Revolutionary Communist 4 Tour: What the Heck was That?

[Rawthentic]

Revolutionary Communist 4 Tour: What the Heck Was That? (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/revolutionary-communist-4-tour-what-the-heck-was-that/)

Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on August 4, 2008
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/rc4.jpg?w=300&h=195 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/rc4.jpg)

By the Revolutionary Formerly Known as Akil

In 2005 the RCP launched a campaign (http://rwor.org/a/001/revolutionary-communist-4-tour.htm) aimed at rallying African Americans around communism and, in particular, around Bob Avakian. They called it the RC4 tour (Revolutionary Communist 4). It consisted of four African American speakers: Carl Dix, Joe Veale, Clyde Young and myself (or as I was known at the time, Akil Bomani).


The tour was a colossal failure as it was fraught with messy contradictions from the very start. While there were a myriad of reasons (even many I may not be aware of) for its ineffectiveness, I will elaborate on what I saw to be some of the main issues.

No roots in the African American Proletarian Communities
The RCP had very little political influence and connection (if any) to the African American communities it was trying to reach. We entered the communities as outsiders attempting to proselytize the inhabitants to become followers.


Too much of the campaign depended on the sudden spontaneity of the African American masses to be drawn to four African American revolutionary communists. (I believe the Nine Letters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/) spoke to this tendency (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-3/#text29) of the RCP in general and referred to it as idealism and volunteerism (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-3/)).
If there had been extensive, constant and vibrant political work taking place within these communities, and the RCP had actually had a relatively definitive presence therein, then possibly spontaneity would have been in our favor. However, any political work within these particular communities had either gone stagnant, was very marginalized or did not exist at all.
As a result, organizers in the different areas were forced to desperately scramble at the last minute to gather immediate ties to attend speaking engagements –which averaged somewhere between 25 to 50 people, most of which were not African Americans. The intention had been to gather hundreds.


A movement rallying any group of people around a revolutionary ideology simply can’t be imposed from the outside. It has to emerge from within. For this to happen, revolutionary forces have to already be strongly entrenched within these areas and politically engaged with the people. This apparently was not the case for the RCP with regard to the RC4 tour and their lofty aspirations for it came crashing down on the pavement of material reality.

On the Defensive from the Beginning
As a result of the overall Culture of Appreciation/Cult of Personality around Bob Avakian, the tour was inadvertently framed as a testimonial of why four Black revolutionaries chose to follow a white leader and further, why it was ok for other Blacks to follow this white leader. Whether or not this was the intention, it certainly was a driving element within the tour.
While the complexities of race relations involved in leadership deserve heavy theoretical attention and political struggle in many cases, here the fundamental problem lay in the Cult of Personality around Bob Avakian. The excessive efforts to defend Bob Avakian’s legitimacy as a leader to Blacks (many of which who do not a have a clue as to who he is) turned the topic away from the necessity of strong revolutionary communist forces in Black communities to an Avakian promotion campaign. The Cult of Personality push by the RCP had its own problems—many of which are pointed out sharply in the Nine Letters—and when intertwined with the objectives of the RC4 tour, these problems only thickened.


In particular, the artificial and self-declared “specialness” and “irreplacibility” of Bob Avakian as a leader has absolutely no bearing in a community of people who have never heard of him or had any engagement with his party.


This leads back to the previous point: There were no active political roots within these areas. Therefore, Avakian has no “track record” (for lack of a better word) among them to back any claims made by him or his party members about his indispensability as a leader to them.


Again, given the contradictions of race relations in the U.S., it is largely an unavoidable issue when it comes to leadership. But a leader of whatever racial orientation has to both have a connection to the community he/she intends to claim the ability of leadership over and actual “substance” (the dignity of actuality) to reinforce his/her claims of competency.
Thus, we could tout as many slogans as we wanted about his “irreplacibility”, but without evidence, we were defending an empty argument.

Pioneers or Puppeteers
Avakian has certainly made very valuable contributions to the field of Marxism. It was in fact his works that started me along the revolutionary road of communism. Further, his party has made very valuable contributions over its lifetime and I am grateful for what I’ve learned through my affiliation with them.

However, within the context of the RC4, I couldn’t help but to feel as though we were being used as front men or spokespersons within the Black community to connect them to Bob Avakian.


It was obvious of course that racial orientation was a significant factor in creating the team of speakers. I don’t think there was anything in particular wrong with that. We all had direct experience and history within the Black community and were seen as relatively advanced revolutionary communists, and these latter aspects more than anything were probably the more principal reasons we were chosen.


The problem was that this tour was too much structured as Avakian’s cult of personality gateway into the Black community. As a result, RC4 members were made out to be Black representatives of Avakian and his party. This approach basically was saying two things:


1) “it’s ok to follow this man because we’re Black like you and we do” and


2) Avakian needs certified Blacks to talk to other Blacks to get them to accept his cult of personality.


The problems here are quite evident.Altogether, race relations in the U.S. often complicate revolutionary politics. (They can even complicate mainstream politics as we see with the Obama circus.) They can cause unfortunate barriers between groups whose objective interests lie in their unified struggle against common enemies. For any revolutionary force to be effective in helping groups realize this common interest, they have to have active political roots within their communities and engage the daily affairs and struggles of these groups and not simply come from the outside making unsubstantial claims using “representatives” of those groups to reinforce those claims.

[Dros]

This "article" only makes any sense from a very very economist framework.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It makes sense from a logic and reason standpoint. The RC4 tour was a tokenized charade, used by the cynical white leadership of comrade spongebob.

[BIG BROTHER]

This "article" only makes any sense from a very very economist framework.

i can't help to notice that you keep throwing that word a lot very often. It reminds me of when ex president Fox(in mexico) would throw the world "populist" against obrador without explaining what it really meant and why it was bad.

So sorry for going off topic, but do you care to explain what "economist" means and why its "bad".

[Winter]

RCP: Hey look, black people like us and so should you!

The Masses: *crickets chirpping*

[Die Neue Zeit]

i can't help to notice that you keep throwing that word a lot very often. It reminds me of when ex president Fox(in mexico) would throw the world "populist" against obrador without explaining what it really meant and why it was bad.

So sorry for going off topic, but do you care to explain what "economist" means and why its "bad".

