Questions about RCP Leader Bob Avakian

[flyby]

hi Flyby,

I have a few serious questions about Chairman Bob.

Cool, glad to answer if I can. (Though, perhaps you don't realize that calling him "Chairman Bob" is something used by opponents -- as a way to diminish and mock what they don't understand.)

1. What is his exact age? (I am thrown by the photo of him on the website, but know he was with the Panthers in 60's-70's)

Our main man was graduating from high school in the early 60s. So that give the idea. He was in his mid-twenties when working with the panthers.

2. When did the mass movement of the RCP begin?

The RCP was founded in 1975. And its main predecessor organization was the Revolutionary Union (a communist pre-party formation, founded in 1968, out of communist revolutionaries emerging from the many radical movements of those times.)

3. Approximately how many current members are in the RCP?

the Panthers used to say (when asked questions about members etc.) "Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."

However it is clear that the RCP is a national party, with forces in most of the major cities of the U.S. and wide connection with radical people and oppressed masses.

Its main contact places and bookstores are listed here

4. Has anyone seen him Bob Avakian lately or rather does he make public appearances?

Avakian gave at least two public speeches in recent years. specifically the DVD now available was filmed in two talks (on on the West Coast and one on the East coast). for more about that check out the three-dvd set of filmed talk called revolution which is here.

Thanks so much for answering!

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

What was the point of this? The RCP is no role model for a communist party. Bob Avakian is no true leader.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by RebeldePorLaPAZ@Oct 12 2005, 08:47 PM
What was the point of this? The RCP is no role model for a communist party. Bob Avakian is no true leader.

He's very intelligent by me. Listen to his speeches, very true.

He is also 62 years, 7 months and 5 days Old at the time of this writing.

Wikipedia is teh hawt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Avakian

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

He might be smart in ways but when you have an organization that aims in glorifying leaders thats where problems happen. Thats the problem with the RCP they glorify Bob Avakian as if he was a God or some sort. Thats not needed communism.

And Bob Avakian himself is bourgeois. Look where his parents come from and what not and then ask how does Bob Avakain live? I bet nobody knows the answer because those who follow the RCP are to busy following him.

--Paz

[Forward Union]

Unless your referring specifically to an upcoming Event or piece Propaganda, it has little to do with this forum.

Your trying to Learn about Bob Avakain and the RCP, fair enough, but please post it in Learning.

[flyby]

i would like to point out that in a parallel thread, a whole lot of rather silly misstatements were made:

The RU did not develop out of RYM2 (for example). The RU was formed before RYM2, and The leaders of the Maoist group Revolutonary Union played an important role in the struggle within SDS, and in the formation of RYM2 (Revolutonary Youth Movement 2). This is described in some detail in Avakian's new memoir.

Further it is wrong (even ridiculous) to claim that avakian was running across a lawn with red paint or whatever. He did not, this is simply people talking without knowing.

Avakian was charged with leading and organizing the democstation (which ended in intense street fighting in front of the White House) -- and was charged iwth every action that happened (or allegedly happened) during that fighitng -- amounting to 421 years of felony charges.

This too was discussed in some detail in hismemoirs, and in other places.

He was (and is) targetted as a leader.

The RCP (which is a serious revolutonary party in the U.S.) was also discussed (in that thread) as if it is some kind of religious cult -- which is obvious bullshit. But even if it is obvious, i thought i would just say so, in case anyone needed to discuss that.

[JKP]

Bob was the son of federal judge; that's pretty well off if you ask me.

Seriously, the irrelevant idealogy, and the cult of personality is a bit much if you ask me.

[RASH chris]

The RU did not develop out of RYM2 (for example). The RU was formed before RYM2, and The leaders of the Maoist group Revolutonary Union played an important role in the struggle within SDS, and in the formation of RYM2 (Revolutonary Youth Movement 2). This is described in some detail in Avakian's new memoir.

I apologize comrade, I made that statement. Perhaps you should check out the wikipedia article on the RCP as I believe that's where I learned that.

