Los Angeles: Something Is Beginning Here

[flyby]

Originally posted by Commie Rat@May 4 2005, 06:38 AM
this Bob Avikain (i know i spelt it wrong), is he spreading his word or is he spreading the word of MARX, it is all good and well that his charisma is being used for the good of the cause, this could lead to a Lenin or a Mao (not comparing them)

Well, Marx was a long time ago.

Marx and engels founded modern communism....

But obviously we have learned a lot since they worked and wrote. There has been a century of experiences with socialist revolution and anti-colonial struggle, experience of capitalist restoration to sum up, and great changes in class structure, production and global structures.

So yes, Bob Avakian builds on Marxism -- including what Marx himself wrote. But at the same time, Avakian is putting forward new insights and understandings that go far beyond what earlier Marxists (incuding Marx and Lenin) wrote and understood.

and how could it not be like that?

Communism is not a religious movement with "revealed truth" by some early prophet. It is a scientific ideology that analyzes a changing reality, and the complex developments of society that is straining to break from capitalism into communism.

so, yeah, i was totally jazzed by that piece from LA -- which talks about important ways that revolutonary thinking and organizing are going on -- how the message about the revolutionary movement, and the existance of a leader like this, is spreading among the peole (who often desperately want to find a way to a new world, and who have been hoping that a visionary and serious leadership would emerge.)

i've been checking out http://bobavakian.net again, rethinking the pieces on the election in light of all the ugly new shit that ishappening.

[Commie Rat]

Communism is not a religious movement with "revealed truth" by some early prophet. It is a scientific ideology that analyzes a changing reality, and the complex developments of society that is straining to break from capitalism into communism.

my point exactally, blind faith in any 'messiah' is foolish, and blind faith in any leader is stupid

It is a scientific ideology that analyzes a changing reality

yes and wiht that comes the need to scrutinize all actions by all leaders even our own. following a logical patten not with faith

[flyby]

Originally posted by Commie Rat@May 6 2005, 06:43 AM


blind faith in any 'messiah' is foolish, and blind faith in any leader is stupid

It is a scientific ideology that analyzes a changing reality

yes and wiht that comes the need to scrutinize all actions by all leaders even our own. following a logical patten not with faith

I agree completely with that. And so would Chairman avakian.

Slavishness, "blind faith" and uncriticial thinking are completely opposed to what communists must be about.

At the same time, to make revolution, we (and the broad masses of people) do need communist leadership (and we need to develop communist leaders, protect them and promote them.)

And when our movement has developed an advanced leadership -- it is also important for the masses of people to know about this, and to check out the new developments in theory and analysis.



http://suchgreat.blogspot.com/2005/04/home...louisville.htmlBob Avakian Speaks

[Poum_1936]

Perhaps Ive been living in the wrong part of LA. I definatly have not seen anything from the RCP. Or heard Avakian's name mentioned.

Ive heard two of Avakian's speaches. He has alot of intresting things to say. Though I disagree with him more. Some of the idea's the RCP flaunt around I tend to find alittle odd. I also have a hard time liking Maoism. For it seems to be a continuation of Stalinism which in turn got alot if its idea's from Menshevism and class collaboration.

Not to mention alot of the RCP members seem to hold Avakian higher up than a Catholic would hold God. No man has ever been 100% right on anything. But to the RCP Avakian seems infallible.

I hold Trotsky dear, but by no means was he right on on everything. He had his vices and mistakes. And by no means is he the only one that put forth revolutionary thinking or advanced the ideas of Marxism. Now, it seems some RCP'ers completly turn around what I said and put Avakian as the greatest man that lived.

[flyby]

the issue really isn't "infallibility" (since it should be obvious that no human is infallible.) And in the case of revolutionaries, including Avakian, there has been a process of learning, changing views and developing understandings -- that obviously are very different from any Catholic notion of "infallibility."

The issue is that a leadership of this level (and the body of work that has been developed) are extremely important factors for making revolution possible.

But don't take my word for it. You obviously need to engage it for yourself.

for example the development of what is called "charting the uncharted course."

The RCP believes that no one, in the history of Marxism, has really developed a revolutionary strategy for a country like the U.S. (or for other imperialist countries).

The left movements of (say) the 1930s were very deep into economism (believing that socialist revolutionary movements could more or less spontaneously emerge from trade unionism) -- and this goes for both the Comintern and also its Trotskyist critics (and even in their own way, the anarcho-syndicalists.)

Avakian has developed a strategic approach (based on leninist approach to revolutonary situations, What is to be donist approach to consciousness, exposure and class consciousness) that actually puts the conscious revolutonary forces in a position to prepare (and then carry out) a revolutionary seizure in the U.S. (and to do it on a basis that has a hope of proceeding on toward a radically different society and communism.)

There is a lot to say about that... some of it is elaborated here: Create Public Opinion, Seize Power, Prepare Minds and Organize Forces for Revolution

[Poum_1936]

[/QUOTE]and this goes for both the Comintern and also its Trotskyist critics [/QUOTE]

I have yet to see Trotskyists take up the economist ideal of only fighting for economic demands while denying polirical demands. If you could prove me otherwise I would be much abliged.

Avakian has developed a strategic approach (based on leninist approach to revolutonary situations, What is to be donist approach to consciousness, exposure and class consciousness)

It seems, this is just my inetreptation, but it seems as if you advocate the idea that the working class can not understand anything past the economic demands. Which Lenin advocated in his work "What Is to Be Done." Two years later he renounced the idea that the working class could only develop a trade union consciouness (in 1905) based off the old idea of Kautsky's which at the time Lenin was a loyal follwer of.

Lenin corrected his opinion because of the appearance of the Soviets. The working class created the Soviets completly independent of the Bolsheviks.

[flyby]

Originally posted by Poum_1936@May 7 2005, 10:02 AM
I have yet to see Trotskyists take up the economist ideal of only fighting for economic demands while denying polirical demands. If you could prove me otherwise I would be much abliged.

Avakian has developed a strategic approach (based on leninist approach to revolutonary situations, What is to be donist approach to consciousness, exposure and class consciousness)

it seems as if you advocate the idea that the working class can not understand anything past the economic demands. Which Lenin advocated in his work "What Is to Be Done."