"Economism" revisited (http://www.revleft.com/vb/archive/economism-revisited-t82798/index.html)

[Saorsa]

Drosera, it really doesn't look good if you just sling insults at people criticising the RCP, rather than trying to actually counter their arguments with arguments of you're own. If the RCP isn't going to engage the actual, concrete criticisms levelled at it by Kasama, it's just going to continue to lose face amongst it's fellow revolutionary leftists.

[redwinter]

The political line reflected in this article is in lockstep with the revisionist line promoted by Ely. I think the RCP's response to the Nine Letters is useful in breaking down and understanding what this line represents in opposition to the communist line of the RCP and Bob Avakian.

STUCK IN THE “AWFUL CAPITALIST PRESENT” OR FORGING A PATH TO THE COMMUNIST FUTURE? (http://www.revcom.us/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf)
A Response to Mike Ely's Nine Letters (http://www.revcom.us/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf)

I'd encourage people to read this response and carefully study it in conjunction with the writings of Bob Avakian to get a sense of what this new synthesis, and the science of communism itself, is all about (pardon my "fetish of the word" here - but the key thing is to base our understanding on the (actual, real) political line in question and not some "insider creds" being thrown around).

[Rawthentic]

Here's what the RCP had to say on Akil Bomani when he was with the RCP:


“Akil Bomani is a member of the Chicago Writers and Artists Collective and a correspondent to Revolution newspaper. Growing up in the streets of Chicago in the 1990s with his Pentecostal mom, Akil searched for answers. He speaks powerfully to how he came to be a revolutionary communist in his article “Losing My Religion.” He is a writer, poet, rapper, and actor. Akil is currently studying for a masters degree in linguistics and writing a book on Black culture.” (http://rwor.org/a/001/revolutionary-communist-4-tour.htm)

This article by Akil (”Losing my Religion”) mentioned above used to be available on the revcom.us site (http://rwor.org/1237/losingreligion.htm). It has since been deleted.

Also removed was the RCP’s report from the LA RC4 event: http://revcom.us/a/010/rc4-hts-los-angeles.htm

As is usual, there has been absolutely no summation of this event, and its complete failure to attract the black masses.

A year later, there was this notice (Revolution #53, July 16, 2006):


(http://revcom.us/a/053/record-en.html)As a matter of record… (http://revcom.us/a/053/record-en.html)
Akil Bomani was, for a certain period time, part of the Revolutionary Communist Tour as a member of the Chicago Revolutionary Writer’s and Artists Collective. However, after a certain point it became clear that Akil Bomani actually has very significant disagreements with the viewpoint and aims of the Tour and of the RCP, and since early October 2005, he has no longer been a part of the Tour and has had no political association with the Tour or with the RCP or Revolution newspaper, nor does the Tour or the RCP have anything to do with any artistic or other endeavors Akil Bomani may have undertaken.



Hmm.....

[Rawthentic]

Economism is a word that is thrown around a lot by drosera, as well as by the RCP itself.

In the thread "Why Political Party Could Save and Fix the USA", there was a debate between drosera and I that Mike Ely responded to (and drosera never replied back to) which refutes both drosera's, redwinter's and the RCP's (frank) lies about Kasama's alleged 'economism'.

Here's what Mike said (care to reply redwinter or drosera):


Hi. I am Mike ely. And I have been reading this thread with interest.

Let me dig into these issues a bit:

There are three problems with the arguments of the RCP supporters (and I don't just mean their arguments around the kasama project).

Those problems are:
* dogmatic method of circular reasoning
* routine and pretty shameless distortion of the facts
* most important a problem of line (in service of which both of the above two are mobilized).

the question of method has been discussed in great detail on the Kasama site (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/) itself, so I don't think we need to reproduce it here. But that method is (repeatedly) asserting a false premise, and then (with clear and energetic formal logic) building a whole edifice of verdicts on that false premise. Part of what is in operation here is the RCP's assumptions of what is "economism and revisionism."

The key and defining principle of the RCP today (the key criterion for membership for example) is that appreciation of Bob Avakian is the dividing line between marxism and revisionism (which means it is the dividing line between revolution and counterrevolution AMONG COMMUNISTS). If you start there (with that assumption and verdict) then any communist who criticizes Avakian's synthesis (especially in a sweeping and allsided way) is, by simple logic, a revisionist (since he is on the wrong side of the dividing line). So then you go sift through various discussions and works to find "proof" of all this.

The problem with such logic is (as i'm sure all can see) that if your premise is wrong, then the rest doesn't follow.

On the facts: Desperate to show that the 9 Letters to our comrades is revisionist (when in fact it is not) they ended up tearing quotes out of context and distorting what they mean.

For example: their theory is that I (ie Mike Ely) and the 9 Letters have abandoned the struggle for socialism and communism and are seeking solutions inside of capitalism.

But, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in the 9 letters that even vaguely suggests that.... since this is not the line of the 9 Letters or Kasama project.

Kasama defines itself with the following words (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/about/):

"Kasama: a communist project that, in theory and practice, fights for the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. We are re-conceiving as we regroup — engaging in in “a very presumptuous work (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/1-a-time-to-speak-clearly/)” to create a new revolutionary trend that (in more than words) is rooted in the dreams and political aspirations of real people. We are a starting a process of intense theoretical work and initial practical work."

How is that revisionist, reformist or counterrevolutionary? It is obviously not.

but the headline of the RCP's response is:

STUCK IN THE “AWFUL CAPITALIST PRESENT” OR
FORGING A PATH TO THE COMMUNIST FUTURE?

Notice they put quotes around "awful caitalist present" as if to imply that getting stuck there is Kasama's plan, while only they (the RCP) are about "forging a path" to communism.

Well where is that quote taken from?

In the 9 Letters to our comrades, we wrote:

"A revolutionary organization has to be integrated into struggles of the people — directly in its own name while connecting with (or initiating) a variety of other organizations. And it has to draw the thinking and activity of people toward creatively-conceived communist solutions to this awful capitalist present – a task which can only be accomplished with methods that are bold yet sophisticated (not hackneyed or infantile)."

In other words, this quote is from a paragraph about connecting the "thinking and activity" of people with "creatively conceived communist solutions" to capitalism. This is about revolution carried out by millions of peole -- and making that a reality.

