| Theory |
|
St. Avakian's First Church of Mao January 12, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
By and large, we have been fortunate at Che-Lives. Only rarely are we visited by missionaries from Leninist sects seeking to rescue us from our "sinful" paths and set us on the road to "redemption".
But it does happen on occasion...with this result.
=========================================
quote:
In recent months I've had occasion to return to What Is To Be Done? and--coupled with study and reflection on some other points as well, including the campaign to promote and popularize our Chair[man] -- it's led me to a renewed appreciation for the almost gravitational pull of spontaneity...
Emphasis added...as it must be, of course.
Why does this group need "a campaign to promote and popularize" Bob Avakian?
quote:
I think one earmark of our Chairman's approach has never been to rest content with what we've accomplished.
And do they "mark your ears"! Because Leninist parties are voluntarist, you can "never do enough" to "make revolution"...even if you give up eating, sleeping, etc. and work 24/7/365 for the party.
If you positively "flourish" under a regime of constant nagging, here is a "church" for you.
quote:
Anyway, we were discussing one or another of the Chairman's talks from the early '90s and she remarked that whenever she reads one of the Chair's talks, she feels as if she's being invited in to grapple with and contribute to helping solve and answer the problems and questions that he's raising.
As opposed, of course, to actually being "invited in". She's fully aware that Chairman Bob is not going to telephone her in the next few days and anxiously inquire into her crucial opinions.
But, what's the harm? Everyone could use a little fantasy in life, right?
quote:
I do think that the Chair has further extended the philosophical contributions of Mao in particular into something of a higher synthesis.
I think the author is looking for a job. That line reads like something out of Dilbert.
quote:
This is really good stuff--and really something new!
It's re-warmed Leninism...and it tastes like just what you think.
quote:
If you have a half-formed insight, a question, a disagreement--if you are thinking out loud and trying out a new idea--the Chairman will listen with a fully open ear and then he'll challenge you to develop that insight, question, thought, or disagreement as much as you can; he'll prod you to draw out the further implications as fully as you can, he'll encourage you to take the time (and the responsibility) to think it through as rigorously as possible.
And if he likes it, he'll claim it for his own. That's what really successful bosses do.
quote:
Another point on approach: the Chairman is what I would call a comprehensive and far-reaching thinker--a mix of being wide-ranging and all-embracing and at the same time very open to the new and unexpected. There's an approach of ranging widely and making connections (connections that sometimes seem unlikely at first glance)--of being very lofty and very grounded in the real deal, simultaneously--and of doing all that in the service of confronting the hardest problems.
In his spare time, he should compile a Lexicon of Shameless Flattery...he must hear plenty of it if this piece is any example.
Well, there's more...go check out the whole piece if you want to see it. It basically makes no real political points at all...just fuzzy platitudes.
I sort of feel sorry for the guy that wrote it; can you imagine the "demons" that must haunt his poor brain that he felt "compelled" to churn out this exercise in naked servility?
Can you imagine, for that matter, how Marx and Engels would have responded to such grotesque self-abasement? Are you fluent in 19th century German profanity?
----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 6, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
He is the leader and the greatest intellect in the movement.
How can you write something like that without choking?
He has actually posted two good articles on this board from the RCP--neither of which were written by Avakian and either of which probably contain more sensible statements that all of Avakian's Maoist babble combined.
Greatest intellect? Poo!
And "he is the leader"? Yeah, "salute him", as the Italian fascists used to say whenever Mussolini entered the room.
quote:
Increase in his popularity increases the popularity of the movement.
Why not just change the name then? Who needs "revolutionary communism" when you can join the Bob Avakian Fan Club?
quote:
Everyone excels by being monitored and pushed so that they can achieve their best. This is the case in education and work.
Did you know that in the old South (U.S.), there were actual "instruction manuals" published on how to productively manage slave labor? They believed in "monitoring" and "pushing" too...not to mention an occasional touch of the whip.
quote:
People need external input from those more experienced and educated than them.
And so, "by Mao", they're going to get it whether they want it or not. (!)
quote:
It is a positive thing for oneself to praise others for their achievements and skills. This piece will benefit the whole movement and aid others in improving themselves under Avakian's education and guidance.
Good grief!!!
quote:
Redstar2000, I think you reject outright any kind of authority because perhaps you feel it diminishes your own creativity and independence as an individual person (and the same for all individuals). Is this right?
This is not "any kind" of authority. It is a grotesque "personality cult" and utterly repugnant to anyone with even the most minimal commitment to communism!
The very fact that Avakian would tolerate or, for all we know, initiate this kind "idol worship" conclusively demonstrates that he is not any kind of "communist" whatsoever!
He's running a church; that is, a racket.
As to the remainder of your question, I do not acknowledge any kind of abstract "virtue" in "authority" as such. To me, it is always a matter of "authority over who?" and "authority to do what?".
Your conception of authority as being somehow "good" and "needed" in and of itself is completely unMarxist and a-historical.
