This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
« Avakian's Conquer the World
Critique part 2 »
Welcome Guest. Please Login
or Register. Nov
14, 2005, 9:32pm
Avakian's Conquer the World Critique part
2 « Thread Started on Jul 9,
2005, 7:28pm »
Okay, let's
critique this Bob Avakian document as a special project.
Let's go through it line by line and then move on to the
next section.
From Bob Avakian's Conquer the
World @ rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/
II.
More on the Proletarian Revolution as a World
Process.
Here I just want to make a few points
briefly—specifically, more on the material basis of
proletarian internationalism. The article which I
referred to earlier was entitled “On the Philosophical
Basis of Proletarian Internationalism” because it dealt
with the question of internal and external (the internal
basis and the external conditions of change of a thing);
but of course philosophy is based on matter and the
philosophical basis is the reflection of the material
basis. This is all linked to a deeper grasp of this
question of the fundamental contradiction of the
bourgeois epoch on a world scale and how all this is
integrated into this overall process; and further we
have to grasp how this applies even to the situation of
socialist countries existing during this period, that
is, the period of worldwide transition from the
bourgeois epoch to the epoch of world
communism.
One of the main things that I’ve been
grappling with and that came out in the 1981 May Day
tape36 and so on is the problem, if you want to put it
this way, of the lopsidedness in the world. This is
linked to the question of the contradiction of the
forces and relations of production on the one hand, and
this interpenetrating with the base and superstructure,
on the other—both within specific countries, including
socialist countries, and overall principally on a world
scale. And all this has much to do with the complexity
and tortuousness of the process of proletarian
revolution towards the advance of communism
worldwide.
What do I mean by this lopsidedness?
Lenin, of course, insisted on the basic distinction
between the handful of advanced imperialist exploiters
and imperialist states and the great majority of the
world’s people in colonial and dependent situations. But
the problem has developed in a more acute way in the
sense that in a handful of advanced countries is
concentrated—perhaps even in an absolute quantitative
sense, but certainly qualitatively—the advanced
productive forces in the world. In those countries, and
not unrelated to this, the proletariat, broad sections
of it and the masses generally, to put it in crude,
simple terms, are sometimes not that hungry and not that
desirous a lot of the time of radical change. There are
strata and sections that are, but it’s not that often
that broad masses of people are demanding radical change
in the whole social structure. On the other hand, there
are vast areas of the world where the masses are living
in desperate conditions.
Now one of the things
that really infuriates me about these social chauvinists
and people who say, “What’s the difference, imperialist
country or not imperialist country, they’re all on the
capitalist road and they’re all developing capitalism,
some are 100 years behind the others, some of them are
so many machines behind the others and so forth,” is
that it’s very easy for people sitting in one of these
imperialist countries, even in the European imperialist
countries, to say this. In these countries the trains
run all on time, trucks drive the goods from one end of
the country to the other and there’s an integrated
market (not that everything’s smooth and even, because
that’s not the way of anything, and certainly not of
capitalism) and if there’s a serious crisis the
unemployment rate is 8%. But in the vast bulk of the
world 8% unemployment would be a miracle—it’s 30 or 40%
all the time, let alone when there’s a really acute
crisis. And outside of a few pockets, these places are
extremely backward and the railroads don’t even reach to
most of the areas, much less run on time, and the goods
aren’t moving rapidly all over the country, and there is
not an articulated economy (in the sense of the advanced
capitalist economies where the linkages between
different sectors and between investment and consumption
make for integrated national economies).
It is an
infuriating thing, this imperialist economist chauvinism
where people say capital is capital, what’s the
difference what the nationality of the capital is. They
think they’re being very profound talking about
production relations when they see it narrowly in a
national framework and don’t see that an extremely
important production relation for the world as a whole
is the production relation (which is what it is) between
imperialism and these oppressed nations. That’s also a
production relation and it’s a decisive one in the world
as a whole and it’s more important than the production
relation between a factory worker and a warehouse worker
in the imperialist countries.
In any case, on the
one hand are these advanced countries where most of the
productive forces are concentrated but the revolutionary
sentiments and level of struggle of the masses and
consciousness of the masses is generally, and most of
the time—at least so far—not on a very high level. Which
is not at all the same—perhaps it does need saying but
shouldn’t—as the line that revolution is not possible or
there’s no real prospect for it, even now, in these
advanced countries.
And on the other hand, in
most of the world the productive forces are backward;
such development of the productive forces as there is is
under the domination of finance capital and imperialism
internationally, which distorts and disarticulates these
economies. The people are in much more desperate
conditions, much more desirous of radical change; yet
they are also in much more backward, primitive
conditions, much less concentrated and socialized (about
which there is in this sense something fundamentally
important) and frankly, while desirous of change and
capable of being rallied more readily to support for
revolution, generally the stage of revolution there is
one of bourgeois democracy, even if of a new type. And
even if the possibility exists, and we should stress the
possibility and not the certainty, that it can be
developed under the leadership of the proletariat
(that’s another mechanical law of revolution that needs
to be declared illegal, namely that any revolution
against imperialism in those countries can only be led
by the proletariat), nevertheless, there’s a problem.
While people are desirous of radical change and can be
mobilized more quickly and readily for revolution,
though not without contradiction and not simply and
easily but more readily behind the banner of revolution,
nevertheless the stage of revolution and the content of
revolution, even if it is under proletarian leadership,
generally corresponds to bourgeois democracy and to the
stage of national liberation.
All this represents
and makes for a further complication in the process of
proletarian revolution throughout the world. In the
West—and I am talking about the West in terms of the
imperialist countries, including the Soviet Union—it’s
proven to be more difficult in this period to make
revolution than in the East, the East being the colonial
and dependent countries in what’s been called the “third
world.” But it’s also proven to be extremely difficult
to lead and maintain revolution where it can be and
where it has been more readily made, and there’s no easy
way out of this.
