult of personality (AP&P) is very very partial.

It still does not discuss the underlying and defining insistance that "avakian is the cardinal questons" for his party and that he must be equated with "a lenin and a mao" -- i.e. that appreciation of him (as a person) and his synthesis is viewed as the litmus test for revisionism (and is literally on the level of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the vanguard party as a cardinal question.)

c) Similarly it does not discuss the implications internationally, i.e. the view that the future of humanity hangs by a thread, and the only hope for this generation is whether people around the world appreciate and apply "what the chair is bringing forward." This has huge implications for the RCP's relations with the rest of the international communist movement, and their silence on Nepal's revolution.

d) there has been a change in how the party views its work. In the past they said "newspaper as hub and pivot" now they have a new and additional formulation "two mainstays" which puts the promotion of Avakian's cult of personality (AP&P) on a par with the party's newspaper.

I will just post what is said in the 9 letters:

"In the last few years, a new leading line in the RCP argues that the problem over decades has been that the party (as a whole) was gripped by a “revisionist package,” in opposition to Avakian. The party itself “got in the way” of its own chairman’s ability to reach and transform the masses. Such a simple-but-unlikely explanation makes summation of real work and real shortcomings less necessary.

"In theory and practice, this new line has pointed in a very different direction. The old tension between newspaper agitation and leading mass political struggle has been superseded: Both are now overshadowed (and redefined by) the work of promoting Avakian as the central leader of the revolution. Communist work must now be centered around the task of “appreciating, promoting and popularizing this rare, unique and special leader, his body of work, method and approach.”

"In the absence of materialist summation, a project of multiple fantasies can take hold. There is the fantasy of “re-polarizing” the society around one leader, linked to other fantasies of “vaulting” to mass influence in a crudely voluntarist way." (Letter #2 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/))

And also:

"Previously the party’s work was seen as rooted in “What-Is-To-Be-Done-ism.” It involved being a “tribune of the people” using lively and compelling communist exposure, agitation and propaganda that “put before all our communist convictions.” It envisioned a paper as an organizational “scaffolding” and “collective organizer” for a diverse and growing revolutionary movement. It aspired to being a newspaper that could “cast a line” far beyond the organized ranks of communists.

The RCP now holds that there are “two mainstays” of communist work — one “mainstay” is the work of “AP&P” (developing the appreciation, promotion and popularization of Avakian). The other “mainstay” is the work of the newspaper. And the newspaper has also been reconceived to give greater weight to Avakian’s theoretical articles and to promoting his “re-envisioning of communism,” while the concepts of agitation and exposure have undergone a related transformation. This new conceptual package is called “Enriched What-Is-To-Be-Done-ism.” That enrichment is a negation of Lenin’s What Is To Be Done. It represents a different (and idealist) view of how the activity and consciousness of people can be diverted in a communist direction.

The “two mainstays” formulation marks a major departure from the Party’s previous strategic views. One way or another, the Party’s 2001 New Draft Programme has been superseded — though replacement formulations are not public yet.

The net effect is that the promotion of Avakian — as a person, leader and theorist — is much more fully at the center of the Party’s work, including its new conception of the communist press.

In this synthesis, the organized collectivity of the party has been demoted to an “instrumentality” of the great leader. Several promising projects of mass struggle have been allowed to wither, or been transformed into “vehicles” for get-rich-quick fantasies." (Letter #3 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-3/))

I think these sections (and the larger letters they are part of) have lay bare what the actual situation is.

The departure from the Draft Program is the "two mainstays," the new strategic prominence given to the cult of personality (i.e. AP&P) and the replacement of "What is to be donism" with "Enriched What is to be donism."

And whether it is said yet or not, this means that sections of the Central Task section of the program are (defacto) superceded and negated.

Dros

28th December 2007, 17:49

Your willful ignorance on whether the Party holds Avakian to be a "cardinal question" or not, is not the proof that they don't.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I admire your skill with the straw man. I have asked Kasama numerous times to back up this allegation which runs contrary to all of my experience with the party and he has consistently refused.

Avakian to be a "cardinal question" because 1) he has been working with that Party for decades and was one of the editors of its newspaper.