Communists always insist on knowing the details.
----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 7, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Redstar2000, could you possibly think about breaking down your actual disagreements with the Chairman and the article...?
I thought I made myself pretty clear, but let me spell it out: I am opposed to leader-worship as a matter of communist principle! No fucking exceptions!
Therefore, it does not matter to me what "the Chairman" says about anything. The willing participation in an admitted campaign to popularize himself puts him on the same level as any other sleazy bourgeois political hack.
quote:
There is nothing wrong with supporting a leader, in my opinion. Your attempts at insult by calling it a 'cult of personality' fall flat, and echo a long standing bourgeois attack on all revolutionary thinkers and leaders from Marx onward.
Horseshit! The reason the bourgeoisie attack "revolutionary leaders" is that they are competing for market-share. The bourgeoisie love personality cults and always have. Who put Hitler in power, for crying out loud?!
Nothing "wrong" with "supporting a leader"? How about "nothing wrong" with a self-inflicted pre-frontal lobotomy?!
(And the implication that Marx or Engels would have tolerated this kind of crap is as gross an insult to them as anything the bourgeoisie ever said about them.)
quote:
The point is that Communists see the need for both collectivity and leadership.
Oh? Perhaps in the dusty halls of the Lenin Wax Museum...not in the real world and certainly not in the way you're using the word leadership--an iconic father-figure who will "take care of us".
quote:
And the RCP is very fortunate to have someone as sharp, deep, and insightful as Bob- cuz without a revolutionary leadership, you ain't gonna have a revolutionary movement!
Sharp? Deep? Insightful? How is recycling Leninist-Maoist platitudes in an advanced capitalist country evidence of any of those "sterling qualities"?
You just did it yourself, by the way. "...Without a revolutionary leadership, you ain't gonna have a revolutionary movement."
Who "led" the great February 1917 revolution in Russia? Who "led" the French General Strike of 1968? Who "led" the workers of Barcelona when they defeated the fascists in 1936? Who "led" the Paris Commune?
quote:
Listen to what the man has to say about the world and how to change it. And I don't mean just an article. Read some of his writings or listen to the CD interview- that is powerful stuff. And it is direly needed in this world today.
Here are "the Chairman's" own words...
quote:
The point is that in class society and with the division of labor (or significant remnants of the division of labor) characteristic of class-divided society, it is the case that certain individuals come to "represent the truth" in a concentrated way (as others do the false). This, of course, is not a "once-and-for-all, lifetime-guaranteed" thing - and there is always the danger that building up such people could turn into a very bad thing if they no longer did "represent the truth" after a certain point. But even if there remains the real possibility that the individual may thus change, there will also remain the need for building up others who do continue to stand for the truth in a concentrated way. In any case such people play their role as leaders of a class...and thus there is, as Mao described it, the combination of the role of the individual (in particular in this context the individual leader) and collective leadership.
This is gross metaphysical idealism and, inspite of some terminological similarities, has as much in common with Marxism as the works of Plato!
Look at that "reasoning"! As a consequence of the division of labor (???), "certain individuals" "come"(???) to "represent" the "truth"(???).
Division of labor certainly exists. How it goes about concentrating "truth" in some individuals and "lies" in others...well, "it just does that, we don't know how". (!)
And, suggestively, he adds that what division of labor "giveth" it can also "taketh away". The "representation of truth" (the Chinese called it "the mandate of Heaven"!) can pass (by some unspecified mechanism) from one individual to another, even while the initial individual is still alive.
Dammit, this is not Marxism, it's fucking theology! And, like all theologies, it is at root a rhetorical cover for the desire to either maintain an existing ruling class or create a new one.
quote:
...people will give greater weight to the ideas of people who have proven themselves to be great and capable leaders in any movement or institution.
Oh, and how have they "proven" themselves to be "great and capable"? By initiating campaigns to "popularize" themselves? By saying, over and over again, "I am both great and capable" until people think it must be "true"?! By surrounding themselves with a coterie of sycophants who will repeat that message to anyone who will listen?
I quite agree that in class society most people have been thoroughly conditioned to look up to "leaders", to defer to their majestic opinions, to celebrate their brilliant ideas, etc.
It is the task of revolutionaries to smash that crap...not try to "use it" to "build ourselves up".
quote:
Another thought that I've heard from some people: We SHOULD have pictures of our leaders, but not as a means of worship. A lot of people largely look at these pictures of revolutionary theorists, leaders, etc., not from some metaphysical way, not a praising way, but in these people they see their revolutionary potential, they see a role model and they see themselves. This is what I want to see, and I want to see more of it. Why is this so "bad"?
Because it is worship, regardless of any verbal gymnastics you use to disguise it.
If you want to be a Marxist, to learn to look at social reality the way he did, a picture of the old buzzard won't help! You actually have to read and study his work, his methods, the criticisms that were made of him and how he responded, etc.