And this was being discussed because the RCP preaches hollow and hackneyed phrases at people -- and stands isolated and falling apart as a result.

But the RCP claims that this paragraph is proof of revisionism and economism, and claim that it wants to seek solutions WITHIN the "awful capitalist present."

responding to our paragraph they write:

"This is exactly and completely wrong! The task of a revolutionary communist vanguard, the entire raison d’être of communists at this time in history, is precisely the opposite: to lead the masses in making communist revolution and getting rid of this entire capitalist system – not to find solutions within it, creatively-conceived or not, communist in name or not."

In other words, to find "proof" of revisionism in Mike's work, they had to distort a rather clear and revolutionary paragraph. when he talks of "communist solutions to the awful capitalist present" they insist this must mean reformust solutions WITHIN CAPITALISM.

It is an obvious distortion (one of many) -- and it is done because they want to prove a reformism that doesn't exist.

The 9 Letters is a revolutionary document about how to break with windy dogmatism and the tiresome grandiousity of the RCP and its long string of failures -- and make a revolution for real (with real people)!

so that is the question of facts: and I invite anyone to just read the documents (especially the RCP's response) and compare their charges to what is actually said.

Let's finish with a brief discussion of economism:

What is economism?

Economism is a view (among communists) that the best way to build political consciousness is to organize themselves around their own oppression. And it assumes that if you get close to people by serving their own immediate perceived needs, that out of that struggle they will learn about the world, and about politics, and become supporters of revolutionary change.

So communists who are influenced by economism go among the people and focus on those issues that are most immediate FOR THEM, and focus on mobilizing them against their own immediate oppressors (their employer, or feudal landlord, or the local cop, or whatever). And they expect that out of increasingly militant struggle (the police come and beat people on picket lines, or the newspapers attack a just struggle) the workers and oppressed will "see" that there is a larger system, and that it is the obstable to their dreams of a better life.

The problem with economism (as Lenin pointed out in What is to be done?) is that it is based on a false view of how people become conscious. And it ignores the fact that struggles people wage over their own most immediate oppression have a built in tendency to get drawn into BOURGEOIS politics (elections, deal making, fighting for a slice of the pie, reaching agreements with the employer etc.)

Lenin argues, correctly, that revolutionary consciousness of a communist kind can only come to people from OUTSIDE the realm of their own immediate experience. To become class conscious (in a revolutionary way) you need information that only comes from studying history, and economics, and world affairs, and the larger events of society.

And so, Lenin argues, the task of communists is to systematically bring such information and analysis to people. Instead of focusing people's attention ON THEMSELVES (AND HOW THEY ARE FUCKED OVER) a communist work strains to bring into focus ALL the forces in society, what their position is, their politics, their programs.

After all the masses don't just want to push back on their own oppression, they want to be prepared (politically) to make alliances, to set up a government, to invent new laws, to design a new production system.... and you will never get there if you are focused just on your own low wages, or just on the shitty conditions on your block.

So, what does ecnomism have to do with the 9 Letters to Our Comrades?

Nothing.

the 9 letters are not economist -- they are precisely revolutionary in the sense that Lenin advocated. And the paragraph that the RCP singles out is precisely an expression of that.

So how can the RCP claim that the 9 letters is economist?

Because they have changed the definition of this term. They claim to have "enriched" lenin -- they have invented "enriched what is to be donism" -- and anything else, they say, is economism.

What is this "enriched what is to be donism"? It is a negation of Lenin's line. It is preaching to people in a way that stresses theory not actual events. It is the promotion of a particular view of "what communism will be like" -- and instead of focusing on how to make revolution and change in this society, it is a method that is all about starting with communism and "working back to the present."

and so, when the 9 Letters (and Kasama project) talk about orgainizing political struggle (of real poeple) around key dividing lines and faultlines in society -- and connecting that with communist work of exposure and analysis...... all THAT to them becomes wrong and revisionist.

but it is a slight of hand. It is not economist, it is communism brought into our present. The 9 Letters criticizes the RCP for abandoning its mass work among the people, for dissing the people when they don't rally to the RCP's latest scheme. (See Letter 3 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-3/))

But look at a century and more of revolution? did anyone go to the people and say "we have the leader for you, follow him because he is a unique, rare, irreplacable, beloved and special person who knows the way out?"

No. They went with political programs and projects and organized people.

"Prepare minds and organize people for revolution."

Lenin's party had the "three whales" they used to organize the revolutionary movement: an end to the Tsar and founding a republic, the eight hour day solution to the misery of working class lives, and land for the peasant. And these three demands were only reachable (in Russia at that time) through struggle and revolutionary means.

and while they organized around such key fault lines, and judged allies on that basis, they conducted revolutionary political work (winning the advanced to a far sighted sense of "what it would take", and to the process of creatively inventing the paths to revolution.) Unlike the RCP they never claimed "it is all there for the taking" -- because it wasn't. The paths to seizure of power, the forms of new political power, the method and approaches ALL HAD TO BE CREATIVELY invented, as the moments approach and the real conditions became clear.

[Dros]

Drosera, it really doesn't look good if you just sling insults at people criticising the RCP, rather than trying to actually counter their arguments with arguments of you're own. If the RCP isn't going to engage the actual, concrete criticisms levelled at it by Kasama, it's just going to continue to lose face amongst it's fellow revolutionary leftists.

1.) "Economism" is not an insult.
2.) The RCP has engaged and decimated the line of the Kasama people. My post is simply pointing out how economist this line is. It's so obvious now.
3.) The RCP is not losing any standing in the eyes of it's "fellow revolutionary leftists". All that's happened is that a small section of Revisionists have left the party circle to pursue a more revisionist method. That's fine. I'm sad to see self identified Communists wondering that old path and to see them bringing other people down like that but it doesn't mean much to me more than this.

Edit:


So sorry for going off topic, but do you care to explain what "economist" means and why its "bad".

Sure. I use this word a lot because a lot of economism exists in the world and it's important to fight it.

Economism is a trend within the communist movement that is characterized in part by a focus to get a mass movement. That sounds very reasonable. The problem is, economists put the mass movement above their politics leading them to "sell out". I suggest you read the RCP response that Comrade Redwinter linked to. In ten years, if Kasama continues on its present course, it won't be a subjectively Communist organization. Guaranteed.