Of course, if we succeed in
making a qualitative breakthrough (which it would be) in
seizing power in one (or more) of the imperialist
citadels, that would in fact be a new leap forward for
the international proletariat and would create new
freedom, although we should have no illusions that
making revolution in an imperialist country means that
the proletariat when it comes to power will inherit that
country and its productive forces as they were, for
example, five years before the revolution began—and
probably the world war too. Nevertheless, that would
still represent a qualitative leap of a certain kind.
But it would not and could not change the fact or
eliminate the problem that there is a further complexity
because of this lopsidedness as I’ve described and
referred to it.
All this then poses problems,
yes, but what it also does, on the other hand, is to
heighten the importance of internationalism and, at the
same time, the importance of grasping and deepening our
grasp of the whole motion of spirals leading to
conjunctures when all the contradictions on a world
scale are concentrated and heightened, including the
possibilities for revolution. This is opposed to views
which either deny, fail to grasp or, if recognizing some
of this, deal incorrectly with the question of the
spiral motion internationally toward conjuncture, and
oppose to it erroneous notions such as those represented
in the theory of general crisis, the linear type views
to which I referred earlier.
So this poses
problems but it deepens and heightens the importance of
our understanding of imperialism and our need to grasp
this correct methodology and analysis precisely because,
as I said, even if gains are maximized at every
point—even at the decisive points of worldwide
conjuncture—not all will be won at once, in one
conjuncture or even, in all likelihood, in just a couple
of go-’rounds. Therefore, this problem of how to deal
with this lopsidedness, how to make the greatest
breakthroughs and then how to make socialist countries
bases for the world revolution is going to be with us
and is going to assume very acute form. We’re not going
to be able to just wish away the problems related to
socialist states emerging in an imperialist-dominated
world. In all likelihood, whether or not we make a
breakthrough this time around in terms of a revolution
in one (or more) of these imperialist citadels, even a
relatively lesser one, there will still be these
problems. Whether or not such a breakthrough is made,
we’re still not going to be able to wave away the
problem that there’s going to be imperialist
encirclement and that the pressure, both material and
ideological, that such encirclement is going to exert on
the proletariat in power and on its socialist state will
be immense.
It’s a problem of how to actually
carry out what’s been forged to a higher level in the
Party’s Programme, that is, carrying forward the
socialist transformation in that country (those
countries) where breakthroughs occur as a subordinate
part of, not just a base area in the abstract but as a
subordinate part of, the world revolution. That’s a
question we have to begin grappling with right now,
precisely because if we carry out the correct line with
the correct methodology there may be—if not in the U.S.
then in some other imperialist citadel(s), and perhaps
in the U.S. itself—that actual leap forward of the
seizure of power when the question will be very much and
pressingly on the agenda. And, of course, these basic
principles apply and are crucial for the international
proletariat wherever (in whatever type of country) it
makes the breakthroughs and establishes socialist
states.
But beyond that there is a particular
question I want to address: How far can you go within a
single socialist country? Just to say that it’s been
proven and settled historically that socialism is
possible in one country—even if we unbeg the question by
coming to a deep understanding of what socialism is and
say that there is a real socialist road and it’s
possible to go and stay on the socialist road, at least
for a significant distance, to use the analogy of a
road—it still hasn’t even been settled that it’s
possible to have socialism in absolutely every country
under every circumstance. The fact that it’s been
possible to do it in certain countries in certain times
doesn’t prove it’s possible to have socialism in every
“one country” at all times. But even more than that
there is, I believe, and this is something I’m trying to
come to grips with, and only beginning to grapple with,
a limitation, though not an absolute limit in a
mechanical sense, on how far you can go in a single
socialist country.
Here I want to say that
there’s been the old charge that we’ve pled “not guilty”
to and to which now we have to plead “innocent as
charged”: that’s the old charge that’s been hurled in a
perverted way of course by the imperialists that
socialist countries in particular, as they frame it,
have a need themselves to expand and conquer more of the
world or else they run up against their limitations. And
I think we have to plead innocent as charged to that.
For a long time we’ve been denying it and pleading not
guilty and charging slander. And now I think we have to
plead innocent as charged and by that, of course, I’m
talking about something qualitatively different from the
need of the imperialists for spheres of influence to
export capital, to exploit more people, to try to
transform the world in their image, or better said,
distort it under their domination.
We shouldn’t
get metaphysical here either on the other side, that is,
be absolutist about the limitations on how far you can
advance in socialist transformation in one country. But,
still, there is a basic truth here and I’m not talking
about the need, as is actually imperialist slander, of a
socialist country as a country to have raw materials and
to dominate more territory and to get the resources and
people of different countries under its domination. I’m
not talking about that—that’s just the mirror the
imperialists are holding up to themselves.
In
terms of maintaining power and advancing further on the
socialist road—and not just from the standpoint of a
socialist state but in particular from the standpoint of
the international proletariat—the question is much more
that there is a limit, as I said, to how far you can go
in transforming the base and superstructure within the
socialist country without making further advances in
winning and transforming more of the world; not in terms
of conquering more resources or people as the
imperialists do, but in terms of making revolutionary
transformations. (This was just hinted at and pointed to
in a general way in that letter, “On the Philosophical
Basis of Proletarian Internationalism.”)
As far
as I understand it, the reason for this is, first of
all, that there is the ideological influence, as well as
the actual military and political and other pressure,
from the imperialist encirclement. But there’s also the
fact that this is the era of a single world process and
that has a material foundation, it’s not just an idea.
