New Synthesis... What is new in it?

[IsItJustMe]

I would like to discuss this, possibly with some RCP people... Bob Avakian's much touted new synthesis. What is new in it, what is valuable, and how has it been proven by the experiences of the working class movement?

I have some questions, after reading this:

http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html

First of all, is not this focus on the teaching of evolution in school a little bit distracted from the class struggle, a little bit of an emphasis on bourgeois liberal ideals?

Second, this "tendency toward inevitable-ism" which, we are told, is a result of Marx's errors which Bob Avakian has corrected... What are some concrete examples of its negative effect on the world communist movement? The Manifesto does not contain one concrete example of this.

Third, what are some concrete examples of Stalin's USSR or Mao's China not sufficiently emphasizing internationalism, and what is the origin of this error?

Fourth, if, indeed, the problem of class roaders is tied up very closely with the distinction between manual and mental labor, as the manifesto says, how can giving intellectuals more power and more scope within the party possibly help to cure this problem?

Fifth, is not the narrow focus of the arts and literature a rather inevitable consequence of the particularly intense period of class struggle which took place in China and the Soviet Union in the immediate aftermath of the revolution?

Sixth, concerning the strategic approach, is it possible to say, concretely, what it is? Or is it only possible to say that it is great and it is from Avakian? After reading the manifesto, I cannot tell what this new strategic approach is... At all. I have no idea, except that I think it has something to do with the teaching of evolution.

Seventh, can you provide a concrete example of the way in which the Avakianist doctrine of objective, class-independent truth is in contradiction with the Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism? Other than, for instance, if we talk of objective truth in political or moral matters, in which case the notion of objective truth is in contradiction with dialectical materialism and is plainly and obviously wrong?

[Intelligitimate]

I just read the manifesto of the party, to see if I could figure out what is special about this "New Synthesis" of Avakian's. In reality, there isn't anything really "new" about it. It is mostly just commentary on alleged problems of the communist movement, such as, apparently, not being nice enough to intellectuals. When it isn't crap like this, it is basically about turning Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao into midgets for the Giant Avakian to stand on, in order to bolster Avakian as the new would-be Lenin. In reality, it's basically just a repacking of the same old bad Maoist lines.

There is also plenty of hilarity about Christian Fundies apparently waiting around the corner to shove creationism done your throat. It's really quite a ridiculous document in that regard.

[IsItJustMe]

Yes, but no. Yes the party needs to organize the proletariat and to place a particular emphasis on that (as I attempted to point out the RCP does). But no, the proletariat isn't, as you seem to suggest, the only force the party should be organizing and establishing leadership of. All the progressive forces should be a part of the revolutionary united front under the leadership of the proletariat. We shouldn't be ceding the various middle forces to the enemy.

I agree with that. But the most oppressed forces is not necessarily the same thing as the proletariat, and the primary revolutionary force is the proletariat.

We are, in fact, talking about the USA. Moreover, I would argue that any communist revolution, if it is a genuinely communist revolution, must be led by the proletariat, including in feudal countries.

I'm not sure what this really means... A communist revolution in a feudal country?

Marx talked about a bourgeois revolution and a socialist revolution. The revolution that would come in a feudal country would be a bourgeois revolution. It would nearly always be led by the bourgeoisie.

From that weathered, old Manifesto: "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. "

Not relevant to the United States directly, but true nevertheless.

But I differentiate, in the case of feudal society, between the necessary leadership (the proletariat) and what has to be the main fighting force in the immediate revolutionary war (the peasantry).

Again, in a revolution in a feudal country, the bourgeoisie is going to be fighting against feudalism as well. Again from the weathered, old Manifesto: "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. "

In other words, you never separate from the proletariat, even under feudal conditions. You consistently have to be led by the communist outlook and methodology. So you're fighting a proletarian revolution, but, again specifically in the case of feudal society, you have to have the peasantry as the main fighting force because it forms the base of society

You need to read more Marx. There is no such thing as a proletarian revolution against feudalism.

Now here in the United States it's obvious that the peasantry doesn't form the base of society, but rather the proletariat does. Hence the proletariat in America has to be the main fighting force. (Though not the exclusive force for revolution. You still can't succeed without an alliance of all positive factors.) I hope that clarifies my position.

