| Theory |
|
Once More Against "Leadership" July 20, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
The word "leadership" has to be in quotation marks, of course.
The belief that a proletarian revolution "cannot succeed" in the absence of some form of institutionalized leadership is another remnant of 20th century Leninism that is still wide-spread...and thus needs continuing criticism.
There are still some folks with a nagging itch to be "the next Lenin"...even though we all should know the consequences of that "vaulting ambition".
Some are slower learners than others, of course.
===========================================
quote:
Again what empirical information are you using to make any of your claims? Why should anyone believe you've made a serious study of these issues if you can't support them with anything more than "common sense". The basis of a fair amount of your criticisms is a version of the statement "everyone knows..."
Are you suggesting that I (unlike anyone else on this board) am expected to document everything I say in scholarly detail or else...every point I make will be dismissed as "unsubstantiated"?
Am I supposed to spend weeks or even months on a single post lest I be charged with "betraying empiricism"?
How come I have to do this and Avakian doesn't?
Or anyone else on this board?
Yes, a good deal of what I have to say is indeed of the "everyone knows" category; and it's often been the case that what "everyone knows" ain't so.
But, if applied uniformly, your pedantry would bring all discussion to a complete halt. Only those with the time, energy, and resources to exhaustively investigate an issue would be permitted to speak.
I suggest that this is a logical extension of your view that "only experts can make revolution"...the rest of us should indeed "shut up and follow".
No.
quote:
I would also like to point out that in the context of the question of Avakian's leadership NO ONE has suggested that Avakian is "super-human". And no one is asking for "faith in a great leader". We're saying you don't need faith because it is materially evident. This is not about "oh Avakian's great because I say so, so just shut up and follow". This is about looking at what he has accomplished, what his line is, and what effect he can have on building and directing revolution in the future. And this is about realizing that we can know all these things with regards to Avakian's leadership, if we investigate. I personally believe that he is a leader of the caliber of Lenin. There are many more questions about this that I want to look into, but right now that is my judgment. Unlike Redstar and others who cynically throw around slurs about leadership in general and especially Avakian's leadership without ever investigating the actual reality of it, I have attempted to look deeply into this question by seeing what he has to say and finding out what he has done.
Ok, you've "made a judgment". Fair enough...we all do that. You think Avakian is the Lenin "of our era". You base that on what he has said and what he has accomplished.
My judgment is different. Even if all your claims about Avakian were justified, my contention is that Lenin-figures have not only become superfluous in the advanced capitalist countries but actually (in the unlikely event they were successful) constitute an obstacle to proletarian revolution.
Why? Simply because leaders (consciously or otherwise) generate passivity among the (potentially) revolutionary masses. If a person thinks that someone is going to do something "for" them, the logical consequence of that belief is to sit back (in that infamous armchair) and let them go ahead and do it. Why exert yourself if someone else is going to "take care" of the problem?
From that passivity it naturally follows that the leader-figure, sooner or later, gets "the big head", starts issuing orders, becomes corrupt, etc.
Sure, this is something that "everybody knows"...but that don't mean it ain't so.
The whole history of 20th century "fake communism" (to use Avakian's term) shows that it is so.
It's not an experiment worthy of replication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on July 15, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I think the truth is "counterintuitive" -- or as we marxists would say "contradictory."
To abolish the state, we need to create a socialist state.
To abolish war, we have to make revolutionary war.
And to develop an egalitarian society, where the divisions of mental and manual have disappeared, we need to follow leaders who can unleash, organize and lead the masses of people.
There are, of course, true statements that are counter-intuitive. The earth is an oblate spheroid...it's not flat even though from the surface it "looks flat".
One of your statements certainly falls into the category of true statements that are counter-intuitive; "to abolish war, we have to make revolutionary war".
Even here, though, caution is in order. Revolutionary "war" -- that is, proletarian revolution -- is not "like" a war between nation-states or even a protracted peasant war against imperialism and its domestic lackeys. When the working class rises, it does not fight "like" an army.
One may argue that it "should" or "could"...but I think that's a wrong opinion and leads in a very bad direction.
