RCP-USA: Obama voters = Kool-Aid Drinkers?

[Jay Rothermel]

Dear Revolution Newspaper Editor:

Re: your story "A Question for Kool-Aid Drinkers" in Revolution 151 (http://revcom.us/a/151/question-en.html):

While I didn't vote for him or any other capitalist, I find it hard to accept your characterization of people who voted for Obama (for whatever of a host of reasons) as "Kool-Aid Drinkers."

"Kool Aid Drinkers" are the brainwashed acolytes of a religious cult of personality. When you call Obama voters Kool-Aid Drinkers you are not agitating in a friendly and comradely manner in order to use the bourgeois rule of Obama to recruit to communism. You are being condescending and dismissive, like liberals are about the working class being a bunch of stupid Joe-the-plumbers clinging to God and Guns. At long last, have we not had enough of dismissing those we need to seriously ENGAGE with by referring to them as "Kool-Aid drinkers"? It reduces political discussions to worse than a Fox-News level, doesn't it? How are supporters of Revolution supposed to sell a newspaper to Obama supporters when it contains articles ridiculing them?

Recruiting Obama voters to communism will be a long process of reaching-out and engaging open-minded people in a respectful, politically correct and CIVIL manner over the next years. Recruitment won't develop by insulting people.

Retraction, please.

Jay Rothermel

[GPDP]

The RCP, home of the Bob Avakian cult, accusing others of being "Kool-Aid Drinkers"?

:laugh:

[revolution inaction]

what is kool aid and why is to say someone drinks it an insult?

[JimmyJazz]

what is kool aid and why is to say someone drinks it an insult?

I think it comes from this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/jonestown.factsheet/index.html).

[revolution inaction]

I think it comes from this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/jonestown.factsheet/index.html).

thanks, that makes sense :)

[beatriz]

Bill O'Reilly terminology in a communist newspaper.

[StalinFanboy]

I love Kool-Aid

[Chicano Shamrock]

what is kool aid and why is to say someone drinks it an insult?
Kool aid is a highly sugared juice drink. The basis of the phrase comes from cult members drinking things that will kill them in a mass suicide. So you can say "They drank the kool-aid" which means they were idiots that fell for the cults' persuasions.

[redSHARP]

wow, "kool-aid drinkers", that is a phrase that could be understood as quasi racist, the article proves other wise, but still. never really understood the RCP. what is their logic and beliefs?

[RedDawn]

"Kool-aid drinkers" is not a racist term whatsoever. It does indeed refer to the Jonestown massacre, in which cult leader Jim Jones had his cult members drink deadly poisonous Flavor-Aid, a product similar to Kool-Aid.

http://www.jelsert.com/products_flavoraid.asp

[redguard2009]

The RCP, home of the Bob Avakian cult, accusing others of being "Kool-Aid Drinkers"?

Yeah, that is a bit ironic :D

[8bit]

"Kool-aid drinkers" is not a racist term whatsoever. It does indeed refer to the Jonestown massacre, in which cult leader Jim Jones had his cult members drink deadly poisonous Flavor-Aid, a product similar to Kool-Aid.

They should stop making Flavor-Aid so poisonous. :P

I voted for Obama, and I am pretty disappointed by his pick of Warren. However, this isn't a policy decision, and as such, doesn't actually effect anyone.

I'm not exactly sure why Obama picked Warren, perhaps to appeal to the more conservative base in the United States, however, Warren seems so ass-backwardsly conservative that he even out does most of the US conservatives. Perhaps he's simply attempting to shut up the 20% or so of the United States who believe humans rode on dinosaurs. Even then, this doesn't seem to make much sense, as the closest any of them will get to the inauguration are the highlights on Fox News.

I'd say, however, that this is more than made up for by Obama's anti-coal energy pick, as well as his Digg-like service which launched a few weeks ago.

---

Apparently I need 25+ posts to post links to other pages. Seems kind of backwards for a web forum which promotes Anarchy, but if you're trying to keep spam at bay....

[Revy]

They should stop making Flavor-Aid so poisonous. :P

I voted for Obama, and I am pretty disappointed by his pick of Warren. However, this isn't a policy decision, and as such, doesn't actually effect anyone.

I'm not exactly sure why Obama picked Warren, perhaps to appeal to the more conservative base in the United States, however, Warren seems so ass-backwardsly conservative that he even out does most of the US conservatives. Perhaps he's simply attempting to shut up the 20% or so of the United States who believe humans rode on dinosaurs. Even then, this doesn't seem to make much sense, as the closest any of them will get to the inauguration are the highlights on Fox News.

I'd say, however, that this is more than made up for by Obama's anti-coal energy pick, as well as his Digg-like service which launched a few weeks ago.



Um...you voted for Obama?
Are you sure you're at the right site?
This is for the revolutionary left, y'know.