Sure. And it's correct as far as the United States is concerned. I'm relieved. But I still think you could use some more Marx in your literary diet. Perhaps you could leaven the Avakian stuff with a little Marx, as dated as he is.

Or does Avakian deny the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie in history?

The RCP indeed regards Avakian's synthesis as a qualitatively new level of Marxism, logically analogous to Lenin's work in What is to Be Done?, which developed Marxism further as to be applicable to the imperialist era. In fact, Revolution newspaper articles occasionally describe Avakian's synthesis as "modern day What is to Be Done-ism". Since you apparently missed Bob's qualitatively new contributions to Maoism, allow me to point out a few:

As my post in the theory forum shows, I missed out as well. Perhaps you could come and answer my questions there?

I'd also like to point out that the RCP claims an even greater role for Avakian than this: Avakian is not only the developer of Marx, as Lenin was. Avakian is the corrector of Marx.

-The core premise, as the program's title clearly indicates, is that we are at the beginning of a new historical stage of communist revolution. The previous stage, argues Avakian, began with the foundation of communism in 1848 and concluded with the counterrevolution in China in 1976, since which point there have been no genuinely socialist countries remaining. It is on the foundation of this premise that everything else in the new synthesis is built. It is argued that Avakian's synthesis corresponds to these historical developments. This is why the RCP considers Bob's work "modern day What is to Be Done-ism".

OK. I don't find this to be anything of any particular interest.

The notion that there have been no socialist countries since 1978 is certainly not new to Bob Avakian. (It's also not correct -- in my opinion obviously not correct -- but we'll leave that aside for now.)

So the question is in what way does that make this a new stage?

Obviously every revolution is different from the last. No comrade can enter the same river twice: The river will have changed and so will the comrade. (As Herodotus said (more or less) and, I think, Lenin and Stalin have both quoted.)

So, if all you're saying is that it's different now... Well, no shit.

I'm sure you could describe it as a new stage. There are undoubtedly many new features which would exist if the revolutionary situation were as Avakian -- in the normal Maoist way -- supposes it to be. It wouldn't be especially great to point out that this changes a lot of things in big ways.

But it's especially trivial to just say, "This is a new stage", without explaining, concretely, what the features of this new stage are. What's different about making revolution now, as opposed to before?

Avakian makes a few minor criticisms of past revolutionaries, but all of these are things which he says should have been done differently back then, too. He doesn't tell us anything about what we need to do differently now, in this new stage.

Compare what you have said above, or the related passages in that exciting new manifesto with, say, the Foundations of Leninism. You'll see exactly what I mean about concreteness.

-Avakian argues that, even in revolutionary China, there were major elements of pragmatism, instrumentalism and dogmatism that need to be fully ruptured with. In terms of how this would apply in socialist society, Bob has pointed to the example of how certain aspects of the Cultural Revolution were led, particularly under Chiang Ching with the model revolutionary works, as not reflecting a very dialectical outlook. Avakian argues in respect to art and culture, for example, that socialist society should feature a dialectical relationship between model revolutionary works and other works that aren't calibrated by the party.

OK... This I did grasp. Avakian is in favor of more liberalism in the arts. That's one of the very few concrete things I got out of the manifesto.

I'm not at all convinced that it's a general principle of revolution. In the immediate lead up to World War II, I can completely understand why Soviet arts and literature were focused so heavily on developing socialist morale... It was wartime, and you have to expect that kind of restriction.

Also, I really have a hard time seeing how it would help to prevent the development of capitalist roaders in the party. Consider: Capitalist roaders, according to Maoist theory, seem to mainly be the people doing intellectual labor. Avakian would give intellectual laborers more power, more liberty, more ability to reach the public without fear of criticism or censorship from the party.

Even just in mentioning this one example, I think you can begin to see how this different outlook does, in fact, represent a qualitative re-envisioning of what socialism looks like and what our revolution is really all about.

I can't. I'm completely unimpressed by it.

I don't really think it makes sense even as a development of Maoism. I'm at an utter loss to understand how liberalism in the arts is at all compatible with the notion of a cultural revolution.