What may be rational in terms of the production, even,
and utilization of labor power and resources within a
single country, carried beyond a certain point, while it
may seem rational for that country, is irrational if you
actually look upon a world scale. And that reacts upon
that country and becomes an incorrect policy, not the
best utilization of things even within that country, and
begins to work not only against the development of the
productive forces but, dialectically related to that,
against the further transformation in the production
relations (or the economic base) and the
superstructure.
It is not possible to go on
forever in a linear country-by-country way, to go on a
separate dialectic within the socialist countries, even
with its twists and turns, even beating back at times
capitalist restoration and supporting the peoples of the
world: at a certain point this is going to turn into its
opposite—for material reasons, as well as
interpenetrating with ideological and political and even
military reasons.
There’s a truth here which,
correctly grasped with materialist dialectics,
strengthens proletarian internationalism and can
strengthen, if applied consciously, the revolutionary
struggle of the international proletariat overall
through its unavoidably long, tortuous path and struggle
marked by critical conjunctures, by sudden turns,
dramatic upheavals and leaps.
This calls to mind
that in the Communists Are Rebels37 pamphlet, this
question is put to the side, so to speak, and
necessarily, overall, to focus on specific
contradictions that are concentrated on there. For
example, it simply says on page 11 in the pamphlet, “You
are familiar with our analysis of how the class struggle
within a socialist country interacts with the class
struggle internationally and the fact that the fight
against capitalist restoration in a socialist country
and to achieve the advance to communism can only be
successfully carried out in unity with the whole
international revolutionary struggle and on a worldwide
basis,” which is not wrong overall, but at the same
time, as is shown in the differences, that is, the
advances from the Party’s draft Programme and
Constitution to their final versions, our understanding
of precisely this point has been developed even
qualitatively in a certain sense.
That is, we
have sharpened our grasp of the fact that proletarian
internationalism is and must be the foundation for the
proletariat and its party in all countries. Before power
is seized this is a crucial question, but even more so
once power has been seized. And it’s in the sense of all
this that I say that we can and should willingly and
defiantly plead innocent as charged to this allegation
that we need to keep advancing and winning more of the
world, or else our gains will turn into their opposite.
« Last Edit:
Jul 19, 2005, 12:08pm by prairiefire
»
Re: Conquer the World Critique part
2 « Reply #1 on Jul 11, 2005,
1:53am »
Quote:
The article which I
referred to earlier was entitled “On the
Philosophical Basis of Proletarian
Internationalism” because it dealt with the
question of internal and external (the internal
basis and the external conditions of change of a
thing); but of course philosophy is based on
matter and the philosophical basis is the
reflection of the material basis.
For
all his talk about material analysis, it would be nice
if Avakian actually did some! Avakian is the ultimate
dogmatist windbag.
Quote:
What do I mean by
this lopsidedness? Lenin, of course, insisted on
the basic distinction between the handful of
advanced imperialist exploiters and imperialist
states and the great majority of the world’s
people in colonial and dependent situations.
So
far so good.
Quote:
But the problem has
developed in a more acute way in the sense that
in a handful of advanced countries is
concentrated—perhaps even in an absolute
quantitative sense, but certainly
qualitatively—the advanced productive forces in
the world.
Well,
actually Lenin did speak of capital being exported to
the colonial world. The idea that the instruments of
production, a big part of the productive forces of the
first world , are simply advancing isn’t really true. In
fact only about 20% of Amerikans are even employed in
the productive sector anymore. This is commonly spoken
of as the de-industrialization of Amerika or even as
“out sourcing.” Of course, Avakian’s dogmatic and
bumpkin style, he doesn’t cite anything to back up his
claims about advanced productive forces being
concentrated in the first world. Why? What is the
subtext? It’s to sneak in the idea that Amerikans
deserve more because they are more productive. It’s yet
another back door way to justify his labor aristocratic
politics.
Quote:
In those countries,
and not unrelated to this, the proletariat,
broad sections of it and the masses generally,
to put it in crude, simple terms, are sometimes
not that hungry and not that desirous a lot of
the time of radical change. There are strata and
sections that are, but it’s not that often that
broad masses of people are demanding radical
change in the whole social structure.
Wow!
Bob, you’ve almost understood Lenin. It’s called a labor
aristocracy and they are not revolutionary. As Lenin
said, “the seal of parasiticism affects whole nations.”
Also, Engels spoke of the bourgoisification of the
English working class.
Quote:
On the other hand,
there are vast areas of the world where the
masses are living in desperate conditions.
Yes,
it’s called a proletariat - and they are in the 3rd
world. Most production is done outside Amerika now.
Quote:
Now one of the
things that really infuriates me about these
social chauvinists and people who say, “What’s
the difference, imperialist country or not
imperialist country, they’re all on the
capitalist road and they’re all developing
capitalism, some are 100 years behind the
others, some of them are so many machines behind
the others and so forth,” is that it’s very easy
for people sitting in one of these imperialist
countries, even in the European imperialist
countries, to say this.
Bob
fakes left, only to run right. Avakian speaks of
chauvinism - look in the mirror Bob. His facts are just
plain wrong. Most production isn’t happening in Amerika
anyway. Most production, including advanced production,
is happening outside of Amerika and the real proletariat
is making near to starvation wages. The idea that an
Amerikan worker, or even Amerikan production as a whole,
is more productive is simply not true.
Quote:
In these countries
the trains run all on time, trucks drive the
goods from one end of the country to the other
and there’s an integrated market (not that
everything’s smooth and even, because that’s not
the way of anything, and certainly not of
capitalism) and if there’s a serious crisis the
unemployment rate is 8%.
Here
Bob sings the praises of the parasitic mall economy as
though it were actually producing something. Less than a
quarter are even employed in value creating industries.
If they don't create value then they are not having
surplus value appropriated. These workers are not
exploited. They are what Marx called parasitic.
