Pages: (7) « First ... 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> RCP's new REVOLUTION newspaper, Powerful new tool for the revolution
romanm
Posted: Jun 13 2005, 08:19 PM
Quote Post


Guerrillero
**

Group: Members
Posts: 160
Member No.: 10612
Joined: 18-May 05



I disagree with the description of MIM in the above post. MIM's position can be found on their web page (check sig, the forum is also a good resource). MIM's analysis of crypto-Trotskyism can be found at http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/crypto.html.



--------------------
PMEmail Poster
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 13 2005, 10:34 PM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



roughly in response to communist league

QUOTE
And the RCP's alternative is to toss out democracy (proletarian, socialist or otherwise), toss out class analysis and latch on to the ramblings of a millionaire's son who has never worked a day in his life. Par for the course for the American Left, I suppose.


First off the RCP does not toss out democracy or class analysis. It just doesn't approach democracy as the goal and does not organize around bourgoeis right as its main demands. As for the rest of your comments again you deal with the identity of the person not the content of their arguments or ideas. This actually perfectly reflects your mechanical approach to class. Need I remind you that Engels was an actual capitalist till the day he died? And what's this stuff about a millionaires son anyway? What you have his dead dad's bank statements?

QUOTE
All you're elevating here is your own ... ego. I'm sorry, comrade, I have to echo the sentiments expressed by others on this board and also say that Avakian's writings, while thought provoking, offer nothing in terms of insight. They have no real educational value. And, I must add, it is the height of arrogance to suggest that Avakian is the only person to have pondered the issues he talks about in his articles and discussions


I never suggested that Avakian is the only person to have pondered these things. What I meant by his holistic viewpoint is that he is the only person to bring all these different issues together in a concentrated way. It's not good enough to have a partially correct line. For instance if a group was correct on the national question, but wrong on the question of oppression of women. And it is not that the correctness of Avakian's line is absolute, but that it is relative. It is better than anything else out their and it continues to grow.

QUOTE
Given a choice, I would rather be a part of an organization that creates "line by committee" (i.e., collectively educates and develops its members to understand and apply communist theory and dialectical method to the world around them) than one that relies on a god-leader to create "line by commandment".


I think you've misunderstood what I said. Creating line by committee is different from collectively educating and developing members to understand and apply communist theory. Creating line by committee is when a bunch of people sit down to decide what their program is going to be and they do it by a vote instead of by what is correct. With this method you get all kinds of bizarre pandering to american patriotism such as putting slightly transformed construction of the stars and stripes all over your propaganda as well as many other things because not everyone is on the same level of understanding. This is a material fact not everyone is on the same level of understanding, not to say that they couldn't be (afterall to a certain extent this is the point of communism). But is it better to take the highest understanding from an individual (who is actually very much engaged in discussion with opposing viewpoints and other ideas that come out of both society at large and the rank and file of the party) or to ignore that higher understanding because it is anti-democratic. And as I said the point is to elevate everyone and part of that method of creating line while elevating everyone's understanding is exactly to collectively educate and develop members to understand and apply communist theory, because the more people can do that the more minds are working on these problems. The assertion that I'm talking about a god-like leader is absurd and is a dishonest slur.

This post has been edited by repeater138 on Jun 14 2005, 12:13 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
xnj
Posted: Jun 13 2005, 10:34 PM
Quote Post


Guerrillero
**

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Member No.: 10944
Joined: 8-June 05



Can the RCP supporters on this board point me to some articles that are considered Avakian's most significant writings? Haven't read him before (and not interested in buying the book or DVD), but any links would be appreciated.


--------------------
Join the study group on Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Fred Engels

Iraq Occupation Watch: Daily News
Monthly Review
MR Zine
PM
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 13 2005, 10:56 PM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



roughly in response to Son of Rage

QUOTE
Your "main man" openly states that your party would be "an enlightened despot" after the revolution. There are other statist groups who at least think that a "democratic state" based on workers councils is what we should be fighting for (which is the ISO's line), you guys want a dictaroship with Avakian as the dictator and are open about that. Where am I wrong here?


Let's dispell this bullshit about dictatorship and enlightened despotism. These assertions are simply equivocating on the definition of dictatorship in use and simply being dishonest on the issue of "enlightened despotism".

This is what is said about this issue:

QUOTE


Doing Away with Despots

Speaking of the transition to communism and the seizure of power as the first great leap in that, to put this somewhat provocatively, it could be said that the goal is to move from where the vanguard is "an enlightened despot" to where there is no despot and no need or basis for one. Now that is, again, a deliberately provocative and even consciously outrageous way to say it. What do I mean by being "enlightened despots"? Obviously, I don't mean that literally--our outlook and methods can't be like those of Louis the 14th or Frederick the Great.***

Still, the fact remains that, when we come to power, there will remain great inequalities and social divisions, and notions of "pure democracy" would only serve to bring the bourgeoisie back to power. Think, for example, of what's said about the new state power in our Party's Draft Programme (see the appendices "Consolidating the New Proletarian Power, Developing Radically New Institutions" and "Proletarian Dictatorship, Democracy and the Rights of the People.") It makes the point that things proceed in waves, and that, in order for revolution to be possible there will have to be a whole, huge mass upsurge, but then it will not be possible to continuously maintain things at that high level.

Imagine what would be necessary to make revolution in a country like the U.S. Millions and tens of millions of people and all their revolutionary upheaval will be organized into an organized fighting force, and people will go through tremendous changes in their relations with each other and in their view of the world, in their ideological outlook. But then that's not going to stay on that same high level--it won't be possible to maintain things at that level all the time. Things proceed in waves and through spirals. When that initial great revolutionary wave recedes that has made it possible to seize and consolidate state power, we're not going to hand power back to the bourgeoisie. We're not going to say: "Oh well, right now there aren't as many masses as actively involved as there were at the high point of the mass revolutionary upsurge, so we should hand power back to the bourgeoisie, because after all we don't want to be a hierarchal dictatorship." No--that would be a monumental betrayal of the masses and all the ways in which they heroically struggled and sacrificed to make revolution and seize power.

So that's one side of the contradiction--once state power has been won, with everything that will be involved in achieving that, we must hold on firmly to that state power. But the other side goes back to that question of who is the "we"--to the task of expanding and transforming the "we," increasingly involving broader ranks of the masses in exercising power and revolutionizing society--and if we don't find the means to do that, then this state power will, in fact, be turned into another form of oppressive rule, into another form of bourgeois dictatorship.