Two years later he renounced the idea that the working class could only develop a trade union consciouness (in 1905) based off the old idea of Kautsky's which at the time Lenin was a loyal follwer of.

Lenin corrected his opinion because of the appearance of the Soviets. The working class created the Soviets completly independent of the Bolsheviks.

I think you have raised some important issues here, poum. And I'm glad to reply.

First of all, economism (in the way I, and I believe Lenin and Avakian, use the term) does not mean "only fighting for economic demands while denying polirical demands."

Economism is a line that emergeS among socialists and communists that says: the struggle for economic demands was the best arena for developing the organization and class consciousness of the workers, and the best basis for developing their political demands.

So economists think the workers (sometimes with help from socialist) can "draw" the necessary political lessons about life and struggle out of their struggle with their employers over wages, working conditions, layoffs, benefits, social programs etc.

Lenin specifically criticized those who thought the way to go was "lending the economic struggle a political character" -- which means to seek (by a series of baby steps) to take the smaller economic demands of specific groups of workers and turn them into demands made on the state (and in that way make them "political" and supposedly class conscoius). So that ecnomists would have seen that demands for unemployment insurance (a demand made of the state, not of individual employers) was a huge leap over contract struggles etc. -- and a big step toward the kind of class consciousness and organization that will lay the basis for a sociallist challenge to capitalism.

Lenin opposed and criticized all that. He argued that class consciousness is not just consciousness of ourselves as a class -- class consciousness is conscousness of the historic role of the proletariat in leading a struggle that can emancipate all of humanity. An understanding of the role of different classes, the nature of this system and its political representatives cannot come (arise) by itself from the struggles (however just or intense) over economic demands. The understandings needed for class conscousness come from the study of history and politics, economics, philosophy and science -- and it comes from without the immediate life experience and economic struggles of various groups of workers.

And from that understanding, Lenin argued that the key to developing a revolutionary movement of workers (as opposed to merely a trade unionist one) was the active political work of communists -- exposing the system, laying bare the concerns and nature of other classes, putting before all the communist convictions of the revolutionaries, arousing the consciousness of the workers about the need to take a stand against the oppression of other sections of the people (and he lists persecuted religious sects, deserters from the army, students etc.)

He makes the controversial (and important) points that:
* trade unionist consciousness left to itself does not break out of bourgeois consciousness.
* without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement.
* and he put forward the central importance of a communist newspaper as a "collective organizer" and as the most powerful instrument in preparation for revolution.

[None of this means that it is wrong for communists to support important economic struggles of the masses -- especially when they are seriously disrupting business as usual, facing serious attack by the system, raising important heart-felt demands of the people, or drawing new sections of the masses into political life. The issue here is both how central is the economic struggle in revolutionary preparation, and what is the nature of communist work among the people. And. Avakian has pointed out that looked at in a sweeping, global and historic way, the struggle for communist revolution and the trade union struggle for ecnomic demands has mainly diverged more and more over the last century -- in ways that were not yet the case in Lenin's time.]

So when I criticize "economism" -- i am not talking about "pure and simple trade unionism." The main forms of economism in the U.S. has consisted of focusing political work on building the ecnomic struggle of the workers, while at the same time, carrying out some vague and rather aimless agitations for "socialism" in hopes that the experience in the ecnomic struggle will convince the workers that only by "going over" to the struggle for socialism can they solve their day-to-day life problems. (IT is this approach that was common in the 30s, including both among the CPUSA, and the trotskyist forces -- and it is this approach that Avakian has broken with.)

On your other point: I don't think Lenin ever reversed his stand in What is to be done. The fact that workers (in a revolutonary upsurge against tsarism) created new forms of organization (citywide soviets) does not mean that their consciousness spontaneously goes from trade uion to socialist understandings. (The two things are just not the same). And, in fact, there was a major struggle by the bolsheviks, applying WITBD's insights to fight so that the Soviets would be embryos of new power and not "new reform minded city governments" (which is where they were spontaneously going in 1905 (and even later though much of 1917).

I'm sure these notes just open the door to this discussion. But let me know what you think.

More places to look:

here is a brief introductory discussion by Chairman avakian:
"Create Public Opinion-Seize Power"?

Also the discussion of the RCP's new REVOLUTIONnewspaper in their first editorial digs into this "role of a newspaper in creating class consciousness and a revolutionary people" (it concentrates the line opposed to economism, and lays out a whole different vision of how we prepare minds and organize forces for revolution):

Invitation to Revolution

[Poum_1936]

Im going to have to disagree with your variation of "economism."

The "economists" theoretically limited the aspirations of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, asserting that further political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the vanguard role of a party with the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events.

-Taken from the Economist defintion of Marxists.org

Here is an article by Lenin giving shame to the Economist trend.

A Protest by Russian Social Democrats

Also Lenin did correct his mistake in What is to be Done? not more than 3 years after its publishing. He not longer favored the idea that workers let to their own thinking would reach nothing but a mere "trade union consciouness."

Below is the refutation of the "trade union consciousness" idea in Alan Woods' book Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution.

[QUOTE]In fact, the atmosphere at the congress became frequently heated, as Lenin tackled the prejudices of the practicos head-on, while the latter did not conceal their resentment at the “interference” of the exiles. “The committee-man,” wrote Krupskaya, “was usually a rather self-assured person. He saw what a tremendous influence the work of the committee had on the masses, and as a rule he recognised no inner-Party democracy. ‘Inner-Party democracy only leads to trouble with the police. We are connected with the movement as it is’, the committee-men would say. Inwardly they rather despised the Party workers abroad who, in their opinion, had nothing better to do than squabble among themselves—‘they ought to be made to work under Russian conditions.’ The committee-men objected to the overruling influence of the Centre abroad. At the same time they did not want innovations. They were neither desirous nor capable of adjusting themselves to the quickly changing conditions.”[39]

Bogdanov moved a resolution, drawn up by Lenin, On the Relations Between Workers and Intellectuals Within the Social Democratic Organisation, which, while recognising the difficulties under conditions of illegality, argued in favour of applying the principle of elections more broadly, to open up the Party to the workers, to make room for the new, fresh layers on the Party’s leading committees.