Amerikkka barely has a productive sector. It's a giant
means of management and distribution. Amerikkka is a
mall writ large. It is a bunch of rich people shuffling
around goods and services to each other. Well, the
production has to be going on somewhere! It isn't
happening at the mall! The value that makes this
parasitic economy possible is produced outside (for the
most part) u$ borders. Last time I checked, they weren't
growing beans in the back of Starbuch's.
In his
fuzzy thinking, just because Amerikans have a lot of
high tech gadgets then, Amerika must have an advance
productive base. Just because Amerika is a dumping
ground for all the latest high tech toys doesn’t mean
that it has advanced forces of production. In fact, it
barely has production at all. Not a lot is actually made
in the u$ anymore. There are some excpetions of course,
agriculture and the military sector come to mind.
Quote:
But in the vast bulk
of the world 8% unemployment would be a
miracle—it’s 30 or 40% all the time, let alone
when there’s a really acute crisis.
It’s
called super exploitation. This kind of unemployment
allows the capitalists to pay sub-living wages. This is
one of the main reasons production has been declining in
the so called “advance” nations.
Quote:
And outside of a few
pockets, these places are extremely backward and
the railroads don’t even reach to most of the
areas, much less run on time, and the goods
aren’t moving rapidly all over the country, and
there is not an articulated economy (in the
sense of the advanced capitalist economies where
the linkages between different sectors and
between investment and consumption make for
integrated national economies).
Actually,
in so far as production goes, some of what Avakian calls
“backward” nations are the most productive. These are
the nations which are actually creating value. Hence,
they have a proletariat. Some have more of a productive
base than the u$. Avakian is a kind of bumpkin
empiricist. He looks around Amerika and sees all the
high tech glitz and glam. He then assumes that Amerika
must be more advance productively. Then, he turns his
head toward the 3rd world, and assumes that they must be
less productive because they don’t have all the toys
Amerika does. Well, they’re the ones making the
toys.
Quote:
It is an infuriating
thing, this imperialist economist chauvinism
where people say capital is capital, what’s the
difference what the nationality of the capital
is.
Bob’s
best move - the fake left.
Quote:
That’s also a
production relation and it’s a decisive one in
the world as a whole and it’s more important
than the production relation between a factory
worker and a warehouse worker in the imperialist
countries.
Bob’s
second best move - the run right. Here Bob wants to just
call everyone who is a wage earner proletarian. You’re
still only talking about less than 25% of Amerikans even
if you included warehouse workers. That certainly
doesn’t add up to a proletariat. Bob wants to include
all wage earners including service, retail, and
management. He wants to say everyone involved in what
RCP=u$a terms “realizing capital” is a proletarian. This
is one reason he doesn’t mind shooting for 90% of
Amerikans. He throws out Marx and Lenin. This totally
ignores that even those 25% or whatever are overpaid.
They are paid in excess of they value they create. They
are a labor aristocracy is the truest sense.
Quote:
In any case, on the
one hand are these advanced countries where most
of the productive forces are concentrated
False.
Productive forces are not concentrated in the first
world. Lenin spoke a long time ago about production
becoming stagnant in imperialist nations. But, with the
increase in parasiticism, the productive base is
actually regressing in the imperialist countries. Most
production is in the 3rd world now. Bob is stuck in some
stereotype of the advanced West and the backwards East.
It isn’t that simple Bob.
Quote:
but the
revolutionary sentiments and level of struggle
of the masses and consciousness of the masses is
generally, and most of the time—at least so
far—not on a very high level.
Stating
the obvious. Bob wants to say Amerikans are suffering
from some kind of false consciousness. In reality, the
labor aristocracy knows that it benefits from
imperialism. Its whole parasitic lifestyle is based on
keeping the world in perpetual servitude. Amerikans have
a hell of a lot more to lose than their chains! They
have SUVs, CD players, VCRs, TVs, plastic surgery for
pets, and Pokemon. Avakian really sees the majority of
Amerikans as more deserving - they are not rich enough.
They deserve more - well, someone is going to pay. And,
the RCP=u$a needs to work on some basic math skills and
figure it out. It’s the vast majority of humynity that
pays for your democratic extension of the Amerikan
dream. One Avakian supporter wrote that socialism is a
nation of millionaires or even billionaires. This youth
understood the reality of Avakian even better than
Avakian himself.
Quote:
Which is not at all
the same—perhaps it does need saying but
shouldn’t—as the line that revolution is not
possible or there’s no real prospect for it,
even now, in these advanced countries.
Bob
thinks that the labor aristocracy is going to make
revolution. There is no proletarian revolution where
there is no proletariat. I advise Avakian to go read
some Marx.
Quote:
And on the other
hand, in most of the world the productive forces
are backward; such development of the productive
forces as there is under the domination of
finance capital and imperialism internationally,
which distorts and disarticulates these
economies. The people are in much more desperate
conditions, much more desirous of radical
change; yet they are also in much more backward,
primitive conditions, much less concentrated and
socialized
Yes,
the 3rd world is revolutionary all right. It is because
they have a proletariat! They also have an industrial
base, something which the u$ lacks!
Avakian is a
mix of bald dogmatism and just incorrect facts. It is
false that the u$ is more productive than the 3rd world.
Avakian has to hang tooth and nail onto this false idea
that the u$ is more productive in order to claim there
is an Amerikan proletariat. But, it is just false
dogmatism. Avakian is a dogmatic
windbag.
Quote:
All this represents
and makes for a further complication in the
process of proletarian revolution throughout the
world. In the West—and I am talking about the
West in terms of the imperialist countries,
including the Soviet Union—it’s proven to be
more difficult in this period to make revolution
than in the East, the East being the colonial
and dependent countries in what’s been called
the “third world.” But it’s also proven to be
extremely difficult to lead and maintain
revolution where it can be and where it has been
more readily made, and there’s no easy way out
of this.