What I mean by being an "enlightened despot," again to be deliberately provocative, is that it will be unavoidable that, especially in the early stages of the proletarian dictatorship, the party--and, in a concentrated way, the party leadership--will have a disproportionate influence, shall we say, over society. It will have a disproportionate influence over what happens in society. Not because we're determined to run everything--but because that's the reality of it. Anybody can say what they want, but just think realistically. Somebody gets up and says something and then a party leader gets up and says something else: Who's going to get more of an audience in the short run? And, in an overall sense, it will not be wrong for people to have respect for and to give great weight to what is said by representatives of the vanguard that has led them out of the horrors of this society. But there is a real contradiction there, because in any given situation it may be that the person who is not a party leader is right, and the party leader is wrong; and there is the general principle that right and wrong, correct and incorrect, have to be determined on their own merits, so to speak--on the basis of determining what actually corresponds to objective reality and what points toward a fuller understanding of the question. So you're dealing with all kinds of very sharp contradictions here, but the fact is that, no matter how you resolve any particular aspect of this, party members and in particular party leaders, and the party as a whole, are going to have a disproportionate influence for a while.

Everything's not going to be all equal, especially in the early stages of socialism--the whole point and objective of the socialist transition to communism is to eliminate social inequalities, but they will not and cannot be abolished all at once, or even in a very short period of time, even though it is crucial to continue in the direction of overcoming these inequalities to the greatest degree possible at every stage. But, for some time, it's not going to be all equal.

So, what do we do with that? Do we recognize that contradiction and then set out on the road of overcoming that step by step--and leap after leap--until we finally get to the point where these inequalities are overcome, and this contradiction between leadership and led is abolished? Or do we go off course in one direction or another: either giving full play to these divisions and inequalities, reinforcing and even heightening them; or, as the "mirror opposite" error, trying to just ignore these inequalities, or to abolish them all at a single stroke? Both of these wrong lines and approaches will lead, sooner or later, to the destruction of the socialist state and the restoration of capitalism, reversing the whole revolutionary process through which the masses can increasingly master and transform society toward the elimination of class divisions and social inequalities.

So, here again, we get into decisive questions that are taken up in the Draft Programme and are spoken to in "Great Objectives and Grand Strategy" and "Grasp Revolution, Promote Production"**** about the dialectical relationship between the need for leadership and centralism, on the one hand, and on the other hand, diversity, creativity and creative initiative, criticism and dissent. These things are all vital, just as holding onto state power and not handing it back to the bourgeoisie is absolutely vital.


If you read the rest here: http://rwor.org/a/1201/bareach6.htm

You'll see he is also dealing with The Value of Dissent and "Fitting" to Rule as well. This is a small part of a much larger work which is here: http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#reaching

What Avakian is dealing with is the reality of a post-revolutionary society. He is making many arguments about this, but most importantly he is making an argument for recognizing the real contradictions. Immediately after a revolution things will still be incredibly unequal and moreover members of the vanguard will be in a pronounced position of power. If we ignore this we'll get the worst of what has occurred in prior post-revolutionary situations. It is not that this is a desirable situation or the goal is to keep things like that. The idea is that being conscious of it now and when it is the case we can, while connecting ends and means, avoid becoming our opposite or losing the revolution.

Now I know Redstar and alot of others like to take this all out of context, but really all you're doing is showing how little you understand what Avakian is talking about. Which is odd because you act as if it is so simple and obvious or so incredibly wrong that its worthless. Well if this was true why distort it? Let it stand on its own and let people judge for themselves. When I look at this passage I see something great because it tells me that we're going to be dealing with reality and not let contemporary popular political pulls take us off course. I see something which is both trying to correct for the excesses of prior revolutions while continuing to hold on to the most important principles.

To digress a bit, the dictatorship we're talking about is a class dicatorship. The dictatorship of the proletariat. No one is advocating a bourgeois dictatorship. This is where Son of Rage intentionally equivocates using the popular meaning of the word dictatorship to describe what is meant when Avakian uses it, but the two meanings are completely different.

This post has been edited by repeater138 on Jun 14 2005, 12:13 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 13 2005, 11:10 PM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



QUOTE
Can the RCP supporters on this board point me to some articles that are considered Avakian's most significant writings? Haven't read him before (and not interested in buying the book or DVD), but any links would be appreciated.


Alot of his stuff isn't online, but here are some of the more significant works:

CONQUER THE WORLD? The International Proletariat Must and Will
http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/

DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY, AND THE SOCIALIST TRANSITION TO COMMUNISM

http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/avakian_democracy_dictatorship_speech.htm

There's also a Q+A to this talk here: http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/avakian_democracy_dictatorship_questions.htm

Democracy: More Than Ever We Can and Must Do Better Than That

http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/democracy/index.htm

This is a very important polemic against K. Venu who was a communist leader in India. The piece which he is polemicizing against is here:

http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/democracy/crc-document.htm

I also suggest checking out bobavakian.net where there are a couple of his newest speeches in audio, including "Elections, Democracy and Dictatorship, Resistance and Revolution", "Christianity and Society", and "God Doesn't Exist".

Just to go back to Redstar, CL, and SoR's criticisms if you listen to "Elections, Democracy and Dictatorship" you'll see that he is not arguing for one or the other, Democracy or Dictatorship, but that they're one and the same and that what we really need is to supercede both. Now I don't know who else is saying this, I think it's pretty unique and important, so not all BA's ideas are derivative as CL seems to claim.

PMEmail Poster
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 12:09 AM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



Roughly in response to redstar


QUOTE
You practically issue an engraved invitation for the response...so here it is.

When I see a Leninist party not simply overthrow a capitalist regime but establish a social order where the working class has the power and exercises it, I will embrace the vanguard as a valid revolutionary paradigm.

There is little reason for optimism about the RCP in this regard. Avakian has flatly said that he intends a post-revolutionary "enlightened despotism" and, in so many words, that there will be a state apparatus even under communism.

The vanguard is "immortal" even if the "Leader" is not.


Frankly I think that the experience in the Soviet Union and China, while far from perfect (and after all who the fuck really puts the perfect up as a realistic goal) went further than anything in human history towards putting power into the hands of the oppressed. You simply disagree with this analysis. I could show you, and many of us have tried, over and over and you would simply reject it. Regardless anarchism is parochial and completely invalid as a form of radical change. They can fight for wage hikes and fewer hours, or against trade policies, but they will never be able to fundamentally reorganize society for the better let alone destroy the system. They can barely reorganize the small isolated communities they create to reflect their typical slogan of "be the change you want to see".

I don't know what you're talking about in terms of the CF stuff. I don't see it as being on the back burner.

QUOTE
No one is doing that or anything even remotely approaching that in the U.S.