[Qajmer]

Um...you voted for Obama?
Are you sure you're at the right site?
This is for the revolutionary left, y'know.
Actually, id do the same if i lived in the usa, and im a marxist as well. this is because u need to think dialectically about the future, and obama is the best possible alternative to the conservative-republican rule. He may as well serve as a transition phase and get rid of the backward minded masses before revolutionaries in the usa can put an immediate revolution on their agenda..

[Mindtoaster]

Apparently I need 25+ posts to post links to other pages. Seems kind of backwards for a web forum which promotes Anarchy, but if you're trying to keep spam at bay....

Its the same with pictures you'll find. We get a lot of trolls and such from neonazi websites, and the rule is in place to prevent them from wreacking havoc on RevLeft.

[8bit]

Um...you voted for Obama?
Are you sure you're at the right site?
This is for the revolutionary left, y'know.

While I understand that Obama is center conservative, getting a center conservative into office after 8 years of reactionary thought is a great thing, and, even though I live in Illinois, a state which would most definitely go democrat, I voted Obama if only to raise his vote count by one, because a change like that is such a monumental change in the United States, I felt I needed to contribute to it.

Yes, a lot of his stances do bother me, but hes much, much better than McCain or Bush. A lot of people act as if theres little difference between the republican candidate and the democrat candidate. These people are usually called 'centrists' or 'swing voters' and, to put it bluntly, they are idiots, and are not centrists.

However, I've noticed the same frame of thought from far leftists. Many will state that their is little difference between democrats and republicans, they're both Capitalists/Statesists. Why would we want anyone like that in office?

This thinking seems very dualistic. One IS better than the other and I think you all know that. Sure, they're both far, far more conservative than any of our own stances on issues, however, there's still a huge difference between the two.

In short, I voted for Obama because of how symbolic the change is. I guess the romanticism won me out in my first election.

In the future, living in Illinois, I'll probably be voting for the Socialist Workers Party candidate, or some other similar candidate. Really, this election I was struggling on whether I should vote for Obama or write in Calero.

The senior class at my highschool actually did a mock election, and I wrote in Calero, and they threw away my vote. >.>

[Dean]

Actually, id do the same if i lived in the usa, and im a marxist as well. this is because u need to think dialectically about the future, and obama is the best possible alternative to the conservative-republican rule. He may as well serve as a transition phase and get rid of the backward minded masses before revolutionaries in the usa can put an immediate revolution on their agenda..

He's not an alternative. His is extremely militaristic and anti- labor, he is not in any way a leftist, liberal or otherwise a better choice.

[ZeroNowhere]

Why are we talking about mainstream politicians as if they're somehow significant all of a sudden?


You are being condescending and dismissive, like liberals are about the working class being a bunch of stupid Joe-the-plumbers clinging to God and Guns.
To be honest, people attacking Obama on that were being stupid (just kidding, Hillary was in it for the votes). Many liberals do have something of a superiority complex (apparently the masses have 'stupid genes' or something), but I don't see anything wrong with the statement he made. Of course, it simplifies things a fair bit, but it's hardly atrocious, or anything like that.

[Chicano Shamrock]

In short, I voted for Obama because of how symbolic the change is. I guess the romanticism won me out in my first election.

The symbolic change? Oh yes it is the first time in US history that a white man was elected.... who happened to be part black.

It's not called romanticism, it's called PR and hype.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Actually, id do the same if i lived in the usa, and im a marxist as well. this is because u need to think dialectically about the future, and obama is the best possible alternative to the conservative-republican rule. He may as well serve as a transition phase and get rid of the backward minded masses before revolutionaries in the usa can put an immediate revolution on their agenda..Communists fight for the independence of the working class from their exploiters and parties (e.g. the Republicans and the Democrats).

Lesser-evilism, pragmatism and 'defeating the right' have been used as excuses for backing capitalist parties since long before I came along. The CPUSA has called every election since the time of Reagan 'the most important election ever.'

The fact is the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. They represent the same class. They're funded by the same corporations. They've started more wars than the Republicans. Democrats were in office for the invasions of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Korea, Cuba, Viet Nam, etc., etc., etc.

The bottom line is working people need to organize on their own, and they need to do it now. Waiting for "better conditions" is an excuse for tailing liberals and sitting on your ass.

The fact that Obama has black skin doesn't mean a whole lot. It's nothing but identity politics to say otherwise. Black people are still especially oppressed. That hasn't changed one bit. Apartheid was abolished in South Africa only to have the new Black leaders continue to preside over the exploitation of the majority for the benefit of the minority. Electing female presidents in India and Pakistan didn't do a thing to stop widespread violence against women.

The most important thing is to look at things on a class basis and go from there.