[Scars]

<<And Bob Avakian himself is bourgeois. Look where his parents come from and what not and then ask how does Bob Avakain live?>>

Marx was Bourgeois, he lived in poverty because he and his wife were terrible with money and because Marx couldn&#39;t/wouldn&#39;t get a &#39;real&#39; job. This said the money that Engels gave him could have given them a perfectly acceptable living standard.

Engels was most certainly Bourgeois, owner of the textile factory in fact. Because of this security he was free to never work a day in his life, dedicating most of his time to the study of military history, economics, philosophy and politics.

Lenin was Bourgeois, a lawyer by profession. Never really worked much, spent most of his time trekking round Europe while attempting to establish himself in the Russian radical left (which he came to essentially lead, as we know).

Want me to go on? Basically every Communist leader of any note of European hertiage has been Bourgeois in origin, bar Tito (factory worker) and Stalin (preist, son of cobbler and washer woman). I&#39;m no fan of Avakian, but he&#39;s not doing anything that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, or countless other have done.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree, attacking a revolutionary based on his background is not productive and not political. However, calling-out a revolutionary for having half-baked ideas and politics is fair game.

I mean what&#39;s all this B.S. about Bush being a "Christian-fascist" from the RCP? Bush is a capitalist and imperialist and that&#39;s bad enough. Calling him a fascist only confuses the difference between run-of-the-mill capitalist pigs and fascists like the KKK or the minutemen.

[flyby]

Originally posted by Gravedigger@Oct 14 2005, 09:11 AM
I agree, attacking a revolutionary based on his background is not productive and not political. However, calling-out a revolutionary for having half-baked ideas and politics is fair game.

I mean what&#39;s all this B.S. about Bush being a "Christian-fascist" from the RCP? Bush is a capitalist and imperialist and that&#39;s bad enough. Calling him a fascist only confuses the difference between run-of-the-mill capitalist pigs and fascists like the KKK or the minutemen.

Well it is worth getting into this:

first: anyone serious about revolution knows that leaders aren&#39;t picked by their background -- but by their ability and line. You don&#39;t pick a doctor because he comes from the same town as you, you pick the one who can solve your medical problem.

And political leaders often come from classes trained in ideas -- and then proletarian revolutioanry leaders "betray their previous class" and COME OVER to the proletariat. This is what marx, and lenin (and also Avakian) did.

In his memoir describes how much he learned from his father (who was a left-liberal lawyer and then judge in the bay area) -- skills, methods of thinking, etc.

Then there are important questions of analysis:

Look Bush and the democrats are both agents and representatives of this system and capitalism. This is true, and important, but it is hardly the only issue.

When one force in the bourgeois politics is pushing for particular changes that will affect the future (and also potentially destablize the current status quo in some significant ways) then you have to respond to that -- deal with it, interact with it.

It is not enough to stand aside and mumble "they are all the same."

In one sense they are (in their class nature), in another sense they are not (some are in power, some have initiative, some are defining the bourgeois agenda -- and some are not).

And anyone who doesn&#39;t grasp the fascist (christian fascist, particularly) direction of things should study more deeply the analysese that are available.

I won&#39;t try to sumarize them, but just give you the link to start&#33;

One final thought: if you think the danger of fascism in the U.S. comes from the kkk (which barely exists) and not from Bush-Gonzales-Delay (and their allies in the military) then you need to think it over. The most important thing that puts the minutemen on the map (the map of reaction) is the BACKING they have from high places (including the bush types and schwartzenegger).

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

When I talk about Avakian I talk about him and the organization behind him. The RCP

which is a serious revolutonary party in the U.S.

what is so revolutionary about them. For a leftist organization they are pretty well off and with Bob Avakian background they should be doing a lot more to be labeled as revolutionary. Where are all there houses being built for the poor and homeless? Where is real organizing taking place on a level that reaches beyond the mainstream but into real street organizing. If the RCP was really revolutionary they’re asses would be here in Hartford helping out the 40%+ of the population who lives below the poverty line.