This resolution called forth a storm of protest on the part of the committee-men. Kamenev (Gradov) was first on his feet: “I must decisively speak against approving this resolution. This question of the relation between the intellectuals and workers in Party organisations does not exist. (Lenin: It does exist&#33 No, it does not: it exists as an issue for demagogy—and that’s all.” Others argued that there was no time or forces to train workers, basing themselves on the famous quote from What Is To Be Done? which incorrectly asserts that socialist consciousness must be brought to the workers from without. Thus, Romanov (Leskov) complained: “It seems to me that here we are overestimating the psychology of the workers (sic&#33, as if the workers by themselves could become conscious Social Democrats.”[40] Yet now the very author of What Is To Be Done? answered his critics by appealing to the class instinct of the workers, and deliberately shocked his audience by referring approvingly of the participation of the workers in the Party organisation during the period of “Economism”. In the English Collected Works, this speech of Lenin’s has, for reasons best known to the Stalinist editors, been left out. I quote here from the Congress minutes in Russian:

“It has been said here that the bearers of Social Democratic ideas are predominantly the intellectuals. That is not true. In the epoch of Economism, the bearers of revolutionary ideas were workers, not intellectuals… It is further asserted that at the head of the splitters are usually situated intellectuals. That observation is very important but does not settle the matter. I long ago advised in my written works that workers should be brought onto the committees in the greatest possible number. The period following the Second Congress was characterised by the insufficient implementation of this obligation—that is the impression I have got from my conversations with the ‘practical workers’… It is necessary to overcome the inertia of the committee-men (applause and booing)… the workers have a class instinct, and with just a little bit of political experience they very quickly become staunch social democrats. I would be very pleased if, in the make-up of our committees, out of every two intellectuals there were eight workers.”[41]

This is the final answer to those who still persist in repeating Lenin’s mistake in What Is To Be Done?, where he erroneously asserts that the proletariat, left to itself, can only develop a “trade union consciousness”. Lenin never repeated that statement, and, in fact, repudiated it on more than one occasion. It was not Lenin, but the committee-men with their formalistic caricature of Bolshevism, who held this view, and who booed Lenin when he tried to correct them. So indignant was he at the contemptuous attitude of the intellectuals towards the workers that he deliberately provoked them by referring positively to the worker-Economists. As a matter of fact, many of the old worker-Economists of the Rabochaya Dyelo tendency subsequently joined the Bolsheviks whereas the Economist intellectuals, such as Martynov and Akimov, almost to a man, joined the Mensheviks. This is an interesting point which is never mentioned, but nonetheless true. Burning with indignation, Lenin again intervened: “I could hardly keep my seat when it was said that there are no workers fit to sit on the committees. The question is being dragged out: obviously there is something the matter with the Party. Workers must be given places on the committees. Oddly enough, there are only three publicists at the Congress, the others being committee-men: it appears however that the publicists are for placing the workers, whereas the committee-men for some reason are quite wrought up over it.”[42]

Here again I disagree with your claim that "And, in fact, there was a major struggle by the bolsheviks, applying WITBD's insights to fight so that the Soviets would be embryos of new power."

Lenin very much thought this way but this was not always the accepted idea of the Bolsheviks. "I may be wrong, but I belive (on the strength of the incomplete and only 'paper' information at my disposal) that politicaly the Soviet Workers' Deputies should be regarded as the embryo of a provisional revolutionary government. I think the Soviet should proclaim itself the provisional revolutionary self government of the whole of Russia as early as possible, or should set a provisional revolutionary government (which would amount to the same thing, only in another form."

And the Bolshevik paper Novaya Zhizn had this to say towards the Soviets: "The Soviet of Workers Deputies must not exist as a political organization and the social democrats must withdraw from it, since its existance acts negatively upon the development of the social democratic movement. The Soviet of Delegates can remain as a trade union organization, or it cannont remain at all." The article also went further demanding that the Soviet's accept the ultimatum of accepting the party programme of the RSDLP or disband. A resolution was also moved along these lines in the Soviet. When it was denied, the Bolshevik delegates lead by the CC members Bogdanov and Knutants, walked out. THe Soviets did not disband ethier but when on to the next point on the agenda.

It was also posed "Soviet or Party." Lenin rejected this idea and retorted: "I think it is wrong to put the question in this way and that the decesion must certainly be: both the Soviet of Workers Deputies and the Party." Lenin continues saying "The only question-and a highly important one, is how to divide, and how to combine, the tasks of the Soviet and those of the RSDLP."

Lenin thought that the Marxists should fight to win majority for their ideas , programme and tatics in the mass organizations. Lenin also states "I think it would be inadvisable for the Soviet to adhere wholly to any one party... We do not shut ourselves off from the revolutionary people but submit to their judgement every step and every decesion we take. We rely soley on the free intiative of the working masses themselves."

[SonofRage]

Economic struggles can turn into political struggles. I think there is a dialectical relationship there.

Harry Cleaver had some good insights on this in his book Reading Capital Politically(p.109):

This analysis of the dialectic of qualitative and quantitative in the class struggle
helps clarify the political nature of the working-class attack on capital which produced
the crisis. One way in which the old dichotomy between politics and economics has
often been posed has been to label as ‘economism’ struggles by workers which are
deemed solely quantitative, for example, more wages, shorter workday, and so on.
These struggles are said to be within capital, which is itself essentially quantitative.
‘Political’ struggles are only those that challenge the ‘quality’ of capital itself, that is,
that threaten the ‘revolutionary’ overthrow of capital via the seizure of state power.
From what we have seen already, it should be apparent that struggles over the length
and intensity of the workday (how much the commodity-form is imposed) are at once
quantitative and qualitative: quantitative because they concern the amount of work
that will be done for capital, qualitative because they put into question the realization
of enough surplus value to maintain capitalist control. The ‘quantitative’ struggle
over income also raises the question of the realization of surplus value and capital’s
survival.