Also, I think that Lenin was correct in saying that revolutionaries should never rule out the use of any tactic in the right circumstances. In this case, that includes sharp crack downs on the arts. When the revolution is fiercely threatened, allowing counter-revolutionary messages to be produced in theater, film or literature is ridiculous.

This theory is not dialectical: It is anti-dialectical in that it supposes artistic freedom as an absolute. In dialectics, there are no absolutes.

It seems to me that this beautiful new development of Marxist theory, this profound criticism of Lenin and Mao, is really only a piece of petit-bourgeois liberalism clumsily grafted onto Marxism.

The only thing that keeps it from being a major problem is its triviality.

And I also don't think that you have exactly an arsenal of other concrete examples waiting in readiness. Prove me wrong and fire them away if you do.

-Bob further argues that there's a need for communists to rupture with all nationalist conceptions of revolutionary internationalism. Now previously in the communist movement you often saw the promotion of various conceptions of patriotism. Even Mao did this from time to time. Avakian argues that this is a wrong vantage point to be coming from that that the international arena should be seen as overall principle. In application, this means that the socialist country should be seen as a revolutionary base area in a single, integrated world process of revolution, not as a separate victory from others.

Uh huh. I guess Bob Avakian has never heard the Angolan national slogan: "Angola e na trinchera firma no revolucao Africano." Angola is a strong trench in the African revolution. I am almost completely sure that Joao dos Santos had hold of Avakian's principle here before Avakian did. And it was not new with dos Santos.

The principle as stated is not in the least bit new.

(In relation to this, Avakian contends that it is quite likely that socialism in particular countries is bound to be reversed unless further advances are made in the world arena.) Yes this does in part go back on Stalin's version of socialism in one country in order to more highly emphasize the central importance of the international arena over the national one. This is why some people describe the synthesis as "crypto-Trotskyism". But it is not a reversal of the 'socialism in one country' verdict. Bob maintains that the world revolution as a whole will consume an entire historical epoch, not a short matter of years or decades, that it will tend to occur on a country-by-country basis, and that you can't simply wait around for major improvements in the international arena before going ahead with qualitative revolutionary advances in the national one. In all these ways, the RCP's line differs from Trotskyism. Bob contends, in other words, that a dialectical relationship needs to exist between the revolutionary processes occurring at the national level and those occurring at the world level, but again not with the national arena being seen as the overall principle or with these two arenas being seen as equal priorities, but rather with the international arena being seen and approached as the more important one. This constitutes a qualitative re-envisioning of revolutionary internationalism and world revolution.

Actually, it's not qualitative at all. It's an excellent illustration of a quantitative difference. Bob thinks that sometimes Stalin and Mao weren't quite internationalist enough. Other times they did just fine. He can't -- or at least you can't -- articulate a principle that says when is too much and when is not enough. He's just saying, "I'm slightly more internationalist than Stalin and Mao."

And your principle, at least as articulated here, is a very inferior statement of the problem compared with what Lenin has said about the problems of revolution in one country simply because it doesn't explain WHY revolution in one country is hard in concrete terms.

-Avakian has also developed a strategy for making revolution in the imperialist countries. This strategy, discussed for example here in the video marked "Session Three" (third video down from the top), revolves around the premise that guerilla warfare isn't an appropriate approach in developed countries (because, so he reasons, such efforts are easily crushed under these conditions), but rather that a flowing process of urban insurrections is the appropriate match for advanced countries. (He retains that people's war remains the correct revolutionary strategy for essentially feudal countries, however.)

First of all, if Bob's distinction is between developed countries and feudal countries, Bob is a very poor sort of Marxist. Most of the countries which are called developing in American political discourse are thoroughly capitalist. This would include basically all of Latin America and most of Africa.

Then, as to the question of guerrilla warfare in developed countries: I am certainly not an advocate of armed struggle in any developed country. I hope that the world can find peace and solve its political problems by peaceful means. Etc.

But I have to note, of course purely as a historical matter, that guerrilla warfare was waged with considerable success in most of the countries of Europe during World War II.

Considering how far the RCP, or anyone else, is from actually directly challenging the bourgeoisie for control of the United States, it seems to me to be very, very early to speculate on exactly what form the final contest will take.

I hope that's enough on that subject.

