New website: Atlanta RCYB

[Red Powers]

Atlanta RCYBer

Thank you for your reply. I would apologize for the "snideness" but I think I meant it all. I have read the DP once through and then was beginning a second time so I know how many times it mentions the proletariat and etc. I don't know about you but it is not enough for me for a group or party to say certain things. How many groups currently claim THEY are the vanguard. My whole point was that I felt in this section the RCP was revealing something about how it sees, really sees, class forces in this country.

Now about bourgeoisification -- I lied in my piece, I do know what it's definition is I just don't think it has any validity. I didn't have to ask any random workers or any other workers about it, in fact each of the workers I referenced was a real live, living, breathing person. And none of these people from the better-off section of workers has anything in common with the bourgeoisie. That was my point. I used a sort of fiction to bring out that point but I guess you didn't get that. Methodology indeed. Another point is to start from real live workers and not dismiss them with "scientific" categories.

Your problem is you look at the surface appearence of things and for all your talk of digging in you never do it unless it's written by, what do I call him? (Hows that for snide) You look at workers who have (perhaps) better than average pay and decide, erroneously, that they are somehow not wage slaves.

Leaving it at that, I think I'll let my original post stand. You haven't convinced me that I am misunderstanding anything and your defense seems to be that the RCP uses ink to claim it is the Proletarian Vanguard. How could it not be true?

Pardon any snideness Red

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by atlanta rcyber
So when one says something that we may not want to hear about sections of people; Like the fact that sections of the proletariat are bought off, at least temporarily, they react, when they should analyze.

That makes it sound as if we were "insulted" because you called us "a nasty name".

The question is not one of whether we "react" to being labeled "bought off"; the question is: is that true?

From the standpoint of Marxist economics -- in particular, the labor theory of value -- it cannot possibly be true in more than a temporary way involving a relatively insignificant proportion of the proletariat.

A capitalist who paid workers substantially more than their exchange value and did that over a prolonged period of time would lose out to his competitors...who paid lower wages and thus gained greater profits.

Only if you're willing to abandon Marxist economics can you "open a window" for the ruling class in selected situations to "bribe" a significant part of the working class.

Wages would be "politicized" in such situations instead of a product of economic determinants...for example, public employees. To the extent that public employees organize politically, they can sometimes gain higher wages than would be the case if only economic factors were involved. (In this context, it might be well to consider public employee "unions" as political lobbying organizations.)

But very few public employees can be considered proletarian by Marx's definition...they do not normally produce commodities for the marketplace or generate surplus value as a return on capital investment. (In recent years, it could be argued that employees of the Postal Service or Amtrak are being proletarianized.)

In the private sector, "bribing" the working class should not be possible...if Marx's analysis was correct.

The draft programme is clear when it says "it is only the proletariat, the class whose exploitation is the foundation of the capitalist system, and which has nothing to lose but its chains, that can be the backbone of a struggle to actually overthrow this system and revolutionize all of society." How is this unclear?

The problem with programmes (not just the RCP's) is that they can be contradictory -- often because they are attempting to "touch all the bases". It often requires a very close and detailed reading to distinguish between a pro forma declaration in support of some classical shibboleth and what the group really intends to do.

The aim of socialism is not to be communism!

Then why should the working class be interested in you at all?

Because you promise us a "kinder and gentler" version of class society?

Why should we believe you???

So.. does this cause a contradiction with the road to communism, yes, to a certain extent.

Don't waffle. It is a flat out contradiction, period.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by atlanta rcyber+--> (atlanta rcyber)What I was struggling to communicate was that yes, this is a contradiction, but that it is not an unsurmountable contradiction.[/b]

Why isn't it "unsurmountable"?

Socialism (in the Leninist paradigm) is a class society...a kind of "capitalism without capitalists". In it, the kinds of decisions that are made by capitalists are instead made by the leading circles of the "vanguard" party.

