LIKE...OMG!!!!! BOB AVAKIAN!!!!!!!! Awesome!
I love the RCP.
Results 1 to 20 of 52
!!!Pass the word!!!
Thats right, the Atlanta RCYB has launched a website!
http://atlanta.rcyb.info
Pass it on to friends! Every youth in the SouthEast
needs to know about this website!
-Check it out to keep up with whats going on in Atlanta
and around the world.
-Find out what the RCYB is all about.
-Keep up with Revolution Newspaper.
-Dig into the pathbreaking analysis of RCP chair BOB
AVAKIAN!
-Find out about the campaigns and efforts the RCYB is
working on.
-Check out blogs from veteran and new comrades from
around the country.
-Find out how to get involved!
And a lot MORE!!!
We are looking for volunteers to help rev-up the
website even more. And we need donations to maintain
and expand the potentials of the website!
All comments, suggestions and questions are welcome!
Get in touch at [email protected]
LIKE...OMG!!!!! BOB AVAKIAN!!!!!!!! Awesome!
I love the RCP.
Economic Left/Right: -9.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Red rebel skinhead and proud.
The Spartacist's evangelicalism is a lot funner.
Plus they have better headlines.
I've not heard much about the RCP/US, anyone care to share their experiences?
Pure and utter hell.
If you meet some, be prepared for complete Bob Avakian worshipping. The funniest part is that most of BA's writings his grasp of communism seems rather weak, and he gives off a strong "wolf in sheep's clothing" feeling.
Stay away, very far away. If the RCP gained power, it would mean despotism as seen in China and North Korea.
He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a good tanning. - Karl Marx, Capital Volume I
I encourage you to check out the RCYB for yourself. Some tend to unprincipled attacks, and it does not seem that an honest answer is forthcoming here.
I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that people are suspicious of the RCP andyour glorious Chairman Bob. And rightly so. Your devotion to 'the' leader is very sinister.
While many members of the RCP are intelligent folk, I think the bob cult gets loonier every month. They think with out "bob" , US reveloution just cant be done.
Join the CPC !
Communist Party
Join The YCL !
Young Communist League of Canada
</div><table border=\'0\' align=\'center\' width=\'95%\' cellpadding=\'3\' cellspacing=\'1\'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Comrade Om"</td></tr><tr><td id=\'QUOTE\'>People always write off the proletariat. They are the perpetual underdogs. I’m sure there were plenty in the Tsar’s court who believed that the workers were inferior or unfit to rule. The Petrograd proletariat proved them wrong. This is how it will always be. The proletariat may not feel ready or capable to destroy the bourgeoisie but they will and they will do so simply because they have no choice in the matter.</td></tr></table><div class=\'signature\'>
OK so people wanna rag on Bob Avakian and those that follor his leadership. Whatever.
But lets be clear, people look to Bob Avakian leadership and follow his lead because he is a revolutionary leader, like it or not. He is a revolutionary leader because he is bringing forth the type of world analysis that these times call for, based in scientific methodology and a revolutionary partisanship.
So to put it bluntly, one doesn't have to agree with Bob Avakian to realize why he is looked to. Its because of what he is doing, challenging history and the future with revolutionary perspective. And much, much more.
Cultish, etc have always been terms labelled to communists by red-baiters, we have no time for such nonsense.
But to those who are really down for a real revolution in the REAL world, get into this man, and assess what YOU think of him. Get into his works and look to what his party and youth brigade are doing.
Engage this revolutionary leader, or stay on the sidelines gawking and criticizing from your high horse!
One can be on the sidelines and still attend every protest that occurs.
One more note:
Long Live Bob Avakian, the most radical communist of our times.
sorry i felt i couldnt read this bullshit execpt i noticed the last statement... also... LONG LIVE HITLER THE MOST RADICAL COMMUNIST OF OUR TIME... sounds rediculus, eh?
It goes one for the student who refuses to submit and two for the teacher who is under-paid as shit, and three for the strikes who give young bloods life and four for the years you spent stifled inside.
Infoshop
When you guys go into a debate I cant even keep count of how many times RCP members quote the writings of bob avakian. A cult of personality such as avakains is counter revolutionary. It makes bob avakian the single outlet for revolutionary thought and makes everyone else pointless because avakian is god. I hate you avakian trolls. You dont ever make a rational output in debate its quote avakian. He may be a great revolutionary of our time but being a revolutionary doesnt only mean writing books. He is a fool who will never be taken serious by the leftist movement.