What of the other two assertions?
I think they're just flat out wrong, period.
In practice, the 20th century "socialist states" were despotisms...harsh or benevolent, but despotisms beyond any reasonable doubt.
I cannot see any plausible way that one could expect the road to communism to lead through a despotic regime...no matter how "benevolent".
Despotism is the antithesis of communism.
It's an age-old illusion of class society that if only one could find a way to select "wise and benevolent" despots, then the world would be "a happy place" and life would be "good" for all.
It's never happened; it never will!
As to "following leaders" who will "unleash the masses", changing leashes is not a suitable solution to the problem of being leashed.
The way to become "unleashed" is to remove the leash yourself. If you wish to remain unleashed, then you must refuse to put on any leashes at all.
There is no way to convert servitude to freedom except in words. That's what Hegel did. That's what you are trying to do.
If your coffee was cold and you wanted to heat it up, would you accept someone's advice to "put it in the freezer"?
Then why would you want to follow a new despot simply because he promises that his despotism will be "temporary" and ultimately "lead to freedom"?
After all, I can promise to "make you rich"...the first step is that you must give me all of your money.
Good idea?
quote:
However much it may drive liberals, social democrats, and bourgeois democrats generally up a wall, there is also a dialectical relation--unity as well as opposition--between cult(s) of the individual around leading people and on the other hand ease of mind and liveliness, initiative, and creative, critical thinking among party members and the masses following the party. -- Bob Avakian
The opening phrase about "liberals, social democrats, and bourgeois democrats" is verbal slight-of-hand...it's really saying that if you don't want to be thought one of those "bad groups", you will swallow what Avakian says without criticism.
The remainder is an assertion that there can be "good" personality cults...and not only can be but must be.
The "dialectical magic wand" is waved and submission to the "good despot" is not only desirable but required.
quote:
In the future communist society, this need for firmly established revolutionary authority as an `anchor' will no longer exist and would run counter to developing the critical spirit and critical thinking; it too will have to be abolished as an important part of the advance to communism. But to demand its abolition now runs counter to that advance, and to unleashing and developing that critical spirit and critical thinking. -- Bob Avakian
--emphasis added
Note carefully that phrase: "firmly established revolutionary authority". He's not talking about the masses or even the party in this context; he's talking about the leader.
He's talking about himself!
quote:
This, of course, is a very controversial statement. And it does, in addition, speak to a very acute contradiction, which is bound up with the larger contradiction of leadership and led to which I spoke earlier. This statement...puts it right: there is unity and opposition here--between, on the one hand, authority invested or embodied in certain individuals and, on the other hand, ease of mind and liveliness, individual initiative and creativity and critical thinking among party members and the masses broadly--there is this unity and opposition, and it is very important to handle this correctly, precisely in order to advance toward the strategic goal of abolishing any need for such personal authority, along with the abolition of the need, or possibility, for any one group within society to institutionalize its leadership and authority.
The magic wand of "dialectics" is waving frantically...but all that remains in the end is a promise to handle this contradiction "correctly".
Why should you believe that?
quote:
There are two kinds of cult of the individual. One is correct, such as that of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the correct side of Stalin. These we ought to revere and continue to revere forever. It would not do not to revere them. As they held truth in their hands, why should we not revere them? -- Mao
revere, verb, 1. regard with feelings of respect and reverence; consider hallowed or exalted or be in awe of, 2. love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol.
I think Mao's attitude has a lot more in common with Confucian traditions than with communism.
I don't "revere" anyone...and I don't think anyone should.
(Note that it's possible that the Chinese word that was translated as "revere" might have been entirely different.)
quote:
The question at issue is not whether or not there should be a cult of the individual, but rather whether or not the individual concerned represents the truth. -- Mao
Here there is no possible mistake. Mao is in favor of personality cults provided that the individual has "earned it", is a "good despot", and "represents the truth".
"Qualifications" that all despots and wannabe despots universally claim for themselves.
quote:
Some people opposed Lenin saying that he was a dictator. Lenin's reply was straightforward: "Better that I should be a dictator than you!" -- Mao
Sounds plausible. It's nothing that any honest despot wouldn't say.