Your argument really reduces itself to: someday the RCP will do that and no one else will ever do it at all.

You can hardly be shocked, much less infuriated, that such a claim is greeted with massive skepticism. Even if the Leninist paradigm itself were, in principle, valid, there's no significant evidence to show that the RCP "measures up" to the Leninist standard that you outlined. There are a whole flock of "Leninist vanguards" in the U.S. today and all of them put together wouldn't fill a minor league ballpark. None of them show significantly greater achievements than any of the others...they're all "in the pack".

Of course, you "have" Avakian...and none of your rivals have such a "leading personality".

But it's difficult for me to see what advantage you have gained by that. His thinking is usually pedestrian at best and sometimes suffers from incoherence. He rambles at dreadful length and one searches, sometimes in vain, for the kernel of what he wants to convey.

As an "inspiring figure", he is notably lacking in "charisma"...the response to him as a person that I've seen on the internet is almost universally dismissive, often with marked hostility. I myself have probably attempted to engage Avakian's ideas more than any other person outside of your circle...with little to show for my efforts thus far.


I disagree I believe the RCP is laying the basis for doing this in the U.S. And that's what has to be done if you're ever going to take state power. This is the connection between means and ends. If you're aren't laying the basis for this then how could you hope to accomplish it. The line on christian fascism is one example of giving expression to mass discontent and leading it towards revolutionary concsiousness. Certainly we're not redistributing property, but we're doing what is needed at this moment to get to that moment. Most of these other "communist" organizations are simply trying to build their sect into a quantitatively significant force, with very little direction or concept of how to seize state power or with concepts that are hopelessly out of date. There is everything from throwing weight in the electoral realm to infiltrating unions going on in the rest of the so-called communist movement in this country. The RCP is leading through line which is connecting to the masses. Certainly there isn't some kind of massive following, but the ability to construct line and to practice the mass line are two irreplaceable aspects that the RCP has over others.

So in a certain sense you're right the argument is that "someday the RCP will do that and no one else will ever do it at all." But it's also important to note that you can make an educated decision on this issue by comparing line and practice. It's not like it is completely divorced from reality. On the other hand this is based upon an analysis of this moment, it is quite possible that new organizations will rise and lead in a way that the RCP is trying to lead. I just can't see any of the organizations in the general left today doing it. Which is not to say they wouldn't be involved in a revolutionary struggle just that they have no ability to lead it successfully without major changes.

It is not skepticism which bothers me. On the contrary I think this is great, what infuriates me is cynicism. It is not that I'm pissed that no one understands that Avakian is right, it's that people on this board who claim to be interested in changing the world through revolution would rather debate whether Avakian can be right about anything rather than if he is right about anything. It's the difference between dealing with a whole bunch of slander and actually dealing with the content of the ideas.

QUOTE
I find this to be a particularly revealing "criticism" -- revealing about the RCP, that is.

Why should it be a "fault" if a group's political line is determined collectively? And why should it be a "virtue" if its line is set by a single "leader"?

Is correct line a product of "genius"? Or of someone who claims "genius"?

No dissent, no criticism, no struggle???

Do people in the RCP ever struggle with Bob Avakian?

Do bears shit in outhouses?


I find this to be particularly revealing of your method of argumentation Redstar. You take a small bit of a quote and you transform it to mean something else completely. Where did I ever suggest that the leadership Avakian gives is anything but an interplay between leadership and led where in many cases the leaders are being led and vice versa. Ah yes dialectics! That's right. You think it's bullshit and that is why you will never understand what we're dealing with. You may think Avakian is rambling, but he is laying out dialectical analysis.

QUOTE
How would we "do" science with that approach? The "leader" sets out the "line of march" for, say, particle physics, and all particle physicists adjust their research priorities accordingly?


Have you ever read the Feinman Lectures? That is exactly what almost every physics student in this country looks at to study physics and it exactly lays out the "line of march" for the study of physics. Now I suppose you're going to put out some smart aleck comment about how the Feinman Lectures probably aren't that good because Feinman did for physics what Avakian does for revolution, even though you've never read them.

This post has been edited by repeater138 on Jun 14 2005, 12:18 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
CommunistLeague
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 01:33 AM
Quote Post


21st Century Communist
**

Group: Members
Posts: 187
Member No.: 10229
Joined: 18-April 05



QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 13 2005, 06:16 PM)
First off the RCP does not toss out democracy or class analysis. It just doesn't approach democracy as the goal and does not organize around bourgoeis right as its main demands. As for the rest of your comments again you deal with the identity of the person not the content of their arguments or ideas. This actually perfectly reflects your mechanical approach to class. Need I remind you that Engels was an actual capitalist till the day he died? And what's this stuff about a millionaires son anyway? What you have his dead dad's bank statements?


Proletarian democracy is the immediate goal, since it can only come about through the establishment of a workers' republic ("dictatorship of the proletariat", to use the old terminology). That you cannot understand that only confirms the complete bankruptcy of your political method.

As for Engels, if you had ever bothered to read his biography, you would know that, in fact, he was not a capitalist in the formal sense of the term except for a very short period of time later in his life. Yes, his father owned shares in a Manchester textile mill, but Engels worked as a clerk. It was not until later, after his father died, that he was a "shareholder" (and then owner) in that factory; however, he gave it up after a short time.

But, the specifics of Engels' life are not the issue here. You are trying to point out that non-proletarians can be leaders today by using an empirical example from 150 years ago. And yet, we are the ones accused of a "mechanical approach". Comrade, the development of capitalism has qualitatively altered the role and relations of classes. Even Marx and Engels were able to see this development:

QUOTE
"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, maneuvering between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overseers, bailiffs and shopmen." -- Marx and Engels, Section 1B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, "Socialist and Communist Literature", Communist Manifesto


Now, what are the concrete manifestations of this development? The transformation of the petty bourgeoisie into the class of "overseers, bailiffs and shopmen" -- managers, professionals and guards -- means, first, that the class has stabilized and crystallized as a distinct class formation. The grey area that existed between skilled proletarian and the old petty bourgeois, such as in the case of tradespeople like carpenters and plumbers, has been eliminated. Second, this "new" petty bourgeoisie no longer maneuvers between classes, attempting to carve out the best deal. Its existence is dependent on the maintenance of private ownership of the means of production, and thus its material class interests are cast with the bourgeoisie.