Just like how a majority of the leftists here consider the RCP a joke.
cut your hair and get a job...
What, do you mean critisise him and his politics? Heaven forbid we would want to *do* such a thing...
Yeah, he's a "revolutionary" leader, I'll give you that. Whether or not he's worth following; well that's questionable.
In which case, everyone who has developed Marxist theory is a revolutionary leader. Everyone on these boards is a revolutionary leader. Does that mean we should all worship each other? If I treated the leadership of Workers Power and the L5I with even an ounce of the evangelicalism that Avakian's followers give him, I'd be the laughing stock of the group. Newton, Einstien... they all follw a scientific methodology, shoud we follow them into the promised land? No. So get a grip.
The only reason why he is looked up to in the way you so excellently demonstrate must be because of a real lack of basic Marxist education in the RCP and RCYB. If there was even the lip service paid to it, then the Cult of Bob would collapse overnight, because that's the only thing which seems to sustain the RCP. While MIM might be a bit nuts, at least they seem to be more widely read than any RCPer. Including Bob.
"Red-baiters"? The only way in which we're 'baiting' you is by exposing the cult. And it is a cult - because what is the unifying factor of the RCP? It isn't Maoism, otherwise you'd all be in the MIM. In terms of their core politics, there doesn't seem to be much between the RCP and MIM (though to be honest I haven't really looked into it at any great depth). No, what unites the group is their devotion to Chairman Bob. And what's so special about his politics? At least Tony Cliff had state capitalism. Avakian's leadership is based on his charisma and his charisma alone; that's a cult.
Comrade, the immense majority of the people on this board are "really down for a real revolution in the REAL world" day in and day out, by building labour unions, by fighting for communist programmes in the working class, by building worker's solidarity, by actually engaging with the wider working class. I've just checked out the RCP's website; no mentions of unions, the wider working class... just what do the RCP do exactly?
I've a feeling the answer involves the words "Sod" and "All".
I don't agree with BA, and that is PRECISELY why I don't know why the fuck people look up to him. He the "chairman" of a party that only recently went pro-gay's rights.
BTW, it's funny that you say "and much, much, more." only because he's done nothing.
Nice way to dodge criticism. It isn't working.
"Cultish" is what many leftists call the RCP because most RCP members don't ever object to Avakian. And that's post-dedicating their life to him.
Dictatorship in the party, will mean dictatorship post-revolution. (as if the RCP will accomplish that)
Wait a fucken second.
BA is the "most radical" of all communists? By being a Maoist, he's most radical? Don't you think some of the dogmatic Left-Communists, or the Council Communists would be the "most radical". Maoism isn't radical... its barely a change from capitalism (and in a way it ISN'T).
Free your mind and stop being part of rank and file, that is if you don't want to be thought of as a tool to a MLM revisionist.
He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a good tanning. - Karl Marx, Capital Volume I
I really wish I could remember which of Chairman Avakian's works it was from (maybe somebody familiar with his text can post it)
But he talks about how he doesn't ever think there will be total worker control of a post-revolutionary society. He promotes that even once communism has been attained that there will still be representative government. In mine, and many other people's opinions that is not fucking communism.
Economic Left/Right: -9.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Red rebel skinhead and proud.
I wrote this a couple of nights ago. I think it is appropriate for this thread. It shows, I think, that the RCP is not really interested in PROLETARIAN revolution.
"Bourgeoisified" Workers "Enlightened" Petite-Bourgeois
I've been reading the Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) and I've come across some very intriguing comments about class structure. They all come from The United Front Under the Leadership of the Proletariat parts 1 and 2 in Part 2 of the Draft Programme. I believe that, taken together, these comments reveal what the class stand of the RCP is.
The first comment in Part 1 comes from the section on International Factors. Discussing how international factors will affect the United Front the Programme says the international situation will affect "the concrete policies that a sucessful revolution might have to adopt, including concessions it (the revolution?) might have to make to better-off strata in order to maintain their support." It's not clear from the context which class these better-off strata come from but it just seems like a bad policy. Especially coming from Maoists who claim to be hyper aware of the possibility of capitalist restoration. Isn't this going from a system where the rich get richer to one where the better-off at least maintain their better offness? It's crazy, it basically says to the petite-bourgeoisie "You can get concessions by threatening to withdraw your support."