So Ely is allowed to talk about the RCP's "secret lines" that have been revealed only to him? I don't think so...

2) it accords with the statements and actions of RCP supporters.

No. See my above posts.

It is also clear that this is related to problems with international comrades. I can't say it is the only thing, but many people in the RCP actually do believe that they can judge whether the Nepalese are on the right path

Is it wrong to critically evaluate our foreign comrades? No it isn't. It is the obligation of all real comrades. It is wrong to stop supporting them. The RCP needs to be more vocal in its continuing support for the revolutions in Nepal and elsewhere. The reasons for the lack of vocalized support are many but they are absolutely not that the CPN(M) has refused to accept Avakian.

at the same time that they pose Avakian's synthesis as a universal value by posing it against everything from islamism to Chavez' XXIst Century Socialism.

Wrong. Thy pose communism as the alternative. Is it wrong to criticize Chavez and Islamism. Don't we as communists need to make our alternative known?

The two positions together equate to a single position that if you do not embrace the synthesis of Avakian, you are not on the road to revolution.

Another assertion. The fact that the RCP upholds Avakian and criticizes other movements does not mean that Avakian is the division between revisionism and communism. And the RCP has never asserted that Avakian's synthesis has to be taken up by third world comrades. That's like saying that because the CPN(M) follows Prachanda Path and criticize the RCP, they think everyone in the world needs to follow Chairman Prachanda.

I would add that your earlier talk about how much you like Zizek makes me wonder whether you understand that he has a conception of epistemology which is diametrically opposed to that of Avakian. I wonder to what extent you have even bothered to read the works of Zizek, and to what extent you "love him" simply because he wrote an intro for one of Avakian's books and signed on to the engage statement. I suspect that here, like so many other places where RCP supporters "engage" the ideas of others, your engagement has been very shallow.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow. Firstly, I disagree with Zizek a lot so bringing up contradictions between him and Avakian will not accomplish anything. I have actually been reading Zizek since before I had ever heard of Avakian or the RCP and I never read the intro in full. So you silly, ad-hominem-attackish theory is bullshit.

To bring home a point, the 9 Letters explicitly does not deal in internal Party documents or relate internal discussions and meetings. This is a principled stand to respect the security of those involved.

So basically, you ask me to take whatever is said at face value? No. I think not. I am not going to assume that your correct when you make this flagrantly absurd claims.

Your continued reliance on an argument from ignorance, reveals your overall lack of interest in the truth.

So now it is "cynical" and "reckless" to critically examine arguments? I think it is dishonest for you to claim special knowledge of RCP line that has been hidden from the public and then ask for everyone else to just believe you in the face of these absurd claims!

You would know all this if you had read the Letters.

I read the letters. My whole point is that you can not back up any of your claims.

I can’t take the RCP's claims to engaging intellectuals very seriously. You bring up the points you just made and you get shrugged off in response. “Althusser? Isn’t he against dialectics?” And that suffices to finish the issue. What is worse is that you can point out where living thinkers today are coming into real conflict with Avakian’s ideas on epistemology, and rather than engage that, the followers of Avakian pass the buck by telling you to write a memo to someone up above them. Literally, with the very person putting forward a conflicting idea in the same building, and with the book laying on a table in front of them, rather than engage the issue or question they seek out this thinker’s signature on the Engage Bob Avakian list. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that when they say they want to engage intellectuals, what they really want is for intellectuals to engage Bob Avakian and take him seriously. In their minds this is a one way street, and this is expressed in their practice, which excludes any organized study of anything except the writings of Avakian.

This again goes against all of my experience with the RCP. Before I was a supporter of the RCP, I got into an argument/discussion with some RCP people. I was familiar with the orginization and we had a fruitful discussion of Avakian, Mao, and others and, in consequence, I did more research and read more Avakian and eventually became a supporter. This has happened to me and others on numerous occasions and so, while I can't comment on the experiences of other, I will say that what is said here is opposed to all of my personal experience.

Their defense of the cult of personality as an organizing principle, or an organizing truth, requires significant amounts of ignorance and denial. You can see this continuing over at a place like revleft where there is currently a discussion of the differences between the CPN(M) and the RCP. Defenses of the RCP have to appeal to ignorance, that is, their only defense is that much of this has not been put forward directly in writing in the Party’s press.