Bourgeois, in the sense that this movement is so “revolutionary” and that he talks so much but bet he has never been through most the shit real revolutionaries go through. The street struggles and witnessing poverty in action, living it, breathing it and trying to get ride of it on real life level. I don’t disagree about every leader being bourgeois but that isn’t what we need. The party for the communist isn’t a party built on reaching mainstream politics that shouldn’t be their main focus.

and then proletarian revolutioanry leaders "betray their previous class

I like that, and some of the things I don’t disagree with. Maybe I’m just trying to find something to pick at and argue with because I haven’t been in these forums in forever and I’m trying to get back in it. Maybe I don’t know Bob that much either to talk about him. Who knows, all I know is that the RCP has some nice ass shirts.

[Gura]

Originally posted by flyby+Oct 14 2005, 08:51 PM--> (flyby @ Oct 14 2005, 08:51 PM)

Gravedigger

@Oct 14 2005, 09:11 AM
I mean what&#39;s all this B.S. about Bush being a "Christian-fascist" from the RCP? Bush is a capitalist and imperialist and that&#39;s bad enough. Calling him a fascist only confuses the difference between run-of-the-mill capitalist pigs and fascists like the KKK or the minutemen.

And anyone who doesn&#39;t grasp the fascist (christian fascist, particularly) direction of things should study more deeply the analysese that are available.

One final thought: if you think the danger of fascism in the U.S. comes from the kkk (which barely exists) and not from Bush-Gonzales-Delay (and their allies in the military) then you need to think it over. [/b]

I think what Gravedigger was saying was that by identifying the current government with fascism (or Christian fascism) rather than with capitalism and imperialism, it turns people against fascism, but not against capitalism. If people identify them (or their policies) with only fascism and not with capitalism in general, it does not necessarily make them sympathetic to communism, only to what they consider to be a less "fascist" version of capitalism.

For example, both John Kerry and Bush are capitalists and imperialists, but few liberals (and moderates) would consider Kerry to be a fascist. If they are turned against what is termed "fascism", then they elect John Kerry, the capitalist, imperialist, but not "fascist" leader.

[flyby]

Originally posted by Gura+Oct 15 2005, 01:28 PM--> (Gura @ Oct 15 2005, 01:28 PM)

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:51 PM

Gravedigger

@Oct 14 2005, 09:11 AM
I mean what&#39;s all this B.S. about Bush being a "Christian-fascist" from the RCP? Bush is a capitalist and imperialist and that&#39;s bad enough. Calling him a fascist only confuses the difference between run-of-the-mill capitalist pigs and fascists like the KKK or the minutemen.

And anyone who doesn&#39;t grasp the fascist (christian fascist, particularly) direction of things should study more deeply the analysese that are available.

One final thought: if you think the danger of fascism in the U.S. comes from the kkk (which barely exists) and not from Bush-Gonzales-Delay (and their allies in the military) then you need to think it over.

I think what Gravedigger was saying was that by identifying the current government with fascism (or Christian fascism) rather than with capitalism and imperialism, it turns people against fascism, but not against capitalism. If people identify them (or their policies) with only fascism and not with capitalism in general, it does not necessarily make them sympathetic to communism, only to what they consider to be a less "fascist" version of capitalism.

For example, both John Kerry and Bush are capitalists and imperialists, but few liberals (and moderates) would consider Kerry to be a fascist. If they are turned against what is termed "fascism", then they elect John Kerry, the capitalist, imperialist, but not "fascist" leader. [/b]

some points of clarification:

The RCP does not say that fascism now exists in the u.s. It says that the clique in power is moving in that direction. That the Christian Fascists are powerful at the heights of power and are seeking to impose their agenda.

The point is not that the U.S. is fascist, but that there is a real danger of a leap to a new and very dangerous political situation in the u.s. -- which would then be hard to undo.

Now, it is important to point out, and expose, that this danger of fascism arises from the operations and dynamics of U.S. capitalism -- its global ambitions, its domestic contradictions etc.

And this is always, and systematically, done in everything the RCP writes. for a few examples look here:

The Battle for the Future will be Fought from Here Forward

But, on another level, lets get real and materialist:

You can&#39;t say, something huge is happening but it is better not to talk about it becuase it distracts from exposing capitalism as a system (as if that is the only thing we have to expose.)

