RCP's new REVOLUTION newspaper

[Raisa]

You quoted part of what I said to make your point, and in doing that it looks like you missed my point.

I dont know what to say because I feel like I need to say the same thing again and I dont know how to put it any simpler to you!

It is pretty elitist to over ride the struggle in the ghetto and just be concerned about "traditional left" issues instead. I also find it counter revolutionary in a way, but that is just me. These issues matter to alot of people who make that paper obviously and thats why they write about it. Not everyone is in a union. Alot of working people are not. There are alot of working people who dont even have their foot really in the door yet because they are always getting different jobs. cuase a company will just wipe its ass with someone and then drop them like a hot potato! And alot of people are unemployed, and many others work in places with no union. And STILL (&#33 most unions are apathetic and fake anyway. The people need really to take the government...not just the work place!

I guess the word I am looking for is reactionary. People in unions usually make better salaries and all this. Most workers are not in unions. Here they are trying to make a paper and inspire poorer workers and you criticise them for not having "traditional left" issues. The traditional left is dead in this country, and in being revolutionary...dont let traditions chains bind you !
There are other things going on....

[shadows]

Originally posted by Raisa@May 15 2005, 06:12 AM
The people need really to take the government...not just the work place!

I am not defending the (at best) crass reformism of unions, but I am recognizing unions as (one) expression of proletarian organization that should be extended to those who are unemployed and underemployed (by the way, I do not belong to a union, and I am underemployed). To take the government one must come from the class, understand the class as a whole, take up its issues (not only economic issues, but these are central for Marxists for they lead to political revolution), lead it toward accomplishing its mission (the dictatorship of the proletariat, a truly liberating political program), and from there head toward communism, a classless society where the state withers away.

After all, the bourgeoisie gets its power from economic subjugation of the workers at all levels. To remove the bourgeoisie from power is to smash not only its state power but the source of that power in the social relations of production.

[flyby]

I think that when there are economic struggles that objectively are making an important impact on society we should take note of them and support them.

However it is important that we support reform struggles from our perspective of preparing and working for revolution (not from some other stand).

And in contrast to the stand of all kinds of reformists and economists, it is important to understand that the economic struggle is not (automatically or generally or fundamentally) the best way of bringing the masses of people into class struggle. Generally the sharpest manifestations of class struggle in the U.S. have erupted from very different places (opposing vietnam war, or police brutality in LA 1992, or the oppression of Black people, or opposing the repression on revolutionaries like the Panthers or Chairman Avakian in 1979 etc).

Historically there has been a widening gap between the economic struggle and the revolutionary struggle -- and this has a material basis in the stratification of the working class, and the ways the imperialist system has worked to coopt and utilize the organized trade union movement.

The masses break out in economic struggle -- and if they didn't they would be beaten down to be broken wretches.

Now in general, the revolutionary press (like Revolution http://revcom.us) reports when there is significant struggle, but doesn't pretend the economic struggle that is ongoing is always significant.

[romanm]

I've read the paper off and on for quite some years, and have observed that less space is given to union and traditional working class issues than in other left papers. Why? Has the working class disappeared? Or is the U.S. proletariat bourgeoisified as the MIM declares?

My understanding of the RCP-USA line in their draft programme is that the RCP-USA maintains the orientation that 90% of Amerikkkans can be united with against the top 10%. If dropping "worker" from their paper title means anything, it reflects that the RCP-USA's willingness to widened the idea of who are the proletariat and its allies. It reflects that they see themselves as the party, potentially at least, of 90% of Amerikkkans.

My understanding of MIM is that they see vast majority of Amerikkkans as parasites and enemies of the revolution.

If you think most Amerikkkans are friends, then join RCP-USA or something like it.

If you think most Amerikkkans are enemies, then check out MIM. Also check out John Sakai's Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat..

RCP-USA and MIM should not be confused; they really couldn't be more different.

[flyby]

romanmeal raises some interesting and important questions of line. I hope i can help clarify some issues.

roman writes "My understanding of the RCP-USA line in their draft programme is that the RCP-USA maintains the orientation that 90% of Amerikkkans can be united with against the top 10%."

This is not quite accurate, it oversimplifies their view. At the bottom of this post, i will give you links to the Draft Programme and those sections... so you can make up your own mind about what it says. But let me first, here, give a short overview of how roman misunderstands what is said.

First, their view is that socialism and a radically different society would be in the interests of 90% of the people. And it would be opposed to the interest of 10%.