Here
is Avakian striking at the heart of Leninism. He is on
one level making a banal claim. Yes, revolutions are
hard to make. Again, a banal claim, he says revolution
in the 1st and 3rd world face different challenges -
true enough. On another level, Avakian’s motive is to
deny Lenin. To say that revolution has an equal chance
of success anywhere - this is to deny that the center of
world revolution is in 3rd world. It is to deny Stalin
and Mao, to deny that the principle contradiction in
this era is between imperialism and the oppressed
nations. Instead, Avakian’s is a Trotskyist move, to say
the principle contradiction is a trans-national
proletariat and a trans-national capitalist class. This
is the fuzzy thinking behind his two “90/10”s, i.e.: 90%
of Amerika can unite against the top 10%. And 90% of the
world can unite against the top 10%. Do the math
Avakian.
Quote:
Of course, if we
succeed in making a qualitative breakthrough
(which it would be) in seizing power in one (or
more) of the imperialist citadels, that would in
fact be a new leap forward for the international
proletariat and would create new freedom,
The
very next line is his Trotskyist fantasy of a labor
aristocracy making revolution. The implication is that
1st world revolution is possible and will be the
decisive breakthrough for sustained socialism. This is
the old Trotskyist dogma that the technological first
world will play the decisive role in socialist
revolution. It is a total dogmatic denial of the
facts.
Quote:
All this then poses
problems, yes, but what it also does, on the
other hand, is to heighten the importance of
internationalism and, at the same time, the
importance of grasping and deepening our grasp
of the whole motion of spirals leading to
conjunctures when all the contradictions on a
world scale are concentrated and heightened,
including the possibilities for revolution. This
is opposed to views which either deny, fail to
grasp or, if recognizing some of this, deal
incorrectly with the question of the spiral
motion internationally toward conjuncture, and
oppose to it erroneous notions such as those
represented in the theory of general crisis, the
linear type views to which I referred earlier.
Okay,
Avakian is right about rejecting a mechanical crises
theory, but he doesn’t offer anything better! All he
does is throw out a bunch of long winded dogma that
amounts to little more than says “Go For it!” - which
was their slogan in the 80s. Behind all the rhetoric,
his analysis is as idealist and religious as any utopian
anarchist. Avakian slides between Trotskyist social
democracy and utopian end of the worldism.
Quote:
So this poses
problems but it deepens and heightens the
importance of our understanding of imperialism
and our need to grasp this correct methodology
and analysis precisely because, as I said, even
if gains are maximized at every point—even at
the decisive points of worldwide conjuncture—not
all will be won at once, in one conjuncture or
even, in all likelihood, in just a couple of
go-’rounds.
At
base, this is just a religious commitment to the fact
that revolution will happen in Amerika. It’s pure dogma.
Quote:
Therefore, this
problem of how to deal with this lopsidedness,
how to make the greatest breakthroughs and then
how to make socialist countries bases for the
world revolution is going to be with us and is
going to assume very acute form. We’re not going
to be able to just wish away the problems
related to socialist states emerging in an
imperialist-dominated world. In all likelihood,
whether or not we make a breakthrough this time
around in terms of a revolution in one (or more)
of these imperialist citadels, even a relatively
lesser one, there will still be these problems.
Whether or not such a breakthrough is made,
we’re still not going to be able to wave away
the problem that there’s going to be imperialist
encirclement and that the pressure, both
material and ideological, that such encirclement
is going to exert on the proletariat in power
and on its socialist state will be immense.
Fakes
left with all the talk of lopsidedness, runs right by
talking about the impossibility of socialism in one
country. What is the subtext? That there needs to be a
global revolution to break imperialist encirclement.
This is pure Trotsky.
Quote:
That’s a question we
have to begin grappling with right now,
precisely because if we carry out the correct
line with the correct methodology there may
be—if not in the U.S. then in some other
imperialist citadel(s), and perhaps in the U.S.
itself—that actual leap forward of the seizure
of power when the question will be very much and
pressingly on the agenda. And, of course, these
basic principles apply and are crucial for the
international proletariat wherever (in whatever
type of country) it makes the breakthroughs and
establishes socialist states.
He
thinks leading a first world revolution is the real
prize - the key to international success. Can anyone say
“Trotsky?” Of course, he offers no material analysis to
back up his view. He thinks a labor aristocracy will
make revolution - how? What is his basis for making this
claim? He bags Marx. He bags Lenin. All he does is
ramble on with some mystical notion that it must be
possible - go for it!
Quote:
But beyond that
there is a particular question I want to
address: How far can you go within a single
socialist country? Just to say that it’s been
proven and settled historically that socialism
is possible in one country—even if we unbeg the
question by coming to a deep understanding of
what socialism is and say that there is a real
socialist road and it’s possible to go and stay
on the socialist road, at least for a
significant distance, to use the analogy of a
road—it still hasn’t even been settled that it’s
possible to have socialism in absolutely every
country under every circumstance. The fact that
it’s been possible to do it in certain countries
in certain times doesn’t prove it’s possible to
have socialism in every “one country” at all
times. But even more than that there is, I
believe, and this is something I’m trying to
come to grips with, and only beginning to
grapple with, a limitation, though not an
absolute limit in a mechanical sense, on how far
you can go in a single socialist country..
More
Trotsky! He is right in one sense. You can only go so
far in a single country - nobody denies that! But, what
he wants to deny is sustained socialism in one country -
especially a 3rd world nation. This is Trotsky’s theory
of permanent revolution. Avakian says socialism in one
country is not sustainable without a 1st world
revolution bailing it out in some way - breaking an
encirclement. This is a mix of technological determinism
and military determinism.
Quote:
We shouldn’t get
metaphysical here either on the other side, that
is, be absolutist about the limitations on how
far you can advance in socialist transformation
in one country.