This is not the heart of the matter though. In Part 2 the RCP goes deeper in depth on which classes they see backing their revolution. Page one discusses the middle class standard of living being connected to the position of the US in the world economy and then adds "[b]etter-off sections of workers receive benefits too." The implication of course is that better-off workers are benefitting from the position of the US in the world economy. Well everybody in the United States benefits from that position - some more than others of course. But what this comment serves to do is to begin to portray the "better-off" workers as allies of imperialism not as members of the working class who can be won to revolution.
I can already hear the cries of "proof-texting" but that is not what I'm doing. I read several sections of the Draft Programme and these parts cried out to be dealt with. On page 7 there is a discussion of strengths and weaknesses in the proletariat. The strengths are such things as; working in socialized conditions, the rebeliousness of proletarians who are "locked out" of the labor force, the understanding of some immigrants of US imperialism. The first example of a weakness that the vanguard will have to deal with is "the condition of more regular employment can also have some conservatizing influences on workers (fear of losing the job, etc.)" The other weakness is that those locked out may take up semi-criminal activities. Are these people kidding or what? Their stand is that regular employment is a weakness because some conservative influences may develop. Have any of them ever worked at one of these jobs? Have any of them dragged their asses thru the streets looking for work. These jobs with regular employment are what the working class calls "real jobs" you get a job like this and you don't have to (maybe) worry about finding a second one. In addition, regular employment often leads a worker away from conservative thinking. In my limited experience the most class conscious proletarians were in exactly these more secure jobs.
On page 8 under the heading "Three Major Sections" there is this:
"The upper sections of workers are tossed a share of the spoils of international plunder to corrupt them into defenders of the system. But only a relatively small number are permanently corrupted, while a much larger number experience only a temporary benefit at most."
Now I know this is a classic statement of Leninist theory (and I actually enjoy the "pirateness" of it - you know a capitalist ship filled with plunder pulls up to the factory gates and "tosses off" the spoils) but I just don't think it works this way. Workers in certain industries can be paid more because they are more productive due to the amounts of capital invested. And even so capitalists don't give up that extra ( they certainly don't toss it) it has to be won by the workers and their unions. And what is all this about corruption? Sounds more than a little Calvinist to me. Preterite Proles?
Here is the paragraph (pg 9) that pushed me to write this post:
"Another section of the proletariat consists of relatively priviliged 'bourgeoisified' workers. These workers are concentrated in large-scale industries -- like auto and steel, heavy machinery, utilities, the postal service -- and particularly where there have been strong unions " [emphasis added]
The Programme goes on to give a short history of this section of the proletariat that manages to leave out the mass upheaval of the 30s that built those strong unions and in which Communists were very active. This also gives "the dominant position of the U.S. in the world" as the main cause of the better conditions for these workers. To tell you the truth I have no idea what is meant by bourgeoisification. I think I'll ask my Letter Carrier tomorrow when it's about 96 degrees out. Or I could ask a utility guy when he's way up that pole praying he doesn't drop his tool. Oh I know I'll ask an auto worker at the end of a compulsory 58-hr. week of 52 or 60 or 80 cars/hr. "Ms. can you explain bourgeoisification to me?" Does it mean that these workers own some part of the means of production? I'll grant you that they are in possession of them most days but "ownership"? No, they dress, work talk and live like workers. the RCP seems to think that better than average pay and benefits somehow turns one bourgeois.
Finally, after almost writing off a significant section of the proletariat for being conservative, corrupted by imperialist booty and bourgeoisified there is this about the group that one has to see as the RCP's main base:
" At the same time, there is the large number of 'enlightened petty(sic) bourgeoisie' who historically have played important roles in radical and revolutionary upsurges, speaking out or acting against the savage injustices and inequalities and crimes of U. S. Imperialism."
So I see, the working class is just a bunch of parasites living off of imperialism but the enlightened petite bourgeois are the real radicals and revolutionaries. Well they may be radical and they may be revolutionary but it has nothing to do with communism. Enlightenment itself comes from the struggle of the Capitalists to establish their rule. We are way past that now are we not? If you say your aim is communism then you have to base yourself in the proletariat and you have to practice some kind of mass line. It seems to me judging from the way they talk about different classes and sections of classes that the RCP might very well be a revolutionary party but that they really should remove the communist from their name. Communists are proletarian revolutionaries.