Third, the development of this "new" petty bourgeoisie has altered the class consciousness and "standpoint" of the class. The existence of the stabilized petty bourgeois has strengthened their material ties to the bourgeoisie, which has, first, given them a qualitatively greater material interest in preserving class relations, and, second, has given the remnants of the "old" petty bourgeoisie another option in the face of impending obsolescence. These petty bourgeois will be ruined, but not proletarianized. The small shopkeeper who loses his or her shop no longer has only the option of joining the proletariat; now, he or she can become a professional "consultant" or even a manager in the large-scale shop that forced him or her out of business....

Umm, where was I? Oh yeah! I was answering your charge about having a "mechanical approach" to class.

Finally, in terms of Avakian's dad, I don't have his bank statements, but I do have access to newspapers from the 1960s, and I can read. It's hard to miss a high-profile judge with a high-profile son.

QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 13 2005, 06:16 PM)
I never suggested that Avakian is the only person to have pondered these things. What I meant by his holistic viewpoint is that he is the only person to bring all these different issues together in a concentrated way. It's not good enough to have a partially correct line. For instance if a group was correct on the national question, but wrong on the question of oppression of women. And it is not that the correctness of Avakian's line is absolute, but that it is relative. It is better than anything else out their and it continues to grow.


The "only person"? Whatever you say.

QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 13 2005, 06:16 PM)
I think you've misunderstood what I said. Creating line by committee is different from collectively educating and developing members to understand and apply communist theory. Creating line by committee is when a bunch of people sit down to decide what their program is going to be and they do it by a vote instead of by what is correct. With this method you get all kinds of bizarre pandering to american patriotism such as putting slightly transformed construction of the stars and stripes all over your propaganda as well as many other things because not everyone is on the same level of understanding. This is a material fact not everyone is on the same level of understanding, not to say that they couldn't be (afterall to a certain extent this is the point of communism). But is it better to take the highest understanding from an individual (who is actually very much engaged in discussion with opposing viewpoints and other ideas that come out of both society at large and the rank and file of the party) or to ignore that higher understanding because it is anti-democratic. And as I said the point is to elevate everyone and part of that method of creating line while elevating everyone's understanding is exactly to collectively educate and develop members to understand and apply communist theory, because the more people can do that the more minds are working on these problems. The assertion that I'm talking about a god-like leader is absurd and is a dishonest slur.


Am I the only one who sees the duplicity and irony in this paragraph? Apparently not.

Miles


--------------------
If people ... from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [which is only possible by joining the proletariat]. But these gentlemen ... are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas.... If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. (Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879 -- emphasis added)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQAOLYahoo
Top
SonofRage
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 02:26 AM
Quote Post


Comandante
****

Group: Mods
Posts: 1023
Member No.: 793
Joined: 14-August 02



QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 13 2005, 06:38 PM)


What I mean by being an "enlightened despot," again to be deliberately provocative, is that it will be unavoidable that, especially in the early stages of the proletarian dictatorship, the party--and, in a concentrated way, the party leadership--will have a disproportionate influence, shall we say, over society. It will have a disproportionate influence over what happens in society. Not because we're determined to run everything--but because that's the reality of it. Anybody can say what they want, but just think realistically. Somebody gets up and says something and then a party leader gets up and says something else: Who's going to get more of an audience in the short run? And, in an overall sense, it will not be wrong for people to have respect for and to give great weight to what is said by representatives of the vanguard that has led them out of the horrors of this society. But there is a real contradiction there, because in any given situation it may be that the person who is not a party leader is right, and the party leader is wrong; and there is the general principle that right and wrong, correct and incorrect, have to be determined on their own merits, so to speak--on the basis of determining what actually corresponds to objective reality and what points toward a fuller understanding of the question. So you're dealing with all kinds of very sharp contradictions here, but the fact is that, no matter how you resolve any particular aspect of this, party members and in particular party leaders, and the party as a whole, are going to have a disproportionate influence for a while.

Everything's not going to be all equal, especially in the early stages of socialism--the whole point and objective of the socialist transition to communism is to eliminate social inequalities, but they will not and cannot be abolished all at once, or even in a very short period of time, even though it is crucial to continue in the direction of overcoming these inequalities to the greatest degree possible at every stage. But, for some time, it's not going to be all equal.

So, what do we do with that? Do we recognize that contradiction and then set out on the road of overcoming that step by step--and leap after leap--until we finally get to the point where these inequalities are overcome, and this contradiction between leadership and led is abolished? Or do we go off course in one direction or another: either giving full play to these divisions and inequalities, reinforcing and even heightening them; or, as the "mirror opposite" error, trying to just ignore these inequalities, or to abolish them all at a single stroke? Both of these wrong lines and approaches will lead, sooner or later, to the destruction of the socialist state and the restoration of capitalism, reversing the whole revolutionary process through which the masses can increasingly master and transform society toward the elimination of class divisions and social inequalities.


(emphasis mine)

There it goes again. You try and gloss over your own authoritarianism by saying that you "recognize the contradictions."

Dictatorship, is dictatorship is dictatorship. You call it a "class dictatorship" but your so-called dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more than a dictatorship over the proletariat, where the proletariat is ruled by a new ruling class (which some would call the Techno-Managerial or Coordinator Class).




--------------------
Direct Action Tendency | IWW | Red & Anarchist Action Network
__
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.67
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again." -Eugene V. Debs
PMUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 02:45 AM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



QUOTE
Proletarian democracy is the immediate goal, since it can only come about through the establishment of a workers' republic ("dictatorship of the proletariat", to use the old terminology). That you cannot understand that only confirms the complete bankruptcy of your political method.


We've discussed this before and you're playing games. My contention is that your fixation on "democracy" fundamentally buys into bourgeois right. That is not "proletarian democracy" and it actually makes a real point that you would use the dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian democracy as interchangeable terms. You prefer the latter because of the way it connects with bourgeois illusions of democracy. Notice also that we were discussing in terms of simple "democracy," you added the "proletarian" prefix.

So lets put it another way... Your organization confuses bourgoeis right with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Your ideology seeks to equate the dictatorship of the proletariat as an extension of the bourgeois state in the USA, instead of as a complete and radical break. Thus it is the 3rd Republic, and sometimes when you're feeling saucy, the 3rd Workers Republic. If anyone is making clear and fundamental mistakes on class analysis it is the CL. Not only do you blur the differences between the bourgoeis and the proletarian states and class dictatorships, but you then move to the other extreme and view class as a static, "crystallized" formation in which being is entirely and totally determined. You can argue your description of the petty bourgeois and claim that because you have an analysis it isn't mechanical or dogmatic, but it is simply not true. Your organization, as I've said before, covers up its dogmatism by wrapping itself in the "common sense" illusions of the US and of the left which you so vehemently and ironically attack.