If you don&#39;t think capitalism consoludated and ruled in a fascist form is far worse for the masses of people than the same system before the consolidation -- then you need to read some history. It is not JUST "the same system" -- its basic materialist foundation (in capital, wage labor, imperialism etc.) remain untouched, but the changes involved in imposing fascism would have a huge (and very negative) impact on the ability of the masses to prepare for revolution.

And (conversely) the strength, organizatoin and consciousness (the RE-polarization) that can emerge from fighting, exposing and defeating the Bush regime can have a huge positive impact on the preparations for revolutoin.

We don&#39;t invent the world from our desires. Our enemy is moving rapidly and aggressively in very very dangerous directions. We need to actually see the world as it is, act based on how things are actually developing and (on that basis) transform difficult situations into openings for revolution.

[flyby]

CBS national TV footage of Carl Dix, spokesperson of RCP, explaining the need for revolution We definitely need more stuff like this -- including right there in the mass media&#33;

[KickMcCann]

Originally posted by RebeldePorLaPAZ@Oct 15 2005, 01:32 AM
what is so revolutionary about them. For a leftist organization they are pretty well off and with Bob Avakian background they should be doing a lot more to be labeled as revolutionary. Where are all there houses being built for the poor and homeless? Where is real organizing taking place on a level that reaches beyond the mainstream but into real street organizing. If the RCP was really revolutionary they’re asses would be here in Hartford helping out the 40%+ of the population who lives below the poverty line.

I think that&#39;s exactly the point that is missing. Most leftist organisations in the U.S, like the RCP, ISO, SWP, SPUSA, and CPUSA only make political commentary on the actions of others. All they do is heckle and criticise the right, and act as cheerleaders or self-proclaimed spokespersons for those who actually take radical action.

Marx himself said: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it".

If you look relatively at what Venezuela is doing, they&#39;re not just sitting back and complaining about neo-liberalism and its destructive nature, they&#39;re developing an alternative system and economic sphere to participate in, actual physical developments.

Inside the States, or elsewhere, the leftist organisations only complain and denounce the actions of the ruling class, they sell newspapers and books and attempt protests, which really accounts to sitting on one&#39;s laurels.

They should counter the problems on their level just as venezuela is doing on the international level (turning its back on neoliberal policies and doing something else) they should develop their own economies--stop buying bookstores and start buying factories and farmland, build housing, build their own hospitals and schools, takeover some ghost-towns and make them socialistic. Take out loans if you have to, do whatever it takes, but build an alternative infastructure within the one that already exists, and if it&#39;s successful, it will outgrow the current system and pop it.
Don&#39;t just worry about political influence or developing a political party, that comes later; to borrow the line from Scarface: "when you get the money, you get the power" If socialists can develop an alternative economy in the US, and beat the capitalists at their own game by selling and making better products or employing more people, political power will be a natural result.

[enigma2517]

Leaders?

No thanks.

[flyby]

Originally posted by enigma2517@Nov 4 2005, 07:57 PM
Leaders?

No thanks.

don&#39;t take ths wrong, or personally -- but anyone who can write this has not thought very deeply about how social change actually happens.

We don&#39;t invent the world from our daydreams -- we have to transform living reality with living human beings.

I look forward to winning you over on this point.

[refuse_resist]

Here&#39;s something I would recommend about the ultra-leftist RCP...

Why does the RIM Help U.S. Imperialism Encircle the PCP?

[flyby]

Originally posted by refuse_resist@Nov 5 2005, 11:44 AM
Here&#39;s something I would recommend about the ultra-leftist RCP...

Why does the RIM Help U.S. Imperialism Encircle the PCP?

I&#39;m not going to dig into the arguments of this in any detail...

but lets just say its whole thesis and thrust is bullshit. The idea that the RCP is an enemy of the revoluton in peru is nonsense. And the suggestion that the RCP is allied with imperialism.... you must be smoking crack.