It was not 'a question what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. As Marx later explained, it was a question 'of what the proletariat is and what, in accordance with this being , it will historically be compelled to do'. -- Gareth Steadman Jones quoting Marx and Engels from "The Holy Family"
From the 'Chants' section of that website:
"The empire is a shakin'
Follow Bob Avakian
The whole worlds a quakin'
Follow Bob Avakian"
Can you say cult?
Aviakan wannabe, I had already told you. Put your propaganda in the appropiate forum. Really, if you want to use this forum, then please respect the guidelines and rules.
Number one: you can't proof that aviakan is the most "radical".
Second: aviakan isn't the most radical or the most communist. I would argue that those who want to bring power in workingclass hands are the most revolutionary.
Three: Aviakan's theory is nothing new and above all extremely boring to read. I mean do you honestly expect the workingclass to read that?!
Four: Cultist, cultist, cultist. I am sorry, but I have an extremely hard time to believe that aviakan believes that the workingclass or even other people are his equals. As such, he would be one of the last persons that I would trust with "guiding" to a classless society. I bet that he would run a nation, just as he runs his party; a dictatorship.
Let no one charge that socialists have arrayed class against class in this struggle. That has been done long since in the evolution of capitalist society. One class is small and rich and the other large and poor....One consists of capitalists and the other of workers. These two classes are at war. Every day of peace is at the expense of labor. There can be no peace and good will between these two essentially antagonistic economic classes. - Debs
A very perceptive post by a relatively new member -- welcome to the board!
RCP supporters often complain that people "rag on Avakian" without "seriously engaging his ideas."
Red Powers has engaged the RCP's ideas in a serious way...revealing a clear "class bias" in the RCP's analysis.
I've been noticing this myself -- I've been informed by RCP supporters that proletarian revolution isn't "really" a matter of "class against class".
And a recent "sign of the times" (?) is the curious fact that they rather abruptly changed the name of their weekly tabloid from Revolutionary Worker to just Revolution.
I rather suspect that they will drop the word "communist" from their group's name sometime in the not-too-distant future. I think they will begin to get "uncomfortable" with it...and think it "alienates" too many potential members and supporters. They might end up just calling themselves "The Revolutionary Party"...which, needless to say, they won't be.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Ok, there are a lot of interesting comments and posts. All of which I would like to reply to, but I won't (at least not yet). Consider this part one of a reply, I hope to get to the later posts, like that by Red Power and Redstar in a day or two. (I haven't read them yet)
But on some of the basic assumptions being thrown out there, I wanna go ahead and post some thoughts. There seems to be a lot of talk about "worship" of Bob Avakian and some sort of a religious cultishness around him.
I guess to address this it's important to see what how Revolutionary Communists actually looks at a number of questions. Including how we look at Bob Avakian and at leadership.
Number one; as we all know, communism has nothing to do with worship of anybody or anything. Secondly communist ideology does not uphold any kind of religious infallibility. Third; Genuine Communist Revolution is an act of the masses of people, not isolated groups or of an individual. OK I think that this basis will be agreed with by most of the posters on this website. I am not saying this in anyway to say that posters here don't realize this. But it seems to me that these posters seem to think that revolutionary communists who look up to Bob Avakian don't recognize all these things.
Now when we get to the question of leadership, some communism 101 includes recognizing that among the masses there arise leaders. Those that embody and the interests of the class and act deeply on its behalf, being self-sacrficing "fighters for all" and struggling to bring others to where they are at, and beyond. I imagine that many people on this webforum also fit this qualification, to varying degrees.
All of us (I am guessing) were deprived of a real understanding of the world and the real nature of capitalism and imperialism for at least some period in our life.
It took others who had excavated some truth to teach us what they had learned. Some of this knowledge our radical teachers had learned for themselves, much of what they knew they had learned from others. And now many of us probably find ourselves in the position of learning, but also of leading. Of continuing to learn about the world, and at the same communicating what we know and trying to inform others about the real nature of the world. This is an example of leadership, to me. And it is important to embrace this.