Edit: Just saw Rawthinc's post and will reply shortly. cheers.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Economism is a trend within the communist movement that is characterized in part by a focus to get a mass movement. That sounds very reasonable. The problem is, economists put the mass movement above their politics leading them to "sell out". I suggest you read the RCP response that Comrade Redwinter linked to. In ten years, if Kasama continues on its present course, it won't be a subjectively Communist organization. Guaranteed.

Thats bull-shit, and i mean if you'd think about it yourself you'd know it as well. Economism is placing an emphasis on economic gains contrary to fighting for economic gains in combination with revolutionary struggle onwards and other gains.
Anyways your referring to 'populism' trying to gain support above everything. Though i don't see how it's populist and i doubt you see it, but if you do please elaborate.
All they are doing is criticizing the method the RCP is using in trying to gain mass-support, which is very correct and concrete criticism. Or are you saying that having factual success in gaining mass-support would be 'economist' *cough*because the RCP hasn't got any*cough*.

[IrisBright]

People really should read the RCP Response. It is full of distortions, personal attacks, snide attitude. As someone who is just learning about communist theory, and doesn't 'speak the language' of the Left yet, it is very important to me for a party like the RCP to engage on a high plane of public debate with the 9 Letters to Our Comrades. I don't feel that is what has occurred. It doesn't address, in any meaningful way, the points about BA being a cardinal question, which was a main thrust of the Letters.

When I asked about this directly, I got a very carefully worded non-answer. Why so careful? The exact same words were repeated again, slowly, when I asked in another manner. 'Economism' was explained in two ways: 'classic' economism, referring to Lenin, and labor struggles, etc.; and the 'economism' of the 9L. These are different, the RCP explained to me. Mike Ely thinks everythings 'comes out of the movement'. What does that mean, exactly? Seems like what drosera said, sort of.

Drosera, in the spirit of learning--because this has become a confused issue for me since talks with cadre--is WCW economist? How are mass initiatives not economist, especially as WCW relates to BA's theories about "The Coming Civil War" (polarizing the people). Wouldn't WCW as a mass initiative be intended to divert mass concsiousness to 'the world of Bob Avakian' (as opposed to 'that of George W. Bush', as that infamous flyer posed), and isn't that 'coming out of the struggle'? I got a seriously confusing--and painfully long--answer to this 'important' question from cadre, whose first sentence was uttered to make me feel guilty: "WCW exists to drive out bush, because it is morally right. Don't you think we need to stop the Bush program on a moral basis?"

This is what I get for asking a question about economism and RCP strategic mass initiatives.

Anyhow, I am also curious--I read an old thread where you debated with Kasamarl, and you said you were going to ask cadre directly whether BA was a cardinal question, and if he was on the level of Lenin or Mao. You never reported back. That was december 07. What did they say? My answer was so wierd!

[IrisBright]

P.S.

Hi, Comrade Alastair!

--Iris

[Rawthentic]

What drosera says, and the RCP as well, are utter lies.

Nowhwere, EVER, has the Nine Letters or Kasama said, or even implied, that what is more important is a mass movement than communist theory. Never. Drosera has to clearly show that (he won't, watch).

Kasama maintains that of course we need communist theory, that we really do need a new synthesis (and not avakian's) but that this needs to take root amongst the people, we need bases (and a basis) to carry out and practice our theories. This is the core of the revolutionary movement, and was in Russia and in China. Mao expanded on this. There were always new summations after older practice had failed and they corrected it - and created a socialist society!

And the RCP has never decimated Kasama. It truly has been the other way around. You can call the people that are leaving the defunct RCP 'revisionist' or whatever, but what it really causes is more stifiling of collective debate and a higher requirement of 'appreciation' (read: cult) around Avakian.

[Rawthentic]

In fact, why don't redwinters and drosera and reply to the actual thread?

Is Akil Bomani right? Is he wrong? Engage the reality he lived within the RCP and see what we come up with.

[IrisBright]

I have yet to hear any deep engagement from actual human beings who support the RCP that don't just refer me to the Response. Please, if you are not cadre and are free to speak on these issues openly, do so. You will be doing the RCP a huge favor.

Like some of the posters above said: words like 'economist' get tossed around too lightly. If the RCP has a principled interest in struggle and criticism, why did they print that ridiculous and grammatically mysterious (now corrected!) article Observations from Readers? All it did was repeat and praise, literally, everything in the Response. In the first person, strangely. And it wasn't a mistake, because the entire introductory section was in the same plural.

I thought BA was interested in refuting the stereotype of communists as brainwashed, self contained, self congratulating automatons. what was the point of the article? And to everyone who rejects Mike Ely as a traitor who is claiming a 'secret line', I have been told by cadre that there are things that can't be spoken to or refuted openly by the party. Why? Dunno. I'm sure the same people who accuse Mike of dishonest cloak-and-daggery would s ay it is a 'security issue'.

This is so frustrating! I really have respect for some of the cadre I know, but this has all been handled by the party very, very badly. It really opened my eyes.

[IrisBright]

Sorry to multipost--I see it as fact that in my city--which is almost entirely populated by poor black people--the local RBO has almost no connection to the neighborhoods. This really sucks to say, and makes me sad because I respect the cadre who plug away with the paper. I know there are some people who know them and expect the paper every week. But there seems to be something so wacky about going to the poorest, most oppressed people in this country, and starting not with basics about communism, or class, or anything like that, but with Avakian--how he can lead us all out of this, and is the only one who can. PEOPLE DON'T GO FOR IT. They talk and fade away, they never become committed, or even necessarily deeply conscious..

[Dros]

Thats bull-shit, and i mean if you'd think about it yourself you'd know it as well. Economism is placing an emphasis on economic gains contrary to fighting for economic gains in combination with revolutionary struggle onwards and other gains.

Read it again. You'll notice the phrase "in part" is included. You're correct that Economism tends to focus primarily on economic struggles and tends to minimize or do away with political struggle all together. However, historically, the reason this has happened is that the organizations were trying to build a mass movement and they felt that pursuing a revolutionary Communist line was an ineffective way of doing this.


All they are doing is criticizing the method the RCP is using in trying to gain mass-support, which is very correct and concrete criticism.