The same thing is true of any human being who has ever lived. If you have the (unfortunate) desire to be the "next Lenin" or the "next Stalin" or the "next Mao", you actually have to study what they wrote and did. Pictures on the wall are irrelevant.
Except, of course, for those who are simply replacing old icons (Jesus, Mary, etc.) with new ones. "Hail the Chairman, full of grace, the truth is with thee, blessed art thou amongst leaders..."
----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 7, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I don't know where it said that Bob Avakian was necessarily part of the campaign to popularize him.
Quite true; the article said this...
quote:
...including the campaign to promote and popularize our Chair [Avakian]...
Now, do you wish to seriously suggest that Avakian does not approve? Thinks it's a horrible idea? Is exerting every ounce of his strength to put a stop to it? Has threatened to sue anyone who publishes an iconic photograph of him?
While you're at it, do you wish to seriously suggest that there really "is" a Santa Claus?
quote:
This kind of thinking smacks of dogmatism, in my opinion.
It is dogmatic. When I say that I am opposed to "leader worship" as a matter of communist principle, I am asserting a dogma...a matter over which no compromise is possible.
quote:
I think that Marx and Engels recognized the need for leaders within a movement...
Indeed they did, as does any sensible person. They did not recognize the "need" for leader worship. Had you presented them with a proposal to "promote and popularize" them as individuals, they would have had you bodily thrown from their chambers.
As would any real communist.
quote:
Mao makes the statement that people should follow whoever has the truth in their hands.
No! No! No! People should not follow. People should examine that "truth" and if it is indeed "true" then they must appropriate it.
I agree that there is objective truth and that it is knowable. I agree that in the beginning only a small minority know it.
What does that minority do with it?
The Leninist says to the working class: "We have the truth; follow us to victory."
The real communist says "Here is the truth, see it for yourselves, handle it, taste it, grasp it and make it your own...and victory will be yours."
That is a hell of a difference.
quote:
On the one hand, there is a legitimate and real basis for why certain people's ideas and thinking and arguments are given more weight than others...
Yes, self-promotion campaigns being far from the least of the factors involved.
But, much more important than that is the fact that the working masses have been taught to despise their own capabilities; they have been conditioned for their entire lives to "defer to expert authority".
What all the variants of Leninism (including Avakian's) propose is a project to convince the working masses to "switch alligience"...to defer to new so-called "revolutionary experts" and abandon their deference to the old ruling class "experts".
Like switching from Coke© to Pepsi©. (!)
Instead of "President Bush knows what he's doing", you propose (with Avakian's blessing) to substitute "The Chairman knows what he's doing".
Only real communists and the "class-struggle" anarchists tell the working class to "take matters into your own hands...you can do it yourselves."
Or, as "the old buzzard" said: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
quote:
If those leaders represent something entirely different from class society... and represent liberation from exploitation, oppression, and class division... then why not build them up, spread their ideas, uphold their positive contributions (while discarding their negative ones)?
First of all, your premise is extremely dubious. 20th century Leninism did not represent something "entirely different from class society", etc. In practice, the Leninist parties in power created state-monopoly capitalist despotisms which, in the due course of time, devolved into ordinary monopoly capitalism.
Secondly, what is the purpose of "building them up"? Have I conveyed to someone anything useful by telling them that "Marx was one of the greatest thinkers of his era."? If I were to "summarize" his "accomplishments", would anyone learn how to do Marxism from my summary?
Marx's writings are extant and available for free on the internet. Anyone who wants to know what he did can go and look for themselves.
Marx doesn't need "building up".
On the other hand, those possessed of vaulting ambition to be "the next Mao" need all the help they can get. Large poster photos, t-shirts, coffee-mugs, place-mats, action figures (I hope you're making notes here), etc. I note that Avakian already has a CD out...how about a music video? (!)
quote:
...I put up pictures of my family, of my friends, of my pets, of my favorite bands and celebrities, etc. all over my house. Is that idolatry? Is that "worshiping" them? I don't think so.
Perhaps not. Family, friends, pets and even bands and celebrities are not, in most cases, seekers of state power over the working class.
"The Chairman" wants a lot more from you than a can of cat food or a ticket to another movie.
quote:
Like I asked before, can you, redstar2000, write anything in a non-hostile, non-insulting, non-condescending manner? Or do you feel some strange need to inflate your posts with mudslinging and sectarian, snide, smart-allecky remarks?
You had no complaints about my posts when I praised two articles from the RCP that you posted.
But the answer to your question--do I feel "some strange need" to be extremely hostile--is yes, I certainly do!
I am 100% hostile to "great leader worship" and the despot-wannabes who promote it.
Any time that you or anyone else from the RCP brings up that kind of crap on this board, I will roll out the heavy artillery and blast you as best I can.
That's a promise!
----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 8, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------
At the risk of seeming to "flog a dead horse" (it's not dead and it is rabid), a few additional points need to be made.
quote:
What says that leaders have to become tyrants and exploiters? Is this some magical law of the universe?