And then on the basis of what we know, some people have come to recognize that the world and human society don't have to be this way. And among those, there are many who realize that its going to have to come down to a bloody struggle to overthrow those who curently rule.
Ok. Those who are still with me, lets get deeper. The immensity of taking up such a challenge, the challenge to throw down those in power, those with an army to back them up, a developed propaganda machine and a yes, some very formidable technology. WHAT A HUGE CHALLENGE!!! And there has never been a successful revoltuion of this sort in a country like the US. a hell of a challenge!
----
Ok now I wanna go a different direction for a second. Here we are at revolutionaryleft.com. Where every (i think) text box has a watermark of Che Guevara. And I hear some saying that because revolutionary communists are promoting another individual leader, Bob Avakian, is out-of-order and should not be allowed. Whether its said outright or through pressure, the cohersion is still palpable. This smacks to me a of more than a bit of irony.
It is a fact that many great leaders have stepped forward through the history of humanity. Karl Marx, who never led an armed revolution, but who's political and theoretical analysis led to a new form of revolution, socialist revolution. He relooked at what was possible for humanity and looked at the reasons why revolution had to be violent. (This is by no means a comprehensive account of breakthroughs Marx made).
When Marx stepped forward there were many among the "radicals" who disagreed with him and Engels and ruthlessly attacked them and their followers. In truth this was not a bad thing at all, but positive in many ways. But still the point remains. Whenever new understanding is developed it comes into conflict with what already common. In fact many claimed that marx was no different from Hegel, which I hope many people here realize is absurd (though I have realize some may not. Point is, they said that his breakthroughs were nothing new. And in many ways he was just systemizing knowledge about history, but what he came out with on the other end was a NEW SYNTHESIS. One that has changed the planet significantly!
I don't want this post to be too long, so I will leave this point at Marx, but if anyone wants to dig into other significant leaders, let me know, and if I hav time, I would love to engage in a conversation about it.
I think where I am going is becoming clear to many here. This is how the revolutionary communists in the US are coming to view Bob Avakian. Why?
Fundamentally because his views are striking and pathbeaking! They do challenge some "set in stone" standards and asuumptions. LOL. In other words he argues against communist dogma! If you don't believe me check out his work "Conquer the World" where he digs into the histroy of socialist revolutions. (I know that quoting and linking to Bob Avakian articles seems to be taboo for some, but F that, I think people should check it out and will not bow down to BS social pressure around this!
http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/
anyways. how do we look at this? When communists fought for the analysis of Marx to be in the First Internationale; then the Bolsheviks struggled like hell for people to read Marx, Engels, and Lenin; when the Chinese Red Army fought like hell for people to read Marx Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. How do we look at this?
I see that this was all very good. Very important for the masses of people around the world. All this analysis (no matter how boring or hard to read they all could be!
And it is important to recognize that as the communist forces popularize Bob Avakian and the RCP they are also doing a very important thing. Bob Avakians views are sharp and controversial, no doubt, and need to be out there wherever radicals are trying to figure out the road forward. Why? Because he has re-envisioned socialism and communism on the basis of the struggles of the masses of people in the US, in socialist China, in the socialist SU, and elsewhere. And standing on the knowledge that these masses of people uncovered, Bob Avakian has developed a new sunthesis. This needs to be out there wherever people are trying to find the road forward, it is invaluable and very unique analysis!
Not everyone is going to agree with his analysis, thats fine and we should debate aroudn it. However, there are large numbers of people who are stepping forward a carrying the red flag, fighting under the leadership of this leader, with their heads up, knowing what they are about and what Bob Avakian and the RCP are about. I encourage everyone who is searching for the road forward to engage the analysis of this Party and its Chairman.
However here at revleft.com, other "would-be" leaders on this board seem to be trying to win people to do the opposite aproach. To blacklist Bob Avakian (and I imagine that there are other radical viewpoints they would like see suppressed, simply because they disagree). The approaches of simple unprincipled attacks can be effective (in the bourgeois pragmatic way), but it is far from a radical method. And in many ways it does represent red-baiting. Guess what? socialist minded and revolutionary minded people can red-bait!
Like I said before. I haven't read or replied to everyones comments. Even a few that I am very tempted to (especially now that I have gotten started typing). But I won't.
struggling for a better world and with a deep sense of love for all those who are fighting for a better world!