They point out that many people (even middle class people with a little money or some illusory stability) suffer under this system -- face rape, or bankrupcy, pollution and cancer, their kids die in wars, live with all the bullshit and ratrace madness of a fucked up system. Certainly oppression (and revolutonary potential) are concentrated at the bottom of society -- but just as certainly, a new liberated socialist society would be a better life for all KINDS of people (even if they may not know it now, and even if they may not want to hear about it.)

But this does not mean that the RCP believes or assumes that it will be possible to unite 90% of the people at any given point in the revolutionary process. In fact, they argue that if you wait for that, or expect that, you will never make revolution.

Second, their phrase is "Two 90/10s." The other "90/10" they are talking about is people on a world scale -- because the RCP stresses that it is making revolution -- not merely or simply to serve the "90% in the U.S." -- but (on the contrary) the 90% of the people of the world -- and they explicitly point out that there can be expected to be contradictions between the interests of the majority (in the U.S. or the former U.S.) and the people of the world. And it is important for communists not simply or mainly to "communize" the privileged situation of the U.S. on a world scale -- but truly be part of a process that negates and overthrows such privolege of one country over another. That is why they say there are TWO 90/10s and stress (to themselves and their followers) that it is important to never forget the people of the world and the larger interests of the INTERNATIONAL proletariat in the rev process.

roman wrote: "If dropping "worker" from their paper title means anything, it reflects that the RCP-USA's willingness to widened the idea of who are the proletariat and its allies. It reflects that they see themselves as the party, potentially at least, of 90% of Amerikkkans."

Every part of this is mistaken.

First of all, the RCP has not changed its "idea of who are the proletariat and its allies." Their definition of the proletariat is rather clear, and has always been opposed to various "new working class theoreticians" who wanted to put lots of middle class stata (like teachers or other professionals) "into the proletariat" (and on that basis, imagine a less radical movement.)

The revolution needs a solid backbone force rooted in the people who truly have "nothing to lose but their changes" -- and a revolutonary people like that (based in mass sections of the proletariat) is a necessary condition for any serious attempt at revolution in the U.S.

And a vanguard party in the u.s. has to be a proletarian vanguard -- in two senses: that it represents the highest and historic interests of the proletariat as a class (not its momentary interest, or the interests of just the section in one country.) And second, that it is rooted (its "feet are planted") in the proletariat itself, especially in its most conscious and revolutionary sections.

The RCP has never said they are the party of the "American" working class -- they say they are the representative of the international proletariat within the U.S. -- which if you think about it is a very different way to look at it.

As for the "dropping of the worker" -- this does not represent any change in the way the RCP views the proletariat or its role as a party.

For years, the RCP has fought against long standing revisionist notions of class -- i.e. the idea that revolution is "class against class" and that workers should be trained to see their own narrow interests (and "shit on everyone else"). Revolution is not about "the workers getting theirs." Revolution is about the proletariat rising, and with revolutionary sweep and vision leading the emancipation of humanity as a whole. (this is a very different concept from revisionist "workerism.")

So changing the name of the Revolutionary Worker -- is a way of distancing from the revisionist "workerism", it is a way of taking distance from old stereotypical ("typical commie" -- meaning tired, dogmatic and revisionist) ways of talking and presenting yourself.

The RCP is serious about not being a "vestiage of the past." Just some remnant or nostalgia sect for past glories and approaches. They are determined to be a "vanguard for the future" -- and that means adopting a look and a style and an approach and a way of speaking that is forward looking, and engaged with the controversies and even the artistic trends of THIS moment.

roman writes: My understanding of MIM is that they see vast majority of Amerikkkans as parasites and enemies of the revolution."

This is true.

Here both roman and I have the same sense of what MIM stands for. They think the masses of people are pigs, with no interests in a new society.

And (though they deny it) it is obvious that MIM thinks any revolution (any mass revolutionary movement and seizure of power) in the U.S. is impossible. In their view, there needs to be some kind of dictatorship OVER the masses in the U.S. -- to drive them down, to hold them down, to make them take their punishment and their medicine.

In my opinion, such a view of the masses of people is
(a) grossly unscientific and wrong
(b) utterly and obviously counterrevolutionary and
© more than a little bit fascistic in its hatred of peopleand especially in its political implications.

roman writes: "RCP-USA and MIM should not be confused; they really couldn't be more different.'

On one level, this is obvious and true.

On another level, i would go further: Even mentioning the RCP and MIM in the same sentence is a joke.

The RCP is the first real and serious revolutonary party to emerge in the U.S. It is taking its responsibilities very seriously and fighting (hard) to prepare itself and the masses to make revolution.