The grain of truth about ‘purely quantitative struggles’ lies in the productivity
deal. If increases in working-class income are successfully tied to increases in
productivity, then the struggle is indeed bound within capital (see Chapter IV below).
But even here, the rise in productivity, and the reorganization of the working class
which it entails, creates a qualitative change in the class relations. Similarly, the
growth in workers’ access to wealth through the productivity deal expands the absolute
base on which future struggles can be fought. It is exactly upon these qualitative
changes that the working class developed the power to rupture the productivity deal
and throw the system into a profound ‘political’ crisis.

[flyby]

there is much to dig into here, both in poum's and sonofrage's posts.

I won't be able to get into this for a few days. But i just wanted to say that I will give your posts a close read and respond.

Two things in quick notes:

a) No one ever said that trade unionims doesn't give rise to political consciousness or political struggle. Lenin's point was that they don't give rise to revolutionary and communist consciousness (spontaneously). And that "left to themselves" would give rise to bourgeois political consciousness (including in the form of seeing "the struggle" mainly as demanding reforms and improvements in condition.)

When workers and tradeunions demand legal reforms -- it is political (obviously) -- the question here (for me at least) ishow do we develop a revolutoinary people (with a revolutonary class consciousness) that can actually be the backbone of an attempt at power, and be the backbone for creating a whole new society.

b) I don't think i have ever heard anyone argue that Lenin reversed WITBD -- and without ignoring your post, you wll understand if I am skeptical.

But though i don't think Lenin reversed it, i think it is clear that the Communist International in the twenties (and then even more blatantly under STalin in the 1930s) reversed the verdicts in What Is To Be Done. (And enshrined "left wing communism, infantile disorder" as a strategic work in its place)

It is a controversial thesis and it has been attacked from a number of sides -- by opposing economist and stagist views of how do approach socialist revolution.

And (frankly) i don't care who opposed What is to be done. I don't agree with them.

And we are not religious dogmatists who say "well, whatever lenin said must be right." We have to approach such things critically, in light of all that we know, thinking and developing, apply what previous communists developed and working out fresh and important new developments.

[Poum_1936]

b) I don't think i have ever heard anyone argue that Lenin reversed WITBD -- and without ignoring your post, you wll understand if I am skeptical.

Just to make a note, Lenin never renounced all of What is to be Done? He just corrected himself in light of new experinces. "An ounce of thoery is worth a ton of struggle."

[OleMarxco]

Maoism is just another way to "lure" in another, but only "more chinese" version of Stalinism, only with SLIGHT practical differencies, BAPH!

[RedAnarchist]

I dont think maoism is a branch of Stalinism. Isnt it an offshoot of Leninism, a sort of agragrian, authoritarian Leninism?

[Raisa]

My opinion on this is that...

As far as I know, "parties" have some kind of leaders, they started the party and dictate the line, and you dont really hear about them. You hear about their line and their plans and the members say what their lines and plans are, but you dont hear about the leaders who have set the lines these people are saying as much. With the Revolutionary Communist Party its like the opposite, Bob Avaikian does alot of speaking and adding it together on society about whats going on, and theorizing...but alot of the party line itself is not really decided by Bob Avakian. What is in their draft programme was and could be debated by everyone democratically...though the line of thought is generally Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and I dont think Bob Avakian is dictating everything that party is thinking. Alot of those people find him inspirational and think his analysis are good still.....
They are not a cult. But sometimes I think they present themselves as one when they talk about their leader so much!
Instead of just a leader talking to the people in the party, and then the members go and repeat what their leaders said like in alot of parties, the RCP just leaves it out there for everyone to see on their own. You can just watch their leader for yourself. Parties have leaders, you know. In their strategy it is almost like they put their leader to the forefront even if he is not dictating everything that is done, because it shows discipline and organization....and alot of the left does not look like it has its self together. This discourages the people and makes them think " we cant change anything"
I think putting their leader so high, reguardless if he determines the partyline or not.. is a short coming because he IS just a person and as one of you said...we need to focus on workers freeing themselves. Our struggle is bigger then anyone man.One day comrade Avakian will be dead, cause hes just a person. The RCP and even other people find thigns he says inspirational. He doesnt seem like a conceited person, he seems like a regular man, and there is nothing wrong with sometimes talking about a person who inspires you....but you need to make sure you are showing there is more to your party then Bob Avakian, because this also discourages the people. It is hard to have faith in something that seems like it is so much based on one man.

I think more people would support the RCP if they did not do all that because alot of other things they are involved in is pretty good, they actually take their time with the people and seem solid and serious about what their doing. And they would appeal to more and more people if they did not just always put their leader out there like that, because this gives people the wrong kind of idea about you. You can be cool as hell, but when you go putting your leader so much, then instead it seems like you are just idealistic young people following one man. Alot of people say this same thing and I hope the RCP take our advice on this. Because I understand the need for leadership but we also need to remember the need for self determination and the fact that our struggle is about the working class first and always.

[flyby]

hmmmm.

There is much to say about the previous remark. And much to agree with.

Frankly, I think that many people are very excited to hear discussion of revolutionary leadership. If you go out among the people who are really oppressed, in the housing projects and on the street, they feel a need for leadership. And if you talk about revolution, they want to know "who will be leading this? What are they about? How do we know we won't get sold out?"

To me, a seriousness about leadership is tied to a seriousness about revolution.

At the same time, there are sections of the so-called "left" (and other sections of the population) who see any discussion of leaders as a diminuation of the "self."

In other words, they imagine "we can all be leaders" or "we don't need leaders." And this is (in turn) tied to all kinds of related lines: the idea that people will "automatically" know what to do, what to demand and how to implement it all. Or the idea that social justice will spontaneously emerge if you knock down the bourgeois state.

Here is my view: I don't think it is correct to promote leadership, unless you have a leadership that is worth promoting.

And when you do, when you have leaders of the caliber of a Lenin or a Marx or a Mao, then it is IMPPORTANT for the people to know about this -- to actually know about who they are and what they are saying. Why? Because the existance of such leaders is actually a major positive factor helping to make revolution (meaning: successful revolution) possible.

[Raisa]

Well, as an example, Lenin was a pretty good leader. He did his thing, but then look what happened to the soviet union when he was gone!

Bob Avakian can be cool as hell or not, reguardless he isnt going to live forever.
I talk to many people who like to hear about revolutionary leadership but that is different then putting so much faith into one man, which more people seem to have a problem with.

