Rawthentic
12th August 2008, 22:56
RCP Constitution: Control, Cult of Personality & Revealing Silences (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/cult-of-personality-purges-and-silence-on-struggle-details-of-rcps-constitution/)
Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on August 12, 2008
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/329718901_f431e530af.jpg?w=300&h=226 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/329718901_f431e530af.jpg)
Nando replied to a series of questions about the RCPs newly published Constitution. Because of their length and substance, we are reposting them here. Nando uses the remarks by a poster called Questions as a jumping off point.
By Nando
Why RCP Discarded Term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in this Document
Questions writes:
if, as you claim, the RCP has abandoned Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, what do you make of the following, which appears in every issue of Revolution and continuously on the front page of the newspapers website? Questions then quotes the 3 Ours, including
Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm.htm)
To be clear, the observation made in that earlier post (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/new-constitution-of-the-rcp-stamped-by-avakians-synthesis/) is that this constitution abandons the TERM Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM). However as we know (and as the struggle over the term MLM has shown internationally) these labels have close connections with line questions. This is not the first major document of the RCP to deliberately avoid using the term MLM. The Special Issue of their paper (over a year ago) was filled with one article (and no pictures) describing Avakians contributions in detail, and specifically avoided using that term. Now their Constitution has appeared (culminating a process of programme-writing that spans almost a decade) and (in contrast to their previous documents of this kind) this Party Constution now also declines to use the term MLM.
The fact that the term MLM still appears in some other places (in the Three Ours in their newspaper, on various pages of their site (http://revcom.us/mlm-e.htm), does not mean that this Party is NOT in transition away from formal usage of the term MLM, it just means that we are in the beginning stages of that PUBLIC AND FORMAL transition.
This discarding of the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not surprising from those of us who have emerged from the RCP. Avakian was arguing for this over the last years, and his proposal to shift to using communism as the name of his ideology COINCIDED with the demand that his party adopt himself and his synthesis as the cardinal question among communists. The two are linked.
The RCP may continue to use this MLM terminology in passing Avakian has advocated BOTH adopting communism as the name, and not formally repudiating the term MLM. So the party itself may not choose to make a big public splash or explanation for its change (especially given the international implications.)
But, i believe, this Constitution carefully and formally marks the removal of the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the name the RCP gives to its ideology.
We Should Also Consider Another Term for Communist Theory
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mlm.jpg?w=186&h=300 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mlm.jpg)
Why not use a symbol like this to represent communist theory?
Now, I want to inject that i personally (like our recent commentator another note (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/new-constitution-of-the-rcp-stamped-by-avakians-synthesis/#comment-5789)) dont think it would be wrong to adopt a new name for communist theory and ideology.
Previously (in his 1981 work Conquer the World (http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/#section_V)) Avakian had specifically rejected the formulation of Maoism, and had suggested the movement adopt the terminology revolutionary communist/proletarian internationalist, as its main label.
rather than simply contesting the phony communists and saying theyre not communists, were real communists, we should to a certain degree and in a certain context, let the revisionists have the communist banner. And what we should say is, yes, there are different tendencies: theres the socialists and the social democrats, some of them are in power in different countries, you can see what they do, theyre more or less a straight up bourgeois trend; then theres the communists, that is, the revisionists, theyre in power in some countries too, and in other countries they want to be in power on the same basis, you can see what theyre about; and then theres our trend, which is the revolutionary communist/proletarian internationalist trend. I say this not at all facetiously.
Avakians proposal did not get support internationally (or much within the RCP either).
Then, the adoption of that terminology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the late 1980s was essentially done at the demand of Abimael Guzman, the leader of the Peruvian shining path. Guzman (Chariman Gonzalo) essentially refused to join any international formation that would not inscribe this particular formulation (MLM) on its banners.