Avakian
contra Stalin. Avakian doesn’t think socialism in one
country is really possible. This is not different from
the Trotskyists who say that you can have some kind of
socialism for awhile in a single country but inevitably
without permanent revolution, it degenerates, deforms,
reverses. This is a total denial of Stalin and Mao who
thought that you could build and sustain socialism. Mao
had something called the cultural revolution -
continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the
proletariat. Avakian would deny the GPCR also.
Quote:
As far as I
understand it, the reason for this is, first of
all, that there is the ideological influence, as
well as the actual military and political and
other pressure, from the imperialist
encirclement. But there’s also the fact that
this is the era of a single world process and
that has a material foundation, it’s not just an
idea. What may be rational in terms of the
production, even, and utilization of labor power
and resources within a single country, carried
beyond a certain point, while it may seem
rational for that country, is irrational if you
actually look upon a world scale. And that
reacts upon that country and becomes an
incorrect policy, not the best utilization of
things even within that country, and begins to
work not only against the development of the
productive forces but, dialectically related to
that, against the further transformation in the
production relations (or the economic base) and
the superstructure.
Here
he advances some theory of productive forces. Avakian is
saying you can’t advance and sustain socialism in one
country. This is more Trotskyist defeatism for the 3rd
world. It is also a denial of Maoism and its
universality. Maoism says that cultural revolution
sustains socialism, protects and advances it. Avakian
thinks a first world bail out is decisive. Write
“Trotsky” on your mirror Avakian!
Quote:
It is not possible
to go on forever in a linear country-by-country
way, to go on a separate dialectic within the
socialist countries, even with its twists and
turns, even beating back at times capitalist
restoration and supporting the peoples of the
world: at a certain point this is going to turn
into its opposite—for material reasons, as well
as interpenetrating with ideological and
political and even military reasons.
Straight
Trotsky. Socialism in one country won’t work says
Avakian. The solution? A new Trotsky style
international. Stalin dissolved the Comintern. Mao never
created a new one. Avakian wants to deny the national
character of socialist revolutions in the 3rd world and
their largely independent development and instead
substitute some Trotskyist vision of a world revolution
lead by a world party.
Quote:
There’s a truth here
which, correctly grasped with materialist
dialectics, strengthens proletarian
internationalism and can strengthen, if applied
consciously, the revolutionary struggle of the
international proletariat overall through its
unavoidably long, tortuous path and struggle
marked by critical conjunctures, by sudden
turns, dramatic upheavals and leaps.
More
mystical blather from the windbag guru - “it is
possible, go for it!”
Quote:
That is, we have
sharpened our grasp of the fact that proletarian
internationalism is and must be the foundation
for the proletariat and its party in all
countries.
There
is no Amerikan proletariat. There is not going to be a
revolution made by Amerikans. To the charge of
Crypto-Trotskyism? Bob Avakian, how do you
plea?
Quote:
I say that we can
and should willingly and defiantly plead
innocent as charged to this allegation that we
need to keep advancing and winning more of the
world, or else our gains will turn into their
opposite.
« Last Edit:
Aug 15, 2005, 10:18pm by prairiefire
»
Re: Conquer the World Critique part
2 « Reply #2 on Jul 18, 2005,
8:56pm »
Why doesn't
Bob Avakian just drop the Maoist act? The whole point of
this article was just that the success of revolution in
the world depends on revolution in the first world.
That's straight up Trotskyist permanent revolution!
Logged
Big bad giant standing tall Crushing all the
creatures great and small I'd like to see this giant
fall!
Re: Avakian's Conquer the World Critique part
2 « Reply #3 on Jul 19, 2005,
12:30pm »
It's hard
to tell if Avakian is just a terrible writer or if he is
consciously trying to fog things up in order to give
himself cover for his Trotskyism. I'm guessing it's
both.
What is absolutely amazing is how they are
even tailing the "CP"=u$a now. They are using the whole
"CP"=u$a line about fascism and the need for liberal
compromise. The "CP" has been using this line at least
since Reagan (maybe even earlier- maybe since
Roosevelt?) in order to justify their democrat party
politics. Now "RCP"=u$a is doing exactly the same. They
are tailing the whole "anything but Bu$h" crowd with
their new campaign. Some vanguard!
In addition to
the covert attacks in _Conquer the World_, they've been
making other attacks on the legacy of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution. They have been pushing
a whole liberal approach to socialism - liberalism in
art, liberalism toward class enemies, liberalism in
persynal affairs, liberalism in sex (which is a step up
from their anti-gay line), "less extremism" etc. Their
push for liberalism in conjunction with the attack in
_Conquer the World_ against continuing socialism and the
revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, it
all really comes down to an attack on the GPCR.
« Last Edit:
Jul 19, 2005, 1:24pm by prairiefire
»
Joined: Jun
2005 Posts: 1,624 Location: united $nakes of
generica
Re: Avakian's Conquer the World Critique part
2 « Reply #4 on Jul 21, 2005,
12:15pm »
The ¢PU$A
did indeed tail the Demokkkrats in the Roosevelt era.
Eventually they ran their own candidates--gU$ Hall for
pre$ident, various people for the $enate and other
offices. None of those candidates was ever elected. As I
recall, they stopped running gU$ Hall after Reagan's
re-election in 1984 and started backing the Demokkkrats
wholeheartedly from that time on.
Voting was
always a requirement for ¢PU$A members; reading Marx and
Lenin was
not.
"Revolution in the
'80s - GO FOR IT!" RcP=u$a slogan
Avakian's
"epistemological rapture" is a return to Trotskyism.
Part of Avakian's break is to oppose Lenin, Stalin, Mao,
and MIM. Avakian says that his turn to Trotskyism is a
way to avoid becoming a "historical residue." He also
describes Stalin's contributions as historical
baggage.