-And, as has been discussed here in various capacities, Bob also argues, among other things, that religion is inherently a weight on humanity even when it takes on progressive forms and thus it should be struggled against in the realm of ideas, even while you unite with those progressive forces who hold these illusions.

This seems to me to be another petit-bourgeois retreat from dialectics. The struggle between communism and religion should ebb and flow with the circumstances, rather than be guided by some preconceived and eternal notion of priorities.

All of these, among others in the synthesis, are qualitatively new and further developments of Maoism.

:P, comrade.

(I have described these components to the best of my understanding of them. If I've screwed anything up, I'm sure redwinter can correct me.)

I eagerly await it.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I was merely articulating some of the aspects of the synthesis I observed folks, since Intelligitimate seemed to have missed them all. I don't have all the answers as to the RCP's views on everything! I'm not even a member, if you'll all recall! I'm still looking into all the myself. My lack of a more thorough understanding is precisely why I've not yet made the decision to pursue RCP membership. In other words, redwinter is probably the person who would be able to better clarify and more thoroughly respond to the critiques that have been provided here. So don't expect too much from me on the subject of the new synthesis okay people? Seriously. I'm still learning.

All that said (and hopefully understood), allow me to provide my thoughts on a few of the comments that have been posted:

Originally posted by IsItJustMe:
Then, as to the question of guerrilla warfare in developed countries: I am certainly not an advocate of armed struggle in any developed country. I hope that the world can find peace and solve its political problems by peaceful means. Etc.

Okay this I feel qualified to respond to. That position is definitely revisionist for it ruptures with the call to revolution! The need for revolution is one of the very most basic components of Marxism. The enemy does not simply abandon its hold on power voluntarily. In our case, the enemy has the most powerful military in the world to defend its position. And you would respond to this by calling for the employment of strictly "peaceful means"?

Also, I really have a hard time seeing how it would help to prevent the development of capitalist roaders in the party. Consider: Capitalist roaders, according to Maoist theory, seem to mainly be the people doing intellectual labor. Avakian would give intellectual laborers more power, more liberty, more ability to reach the public without fear of criticism or censorship from the party.

In my observation, you're prone to quick generalizations and oversimplifications. Mao's position, which this synthesis deepens and takes further, is this: "All truths are good for the proletariat". The openness of debate, the contesting of ideas, these help us get to the truth of things. When properly synthesized, that truth then positions us to respond to the challenges we may face. When we don't understand the world as it really is, then we can't correctly navigate the proverbial waters.

Yes, the kind of open contesting of ideas Avakian is calling for can in fact also enable the spreading of counterrevolutionary ideas and that can pose a very real danger for the revolution. Avakian understands this and has described the proper orientation as one of going "to the brink" of being destroyed without actually being destroyed. This is captured in his expression "solid core with a lot of elasticity". There is a contradiction there to be sure, and it has to be correctly handled. There is no simple answer here as to how that can be done in any and every situation. It's a complex matter.

Just some brief thoughts.

[IsItJustMe]

Okay this I feel qualified to respond to. That position is definitely revisionist for it ruptures with the call to revolution! The need for revolution is one of the very most basic components of Marxism. The enemy does not simply abandon its hold on power voluntarily. In our case, the enemy has the most powerful military in the world to defend its position. And you would respond to this by calling for the employment of strictly "peaceful means"?

No... Go back and read it a little more carefully. What I said was that I would prefer a peaceful solution.

But the final line is really my view here, more than anything else: It is far too early in the U.S. revolution to say what form the final contest will take. Ruling any form of it out, as Bob Avakian does, is anti-dialectical.

I'm not going to get too deeply into this here. I'm not going to go on a message board where anyone who likes can read, and where there is really no anonymity, and write things which someone is going to twist until they look like they're against the law.

You understand that denying the need for revolution is revisionist. You're correct, and I'm glad that you have grasped that. It's an important point.

But careful reading is very important on this kind of issue, and you need to work on that. I think if you think about this, and you think about it honestly, you will find that the person who is limiting the forms that revolution can take is not me but Bob Avakian.

I'm cautious. Here's why:

[FONT=Verdana]There are men in prison today in Ireland and some of the evidence used to keep them there are posts they made on Irish Republican forums.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Be under no illusion every post and every member of this site is monitored.[/FONT]

But Avakian takes it a step beyond that, from caution to cowardice.