In many places, the adoption of MLM spurred new and sharp struggle over discarding many kinds of political positions (including a number of stands associated with a very high opinion of Stalin and his brand of Marxism). So that MLM-ization process had some positive sides. But (setting this complex history of repeated renaming aside)
I believe there are several problems with the specif formulation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism:
first We need a terminology that defines us in relationship to the communist FUTURE, not mainly as the outgrowth of the past however revolutionary its key episodes and leaders were.
Second has to do with style and language: MLM (as a term) is the kind of communist jargon that seems inherently alien and odd to everyone else. Marxism-Leninism was one thing, once we got to Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought in the sixties, the terminology was becoming truly awkward and forced. We need a language of revolution that speaks clearly and directly to people without a heavy veil of self-imposed and unnecessarily mediated jargon. Revolutionaries with a tin ear are rarely successful.
The third reason is that the whole terminology Marxism-Leninism-Maoism embeds at the core of our movement a particular theory of HOW our theory develops and implies an assumption that key leaps in synthesis can only come by the specific actions of the next world historic genius (or on the heels of the next world-historic revolution).
Given our ongoing line-struggle with the assumptions of Avakian as the leader of a special caliber (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-6/) and a nascient genius theory (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-8/), it seems appropriate and necessary to separate our theorys name from the names of admired authors and leaders.
Evolutionary biologists dont call themselves Darwinian-Mendelean-Gouldites. Why? First because the development of their body of work is not limited to three or four great heads there are literally dozens of remarkable thinkers and countless creative contributors who developed modern evolutionary biology. And they want to put the focus on the field, and its collectivity and development, not on a few pathbreaking people who made advances (and also inevitably injected flaws) into the theory.
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/images.jpg?w=127&h=95 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/images.jpg)
The formulation Marxism-Leninism-Maoism accepts (uncritically and unvetted) the PREVIOUS decision of the Comintern to rename communist theory as Marxism-Leninism (done in the 1920s). this was the moment when the great heads started to appear (first Marx, Engels, Lenin, then Stalin, then Mao in a kind of Communist mount Rushmore of founding fathers.)
There is an implicit theory of creation (and of epistemology) embedded in both the terms and the graphics. And we should not adopt it, or extend it, without a critical discussoin.
Why cant we just keep the old name scientific socialism (which Marx himself preferred to Marxism)? Why not adopt a simple and understandable name like communist theory? I dont think this would be, or should be, a repudiation of the whole (or the essence) of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism but would be part of a critical development, and one important decision of what to keep and what to discard
So, perhaps ironically, I have long thought that we too (in Kasama and more broadly) should ease away from the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and some of its implications.
So now the RCP has also done this. But I think for different reasons.
Avakian noted (as he wheeled out his New Synthesis) that it is just to awkward to add a fourth name. (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Avakianism takes the odd, and makes it farcial.)
But i think there is a deeper reason, having to do with his view of synthesis. Read this new Constitution, there is a historical progression from Marx the founder, to Lenin, to Mao Zedong (who together were the heads of the Old Stage. And then (you can almost hear the drums and cymbals as Avakian is introduced as the synthesizer for this New Stage
This Constitution writes of communist ideology:
It is not the quantitative addition of the ideas of the individuals who have played a leading role in developing it (nor is it the case that every particular idea, policy or tactic adopted by them has been without error). Communist ideology is a synthesis of the development and especially the qualitative breakthroughs that communist theory has developed since its founding by Marx up to the present time.
I believe that Avakian thinks the formulation Marxism-Leninism-Maoism gives the impression of a qualitative addition. And he clearly thinks that the revolutionary ideology of this New Stage (after the death of mao and the coup in china) is HIS ideology.
In other words, he and his synthesis is not simply the latest jiggle in a long accumulating line of communist thinkers. I believe he thinks it is radically new, and must be seen that way. In other words, my (dare I say educated) guess is that the abandonment of the term MLM, marks a determination to demote Marx, Lenin and Mao, and (in words as well as conception) elevate Avakian to the post of THE synthesizer for our time. Yes, all the signs are that the RCP is abandoning the terminology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. And it seems clear that the key reasons are that this terminology is not compatable with the views of Avakians synthesis, and it obstructs the world prominence now demanded for Avakian and his synthesis.