[redwinter]

I agree Raisa, Lenin was a great leader - and it would have been a crime NOT to promote him if you were in Russia while he was around (even if he was in exile most of the time).

Bob Avakian isn't going to live forever so I think it's more important to promote him now while he's alive. Right? We gotta promote what we got, and we got this American revolutionary leader who is leading a party for revolution in the USA. He's in his mid 60s now so, if we look at the average lifespan, he's got at least another decade or so of leadership that we have to look up to. I wouldn't think so much about what we're going to do a decade or two from now, but what needs to be done right now. And right now I think we gotta promote BA at the same time that we promote revolution and the Party.

[refuse_resist]

As wierd as they are, the MIM actually brings up a lot of good points about the RCP here. I would advise everyone to read this.

Crypto-Trotskyists

[redwinter]

What good points are you talking about? The page you referred to basically claims that since Bob Avakian makes critiques of some of the things that Stalin and Mao (and Lenin and Marx) said and did, he is a Trotskyist. If we follow this MIM logic to its logical conclusion, Mao is also a "Trotskyist" for pointing out some errors made by Stalin.

[freedum]

Here's an article from Anarchist People of Color regarding the RCP and Chairman Bob:

http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/gen...d_vanguard.html

Mythology of the White-Led "Vanguard": A Critical Look at the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

Written by Greg Jackson
Thursday, 16 September 2004

"I wouldn’t have even bothered to write anything about these fools and con artists except that their activities are disruptive to any real campaign designed to help people and fight the state. Further, they are incapable today of organizing anything on thier own of substance due to a distinct lack of social skills and a deep down dislike and distrust of poor people of all colors; which is self-evident to anyone who has spent any time around them. And like their other white counterparts on the Left, they still continue to view the white working class as “heroes”, themselves as a “vanguard”, and us as ignorant savages who must be tamed and molded into their likeness; much in the same way their Christian ancestors believed."

FIRST, A BRIEF HISTORY

The Revolutionary Communist Party was founded in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1968 by current RCP-USA chairman Bob Avakian, the son of a retired federal judge, as the Revolutionary Union (RU). At the time, the Bay area was a hotbed of pro-revolution activists. In Oakland, the Black Panther Party was well established; and on the campus of the University of California-Berkeley, Students For A Democratic Society (SDS), in addition to other smaller leftist factions including several armed groups coordinated protests and other actions. Many of the smaller “above ground” white leftist organizations were absorbed within SDS; with the Progressive Labor Party (PL) (Who considered itself the “official” Maoist party in the US) constituting the largest of the Marxist-Leninist groups.

The PL had decided that their best method for building what they called a “genuine Marxist-Leninist-Maoist vanguard” was not to openly state their positions to other members of SDS, but instead seize power by getting as many of their members elected to key positions (chairman, secretary, treasurer, etc.) within the top-down hierarchy of SDS. Fearing a “coup” by PL and acting on a belief that the time was right due to the mass struggles happening throughout the US around civil rights, police brutality, and US involvement in Vietnam, the leadership of SDS formed the Weathermen (later called the Weather Underground) to escalate street combat against the police and national guard troops in a bid to jump off wide-scale insurrection by using themselves as an example. Their most noted action(s) were the “Days of Rage” in which members attacked police officers and rioted through the streets of downtown Chicago in protest to the brutality exhibited by the police during the Democratic National Convention. When this failed, they declared themselves an “armed vanguard” and began bombing targets that symbolized American domination.

Bob Avakian, then chairman of the Revolutionary Union, argued that the actions of SDS’s central leadership were “adventuristic” and “suicidal”. At the same time he argued that the Progressive Labor Party (PL) was “dogmatic” and “anti-student”. It’s interesting that almost 20 years later, the very street fighting they called the Weathermen “adventurist” for, is now advocated by current RCP members.

By the early 1970’s, the Black Panther Party, Progressive Labor Party, and Students for a Democratic Society had all but disappeared from the Bay area, leaving only Avakian’s Revolutionary union. In 1970, another member of the RU, Bruce Franklin, split with Avakian over the question of immediate armed struggle and went on to form Venceremos, an armed group which was liquidated by 1974. Venceremos argued that the people that would lead the revolution (the “vanguard”) would come from the lower classes of people of color. Avakian and the RU maintained that only the industrial workers (what Karl Marx called “the proletariat”) could be the basis of revolutionary struggle the RCP of today now claims that the backbone of a revolutionary struggle in the US will be those “with nothing to lose but their chains”; meaning not only poor people of color, but also whites of any class background.

In 1974, the RU felt the time was ripe to constitute itself as a new party. It started by first attacking two organizations it had been working with: the Black Workers Congress (BWC) and the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Organization (PRRWO) the RU claimed that the BWC and PRRWO position that the traditions and culture of nationalities were important in establishing links between vanguard parties and the people they claim to serve and would shape the type of communism that was created was now “the incorrect line”; a full 360 degree turn from the earlier RU stance that had criticized the now defunct Progressive Labor Party for not taking that position!

The newly formed Revolutionary Communist party, USA had claimed in their literature that by this time they had made significant gains in support from unionized industrial labor, yet in reality what occurred was that former student members of the RU had gotten jobs at factories and then proceeded to get elected to posts within the larger mainstream unions. Their influence was marginal.

It was after the 1976 death of Mao Tse Tung and the trial of the Gang of Four by the “revisionist” (a term used by the RCP to describe Communist parties who followed the ideas of the Russian Communist party after the death of Josef Stalin) regime of Deng Hsiao Ping that the Avakian-led wing of the RCP decided to make its move. In 1977, Bob Avakian submitted a paper supporting the Gang of Four (one of whom was Mao’s wife, Jiang Jing) and denouncing the RCP central committee members M. Jarvis and L. Bergman as “economists” and “revisionists”. It was from there that the RCP split, leaving only Bob Avakian’s faction in control of the organization.

The Revolutionary Communist Party, with hardly enough members to keep it up and running, and no social base now began the process of looking for an issue that might attract some members.