You should probably go back and reread this thread.

The two additions that Avakian has made are 1) his epistemological rupture, which is banal as Mike has argued, and 2) his concept of “core with a lot of elasticity”, which is a simple restatement of dialectical tension, and as such is equally banal to the first. But what is most telling is that even these two basic points are not being put into play by the Party, and they cannot be put into play by the Party because central to their core is a concept which distorts truth and refuses dialectics, that is, the cult of personality, which fuses the truth of an idea with the material existence of a single human being.

1.) I think the important thing to understand about Avakian's epistemology, and I'll agree that it isn't a "radical rupture" is that it is addressed specifically to the ICM. The thing that is important is that it is necessary to seek truth even if that truth runs counter to our line. To me, that is something that is not banal and has not been absorbed by the ICM.
2.) How is this a restatement of dialectical tension?

I must say that it is novel to hear a maoist shouting about cults of personality. Will you ellaborate on the issue please? What is your particular problem with it? And how does it oppose dialectics and distort truth?

================================================== ============

You are obviously very serious about discussing these issues and I appreciate this. But remember that this is a friendly discussion between comrades. You need to stop making this a personal thing for this to be mutually constructive.

kasama-rl

28th December 2007, 19:08

My friend I need to make a comradely suggestion:

You need to read the 9 Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com) before you criticize and mock them.

Here is an example. You write:

"I must say that it is novel to hear a maoist shouting about cults of personality. Will you ellaborate on the issue please? What is your particular problem with it? And how does it oppose dialectics and distort truth?"

In fact, this just shows you have not read Letter 8 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-8/) which is a detailed AND MAOIST critique of specific KINDS of cult of personality.

It is called: On the Cult of Personality: Revisiting Chen Boda’s Ghost. (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-8/) And it deals with MAO's criticism of the genius theory.

Why don't you read what we have written, then our discussions (and any continuing disagreements) can take place on a loftier level.

Yours in struggle,
kasama

repeater138

28th December 2007, 19:22

I apologize for the tone of the particular post that you are referencing.

Rather than say that you are willfully ignorant, I should have stuck with the point that you are arguing from ignorance. A basic fallacy in which a person argues against something on the basis of a lack of knowledge. Something which you are clearly doing.

As to taking our word for it, you don't have to. No one has suggested that you have to, rather we have suggested that if you ask a Party representative whether Avakian's leadership is held to be a "cardinal question" you will be told that it is or you will not be answered at all, which is in effect the same thing.

I simply said that I take Ely's and many other people's word for it because of his experience with the Party, and because it does add up with my own experience around the Party.

You simply state that this is not the case, but, I think you would agree, that your own experience is not the same as mine, and therefore you have no ability to suggest that these things don't happen at all, just that they have not happened around you. Once again you argue that because you have not seen these things, that because you are ignorant of their existence, they must not exist. This is a fallacy.

The point on the critical evaluation of foreign comrades is not to say that it is wrong, but to say that the critical evaluation of Nepal is the reason for the silence. It is not an accident.

Wrong. Thy pose communism as the alternative. Is it wrong to criticize Chavez and Islamism. Don't we as communists need to make our alternative known?

Is Avakian's New Synthesis not being held as the highest and most correct synthesis of communism today? Is it not understood that this is a universal synthesis encompassing all nations and situations? I think you are equivocating here. If Avakian's synthesis isn't exactly that communism that is being posed, then what is it? And if it is, then is it not a dividing line? I mean, to not uphold the most advanced synthesis of communism to date would be a dividing line mistake, right?

Another assertion. The fact that the RCP upholds Avakian and criticizes other movements does not mean that Avakian is the division between revisionism and communism. And the RCP has never asserted that Avakian's synthesis has to be taken up by third world comrades. That's like saying that because the CPN(M) follows Prachanda Path and criticize the RCP, they think everyone in the world needs to follow Chairman Prachanda.

The CPN(M) did pose, at one time, perhaps still today, Prahanda Path as a universal synthesis. What they also did was to deliberately criticize manifestations of the cult of personality and to divide line from personality. So no, it is not the same.