By contrast, MIM is a small suspicious, never-seen, clot of identity-politics people-haters who hide behind their computer keyboards, and really have no real connection to the people, the struggle, or the future. They are not communists at all -- and (frankly) with their view of people and society, they are not even progressive.

some links worth checking out on the important line questions raised here:

Revolution newspaper

The Draft Programme of the RCP including a section on the two 90/10s (so you can check this concept out for yourself)

On the United Front and the two 90/10s

How the RCP views the masses: The Party and the Masses

Bob Avakian's initial theoretical work on the two 90/10s: A Problem of Strategic Orientation for the Revolution -- The Two 90/10's (Where you can see the whole point is how to be truly internationalist with the interests of the world's people central, while actually making revolution in one imperialist country)

also I urge anyone interested to listen to the speeches that are on Bob Avakian speaks -- to get your own sense about their approach to revolution and the masses of people

[romanm]

MIM's extensive criticisms of RCP-USA can be found here.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Interesting RS2K that the younger members dont referance avakian as much. I think it could be that they are more open to the fact that that there is no great leader?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Anarchist Freedom@May 26 2005, 10:05 AM
Interesting RS2K that the younger members dont referance avakian as much. I think it could be that they are more open to the fact that that there is no great leader?

I think the brainwashing just didn't sink in yet

[novemba]

...there is no brainwashing if were having this conversation...

...and I think Redstar is right in saying that theyre the few active groups in the states, and action does have a way of curing theory, think of the Bolsheiveks in 1917...

[flyby]

i think the idea that there is some kind of gap or schism between the younger members and writers of the RCP and their party is a fantasy.

Ask them. They would be really pissed over the suggestion.

Obviously there are lots of articles by the RCP that don't mention or quote their chairman. So what? That's pretty natural isn't it.

But there is a bullshit logic here: You say "they are so dogmatic they mention him in every article. And then, wait! some articles don't mention him, so there must be some non-dogmatic folks in the mix."

This is silly and upside down.

First the RCP is not dogmatic and cultist about its leadership. And their line is steeped in his work and his approach. And when it is appropriate they quote something useful from their main man, and when it doesn't seem appropriate they don't.

Don't invent shit.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
I think the idea that there is some kind of gap or schism between the younger members and writers of the RCP and their party is a fantasy.

Ask them. They would be really pissed over the suggestion.

You needn't sound so upset; I was merely speculating and said as much.

There is always a "gap" between young revolutionaries and us "old timers"...what is "new" for us and perhaps difficult to grasp is, for them, intuitively obvious.

Neither I nor you nor even the "main man" anticipated Seattle or all that followed from Seattle.

The revolutionary movement continuously re-invents itself as material conditions continue to change.

The young people in and around the RCP/RCYB seem unlikely to be content with being an Avakian Museum after our generation is gone...they will develop their own ideas about how things should go.

Nor would I be terribly upset if they were "pissed off at me" for suggesting that they may someday find Avakian (and Mao) of only limited historical interest.

People get pissed off at me with some frequency...especially, it seems, when I point out the obvious.

I'm used to it.

[flyby]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 1 2005, 01:57 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 1 2005, 01:57 AM)

flyby

I think the idea that there is some kind of gap or schism between the younger members and writers of the RCP and their party is a fantasy.

Ask them. They would be really pissed over the suggestion.

You needn't sound so upset; I was merely speculating and said as much.

There is always a "gap" between young revolutionaries and us "old timers"...what is "new" for us and perhaps difficult to grasp is, for them, intuitively obvious.

Neither I nor you nor even the "main man" anticipated Seattle or all that followed from Seattle.

The revolutionary movement continuously re-invents itself as material conditions continue to change.

The young people in and around the RCP/RCYB seem unlikely to be content with being an Avakian Museum after our generation is gone...they will develop their own ideas about how things should go.

Nor would I be terribly upset if they were "pissed off at me" for suggesting that they may someday find Avakian (and Mao) of only limited historical interest.

People get pissed off at me with some frequency...especially, it seems, when I point out the obvious.

I'm used to it.

[/b]

i'm not upset at all.

the world is full of bullshit. And part of being a revolutionary is calling it out.

i'm just pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about.

And that, if anything, there is a whole new generation of revolutionaries gathering around the RCP exactly because of their appreciation of its chairman, and the new envisioning of communism that he has undertaken.

Your method is too often a mix of speculation and assumptions -- often with no facts at all.

It is tiresome, but apparently one of my "jobs" online is to pull the plug on your bullshit machine occasionally.

cheers and revolutionary greetings.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by flyby@May 31 2005, 09:21 PM
First the RCP is not dogmatic and cultist about its leadership.

It is very obvious that you are, and Redstar certainly was not the first (nor will he be the last) to point this fact out.

The fact is, that it is very safe to say that most people who have had significat encounters with the RCP view them as an authoritarian cult around Bob Avakian.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Jun 1 2005, 10:37 AM--> (SonofRage @ Jun 1 2005, 10:37 AM)

flyby

@May 31 2005, 09:21 PM
First the RCP is not dogmatic and cultist about its leadership.

It is very obvious that you are, and Redstar certainly was not the first (nor will he be the last) to point this fact out.

The fact is, that it is very safe to say that most people who have had significat encounters with the RCP view them as an authoritarian cult around Bob Avakian. [/b]

They are! I hung out with the RCP for about 2 hours on saturday there a bunch of fucking wackjobs.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Jun 1 2005, 02:37 PM--> (SonofRage @ Jun 1 2005, 02:37 PM)

flyby

@May 31 2005, 09:21 PM
First the RCP is not dogmatic and cultist about its leadership.

It is very obvious that you are, and Redstar certainly was not the first (nor will he be the last) to point this fact out.

The fact is, that it is very safe to say that most people who have had significat encounters with the RCP view them as an authoritarian cult around Bob Avakian. [/b]

Agreed. This seems to be the case of every person I've ever encountered who's come in contact with them, or visited their 'Revolution Books' stores, only to be beat down with calls for them to 'dig in' to the 'main man'.

I personally have come in contact with many people who refuse to revist the store for any reason because of it.

'Deeply rooted in the masses'

[redstar2000]

What would happen, I wonder, if you went to a "Revolution Books" outlet and said to the person behind the counter...

I want to read some RCP literature that is not written by Bob Avakian.

I'm sure they must have some...

um...don't they?

[Clarksist]

This is bothering me, because once/if the RCP's revolution happens, what then? Bob comes to power... so a communist revolution, but its led by Bob Avakian. So then who better to lead the new socialist country than Bob? And hell, why have any pesky "decentralization" since Bob seems to know whats best. In fact, let's forfeit our fucking lives to this prophet. Bob is charismatic, and we all know that charismatic dictators are the best way to equality. A socialist country with a dictator, its an interesting idea. Maybe China, the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea should have done that.

Wait...

[shadows]

I don't claim that the RCP is cultic, though the heavy emphasis on Avakian is a bit much, considering that Avakian's literary output isn't as impressive as, say, Lenin's. Yet, at times the RCP compares Avakian to Lenin (in person conversation with RCP member). This, I think, is absurd. The RCP has many good points, though again I'm not in agreement with what I believe to be their non-Marxist, non-proletarian line. Radical, yes; Marxist, well, that's somewhat based on interpretation of their line. And NION is a good antiwar org. Overall, RCP retains the best (and the worst) of SDS in its Maoist decline post-1969.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Jun 3 2005, 03:48 AM
What would happen, I wonder, if you went to a "Revolution Books" outlet and said to the person behind the counter...

I want to read some RCP literature that is not written by Bob Avakian.

I'm sure they must have some...

um...don't they?

They seem to be blown away if you ask for materials that aren't written by the 'main man'. Though of course there are some, mostly articles, etc -- one that I know in particular is a long and thorough article on evolution.

The typic answer I recieved was: "But he's already covered this topic here [so we dont have to think about it for ourselves".

[flyby]

this is another example of bullshit running around in circles.

In fact, rather obviously, the Revolution Bookstores are packed with all kinds of books.

And, rather obviously, the vast majority of the literature of the RCP is not written by the ir main man.

And everytime they sell their newspaper, they are selling literature by their party -- with his writings often at the center (literally) -- but with many other people contributing, wrangling, writing.

So on one level, people just flap their gums around bullshit. And, frankly, you should try to get serious about the issues being discussed -- about how to make revolution, how to prevent restoration, how to press ahead to to communism (and the abolition of classes, parties and states.)

And then on another level: it is important that the work of the RCP actually strain to embody and put in practice the MOST ADVANCED understandings possible about the communist project and communist road.

Let me give you an example:

I post on this message board. But frankly when i post i try to "represent" what the most advanced thinking is within the international communist movement. I don't just post whatever randomn thought or opinion wiggled across my wrinkled and fevered brain. Because, frankly, my personal little musings are not as deep, or as important, or as correct, or even as interesting, as what the ORGANIZED communist forces are struggling with, and what a leader like Avakian is articulating.

It is like you are building a bridge. Do you want to employ the random thoughts of the various construction workers.... a little cement here, a nail there, maybe try this gimmick out.... or do you, as an organized force, want to emply the principles of engineering, and some creative application based on deep study of the problems.

Would you want to drive onto a bridge that was built by the first method?

Would you want to join a revolution that didn't strive to apply the most advanced, scientific, serious and sweeping summations of reality, the revolution and the past?

Let's not bullshit each other.