quote (Avakian):

---

As communists who understand both that it is the masses of people who have to rise up and make revolution and transform society and, on the other hand, that in order to do that the masses need leadership that makes them conscious of the need and the possibility to do this, we have a different view of leadership. We understand in a deep and scientific way why people need leadership and what kind of leadership they need. So we also look at the role of individual leaders differently than the bourgeoisie does, certainly, and also differently that others who don't have a communist viewpoint and understanding.

---

quote (Avakian):

---

We understand that there are people who, as a result of a combination of personal experiences and larger social experiences and larger events and influences in society and the world, come to embody the kind of leadership that the masses of people, and the politically advanced forces among them, need in order to make revolution.

---

quote (Avakian):

---

Now "cult of personality" is a phrase that has been used to convey a negative meaning -- the word "cult" implies a kind of religious sect -- but there is a deeper question here. And, in a certain way, it has been important to take this on directly, and at times in a provocative way. I remember, for example, being challenged by someone interviewing me -- I believe this was on a college radio station in Madison, Wisconsin -- who asked insistently: "Is there a 'cult of personality' developing around Bob Avakian?" And I replied: "I certainly hope so -- we've been working very hard to create one." This was a provocative way of getting to the real point.

---

quote (Avakian):

---

What is involved here is the role of individual leaders, especially ones who do come to represent in a concentrated way the kind of leadership people need, people who are outstanding leaders, if you want to put it simply. Many people don't have a hard time recognizing that certain people come to play outstanding roles in various other areas of life -- science, sports, the arts, and so on -- but when it comes to the sphere of political leadership, this seems to be a much more sensitive and controversial issue.

---

quote (Avakian):

---

And the deeper question is this: what is the relationship between such leaders and broader groupings of people? This question came up repeatedly, in a number of different forms, and we went into it deeply and struggled over it with broad numbers of people. We said straight-up that when you do have individuals who are of a high caliber, capable of being both far-seeing and of having a profound grasp of practical questions, able to grapple on a high level with theory and to provide guidance for the struggle, not only in a more immediate but in a more strategic sense, this is a very good thing, not a bad thing.

---

quote (Avakian):

---

This is a strength for a party. This is a strength for the revolution. This is a strength in terms of contributing to the international struggle. So this [is] not something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or defensive about, it is something to uphold and to popularize to people that we do have this kind of leadership and we do have an individual who can play this kind of a role, who is willing to take that responsibility and is able to do so.

---

quote (Avakian):

---

Especially confronted with the challenge of defending, and popularizing, our Party and its leadership, we struggled over this within the Party itself, at the same time we took this out more broadly and struggled with progressive and radical people about this question: we deepened our own grasp of this, and a number of people beyond the party at least came to a better understanding of the issues involved, and many were won to be supportive of our position.

---

quote:

---

A movement already exists that has rethought the challenge of the betrayal of the Soviet-Chinese Revisionists. It is called the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and has an expression here in...the USA, where the Revolutionary Communist Party has taken up the banner of MLM and carried it through the historic breakthroughs made by Chairman Avakian. Only through working with the sole authentic voice of the American proletariat can revolution be made in countries like the USA and the RCP is the sole party under the leadership of Chairman Avakian that is actively capable of doing it. More and more proletarians of all national formations within the American empire are coming to realize the truths of these breakthroughs and are uniting behind the RCP's leadership. I would invite...anyone...serious about making revolution in this country to get down with the RCP on the revolutionary tip and take it until revolution is happened.

---

quote (Karl Marx):

---

Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves originating from various countries to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules.

---

quote:

---

For every positive argument for open democracy in which there is a lack of centralism and leadership roles, there lies the open wound in which inefficiency and argumentative wasting of time fills in.

---

quote:

---

A true personality cult isn't just a matter of bad ideas; it involves the ability to coerce and to distribute privileges in order to reinforce the leader's indisputable authority. The individual supreme leader, and the religion-like praise of that leader, is the summit of a hierarchy of privilege and coercion. A symptom, really.

---

quote:

---

Let me suggest that what first happened in the USSR to reduce mass participation in decision-making (the soviets, etc.) was....most people got tired of going to meetings all the time.

Revolutions are exhausting. Especially with all the material sacrifices people had to make, in that particular situation. A state of high mass participation in politics is hard to sustain. It's going to ebb...and one hopes, rise again. But not remain at one constant level, certainly.

---

quote:

---

But, I have to say, you raise a point that has been a painful one for me to wrangle over recently, and maybe you can shed some light (or maybe I can): "This is leading followers of Avakian to work in a different way now".