But...is that what you want?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on July 16, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The heavy artillary" has been rolled out...a 1995 statement by the RCP's Central Committee entitled Some Points On the Question of Revolutionary Leadership and Individual Leaders. All the quotes are from this document.
I agree that those who are attracted to the Maoist variant of the Leninist paradigm should indeed study it closely and carefully consider its implications.
They are not very good ones.
One of the striking features of this document is the total absence of the working class.
The phrase never appears! (There is a brief reference to "the methodology of the international proletariat".)
Instead, a new phrase is introduced: "basic people" or "basic masses".
The context suggests that this refers to the people at the "base" of the "social pyramid"...minimum wage service workers, casual laborers, people on welfare and disability, those who have retired without a private pension, the long-term unemployed who have "dropped out" of the work force, etc.
Presumably this formula reflects a strategic orientation of the RCP...the "revolutionary class" in the "west" will be "basic people".
Granted that it's an innovative "take" on revolutionary class struggle in the "west", is it justified?
quote:
Most people who are serious about making revolution recognize the need for some structure, organization and leadership in order to guide, coordinate and systematically unfold the revolutionary work, and in order to ultimately seize power and begin building a whole new kind of society.
In the 20th century, that was a truism. Is that still the case? Phrases like "guide", "coordinate", etc. have very different practical meanings to different elements engaged in resistance to capitalism. No one is "against" structure and organization in the abstract, but the kind of structure and organization required is obviously the subject of much dispute.
The concept of "leadership" is a particularly contentious "can of worms"...and undoubtedly the principle reason that this document was written in the first place.
quote:
Basic people in particular, because they are often only too familiar with the repressive hand of the enemy, are often quick to point out that the power of the authorities cannot be seriously challenged and defeated without tight organization and clear lines of leadership.
This is a slightly updated version of the old Leninist myth. It used to go something like: "The workers appreciate discipline and strong leaders...it's the lesson of factory existence. Without it, chaos ensues and nothing productive is accomplished."
There's a good deal of historical evidence that real, living workers have always despised "factory discipline"...and have exercised enormous creativity in evading it as much as possible.
Whatever the elements that constitute "basic people" might be, I see no reason why they should "appreciate" discipline any more than workers ever have.
quote:
And yet there is also among the basic masses--particularly, though not only, in a country like the U.S.--a significant amount of cynicism about revolutionary leaders: the view that leaders will "sell out", or that even if they don't sell out they will be taken from the masses by the enemy and there's just not much that you can do about it.
Can these views of the "basic masses" be fairly dismissed as "cynicism"?
A few "revolutionary leaders" have been assassinated or imprisoned indefinitely. But the list of "sell-outs" is simply enormous. Naturally, I'm not referring to anything as crude as "the bribe direct" (although that's happened)...but those who perhaps were sincerely revolutionary in their youth finding a "comfortable niche" in class society and "justifying" that in "revolutionary" terms.
Having seen this or read about this throughout the 20th century "communist" movement, are the "basic masses" being "cynical"...or realistic?
quote:
It is usually the people from the middle strata, and especially the intellectual types, who have the most "questions" about whether or not it's even "right" to have, and to promote, individual leaders in a communist revolutionary movement.
Yeah, those "intellectual types"...always with their noses stuck in some "damned thick book".
In Lenin's time, when this myth originated, working class intellectuals were indeed a rare phenomenon...they had to educate themselves since their families could rarely afford schooling for them.
In the present era of free public education, community colleges, scholarships, etc., there are actually quite a few working-class intellectuals and I expect, with the spread of the internet, that their numbers will continue to increase.
Traditionally, working class culture has had the image of being "anti-intellectual"...reflecting class hostility towards what was once a largely unattainable privilege.
I think that has changed dramatically over the last 50 years; today's worker respects knowledge and is contemptuous of ignorance.