- janx (aka atlanta rcyber)h34r:
RCYB Atlanta
But that is precisely what is in dispute, is it not?
Has Avakian really developed a "new synthesis" as Marx did or has he merely attempted to put a fresh coat of paint on the Maoist variant of Leninism?
The Maoist option has been around, in the "west", for four decades or more. You know as well as I that it has been even less successful than Trotskyism...which is really saying something!
I have read Avakian's (and other RCPers) criticisms of Lenin, Stalin, and even Mao himself...and, though not without merit, they have thus far avoided the heart of the matter.
Does Leninism have anything to offer communists in the "west"? Is there any reason to assume that what "works" in Nepal will "work" in Newark?
Of course, if Avakian really did have a "mass following", then he'd have to be taken more seriously than he is now. But that following simply doesn't exist. (For reasons I've explained elsewhere, I don't think it even can exist.)
But you can see why the RCP's claims about Avakian receive such a scornful response -- how can anyone claim to be a ***GREAT LEADER*** without significant numbers of followers?
I don't think that's true -- we don't really have any "would-be leaders" on this board in the sense that you are using that word...and no one has ever suggested that people in the RCP should be "black-listed" or their views suppressed.
Some people do find it irritating that RCPers often confine their posts to quoting from Bob Avakian or posting links to his pages...rather than arguing their line in their own words.
Perhaps this is because Bob Avakian is not a participating member of this board...posting a response to an article written by Avakian is not really struggling with him since he will never respond to one's response.
The way I am responding to your post & you will presumably respond to mine.
Therefore, it would probably be better for those who support the RCP if they came here prepared to argue their line in their own words -- with brief quotations from Avakian where appropriate.
Just a suggestion.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
"Red Power" brings forward some very interesting opinions from his reading of the Draft Programme of the RCP, USA. First of all I wanna shout out to them on their over-all principled approach (though they get in some pettiness) to debate and the line struggle. Cuz this is exactly that, line struggle. There are a number of confusions that "Red Power" took from their reading, and I will try to clarify them, but also I do want to rcognize the REAL disagreements over how to look at different sections of the US. In particular, what methodology should we apply.
First of all, I wanna make a point on methodology. It is not the communists perspective that something is true if some random member of the working class thinks so, or conversely, communists don't think something is untrue if a random member of the working class thinks something is untrue. Communists apply a scientific approach to looking at the world. They try to analyse it as it is, and now how they necessarily would like it to be. Also I think its worthwhile to point out that just because a random member of the wrking class is unfamiliar with a term, particularly a term that is particular to revolutionary science, like bourgeoisified, that therefore the word has no real meaning, and also must be pointless or wrong. This methodology is one of tailing the deep ignorance humainty is kept in by the powers that be. An ignorance that we have a grave responsibility to overcome. At the same time the proletariat is not totally ignorant, as some of "Red Powers" snide comments rightfully point out. Workers have a wealth of information that comes from their life experience! Valuable and necessary knowledge about the nature of the world.
So when on 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 analyse. This is precisely the type of communist dogma that Bob Avakian and the RCP have been fighting. And this is what I consider to be one major component of Bob's new synthesis, that I hope to get into more as I later reply to a post from RedStar2000. But this is a sidepoint and I will move on.
Back to the "bought off" and bourgeoisified point, this is not an insult on the proletariat and its class, but a sober, scientific analysis of the class relations at this point, in this country. Are revolutionaries going to be scientific minded or are they going to be hopeless idealists... this is one of the major questions, and the RCP has made its stand clear, time after time...Scientific!
"RedPower" walked away from he Draft Programme viewing the position of the RCP to be one of upholding the middle class over the proletariat. And in this RedPower may be glad to realize that they are mistaken. Selective quotations are useful for his point, but we need to get to the question of what is the line of the RCP! It is hard to ignore that throughout the DP (Draft Programme) they Proletariat is identified at the Backbone of a Revolutionary party, army, and new society! However Red Power has managed to ignore this, underrate this or didn't read the whole DP. If ya want links to these sections, let me know. 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? It says very sharply and it says why.
And when it come to the Party it makes this point clear as well. "The Party must continually bring in and train fresh forces, particularly from the proletariat as well as the revolutionary youth..." Again what is pointed to principally is the proletariat.