Zizek writes:

The problem with Lenin's "theory of reflection" lies in its implicit idealism: its very insistence on the independent existence of material reality outside consciousness is to be read as a symptomatic displacement, destined to conceal the key fact that consciousness itself is implicitly posited as external to the reality it "reflects". The very metaphor of reflection infinitely approaching the way things really are, the objective truth, betrays this idealism: what this metaphor leaves out of consideration is the fact that the partiality (distortion) of "subjective reflection" occurs precisely because the subject is included in the process it reflects - only a consciousness observing the universe from the outside would see the whole of reality "the way it really is", that is, a totally adequate "neutral" knowledge of reality would imply our ex-sistence, our extrenal status with regard to it, just as a mirror can reflect an object perfectly only if it is external to it (so much for Lenin's theory of cognition as "mirroring" objective reality). The point is not that there is independent reality out there, outside myself; the point is that I myself am "out there", part of that reality. So the question is not whether there is a reality outside and independent of consciousness, but whether consciousness itself is outside and independent of reality: so, instead of Lenin's (implicitly idealist) notion of layers of illusion and distortions, and cognitively approachable only through infinite approximation, we should assert that "objective" knowledge of reality is impossible precisely because we (consciousness) are always-already part of it, in the midst of it - the thing that separates us from objective knowledge of reality is our very ontological inclusion in it.

My point is that one would think that RCP supporters would be interested in this. That they would address it and how it compares to Avakian's line. Other thinkers, particularly contemporary thinkers, are not addressed. The process of organized study around the RCP, makes no room for this. You study Avakian together and that is all. People must engage Avakian, they can engage others if they like, but there will not be any serious back and forth over these kinds of issues.

I apologize for suggesting that you haven't read Zizek, but what is the point of reading Zizek unless you are exactly comparing and contrasting his ideas to the ones that you already believe? It has been my experience, as I said in my earlier post, that when things like the above are pointed out, the response is to pass the issue up, where it gets no response, or to change the subject. To be clear I mean this as a general criticism of the Party as a whole, not a particular criticism of you.

There is no indication that the Party has any interest in comparing and contrasting, or even organizing to study and understand these positions that are being put out, and have been put out, by a variety of other thinkers. This is indicative of a continuing ignorance of the historical context of many of Avakian's main points in his New Synthesis. An ignorance which draws people to overestimate Avakian's contributions.

So now it is "cynical" and "reckless" to critically examine arguments? I think it is dishonest for you to claim special knowledge of RCP line that has been hidden from the public and then ask for everyone else to just believe you in the face of these absurd claims!

What is cynical is to demand that internal documents, which you know are the only proof of a non-publicized line, be made public. It's not going to happen. At the same time there is a very simple way of finding out whether the RCP holds Avakian's leadership to be a "cardinal question". Ask them.

1.) I think the important thing to understand about Avakian's epistemology, and I'll agree that it isn't a "radical rupture" is that it is addressed specifically to the ICM. The thing that is important is that it is necessary to seek truth even if that truth runs counter to our line. To me, that is something that is not banal and has not been absorbed by the ICM.
2.) How is this a restatement of dialectical tension?

I must say that it is novel to hear a maoist shouting about cults of personality. Will you ellaborate on the issue please? What is your particular problem with it? And how does it oppose dialectics and distort truth?

As another person commented on Kasama:

The evasions are actually mind-boggling. When I point out that their “new” spirit of critical candor and openness is nothing new, the response is that it has never before been put in the context of this new revolutionary communist synthesis!

Imaging this: Avakian proposes a theory of biological evolution which involves successful transference of genetic material among a well-adapted species. You point out that someone has already thought of this. They say it’s new because it’s now in the context of Avakian’s observations!

Without copying the same tone, I would like to point out that you have argued that while the actualities of Avakian's rupture are banal, they have great importance within the ICM. I think 1) this overestimates the degree to which the ICM has historically not taken a correct attitude to truth and 2) ultimately damns the current ICM with faint praise. That Avakian's banality could have such earth-shattering effect in the ICM is proof of the overall poverty of the ICM, not of Avakian's greatness. And this is assuming that other forces in the ICM don't in fact believe that truth should be sought without illusions. I can't think of anyone in the contemporary ICM, before or after Avakian's rupture, who would have argued against this. The issue as Ely has pointed out is over what the truth is, not whether we should be seeking it out.