In my observation, you're prone to quick generalizations and oversimplifications.

It could be. I have many faults. I do not claim to be a great revolutionary genius, and I certainly do not claim to be infallible. But you will still have to answer me point by point.

Mao's position, which this synthesis deepens and takes further, is this: "All truths are good for the proletariat".

This wouldn't mean that bourgeois propaganda is good for the proletariat. Seriously... Have you read that crap? All truths are good for the proletariat.

The openness of debate, the contesting of ideas, these help us get to the truth of things. When properly synthesized, that truth then positions us to respond to the challenges we may face. When we don't understand the world as it really is, then we can't correctly navigate the proverbial waters.

Do you understand my point? That tactics depend on circumstances, and declaring as a blanket statement that intellectual liberalism in the revolution is good is not dialectical?

Has it occurred to you that liberalism in these sorts of issues is something that we see during periods when the class struggle is at a low ebb, and when the class struggle is in an intense period, no one, on either side, really does this?

Has it occurred to you that there are very good reasons for this?

Yes, the kind of open contesting of ideas Avakian is calling for can in fact also enable the spreading of counterrevolutionary ideas and that can pose a very real danger for the revolution. Avakian understands this and has described the proper orientation as one of going "to the brink" of being destroyed without actually being destroyed. This is captured in his expression "solid core with a lot of elasticity". There is a contradiction there to be sure, and it has to be correctly handled. There is no simple answer here as to how that can be done in any and every situation. It's a complex matter.

But do you think that the proper position is always the same? That's my question. Do you think that the country can tolerate as much dissent in the middle of a war, let us say, as in a time of peace? That when the socialist revolution has triumphed in most of the world dissent will not be less dangerous than it is in, say, one tiny country surrounded by powerful, wealthy enemies?

And how do you square this with the problem of capitalist roaders? Are not capitalist roaders intellectual workers? In the Maoist view, did they not, ultimately, triumph in China? If that is the case, then the next wave of socialist revolution would have to wage a more determined struggle against capitalist roaders, not give them wider scope, wouldn't it?

This notion of Bob Avakian's does not make sense from a Maoist stand point.

It does make sense from a standpoint of petit-bourgeois, non-dialectical, liberalism.

Just some brief thoughts.

I appreciate you replying. And I appreciate that your understanding of this is incomplete.

I'm disappointed, though, that no one who is actually a member of RCP has chosen to reply. For that matter, no one from the Kassama project has either.

It seems to me that a few quotes from the great Bob Avakian ought to be enough to show the whole world my errors.

But that brings me to one other criticism of that Manifesto which I have neglected until now: As a piece of writing, it absolutely sucks. Compare it to the old Manifesto. Read the old Manifesto first, and then read the RCP one... If you don't fall asleep half-way through the new one.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by IsItJustMe:
This wouldn't mean that bourgeois propaganda is good for the proletariat. Seriously... Have you read that crap? All truths are good for the proletariat.

Alright then, let me challenge you with this thought: If one shuts off all voices of opposition...voices which may have important, even vital nuggets of truth that we don't, even within their possible overall incorrectness...how then does one arrive at the truth? You seem to have determined in advance that communists can be wrong about nothing and that the ordinary masses can be right about nothing that might run contrary to our views at any given point. You seem to favor notions of "class truth" over objective truth. I can't say I agree with such an outlook.

Do you think that the country can tolerate as much dissent in the middle of a war, let us say, as in a time of peace?

A time of actual war would probably constitute a specific exception to the overall rule. Yes, you do need to rein things in a bit when you're in those kinds of special conditions, I think, because you've come much closer to "the brink" at that point. Times of war require greater centralization than times of (relative) peace.

[IsItJustMe]

Alright then, let me challenge you with this thought: If one shuts off all voices of opposition...voices which may have important, even vital nuggets of truth that we don't, even within their possible overall incorrectness...how then does one arrive at the truth? You seem to have determined in advance that communists can be wrong about nothing and that the ordinary masses can be right about nothing that might run contrary to our views at any given point. You seem to favor notions of "class truth" over objective truth. I can't say I agree with such an outlook.