Of course, intellectuals (regardless of their class origins) tend to be "trouble-makers"...they ask embarrassing questions, are less likely to exercise appropriate deference to their "superiors", etc. They tend to make "poor followers"...and the RCP document recognizes that problem.
quote:
But it is a fact of material reality that humanity has not yet reached a stage where it can afford to dispense with a formalized division of labor and leadership structures and hierarchies. The question should be: what is the nature of these structures and whose interests do these structures serve.
This is, of course, a self-serving assertion.
Suppose we made the opposite assumption: humanity has reached a stage where it can afford to dispense with "leadership structures and hierarchies".
If the RCP were to say that, then its "leadership" ambitions would be moot.
They assert that hierarchy is "necessary" because they want to be the hierarchs.
Should we agree to that?
quote:
But as soon as the objectives broaden in scope beyond one's backyard to encompass and take responsibility for trying to make fundamental and comprehensive social changes--and certainly to achieve a revolutionary transformation of the whole way society is organized, and on a world scale--then the need for more formalized division of labor, structure and leadership becomes obvious.
Well, no, it doesn't become "obvious". It's just a hypothesis...and one that has a dismal result in practice.
quote:
But if all this is true, then the fact that certain individual revolutionaries emerge as a concentration of this process, and themselves become a concentrated expression of the best qualities of revolutionary leadership--including a selfless dedication to the revolutionary cause and deep love of the masses, as well as a strong grasp of the scientific methodology needed to unleash the masses and chart the path of revolution in line with their objective interests--then the existence of such an individual leader or leaders is not something to lament but something to welcome and celebrate! It is part of the people's strength.
Ok, here's the RCP's definition of a leader...
1. Selfless dedication to the revolutionary cause.
2. Deep love of the masses.
3. A strong grasp of the scientific methodology needed to unleash the masses and chart the path of revolution in line with their objective interests.
You see the difficulty? There's no way to objectively determine the existence or magnitude of those splendid characteristics. Anyone can claim to possess them in abundance...just as anyone can claim to be "a prophet sent by God".
All we can really do is look at the "revolutionary party" and see "how it's doing". If it's doing really well, then maybe there's something to the claims. But as we know, when Leninist parties do poorly, the leadership either blames "objective conditions" or even directly attacks the membership for "indiscipline".
Whatever happens, it's "never" the leadership's fault.
quote:
Ironically, those middle forces who have the most qualms about "accepting" revolutionary leadership often fail to see the extent to which they are already being "led" in every sphere of life and society by the very functioning of the underlying dynamics of the system and the prevailing oppressive and repressive powers and institutions!
A true statement.
quote:
They need to recognize that the only real alternative to that is to choose to be guided by a radically different form of leadership, with radically different objectives, and to learn to become this kind of leader themselves.
An untrue statement. It's not "the only real alternative".
quote:
Such people also usually fail to think through sufficiently the practical implications of the fact that there is uneven development in all processes and things, including people.
"Uneven development" is not a "blank check".
There's no doubt that even in the midst of proletarian revolution -- involving the creative power of millions and tens of millions of workers -- there will still be millions of "backward workers" imprisoned within bourgeois ideological hegemony, superstitions, racism, sexism, etc.
Can the revolutionary workers overcome the backward workers, even in the absence of "Leninist leadership" and "formal hierarchies"?
I don't see why not.
quote:
In regard to this it is important to recall a point that has been repeatedly stressed by Comrade Avakian: where leadership is genuinely revolutionary leadership, the more it plays its leadership role correctly, in accordance with MLM principles, the greater will be the conscious initiative of the masses.
That's nice. Unfortunately, it's another case of waving that magical dialectical wand. Somehow, what is supposed to happen is that a "tight organization" with "clear lines of leadership" is supposed to inspire the "conscious initiative of the masses".
In "dialectics", it's "easy" to engage in these kinds of verbal "transformations".
They never happen in the real world.
quote:
Each revolutionary leader is a complex mix of personal life experiences and broader social experience, particularly in the revolutionary movement, and revolutionary leaders can be of any race, nationality, either gender, and come from many different backgrounds.