Obamanation: Dreams of change and the hard reality (http://powr-prm.org/obamanation.html)

[Robespierre2.0]

Well, it's true that the bandwagon effect and hype did significantly effect Obama's campaign, but I don't think directing condescending insults to the people who voted for him is going to win many hearts and minds- Communists in the west have a bad reputation of being aloof, bookish, ivory tower types oblivious to the plight of the common person (thanks to you, Trots)

How deliciously ironic it is that 'mass-line' Maoists are the ones being aloof, in this case.

[Guerrilla22]

Actually, id do the same if i lived in the usa, and im a marxist as well. this is because u need to think dialectically about the future, and obama is the best possible alternative to the conservative-republican rule. He may as well serve as a transition phase and get rid of the backward minded masses before revolutionaries in the usa can put an immediate revolution on their agenda..

Look, I'd rather be shot in the leg than shot in the head, but that doesn't mean I want to be shot in the leg. If I can avoid getting shot altogether I will. The same goes for borgeois politicians like Obama; either candidate is going to perpetuate the same system, so why participate?

[Rawthentic]

Mantis:

The RCP, for all its claims to carry the banner of revolutionary maoism, do not practice the mass line.

There is no dialectical back and forth (theory and practice) interplay between the masses and the RCP. This party believes that the "two mainstays" of communist work in our era is both selling Revolution newspaper and popularizing Bob Avakian. Actual organization and struggle does not come into the picture.

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/

The link above is to the Nine Letters, written by the Kasama Proejct, which is the most comprehenive critique and struggle with the failure of the RCP.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Look, I'd rather be shot in the leg than shot in the head, but that doesn't mean I want to be shot in the leg. If I can avoid getting shot altogether I will. The same goes for borgeois politicians like Obama; either candidate is going to perpetuate the same system, so why participate?
Right, but is that really an option we have? I think our options are to agree to be shot in the head, agree to be shot in the leg, or not agree to either and be shot by where ever they decided. I'll accept people who vote for Democrats because they realize it's not going to change much, but it's slightly better. I'll accept people who vote 3rd party because symbolically throwing they're vote away because they want to make a statement. I however, don't do either and refuse to vote.

Nonetheless, I think their are legitimate reasons for the other two actions. If we get something like the Free Choice act passed, socialized medicine, or a slight reduction of exploitation, that's going to be good. We just shouldn't become complacent that Obama is fixing things. We know where he stands. We know where we stand. Yet, it doesn't seem accurate to say he offers no advantages over McCain. For example, it doesn't seem likely we're going to have quite as hard of a police clampdown as we would under McCain/Palin. That means, we have a bit more instituted to spread our message while people are more receptive to social action.

However, I agree with the original poster. When Marxists criticize the people, they just hide how their marxists analysis has failed by not reaching the people. If we're not reaching them, the fault is ours not theirs.

[Rawthentic]

I think we need to look and analyze where the "lesser evil" politics can take us - and how revolutionary politics are different than these.

Choosing Obama before McCain under the pretense that he will be "less bad/evil" is basically accepting a different type of exploitation and a different commander...of capitalism.

We need a worldview that never lowers its sights from the goal of revolution and communism.

There are a few examples of this "lesser evil" phenomenon happening before. Did Johnson's election end the war in Viet Nam? This was in fact the crux of an intense political struggle between communists who believed that it was their "internationalist duty" to support Johnson since he promised to bring the troops back and thus end the carnage, and those said that the real internationalism was supporting them by creating a revolutionary movement in the United States. And as it goes, Johnson did not end the war.

In he 60s and 70s, there were several Black mayors in the United States who were as oppressive and bastardly as any white mayor. Why is having a Black face in a position of power so fundamentally different from a white one? Don't the operate within the same dynamic and complex system? What about when apartheid ended in South Africa and its leaders became Black politicians, only to have the country continue in destructive poverty and crime?

But yes, this is a very complex question. Do we tell the masses of people to abstain from voting when there is really no alternative revolutionary movement that they can look to? What I think is that when we have these sorts of conversation, we dont tell people not the vote, but instead look to infuse our politics and analysis in a creative and friendly way (while working to develop a communist pole that can attract the people).

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I think we need to look and analyze where the "lesser evil" politics can take us - and how revolutionary politics are different than these.

Choosing Obama before McCain under the pretense that he will be "less bad/evil" is basically accepting a different type of exploitation and a different commander...of capitalism.

We need a worldview that never lowers its sights from the goal of revolution and communism.

There are a few examples of this "lesser evil" phenomenon happening before...

But yes, this is a very complex question. Do we tell the masses of people to abstain from voting when there is really no alternative revolutionary movement that they can look to? What I think is that when we have these sorts of conversation, we dont tell people not the vote, but instead look to infuse our politics and analysis in a creative and friendly way (while working to develop a communist pole that can attract the people).
I agree, but also it's not enough to demand people suffer for the "authentic revolution." The communists aims are never far from the people's aims. For the people, it seems like universal health care is within that aim. What I would recommend is these three things.