Well, my question is: Is it really? I mean, some of us have written about a hundred things to the RCP, and never heard back on any of them, and that is with 90 of them being written while we were working closely with the Party (and including in important positions of public representation). If this had really changed, if the RCP really had decided it was doing anything different, wouldn't it have some sort of something to say to people? I mean, how do you ignore so many people for so long and then say that everything is cool now without going and talking to anyone who has worked so closely with you for so long and being told to "obey, don't worry about anything but your immediate work" for so fucking long? I mean, ok, maybe this whole new thing constitutes a big public self-criticism. But maybe it doesn't. After all, some of us thought the homosexuality criticism was a big deal, but a lot of older comrades didn't take it very seriously.

For example, there was a comrade that I personally really respected who finally left (after 20+ years of her life) after the homosexuality criticism got spun by a bunch of older comrades as "we weren't mainly the ones in the wrong in this" when the line on that changed. And I wonder, maybe you and the other idealistic young comrades are being taken on a ride on this whole thing. Because wouldn't the first indication of a real change in line on the part of the RCP on this question of listening to people be that those who have been saying for so many years that the RCP needs to be more open-minded, or that worked so hard to push different positions (conceived within the framework of MLM), would be approached by the RCP in some way?

But it doesn't seem like anything like that is happening. So, while I applaud your open-mindedness, your poetry, and your clear willingness to learn the best of what Avakian has to offer, I have some serious skepticism about where the RCP is going with all this. I always heard stories about what a good listener Avakian is, as far back as NDP1, but that never seemed to matter in practice to his close followers that constituted my leadership.

But I give you mad props for giving me a longer response to something I wrote than my leadership ever did, even during the years I was devoting 100+ hours a week to the Party. And, once again, I apologize for putting such a long ass thing on your blog, as if it were a discussion site or something (although, if you look at RCP supporter behavior on sites like 2ctw or awip, it is anything but tolerant of dissent). But, it's Christmas, and I fucking hate this holiday, and you probably understand that since you're from such a cold part of the country.

---

quote:

---

How would the RCP go back to people who have been driven out over the years (I'm sorry, I think the correct way to phrase it is "fallen by the wayside" or "gone the other way" or "left behind at a turn in the road of the struggle")? Well, that would have a lot to do with the various particulars. But, let's take the example of my friend who worked with the Party for 25 years or so and left when local leaders decided not to uphold the new line on homosexuality. I mean, she was shut down and stifled in a bad way. So now, if the RCP is really serious about listening to people, wouldn't someone like that be the sort of person that basic human decency (which I guess isn't a very scientific Marxist term) would require them to go and talk to, to say "we fucked up"? Not so that they have to pay or apologize or anything just for the sake of apology, but can't one sort of measure how thorough a self-criticism or change of policy is by what people do to rectify their past errors? I mean, if you say, we've changed, now we're different, how can people measure that except if you go back and try and show how you've changed? Why should anyone take that seriously if you don't try and rectify mistakes? Anyways, some people like me run off at the mouth like I am now, so we're probably too much of a security risk to come and talk to, but people like my friend should be talked to.

I mean, to be subjective again for a minute (this is a blog, right, so a certain amount of subjectivity and chattiness is expected, right?), I can't express how galling it is to see this stuff from Bill Martin on how intellectuals need time and particular conditions to actually do intellectual work being used and upheld as "the line of the RCP". I mean, I was showing people that passage from his Politics in the Impasse book 3 years ago and I got branded a "bourgeois intellectual" by my leadership for it. And now people are just supposed to accept that this is the line of the RCP?

I mean, it would be personally satisfying to get an apology, but that isn't the point (at least, if I try and think in really broad terms, which can be a challenge sometimes on some of this painful stuff). The point is that to practically implement a new and better line, some element of going back and saying "look, we fucked up" is going to be necessary. Otherwise you'll have a situation like we had here on the homosexuality question, with a lot of people insisting that while the previous line was incorrect, it was "more correct than those who were criticizing us" which in practice leads pretty quickly to "our shit doesn't smell" and "we know everything and don't need to listen to others". Which of course leads us back to a big part of that epistemology talk and what Avakian is trying to rectify, right?

Sorry to give you such a long reply. I hope it's not too repetitive.

---

quote:

---

In the projects down the street two men greet the neighbor who got them their [Bob Avakian] DVD samplers by putting their fists to their hearts and shouting out, "B.A.!"

---