Well, that depends on what is meant by "concrete". If you mean their criticism exists, then you're correct. If you're saying it's worth anything, I'd disagree.


Or are you saying that having factual success in gaining mass-support would be 'economist' *cough*because the RCP hasn't got any*cough*.

This really isn't true. As I've pointed out again and again, the RCP has far more support then any other Communist group in the US that I've ever heard of.


It is full of distortions, personal attacks, snide attitude. As someone who is just learning about communist theory, and doesn't 'speak the language' of the Left yet, it is very important to me for a party like the RCP to engage on a high plane of public debate with the 9 Letters to Our Comrades. I don't feel that is what has occurred. It doesn't address, in any meaningful way, the points about BA being a cardinal question, which was a main thrust of the Letters.

Please shoot me a PM.

In the mean time, the reason that the RCP hasn't engaged this on a "high plane of public debate" by which I assume you mean "with respect" is that this is not a principled criticism. It is a highly opportunistic attack as was outlined in the "Basic Orientations" article. I suggest you read that.

Would you mind showing some of these distortions you mention from the RCP response?

And lastly, the point about Avakian being a cardinal question was addressed I believe. The RCP believes that the New Synthesis is a cardinal question, something that all Communists everywhere must dig into and discuss. It DOES NOT mean that the RCP holds that anyone who doesn't uphold Avakian is a revisionist. That is simply untrue and anyone claiming that is either ill informed or lying.


What drosera says, and the RCP as well, are utter lies.

:lol::lol::lol:

So kasama resorts to flaming now?


Nowhwere, EVER, has the Nine Letters or Kasama said, or even implied, that what is more important is a mass movement than communist theory. Never.

No shit. Kautsky didn't say "I've decided to abandon revolutionary Communism for bourgeois democracy" (at first) either. Our position comes from an analysis of your line and what its implications are. I wonder if you've even read the RCP Response to the Nine Letters.


Drosera has to clearly show that (he won't, watch).

No, I don't! Someone else already has! That would be like an anarchist saying "you have to show why there needs to be a Vanguard party" every time you argue about the Russian Revolution. Just tell them to read WITBD and ask questions! READ THE RESPONSE. If you'd like to go over the text of that document and analyze the argument with me, I'd be glad to! But I'm not inclined to reproduce it here for your convenience upon request. I don't know about you but I've got better things to do with my time!


this needs to take root amongst the people, we need bases (and a basis) to carry out and practice our theories

And here it is again. So the criterion for the quality of theory is that it be taken up by the people. So, we'll develop a "communist" theory that people can get behind! What you're going to end up with is social democracy. It's happened before and it'll happen again. In two years Kasama will be... Obama!

And again, I will respond to the article tomorrow. I'm rather busy at the moment.

[leftclick]

"Would you mind showing some of these distortions you mention from the RCP response?"

I deal with a couple of them in my response to their section on epistemology. Mainly I focus on RCP's idealism.

mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/zerohour-on-the-rcp-response-getting-ahead-of-itself-behind-the-curve/#comments

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kautsky didn't say "I've decided to abandon revolutionary Communism for bourgeois democracy" (at first) either. Our position comes from an analysis of your line and what its implications are. I wonder if you've even read the RCP Response to the Nine Letters.

I choked on my proverbial popcorn when I read your revisionist slander towards the true founder of "Marxism." Let me clarify the record:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/karl-kautsky-t83378/index.html


http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-and-...667/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-and-kautsky-t78667/index.html)

The real founder of "Marxism" was, in the words of his most well-known disciple:

[...] The most authoritative theoretician of the Second International and a teacher to a generation of Marxists. His popularization of Das Kapital has canonic status. He was one of the first to refute opportunism in detail (although he hesitated somewhat before launching his attack) and continued to fight energetically against it, asserting that a split would be necessary if opportunism ever became the official tendency of the German party. Marxists [...] learned a dialectical approach to tactics from him. Only vis-à-vis the state do we observe a tendency to restrict himself to general truths and to evade a concrete discussion.

Kautsky was also a reliable guide to the revolutionary developments of the early twentieth century. His magisterial work on the agrarian question is still valid. He correctly diagnosed the national problem (as opposed to Rosa Luxemburg). He insisted that Western Europe was ripe for socialist revolution, and foretold the connection between war and revolution.

Kautsky had a special relation to Russia and to Bolshevism. On the one hand, he himself took great interest in Russian developments, and endorsed the basic Bolshevik view of the 1905 revolution. On the other hand, the Russian revolutionary workers read him eagerly and his writings had greater influence in Russia than anywhere else. This enthusiastic interest in the “latest word” of European Marxism is one of the main reasons for Bolshevism’s later revolutionary prowess.

And look at him now!

[http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni.../democracy.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm)]

What wonderful erudition! What refined servility to the bourgeoisie! What civilised belly-crawling before the capitalists and boot-licking! If I were Krupp or Scheidemann, or Clemenceau or Renaudel, I would pay Mr. Kautsky millions, reward him with Judas kisses, praise him before the workers and urge “socialist unity” with “honourable” men like him. To write pamphlets against the dictatorship of the proletariat, to talk about the Whigs and Tories in England in the eighteenth century, to assert that democracy means “protecting the minority,” and remain silent about pogroms against internationalists in the “democratic” republic of America-isn’t this rendering lackey service to the bourgeoisie?

[http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...t_republic.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/soviet_republic.htm)]

We know from many of Kautsky’s works that he knew how to he a Marxist historian, and that such works of his will remain a permanent possession of the proletariat in spite of his subsequent apostasy.

[Saorsa]

Please shoot me a PM.

Why are you willing to defend the RCP's line in private, but not in public? What have you got to hide?


And lastly, the point about Avakian being a cardinal question was addressed I believe. The RCP believes that the New Synthesis is a cardinal question, something that all Communists everywhere must dig into and discuss. It DOES NOT mean that the RCP holds that anyone who doesn't uphold Avakian is a revisionist. That is simply untrue and anyone claiming that is either ill informed or lying.

A question - do you believe that Avakian is on level with a Lenin or a Mao? Because that's what the introduction to his autobiography (which I've got a copy of) said.




:lol::lol::lol:

So kasama resorts to flaming now?