Avakian, against Lenin and Stalin,
says:
Quote:
[Stalin] came out
with a whole theory about how, in the several
decades World War 1, the workers in imperialist
countries had actually gotten a stake in the
fatherland - they'd won certain concessions,
they'd formed trade unions, they'd won more
democratic rights - so they actually had
something to defend in the fatherland (Avakian,
From Ike to Mao and Beyond p 245, from the
chapter "Taking on Baggage from the
International Communist Movement").
Avakian
is refering to Lenin and Stalin's thesis of parasiticism
as part of historical baggage.
It reflects
something about the general level of education over
there at RCP=u$a that Avakian is able to pawn off his
Trotskyism as something new and different. Avakian
speaks of his Trotskyism under the cover of an
"epistemological break," he also goes into criticisms of
the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and Stalin.
This is of no surprise to anyone who has read
_CTW_.
Like so many topics Avakian blathers on
about, he is indirect, longwinded and evasive. Avakian
is afraid to say directly what his epistemological
rapture amounts to. It is implied that this
epistemological rapture is, like the rest of _CTW_, a
break especially with Stalin and Mao. Even though
Avakian goes on to present Trotskyist and Menshevik
theories, Avakian presents them as a radically new. As
was pointed out in an earlier post, Avakian advocates a
theory of productive forces in opposition to the idea
that 3rd world nations are capable of building sustained
socialism on their own. Obviously this an attack on
Stalin, but also on Mao and the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution and continuing the revolution under
the dictatorship of the proletariat. For Avakian what is
truly decisive is the first world bail out a 3rd world
revolutionary state in terms of production and the
military. Trotsky called Avakian's theory "permanent
revolution."
Like Avakian, the web persynality
Redstar2000 also argues that socialism in a 3rd world
country is impossible. Both advocate variants of
Menshevism. Redstar2000, like Avakian, also announces
his methodological break with Marxism. He even refers to
himself as a heretic and his eclectic mix of Menshevism
and utopianism as "Marxism without the crap." Or, more
accurately, "crap without the Marxism."
Avakian
and Redstar2000 both make a lot of noise about breaking
with the old. Avakian goes so far as to refer to Stalin
and aspects of the GPCR as historical baggage. For all
their noise, their break with the "old," amounts only to
finding the older - Trotskyism and Menshevism.
Avakian describes his Trotskyism as an
"epistemological rupture." And, "rapture" is the right
word since Avakian dispenses with any material analysis.
RcP=u$a opts for truth as revealed to the "main man"
Avakian - who by the way has been described as
irreplaceable, a bus driver on the road of revolution,
football coach in the game of revolution, a fireman
putting out the flames of capitalism, a living breathing
Marx, the next Mao, and most recently and most
offensive, they have claimed that Avakian is the
inspiration behind Prachanda.
Avakian's real
epistemological break is with science, with materialism
and Marxism. For RcP=u$a, rational knowledge comes from
visionary leaders, specifically, Bob Avakian. So much so
that they codify his leadership in their 4 main points.
At bottom, RcP=u$a has a religious approach to
knowledge. Bob Avakian, not science, is the final word.
So, RcP=u$a says he is their greatest asset. Bob Avakian
is akin to a religious guru. Since Avakian is the living
connection to truth, they must protect him and uphold
him at all costs. Avakian and his followers, would do
well to read Mao's _On
Practice_:
Quote:
The most ridiculous
person in the world is the "know all" who picks
up a smattering of hearsay knowledge and
proclaims himself "the world's Number One
authority"; this merely shows that he has not
taken a proper measure of himself. Knowledge is
a matter of science, and no dishonesty or
conceit whatsoever is permissible. What is
required is definitely the reverse--honesty and
modesty (Mao, _On Practice_).
Also,
Quote:
Rational knowledge
depends upon perceptual knowledge and perceptual
knowledge remains to be developed into rational
knowledge-- this is the dialectical-materialist
theory of knowledge (Mao, _On Practice_).
So,
on the one hand there is Maoist epistemology; this is
the scientific approach of MIM and its supporters. On
the other hand, there is the dogmatic windbag guru-ism
of Avakian. Now, there are those out there who basically
know that Avakian is a fraud. Yet, at the same time they
still think RcP=u$a's practice is good enough that
supporting RcP=u$a is worth having to endure Avakian.
They put up with Avakian - he is extra baggage. These
forces share Redstar2000's strong pragmatic streak. They
really don't see the connection of theory to practice.
They basically say "yes, we know MIM is correct.
However, RcP=u$a still has a superior practice despite
the dead wood in the form of Chairman Avakian."
Mao answered these pragmatist
critics:
Quote:
As against this,
vulgar "practical men" respect experience but
despise theory, and therefore cannot have a
comprehensive view of an entire objective
process, lack clear direction and long-range
perspective, and are complacent over occasional
successes and glimpses of the truth. If such
persons direct a revolution, they will lead it
up a blind alley (Mao, _On Practice_).
MIM's
practice is based on scientific analysis. What practice
is best, from a proletarian standpoint, is going to
depend on the kind of situation your party finds itself
in. Obviously, if you are living in a majority exploiter
nation, your practice is going to be a lot different
than if you are living in a proletarian nation. MIM has
demonstrated over and over again what Amerika looks like
from a scientific point of view. And, there is no
significant Amerikan proletairiat. Now, in the thousands
and thousands of pages of RcP=u$a literature, you will
find page after page praising Avakian as a leader and
the fountain of truth - but you won't find anything
doing a calculation of global surplus value. This is the
difference, in black and white, between science and
dogma.
MIM, unlike RcP=u$a, is a Maoist
organization. From a proletarian point of view, they
have a far superior practice than RcP=u$a . But, the
RcP=u$aers who assert otherwise can't even begin to
justify themselves until they takes up science and
actually do some investigating into global surplus value
and what that means to the Amerikan class structure.