In the "west", it's white males...almost always.
quote:
The basic masses usually know, from deep life experience, that the concentrated power of the enemy cannot be seriously challenged with just "good ideas" and "good intentions" and a vague "general consensus" of the revolutionary ranks. It takes real tight organization and real political, ideological and organizational leadership to bring forth, to guide and to wield the newly emerging power and combativity of the people.
The RCP repeats itself. It doesn't get any more truthful simply because it's repeated.
quote:
So the revolutionary masses recognize the need for leaders.
Not even when it's repeated twice!
quote:
But that's not enough. Real revolutionary leaders are brought forth, developed, nourished and sustained by the revolutionary people, and the revolutionary people must more fully understand that connection themselves. Revolutionary leaders are in a real sense the flower and fruit of the revolutionary people, who are themselves the roots and shoots of the revolution.
Biological metaphors are rarely useful outside of biology.
This statement, for example, has all the substance of some 19th century romanticist poetry.
The semantic content is zero.
quote:
And without genuine revolutionary leaders to chart the course through the minefields, the people will not find the way to make real revolutionary breakthroughs when these are possible. Without revolutionary leadership the people's resistance will be crushed over and over again and will not succeed in "getting over to the other side."
This is the Leninist conceit; "without us running the show, you're all doomed to fail."
Up to now, of course, whenever the Leninists were "running the show", we all got crushed anyway.
That hardly inspires confidence in the Leninist conceit.
quote:
Individual leaders are not gods or superhumans. They have their individual failings like anyone else, and they will make mistakes even when they are overall doing a good job of leading the revolution.
However, it must be noted that if history is any guide, you had best avoid drawing any attention to those mistakes...unless you have first taken the precaution of putting many thousands of miles between you and the leader you propose to criticize.
quote:
The loss of a true revolutionary leader--and all the more so if this is an individual who plays a key and critical leadership role--is like having a heart ripped out of our collective chest.
Only if you are afflicted with the delusion that the leader "is" (in some metaphysical sense) "the movement". If you are emotionally wrapped-up in a "great leader", then his loss or betrayal is devastating...it often leads directly to your total capitulation to the class enemy. The example of the ex-Stalinists (1936-1956) is very instructive in this regard.
quote:
To respect, protect and defend such revolutionary leaders is to respect, protect and defend the people themselves.
So if you criticize the leader, guess who that makes you an "enemy" of?
quote:
But vis a vis the enemy we close our ranks tightly, and present them with a strong and unfissured wall of unity and allegiance to leadership.
There are two things wrong with this "model" of a revolutionary organization.
The first is that it completely excludes the masses from any knowledge of what "really goes on" inside the revolutionary organization.
That "wall of unity and allegiance to leadership" is just as impenetrable to the masses as it is to the enemy. More so, in fact, for the enemy has agents and infiltrators...the masses know only what is public "knowledge" -- the "leader" is officially "infallable" and "above criticism".
And behind the "wall"? Does anyone imagine that there can be real debate and controversy in a such an "ideological bunker"? How "honest" and "straightforward" can a "leader" be with his followers when he has to expect that at least a few of them are "enemy agents"?
The membership will be aroused only during a bitter dispute between the leaders themselves...one that inevitably leads to a split and at least a partial disclosure of what's going on to the masses themselves.
quote:
How do we really know that Comrade Avakian, the Chair of our Central Committee, is a great revolutionary leader? This is a fair question and one which we should be bold and forthright in answering.
Their response is certainly "bold" (if not brazen)...but forthrightness is conspicuous by its absence.
All we are told is vague and hazy. He's been "tested and proven at a number of key junctures...". "There have been a number of times--again critical junctures in the development of the revolutionary road in the U.S. and internationally--when Comrade Avakian has stood out in his ability to wield the methodology of MLM...". "On a number of other occasions Comrade Avakian has been able to steer the revolutionary forces away from potentially deadly mines...". "Nobody does this better than Comrade Avakian."
If you say so...whatever "this" actually is. From this document, there's simply no way to tell.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on July 16, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================ |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| My experience and observation has been that they [the superstitious] nearly always choose "Heaven" and end up on the wrong side of the barricades.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