How is that any more flaming than what you were saying to Kasama?


No, I don't! Someone else already has! That would be like an anarchist saying "you have to show why there needs to be a Vanguard party" every time you argue about the Russian Revolution. Just tell them to read WITBD and ask questions! READ THE RESPONSE. If you'd like to go over the text of that document and analyze the argument with me, I'd be glad to! But I'm not inclined to reproduce it here for your convenience upon request. I don't know about you but I've got better things to do with my time!

You don't need to write a reply of that length, but it would be good to actually provide some arguments that amount to more than sectarian name-calling and accusations of "economism" and "opportunism".


And here it is again. So the criterion for the quality of theory is that it be taken up by the people. So, we'll develop a "communist" theory that people can get behind! What you're going to end up with is social democracy. It's happened before and it'll happen again. In two years Kasama will be... Obama!

Kasama didn't say anything like that! You seem to be saying that any mention of how you're trying to win support amongst the masses must logically mean you intend to do this by watering down you're politics. Why can't Kasama (or any other party for that matter) struggle to win support for their ideas among the workers without abandoning communism? Why are you assuming that workers won't support communism?

You're argument seems to be be that "Real communists don't need popular support! Any attempts to win support among the working class is selling out! Our lack of working-class support PROVES how faithful we are to true Marxism! You're a bunch of heretics!"

Trying to get involved in every day struggles of the working class is not economistic, so long as you maintain a revolutionary communist ideology and promote that in you're everyday activities. You're sounding almost elitist here Drosera - "we don't need to go to the workers, they need to come to us!"

[Rawthentic]

No shit. Kautsky didn't say "I've decided to abandon revolutionary Communism for bourgeois democracy" (at first) either. Our position comes from an analysis of your line and what its implications are. I wonder if you've even read the RCP Response to the Nine Letters.Like I said, it is not implicit. The RCP Response says the same shit that you do, but either nitpicks at the Letters, or distorts them completely. I want you to QUOTE the Letters here on RL so that we can see if that is the truth (which we will see is not).

Stop playing games. Dont refer us to a crappy response. Show us. Make an actual argument.


And here it is again. So the criterion for the quality of theory is that it be taken up by the people. So, we'll develop a "communist" theory that people can get behind! What you're going to end up with is social democracy. It's happened before and it'll happen again. In two years Kasama will be... Obama!

And again, I will respond to the article tomorrow. I'm rather busy at the moment.Here we go again with the empty reasoning and logic and lies. Where did I ever say that the criterion of theory is the masses? It is not as simple as that.

It is also not as simple when Avakian says that he is the leader of the proletariat simply because they have the correct line (and they dont). This is what Akil Bomani's article illuminates so well - the 4 black revolutionaries went into the ghettos to speak to Black people about "their leader". Someone that Black people had neither met not heard of.

Lenin is correct when he says that the question is not whether you are leading a movement, but by what theory and line. I agree, Mike does, and so does Kasama. But the RCP does NOT have the correct line! Its method, and parts of line are WRONG. From blaming the people, to their lack of summation, cult of personality, lack of collective and lively debate, they are wrong. I'd love to get into this.

But hello! If, after 30+ years of an organization calling itself the vanguard of the US proletariat, with a leader that is (apparently:lol:) of a "special caliber", and there is literally no real base of support amongst those they claim to represent, there is a problem, and its much more than objective conditions! (keep in mind that lenin and mao faced MUCH worse conditions, but they had a real base amongst the oppressed (oh the horror) to test and validate their theories).

We need to develop a communist theory that can develop roots amongst the masses and fluorish and grow into a revolutionary movement. That is our purpose, as communists. To take communism to the masses in a real way, and have them take it up. How is this economist?


However, historically, the reason this has happened is that the organizations were trying to build a mass movement and they felt that pursuing a revolutionary Communist line was an ineffective way of doing this.This is what you simply cannot prove with Kasama. You've tried (but failed).

Mike is correct when he says:

and so, when the 9 Letters (and Kasama project) talk about organizing political struggle (of real people) around key dividing lines and fault lines in society -- and connecting that with communist work of exposure and analysis...... all THAT to them becomes wrong and revisionist.

but it is a slight of hand. It is not economist, it is communism brought into our present. The 9 Letters criticizes the RCP for abandoning its mass work among the people, for dissing the people when they don't rally to the RCP's latest scheme. (See Letter 3 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-3/))

But look at a century and more of revolution? did anyone go to the people and say "we have the leader for you, follow him because he is a unique, rare, irreplaceable, beloved and special person who knows the way out?"

No. They went with political programs and projects and organized people.

"Prepare minds and organize people for revolution."

Lenin's party had the "three whales" they used to organize the revolutionary movement: an end to the Tsar and founding a republic, the eight hour day solution to the misery of working class lives, and land for the peasant. And these three demands were only reachable (in Russia at that time) through struggle and revolutionary means.

and while they organized around such key fault lines, and judged allies on that basis, they conducted revolutionary political work (winning the advanced to a far sighted sense of "what it would take", and to the process of creatively inventing the paths to revolution.) Unlike the RCP they never claimed "it is all there for the taking" -- because it wasn't. The paths to seizure of power, the forms of new political power, the method and approaches ALL HAD TO BE CREATIVELY invented, as the moments approach and the real conditions became clear.Prove that this is economist. If you call Kasama economist, you'd need to call Lenin and Mao the same thing.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Read it again. You'll notice the phrase "in part" is included. You're correct that Economism tends to focus primarily on economic struggles and tends to minimize or do away with political struggle all together. However, historically, the reason this has happened is that the organizations were trying to build a mass movement and they felt that pursuing a revolutionary Communist line was an ineffective way of doing this.

Thats not economism in itself, anyways away from details and back to the topic: how the fuck is the article 'economist' or to use a more correct term populist?


Well, that depends on what is meant by "concrete". If you mean their criticism exists, then you're correct. If you're saying it's worth anything, I'd disagree.

Ok, I'm talking about this specific article, not the 9 letters. In what way is this article 'economist'?


This really isn't true. As I've pointed out again and again, the RCP has far more support then any other Communist group in the US that I've ever heard of.