Those RcP=u$aers who criticize MIM for not having an
adequate practice are stuck in the same pre-scientific
swamp as those who worship Avakian like he is some guru.
Very few take RcP=u$a seriously - as judged by
their online readership. The only time anyone takes
notice of them is when MIM polemicizes with them. From a
proletarian point of view, MIM is superior in in every
way.
Re: Avakian's Conquer the World Critique part
2 « Reply #6 on Aug 7, 2005,
11:02am »
Admin has
moved several posts in this thread to a thread entitled
"the web personality strikes again." Those posts had to
do mostly with the differences between the web
personality redstar2000 and Maoism and less to do
specifically with Avakian's Crypto-Trotskyist text
_Conquer The World_.
Re: Avakian's Conquer the World Critique part
2 « Reply #7 on Aug 23, 2005,
3:08pm »
i blame
myself for joining this site, i should have known that a
site which puts marx and lenin into the same basket as
mao is not for me.
Then i realized the membership
is vehemently anti-trotskyist. can someone explain
why?
On Bob Avakian and the RCP, that sh*t is
scary, one read of 'Revolution' magazine should let you
know that the RCP is basically a cult around
Avakian.
Maoism... Mao believed that revolutions
could be carried out without the working class.. thats
how much faith he had in the proletariat.
And is
it me or did the person in this post sayt hat there are
actually socialist countries out here present ly? or was
he/she referring to the fact that the means of
production have been thoroughly socialized?
And
if there is a problem with poster has a problem with
trotskyism why doesnt he/she attack a group that
actually claims to be trotsky and espouses trotskyism?
i blame myself for
joining this site, i should have known that a
site which puts marx and lenin into the same
basket as mao is not for me.
Then i
realized the membership is vehemently
anti-trotskyist. can someone explain
why?
On Bob Avakian and the RCP, that
sh*t is scary, one read of 'Revolution' magazine
should let you know that the RCP is basically a
cult around Avakian.
Maoism... Mao
believed that revolutions could be carried out
without the working class.. thats how much faith
he had in the proletariat.
And is it me
or did the person in this post sayt hat there
are actually socialist countries out here
present ly? or was he/she referring to the fact
that the means of production have been
thoroughly socialized?
And if there is a
problem with poster has a problem with
trotskyism why doesnt he/she attack a group that
actually claims to be trotsky and espouses
trotskyism?
Regarding
Trotsky: I more or less take MIM at its word; I know
what MIM says about Trotsky, but have not bothered to
research it myself because there is just so much one
persyn can do.
MIM says 1) Trotsky organized
against Stalin and was willing to make alliances with
anyone to try to get in power a) The attempts at
getting into power Trotsky was making would nevre have
worked in a million years.
2) This is more
important than Trotsky was a double dealing power hungry
lowlife: He was theoretically wrong. He believed in
instant global revolution led by the first world.
Revolution does not and will not happen like that. There
will be a series of revolutions throughout the Third
World which, over time, will result in a Third World
hostile to the imperialists: The imperialists will get
cut off from the resources they steal, their economies
will collapse and you'll have a lot of pissed off and
confused labor aristocrats
3) This is the most
important but least obvious critique: Yes, I'm taking
these critiques in reverse order from least important
but most obvious to most important but least obvious.
Here it is: Trotsky was an idealist. He thought that his
flawed mental model was reality. He put ideas ahead of
facts. His daydreaming about the Nazis putting him into
power reflect this.
a) Because the Trotskyites
are daydreamers they've never run a succesful revolution
anywhere -- correct me if I am wrong but I cannot think
of one succesful Trotskyite revolution ever happening
anywhere.
do not reveal persynal information: Pigs want to know
who you are. Don't get yahoo messenger, yahoo toolbar or
google toolbar they are spyware. Get adaware and hijack
this (free) to clear your computer of
spyware.
a) Because the
Trotskyites are daydreamers they've never run a
succesful revolution anywhere -- correct me if I
am wrong but I cannot think of one succesful
Trotskyite revolution ever happening
anywhere.
There
aren't any. You know damn well that the Trotskyists
would trumpet the hell out of any minor success of
theirs--and blame Comrade Stalin for its failure to
thrive.
The Trotskkkyists have never actually
done anything--other than betray the Soviet Union to the
Nazis and the united $nakes. They're full of windy
idealist rhetoric, and they're positively great at
carping about others' alleged failures to meet the
Trotskyist ideal, but they're not much good at achieving
anything in the material universe.
In fact, it's
hard to find Trotskyist parties in much of the
Third World, where people don't have much use for the
idea that they have to hitch their wagons to the
"advanced" workers of the First World.
a) Because the
Trotskyites are daydreamers they've never run a
succesful revolution anywhere -- correct me if I
am wrong but I cannot think of one succesful
Trotskyite revolution ever happening
anywhere.
There
aren't any. You know damn well that the
Trotskyists would trumpet the hell out of any
minor success of theirs--and blame Comrade
Stalin for its failure to
thrive.
Ya think? I just wanted to
be certain that there were no succesful trot
revolutions anywhere ever before saying
so!
Logged
do not reveal persynal information: Pigs want to know
who you are. Don't get yahoo messenger, yahoo toolbar or
google toolbar they are spyware. Get adaware and hijack
this (free) to clear your computer of
spyware.
Logged
![[avatar]](conquertheworldpart2_files/av8.gif)
![[avatar]](conquertheworldpart2_files/jiang.gif)
![[homepage]](conquertheworldpart2_files/www_sm.gif)
![[avatar]](conquertheworldpart2_files/ussr0443.jpg)
![[avatar]](conquertheworldpart2_files/av5.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](conquertheworldpart2_files/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](conquertheworldpart2_files/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](conquertheworldpart2_files/print.gif)