The "natural" tendency of such societies is to eventually restore open capitalism.

That seems like an insurmountable contradiction to me.

That is "proof-texting" by definition.

It's not clear to me why the RCP objects to this practice so strenuously. When we "dig in" to a position, why shouldn't we look for "the revealing detail" in the mass of verbiage?

It wouldn't be there if someone hadn't put it in there, right? And they wouldn't have put it in there if they didn't mean it, right?

Of course, care must always be exercised; it would be dishonest to rip a phrase or two out of context and bash a group for what was clearly not their position.

But when you enter the arena of public discourse, you do have to be careful of what you say...ambiguity is rarely welcome and some folks will always "think the worst".

Redstar then goes off into an very interesting 'look into the crystal ball' and states that the RCP will probably drop 'communist' from its name (and I imagine communism altogether is implied here), because it is not popular.

Well, the Leninist-Maoist paradigm is not communist...it promotes socialism. If the RCP were to call itself the "Revolutionary Socialist Party", it would make things much clearer...the Maoist version of socialism is what you actually want. For you, communism is something that lies far away in the distant future...like interstellar travel or "the return of Jesus".

Perhaps I should have made my speculations clearer...I get the distinct impression that Avakian himself is drifting away from a proletarian orientation -- but it's always possible that significant portions of the RCP will not follow his leadership.

We'll see.

RCP

"This socialism, as envisioned by Bob Avakian, will embrace scientists, intellectuals, and artists. They’ll continue their intellectual and artistic work, deepening the store of human knowledge, even as they break down barriers with other sections of society, especially the formerly exploited and oppressed. The leadership of society won’t fear their tendency to question everything, or to look at things in new ways. On the contrary, it will welcome this in a way that no other society can—for without lively questioning and "air to breathe", socialism would not be a place people would want to live, nor would it open up the road to communism."

This seems to me to strengthen Red Power's contention that the RCP is moving towards a reliance on the middle classes.

It's "as if" you were promising the middle classes that the RCP "won't be repressive" like Stalin or even Mao.

No such promises are made to the working class, of course. We are, by inference, presumably invited to "shut up" and "do what we're told".

First, Bob Avakian does have a significant number of followers, though he needs more!

I would not call 500 to 1,000 followers significant in a country with a population of 300,000,000.

If the RCP had a million members and several million more supporters, then one would have to take Avakian seriously.

When Marx and Engels began their pathbreaking work they did not have a significant number of followers...

Quite true. But their work really was pathbreaking...you surely cannot compare anything written by Avakian to the work of Marx and Engels, can you?

[Red Powers]

Atlanta RCYB Have you no sense of humor? Go back and read my post and try to understand that people use sarcasm in their writing. When I wrote "I have no idea what bourgeoisification means. I think I'll ask my Letter Carrier..." I'm making fun of the term. I'm not being dishonest. But you still don't get it.

My post also does more than rip out a couple of phrases to draw conclusions.

The Draft Programme asserts that better off workers recieve benefits from the position of the US in the world. It also asserts that regular employment is a weakness for the working class. And that sections of the working class are bourgeoisified because capitalists "toss off' spoils to them. Now I referenced the part about this group being built up after WWII without quoting it directly. And the astounding thing about this "history" lesson is that it eradicates the entire mass uprising of the 30s that established industrial unions in basic industries. It gives the impression that the gains made were gifts from the capitalists. Taken together these statements basically make a large part of the WC corrupted or weak or conservative etc. So while I am not ignoring all the other mentions of the proletriat as backbone in the DP, I find this group of quotes to be a coherent statement by the Party about how it sees things.

And when compared with the treatment of the "enlightened" petite-bourgeoisie I think many readers would come to similar conclusions as I have. Do I think the RCP gets or would get a better reception among the PB? Well, it seems likely. Do I think many allies of the working class won't come from the PB? Of course they will. But I also think that the proletariat is more than just the backbone of the revolution they are the reason for communist revolution. If you continue to view them as they are under capitalism (and it seems like their ideas are what defines them for you) without their revolutionary potential, it won't go well.