What Postponed the Program: 9/11 or Struggle over New Synthesis and Cult of Personality?
Questions writes:
Dont you think that part of why the new program process was derailed or delayed had SOMETHING to do with the unanticipated events of 9/11/2001, which significantly changed many things both in the U.S. and the world? Should a new program for a communist organization simply be rushed out into print if new developments, both practical and theoretical, may make it a dead letter upon publication?
This is not an unreasonable speculation. But it is not, in fact, the case.
The Programme process (and in some ways the struggle that erupted during that process, especially over the question of homosexuality) collided with a determination to enshrine Avakian and his new synthesis as the central tenet of this party. Once Avakian had imposed his cardinal question on his party, and once the RCP formally declared itself the party of Bob Avakian it was clear that the New Draft Programme could not be published, or easily modified.
If it had just been a matter of 9/11, we would be seeing now the New Draft Programme being approved. But what we are seeing is something quite new:
Key elements have been taken out of the Draft Programme and some rather radically rewritten. And then the whole has been recrafted as a new document, togeter with its startling rules for members, and the huge caboose on Avakian and his synthesis.
This awkward and peculiar document is then labeled The Constitution of the RCP.
Many things stand out: which elements of a program are preserved and which are discarded. They have kept the indictment of capitalism. They have inserted a highly-idiosyncratic discussion of the final goal, communism. They have crafted a section on the United Front (an alliance for the seizure and holding of power.) But they have DECLINED to include any synthesized understanding of how revolutionary work is conducted in non-revolutionary conditions.
This document does not repeat or discuss any of the RCPs previous formulations about conducting revolutionary work (create political base areas, create public opinion, seize power, prepare minds and organize forces for revolution, even enriched what is to be donism, or the two mainstays of communist work: the newspaper and the culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization of Bob Avakian. They have published now what they could given their state of turmoil, intense internal struggle and doctrinal uncertainty. And they have left out any codification of what exactly they think the form of communist work should be. It is possible that they will codify all this later that a new and more programmatic statement will emerge. But clearly this odd Constitution is designed to fill a necessary gap, and is written in order to be able to stand alone (without a companion program) if necessary.
Insisting Size Doesnt Matter
Questions writes:
Dont you think that, in fact, it is true that the size of a group, by itself, does not indicate the correctness or incorrectness of its line at any particular point in time.
There is no one reading this who will not agree that truth sometimes is first held in just a few hands. Certainly the size of an organization does not (directly or immediately or decisively) prove the correctness of its line. It is even quite true that a group can be OVERALL correct and decline in size (and even disappear) if the objective conditions are really terrible in that country. And, no one will deny that the objective conditions have been pretty bad for revolution in the U.S. for quite a long while. But that is not the issue here. And that is not the question raised in this Constitution.
This Constitution writes:
If the line of the party is correctif it corresponds to and captures the essential motion and development of reality, and correctly identifies the pathways of revolutionary practicethen no matter how small it might be at any given time, the party will still be able to advance toward revolution and contribute to the emancipation of humanity so long as it takes this correct line as the foundation of its internal life and its work among the masses. [bold added for emphasis]
This is whistling past the graveyard. It is meant to comfort a party that is staring straight at its own impotence, and that has been losing ground steadily. It is a call to faltering party to cling to its own new orthodoxy as its only hope.
This passage is (as JB Connors (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/new-constitution-of-the-rcp-stamped-by-avakians-synthesis/#comment-5759) pointed out) a window into their preoccupations. And it is no mystery why:
Make a list of the RCPs projects over the last few years, which are clearly conceived as a kind of interconnected master plan for leaping to a new stage:
* repolarize politics between proletarian revolution and Christian fascism (this whole scenario was aging and outdated from the moment the idea of CFs as stage managers of revolution was raised.)
* Develop the Engage project to rather heavy public intellectuals around Bob Avakian as a historic thinker. (This project is clearly stillborn, and the plans to take it into a public arena were abandoned. Is there a single non-party activist among the public intellectuals for this project? No.)
* Develop a defense of science under the partys leadership (nowhere. stillborn.)
* Use the mass initiatives like NION and WCW to repolarize society and act as a mainstream force contending for power and influence. (WCW has gone from mass demonstrations to small guerilla theater involving orange jumpsuits, and is scrambling for its existance outside the backbone of party forces.)
* Promote the newspaper in a radically elevated way. * Create the RC4 tour as a way to develop leaps in inroads for Avakian and his views within the Black community (stillborn, disasterous and abandoned.)
* Promote the RCP as a radical defender of evolution and science using the publication of their Evolution book (book published, little notice taken.)
And so on. the balance sheet of their very hyped plan over the last years is not good.
And they have (typically) moved on to their next plan, without (obviously) linger too long (or materialist) over any summation among cadre or the public.
And then add to all this the intense and ongoing struggle within the party (which produced the impetus to write the 9 Letters.)
Guidelines for a Permanent Purge
One of the startling reflections of continuing struggle is the degree to which this Constitution codifies a rolling purge and clampdown. Those of us who were long among the party supporters can see the changes in the previous constitution, procedures and rules (that we once lived by.
There is the emergence of a whole system of constantly demanding write-ups of every thought (especially dissident thought) within the party and its periphery. There is a heavy new emphasis on chronic or repeated violators of party discipline. Including elaborate details of how to force them out of the party, when they dont want to leave.
If comrades repeatedly demonstrate, through opposition to and violations of democratic centralism, that they do not belong in the party, or if their revolutionary will degenerates, they will be prevailed upon to resign. In situations where a party members ideological and political stand and understanding has degenerated, and they are not really in fundamental unity with the line of the party, they should be prevailed upon to resign. If party leadership has recognized this, but the person herself (or himself) has not recognized or accepted this and does not want to resign, or even refuses to resign, this should be resolved through deepening struggle over this question, to the point where all concerned come to agreement that the person in question does not (or in fact does) belong in the party. If such agreement cannot be reached, then the party leadership, at the level concerned, shall make the decision as to whether or not the persons membership should be withdrawn
All of this detail is new, and emerges from a party that has been threatening and expelling more of its members over the last few years.
In short, this Constitutions new features show a party that is clamped down and at war with a sizable part of its own membership. In fact, the new line of the RCP was highly unpopular. The expanded cult of personality and the new synthesis itself were widely opposed (including in the previous leadership groups at all levels). And after it was imposed, the party as a whole erupted in a kind of foot-dragging, passive resistance, that included a refusal to leave. Once that becomes clear, you can see much more clearly why the Constitutions rules are written the way they are. And you can see the meaning of this innovation:
Opportunists, chronic violators of party discipline and/or elements hostile to the proletarian revolution must have their membership terminated. Actual counter-revolutionaries, agents of the ruling class and its state, and those who seek to organize a headquarters within the party in opposition to the line and leadership of the party and its democratic centralist principles, must be expelledcleared out of the party and not readmitted.
Those who consistently oppose leadership of the party and who intend to fight for a different course within that party are now put in a category with actual counterrevolutionaries and agents.
These are the rules for an institutionalized state of purge for a heavy club of discipline and an active use of expulsion for many degrees of internal opposition.
It is an example of why it is wrong to think that the struggle for a new revolutionary and communist path can be successfully carried out within the RCP. And IN THAT CONTEXT the promise is made that if this party clings to its current line, however small it becomes, it will still be able to advance toward revolution.
Aside from the fact that this is a metaphysical promise marked with inevitablism it avoids the fact that this line is wrong, and will not advance toward revolution.
Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on August 12, 2008
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/329718901_f431e530af.jpg?w=300&h=226 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/329718901_f431e530af.jpg)
Nando replied to a series of questions about the RCPs newly published Constitution. Because of their length and substance, we are reposting them here. Nando uses the remarks by a poster called Questions as a jumping off point.
By Nando
Why RCP Discarded Term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in this Document
Questions writes:
if, as you claim, the RCP has abandoned Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, what do you make of the following, which appears in every issue of Revolution and continuously on the front page of the newspapers website? Questions then quotes the 3 Ours, including
Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm.htm)
To be clear, the observation made in that earlier post (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/new-constitution-of-the-rcp-stamped-by-avakians-synthesis/) is that this constitution abandons the TERM Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM). However as we know (and as the struggle over the term MLM has shown internationally) these labels have close connections with line questions. This is not the first major document of the RCP to deliberately avoid using the term MLM. The Special Issue of their paper (over a year ago) was filled with one article (and no pictures) describing Avakians contributions in detail, and specifically avoided using that term. Now their Constitution has appeared (culminating a process of programme-writing that spans almost a decade) and (in contrast to their previous documents of this kind) this Party Constution now also declines to use the term MLM.
The fact that the term MLM still appears in some other places (in the Three Ours in their newspaper, on various pages of their site (http://revcom.us/mlm-e.htm), does not mean that this Party is NOT in transition away from formal usage of the term MLM, it just means that we are in the beginning stages of that PUBLIC AND FORMAL transition.
This discarding of the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not surprising from those of us who have emerged from the RCP. Avakian was arguing for this over the last years, and his proposal to shift to using communism as the name of his ideology COINCIDED with the demand that his party adopt himself and his synthesis as the cardinal question among communists. The two are linked.
The RCP may continue to use this MLM terminology in passing Avakian has advocated BOTH adopting communism as the name, and not formally repudiating the term MLM. So the party itself may not choose to make a big public splash or explanation for its change (especially given the international implications.)
But, i believe, this Constitution carefully and formally marks the removal of the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the name the RCP gives to its ideology.
We Should Also Consider Another Term for Communist Theory
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mlm.jpg?w=186&h=300 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mlm.jpg)
Why not use a symbol like this to represent communist theory?
Now, I want to inject that i personally (like our recent commentator another note (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/new-constitution-of-the-rcp-stamped-by-avakians-synthesis/#comment-5789)) dont think it would be wrong to adopt a new name for communist theory and ideology.
Previously (in his 1981 work Conquer the World (http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/#section_V)) Avakian had specifically rejected the formulation of Maoism, and had suggested the movement adopt the terminology revolutionary communist/proletarian internationalist, as its main label.
rather than simply contesting the phony communists and saying theyre not communists, were real communists, we should to a certain degree and in a certain context, let the revisionists have the communist banner. And what we should say is, yes, there are different tendencies: theres the socialists and the social democrats, some of them are in power in different countries, you can see what they do, theyre more or less a straight up bourgeois trend; then theres the communists, that is, the revisionists, theyre in power in some countries too, and in other countries they want to be in power on the same basis, you can see what theyre about; and then theres our trend, which is the revolutionary communist/proletarian internationalist trend. I say this not at all facetiously.
Avakians proposal did not get support internationally (or much within the RCP either).
Then, the adoption of that terminology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the late 1980s was essentially done at the demand of Abimael Guzman, the leader of the Peruvian shining path. Guzman (Chariman Gonzalo) essentially refused to join any international formation that would not inscribe this particular formulation (MLM) on its banners.
In many places, the adoption of MLM spurred new and sharp struggle over discarding many kinds of political positions (including a number of stands associated with a very high opinion of Stalin and his brand of Marxism). So that MLM-ization process had some positive sides. But (setting this complex history of repeated renaming aside)
I believe there are several problems with the specif formulation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism:
first We need a terminology that defines us in relationship to the communist FUTURE, not mainly as the outgrowth of the past however revolutionary its key episodes and leaders were.
Second has to do with style and language: MLM (as a term) is the kind of communist jargon that seems inherently alien and odd to everyone else. Marxism-Leninism was one thing, once we got to Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought in the sixties, the terminology was becoming truly awkward and forced. We need a language of revolution that speaks clearly and directly to people without a heavy veil of self-imposed and unnecessarily mediated jargon. Revolutionaries with a tin ear are rarely successful.
The third reason is that the whole terminology Marxism-Leninism-Maoism embeds at the core of our movement a particular theory of HOW our theory develops and implies an assumption that key leaps in synthesis can only come by the specific actions of the next world historic genius (or on the heels of the next world-historic revolution).
Given our ongoing line-struggle with the assumptions of Avakian as the leader of a special caliber (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-6/) and a nascient genius theory (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-8/), it seems appropriate and necessary to separate our theorys name from the names of admired authors and leaders.
Evolutionary biologists dont call themselves Darwinian-Mendelean-Gouldites. Why? First because the development of their body of work is not limited to three or four great heads there are literally dozens of remarkable thinkers and countless creative contributors who developed modern evolutionary biology. And they want to put the focus on the field, and its collectivity and development, not on a few pathbreaking people who made advances (and also inevitably injected flaws) into the theory.
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/images.jpg?w=127&h=95 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/images.jpg)
The formulation Marxism-Leninism-Maoism accepts (uncritically and unvetted) the PREVIOUS decision of the Comintern to rename communist theory as Marxism-Leninism (done in the 1920s). this was the moment when the great heads started to appear (first Marx, Engels, Lenin, then Stalin, then Mao in a kind of Communist mount Rushmore of founding fathers.)
There is an implicit theory of creation (and of epistemology) embedded in both the terms and the graphics. And we should not adopt it, or extend it, without a critical discussoin.
Why cant we just keep the old name scientific socialism (which Marx himself preferred to Marxism)? Why not adopt a simple and understandable name like communist theory? I dont think this would be, or should be, a repudiation of the whole (or the essence) of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism but would be part of a critical development, and one important decision of what to keep and what to discard
So, perhaps ironically, I have long thought that we too (in Kasama and more broadly) should ease away from the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and some of its implications.
So now the RCP has also done this. But I think for different reasons.
Avakian noted (as he wheeled out his New Synthesis) that it is just to awkward to add a fourth name. (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Avakianism takes the odd, and makes it farcial.)
But i think there is a deeper reason, having to do with his view of synthesis. Read this new Constitution, there is a historical progression from Marx the founder, to Lenin, to Mao Zedong (who together were the heads of the Old Stage. And then (you can almost hear the drums and cymbals as Avakian is introduced as the synthesizer for this New Stage
This Constitution writes of communist ideology:
It is not the quantitative addition of the ideas of the individuals who have played a leading role in developing it (nor is it the case that every particular idea, policy or tactic adopted by them has been without error). Communist ideology is a synthesis of the development and especially the qualitative breakthroughs that communist theory has developed since its founding by Marx up to the present time.
I believe that Avakian thinks the formulation Marxism-Leninism-Maoism gives the impression of a qualitative addition. And he clearly thinks that the revolutionary ideology of this New Stage (after the death of mao and the coup in china) is HIS ideology.
In other words, he and his synthesis is not simply the latest jiggle in a long accumulating line of communist thinkers. I believe he thinks it is radically new, and must be seen that way. In other words, my (dare I say educated) guess is that the abandonment of the term MLM, marks a determination to demote Marx, Lenin and Mao, and (in words as well as conception) elevate Avakian to the post of THE synthesizer for our time. Yes, all the signs are that the RCP is abandoning the terminology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. And it seems clear that the key reasons are that this terminology is not compatable with the views of Avakians synthesis, and it obstructs the world prominence now demanded for Avakian and his synthesis.
What Postponed the Program: 9/11 or Struggle over New Synthesis and Cult of Personality?
Questions writes:
Dont you think that part of why the new program process was derailed or delayed had SOMETHING to do with the unanticipated events of 9/11/2001, which significantly changed many things both in the U.S. and the world? Should a new program for a communist organization simply be rushed out into print if new developments, both practical and theoretical, may make it a dead letter upon publication?
This is not an unreasonable speculation. But it is not, in fact, the case.
The Programme process (and in some ways the struggle that erupted during that process, especially over the question of homosexuality) collided with a determination to enshrine Avakian and his new synthesis as the central tenet of this party. Once Avakian had imposed his cardinal question on his party, and once the RCP formally declared itself the party of Bob Avakian it was clear that the New Draft Programme could not be published, or easily modified.
If it had just been a matter of 9/11, we would be seeing now the New Draft Programme being approved. But what we are seeing is something quite new:
Key elements have been taken out of the Draft Programme and some rather radically rewritten. And then the whole has been recrafted as a new document, togeter with its startling rules for members, and the huge caboose on Avakian and his synthesis.
This awkward and peculiar document is then labeled The Constitution of the RCP.
Many things stand out: which elements of a program are preserved and which are discarded. They have kept the indictment of capitalism. They have inserted a highly-idiosyncratic discussion of the final goal, communism. They have crafted a section on the United Front (an alliance for the seizure and holding of power.) But they have DECLINED to include any synthesized understanding of how revolutionary work is conducted in non-revolutionary conditions.
This document does not repeat or discuss any of the RCPs previous formulations about conducting revolutionary work (create political base areas, create public opinion, seize power, prepare minds and organize forces for revolution, even enriched what is to be donism, or the two mainstays of communist work: the newspaper and the culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization of Bob Avakian. They have published now what they could given their state of turmoil, intense internal struggle and doctrinal uncertainty. And they have left out any codification of what exactly they think the form of communist work should be. It is possible that they will codify all this later that a new and more programmatic statement will emerge. But clearly this odd Constitution is designed to fill a necessary gap, and is written in order to be able to stand alone (without a companion program) if necessary.
Insisting Size Doesnt Matter
Questions writes:
Dont you think that, in fact, it is true that the size of a group, by itself, does not indicate the correctness or incorrectness of its line at any particular point in time.
There is no one reading this who will not agree that truth sometimes is first held in just a few hands. Certainly the size of an organization does not (directly or immediately or decisively) prove the correctness of its line. It is even quite true that a group can be OVERALL correct and decline in size (and even disappear) if the objective conditions are really terrible in that country. And, no one will deny that the objective conditions have been pretty bad for revolution in the U.S. for quite a long while. But that is not the issue here. And that is not the question raised in this Constitution.
This Constitution writes:
If the line of the party is correctif it corresponds to and captures the essential motion and development of reality, and correctly identifies the pathways of revolutionary practicethen no matter how small it might be at any given time, the party will still be able to advance toward revolution and contribute to the emancipation of humanity so long as it takes this correct line as the foundation of its internal life and its work among the masses. [bold added for emphasis]
This is whistling past the graveyard. It is meant to comfort a party that is staring straight at its own impotence, and that has been losing ground steadily. It is a call to faltering party to cling to its own new orthodoxy as its only hope.
This passage is (as JB Connors (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/new-constitution-of-the-rcp-stamped-by-avakians-synthesis/#comment-5759) pointed out) a window into their preoccupations. And it is no mystery why:
Make a list of the RCPs projects over the last few years, which are clearly conceived as a kind of interconnected master plan for leaping to a new stage:
* repolarize politics between proletarian revolution and Christian fascism (this whole scenario was aging and outdated from the moment the idea of CFs as stage managers of revolution was raised.)
* Develop the Engage project to rather heavy public intellectuals around Bob Avakian as a historic thinker. (This project is clearly stillborn, and the plans to take it into a public arena were abandoned. Is there a single non-party activist among the public intellectuals for this project? No.)
* Develop a defense of science under the partys leadership (nowhere. stillborn.)
* Use the mass initiatives like NION and WCW to repolarize society and act as a mainstream force contending for power and influence. (WCW has gone from mass demonstrations to small guerilla theater involving orange jumpsuits, and is scrambling for its existance outside the backbone of party forces.)
* Promote the newspaper in a radically elevated way. * Create the RC4 tour as a way to develop leaps in inroads for Avakian and his views within the Black community (stillborn, disasterous and abandoned.)
* Promote the RCP as a radical defender of evolution and science using the publication of their Evolution book (book published, little notice taken.)
And so on. the balance sheet of their very hyped plan over the last years is not good.
And they have (typically) moved on to their next plan, without (obviously) linger too long (or materialist) over any summation among cadre or the public.
And then add to all this the intense and ongoing struggle within the party (which produced the impetus to write the 9 Letters.)
Guidelines for a Permanent Purge
One of the startling reflections of continuing struggle is the degree to which this Constitution codifies a rolling purge and clampdown. Those of us who were long among the party supporters can see the changes in the previous constitution, procedures and rules (that we once lived by.
There is the emergence of a whole system of constantly demanding write-ups of every thought (especially dissident thought) within the party and its periphery. There is a heavy new emphasis on chronic or repeated violators of party discipline. Including elaborate details of how to force them out of the party, when they dont want to leave.
If comrades repeatedly demonstrate, through opposition to and violations of democratic centralism, that they do not belong in the party, or if their revolutionary will degenerates, they will be prevailed upon to resign. In situations where a party members ideological and political stand and understanding has degenerated, and they are not really in fundamental unity with the line of the party, they should be prevailed upon to resign. If party leadership has recognized this, but the person herself (or himself) has not recognized or accepted this and does not want to resign, or even refuses to resign, this should be resolved through deepening struggle over this question, to the point where all concerned come to agreement that the person in question does not (or in fact does) belong in the party. If such agreement cannot be reached, then the party leadership, at the level concerned, shall make the decision as to whether or not the persons membership should be withdrawn
All of this detail is new, and emerges from a party that has been threatening and expelling more of its members over the last few years.
In short, this Constitutions new features show a party that is clamped down and at war with a sizable part of its own membership. In fact, the new line of the RCP was highly unpopular. The expanded cult of personality and the new synthesis itself were widely opposed (including in the previous leadership groups at all levels). And after it was imposed, the party as a whole erupted in a kind of foot-dragging, passive resistance, that included a refusal to leave. Once that becomes clear, you can see much more clearly why the Constitutions rules are written the way they are. And you can see the meaning of this innovation:
Opportunists, chronic violators of party discipline and/or elements hostile to the proletarian revolution must have their membership terminated. Actual counter-revolutionaries, agents of the ruling class and its state, and those who seek to organize a headquarters within the party in opposition to the line and leadership of the party and its democratic centralist principles, must be expelledcleared out of the party and not readmitted.
Those who consistently oppose leadership of the party and who intend to fight for a different course within that party are now put in a category with actual counterrevolutionaries and agents.
These are the rules for an institutionalized state of purge for a heavy club of discipline and an active use of expulsion for many degrees of internal opposition.
It is an example of why it is wrong to think that the struggle for a new revolutionary and communist path can be successfully carried out within the RCP. And IN THAT CONTEXT the promise is made that if this party clings to its current line, however small it becomes, it will still be able to advance toward revolution.
Aside from the fact that this is a metaphysical promise marked with inevitablism it avoids the fact that this line is wrong, and will not advance toward revolution.