Which ones didn't, when they had the chance?
Well, there's Fidel and then, maybe, Ho Chi Minh, and then...? And then...???
If you dare to say Mao, your tongue will rot and fall out of your mouth.
The person who said that leaders "have" to become "tyrants and exploiters" was, of course, Karl Marx.
Being determines consciousness--does the phrase ring a bell?
If you function as a boss, if that's what your daily activity consists of, then over the course of time you begin to think like a boss. The people under you are not your "comrades"; they're lazy fuckoffs who have to constantly be whipped into line...otherwise they'll sit around with their thumbs up their butts and look at the pretty clouds. Or, some of them are maneuvering to get your spot on top and have to be discredited from time to time in order to remain useful to you. And some of them are just fucking thieves...stealing what belongs to you.
When you fulfill the functions of a boss, and learn to think like a boss, then...hell, why shouldn't you own whatever it is that you're boss of?
Why, indeed. There's no "magic" involved here...simply a very straightforward transition from material conditions to living consciousness.
In addition, if there is a "campaign" to "build you up" and "popularize" you as a "great leader", that just reinforces the natural trend of things. Your sense of "self-importance" and "indispensability" bloats like a hog being fattened for the slaughter. When everyone around you is telling you that the sun shines out of your ass, you start to believe it!
Like a gambler on a winning streak, you start to think "you can't lose--you will keep winning forever."
You know what happens after that.
quote:
Nevertheless, the people won't just get correct ideas out of some spontaneous, random, decentralized actions. Nor will correct ideas come out of the blue. Correct ideas come from an objective, scientific analysis of society and putting forward and collective, unified strategy that will WIN. That is what, to me, a leadership does.
Yes, this is the "Leninists as social engineers" theory of revolution. With their "scientific grasp" of Marxism, they "correctly analyze" current society and formulate a "unified strategy" which leads to victory.
What an absurd caricature of both Marxism and revolution.
First of all, neither Marxism nor anything else is capable of predicting the future in useful detail. Marxism is not a set of railroad timetables or airline schedules. You can use it to tell you something about broad social trends...but it will not tell you when to strike.
After you launch an uprising (win or lose), it may tell you some interesting things about why the outcome was as it was.
But Marxism is not a "crystal ball". Every uprising is a gamble and the outcome cannot be foretold in advance. To suggest otherwise is to run a scam, to pretend to "social expertise" that not only do you not possess but that does not exist.
Secondly, great revolutions--those that really involve enormous masses of people--are spontaneous events. Such "leadership" that exists does come "out of the blue"--ordinary people that "no one ever heard of". Yes, there may be advocates of various political ideas present, doing their best to persuade the masses to adopt their various perspectives. They probably play some role in the course of events. They certainly played some role in the spreading of the general idea that revolution is a desirable thing to happen.
Nevertheless, for Marxists, history is made by the masses regardless of the "will" of those who seek to "direct events".
Attempting to "lead" a revolution--a real one--is about on the same level as attempting to "lead" a hurricane.
The Leninist pretense that "they and only they" can "do that" is preposterous.
quote:
The main thing about leaders is not that they are above the masses, but that they are the of the most class-conscious of the proletariat (and its allies) who have taken the responsibility to lead and organize revolution- as well as to bring for the masses to become leaders themselves. This is how I view leaders- not above the working class, but PART of the working class.
How can they be "part" of the working class if they're telling people what to do...being a boss? When an ordinary worker becomes a foreman or a trade union official or (in Germany) a member of the board of directors, what happens to his/her political consciousness? How does it change under these new material conditions?
If you really wanted a leadership that was part of the working class, then your party would rotate its leaders out of office every year. (And no coming back; one term and that's it!) A wordy bastard like Avakian (or me!) could still write stuff, could still advocate strategy, etc., etc. But he would lack the power of command...he would not be a boss. In fact, with no permanently entrenched leadership, your party would more or less be "boss-less"...the people who were the nominal leaders at any given moment would hardly enjoy much more influence than the average active member of your party. All anyone could do would be attempt to persuade the party that one strategy is better than another. The party membership would decide.
That would be real collective leadership...and there's about as much chance of the RCP going in that direction as there is of George Bush converting to Islam.
Do I have to add that the shape of your party determines the kind of social order that you will establish if you win?
quote:
Why can't I follow and uphold the ideas of a leader (who, if I may say so myself, I choose to follow on my own will) and yet still think critically about what he's saying? I think it is good for Communists to question things, and they should constantly question themselves and question their leaders!
A pious Catholic could say the same thing; he "chooses" to follow John Paul II but not uncritically.
And you and the god-sucker are in precisely the same position: he can't dethrone the pope and you can't dethrone Avakian.
If you decide that Avakian is fucked up for any reason, your only real option is to quit the party--there is no realistic mechanism for removing a bad leader. The same is true for the pious Catholic; he can only wait for the pope to die and hope the College of Cardinals picks a better one to replace him.