QUOTE
Finally, in terms of Avakian's dad, I don't have his bank statements, but I do have access to newspapers from the 1960s, and I can read. It's hard to miss a high-profile judge with a high-profile son.


So what you're saying is that you don't know shit? And I would point out that the vast majority of judges are not millionaires, most of them are paid less than tenured professors and lawyers.

QUOTE
Am I the only one who sees the duplicity and irony in this paragraph? Apparently not.


What's duplicitous about it? You went and completely twisted my use of the term "line by committee" to describe a process which I think actually does describe one aspect of the way line is developed in the RCP. I tried to untangle that and clarify my description of how your line by committee actually works. Fuck man, if you want a clearer example of the shit I'm talking about read the STORM summation or just try to actually organize an ideology from scratch with random people. Oh wait, you already have... great job. rolleyes.gif
PMEmail Poster
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 03:07 AM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



QUOTE
There it goes again. You try and gloss over your own authoritarianism by saying that you "recognize the contradictions."

Dictatorship, is dictatorship is dictatorship. You call it a "class dictatorship" but your so-called dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more than a dictatorship over the proletariat, where the proletariat is ruled by a new ruling class (which some would call the Techno-Managerial or Coordinator Class).


You're so funny... Didn't you just approvingly quote ISO a few points back? Fuck, the CL puts it forward as well as the Socialist Party. All of these parties simply gloss over the dictatorship of the proletariat. You've got no problem with that, but if anyone talks openly and honestly about it, as one should if one is to be principled, then they're cruel authoritarians.

Not all dictatorships are equal and no single group of people can control an entire society without a class basis. Currently we live in a bourgeois dictatorship, which simply means the bourgeoisie calls the shots. This is true. Within the scope of bourgeois dictatorship are a variety of degrees from fascism to Scandinavian welfare state in terms of levels of coercion.

Now CL and you could probably agree that the RCP represents some kind of new bourgeoisie or a petty bourgeois dictatorship. But on what basis can you make this claim? On what basis can you say that the RCP has no roots or support among proletarians? Moreover the recognition of this contradiction which Avakian is putting forward is meant exactly to stop the RCP from becoming a new bourgeoisie. What's CL's plan? Their plan for dealing with the history of betrayals is to restrict all membership in their party to "proletarians". In effect their answer is on the level of identity not line. Nevermind that proletarians are not sacrosanct. They're not spontaneously correct. Need the reminder be made that proletarians are a strong portion of the class alliance which holds a fascist dictatorship together.

As for the techno-managerial stuff, you should investigate the Cultural Revolution as it was explicitly a revolt against this tendency in post-war communism.

This post has been edited by repeater138 on Jun 14 2005, 09:34 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 03:25 AM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



As one last point...

After the last 30yrs of New Left bullshit about decentralized "democratic" change has proven completely worthless and has seen the world brought closer and closer to the brink of destruction, it is time to get serious about this stuff. We need centralization, we need to seize the state, we need a vanguard. Once you come to these realizations the question is are we going to do this the way it has been done in the past or are we going to do it better. Are we going to do it without the virtually indiscriminate state terror of the Stalin period, without the overzealous mob violence of China and without losing the revolution. Or are we going to repeat the past? I believe there is a new synthesis of these issues in what Avakian and the RCP have brought forward. One that we can build off of to truly liberate humanity. And this is not to say that I believe in or that the RCP represents authoritarian tactics, or the following of Avakian as a "god-leader", or the imposition of the commands of a small clique. We're completely against all of this. Attempts to color us this way are dishonest and ultimately self-serving.

This post has been edited by repeater138 on Jun 14 2005, 09:32 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
SonofRage
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 03:59 AM
Quote Post


Comandante
****

Group: Mods
Posts: 1023
Member No.: 793
Joined: 14-August 02



QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 13 2005, 10:49 PM)


You're so funny... Didn't you just approvingly quote ISO a few points back? Fuck, the CL puts it forward as well as the Socialist Party. All of these parties simply gloss over the dictatorship of the proletariat. You've got no problem with that, but if anyone talks openly and honestly about it, as one should if one is to be principled, then they're cruel authoritarians.


I consider many members of the ISO to simply be misguided. RCP, I flat out consider to be an enemy. Does that make it more clear? From my conversations with members of the ISO, I would go so far as to say that what some of them describe is not really a State, but is rather much closer to the confederation of workers' councils I favor (this is of course with rank-and-file ISO members. I can't make such claims about their leadership).

I have no involvement with the CL, but I can say that the Socialist Party is not a Marxist party, and makes no such claim, so I don't see how that is relevant.

QUOTE

Not all dictatorships are equal and no single group of people can control an entire society without a class basis. Currently we live in a bourgeois dictatorship, which simply means the bourgeoisie calls the shots. This is true. Within the scope of bourgeois dictatorship are a variety of degrees from fascism to Scandinavian welfare state in terms of levels of coercion.


The State is an instrument of class rule which always perpetuates itself, rather than "withering away." If you take State power, all of the proletariat obviously wouldn't have direct control, and a new ruling class would develop.



QUOTE

Now CL and you could probably agree that the RCP represents some kind of new bourgeoisie or a petty bourgeois dictatorship. But on what basis can you make this claim? On what basis can you say that the RCP has no roots or support among proletarians?


Where did I make such a claim? I do believe that if the RCP would to take state power, they would become a new ruling class. I wouldn't call them a "new bourgeoisie" exactly...that doesn't seen like a very scientific or accurate classification. The State in abstract serves the role of the bourgeoisie (with the nationalization of property) while the RCP would become a new Techno-Managerial Class



QUOTE

Moreover the recognition of this contradiction whcih Avakian is putting forward is meant exactly to stop the RCP from becoming a new bourgeoisie.


Didn't Mao recognize this contrradiction? Didn't Lenin? What happened with them? History keeps repeating. I say, never again!

QUOTE

What's CL's plan? They're plan for dealing with the history of betrayals is to restrict all membership in their party to "proletarians". In effect their answer is on the level of identity not line. Nevermind that proletarians are not sacrosanct. They're not spontaneously correct. Need the reminder be made that proletarians are a strong portion of the class alliance which holds a fascist dictatorship together.


Again, I can't speak for the CL, but it seems to me that they are being materialists (basing thing on material conditions) instead of idealists ("leading through line").

QUOTE

As for the techno-managerial stuff, you should investigate the Cultural Revolution as it was explicitly a revolt against this tendency in post-war communism.


Anyone who wants to read a bit about the horrors of the "Cultural Revolution" should read chapter 18 of Raya Dunayevskaya's Marxism and Freedom entitled "Cultural Revolution or Maoist Reaction."