First, don't mistake a tactic for a strategy. If the workers decide that they must vote for Obama, for example, they should be completely aware that they're simple engaged in a tactic over one particular battle, like universal health care. They should never mistake that tactic for the strategy. OUr voting is not revolution.

Second, they should not mistake who they're voting for. Often times leftists can forget that a the enemy of their enemy is not necessarily their friend. Many leftists are disappointed with Obama. Why? They should have known what he was, and what he's going to do. If there is some tactical advantage to having him over McCain, we should take it. However, we should not fool ourselves into thinking we're voting for "change" or any other such nonsene.

Thirdly, we must never forget. When tactically engaging politics, we must be sure that we never forget any betrayal. We should hold these politicians accountable as soon and as often as we can.

Obviously, there is more to say on the topic, but this seems like a good set of rules with which to start.

[Rawthentic]

I don't think you agreed with what I said. You reiterated what you had said before.

First off, "communist's aims" are not the same as the "people's aims", and this is particularly true in these conditions. Communists aim to make revolution, and lowering our sights to the "people's aims" is basically elimination the raison de etre of communists, and that is to lead the masses in making revolution.

What you advocate is tailing the masses' needs and immediate interests at any given point in time, such as healthcare or whatever. What communists call for is uniting important faultine struggles (ie struggles that bring up questions of the system itself and challenge its rule) and leading them for a purpose: revolution.

Also: the people in this country do not "keep politicians in check." In some narrow sense, the people do vote for and choose a candidate, but that is within a framework of who the ruling classes chose to run for them in the first place (and there are deep reasons why Obama got so far, namely what they see as his ability to be a new fit commander in chief of empire).

Looking forward to your response.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I don't think you agreed with what I said. You reiterated what you had said before.

First off, "communist's aims" are not the same as the "people's aims", and this is particularly true in these conditions. Communists aim to make revolution, and lowering our sights to the "people's aims" is basically elimination the raison de etre of communists, and that is to lead the masses in making revolution. I think we have more agreement than disagreement if we remain very careful about what is said. Universal Healthcare is within the people's aim, but that doesn't necessarily entail how Communist should approach this position. The people might support Obama's plan for socialized insurance, but is that really the people's interest? It seems that socialized medicine that removes profit motive and exploitation of Capitalism. We can articulate something the people aim at without compromising ourselves as such.


What you advocate is tailing the masses' needs and immediate interests at any given point in time, such as healthcare or whatever. What communists call for is uniting important faultine struggles (ie struggles that bring up questions of the system itself and challenge its rule) and leading them for a purpose: revolution.I agree with this, but it seems that the point is not simply to bring up these faultline strugles and show how they can't be resolved. The point is to bring up these faultline struggles and to win. If we win socialized medicine. Honest to god socialized medicine and not Obama's abortion of corporate welfare, we'll have removed capital from an entire field of industry. That seems like a win any way you slice it. It's a win against capitalism and it's OUR win. As socialists. I think we can articulate the interests of the working class as they see them. We can articulate the true interests of the working class as revolutionary. Finally and relatedly, we can achieve an anti-capitalist victory in the process. I don't think that this entail tailing the masses' needs and immediate interestes or lowerign our sights.


Also: the people in this country do not "keep politicians in check." In some narrow sense, the people do vote for and choose a candidate, but that is within a framework of who the ruling classes chose to run for them in the first place (and there are deep reasons why Obama got so far, namely what they see as his ability to be a new fit commander in chief of empire).

Looking forward to your response.
You're absolutely correct. I apologize if my statements were ambiguous. I wasn't describing how things worked in America. I was proscribing how we should approach the tactic of parlimentarism. Also, there are other ways to express displeasure with a legislative betrayal that don't entail voting.

[Rawthentic]

Well, it looks like you've changed your stance from the previous one.

Before, you said that "the people's aims are the communist's aims" which means that whatever the people support or need at a particulary juncture, we are to support that and help them achieve that. It ignores what communist are all about. Unless your are a Trotskyist.

Socialized medicine is not a faultine struggle at all. I was referring to struggles such as immigrant rights (which brings up questions of racism and imperialism), police brutality (question of the state and oppressed nationalities), anti-war (imperialism), etc. These are crucial struggles that need communist leadership.

Yeah, there are those that want to be union stewardesses and secretaries (as trotskyists are) and believe that struggling for higher wages will somehow forge a revolutionary people, and, although higher wages is a legitimate demand, communists need to be analysts and decide which struggles and which manifestations of oppression are more important to be involved in.

There are clearly thousands of such manifestations of oppression daily and hourly. But, we also cannot choose every single one and concentrate our efforts on struggles that won't be very successful in terms of working towards building a revolutionary movement. This is why faultline struggles need to be identified.