Well, the answer here is pretty complicated.

First of all, a party has to have very close connections to the non-party masses, and to be willing and able to learn from them as well as to teach them, in a dialectical way. Thus, there are ways of getting input from the masses other than through mass communication.

Second, cracking down on dissent undoubtedly does carry a cost with it in terms of making it less likely that the party will correct its errors. On the other end, it carries a benefit in that there is greater unity. Sometimes more of one is necessary and sometimes more of the other.

Third, concerning this notion of "class truth..." I am not quite sure what you mean. Certainly in regards to anything involving a political value judgment, what we value depends on which side we are on. That's Marxism 101.

Take, for instance, slavery. Was it good or bad? The masters thought it was good. The slaves thought it was bad. Hardly odd.

In capitalism, propaganda becomes much more developed and complicated, so that when we read the bourgeois press virtually every story or any political significance is distorted to make an argument in favor of a bourgeois perception of the matter.

[redwinter]

Bob Avakian's much touted new synthesis. What is new in it, what is valuable, and how has it been proven by the experiences of the working class movement?

I have some questions, after reading this:

http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html

First of all, is not this focus on the teaching of evolution in school a little bit distracted from the class struggle, a little bit of an emphasis on bourgeois liberal ideals?

Are you serious?

Here's the passage I believe you're referring to:

Imagine a situation in which Christian fundamentalist creationists have seized power, in the academies of science and in society overall, and have proceeded to suppress knowledge of evolution. Imagine that they go so far as to execute and imprison the most prominent scientists and educators who had insisted on teaching evolution and bringing knowledge of this to the public, and they heap scorn and abuse on the well-established scientific fact of evolution, denouncing and ridiculing it as a flawed and dangerous theory which runs counter to well-known “truth” of the biblical creation story and to religious notions of “natural law” and the “divinely ordained order.” And, to continue the analogy, imagine that in this situation many intellectual “authorities,” and others following in their wake, jump on the bandwagon: “It was not only naïve but criminal to believe that evolution was a well-documented scientific theory, and to force that belief on people,” they declare. “Now we can see that it is ‘common wisdom,’ which no one questions (so why should we?), that evolution embodies a worldview and leads to actions that are disastrous for human beings. We were taken in by the arrogant assurance of those who propagated this notion. We can see that everything that exists, or has existed, could not have come into being without the guiding hand of an ‘intelligent designer.’” And, finally, imagine that in this situation, even many of those who once knew better become disoriented and demoralized, cowed into silence where they do not join in, meekly or loudly, in the chorus of capitulation and denunciation.

The temporary defeat of socialism and the end of the first stage of the communist revolution has had many features and consequences that are analogous to such a situation. Among other things, it has led to lowered sights and low dreams: Even among many people who once would have known better and would have striven higher, it has led, in the short run, to acceptance of the idea that—in reality and at least for the foreseeable future—there can be no alternative to the world as it is, under the domination of imperialism and other exploiters. That the most one can hope for and work for are some secondary adjustments within the framework of accommodation to this system. That anything else—and especially the attempt to bring about a revolutionary rupture out of the confines of this system, aiming toward a radically different, communist world—is unrealistic and is bound to bring disaster.

I'll try to break it down for you: this is an analogy to the situation of communism in the world today and how it's hanging by a thread in terms of whether or not there will even be a chance for people to take up communist revolution before our species is wiped out.

Just as a side note, if you haven't noticed, in the United States the teaching of evolution is in fact a contentious question, with it having been banned in certain areas of the country and with stickers placed by law on biology textbooks to the effect that "evolution is just a theory alongside creationism", etc. Fighting for science against this re-assertion of religious obscurantism, which revolutionary communists have been active in doing, is class struggle.

Is evolution a "bourgeois liberal idea" to you? If so, you have a problem.

Second, this "tendency toward inevitable-ism" which, we are told, is a result of Marx's errors which Bob Avakian has corrected... What are some concrete examples of its negative effect on the world communist movement? The Manifesto does not contain one concrete example of this.

Third, what are some concrete examples of Stalin's USSR or Mao's China not sufficiently emphasizing internationalism, and what is the origin of this error?