Yes, but i doubt it can grow. All the RCP does is 'trying to educate'. That is as the article above mentioned walking up to someone from outside and hoping they'll agree. This is thanks to the line that in the first world the working class should not fight for more gains because they are 'labor aristocrats'. Which is a ridicolous notion, the working poor in the U.S. are still working poor and fighting for workers benefits would in no way be wrong (the source for this is 'for a harvest of dragons by Bob Avakian where he specifically mentions that this is the RCP's party-line).

[Rawthentic]

This post that I made a few posts ago in this thread, truly shows how hollow and empty the RCP is when applying what they say into practice. For example, one of the main elements of the "'new' synthesis" is “allowing even the most reactionary to publish books with state sponsored funds” so that “we can learn even a bit of truth from them” . As we can see, with the RCP literally erasing Akil Bomani's profile from their website, they are full of mierda. Here's the post:


Here's what the RCP had to say on Akil Bomani when he was with the RCP:
Quote:

“Akil Bomani is a member of the Chicago Writers and Artists Collective and a correspondent to Revolution newspaper. Growing up in the streets of Chicago in the 1990s with his Pentecostal mom, Akil searched for answers. He speaks powerfully to how he came to be a revolutionary communist in his article “Losing My Religion.” He is a writer, poet, rapper, and actor. Akil is currently studying for a masters degree in linguistics and writing a book on Black culture.” (http://rwor.org/a/001/revolutionary-...ist-4-tour.htm (http://rwor.org/a/001/revolutionary-communist-4-tour.htm))
This article by Akil (”Losing my Religion”) mentioned above used to be available on the revcom.us site (http://rwor.org/1237/losingreligion.htm). It has since been deleted.

Also removed was the RCP’s report from the LA RC4 event: http://revcom.us/a/010/rc4-hts-los-angeles.htm

As is usual, there has been absolutely no summation of this event, and its complete failure to attract the black masses.

A year later, there was this notice (Revolution #53, July 16, 2006):
Quote:
As a matter of record… (http://revcom.us/a/053/record-en.html)
Akil Bomani was, for a certain period time, part of the Revolutionary Communist Tour as a member of the Chicago Revolutionary Writer’s and Artists Collective. However, after a certain point it became clear that Akil Bomani actually has very significant disagreements with the viewpoint and aims of the Tour and of the RCP, and since early October 2005, he has no longer been a part of the Tour and has had no political association with the Tour or with the RCP or Revolution newspaper, nor does the Tour or the RCP have anything to do with any artistic or other endeavors Akil Bomani may have undertaken.


Hmm.....[/quote]

If the RCP cannot reply to the Nine Letters in a principled way, without character assassination (as they've done against Mike Ely), or cannot engage with someone like Akil Bomani who is a dedicated revolutionary, I don't even want to imagine what it would look like if Avakian ever led a socialist state :(.

Let's recall that the entire tone of the Nine Letters To Our Comrades (doesnt this in itself show that what kasama is interested in is principled two-line struggle?) is principled two-line struggle.

Lets take a look at excerpts from the RCP's Response:
What Mike Ely is doing, and has done with his Nine Letters, is capitulating, and promoting capitulation to
imperialism and its horrors, while maintaining a threadbare camouflage of communism and in fact
pandering to and cohering all kinds of anti-communist prejudices – in the name of “communism”! The
only unifying “principle” of his Nine Letters is a highly unprincipled attack on the RCP and its Chairman
Bob Avakian – the one party and leader in this country which are actually and actively working for
revolution and communism, and contributing to that cause in the world.Here's the entire response for more of this: http://revcom.us/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf

Compare the two, comrades, and see on your own.

[N3wday]

"and its much more than objective conditions! (keep in mind that lenin and mao faced MUCH worse conditions, but they had a real base amongst the oppressed (oh the horror) to test and validate their theories)."

Raw,

First, I agree, yes there is a lot more than objective conditions involved here.

But I'm going to have to disagree with just a small section of your criticism. Both the Chinese and Russian revolutions went through periods of massive revolutionary crisis. Yes they faced more difficult conditions such as political repression etc, however the conditions for winning people over to Communism were much more favorable. Even the 9L point out that the lack of base in the RCP is largely due to the objective conditions in the U.S.

However the critique is not just that they have failed to connect communism with a proletarian base, but almost more importantly have failed to sum that up (at least publically, so their supporters have no way to struggle through these issues, if they have the answers just get sent down from the top, rather than struggled through collectively).

I think it's also important to point out that base doesn't mean mass party. Especially not at this time. It simply means at least a significant number (relatively speaking) of people (especially prols) who are committed to that party. There is no such party that has developed this base. Hence the need to reconceive and regroup.

The RCP has a lot of attraction because it is a genuinely revolutionary organization, and there are, even in these times significant sections of people desperate for revolutionary answers (but probably not enough for revulolution itself). However the RCP has not been able to connect their politics with these people. And the ones they do, apparently don't stick around, for reasons outlined in documents like the 9Ls, the Akil piece etc.

Sorry to pick that little part to talk about, and much of this post was not aimed at you (only a small part), everything else I thought was right on point. :thumbup:

[Rawthentic]

First, I agree, yes there is a lot more than objective conditions involved here.


But I'm going to have to disagree with just a small section of your criticism. Both the Chinese and Russian revolutions went through periods of massive revolutionary crisis. Yes they faced more difficult conditions such as political repression etc, however the conditions for winning people over to Communism were much more favorable. Even the 9L point out that the lack of base in the RCP is largely due to the objective conditions in the U.S.

hey comrade, thanks for the criticism.

In terms of the negative conditions that Mao faced for example were: a tiny proletariat, a politically and culturally backward peasantry, invasion by Japan, national Civil war, etc. These are extremely adverse conditions, and lenin faced others in his time as well.

Thats what I had in mind, but I do agree with the rest of your post.

[Dros]

Why are you willing to defend the RCP's line in private, but not in public? What have you got to hide?

:lol::lol::lol:

Yeah. I was going to tell her that the RCP is just a front for... the TOOTH FAIRY!!!

Do I have something to hide?:lol:

How do I even begin to answer that?!


A question - do you believe that Avakian is on level with a Lenin or a Mao? Because that's what the introduction to his autobiography (which I've got a copy of) said.

I believe that the New Synthesis is of universal importance to all real communists and in that sense, yes.