Moreover, in my experience, when such truths that run counter to RCP line are put in front of them, they reject them out of hand. And they certainly aren't seeking them out.

On the Cult of Personality, it is the RCP itself which has used the formulation of the cult of personality for their particular understanding of and promotion of leadership. Avakian uses it interchangeably with APP in his "Making Revolution".

But you can see a discussion of Mao's struggle over the issue here: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-8/

The resatement of dialectical tension refers to the dialectical tension in politics between holding principles and uniting and learning from others. In other words "core with alot of elasticity". It is a notion that is so basic to politics that it preceded even the ICM by millenia.

kasama-rl

28th December 2007, 19:44

while uniting with repeater's remarks above, I want to point out something I believe to be a error:

"The CPN(M) did pose, at one time, perhaps still today, Prahanda Path as a universal synthesis."

My understanding is that they say that Prachanda Path is MLM applied to the specific practice of Nepal, and as such is not inherently universal. They say that the evaluation of univserality comes over time. And finally they have said that some specific things contained within Prachanda Path do have universality.

This implies a very different view of epistemology:

Avakian says that he can have a whole new synthesis of marxism (including a radical new summation of the holding of state power) without leading a mass revolutionary movement or holding any state power.

Prachanda says that his party applied marxism to the practice of making revolution in nepal, and in the course of that developed some new insights into marxism which they believe apply to Nepal and may have broader significance.

In opposition to Avakian's view of this epistemology, the following is in Letter #4 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-4/)

"First, there is an overestimation of how fully the theoretical problems of transition can be solved isolated from new practice in seizing, holding and wielding state power. It defies the insights of materialist dialectics (and of communist epistemology) to think anyone can make an overarching new “re-envisioning” solely by mulling over the bones of past revolutions, or that the nagging world historic problems of socialist transition can be pre-solved in some definitive and decisive way.

"Mao started developing a critique of Stalin’s socialism quite early in his revolution. He fought to forge a new path (starting with the “Yenan Way” before victory, and then increasingly after coming to power in 1949). But his transition from critique to a new developed-and-developing synthesis required the practical experiences of actually building socialism (including both victories and failures): land reform, implementation of the Soviet industrialization model, the Great Leap Forward, Socialist Education campaigns, and then the GPCR.

"Think of the living process, methodology and epistemology concentrated in Mao’s famous remark:

“In the past we waged struggles in rural areas, in factories, in the cultural field, and we carried out the socialist education movement. But all this failed to solve the problem because we did not find a form, a method, to arouse the broad masses to expose our dark aspect openly, in an all-round way and from below.”

"Mao’s theoretical understanding of socialism and his alternative road developed in the course of those storms of class struggle — in the practice of China taking the socialist road and the Soviet Union taking the capitalist road. Mao’s breakthroughs could only have been developed that way. History has given us many critiques of Stalin’s socialism — but Mao’s is unique in its profundity and materialism in part because it is rooted in (and extracted from) the vast practice of our second great revolution.

'New theoretical solutions require a deep summation of the past — but also the living practice of actually going through the transition anew (with all the real testing, new errors, and new innovations that this makes possible).

"The RCP has always leaned too far in its assumptions of what can be known apart from practice. Two cautionary examples are its past declarations that homosexuality would be “eliminated” under socialism, and its current declarations that it can know (from afar) which transitions to power are possible in Nepal and which are not. The whole elaborate structure of future society that Avakian has constructed in his mind is a creation and culmination of that mistaken methodology."

blackstone

28th December 2007, 20:27

I found this interesting in Letter 2:A Gaping Hole Instead of Partisan Bases
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/

After the late 1980s, and then especially after the 1992 Los Angeles rebellion, the party made a series of shifts toward developing base areas among the most oppressed sections of the population — focused on selected housing projects and sweatshop districts. Two things were asserted as part of those shifts: First, that it was important to “come from within.” There had not been much success in acting as “revolutionary ambulance chasers” — showing up as unknowns, with leaflets and newspapers, whenever some atrocity or struggle went down.