One "concrete example" of the negative effects of some of these unscientific errors on the world communist movement would be that there is barely any "world communist movement" left to speak of and that there are zero socialist states in the world, from when we used to control a sizable chunk of the world's population and landmass with many millions around the planet who were inspired by the Russian and Chinese revolutions and then the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 70s. Today we have pretty much nothing "concrete" to show for it - but we should be learning our lessons and taking our understanding to the next level. Avakian has synthesized this leap.

If you have the wrong ideas you can't get anywhere in practice. The General Crisis Theory of the Comintern, upheld by Stalin and Dimitrov, for example, surmised that the world capitalist system was in a permanent linear downward motion of crisis. This prediction was incorrect and together with some other fucked up lines like the "united front against fascism" ended up both paving the way for capitalist restoration in the USSR and the ideological bankruptcy of nearly the entire international communist movement soon after the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956.

This was actually also very bound up with some of the problems of the USSR during WWII and the internationalism point (like the Comintern's policy in Spain during the civil war there). Check Avakian's "Advancing the World Revolution" for more on this:
http://revcom.us/bob_avakian/advanci...revolution.htm

Fourth, if, indeed, the problem of class roaders is tied up very closely with the distinction between manual and mental labor, as the manifesto says, how can giving intellectuals more power and more scope within the party possibly help to cure this problem?

Fifth, is not the narrow focus of the arts and literature a rather inevitable consequence of the particularly intense period of class struggle which took place in China and the Soviet Union in the immediate aftermath of the revolution?

The Manifesto doesn't just say that you have to give intellectuals more power and more scope within the party, nor that it was a question of the focus being too narrow for arts and literature. At the core is a recognition that one of the basic problems in socialist society that led to the ability for the restoration of capitalism was the fact that not enough of the masses were cognizant of the nature of the political line struggle going on in society and especially at its ruling heights among key figures in the communist party itself--that the Cultural Revolution in China was an effort that contributed to this, but that it wasn't enough (not to say that things would definitely have turned out differently had things been different or that it was a completely subjective problem on the part of the communists, it could very well have been objectively true no matter what at that point in history, but that we definitely will not be advancing any further on the road to communism if we don't change that shit up). You still need a solid core of revolutionary communist emancipators of humanity (which is not identical with just the party itself in any one country where the proletariat has seized state power) but you need elasticity throughout society on the basis of that solid core to be able to "fit the masses to rule" in Marx's terminology (though not through necessarily military civil wars as Marx suggested, but principally through ideological struggle).

Sixth, concerning the strategic approach, is it possible to say, concretely, what it is? Or is it only possible to say that it is great and it is from Avakian? After reading the manifesto, I cannot tell what this new strategic approach is... At all. I have no idea, except that I think it has something to do with the teaching of evolution.

Check this out for more info, it is referenced in the Manifesto:
http://rwor.org/a/102/possibility-en.html

Seventh, can you provide a concrete example of the way in which the Avakianist doctrine of objective, class-independent truth is in contradiction with the Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism? Other than, for instance, if we talk of objective truth in political or moral matters, in which case the notion of objective truth is in contradiction with dialectical materialism and is plainly and obviously wrong?

No, the concept of the existence of objective truth is not in contradiction with dialectical materialism...not sure where you are inventing this from. Can you provide some citations when you ask these kinds of questions? I may be able to help some more if you do.

[Elfcat]

Ummm, OK, one question from a noob:

If suppression of dissent actually really absolutely ever worked in real life.....

Then how does anyone even know the words "communism", "anarchism", "socialism" etc in the U.S. anymore?

Well, of course, one answer is that those opposed to these things make the grand mistake of accusing liberals of being these things, and so people like me start thinking, "Hrrm, what is this little communisticky thing here that these fuckheads hate so much?". But they seek to control the public's impressions of what these are. Obviously they have never completely succeeded. And one reason as I insinuate above is that when the current rulers start looking ugly, anything they insult starts to look like something worth a lookie here....

We currently live in a country drowned in bourgeois propaganda. If we're not afraid of it now, and it's not stopping us from having these sites now, why be afraid of it during socialist control of state power? Aren't we already in the process of showing it up for the tripe it is? Would we suddenly be unable to do so once the great scary chain of power wraps itself around our necks?