[SonofRage]

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by atlanta rcyber
Classes are rooted in the economic base of society. Communism, a classless society, is only possible through breaking down the old economic base, one based on commodities and exploitation, and the development of a new economic base, which is more represented by the term "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

No one disputes this.

For this very reason communists recognize that there will have to a transitional period, which we call socialism, with an economy where both the old is being destroyed and the new created.

But this is highly disputed...and not just by "anarchists".

The historical track-record of "socialisms" is one which did not destroy the old class relationships or create new ones. They institutionalized virtually every characteristic of the old class society -- with nationalized enterprises in place of privately-owned capitalist enterprises.

Otherwise, nothing really changed.

Except, of course, the changes that all societies go through when they develop modern capitalist economies.

The leading circles of the vanguard party simply replaced the old ruling class...and, in time, became a new capitalist ruling class themselves.

The RCP, faithful to the Leninist paradigm, wants to give socialism "one more try"...but I don't think the working class is going to permit that to happen.

Who needs "a new boss"? Particularly since capitalism itself is teaching us on a daily basis that all bosses are bad.

Communists have come to some very sharp conclusions on this. One [is] that a transitional society, one bent on its own surpassing, is necessary. Two, that there must be an expanding core of masses who are dedicated to this cause. Three, that the nature of this society must be run in the interests of the proletariat (this point is commonly referred to as the dictatorship of the proletariat).

Socialism fails all three of those tests. It doesn't "surpass itself"; it keeps the masses in wage-slavery and political servitude; and it is not run in the interests of the proletariat.

That's history!

Now the question has to be posed. What is the class interest of the proletariat? Is it to be the new class on top? Many revisionists think so, as have many communists through our history. One thing that Bob Avakian is fighting like hell for is for radicals to recognize that this is not the class interest of the proletariat.

Instead the interest of the proletariat is to end all exploitation and oppression.

Now you just finished saying that the view of the RCP is that there's no "middle way" -- either the proletarian class rules or the bourgeois class rules.

But here, you say that the proletariat will not be "the new class on top".

So who does that leave???

I think the implications of your statements here is that there is a "middle way" -- namely, the rule of middle class cadre who've risen to the top of the vanguard party...and who will accordingly rule in their own class interests.

Party members and masses at large will have a deep responsibility to maintain society on the socialist road. And they will have the right to do something about it. That right? the right to REBEL AGAINST REACTION!

Remember that famous picture from China...that guy standing in front of a tank?

That's what your "right to rebel against reaction" would amount to in practice. The "capitalist-roaders" have a professional army and a professional police force well-trained and conditioned to obey orders...and we have, at best, the occasional courageous fool who will stand in front of a tank.

Would it not be more sensible to avoid creating positions of power where "capitalist-roaders" could congregate in the first place?

We recognize that the road is not going to be a straight line to communism! We recognize that socialism, a society in transition, is going to have a fair amount of turmoil. And we cherish this!

I agree with you about the turmoil. But I have to ask you why you are so intent in rigging the struggle against the revolutionaries? Once you set up your new socialist state apparatus (with armies and cops and prisons and markets and commodities and money, etc., etc.), what have you done but effectively hand over power to the "capitalist-roaders"?

I'm not saying that if power is in the hands of the masses that that by itself "guarantees" the successful transition to communism or that the "capitalist-roaders" can't still make a come-back and gradually introduce a bourgeois initiative.

But depriving them of institutional power (obedient soldiers and cops) makes it much tougher for them.

Socialism is a "slam dunk" for revisionists...they win in a rout!

We have to do one hell of a lot better than that!

RedStar then continues on saying " No such promises are made to the working class, of course. We are, by inference, presumably invited to "shut up" and "do what we're told"."

Where does this come from? Back that shit up!