If this was the position in the late 1980s, then not much as changed since then, or to put it in better terms, their change of strategy has failed and they have remained "revolutionary ambulance chasers".

Why do i say that? It goes back to the topic of this letter, which is the critique of RCP's inability to create partisan political base areas and organized ties to the community.

Now, I am not denying the fact that RCP stands in solidarity with the struggles with those whom live in urban areas, the ghettos, barrios, or who are of oppressed nationalities. For many RCP supporters, as well as, other activists, can contend that RCPers are visible at rallies, marches, etc. Yet, RCP needs to stop being as the letter puts it , “revolutionary ambulance chasers” — showing up as unknowns, with leaflets and newspapers, whenever some atrocity or struggle [goes] down.

In order to establish base areas or organized ties, RCP needs to get involved into the day to day life and struggle of the community it claims it serves. Though, this is less glamorous than marching, shouting at police and selling newspapers, it is more important not only to serving the community but creating the old within the new.

It's a fact that you cannot establish ties in the community if you are only there for a few hours for a rally, never to return.

Andrei Kuznetsov

28th December 2007, 23:52

Although I think the conversation should move on away from the "yes they do"/"no they don't"/"yes they do"/"no they don't"/"yes they do"/"no they don't" way that it's gone for so long, I would like to say that in my time in the RCYB I was indeed instructed that Avakian's new synthesis was the dividing line between true MLM and revisionism, and that without Avakian's new synthesis revolution in any part of the world would be impossible. So, I personally have heard RCP supporters put up that line.

Anyways...

One of the problems I have with the RCP's current line is its attitudes towards Christianity, religious people, and the concept of theocracy.

Now, I'm a Communist so I am an atheist who believes in the need for Communists to be militant and out there with the fact that their is no God. However, I have noticed a very patronizing line concerning religious people, and a very mechanical and one-sided look at conservative Christianity; i.e. seeing Christian fundamentalists as being a monolithic movement with the same political agendas. I'm sorry, but to say that the Fred Phelps/"God Hates Fags" people in Kansas have the same interests and goals as say, a Roman Catholic pro-life activist in New York or a Black pentecostal in east Tennessee is just absurd.

Some good quotes from Letter 5 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-5/) discuss the RCP's line on religion rather well:

You can undermine brittle dogmatic religions by using their inconsistencies. You can pry some individuals over toward communistic atheism that way. But you really can’t touch the potency of religion if you don’t appreciate the source of its influence.

You can’t challenge Christian morality by crudely equating it with venality — with Old Testament “horrors” or the ugliest “traditional values.” You also have to deal (in truly dialectical ways) with Jesus’ admonitions to “love your brother” and “turn the other cheek.” You have to deal with grace, redemption, forgiveness, reconciliation, charity and hope for blessings — in other words, you have to all-sidedly deal (critically!) with what actually attracts people to Christian teachings.

The RCP has recently promoted the observation that “The Bible Belt is the lynching belt” — to suggest that violent racism is one of fundamentalist Christianity’s bedrock “traditional values.” But this approach lacks a sense of both history and dialectics: Christianity of the southern Bible Belt is not just the religion of the lynch mob — but also of the lynched. This is because the Bible Belt and the lynching belt is centered on the Black Belt — the former plantation areas of the deep South (what Black people called “the soil of our suffering”), a place where two distinct nations and national cultures cohabited in gruesome ways. Christianity there includes the African American churches.

In other words, conservative Christians have, long ago, cobbled together various theological ways of dealing with the contradictions and barbarism of the Old Testament. There is a long-standing conflict between that Christian fringe which literally believes in stoning people to death, and the broader ranks of fundamentalists who think those folks are nuts (even while they often condemn sex outside marriage in their own ways).

Their world is NOT rocked when the RCP naively points out that the Old Testament calls for stoning sinners. “After all,” people would explain to me, “Jesus stopped the stoning of the adulterous woman and said ‘let those without sin cast the first stone.’”

Dros

29th December 2007, 18:39

Rather than say that you are willfully ignorant, I should have stuck with the point that you are arguing from ignorance. A basic fallacy in which a person argues against something on the basis of a lack of knowledge. Something which you are clearly doing.