The fundamental importance of the proletariat is clear, in ink, all throughout the DP. Want more? just let me know!
----------
As all serious communists revolutionaries do, the RCP analyzed other classes in the US other than the proletariat. It is of life and death imprtance for a revolution to know who one's enemies are, and who are one's friends!
In this way the RCP has been analyzing the middle strata as well and they have found that the middle strata is indeed a "vascillating class"... in other words, it is prone to changes sides. This is one of many reasons why the RCP is clear on the fact that the petit bourgeoisie, commonly called the middle class, CANNOT be the backbone of a revolutionary struggle aimed at overthrowing all exploitation and oppression.
Does this mechanically mean that they are the enemy? The RCP clearly thinks that this is not necessarily the case. The DP talks about the middle class, particularly in the United Front under the leadership of the proletariat chapters.
I encourage all to read the NAME of the chapters to get some perspective on this. The united Front UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. (i'm not shouting, just emphasizing in notepad).
In these chapters it looks at the strategic question of winning allies to the revolution. Who here thinks that a communist world would not be to benfit of large sections of the middle-class? We need all the allies we can get if we are going to hav a revolution, socialism and make it to communism. But these allies have to be united with on a communist basis, one that brings forward the class interest and dictatorship of the proletariat.
-------------------
Finally on the question of unequal pay among different strata under socialism. This is true, that especially at first, there will be inequality. And not just in the field of pay! In fact socialist society will be carrying a lot of what marx and mao called "baggage" of the old society into socialism.
The aim of socialism is not to be communism! The aim of socialism to to break with bourgeois remnants and achieve communism, on a world scale! What I mean by this is that communism will not appear overnight. It will be through a lot of struggle in socialist society, and through world-revolution that communism is achieved.
When a new socialist society is formed it will be starting with many inequalities. Housing, for one. Another will be education. Though the revolutionary war will be a learning experience for hundreds of millions of people, it will not fit them all to every specialized skill. For instance it takes years to learn how to program computers, to perform surgery, or be an engineer.
When the revolution is successfully completed the new society will still be weak and in turmoil (which is not all bad). It will have to work to strengthen itself and will need to rep-lace and reestablish a lot of infrastructure. If it does not do this, then people will revolt. Plain truth! While the new socialist state will be dispossessing the overthrown bourgeoisie, it will also have to figure out how to deal with the middle strata. And, no, dispossession will not be the main thing!
Instead the revolutionary state will focus its energies on "brining the bottom up". Meaning that the socialist state will focus its activity on raising the level and standards of living for those on the bottom of society.
Intellectuals and scientists will be recognized for what they contribute to society. And they will be payed in many ways on an unequal footing with the vast majority. They will be struggled with by society to take lower wages, etc. But the knowledge they have, society needs, and masses of people will need to learn.
It will be through revolutionizing education and access to education that this cntradiction will begin to be unraveled. It will also be through the raised political consciousness of the masses of people, evn those among the middle. And of course the members of the party would be expected to not try to maintain any of this.
So.. does this cause a contradicitin with the road to communism, yes, to a certain extent. But what would be more of a contradiction to achieving communism would be the immediate overthrow of a new revolutionary socialist state!
This whole concept is very deep and important and is not new. Though the RCP has been adding to our understanding of it. Lenin and Mao both fought for this, in the Soviet Union and in China.
I encourage people to dig into this more, a very important polemic was written by Bob Avakian where he digs into this a good deal. Its a large document, so put some time aside if ya wanna read it.
http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/democracy/index.htm
(goddarn that communist, encouraging people to read communist works again!!!
---------------------
Final thing for now. On unions and the unions struggles. The role and situation of unions today is greatly different than it was in the 1920s and 1930s. To compare then without recognizing this is damaging at best, unscientific at least. So, too, are the economics of the US. Economics have changed and the US has developed into a full-fledged imperialist superpower. The nature of inductry is very different than it once was in this country, and those small sections of the workforce that are involved in unions are typically (but not by rule) in a rather priviledged position. This is not an "insult" or anything. It is objective reality. And the is has led such proletarians to view their class interests as ones of the bourgeoisie. This is not the fault of the proletariat, but mainly the fault of the ruling class.
I wanna talk more. But I also wanna leave space for others.
Struggling for a better world, hoping to dvelop my understanding,
janx
Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade Atlanta