How is that any more flaming than what you were saying to Kasama?

Saying that a group of people has taken a revisionist line is not flaming them.


You don't need to write a reply of that length, but it would be good to actually provide some arguments that amount to more than sectarian name-calling and accusations of "economism" and "opportunism".

Like I just explained, the argument is out there. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel at your request. There has been NO refutation of the RCP response. When there is one, I'll respond to it. Rawthinc says it's full of distortions. I don't see them. Perhaps he will be so kind as to refute the document and/or point out these alleged distortions. Then there will be something to talk about!


Kasama didn't say anything like that! You seem to be saying that any mention of how you're trying to win support amongst the masses must logically mean you intend to do this by watering down you're politics. Why can't Kasama (or any other party for that matter) struggle to win support for their ideas among the workers without abandoning communism? Why are you assuming that workers won't support communism?

Read the response. It's not an assumption. The RCP has laid it out already. I see no need to continually repeat this here.


You're argument seems to be be that "Real communists don't need popular support! Any attempts to win support among the working class is selling out! Our lack of working-class support PROVES how faithful we are to true Marxism! You're a bunch of heretics!"

:lol:

That's the silliest shit I've ever heard. My argument is that the Kasama project's package of leading the masses to find "creatively conceived Communist solutions" to the "aweful capitalist present" is fundementally different from the Communist agenda of radically rupturing with and in fact moving beyond capitalism!


Trying to get involved in every day struggles of the working class is not economistic, so long as you maintain a revolutionary communist ideology and promote that in you're everyday activities. You're sounding almost elitist here Drosera -

I'm getting bored of repeating myself.

No. I didn't say that. I said that Kasama's line is in fact a negation of Communist ideology.


we don't need to go to the workers, they need to come to us!

You can read whatever absurd ideas (that aren't really there) into my post as you like. There is no substance to any of this crap and I think everyone knows it.

[M-L_Aussie]

Wow, you really have to laugh at Maoists arguing on an internet forum, you must have some gall to start up a third-worldist sect in the first world! Can anyone say 'white guilt':rolleyes:. Seriously, 'Maoism' is a spent force, literally, in fact most of it died when it was clear the direction China was going in, when many Maoists when over to the 'Stalinist' anti-revisionist line which upheld Albania and Enver Hoxha, and rest of the Maoists have taken the ultra-leftist line and have become increasingly populist, cult-ish and anti-Stalin, kinda like authoritarian left-communism.

[Saorsa]

Maoism is a spent force eh? I think there's a lot of people in Nepal, the Philippines, India who'd disagree with that statement.

[Winter]

Wow, you really have to laugh at Maoists arguing on an internet forum, you must have some gall to start up a third-worldist sect in the first world! Can anyone say 'white guilt':rolleyes:. Seriously, 'Maoism' is a spent force, literally, in fact most of it died when it was clear the direction China was going in, when many Maoists when over to the 'Stalinist' anti-revisionist line which upheld Albania and Enver Hoxha, and rest of the Maoists have taken the ultra-leftist line and have become increasingly populist, cult-ish and anti-Stalin, kinda like authoritarian left-communism.

Where do you get your info from? Here's a good article on an aspect of the importance for Maoism today: http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/kasama_nepal_4reasons.pdf

But it really doesn't matter, you're banned anyway. :p

[Rawthentic]

That's the silliest shit I've ever heard. My argument is that the Kasama project's package of leading the masses to find "creatively conceived Communist solutions" to the "aweful capitalist present" is fundementally different from the Communist agenda of radically rupturing with and in fact moving beyond capitalism!Drosera, and herein lies the main distortion by the RCP.

Here's what the Nine Letters actually say:


"A revolutionary organization has to be integrated into struggles of the people — directly in its own name while connecting with (or initiating) a variety of other organizations. And it has to draw the thinking and activity of people toward creatively-conceived communist solutions to this awful capitalist present – a task which can only be accomplished with methods that are bold yet sophisticated (not hackneyed or infantile)."

Notice why I bolded "to". I did it because it emphasizes that we want and need communist solutions TO this capitalist present, not WITHIN it! This is clearly a lie and distortion by the RCP, it cannot be denied. There is nothing reformist or economist about it.

How the hell is this different from "moving beyond capitalism"? It is exactly the same thing! Communism is the solution to this capitalist present, and that is what Kasama is putting forward.

And you still haven't replied on Mike Ely's post I posted, why the RCP deleted Akil Bomani from their site, or even on Akil Bomani's article itself - you just post a bunch of labels, no real arguments.

[N3wday]

Like I just explained, the argument is out there. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel at your request. There has been NO refutation of the RCP response. When there is one, I'll respond to it. Rawthinc says it's full of distortions. I don't see them. Perhaps he will be so kind as to refute the document and/or point out these alleged distortions. Then there will be something to talk about!


Drosera, there are 3 short initial responses on the Kasama site to the RCP paper. In fact earlier on this thread, zerohour linked his which you ignored.

Here are the titles of the three posts (sorry I can't post links yet on this site, I only have 14 posts right now). Feel free to respond to any of them.

"Zerohour on RCP Reponse: Both ahead of itself & behind the curve"

"John Steele on RCP Response: The broken spiral of summation"

"Sam S. on RCP Response: Inventing a strawman"

A simple search on the Kasama site will produce these articles, or you can look under the authors section on the right hand tool bar and click on the authors names.

[IrisBright]

Drosera, what did you think of the assertions that the RCP has not done basic summations of their own failures? I hear this quote alot from BA, the one about "the politics of the possible being the politics of monstrosity". I'm sure you've heard it. I feel that this quote is very relevant to this issue of not summing up how the masses 'fail to show up' and 'get with the program'.

Isn't it the communists job to bring communism, to bring options above and beyond capitalism and electing democrats? Isn't it our job, the RCP's job, to put our arms around the masses and set the sites higher? This quote implies that everyone who votes for the Democrats really sees another way out of all this and is concsiously choosing Obama and commodity fetishes, etc. As another poster said more eloquently than I, this idea about 'monstrosity and the possible' liquidates the role of the vanguard by assuming that people who vote for Obama really truly believe and understand that there are other options beside voting, and choose not to persue them.

What do you think specifically about Akil's thoughts, aside from delegitimizing them as 'economist'?