--------------------
Direct Action Tendency | IWW | Red & Anarchist Action Network
__
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.67
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again." -Eugene V. Debs
PMUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 04:57 AM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



QUOTE
I consider many members of the ISO to simply be misguided. RCP, I flat out consider to be an enemy. Does that make it more clear? From my conversations with members of the ISO, I would go so far as to say that what some of them describe is not really a State, but is rather much closer to the confederation of workers' councils I favor (this is of course with rank-and-file ISO members. I can't make such claims about their leadership).

I have no involvement with the CL, but I can say that the Socialist Party is not a Marxist party, and makes no such claim, so I don't see how that is relevant.


As far as the SP is concerned they seem to be saying that they are for socialism. What is socialism if not the rule of the working class. What is class rule if not class dictatorship? The dictatorship of the proletariat.

I find it funny that you can claim to have "good relations" with members of the RCP when you 1) consider them to be cultists and 2) consider them to be enemies.

QUOTE
Where did I make such a claim? I do believe that if the RCP would to take state power, they would become a new ruling class. I wouldn't call them a "new bourgeoisie" exactly...that doesn't seen like a very scientific or accurate classification. The State in abstract serves the role of the bourgeoisie (with the nationalization of property) while the RCP would become a new Techno-Managerial Class


Whether you categorize it as a techno-managerial class or not the end result of this process of betrayal is a new bourgeois dictatorship. We're not about that. We're explicitly not about creating a new managerial class either, but recognizing that there will be a tendency towards that and trying to rally the masses in mass democratic action (not simply or even primarily voting) against those forces within society and within the vanguard which would lead things down that way. This is a lesson learned from Mao, but it needs to be taken much further.

QUOTE
Didn't Mao recognize this contrradiction? Didn't Lenin? What happened with them? History keeps repeating. I say, never again!


Mao certainly did, but Lenin did not. These are contributions from Mao which led to the most amazing upheavals in China in all the complications of that, both good and bad, but primarily good. Ultimately China was taken back to capitalism by a group of fuck heads within the party. And I would like to make the point that Deng Xiao Ping and many of these leaders came directly from working class stock (just another example of where a reliance on identity is incorrect).

History repeats in some aspects, but it never repeats exactly and there are huge differences between China and the USSR just as there will be huge differences between a revolution in the U.S. and China. The point is that if you go all the way back to the Paris Commune things have gone further and become qualitatively better in each of the following revolutions. This isn't a perfect rule, as can be seen from Vietnam and Cambodia, often paths have been taken which are pretty fucked up from the get-go. To make another point on the question of the need for a transition, many of the problems and repercussions of Cambodia had to do with an attempt to immediately move into communism, by getting rid of money and class distinctions purely through coercion. At least that was their plan.

QUOTE
Again, I can't speak for the CL, but it seems to me that they are being materialists (basing thing on material conditions) instead of idealists ("leading through line").


If you read the Theses on Feurebach you'll see the way in which a "material" analysis can actually become idealist.

QUOTE
Anyone who wants to read a bit about the horrors of the "Cultural Revolution" should read chapter 18 of Raya Dunayevskaya's Marxism and Freedom entitled "Cultural Revolution or Maoist Reaction."


I would suggest reading The Hundred Days War, by William Hinton. This is a book written by someone who was actually there and gives you an idea of the complexity and also the massive level of popular participation without white washing it one way or another. Anti-communist literature is important, but in mjost cases intentionally misleads, besides being a dime a dozen. If you want to know something you need to dig into the actual events and understand the actual discourse in all its complexity.

Besides a single chapter simply does not do the Cultural Revolution justice and the smaller the treatment of it the more likely its ideological distortion.
PMEmail Poster
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 05:34 AM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



I wanted to address this crap about the RCP always quoting Avakian and never printing anything that's not written by him.

If you look at the new issue of Revolution http://rwor.org/home-e.htm

You'll find that 6 out of the 8 stories don't mention Avakian once. The story on Emmitt Till mentions him appropriately as he has dealt with the issue of Emmitt Till in his speeches and the last piece is by Bob Avakian.

And in regards to the question that Redstar asked about whether Avakian ever hears criticisms I would turn your attention to this notice published in May 15th issue of Revolution:

A Message from Chairman Avakian

Revolution #002, May 15, 2005, posted at revcom.us

Editors’ Note : We have received the following note from Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, and, as requested, we are publishing it here. Correspondence for Chairman Avakian can be sent care of Revolution (P.O. Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago IL 60654) or Insight Press (4064 N. Lincoln Avenue, #264, Chicago IL 60618).

I would like to thank the many different people who have sent letters and other correspondence for me. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, I am not able to respond directly to much of this correspondence, but I read it with great interest, and I would like to convey to all those who have written to me that I very much appreciate and continually learn from this correspondence. And I would like to encourage those who would like to do so to write and to offer any suggestions, questions, disagreements, and criticisms which people feel would be relevant to raise to me, in the spirit and with the purpose of coming to know the world more deeply and to transform it more thoroughly in the interests of the masses of people and ultimately all of humanity.

http://rwor.org/a/002/avakian-note.htm

Not only does he hear it, but he is actively seeking more.

This post has been edited by repeater138 on Jun 14 2005, 05:35 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
CommunistLeague
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 05:48 AM
Quote Post


21st Century Communist
**

Group: Members
Posts: 187
Member No.: 10229
Joined: 18-April 05



QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 13 2005, 10:27 PM)
Your organization confuses bourgoeis right with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Your ideology seeks to equate the dictatorship of the proletariat as an extension of the bourgeois state in the USA, instead of as a complete and radical break.


For someone who presents themselves as an authoritative voice of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism", you certainly know very little about the subject. Marx, in Critique of the Gotha Programme, and Lenin, in The State and Revolution, both understood that bourgeois right (bourgeois equality) would exist in different forms well into the lower phase of communism. Have you ever read these before? As for the question of democracy in the transition from capitalism to communism, I think Lenin himself best sums up our view:

QUOTE
"In capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord." -- V.I. Lenin, "The Transition from Capitalism to Communism", Chapter V: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State, The State and Revolution


QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 13 2005, 10:27 PM)
Not only do you blur the differences between the bourgeois and the proletarian states and class dictatorships, but you then move to the other extreme and view class as a static, "crystallized" formation in which being is entirely and totally determined. You can argue your description of the petty bourgeois and claim that because you have an analysis it isn't mechanical or dogmatic, but it is simply not true. Your organization, as I've said before, covers up its dogmatism by wrapping itself in the "common sense" illusions of the US and of the left which you so vehemently and ironically attack.