Nuclear proliferation by the US and the Soviet Union, as well as issues surrounding the transportation and disposal of radioactive waste had led to large, organized demonstrations in several major US cities. It also attracted those who believed in direct action and confrontation. it was this “direct action” tendency that the RCP targeted with its NO BUSINESS AS USUAL (NBAU) campaign in early 1984. Initially, NBAU was a coalition of RCP members, anarchists/anti-authoritarians, and other activists who were disgusted with the non-violent and reformist political line dominating the anti-nuclear movement. The RCP consciously attempted to hide its involvement by acting and speaking “through” other activists working with the project in each city. Soon conflict within the party, then later conflict with other organizations and individuals would lead to NBAU’s downfall.

Within the RCP there existed two warring groups: the pro-NBAU side who felt that the campaign should work to undermine the US government and help draw workers in the group and larger movement. They believed that the NBAU project should remain anti-hierarchical and allow autonomy for all who were involved with it. The anti-NBAU people were entrenched in the hierarchy of the party. They were the long-time bureaucrats from the days of RU, as well as members of the RCP’s central committee. Their position was that the peace movement was too middle-class for NBAU to remain a part of it, instead it should be merged in full with the larger RCP and be reconstituted as the “Prepare the Proletarian Army” campaign planned for 1985.

When No Business as Usual Day of April 29, 1985 was shaping up to be the largest CRP-inspired event ever, the bureaucrats swung into action, deciding that NBAU was perfect for recruitment into their party and nothing more. They then began to denounce and drive off other activists who disagreed with their ideology and activities, including and especially their arch-rivals from the beginning; the various groups of anarchists/anti-authoritarians.

The rivalry between various anarchists and Marxist-Leninists is one that spans several hundred years and several continents. To make a long explanation filled with historical references short, the conflict rests on these issues: A state vs. No state, a Marxist-Leninist interpretation of history vs. that of the anarchists, and the need for hierarchy vs. the elimination of it. Ultimately, the fundamental point of conflict between the two groups is one that has haunted humanity since time began...personal attitudes act toward each other and as a group; with the added dimension of the fact that the ideologies of today that are a result of various past attitudes and cultural norms handed down throughout history that have shaped those ideologies.

CAUTION: “PROFESSIONAL REVOLUTIONARIES” AT WORK!

The Revolutionary Communist Party is a “vanguardist” organization; meaning that its leaders and rank and file members see themselves as the “most advanced” politically, and that the rest of us are just here waiting for them to tell us what to do. The real revolutionary, says the RCP, comes from within the party. Yet time and time again they have shown themselves incapable of leading anyone anywhere, except to utter despair as their antics drive the most directly affected and most individuals away from coalitions that show real potential for challenging the powers that be in a given city or neighborhood. Some activists have claimed that RCP members are police provocateurs; while others simply say that party members work just as well as the average provocateur when it comes to splintering fragile ties amongst groups, thus allowing positive campaigns around serious issues to go down in flames.

During the War in the Persian Gulf, the RCP’s front organization Stop the US War Machine Action Network was expelled from coalition after coalition all across the country for repeated attempts at imposing the party’s ideological line and slogans.

When the homeless in and around New York’s Tompkins Square began taking over abandoned buildings and holding militant, often violent, demonstrations the local RCP created the “Revolutionary Homeless Organization” (rumors say they did it to get their picture in the party’s newspaper the “Revolutionary Worker”); despite being wholly rejected by the mass of predominantly anarchist squatters’ movement. In addition, not being the most directly affected, i.e. not being homeless themselves, they proved incapable of grasping the risks and potential backlash of their activities against those who actually were. And by most eyewitness accounts, they didn’t care.

In other cities their involvement around local issues has also proven disastrous for everyone directly affected by the out come of a particular struggle. However, in Atlanta, Georgia in August of 1987 their arrogant, know-it-all attitude got them more than they bargained for. During a large anti-Klan march, the local RCP posse broke off as an all white contingent and proceeded into the courtyard of a predominantly Black housing project, declaring to the crowd gathered there, “We’re here to save you [from the Klan]!” The RCP, along with the Guardian Angels, Spartacist League, and officers from the Atlanta police department were chased out of there by a hail of bricks, bottles, and whatever else angry residents could get their hands on.

More recently during the September 1994 protests initiated by homeless youth in the Capitol Hill area of Seattle, I personally witnessed RCP members shouting down homeless youth (once again ignoring the needs of the most directly affected persons of a particular struggle) as youth attempted direct democracy amongst themselves and homeless supporters through the use of a PA system set up outside of Seattle Central Community College. Local RCP activists disrupted the empowerment of the people, INITIATED BY THE PEOPLE, with dogmatic bark of “Fuck this, Lets March!” and “It’s already been decided!” The group split into two formations, one group of mostly homeless kids left along with supporters. The other group, now being led by the mostly white RCP/RCYB then marched into the Central District in Seattle, a predominantly Black neighborhood, shouting slogans as they marched behind a police car. Thus, the Seattle police officers inside the vehicle, with lights flashing, became the “stewards” or “temporary vanguard” of the RCP and mostly white crowd of activists as they made their way down Union St., on to 23rd Ave., then down towards Garfield High School.

When the plan was first announced by them I said I thought that it would be better to first create a dialogue amongst forces in the neighborhood then possibly coordinate a much larger action if brothers and sisters were into it. I was accused of being “against unity” for not seeing things their way. Wasn’t I the one whose idea it was to first consult with residents to see if they even wanted to get involved? Have any of these “professional revolutionaries” ever considered how it looks to us to see 200 or so mostly white “radicals” shouting indiscernible slogans while being led, literally, by the Seattle Police Department into a Black neighborhood?

Have any of them considered that some of our people grew up in the South or Northeast where angry groups of whites marching into the neighborhood usually means trouble? Have they considered respecting our autonomy and respectfully approaching the various groups doing work in the ‘hood and laying out a proposal, rather than attempting to (and succeeding in) insulting our intelligence with a thoughtless display of ignorant spectacle as an image of [false] “unity” that in fact drove may of our people away and may have even possibly hardened the community’s overall view on what was going on up on Broadway...as brought to them by the local media, as opposed to the participants in the struggle themselves articulating what was what, since once again the “professional revolutionaries” had all the answers despite the fact that their “leadership” was voted down with the feet of the most directly affected, as well as those who sincerely supported the fight of the most affected.