You simply state that this is not the case, but, I think you would agree, that your own experience is not the same as mine, and therefore you have no ability to suggest that these things don't happen at all, just that they have not happened around you. Once again you argue that because you have not seen these things, that because you are ignorant of their existence, they must not exist. This is a fallacy.

I never intended to generalize my experience to that of others. In fact I have been careful (especially up thread) to emphasize that this is merely my experience. So I am not arguing from a lack of knowledge but from different knowledge. I did not intend to assert my experience as universal so much as to offer contradictory data to be considered.

As to taking our word for it, you don't have to. No one has suggested that you have to, rather we have suggested that if you ask a Party representative whether Avakian's leadership is held to be a "cardinal question" you will be told that it is or you will not be answered at all, which is in effect the same thing.

Ok. I'll take you up on that. My meetings have ended for the holiday but the next time I'll definitely ask. It strikes me as totally unacceptable to hold Avakian as the line between revisionism and communism.

The point on the critical evaluation of foreign comrades is not to say that it is wrong, but to say that the critical evaluation of Nepal is the reason for the silence. It is not an accident.

Of course. There are many reasons the RCP no longer talks about Nepal. Some have to do with criticisms of line while others have to do with politics (as I understand it). My point is, the RCP's silence has nothing to do with the CPN(M)'s not upholding Avakian.

Is Avakian's New Synthesis not being held as the highest and most correct synthesis of communism today? Is it not understood that this is a universal synthesis encompassing all nations and situations? I think you are equivocating here. If Avakian's synthesis isn't exactly that communism that is being posed, then what is it? And if it is, then is it not a dividing line? I mean, to not uphold the most advanced synthesis of communism to date would be a dividing line mistake, right?

Of course we pose the party ideology. Avakian has expanded that. The fact that we advocate communism as viewed through Avakian's synthesis doesn't mean that others are revisionists. For instance I am a Maoist and I believe Maoism is the most revolutionary ideology currently in existance. But I still believe that (some) Trots are communists. They're wrong but they are communists. Revisionism is a very specific thing and shouldn't be hurled around to describe everyone we disagree with.

The CPN(M) did pose, at one time, perhaps still today, Prahanda Path as a universal synthesis. What they also did was to deliberately criticize manifestations of the cult of personality and to divide line from personality. So no, it is not the same.

I think I've heard CPN(M) people talk about Prachanda in a very religious way (I'm sure they talk this way about Gonzalo in Peru). There is definitely a Cult of Personality around Prachanda.

What do you mean by "dividing line from personality"?

It has been my experience, as I said in my earlier post, that when things like the above are pointed out, the response is to pass the issue up, where it gets no response, or to change the subject. To be clear I mean this as a general criticism of the Party as a whole, not a particular criticism of you.

In my experience (my limited experience with the Party and not necessarily reflecting the experience of others or a universal reality) has been that this is not the case (kind of). We actually just had this conversation. It just came up that there is a lot of material that we should be critically engaging and examining. I got some of the RCP supporters to come to a Zizek lecture and we sold the paper and then discussed the talk. But we have been grappling with this issue.

What is cynical is to demand that internal documents, which you know are the only proof of a non-publicized line, be made public. It's not going to happen. At the same time there is a very simple way of finding out whether the RCP holds Avakian's leadership to be a "cardinal question". Ask them.

It is not internal documents specifically. It strikes me as an absurd claim and some kind of evidence (not documents necissarily) but some reason to believe you should be provided.

Without copying the same tone, I would like to point out that you have argued that while the actualities of Avakian's rupture are banal, they have great importance within the ICM. I think 1) this overestimates the degree to which the ICM has historically not taken a correct attitude to truth and 2) ultimately damns the current ICM with faint praise. That Avakian's banality could have such earth-shattering effect in the ICM is proof of the overall poverty of the ICM, not of Avakian's greatness. And this is assuming that other forces in the ICM don't in fact believe that truth should be sought without illusions. I can't think of anyone in the contemporary ICM, before or after Avakian's rupture, who would have argued against this. The issue as Ely has pointed out is over what the truth is, not whether we should be seeking it out.

1.) Correct. So it is a revolutionary break within that context.
2.) Avakian needs to be read in context. He is speaking to the ICM specifically. While noone has ever argued against this there was a methodological tendency towards that.