Say what you want. But let me know when you're ready to answer the analysis. I'll be over here holding my breath.

Miles


--------------------
If people ... from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [which is only possible by joining the proletariat]. But these gentlemen ... are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas.... If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. (Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879 -- emphasis added)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQAOLYahoo
Top
CommunistLeague
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 06:11 AM
Quote Post


21st Century Communist
**

Group: Members
Posts: 187
Member No.: 10229
Joined: 18-April 05



QUOTE (flyby @ Jun 12 2005, 11:55 AM)
A particular, twisted and extremely dangerous move was aimed at Avakian himself -- the courts argued that he was responsible for each and every "act" that happened that night. And so they piled felony charges on him. By the time he came to trial, he was facing 241 years in prison -- a life term, for a demonstration.

...

But let's just be clear: This was not a "fleeing" from danger in any way. This was a "going into exile" as revolutionaries have been forced to do, historically (including marx to london, and Lenin to Zurich). And it was not a leaving behind of responsibilities -- in fact, as anyone can see, he stepped up his revolutionary work, and his leadership of the RCP and the international communist movement, in those years.

...

If he had not gone into exile, we would not be talking about these events. There would be no Bob Avakian, no RCP, and not an international communist movement on the level it has fought to rebuilt itself.

While flyby's commentary on Avakian makes for great literature, I have to question the reality of it all. I mean, given all of those charges, why hasn't Washington demanded his extradition from wherever he is now (last I heard, France -- but that was years ago), like they've been demanding extradition of Assata Shakur from Cuba? Why is he not on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list? It doesn't make any sense that they would have left him alone for over 25 years, if he really is the threat the RCP propagandists make him out to be.

We are all familiar, to one degree or another, with the viciousness of the U.S. government. We all know what they can (and are willing to) do. So, for them to not pursue Avakian would seem ... strange ... if he was a felony fugitive. Either the government doesn't see him any longer as a threat, or they never saw him as a threat in the first place. You decide.

Miles


--------------------
If people ... from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [which is only possible by joining the proletariat]. But these gentlemen ... are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas.... If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. (Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879 -- emphasis added)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQAOLYahoo
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 06:15 AM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



QUOTE
For someone who presents themselves as an authoritative voice of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism", you certainly know very little about the subject. Marx, in Critique of the Gotha Programme, and Lenin, in The State and Revolution, both understood that bourgeois right (bourgeois equality) would exist in different forms well into the lower phase of communism.


I never suggested that bourgeois right would be ended in the short term. What I find disturbing about your line is not the realization of the existance of bourgeois right or even the necessity of maintaining it until it can be superceded (the RCP is not going to go off eliminating rights to privacy etc.), but rather your insistance on making the "fight for democracy" fundamentally a fight for demands of bourgeois right and more than that confusing this with what you call "proletarian democracy" as if the highest goal is more bourgeois right and that somehow the battle on this will give rise to a revolutionary movement.

QUOTE
Say what you want. But let me know when you're ready to answer the analysis. I'll be over here holding my breath.


I would answer your analysis with another which I am partial to:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/labormon.htm

I don't think the RCP supports Braverman's thesis, but I personally think it is much more correct to think of the managerial and petty bourgeoisie as becoming proletarianized not the other way around.

In fact modern analysis shows that rather than a crystallization of the petty bourgeois and middle classes your are seeing very rapid and fluid change which is bringing anxiety into day to day life not security.

I would suggest reading "Corrosion of Character" for one description of this.

PMEmail Poster
Top
redstar2000
  Posted: Jun 14 2005, 03:49 PM
Quote Post


Comandante
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 9518
Member No.: 1339
Joined: 28-September 02



QUOTE (repeater138)
Frankly I think that the experience in the Soviet Union and China, while far from perfect (and after all who the fuck really puts the perfect up as a realistic goal) went further than anything in human history towards putting power into the hands of the oppressed. You simply disagree with this analysis.


Well yes, of course I do. Your evidence for this assertion is utterly wretched and not far from completely nonexistent.

I will grant you that there was a good deal of rhetoric about "power in the hands of the oppressed"...but the times in which rhetoric was an acceptable substitute for actual performance are, I think, behind us.

The USSR and China accomplished much in the areas of industrialization and economic development, education, public health, etc. No sensible person denies that...or would express any kind of preference for the odious regimes that preceded the Leninist parties in power.

The problem that contemporary revolutionaries face is that the Leninist parties have never done what they said they were going to do...put actual power into the hands of the working class.

Here, Avakian at least gets points for honesty: he says publicly that he's not going to give us any power at all...unless we are members of his party (real meaning: long term and very high up members).

The message is: if you want some real clout in post-revolutionary America, join the RCP!

Such an appeal is, of course, careerist...and can only attract those with an appetite for ruling others.

People who believe that they could manage things a lot "better" than the people who manage things now.

QUOTE
What infuriates me is cynicism.


Why should that infuriate you? You make a series of assertions that are, to be charitable, disconnected from Leninist historical experience.

Essentially, you promise to "get it right this time"...even though you preserve all the basic elements of the Leninist paradigm with only trivial modifications.

QUOTE (redstar2000)
1. A new and permanent state apparatus.

2. With a professional army and police force.

3. Under the permanent leadership (control) of the Leninist party.

4. Nationalization of the means of production and the introduction of centralized economic planning/management on a professional basis.

5. Continued production of commodities for sale; continued use of money; continued inequality of wages; appropriation of surplus value by the state apparatus.


That's what the RCP wants (with itself in the role of the leading party, of course).

Explain to me why people shouldn't be "cynical" about that?

QUOTE
It's the difference between dealing with a whole bunch of slander and actually dealing with the content of [Avakian's] ideas.


I'm afraid the RCP has only itself to blame for that. Your party has put such an astounding degree of emphasis on the importance of Bob Avakian as a "leading personality" that people react to the hype and not the ideas.

You've been told this many times by people who do not think of you as "enemies"...but you will not listen!

America is NOT CHINA! We do not want a great leader here.

Even if you (or Bob) thinks we "need" one, we are simply not going to accept that.

The very idea of such a thing is almost universally repugnant in this country.

Until the RCP grasps that fundamental reality, you simply can't get anywhere.

QUOTE
You may think Avakian is rambling, but he is laying out dialectical analysis.


If you say so...looks just like rambling to me.

QUOTE
Now I suppose you're going to put out some smart aleck comment about how the Feinman Lectures probably aren't that good because Feinman did for physics what Avakian does for revolution, even though you've never read them.


Um...the man's name is Feynman actually...and you're quite right that I have never read his celebrated lectures.