In addition, brothers and sisters ran from the scene or retreated into their homes. Those who continued on with their business as usual while ignoring the whole thing as best they could, only to be cornered by one or more of Chairman Bob’s robotic flock in much the same way the ancestors of these so-called “radicals” did with bible in hand those short 400+ years ago. They didn’t want “comrades”, they wanted converts!

Not to be out done in just disrespecting those who attempt resistance within the white community, RCP members who were working at the Lower East side location of Revolution Books took it upon themselves to explain a Cuban brother’s culture to him; claiming that “there is no tradition of anarchism outside the US”, despite volumes of written and oral history that proves otherwise; in addition to the fact that Africa is the “cradle” of all civilization as well as other evidence pointing to non-hierarchical social relations amongst some indigenous nations throughout the Americas hundreds of years before the birth of either Karl Marx or Mikhail Bakunin, let alone any of the writings expressing their interpretations of the world or their solutions.

A BANKRUPT THEORY + A PISS POOR ATTITUDE + A RIGID IDEOLOGY= “LEFT-WING” WHITE SUPREMACY

It isn’t enough to go on and on about the actions of certain individuals in various places without taking time out for a look at the sources of such callous and backward behavior. While we here at Black Autonomy do not have time, resources, or willingness to do psychological profiles of each individual RCP member it can be assumed that much of the aforementioned behavior can be attributed to a white, middle class, patriarchal, and possibly abusive up-bringing. But all of that is mere speculation.

What isn’t speculation are the assorted RCP documents which help to illuminate what the organization is really about.

Judging from what I looked at, it appears that they adopted some of the worst in Stalinist methodology. For example, RCP chairman Bob Avakian’s defense of authoritarian vanguardist structures of political power: “There is a dialectical relationship between authority, including ‘cults of personality’, of leading people on the one hand and of collectively on the other hand”. (1) Compare it to the words of Adolph Hitler: “I do not need your endorsement to convince me of my historical greatness!” (2)

Remember what I said earlier about ideologies and attitudes?

Another “Justification” used is that only the “vanguard” (meaning RCP exclusively) can lead the masses; that only the party understands our needs. To satisfy our needs, the RCP claims that it will create a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, a world in which the formerly oppressed will rule. If this is so, why is it that “the key levers of power will be in the hands of the party members” (3), as is stated in their party program text? My immediate question upon reading this was: how can African people in this country be free according tot he RCP’s definition of “Freedom” when once again all political power will be held by mostly white, middle class, heterosexual males?

Additionally, why should I, as a poor Black man in Amerikkka, trust their “revolutionary leadership” when they make statements like “Why is the individual’s right to be left alone to do or at least think whatever they want be the highest aspiration for a person or society?” (4).

Why should I as a poor Black man trust in their “revolutionary leadership” when they are in fact racist?

In “Marxism and Native Americans”, edited by Ward Churchill, the RCP criticizes a position taken by American Indian Movement elder Russel means after a speech he gave at a gathering in the Black Hills of South Dakota in July of 1980. In their essay, the RCP takes issue with Means rejection of technology and advocation of cultural nationalism. They then point out how Indigenous cultures have been “interpreted” from the bourgeois and racist standpoint by many leading anthropologists. They then quote on of these “bourgeois anthropologists” in order to back up their own claims against Means; asserting this psuedo-scientist’s findings as if they were fact:

“Perhaps means would like to be transported back some 7,000 years to the days of the desert bands of the great basin of Nevada and Western Utah to live in the ways of the ‘ancestors’ of that period. Anthropologists recently examined a cave in the area and the results of their findings were summed up in the NY Times on Tuesday, Aug 12: ‘In one of the middens (refuse heaps) the scientists found large deposits of human feces. Dr., Thomas said, it is possible that the feces were stored there for what archeologists called a ‘second harvest’. Other primitive people were known to have saved their feces so that, in time of famine, they could extract undigested seeds and other products of food.” (9)

In other words, indigenous people eat their own shit, and all those who seek liberation through methods and theories that are considered counter to the RCP’s “correct” view, that are culturally different to that of the predominantly white RCP leadership and membership, are “inferior”, “incorrect” or “counter-revolutionary”. What ever happened to basic concepts such as “self-determination for all oppressed nationalities?” Why is it that the RCP is fundamentally against the independence of non-whites? There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone’s ideas, but when that is expressed as an attack on an entire culture or nationality, combined with an overall attitude of “let’s educate the ignorant savages”; what occurs is the re-introduction of white-supremacy, the ultimate counter-revolution.

While the rest of the article does mention that “Europe went rhough similar stages of development”, the basic thrust of their commentary is clear: native people are backward and need the party to lead them. Further, they just need to accept a European definition of “progress”. A definition to be provided by a party “leadership” that is white, middle class, and (obviously) racist.

And homophobic: “Once the proletariat [the party] is in power, no one will be discriminated against in jobs, housing, and the like merely on the basis of being a homosexual...but at the same time education will be conducted throughout society on the ideology behind homosexuality...and the struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals” (5a+b). It was this position that moved the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a lawyers group known for defending politicals for free, to oficially denounce the RCP and refuse their services to party members who get busted.

This caused a slight problem for RCP activists here in Seattle who approached the local chapter of the NLG after being arrested for “aggressive panhandling” when the SPD caught them selling their newspapers and books on Broadway Ave. E and John St. on Capitol Hill in july of this year.

Nevertheless, the Seattle chapter secured the arrested activists some legal help; only to find out later that the RCP members lied about the whole incident. They claimed initially that the police simply began harrassing them, and then arrested them. What they left out was that one of the RCP members had in fact taunted a passing police officer, shouting “Fuck you, pig!”. The officer in turn took offense and confronted the RCPer. A shouting match between the cop and other RCP members on the scene ensued, resulting in the arrest of all the RCP members and the seizing of their literature.

None of this would have mattered had it not been for the fact that the National Lawyers Guild had taken on the responsibility of supporting activists involved in the local campaign to free political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal. The NLG’s resources are very limited, and the potential for other activists to not recieve legal help, or to recieve inadaquate legal help, in the wake of being arrested during a legitimate political action (as opposed to macho posturing from a position of weakness like the RCP did) was very real. How long would other activists be stuck in jail or out manuvered by a racist and classist prosecutor and/or judge if the NLG’s resources and time were taken up defending the RCP’s act of utter stupidity and individualistic settler arrogance?