And, how does "socialized medicine" remove capital from a highly lucrative industry like healthcare? And it isn't an "anti-capitalist victory."

[alpharowe3]

I'm not exactly sure why Obama picked Warren, perhaps to appeal to the more conservative base in the United States, however, Warren seems so ass-backwardsly conservative that he even out does most of the US conservatives. Perhaps he's simply attempting to shut up the 20% or so of the United States who believe humans rode on dinosaurs. Even then, this doesn't seem to make much sense, as the closest any of them will get to the inauguration are the highlights on Fox News.



lol, that was great but yeah i agree, obama is just trying to appeal to his haters. Im suprized warren took the job which i think is more scarry

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Well, it looks like you've changed your stance from the previous one.

Before, you said that "the people's aims are the communist's aims" which means that whatever the people support or need at a particulary juncture, we are to support that and help them achieve that. It ignores what communist are all about. Unless your are a Trotskyist. Not at all. During the start of the Iraq war in 2003 the majority of the American supported the Iraqi war. Does that mean the Iraq war fell within the aims and the interest of the people? The point is not to force the people into a dogmatic line nor is it to blindly follow their unconscious whims. However, it is the job of any communist to bring the nature of class struggle to the forefront of any issue.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.


Socialized medicine is not a faultine struggle at all. I was referring to struggles such as immigrant rights (which brings up questions of racism and imperialism), police brutality (question of the state and oppressed nationalities), anti-war (imperialism), etc. These are crucial struggles that need communist leadership.
I guess this is where we differ. It seems that a lot of your issues are really articulations of culture war. Immigrant rights, police brutality (as you've framed it), and anti-war all seem to fall within the scope of American Culture. Let me use immigrant rights for example.

Let us imagine that we gain a victory for immigrant rights (I assume we're talking about poor immigrants and not the elite from other countries who come to start businesses). What then? Then immigrants have the right to be exploited just like Americans? The actual class situation has not changed. The absolute minimum that I see is that perhaps 1) Capital will not be able to exploit immigrants so ruthlessly within the country 2) the American people will become slightly less racist. However, 2 is doubtful. It seems likely that many Americans who are not class conscious (think red states) will not see any class war here, but rather the betrayal of white america to dark america. Are they right? Absolutely not, but that doesn't change the fact it seems likely to me that a victory in immigrant rights will neither be a theoretical or practical victory.


Yeah, there are those that want to be union stewardesses and secretaries (as trotskyists are) and believe that struggling for higher wages will somehow forge a revolutionary people, and, although higher wages is a legitimate demand, communists need to be analysts and decide which struggles and which manifestations of oppression are more important to be involved in. For me, communist should be linked to higher wages because communism should be linked to everything good in America. People might be able to understand the difference between fix capital and variable capital. They might not be able to understand the importance of the three stage war, but what they can understand is "those guys are fighting for my better wage." However, the goal is the abolishion of wage slavery as such. However, it serves a theoretical purpose (it reduces the workers' exploitation by capital) and it serves practical purposes (people are less alienated, have more free time to politicize themselves, and see communists as the "good guys").


There are clearly thousands of such manifestations of oppression daily and hourly. But, we also cannot choose every single one and concentrate our efforts on struggles that won't be very successful in terms of working towards building a revolutionary movement. This is why faultline struggles need to be identified.

And, how does "socialized medicine" remove capital from a highly lucrative industry like healthcare? And it isn't an "anti-capitalist victory."
It's important to distinguish between socialized insurance and socialized medicine. In socialized insurance, the government simply pays for the insurance (there are many different ways this can happen, but this is the general idea), but the service providers are still private. In this case, the corporations can continue to gouge the government (as the consumer) and exploit their employees creating more and more profit (surplus value).

However, under socialized medicine the services themselves are socialized. Admittedly, this can be done in some bad ways, but generally it removes exploitation from the system. Anyone seeking services simply goes and gets them. Moreover, the governemnt usually demands these services be non-profit. In a properly created socialized medicine system, there is no place where capital can insert itself to exploit its workers nor gain surplus value. In this case, we've abolished the capitalist the right to exploit in the field of medicine (roughly speaking). This also has positive benefits. It shows people that a socially distributed system is viable and valuable. Also, it concretely provides necessary goods and services to the people who cannot get them. Furthermore, it makes it easier to turn culture issues into class issues. Now we don't have to fight for a "special status for gays", we can just extend all the existant "rights" of marriage. No war but class war includes things like the culture war. We ought not to fight it, instead we must always articulate our struggles in the terms of class.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

lol, that was great but yeah i agree, obama is just trying to appeal to his haters. Im suprized warren took the job which i think is more scarry
I'm not surprised at all. Warren doesn't support gay marriage. You know who else doesn't support gay marriage? Barack Obama.

[Rawthentic]

RD:

I have no idea what you mean by "culture wars." But thats certainly has nothing to do my concept of why it is such a crucial struggle.

It isn't simply about getting immigrants citizenship. It is about leading these struggles and raising questions that get people questioning the system and its nature. Like I said, imperialism and racism are key questions that emerge. Why do people come from this country? Is it because it is so free and prosperous? Or is it because it is the imperialist super-power of the world, creating poverty and depression around the world?

Your concept of communists' relation to wage struggles again shows your tendency towards reformism. Have you ever read What is to be Done by VI Lenin? I recommend it.

By saying that "the workers will be less exploited" you are effectively saying that we should focus on these struggles not to end oppression, but so that workers can be less oppressed. It translates to deciding between a different solution WITHIN capitalism, which is reformism.

We can't all focus on wage struggles. These are based on narrow, immediate demands. They can't (by their nature) reveal capitalism and bring revolution to the table in ways other struggles can. As we can easily see, they fall into bourgeois politics. Instead of such struggles that say "whats in it for me?" we need struggles that RAISE THE SIGHTS of the people to broader questions in society that raise deeper, structural questions, such as national oppression and imperialism.

[Rawthentic]

Also:

revolutionary movements aren't created by "winning the trust of the workers" by means of helping them in everyday struggles. Where has this ever happened?

Yeah they might think "they are good guys", but we won't be putting forward revolution as the solution and they will think we are out to simply help them achieve better wages, rather than be communist leaders.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

RD:

I have no idea what you mean by "culture wars." But thats certainly has nothing to do my concept of why it is such a crucial struggle.

It isn't simply about getting immigrants citizenship. It is about leading these struggles and raising questions that get people questioning the system and its nature. Like I said, imperialism and racism are key questions that emerge. Why do people come from this country? Is it because it is so free and prosperous? Or is it because it is the imperialist super-power of the world, creating poverty and depression around the world?

Your concept of communists' relation to wage struggles again shows your tendency towards reformism. Have you ever read What is to be Done by VI Lenin? I recommend it.

By saying that "the workers will be less exploited" you are effectively saying that we should focus on these struggles not to end oppression, but so that workers can be less oppressed. It translates to deciding between a different solution WITHIN capitalism, which is reformism.

We can't all focus on wage struggles. These are based on narrow, immediate demands. They can't (by their nature) reveal capitalism and bring revolution to the table in ways other struggles can. As we can easily see, they fall into bourgeois politics. Instead of such struggles that say "whats in it for me?" we need struggles that RAISE THE SIGHTS of the people to broader questions in society that raise deeper, structural questions, such as national oppression and imperialism.
The difference between reform and revolution isn't the difference in tactical ends, but rather strategic ends. I think an example is in order.

If one fights to have wages linked to the cost of living index, one is engaged in reformism as its purist. In this case,the wages of workers correspond rightly to what is required to keep them alive and supplied with a modest amount of wealth. The capitalist can continue to exploit the workers to make higher and higher profits so long as he insures that their material health is taken care of. This is the essence of reformism because the goal is not the abolish exploitation, but to make it bearable. The logical necessity of expanding this sort of wage to 1,2,3X the consumer index serves only to increase the wealth of workers within the context of a system of exploitation

If one fights to have wages linked to the net profits of a company, one is engaged in revolutionism. How exactly wages would be linked to profit could be determined by subtracting materials and other costs, or whatever. The important thing is that its ultimately linked to the money coming in to the company before it's distributed to any capitalists. In this case, the demand for fair wages as a percentage of net profits cuts into the capitalists ability to exploit the workers as such. This is the essence of revolution because the goal is to abolish exploitation as such. The logical necessity of expanding this sort of wage structure to 10%, 50%, 100% should be clear. Once it expands within its context, it abolishes capitalist exploitation as such.

If one is fighting for a simple wage increase, it's always ambiguous whether the goal is reformism or revolutionism.

It's also worth noting that the labor unions have historically been tied to revolutionary action. It's just important we not think they are the entirety of the movement. This is the Marx's warning about "trade unionism." However, he viewed trade unions as having a positive influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartists#The_1848_petition

Also, on a personal note, I'm pleased that this is my 200th post.

[Rawthentic]

Once again: revolution is about politics, not intentions.

The crux: if there is a communist involved in the struggle for wage increases amongst workers, we need to analyze where his politics can lead, not if his intentions are noble. They may be, but his politics can (and usually do) lead to reformism and lowered sights.

I already know the difference between reformism and revolution, btw.

[Honggweilo]

I think it comes from this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/jonestown.factsheet/index.html).

but Jim Jones was a communist!!

http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/

[DancingLarry]

There's a fundamental difference between revolutionaries being willing to work with (some of the) people that voted for Obama, and engaging in apologetics for Obama or the Democrats, or engaging in the self-defeating belief that today's Democratic party is even the mildly social democratic party of the 20th century synthesis that it became under FDR. While there is no point in the silly type of alienating language about Obama voters seen in the RCP article, believing that an Obama presidency will ameliorate the suffering of the working classes and advance or create openings for left political development is an illusion. In his masterwork Reflections on Violence syndicalist theorist George Sorel makes stunningly clear how bourgeois "liberal" or "progressive" governments are actually detrimental to the cause of developing left power and critiques. Recommended reading for those who think an Obama administration will be advantageous for left forces. The French "liberal" parties of Sorel's era indeed have a great deal incommon with today's US Democrats, his criticisms are remarkably current in that respect.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Once again: revolution is about politics, not intentions.

The crux: if there is a communist involved in the struggle for wage increases amongst workers, we need to analyze where his politics can lead, not if his intentions are noble. They may be, but his politics can (and usually do) lead to reformism and lowered sights.

I already know the difference between reformism and revolution, btw.
Maybe, but it seems that you're taking a pretty ahistorical view on it. Marx thought that the unions (see chartism) were essential for creating a revolutionary proletariat. Moreover, Marx's struggle with the anarchists in the first international was about the value of parliamentary action, of which Marx was in favor.

Secondly, we should not devalue the objective value of political positions, but we should be clear that we don't have an objective position to evaluate them. If we knew what objective position was "right" wouldn't we have had world wide communism already? I'm all for analyzing where the politics of a struggle for wage lead. In fact, isn't that exactly what I did? Didn't I analyze the struggle to show which sorts of struggle were inherently revolutionary and which were reformist? I don't think a clear adjudication that struggling for increased wage can be decided as reformist as such. Again, we should do, just as I've done, and analyze the consequences of any given struggle.

Finally, as for the "pure revolutionary" that seems to be advocated quite frequently seems quite as dangerous as any type of "reformism." Just look at the RCP. They've relegated themselves to little more than crackpots and laughing stocks in their search for revolutionary anti-reformism. The cry of "reformism" has become the rallying cry to do nothing. I would need to have it demonstrated to me that the second form of wage struggle is in anyway reformist for this criticism to adhere in anyway.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Actually, id do the same if i lived in the usa, and im a marxist as well. this is because u need to think dialectically about the future, and obama is the best possible alternative to the conservative-republican rule. He may as well serve as a transition phase and get rid of the backward minded masses before revolutionaries in the usa can put an immediate revolution on their agenda..

seriously dude, it really doesn't even matter much over here whether its republican or democratic rule, and I really wish it did.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I'm an RCP supporter and I agree with the general sentiment presented here. I submitted this as a comment to Revolution Newspaper in protest:


I am a regular reader and distributor and I generally agree with the approach the RCP uses toward Obama supporters, however I feel that using the term "Kool-Aid Drinkers" (Issue #151) is incredibly offensive toward Obama supporters and will alienate far more people than it will bring into a revolutionary movement. We should not hesitate to challenge our readers and the masses, but to deliberately offend them toward ends that could have been reached otherwise is a bad organizing tactic at the least. No, Obama is not going to bring the change we need and yes, a vote for him was still a vote for capitalism and imperialism, as is participating in the system at all. But there are fundamental differences between a mass cult suicide and enthusiasm for Barack Obama.

For one, the masses of people saw the possibility for at least minor reforms that might improve their earthly lives, albeit on a very minimal and superficial level. While it is not a real solution, Obama's healthcare plan would lower the cost of medical treatment somewhat, provided that it actually goes into effect. His education plan would provide slightly more funding for urban schools, even while still maintaining the deeply flawed curriculum and huge economic divide between classes and races. This is not the same blind faith that is intricately woven into the religious cult mentality. Despite their misplaced support, there are limited tangible reasons that people actually think Obama will bring positive change to their lives and the world even as he is reinforcing the capitalist structure of the United States. Particular votes in legislation that the people perceive to benefit them, his self-declared distinctions from Bush, etc. all distinguish these two tendencies.

Second, the RCP is right that there is somewhat of a cult surrounding Barack Obama, but we cannot logically criticize the people for promoting the man they perceive to be their leader (regardless of whether he represents their interests or not) while the RCP engages in a culture of appreciation surrounding Chairman Avakian. These are distinct in certain ways, as Obama's is largely disconnected from an appreciation of his works and is more centered on an appreciation of his persona, but the similarities are relevant enough to merit a comparison. We should criticize the leader, not the people or the method of promoting him. The RCP does not seem to understand that to people that have not read or engaged with the Chairman's works, criticizing the cult of Obama while providing the "Bob Avakian toolkit" for download on the website seems absurdly hypocritical. We should approach this common misperception with a little more caution and understanding.

Third, a cult mentality is largely comprised of the idea that the member has been individually rescued by the leader and "drinking the Kool-Aid" is a way to save himself in an afterlife or alternate dimension. This is not the same mentality that surrounds the cult of Obama. Most Obama supporters want real change in society to benefit more people than just themselves and don't seek to be uplifted by him in some religious fashion. They seek tangible improvements in their lives now through him. We need to proclaim that it is a positive thing that the masses of people want a radical change from the Bush program and capitalism in general, while showing them that nothing in this system, especially Barack Obama, is going to bring the change we need to break with them.

The primary problem with the approach the RCP is taking is that it crosses the line into a severe "blame the masses" tendency that was heavily discouraged by Mao. Yes, people have been duped by the system but to blame the people for that is not only wrong, but dangerously reactionary. I, along with other Maoists and leftists, demand an apology from the RCP for it's condescending language. As Maoists we need to learn from the masses about their struggles, their views, and their situations and then apply a revolutionary mass line to these problems. Preaching from a high horse and name-calling do more than just halt progress toward revolution, they reverse it.

L. Valencia
San Francisco, California

[duffers]

Apparently I need 25+ posts to post links to other pages. Seems kind of backwards for a web forum which promotes Anarchy

Anarchy isn't a byword for fecklessness. We don't suddenly lose our brains or sense because we're in the far left of the spectrum.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I'm an RCP supporter and I agree with the general sentiment presented here. I submitted this as a comment to Revolution Newspaper in protest:


I am a regular reader and distributor and I generally agree with the approach the RCP uses toward Obama supporters, however I feel that using the term "Kool-Aid Drinkers" (Issue #151) is incredibly offensive toward Obama supporters and will alienate far more people than it will bring into a revolutionary movement. We should not hesitate to challenge our readers and the masses, but to deliberately offend them toward ends that could have been reached otherwise is a bad organizing tactic at the least. No, Obama is not going to bring the change we need and yes, a vote for him was still a vote for capitalism and imperialism, as is participating in the system at all. But there are fundamental differences between a mass cult suicide and enthusiasm for Barack Obama.

For one, the masses of people saw the possibility for at least minor reforms that might improve their earthly lives, albeit on a very minimal and superficial level. While it is not a real solution, Obama's healthcare plan would lower the cost of medical treatment somewhat, provided that it actually goes into effect. His education plan would provide slightly more funding for urban schools, even while still maintaining the deeply flawed curriculum and huge economic divide between classes and races. This is not the same blind faith that is intricately woven into the religious cult mentality. Despite their misplaced support, there are limited tangible reasons that people actually think Obama will bring positive change to their lives and the world even as he is reinforcing the capitalist structure of the United States. Particular votes in legislation that the people perceive to benefit them, his self-declared distinctions from Bush, etc. all distinguish these two tendencies.

Second, the RCP is right that there is somewhat of a cult surrounding Barack Obama, but we cannot logically criticize the people for promoting the man they perceive to be their leader (regardless of whether he represents their interests or not) while the RCP engages in a culture of appreciation surrounding Chairman Avakian. These are distinct in certain ways, as Obama's is largely disconnected from an appreciation of his works and is more centered on an appreciation of his persona, but the similarities are relevant enough to merit a comparison. We should criticize the leader, not the people or the method of promoting him. The RCP does not seem to understand that to people that have not read or engaged with the Chairman's works, criticizing the cult of Obama while providing the "Bob Avakian toolkit" for download on the website seems absurdly hypocritical. We should approach this common misperception with a little more caution and understanding.

Third, a cult mentality is largely comprised of the idea that the member has been individually rescued by the leader and "drinking the Kool-Aid" is a way to save himself in an afterlife or alternate dimension. This is not the same mentality that surrounds the cult of Obama. Most Obama supporters want real change in society to benefit more people than just themselves and don't seek to be uplifted by him in some religious fashion. They seek tangible improvements in their lives now through him. We need to proclaim that it is a positive thing that the masses of people want a radical change from the Bush program and capitalism in general, while showing them that nothing in this system, especially Barack Obama, is going to bring the change we need to break with them.

The primary problem with the approach the RCP is taking is that it crosses the line into a severe "blame the masses" tendency that was heavily discouraged by Mao. Yes, people have been duped by the system but to blame the people for that is not only wrong, but dangerously reactionary. I, along with other Maoists and leftists, demand an apology from the RCP for it's condescending language. As Maoists we need to learn from the masses about their struggles, their views, and their situations and then apply a revolutionary mass line to these problems. Preaching from a high horse and name-calling do more than just halt progress toward revolution, they reverse it.

L. Valencia
San Francisco, California
Yeah good luck with that. I don't think any group that has the position "As long as you have the right line it doesn't matter how many people are following you" are going to give a shit about what you or anyone else thinks. Oh RCP, what happened to you. You used to be cool.