I said "by inference"...if you promise something to the middle classes and fail to make it clear that the working class gets the same, then it is perfectly reasonable to infer that the working class does not get the same...otherwise you would have said so.

Bob Avakian is our Lenin!

I believe SonofRage has already responded appropriately to this claim.

[celticfire]

This is a very interesting thread to me. I see RCP defenders principled and focused on serious discussion, while I see RCP attackers throwing around slanders, lies and confusion. I don't think this is entirely out of "critical" though by all the RCP attackers, rather I think it is a knee-jerk reaction to things you've been taught to abhor. Most of from the West were taught that communism was dead, it was a system for individual dictators, and that is was nothing but evil evil and evil.

All of which is nothing more then the voice of a smirking ruling class that has defeated it's worst enemy: organized workers casting off the chains of their oppression and liberating themselves. Nothing could be more horrific then this to the bourgeoisie, and this why they must slander the history of socialism and the international communist movement today.

I am not suggesting everyone that is critical of the RCP is in line with the capitalists, I hold my own reservations. But I hope that those who have been told that the whole history of socialism has been worthless, (even up until Lenin, or after if your a Trotskyist) and haven't honestly evaluated for yourself, I think those types of people inadvertantly fall in line with where the bourgeoisie want them: against their class enemies.

In the West the world "leader" is often something dirty, something of disgust. It reminds of cults and mindless worshippers. We think of religion and corruption, and exploitation.

But leadership - whether we deny it or not - is an intergral part of making revolution. Marx was such a leader in his time, Lenin was, Mao, etc. Leadership and especially communist leadership shouldn't mean simply "I am the leader, follow me and don't ask questions!" Bob Avakian is certainly not this type of leader.

Bob Avakian has earned his position of leadership through his activities and years of being a dedicated and often hunted revolutionary. Same as Lenin, Mao, Malcolm X and the BPP.

But you don't have to "join" the RCP, and you don't have to agree with everything Bob Avakian says, but I think everyone should examine the role of leadership. With regard to my Trotskyist comrades, I've often noticed that they never or rarely mention the need for leadership-yet they have leadership, and sometimes even personality cults of their own! (See YFIS/WIL's Ted Grant.)

Mao was not down with everyone blindly following him, but the revisionists wanted everyone to blindly follow the "thoughts" of Mao - which ultimately meant them. Mao once said, reffering to a person who put up a Big Charecter Poster that said "Down With Mao! Support the Party Center!" and the question had come up if the should be arrested for counter-revolutionary activity, Mao responded by saying (I'm paraphrasing) Why? He still supports half the party.

Lenin took it even more seriously. Once a peasent personally complained to Lenin about his local soviet, and when the peasent left he was arrested. When Lenin found out, he demanded his immediate release and suggested those responsible should be shot. Because to a communist, the voices of the masses come first. Violating that is treason.

Which leads me to Stalin.

My favorite articles about Stalin:

Conquer the World?
Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform
On the Question of Stalin
The Blanket

Now Anarchists sorts seem to completely dismiss leadership altogether. They seem to think the masses will magically cast off their chains without any effort or help. All this falls completely into idealism. Capitalism is marked by profound social inequalities and contradictions. How will they be overcome? Simply revolting doesn't do the trick - there's counter-revolution, the contradiction between mental/manual labor, etc. And as Engels said, an Anarchist will never answer these questions directly, because they can't - without falling into idealism - that is how they would LIKE to see things happen rather then how they really will happen.

In conclusion and in support of the Atlanta comrade - I encourage everyone to do more investigating, and not simply react and label things "Stalinist" because it deviates from what you want to hear.

Down with knee-jerk reactions! :hammer:

[novemba]

holy shit sonofrage...you killed me with that shit. i swear i died and went to heaven.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by celticfire
In the West the word "leader" is often something dirty, something of disgust. It reminds [people] of cults and mindless worshippers. We think of religion and corruption, and exploitation.

It goes a lot further than that. The bourgeois media, after all, celebrates its own "business leaders" and "political leaders" without restraint.

Even though many of them could not tie their shoelaces without an instruction booklet.

People are more and more skeptical -- and yes, cynical -- about "leadership" because of lived experience.

In my opinion, this is a "stage" on the road to revolutionary class consciousness...people must learn to stop searching for the "good ruler" before they can develop the confidence to rule themselves.

You claim that Avakian is "not like the others", but every leader-wannabe says the same thing!

It's true that all those other leaders were corrupt and incompetent despots, but not me! I'm different! You can really trust me!

Oh???

But leadership - whether we deny it or not - is an integral part of making revolution.

No doubt...but, in my view, it must come from the masses and be clearly accountable to the masses.

Any guy who comes along and says "give me a professional army, police force, etc." is asking for nothing less than the right to be a despot.

After all that's happened, one would have to be a fool to grant such a request.

Bob Avakian has earned his position of leadership...

Of the RCP -- not of anything else. You guys can follow him if you like...but you have no legitimate grounds for asking anyone else to. He is not "a Lenin", much less "a Marx".

Capitalism is marked by profound social inequalities and contradictions. How will they be overcome?

That's a good question.

Leninists argue that it's done in an evolutionary way...over a century or more -- that we need to "create" a "new communist man" who is "fit" to live in a communist society.

I argue that a revolutionary approach is necessary...that people learn to live in a communist society by doing communism.

Listening to lectures from the great leader simply teaches people how to sleep while appearing awake.

[celticfire]

redstar2000: Yes it has been a general experience with bourgeois leaders.

I hear anarchists say "we don't need leaders, we need to teach people to lead themselves." Okay, isn't that act "we" teaching people to "lead" themselves an act of leadership?

Communist leadership isn't a negative thing, but I agree with you redstar is a negative thing if it becomes unaccountable to the working class. But the essence of communist leadership is teaching people to liberate themselves, by guiding not by ordering.

Any guy who comes along and says "give me a professional army, police force, etc." is asking for nothing less than the right to be a despot.

Obviosly the bourgeois forces have their armies, their police force and organized terror outfits. How are we as a class going to beat them if we don't have our own centralized organization to defeat them? Now we need people's militia's and the arming of the masses, this is key- but we can't negate having an army and a police because we don't want it - that doesn't correspond with reality.

I personally don't want to see any churches or religions after the revolution, but if we tried to force people to give these up, it would do great harm. If we try to simply ignore contradictions like armies and police under socialism, we will find ourselves right back were we started, or worse. Because we can't simply revolt and have communism, reality doesn't work like that.

Marx and Engels correctly examined the commune, and hailed it as the first dictatorship of the proletariat. But they also found and pointed out it's shortcomings: it could not retain state power. Without organization we will lose.

Now we don't need simple centralism. We don't need unaccountable leaders or bourgeois armies and police.

We need proletarian leadership, a people's army, and public servants that serve the people.

We need the broadest democracy possible for the masses of people, while at the same time providing the most solid dictatorship over the former exploiters.

But if we try to skip stages, we will inevitiably end up back in capitalism or worse.

We need unity-struggle-unity, we need fermant and debate and mass decision making. And we need to remove leaders who take the capitalist road.

I argue that a revolutionary approach is necessary...that people learn to live in a communist society by doing communism.

This is socialism. The masses will learn communism by doing it, I agree completely. But did you learn how to drive a car just by buying one? Nope, you learned by practice and guidance from others. And eventually the masses won't need a vanguard or "driving intructors" anymore. And at the point advocating vanguard would be counter-revolutionary. But we aren't there yet.

Listening to lectures from the great leader simply teaches people how to sleep while appearing awake.

I agree!!! Though I find Chairman Avakian's talks informative and provacative, the only way the masses will learn how to rule is by ruling. They will do this under socialism, with leadership, with organization. And eventually the need for those things will disappear to.

[1949]

I wanted to reiterate our Atlantan comrade's point that the RCP has not historically been an organization that sacrifices general principles just to cater to public opinion. To give a conspicuous example of this, up until the publication of "On the Position on Homosexuality in the New Draft Programme" about four years ago, the RCP, while always acknowledging the oppression of homosexuals in bourgeois society and supporting the struggle against that oppression (and continuing to do so today), persisted in upholding a line inherited from the history of the international communist movement that homosexuality was a concentrated expression of male chauvinism that would have to be ideologically struggled against and would "wither away" in socialist society in a fashion very similar to religion. I don't think an organization that based its entire orientation on public opinion would uphold such a line for such a long time. And I would like to say that it strikes me as a bit of a muddle when this argument is coming from Redstar2000, who in the past has seemed to argue that the RCP should not build the culture of appreciation it does around Chairman Avakian because the masses in developed imperialist societies such as the U.S. would not be receptive to it.

Regarding the changing of the name of the newspaper from Revolutionary Worker to Revolution, a comrade summed up why he thought this was done at the Another World Is Possible forums a few months ago: a) the original name of the newspaper came from a time period where the RCP ascribed to some economist, “workerist” positions, which they have since repudiated; b) (I hope I am understanding this point correctly) the term “worker” has a connotation with “hardhats”, factory workers, etcetera, whereas MLM’s view is more in line with Marx’s definition of the proletariat, i.e. a class that owns no means of production except their labor power, can only live so long as they work and can only work so long as their work enriches some owner of means of production (which is a much broader category than just “hardhats” and whatnot, including millions of people that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologists label “middle class” because they enjoy a more favorable position in the field of distribution, even though their relationship to the means of production and role in the division of labor is not that much different from “hardhats”); and c) there is some relationship to the concept of the “godlike position of the proletariat,” which I cannot honestly say I understand well enough to describe in my own words, but which you can read more about in epistemology talk and the excerpts from the book with Bill Martin.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by atlanta rcyber+--> (atlanta rcyber)RedStar in a recent post posed the question of whether anything really changed under socialism. Other [than], of course, the people in power. A Big Question, especially since bourgeois historians and defenders have worked tirelessly to make sure no one really knows what happened under socialism. Of course, RedStar is coming at this from the perspective of someone who has bought in to the propaganda about the "failure of communism."[/b]

Try failure of Leninism...communism was never an option in backward countries like Russia and China.

At such time when you actually observe me saying that the idea of communism has "failed", then you may fairly label me as having "bought into" a bourgeois myth.

Redstar goes so far as to say they offered nothing beyond what the bourgeoisie offers. And in fact this is as outrageous as the equating of communism with fascism.

Contain your "outrage". I have never equated communism and fascism -- quit raising false analogies.

I could go into the basics, education, jobs, healthcare, and such. And in these fields the socialism soared past the best capitalism had to offer.

Granted...but there were areas in which the USSR and the PRC did not do so well -- urban housing comes to mind.

If you make the right historical comparisons -- say the USSR in 1956 or the PRC in 1976 with England or France in 1880 -- then yes, the Leninists come out looking as more benevolent despots than the bourgeoisie.

What you imagine this has to do with emancipation from wage-slavery remains a mystery.

What the proletariat got, more than anything else, what socialism provided, was the ability to recast the world in their interests.

How does one go about "recasting the world" in "their own interests" when one has no power?

How can you ignore the daily reality in those countries? The ordinary person got up, went to work, did whatever the manager told him/her to do, got his/her paycheck, and went home.

Just like here!

The proletarian class became masters of their own destiny.

Puh-leeze! They were "masters" of nothing.

And all this talk about "old boss" for "new boss" is nothing new or original, it's just the same old libertarian argument that breaks down to, "I wanna do what I want, F everyone else and their interests, me first." Which is nothing more than the mindset of a bourgeois or petit-bourgeois apologist.

Workers, of course, have no personal desires but instead find genuine pleasure in being told what to do by their "natural superiors" in the party and in the workplace.

You have just illustrated with exceptional skill the total bankruptcy of the Leninist paradigm -- any personal preferences expressed by ordinary workers are "evidence" of "petty-bourgeois selfishness".

Well said, Comrade Moneybags.

First of all "leninists" of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist variety do not and Lenin himself did not look at socialism as a society that would evolve over time.

Lenin certainly did...and so does Avakian. The whole point of your "transitional state" is to oversee the transition from socialism to communism -- which you do expect to take a very long time.

That struggles will take place in the course of this period does not change the basic outlines: the leading role of the party and especially its inner circle, the availability and use of a loyal and obedient army and police force, the construction and operation of an elaborate prison complex, etc., etc.

After a revolution, everyone must be forced to live in a supposedly "communist" society.

The reason that people make a proletarian revolution is because most people want to live in communist society.

The ones who don't will have difficulties...that's true no matter what kind of post-revolutionary society is established.

This society, I imagine will reinvent the economy overnight.

Where does that come from...when I explicitly agreed that there would be a "period of transition".

But, you are right in the sense that "reinvention of the economy" will be "item one" on the social agenda. Making sure that everyone has the "basics" for an acceptable standard-of-living outside the realm of commodity circulation will be the first priority...and the first step towards communism.

[This society] will have no more oppression and exploitation.

The old ruling class and its lackeys will certainly be oppressed. Exploitation (in the Marxist sense) will be phased out.

All contradictions based in class society will be done away with by "revolutionary decree".

Is this sort of nonsense your idea of a "principled argument"?

And what about the anarchists? What will happen to them?

They will be an integral part of the revolutionary process...obviously.

And for all we know, they might be the ones who "lead" the whole thing. (&#33

Or the confused proletarian or middle class conservatives? Will all these people be shot?

Some might be. Many might emigrate -- I'd open the borders myself and even furnish them a plane ticket.

Communism is not "one big gulag", MIM to the contrary notwithstanding.

What about religious people, will they be forced by gunpoint to not believe?

More silliness. In the first place, the overwhelming majority of the revolutionary proletariat will not be superstitious.

And in the second place, those who are superstitious will be discriminated against...not "shot" or "imprisoned" but rather regarded by their peers as unreliable elements not to be trusted with any serious responsibilities.

Will there be suppression of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

Only in the sense that they (and other religions) will be removed from public life.

Religion will no longer enjoy the "public respect" that it does now; instead, it will publicly be regarded with pronounced disrespect -- like racism or sexism.

What about dissent?

Dissent from the left will be encouraged and rewarded. Dissent from the right will be suppressed.

What about those who are genuinely confused and think that capitalism is better than communism?

If they keep their mouths shut and their noses clean, I don't think anything will "happen to them" at all. If they get caught trying to organize a counter-revolution, then yes, they might very well be shot...or deported if there's some country that will take them.

In fact the vision of RedStar seems to have a downright genocidal conclusion, whether RedStar realizes and admits it or not.

That's the best you can do???

Let me be clear, oppression, patriarchy, and exploitation will not go away by decree. They can only be overcome by removing their sources.

No one suggests that such deeply-rooted social phenomena can be abolished "by decree"...but waiting for them to "wither away" didn't work out too well either.

A sharp and on-going struggle seems to be required to smash these things whenever and wherever they crawl out from beneath their rocks.

A "fireside chat" with Chairman Bob is not going to get the job done.

celticfire

Okay, isn't that act, "we" teaching people to "lead" themselves, an act of leadership?

Sure...and a good one. But you should know as well as I that such an act has no place in the Leninist paradigm.

The "leading role of the party" cannot have but one coherent meaning...and everyone knows what it is.

Obviously the bourgeois forces have their armies, their police force and organized terror outfits. How are we as a class going to beat them if we don't have our own centralized organization to defeat them?

Once you set that crap up, the bourgeoisie doesn't even have to "defeat you" -- they can sit back and watch you defeat yourself.

U.S. imperialism never "defeated" either the USSR or the PRC...they watched (with frankly expressed disbelief&#33the USSR and the PRC rot from within and defeat themselves.

The "mind-set" of a professional army/police force is always fascist...so when lefties suggest that "we" should set up "our own" version, they are really saying that we should establish a fortress of reaction in our own midst.

The result is as predictable as tomorrow morning's sunrise: even if we beat the bourgeoisie, we still lose.

This is socialism. The masses will learn communism by doing it, I agree completely. But did you learn how to drive a car just by buying one? Nope, you learned by practice and guidance from others. And eventually the masses won't need a vanguard or "driving instructors" anymore. And at the point advocating vanguard would be counter-revolutionary. But we aren't there yet.

Is "ruling" a "special skill", like driving a car? Something that people must be taught before they're allowed behind the wheel?

As it happened, I learned to drive without any professional instruction at all -- just another guy sitting in the passenger seat and offering occasional advice.

I learned how to drive by driving.

I wouldn't recommend that now -- I think people should learn to drive the same way they learn how to fly a jet aircraft -- in training simulators...where no one gets hurt if you make a mistake.

When the masses rule, then mistakes will be made and people will get hurt...but they will learn how to rule.

And that might well take several generations.

And, who knows, maybe we'll develop training simulators for making rational political and economic decisions -- like a proletarian version of Sim City...something every working class kid has to take and pass.

The RCP promises that "someday" they will "expand the we who rule" -- which could either mean making the vanguard party into a mass party with more internal democracy or deliberately reducing the role of the party in public life.

Either way, it remains a promise...and is entirely dependent on the "good will" of the party's leadership.

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not bet on "good will"...experience suggests rather strongly that it's always a losing bet.

[celticfire]

God forbid! An organization that corrects it errors! Oh the horror of self-criticism! LOL!

I'd challenge RCP opponents to find another organization that has developed in such an honest way. The RCP was wrong, corrected itself and has moved on. Unity-struggle-unity. This is one of the 'evil' doings of leadership!

But in all seriousness, I think everyone should read the Draft Programme Position on Homosexuality and really dig into and bring their thoughts back to this thread.

(Sometimes I wonder why redstar2000 doesn't just join the PLP?)

[Red Powers]

Quote 1949

Regarding the changing of the name of the newspaper from Revolutionary Worker to Revolution, a comrade summed up why he thought this was done at the Another World Is Possible forums a few months ago: a) the original name of the newspaper came from a time period where the RCP ascribed to some economist, “workerist” positions, which they have since repudiated; b) (I hope I am understanding this point correctly) the term “worker” has a connotation with “hardhats”, factory workers, etcetera, whereas MLM’s view is more in line with Marx’s definition of the proletariat, i.e. a class that owns no means of production except their labor power, can only live so long as they work and can only work so long as their work enriches some owner of means of production (which is a much broader category than just “hardhats” and whatnot, including millions of people that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologists label “middle class” because they enjoy a more favorable position in the field of distribution, even though their relationship to the means of production and role in the division of labor is not that much different from “hardhats”);

Now I find this odd. The association of workers with hardhats comes from a 38-year old demonstration on Wall St. in NYC. The only reason it still has legs is because capitalist propaganda has given it legs. There has been an intense campaign in this country to either make the working class disappear by (as you point out) describing everybody as "middle class" or portray workers as rednecks (witness the Blue Collar Comedians)

What is odd is that you seem to buy into this and instead of fighting it with propaganda of your own you change the image of your paper. I would think that the capitalist project to silence the working class would call forth resistance from the vanguard not a tailing after the worst prejudices of the bourgeoisie. Are you guys embarassed by the working class you're the supposed vanguard of ?