Fortunately, the collective membership of the Seattle Mumia Defense Committee got tired of them, as well as other leftist wanna-be vanguard factions, and got rid of them by continuously refusing to cave in to their attemtps at domination of the coalition; unitl the frustrated (read: defeated) party members gave up and left on their own.

Getting back to the RCP’s over all political line, the party has plenty of repression in store for those of us who aren’t homosexual. Art, literature, and entertainment wil be “dominated” and “remolded” under the RCP (6). College admission will be determined by “demonstrated devotion to the revolutionary cause...as determined through discussion among the masses under the leadership of the party.”(7)

Those who worked in No Business As Usual would have known that a party take over was in the works had they read the RCP’s reasoning for a “front group”:

“to unite UNDER ITS LEADERSHIP all the forces that can be united against the enemy” (8).

It is no accident that all of the RCP’s front groups are predominantly made up of RCP members, no one else would tolerate their social imperialist agenda. RCP front groups include Refuse & Resist!, La Resistencia, Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade (RCYB), Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Anti-imperialist (VVAW-AI), and the Committee to Support the Revolution in Peru (CSRP).

I always found it amusing how in the article “Three Main Points” by Chairman Bob Avakian, which appears regularly in each issue of the RW, Avakian speaks of how only their party can “unite all those who must be united”. I guess they can achieve that; groups of people within coalitions or at actions who are “united” in a general hatred of them for one reason or another!

I could very easlity go on and on, but I think its best to stop here and let the reader decide if what i say is true.

I wouldn’t have even bothered to write anything about these fools and con artists except that their activities are disruptive to any real campaign designed to help people and fight the state. Further, they are incapable today of organizing anything on thier own of substance due to a distinct lack of social skills and a deep down dislike and distrust of poor people of all colors; which is self-evident to anyone who has spent any time around them. And like their other white counterparts on the Left, they still continue to view the white working class as “heroes”, themselves as a “vanguard”, and us as ignorant savages who must be tamed and molded into their likeness; much in the same way their Christian ancestors believed.

The RCP may do well to in fact read the words of Mao Tse Tung, since nothing is more pathetic and sad than members of a psuedo-religious cult who don’t even know their own ideology/dogma.

“..To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned...There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for the” [ “The united Front in Cultural Work”. Selected works, Vol. 3, pp.236-37. Taken from “Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse Tung’]

Additionaly, if they are going to continue to claim the legacy of the Black Panther Party as their own (Bob Avakian worked closely with panthers David hillard and Bobby Seale as a member of SDS and later the RU; the continuous repetition on this fact is one of their patented recruitment tactics), maybe they should try reading what Minister of Defense Huey P. Newton had to say about groups like them (paraphrased):

“When Bobby Seale and I came together to launch the Black Panther Party, we observed many groups. Most of them were so dedicated to rhetoric and artistic rituals that they had withdrawn from living in the 20th century. Sometimes their analyses were beautiful but they had no practical programs which would translate these understanding to the people... “Any action which does not mobilize the community toward the goal is not revolutionary action. The action might be a marvelous statement of courage, but if it does not mobilize the people toward the goal of a higher manifestation of freedom it is not making a political statement and could even be counterrevolutionary.” [“On the Defection of Eldridge Cleaver from the Black Panther party and the Defection of the Black panther Party from the Community; April 17, 1971”; taken from “to Die For The People”, by Huey P Newton; pg, 46]

The RCP might also try reading what newton said about white radicals, their relationship to Black revolutionaries, and their role in a revolution in the US:

“As far as I’m concerned the only reasonable conclusion would be to first realize the enemy, realize the plan, and then when something happens in the black colony-when we’re attacked or ambushed in the black colony-then the white revolutionary students and intellectuals and all the other whites who support the colony should respond by defending us, by attacking the enemy in their community...

“As far as our party is concerned, the Black Panther Party is an all black party, because we feel as Malcolm X felt that there can be no black-white unity until there first is black unity. We have a problem in the black colony that is particular to the colony, but we’re willing to accept aid from the mother country as long as the mother country [white] radicals realize that we have, as Eldridge Cleaver says in “Soul on Ice”, a mind of our own. We’ve regained our mind that was taken away from us and we will decide the political as well as the practical stand that we’ll take. We’ll make the theory and we’ll carry out the practice. It’s the duty of the white revolutionary to aid us in this.” [“Huey Newton talks to the Movement about the Black Panther Party, Cultural Nationalism, SNCC, Liberals and white revolutionaries.”; taken from “The Black Panthers Speak”, edited by Philip S. Foner.]

Or, in the words of Malcolm X:

“I tell sincere white people, ‘Work in conjunction with us..each of us working among our own kind.’ let sincere white individuals find all other white people they can who feel as they do...and let them form their own all-white groups to work trying to convert other white people who are thinking and acting so racist. Let sincere whites go and teach non-violence to white people.” [Malcolm X; taken from “The Autobiography of Malcolm X”, as told to Alex Haley.]

NOTES: 1. Avakian, Bob. “A Horrible End, or An End To the Horror?”. RCP Publications 1984. pp.210
2. Rauschuing, Hermann. “Graespraeche mit Hitler”. pp.141
3. New Programme and New Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. pp. 103
4. Free I, “Community Center Raided”. Love and Rage, April, 1990
5.a. Programme, pp75
5.b. programme, pg. 77
6. Programme, pf. 84-92
7. Programme, pg. 83
8. Programme, pg. 114
9. RCP “Searching for a Second Harvest”. From Marxism and Zative Americans” (edited by Ward Churchil). South End Press 1983. pg 45

OTHER WORKS: Straw, Jack. “The Strange History of the Revolutionary Communist Party” Shadow Press.
Eyewitness accounts from activists in Atlanta, Seattle, Houston, and New York City.

SPECIAL THANKS TO: The Black Fist Collective, FBCP-Atlanta, Amor Y Rabia, Love and Rage RAF, and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA