IrisBright
20th September 2008, 05:23
This letter first appeared as a series of comments. We have gathered them here in one piece. Note that this comrade does not write to attack or destroy the RCP, or discredit it as some 'crazy cult'. She is writing, in a principled way, from her heart about her own experience.
As she says herself: "No, i am not comparing this to some weirdo cult, and anyone reading this looking for cheap shots should just not go there."
By Sophie
* * * *
“I am not writing this to spill the beans, I’m writing because it opens up discussion on the relationship between centralism, discipline, unified line and the need for ease of mind, debate, expressing ideas that are not fully formed, changing one’s mind, and all that.”
* * * *
I have struggled with writing this letter for a long long time.
The landscape has been so unfamiliar that I might as well been on the moon.
Now that the RCP has issued their Manifesto and spoken publically about the cultural revolution inside the party at least i feel like i can speak about many things.
While a few people may have been privy to struggle on a leading level, the broader party leadership was in the dark right until the launching of the cultural revolution. I disagree in principle that such a deep rift over basic questions of line should have been kept so tightly hidden from the ranks. So when this struggle was opened up it came as a shock.
I’m almost sure that RCP leaders would say that it was just my own “revisionism” that blurred the extent of the decay and “rot” inside the party. i don’t think this was a case of a line struggled having already been decided. I think it was a battle inside the party led by Avakian to consolidate his line even at risk of losing the party.
In itself this is not necessary wrong at all. most readers here, including myself, have seen certain issues as dividing lines. one problem was that the ranks of the party had been on a war footing for so long, going from one mass initiative to the next, that most were behind theoretically.
When Disagreement Became Heresy
Another problem was that the terms set at the beginning were so flooded with verdicts already made that to argue against almost anything being put forward by Avakian automatically labeled you as a revisionist. For many people whose live were completely woven with being a communist in the RCP this was pretty difficult territory. This problem indicates that being in the party involved an aspect of being isolated and so dependent on the world right around you that the idea of losing it was completely scary and unraveling to a lot of people.
While there were endless admonitions to become scientists and to dare to think and struggle, it was contradicted by the heavy-handed terms explicit and implicit that to disagree with Avakian was heresy.
Oh, i know, some would say that i’m just arguing for reducing the line struggle to an exercise in liberalism but, I do not agree. i think people needed air to breathe in several senses– room to dig into theory and have the weight of constant war communist footing relieved so they could think, room to breathe by having an atmosphere where daring to speak doesn’t get you automatically labeled one thing or another, and room to breathe in that unity does not always require agreement on every point, including the minutae.
Many comrades dreaded the sessions of struggle, many comrades kept their mouths shut, many comrades tried to avoid getting branded, many comrades were stressed out 24/7, many comrades felt their lives were ruined, many comrades lost their bearings.
When Arrogance Becomes a Line
The RCP’s new manifesto equates the leadership of Bob Avakian as the beginning of a the next wave of communist revolution–its arrogance is a line problem, its refusal to acknowledge and recognize that there are yearnings and movements and struggles being born that Do not see the world in exactly the same way is a line problem, the way the cultural revolution was waged and its outcome is a line problem; the placement of Avakian as the key to whether there is a next wave is a line problem.
It is very hard to make that phone call when you don’t know the number but i can say, with certainty, that there is life after the RCP. how wonderful it would be to be able to regroup and draw together the passion, dedication, commitment to communism and a whole new world.
When You Watch Liveliness Drain Away
Life inside the party was like watching a dear friend fall into a deep depression. there was supposed to be vibrancy but inner party life got more and more stilted. we struggled with being able to fight for the New Synthesis yet no one ever seemed to get it quite right. i don’t think this means it did not contain a tremendous amount of provocative and thoughtful developments. but when it comes down to not being able to question whether a 9 hour speech is too long then really things were spinning to a bad place.
No, i am not comparing this to some weirdo cult, and anyone reading this looking for cheap shots should just not go there.
I found myself trying to fight for things along the lines required and even at points where it seemed to me that we had “gotten” the line it was summed up that the struggle hadn’t gone deep enough. at night i was restless because i had a queasy feeling that this wasn’t going anywhere i had believed it should go. Part of the problem can become the separation of the leading cadre and the membership, where people get revered but no one feel they can just talk, easily talk, to their leaders. Everything becomes an object lesson, people get caught saying the wrong thing.
I have thought endlessly about the concept of the solid core with a lot of elasticity. But we face the contradiction that a totally enclosed system becomes unable to move forward.
I also have been giving tons of thought to historic movements and what they mean and how communists enter into them.
Treating Political Refugees as Defeated and Worthless
The RCP’s new Manifesto seems to try to poo poo the losses of membership during the cultural revolution by saying that basically the people who left gave up on revolution.
(http://revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html#footnote17)
Part of what made the exit from the Party is that I and I believe many other people came to believe that we were pretty worthless. Lifetimes of commitment ended often suddenly. the funny thing is that there were moments where i felt the struggle was like a 3 stooges movie where you’re getting slapped this way and that. Members were accused of having given up on communism and becoming just movement activists. I thin k there was a lot of economism and difficulty figuring out how to unite broadly and lead mass resistance and not become submerged in the movements.
But it was the leadership, including the Chairman, who led the Party to take up mass initiatives. And to argue that if we did not succeed in (this on or that) it would the difference between being able to make revolution or facing disaster. There was a great deal of volunteerism within our work and within the line leading it. And, it is true, that very little summation followed the move from one mass imitative to the next. People beyond the party who stepped forward to become leaders of these initiatives were sometimes left in the dust by the party when we moved on to our next effort. This is not to condemn these efforts. If anything, Avakian’s insistence that we sum up the experiences scientifically, would have required coming to the membership in a vibrant look at the work.
But, this is what I mean by the contradictory leadership. If the summation did not fit the already determined next move it was discounted or plugged into some label. But, by that point, work had already moved on. I always felt real heart for these big pushes because the objective situation demanded action and resistance and there were many times when had the Party not been on the scene there may not have been a scene.
So here we were and if trying to carry out directives was an “alternative lifestyle” I’m stumped.
So when the cultural revolution got moving a lot of the soul searching that was called for had the quality of entering a confessional or a search for guilt. Because it wasn’t going to be believed that you supported Avakian unless you uncovered your dark side.
I and we had many rationalizations for why we couldn’t talk about this or talk about that. Security was often the main one. Secondarily, it was because “could not understand” this or that because it was both too complicated or involved levels of knowledge that most cadre didn’t have supposedly. I know this is true because I carried out struggle with people who discussed certain things like Peru or Nepal out of context of an issued internal document. This kind of constraint fed the increasingly dull internal political discussion. Many wonderful people couldn’t discuss even the people’s wars that were happening.
I don’t think this was the intent of Avakian or the leadership. I think it was the result of a line on discipline and the theory of knowledge that involved a fascination with control and the tendency to be easily threatened when people who usually were down with the line were in disagreement.
Missing the Whirlwind
I am not writing this to “spill the beans,” I’m writing because it opens up discussion on the relationship between centralism, discipline, unified line and the need for ease of mind, debate, expressing ideas that are not fully formed, changing one’s mind, and all that. These are things Avakian has spoken to very frequently and I was often excited by his writings and still am. But in practice, in the much more colorful realm of real life, it’s much messier. And maybe part of the issue is whether so much order is needed.
Somewhere I think this has to do with why Nepal is simply not spoken of directly by the RCP.
Maybe the way the revolution there has unfolded isn’t neat and much more colorful. I know I have my own questions about the approach and strategy they have taken but I do feel very strongly that this is revolution in real world, much more messy, creative, full of contradiction. But to just not speak on it…wow, it is a stunning sectarianism.
I miss the whirlwind…it is just awful being “out here” without collectivity,
As she says herself: "No, i am not comparing this to some weirdo cult, and anyone reading this looking for cheap shots should just not go there."
By Sophie
* * * *
“I am not writing this to spill the beans, I’m writing because it opens up discussion on the relationship between centralism, discipline, unified line and the need for ease of mind, debate, expressing ideas that are not fully formed, changing one’s mind, and all that.”
* * * *
I have struggled with writing this letter for a long long time.
The landscape has been so unfamiliar that I might as well been on the moon.
Now that the RCP has issued their Manifesto and spoken publically about the cultural revolution inside the party at least i feel like i can speak about many things.
While a few people may have been privy to struggle on a leading level, the broader party leadership was in the dark right until the launching of the cultural revolution. I disagree in principle that such a deep rift over basic questions of line should have been kept so tightly hidden from the ranks. So when this struggle was opened up it came as a shock.
I’m almost sure that RCP leaders would say that it was just my own “revisionism” that blurred the extent of the decay and “rot” inside the party. i don’t think this was a case of a line struggled having already been decided. I think it was a battle inside the party led by Avakian to consolidate his line even at risk of losing the party.
In itself this is not necessary wrong at all. most readers here, including myself, have seen certain issues as dividing lines. one problem was that the ranks of the party had been on a war footing for so long, going from one mass initiative to the next, that most were behind theoretically.
When Disagreement Became Heresy
Another problem was that the terms set at the beginning were so flooded with verdicts already made that to argue against almost anything being put forward by Avakian automatically labeled you as a revisionist. For many people whose live were completely woven with being a communist in the RCP this was pretty difficult territory. This problem indicates that being in the party involved an aspect of being isolated and so dependent on the world right around you that the idea of losing it was completely scary and unraveling to a lot of people.
While there were endless admonitions to become scientists and to dare to think and struggle, it was contradicted by the heavy-handed terms explicit and implicit that to disagree with Avakian was heresy.
Oh, i know, some would say that i’m just arguing for reducing the line struggle to an exercise in liberalism but, I do not agree. i think people needed air to breathe in several senses– room to dig into theory and have the weight of constant war communist footing relieved so they could think, room to breathe by having an atmosphere where daring to speak doesn’t get you automatically labeled one thing or another, and room to breathe in that unity does not always require agreement on every point, including the minutae.
Many comrades dreaded the sessions of struggle, many comrades kept their mouths shut, many comrades tried to avoid getting branded, many comrades were stressed out 24/7, many comrades felt their lives were ruined, many comrades lost their bearings.
When Arrogance Becomes a Line
The RCP’s new manifesto equates the leadership of Bob Avakian as the beginning of a the next wave of communist revolution–its arrogance is a line problem, its refusal to acknowledge and recognize that there are yearnings and movements and struggles being born that Do not see the world in exactly the same way is a line problem, the way the cultural revolution was waged and its outcome is a line problem; the placement of Avakian as the key to whether there is a next wave is a line problem.
It is very hard to make that phone call when you don’t know the number but i can say, with certainty, that there is life after the RCP. how wonderful it would be to be able to regroup and draw together the passion, dedication, commitment to communism and a whole new world.
When You Watch Liveliness Drain Away
Life inside the party was like watching a dear friend fall into a deep depression. there was supposed to be vibrancy but inner party life got more and more stilted. we struggled with being able to fight for the New Synthesis yet no one ever seemed to get it quite right. i don’t think this means it did not contain a tremendous amount of provocative and thoughtful developments. but when it comes down to not being able to question whether a 9 hour speech is too long then really things were spinning to a bad place.
No, i am not comparing this to some weirdo cult, and anyone reading this looking for cheap shots should just not go there.
I found myself trying to fight for things along the lines required and even at points where it seemed to me that we had “gotten” the line it was summed up that the struggle hadn’t gone deep enough. at night i was restless because i had a queasy feeling that this wasn’t going anywhere i had believed it should go. Part of the problem can become the separation of the leading cadre and the membership, where people get revered but no one feel they can just talk, easily talk, to their leaders. Everything becomes an object lesson, people get caught saying the wrong thing.
I have thought endlessly about the concept of the solid core with a lot of elasticity. But we face the contradiction that a totally enclosed system becomes unable to move forward.
I also have been giving tons of thought to historic movements and what they mean and how communists enter into them.
Treating Political Refugees as Defeated and Worthless
The RCP’s new Manifesto seems to try to poo poo the losses of membership during the cultural revolution by saying that basically the people who left gave up on revolution.
(http://revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html#footnote17)
Part of what made the exit from the Party is that I and I believe many other people came to believe that we were pretty worthless. Lifetimes of commitment ended often suddenly. the funny thing is that there were moments where i felt the struggle was like a 3 stooges movie where you’re getting slapped this way and that. Members were accused of having given up on communism and becoming just movement activists. I thin k there was a lot of economism and difficulty figuring out how to unite broadly and lead mass resistance and not become submerged in the movements.
But it was the leadership, including the Chairman, who led the Party to take up mass initiatives. And to argue that if we did not succeed in (this on or that) it would the difference between being able to make revolution or facing disaster. There was a great deal of volunteerism within our work and within the line leading it. And, it is true, that very little summation followed the move from one mass imitative to the next. People beyond the party who stepped forward to become leaders of these initiatives were sometimes left in the dust by the party when we moved on to our next effort. This is not to condemn these efforts. If anything, Avakian’s insistence that we sum up the experiences scientifically, would have required coming to the membership in a vibrant look at the work.
But, this is what I mean by the contradictory leadership. If the summation did not fit the already determined next move it was discounted or plugged into some label. But, by that point, work had already moved on. I always felt real heart for these big pushes because the objective situation demanded action and resistance and there were many times when had the Party not been on the scene there may not have been a scene.
So here we were and if trying to carry out directives was an “alternative lifestyle” I’m stumped.
So when the cultural revolution got moving a lot of the soul searching that was called for had the quality of entering a confessional or a search for guilt. Because it wasn’t going to be believed that you supported Avakian unless you uncovered your dark side.
I and we had many rationalizations for why we couldn’t talk about this or talk about that. Security was often the main one. Secondarily, it was because “could not understand” this or that because it was both too complicated or involved levels of knowledge that most cadre didn’t have supposedly. I know this is true because I carried out struggle with people who discussed certain things like Peru or Nepal out of context of an issued internal document. This kind of constraint fed the increasingly dull internal political discussion. Many wonderful people couldn’t discuss even the people’s wars that were happening.
I don’t think this was the intent of Avakian or the leadership. I think it was the result of a line on discipline and the theory of knowledge that involved a fascination with control and the tendency to be easily threatened when people who usually were down with the line were in disagreement.
Missing the Whirlwind
I am not writing this to “spill the beans,” I’m writing because it opens up discussion on the relationship between centralism, discipline, unified line and the need for ease of mind, debate, expressing ideas that are not fully formed, changing one’s mind, and all that. These are things Avakian has spoken to very frequently and I was often excited by his writings and still am. But in practice, in the much more colorful realm of real life, it’s much messier. And maybe part of the issue is whether so much order is needed.
Somewhere I think this has to do with why Nepal is simply not spoken of directly by the RCP.
Maybe the way the revolution there has unfolded isn’t neat and much more colorful. I know I have my own questions about the approach and strategy they have taken but I do feel very strongly that this is revolution in real world, much more messy, creative, full of contradiction. But to just not speak on it…wow, it is a stunning sectarianism.
I miss the whirlwind…it is just awful being “out here” without collectivity,