The resatement of dialectical tension refers to the dialectical tension in politics between holding principles and uniting and learning from others.

Could you ellaborate please? That is still rather vague.

You need to read the 9 Letters before you criticize and mock them.

You are correct that I have not read letter 8. I do do other things and I've been rather busy. But I am making my way through them and criticizing as I go.

I did not intend to mock the letters and if I came off that way I apologize. I take these letters as a serious criticism from which I hope to learn and which I hope will make the Maoist movement including the RCP stronger and better.

Dros

29th December 2007, 18:48

Now, I'm a Communist so I am an atheist who believes in the need for Communists to be militant and out there with the fact that their is no God. However, I have noticed a very patronizing line concerning religious people, and a very mechanical and one-sided look at conservative Christianity; i.e. seeing Christian fundamentalists as being a monolithic movement with the same political agendas. I'm sorry, but to say that the Fred Phelps/"God Hates Fags" people in Kansas have the same interests and goals as say, a Roman Catholic pro-life activist in New York or a Black pentecostal in east Tennessee is just absurd.

I don't think that is the RCP's line. These people don't have the same interests but they will often vote for the same people (except maybe for the Catholic New Yorker). There is a large Christian fundementalist movement and while these people might not see themselves as united, there is a voting block of ultra-right protestants that hold considerable influence in American politics and do advance a common socioeconomic agenda (anti-abortion, anti-taxes, anti-union, prayer in schools, intelligent design, no stem cells, pro-Israel, anti-immigrant, pro-world-policeism, etc...)

Brownfist

31st December 2007, 02:05

QUOTE

"The CPN(M) did pose, at one time, perhaps still today, Prahanda Path as a universal synthesis."

My understanding is that they say that Prachanda Path is MLM applied to the specific practice of Nepal, and as such is not inherently universal. They say that the evaluation of univserality comes over time. And finally they have said that some specific things contained within Prachanda Path do have universality.

This implies a very different view of epistemology:

Avakian says that he can have a whole new synthesis of marxism (including a radical new summation of the holding of state power) without leading a mass revolutionary movement or holding any state power.

Prachanda says that his party applied marxism to the practice of making revolution in nepal, and in the course of that developed some new insights into marxism which they believe apply to Nepal and may have broader significance.

Prachanda Path which is held up by the majority of the CPN(M), although a minority faction does exist within the party, is NOT a "universal synthesis" and has never been claimed as such by any leader of the party. Rather, Prachanda Path has been the concrete application of MLM to Nepalese conditions, the two additional contributions that the Nepalese have been made under "Prachanda Path" have been: the concept of dogmato-revisionism and multi-party democracy. However, what I think the comrade is misstating as being an argument for a "universal synthesis", was made by Prachanda in an interview with The Hindu in 2006, in which he said:

Varadarajan: To what extent do you think the logic of your line on multiparty democracy applies also to the Maoist movements in India?

Prachanda: We believe it applies to them too. We want to debate this. They have to understand this and go down this route. Both on the questions of leadership and on multiparty democracy, or rather multiparty competition, those who call themselves revolutionaries in India need to think about these issues. And there is a need to go in the direction of that practice. We wish to debate with them on this. If revolutionaries are not going to look at the need for ideological development, then they will not go anywhere.

Indeed, they are arguing that such a contribution could be applicable to India, however, that is due to an (mis)understanding of the concrete conditions of the Indian context. Thus, there is a universal component to Prachanda Path but it does not amount to a "universal synthesis" and has never been claimed as such. However, this does not pose as a "universal synthesis" because a "new synthesis" would have to identify a new universal object of study (of course this could lead us to the debate of Mao Zedong Thought vs. Maoism, and I would even suggest to the American claims to Avakian's "new synthesis"). Let it be noted that in no published public document does the Nepalese party articulate Prachanda Path as being an "universal synthesis". The only party that makes such a claim seems to be the Americans. This above quoted statement of course resulted in the document produced by Com. Azad which I am sure most have seen.

I actually have a question for the American comrades: If Avakian actually has produced a new synthesis will it be a "path", a "thought" or an "-ism"? Has there been any debate within the American party to adopt said "synthesis" as part of party program?