There was a time when quitting the Catholic Church was a prelude to being principal attraction at a human barbecue; there have been times when quitting a Leninist party was a prelude to ten or twenty years of a really lousy job.
At the moment, neither of those dire consequences prevails (outside of North Korea)...so you are free to quit without worrying about the consequences.
But you understand that's all you can do. Whatever energies and intellectual/emotional resources you have devoted to "building the party" and "publicizing Avakian" will have all become a great waste.
Since that is an unpleasant prospect, you must continue to insist that you've "picked a winner" regardless of any real evidence to the contrary. Only when things get so bad that you simply can't ignore the truth any longer will you finally quit in bitter disillusionment and feelings of betrayal.
And then, if you follow the traditional path, you'll probably get a job with Fox News. Ex-Leninists make superb reactionaries.
----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 8, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Is this a 'cult of personality'? Absolutely!
Not only is it, we need more of this. We need more people to get to know who Bob Avakian is and to know his works - to really dig in and see what he has to say.
Why? Because if we don't have that, then how can we possibly do what is necessary? How can we get to the point that we NEED to be at?
If I had made up something like that quote, people would assume that it was either satire or slander.
If we don't know "Bob Avakian and his works" then we can't possibly "do what is necessary". We "can't" get to the point that we "NEED" to be at.
Without St. Avakian to guide us, we're fucked!
Does one laugh...or weep?
You are, in all honesty, one of the saddest cases I've seen in years. You obviously think of yourself as hopelessly incompetent to think through any question of politics "on your own"...only "Bob" can "save" you from miserable ineptitude.
You are as far away from a real communist attitude as it is possible to get; your "god" lives and breathes and walks the earth clad in mortal flesh and from his mouth comes nothing but divine revelation.
I see nothing but catastrophe in your future...you are already brain-dead.
quote:
Also, having Bob Avakian is like having a living breathing Marx - having someone that can dig into things and break them down - today - not 150 years ago and that is important. In fact, it's critical.
Yes, that is an insult to Marx...but I don't think it would bother him all that much. It's sort of like being "insulted" by a devout Catholic...doesn't mean much.
On the other hand, it would be fun to see Marx sue St. Avakian for the wrongful use of his name and the damage to his reputation.
quote:
I have no trouble saying that this is someone that I love and deeply respect. He's someone that I'm willing to defend because I know what having someone like this means to the masses - someone that has such a deep love and commitment!
Yes, the masses have always been instructed to look for someone that "loves" them...and then "faithfully follow" that person.
That strategy always lands them in the shit.
Marx had a different view: the emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves.
Not a word about following anyone just because they say they "love" you.
How could he have overlooked such a "critical" point?
quote:
In fact, revolutionaries like him are precious to the people. So if you think that sounds like a 'church' well all I have to say to that is that the movement needs spirit and vision like like this.
Your "movement" is one of redemption.
A communist movement for proletarian revolution has different requirements.
Much different!
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 14, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I know when I came across Bob Avakian's works I had never seen anything like it anywhere - and I still haven't.
I know how you feel; I've rarely seen anyone say nothing at greater length myself.
Consider this sparkling excerpt...
quote:
Related to this, I want to talk about the relation between reverence and irreverence. These things are contradictory, they form a contradiction with each other (a unity of opposites). For example, reverence--if it means, as it sometimes does, worshiping someone or something, then obviously that has no part in what we're all about and is something we have to work to overcome. So that's on the one hand--we don't want reverence in that sense. On the other hand, to really revere someone or something, to respect them for things they've done and what they represent, is a part of what we're about and should be part of how we're leading the masses--to respect people who have made contributions, to respect the Party for what it represents, to revere it in a certain sense--yes, we do need that. Not only is that not wrong, that's important, that's a positive thing. So there's a fine line there between uncritically following, on the one hand, and on other hand following with your mental faculties working. Reverence, correctly understood, is a question of respecting, even revering, but not worshiping, those people and things that are deserving of this. Those things that deserve to be respected should be respected. Those things that don't deserve to be respected should not be. But nothing should be worshiped. Nothing should be uncritically followed. Nothing should be blindly carried out.
If irreverence means, as I was just saying, that you don't worship things, that you don't blindly follow people, that you critically think about everything, that you challenge anything or anyone if you think they're wrong--whether you have a developed basis for thinking that, or even if it's just your impression--irreverence in that sense is very necessary and vital for what we're all about. To defer to people simply because they have more experience, or because in an overall sense they may actually know more than you, or because they've made more contributions than you--to just blindly defer to people for those reasons-- that's wrong and can be very harmful.
http://rwor.org/a/1204/bareach9.htm
If that tidal wave of blather doesn't serve to intimidate you, then you have clearly "failed to grasp the dialectic".
You see, it's a matter of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand". On the one hand, we should be "irreverent". On the other hand, we should be "reverent". We "shouldn't worship" but we should "respect".
But when do you do the one and when do you do the other? How are you supposed to tell the difference in a practical way?