I know my limitations. tongue.gif

But consider your claim: Bob Avakian is the "Richard P. Feynman" of revolution.

More incredible hype!

QUOTE (Bob Avakian)
I would like to thank the many different people who have sent letters and other correspondence for me. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, I am not able to respond directly to much of this correspondence, but I read it with great interest, and I would like to convey to all those who have written to me that I very much appreciate and continually learn from this correspondence. And I would like to encourage those who would like to do so to write and to offer any suggestions, questions, disagreements, and criticisms which people feel would be relevant to raise to me, in the spirit and with the purpose of coming to know the world more deeply and to transform it more thoroughly in the interests of the masses of people and ultimately all of humanity.


Such a boilerplate response is common from public figures who get too much mail to answer individually.

But, as always, Chairman Bob never uses 10 words when 100 or more will do. laugh.gif

user posted image


--------------------
NEW URL: The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

Communists are better Lovers!
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
CommunistLeague
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 07:54 PM
Quote Post


21st Century Communist
**

Group: Members
Posts: 187
Member No.: 10229
Joined: 18-April 05



QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 14 2005, 01:57 AM)
I never suggested that bourgeois right would be ended in the short term. What I find disturbing about your line is not the realization of the existance of bourgeois right or even the necessity of maintaining it until it can be superceded (the RCP is not going to go off eliminating rights to privacy etc.), but rather your insistance on making the "fight for democracy" fundamentally a fight for demands of bourgeois right and more than that confusing this with what you call "proletarian democracy" as if the highest goal is more bourgeois right and that somehow the battle on this will give rise to a revolutionary movement.


First of all, neither I nor any member of the League believes that "more bourgeois right" is the goal. For that matter, no member of the League believes that the workers' republic itself is the goal, except in the sense that it is the point of departure for the achievement of the overall goal of the abolition of classes and communism. In fact, it is yet again a sign of your own poverty of philosophy that you cannot see how pushing democracy past the boundaries set by capitalism can lead to a fundamental transformation.

QUOTE
"The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine 'only' by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this 'only' signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of 'quantity being transformed into quality': democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper." -- V.I. Lenin, Section 2, "What Is to Replace the Smashed State Machine?", The State and Revolution


QUOTE (repeater138 @ Jun 14 2005, 01:57 AM)
I would answer your analysis with another which I am partial to:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/labormon.htm

I don't think the RCP supports Braverman's thesis, but I personally think it is much more correct to think of the managerial and petty bourgeoisie as becoming proletarianized not the other way around.

In fact modern analysis shows that rather than a crystallization of the petty bourgeois and middle classes your are seeing very rapid and fluid change which is bringing anxiety into day to day life not security.


Braverman's thesis was wholly impressionistic and empirical, confusing form and content. First, the modern petty bourgeois is more regimented and standardized than previous generations, but this is not the same as "becoming proletarianized". Quite the opposite! This regimentation, established by the bourgeoisie to facilitate their relationship to the means of production, has actually resulted in more exploitative power handed to the petty bourgeoisie. As the bourgeoisie removes itself more and more from the direct production process (i.e., as the bourgeois owner becomes less of a manager), the responsibility for controlling production is transferred more and more to the petty bourgeoisie.

Second, the fluidity of the modern petty bourgeois is more or less self-contained. That is, the bulk of the petty bourgeois who are ruined by capitalism do not fall into the proletariat, but are moved into another position within the class. The chief exceptions to this are those privileged proletarians who scraped their life savings together to start a small business, had it fail, and fell back into their class of origin. These elements are not "proletarianized", but re-proletarianized. (Even the bourgeois Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms these trends.)

Of course, the irony of this discussion is not lost on me. It's not every day that a Maoist uses the writings of a Trotskyist as the basis for an attack on a communist around the question of class.

Miles


--------------------
If people ... from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [which is only possible by joining the proletariat]. But these gentlemen ... are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas.... If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. (Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879 -- emphasis added)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQAOLYahoo
Top
repeater138
Posted: Jun 14 2005, 09:22 PM
Quote Post


Compañero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 7955
Joined: 4-July 04



First off, I would like to know what your definitions of the proletariat and the petit bourgeois are...

Are you arguing that it is defined by its relation to production or something else?

Secondly, Braverman's thesis is much more complicated than simply arguing that things are more regimented within the petit bourgeoisie. He is arguing, if I recall correctly, that capital is turning all skilled labor into abstract, and in the process is actually destroying that space in which the petit bourgeoisie exists in terms of their production. On the other hand we can see that in terms of their property relations they're also being alienated. This can be seen in the long term move away from small business and the gobbling up of small farms. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that there is a society wide growth, strengthening or solidification of the petit bourgeois or even the middle classes in general. Everything points in the opposite direction. Moving from small land holder or small business owner to manager in a capitalist production system changes your relationship to production. Can it be said that someone in a management position at Walmart has the same relation to production as someone who owned a bookstore that Walmart ran out of business?

What I think you're describing is the way in which the reaction to this can be very loud and very reactionary among segments of the petit bourgeoisie, and I think you're assuming that a reactionary surge means that this group of people is objectively less alienated from the system, when in many ways the opposite is true.

Thirdly, your method of attacking both I and Harry Braverman because he was a so-called trotskyist is pathetic. Again you cannot deal with ideas, but you must deal with the identity of who brings forth those ideas. This is especially dishonest as you get to define anothers identity instead of the person in question defining themself. So on the one hand you say that Braverman is a trot, and try to taint me with that, while on the other hand Braverman hasn't been trot since at least 1954 when he said this:

In a 1954 speech, 'Setting a New Course,' Braverman pilloried the SWP as an isolated sect, 'trapped in fulfilling the obligatory moral action undertaken as a push-button response to an immutable law.' Trotskyist theory, he suggested, had died in 1940, failing to move beyond its hardened formulae. Like all sectarians, Braverman argued, the SWP did not want to learn from the masses, merging with the struggles and experiences of the working class, but to swallow them."

Labor and Monopoly Capital was published 20 years after this speech.

Regardless, the bottom line is if Braverman is right, then it doesn't matter if he's a trot or not. It's the content of the ideas which are important not the "identity" of the person.

This post has been edited by repeater138 on Jun 14 2005, 11:13 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
« Next Oldest | Propaganda Booth | Next Newest »

Topic OptionsPages: (7) « First ... 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 

Lo-Fi Version (Beta)

www.revleft.com
RevolutionaryLeft.com by Che-Lives
Contact

(PayPal)
Cash/Check Donations
Ad: Che Guevara T-shirts


One of the largest message boards on the web !