(Hint: check with your "great leader" first...he'll let you know which approach is appropriate.)
That is the "utility" of the "dialectic", by the way. It allows you to "justify" any position on anything without having recourse to the laborious tedium of argument and evidence. Marx and Engels spoke a great deal in favor of the "dialectic"...but when they actually wanted to convince people, they went to work with argument and evidence.
Like real scientists.
quote:
His [Avakian's] works have a depth and vision you can't find anywhere else today.
Yes, rather like what people say about those rivers in the upper midwest: a mile wide and a foot deep.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 14, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
That is a wonderfully appropriate quote that you pulled! Especially when there are people on this thread that think that it is just outrageous that I should even compare Bob Avakian to Marx!
How dare I do such a thing?
Because it's true.
But even more, you have demonstrated what he thinks about blindly following someone in his own words -
To defer to people simply because they have more experience, or because in an overall sense they may actually know more than you, or because they've made more contributions than you--to just blindly defer to people for those reasons-- that's wrong and can be very harmful.
I don't think you disagree with that, do you?
Of course I don't disagree with it. I'm sure that there are abundant excerpts from St. Avakian that I would agree with...since he takes all sides of every question.
By the "law of large numbers", I'm sure I could compile a carefully selected and edited version of "The Thought of Chairman Bob" that would correlate very highly with my own views.
But then there'd be all that other stuff...what am I supposed to do about that?
Ignore it? How can I? It's all mixed in with the stuff that I would agree with.
And what about praxis? Bob says A and he also says B...which one will he choose to implement?
And what happens if he decrees A--which I happen to know is really fucked up--instead of B, which is clearly the only correct option?
You already know (or you will painfully discover) that when "The Chairman" speaks, the discussion is over. It's either "carry out your instructions" or out the door you go.
Has anyone in the RCP ever argued a serious point with "The Chairman", won the party to their position through ideological struggle, and actually imposed their views against the will of "The Chairman"?
My theory of Leninism says that can't happen. Can you offer evidence to the contrary?
(By the way, it did happen at least once in Lenin's own party. Trotsky's "no war, no peace" plan for dealing with the Germans actually won out--temporarily--over Lenin's position of signing a peace treaty.)
Since I'm pretty confident that the RCP has never been anything but Avakian and his disciples, his words about "irreverence" are simply rhetoric. They are not meant to be taken seriously except by outsiders...who may be attracted to the party because of such words, but who will quickly learn the "facts of life" once they've signed up.
If it makes you feel better to compare Avakian to Marx, who am I to be so churlish as to distract someone from their fantasies?
I could but wish you would consult Marx himself, instead of the "Marx doll" that Avakian has created.
I don't think, though, that there's much chance of that.
quote:
The book that really contributed to my understanding of Marxism the most is probably Phony Communism Is Dead... Long Live Real Communism! by Bob Avakian.
Frankly, I don't think Avakian could tell real communism from rheumatism, myself.
If you want to learn something about real communism, why don't you try Marx's The Civil War in France? Or Engels' Anti-Duhring?
You may find, dare I say it, a revelation.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 15, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I think the main truth we grapple with is that revolutionary Marxism needs to gain much more influence these days, and that there is significant work to do to make the leading Marxists better known broadly (including contending in various spheres theoretically with non-marxists.)
How does your second sentence have anything to do with your first sentence?
Marxism is, I think, making something of a "come-back"...though it's pretty marginal thus far.
But the only "leading Marxists" I know of are Marx and Engels--who are pretty well known. It's their ideas that mostly remain unknown, not their identities as "leading Marxists".
If Bob Avakian becomes a celebrity, then, no doubt, a certain small group of "hip" people (some of them fairly wealthy) will buy his books and display them casually on their coffee-tables.
I do not see such things as having much impact or influence on the working class.
quote:
I also think that revolution has "the dignity of actuality" -- powerful theoretical work helps give rise to powerful revolutionary movements, and (at the same time) powerful revolutionary movements put their MLM leadership "on the map" (including outside the ranks of conscious revolutionaries.)
"The dignity of actuality"--a truly impressive phrase...do you think it has any meaning?
In any event, you are confusing the idea of "putting your leadership on the map" with the actual spread of revolutionary ideas.
If 100,000,000 Americans voted for Bob Avakian for president in 2004, that would not mean that they had become communists or anything even close to that; it would simply mean that he had become incredibly famous as a leader "who really cares".
That's not good enough.
It's not even close to being good enough.
quote:
Of course, I'll give you this - If you are not serious about revolution - if all you really want to do is talk about revolution (or just build some amorphous movement), then you don't need a leader and you don't need to strive to get his message out to the masses because you are not going anywhere anyway.
If you don't have a team, why the fuck you need a coach? You're not playing anyway, so why worry about what it takes to win? You don't need any real idea of how to get from here to there, you don't really NEED anything.
But if you are serious about revolution, then you better be trying to figure out what it does take.
The argument of "lack of seriousness" is predicated on a number of assumptions...which are in dispute.
1. That without a leader, you're not serious.
2. That unless you're trying to spread the leader's message "to the masses", you're not serious.
3. That class struggle is "like" a sporting event with contesting teams.
4. That if you don't have a "team"--presumably a party is meant by this--then you're not serious.
5. That a team "NEEDS" a coach.
6. That "amorphous" (non-Leninist) movements are unserious and not worth building.
And so on. All of which are, in my view, entirely mistaken.
quote:
...and quite frankly I am NOT an easy person to convince - as you will see.
I have already seen, and I believe you. But don't you think you ought to at least attempt to respond to my actual arguments?
Each time I respond to your points and you just ignore mine and launch into another panegyric of Avakian.
Is there anyone in the RCP who can actually develop a political argument?
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 15, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
I am absolutely stunned by such breath-taking audacity. You folks really believe that Bob Avakian is Moses, if not Jesus H. Christ Himself!
Have you nothing to offer but "the image of the redeemer"?
Look at the kinds of things you are saying...
quote:
The only Marxists that are capable of leading are those that are alive.
Bob Avakian is one such Marxist, btw and if Marxism is going to become more known, and it needs to become more known, then Bob Avakian will also have to become more known.
That is utterly preposterous! The path to Marx lies through the fame of Bob Avakian???
quote:
Also, not all leaders or for that matter coaches are equal. Some are just plain crappy and have no clue as to what they are doing - others are known for their experience and skill. Bob Avakian is one such Marxist leader known for that skill and ability.
Do you imagine that if you repeat that in public often enough that people will think it is true?
I have no particular reason to believe that he is capable of finding his own ass in the dark with both hands and a flashlight.
Good grief, what do you people imagine that you're doing?
This isn't politics; it's the fucking "Spice Girls"...an artificially constructed image of revolutionary politics.
quote:
There are very real parallels here [between class struggle and sporting events].
Absolutely bizarre! Workers Upset Bosses 24-21 in Triple Overtime--Avakian 46-yard field-goal wins game
quote:
...actually our 'team' is the international proletariat.
Did you get a good contract? Signing bonus? Incentives?
Do you have the remotest idea of how unserious you sound?
quote:
...are you serious about revolution? What will that take? (It's going to take a lot more than an amorphous movement.)
A momentary interruption of the nonsense to actually ask a serious question...if not to answer it.
We actually know what it takes for a genuine revolution to occur...many millions of people have to want to do it. At such time as that happens, the old order--for all its apparent strength--is utterly helpless and disintegrates with only weak and sporadic resistance, if even that.
Does the desire for revolution originate outside the working class...from a vanguard party, for example?
Clearly that cannot be the case. Small and tightly-disciplined political groups can have an influence, even a disproportionate influence, on events (sometimes).
But it is the masses that decide if and when.
The Leninist conceit that revolutions can be "made to order" (like pizzas) by a vanguard party with a correct leadership has been falsified by historical experience.
In no advanced capitalist country did any of the Leninist/Stalinist/Trotskyist/Maoist parties ever seriously threaten a capitalist ruling class.
There is no reason to believe they ever will.
quote:
There is no other organization in the US that has taken the issue so seriously and developed such serious documents about how to fight and win. Bob Avakian has led the party to this place, it's the only communist group in the US that is serious.
All of the other Leninist parties make the same claim, substituting their own leadership for yours. There's a bit more to revolutionary politics than the clamor of commercials.
In fact, the RCP seems to be the only group that puts forward the icon of its leader as in and of itself a sufficient recommendation of "seriousness"--all the other parties appear to be more modest in that respect.
I will grant that some of you are capable of producing credible Marxist analysis (haven't noticed any in this discussion). But other parties can also do that, now and then.
The "toolbox" of Marxism is in the public domain, and anyone with a bit of practice and diligence can use those tools and produce a decent analysis...as long as they don't muddle their efforts with Leninist dogma.
But that's a rare occurrence in the "Leninist universe". Most of the time, the dogma is mixed in with the good stuff...and who's got the time or the energy to filter out the noise?
quote:
I personally am glad that the RCP is promoting their Chair. There is nothing wrong with promoting ideological influences, and leadership. I think it's important for revolutionary ideas to be out there among the people, being discussed and looked into.
Even though you make it sound "as if" the third sentence "justifies" the first two sentences, there is, in fact, no connection between them.
I'm starting to sense a pattern here. You folks make some wild claim about Avakian and then add a sentence that no one would disagree with...as if the "aura" of the correct sentence will somehow "cover" the wild sentence.
You are "glad" that the RCP is "promoting Avakian". You are "glad" that it is "promoting" leadership.
Presumably you have your reasons.
I remain convinced that it's a grotesque personality cult...and I'm never "glad" to see that at all. It's almost always a clear sign of reactionary backwardness, excusable perhaps in peasant revolutions, but completely unacceptable in advanced capitalist countries.
quote:
I think its foolish to think that leadership will disappear. It is dialectical, like all things. First of all it is one of the fundamental class contradictions, leadership/led.
Second of all, it is contradictory because there is the ability within leadership for corruption or capitulation, and many times in history this can be seen. But you will notice that the revolutionary leaders the RCP primarily looks to did not do this. Marx Lenin and Mao. None of them did this. It is no surprise that Bob has not sold out either. In fact we are very lucky that he was recognized as the person best able to lead a vanguard in the US.
The first paragraph is noise; it doesn't say anything that we don't already know.
The second paragraph is more problematical, for several reasons. It's quite true that Marx never "sold out". But Lenin made a "heroic effort" to secure foreign investment in the infant USSR. As it happened, no foreign capitalists were interested...but what do you think would have been the outcome if they had been interested?
And Mao? Well, we have his "historic alliance" with the infamous war-criminal Richard M. Nixon; we have his failure to support the Shanghai Commune; we have the military conflict between China and Vietnam; we have Chinese support for Pol Pot...give me some time and I could probably put together a pretty long list. A long list that wouldn't be very pretty, for that matter.
Most damning, of course, was that the party that Mao built was evidently rotten with corruption. Mao's corpse wasn't cold when the turn towards restoring capitalism was begun.
Will Bob Avakian "sell out" or "capitulate"? Who knows?
But if he does, you will be devastated. Instead of a party capable of dealing with corruption or capitulation, you have "put all your chips" on Avakian's number. If it loses, you have lost everything.
Which is why, even within the confines of Leninism, you shouldn't do that. You have entrusted your fate to one guy...and if he fucks up, you and your party are just so much roadkill.
I know, you think that will "never happen", that you are and will remain "lucky".
We'll see.
quote:
In reality, people have heroes, and there is nothing basically wrong with having them.
Yes, actually there is something deeply wrong with "having heroes"...especially in the context of class society.
The emergence of "heroes" in class society is a reflection of the alienation that people have from their own lives. Feeling that they are powerless to change things, they look for a "hero" who appears "stronger" and "smarter" than they are. They look for a "redeemer" who will "lead them out of bondage".
They never find one...because there's no such thing.
Redeemers--"heroes"--may indeed, on rare occasions, strike the chains from your body. But it is not until the chains in your mind have been broken that you are truly emancipated. That's something no one can do "for you".
All of our lives we have been told in a million ways (obvious and subtle) that we are "not good enough" to make our own decisions about things, to figure things out for ourselves, to take control of anything more important than which commodity to buy next, etc.
We have been told that "authority knows best", that the rich and famous are "special" and "naturally superior" to us, that we have no right to question "experts" much less fail to abide by their opinions, etc., etc., etc.
What is your message but a variation on the same theme?
"Trust in Bob--he will provide."
quote:
If the best argument you have is about how the RCP trusts in the leadership that they selected, well then, your arguments are really weak. Of course they trust him! Otherwise he would not be their leader.
When, exactly, did they "select" Bob? Do they ever get a chance to change their minds? What happens if they do?
My argument is not that it's simply a bad thing to "trust Bob"...it is a bad thing to substitute trust for revolutionary political consciousness.
Which is what you are obviously doing!
quote:
In fact I think that it is uncommunist to not promote leadership, and in the USA it is uncommunist to not promote this leader.
And I think that is idiotic statement!
quote:
They recognize the need for a leadership that can lead a revolution and then help develop a new state that is ruled by the masses, and in the interests of the masses.
You don't even trust your own party to rule itself (see below)...and you expect me to believe that you would trust the masses to rule your new state?
Like all Leninists, you want to "set up shop" as a new ruling class.
quote:
...I think it is important to understand what I meant when I said that some forces oppose real collectivity. A vanguard applies democratic centralism as an organizational method in its ranks. That means that decisions are made by collectives. After a decision is made, everyone in these collectives are then responsible to follow the collective decisions. They can, and should, discuss and struggle to unite around difference in that collective, however externally they are to take out the collective's decision as it is their own. This is real collectivity, acting as a united collective. There is more to democratic centralism than this, there are different levels of responsibility, and their members are selected from below. The lower levels are subject to the collective decisions of the upper. This is how real collectivity is performed with a huge collective, that wants to get something done in this lifetime. Like I said, this is a basic look at democratic centralism.
Emphasis added. The real power is in the highest collective...and guess who decides what the highest collective will "decide"?
It has about as much to do with "real collectivity" as American "democracy" has to do with real democracy.
As Bob Avakian has about as much to do with Marx as Bob Dylan.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 15, 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 |
| The folks who boast of their dialectical understanding of reality remind me of bourgeois economists with their quantitative models of free markets...neither can predict squat. Just as they have a fake "Nobel Prize" for bourgeois economists, they might just as well have one for "dialecticians"...their track record is remarkably similar.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
Duplicate entry '1152057435' for key 1 | |
