Daily Kos

A Maoist Critique of Avakian

Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:59:19 PM PDT

This diary is about a fascinating critique of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and its leader, Bob Avakian that has just appeared on the Mike Ely's new blog, Kasama.

Many people here who have been involved in impeachment or anti-war work have become familiar with the RCP in the course of their interactions with World Can't Wait, an organization in which the RCP has played a prominent role. And those familar with the RCP are quite likely to have heard of its Chairman, Bob Avakian.

I have defended the role that the RCP played in building up WCW, and the role of socialists and communists generally in waging important struggles when liberals wouldn't. I have consistently opposed the anti-communism and red-baiting that is often directed at people with revolutionary left politics who have played such a critical role in organizing much of what public protest there is against this war and the other crimes of this government.

Many people, like myself, who agree with much of what the RCP says about the nature of the system we are dealing with and the need for it to be overthrown and not just reformed, however, have been put off by the the RCP's "culture of promotion" around Bob Avakian and his words.

It is easy to make facile criticisms of the RCP precisely because they are so unapologetic about their belief in the possibility and neccesity of revolution when few other forces dare say such things. But the claims made on behalf of Avakian also demand a response. Not some cheap and easy accusations or dismissals, but a serious political response that deals with the politics that underly practices that from the outside seem so counter-productive to the stated aim of winning millions of people over to revolutionary politics.

Now, a long-time and important supporter of the RCP, Mike Ely, has written a very provocative critique of Avakian and his thinking in the form of Nine Letters that I think should be read not just by those who have had occasion to work with the RCP, but really by anybody who thinks its important to really talk about what its going to take to bring an end to this rotten system and to replace it with something fundamentally better and more just.

While this piece is framed as a critique of the RCP and Avakian, much of what it has to say speaks to the deeper problem of what it will really take to win the things so many people here are dreaming of.

As Ely explains:

How do we make revolution in a world that seems to conspire against liberation?

How do we make the breakthroughs in communist theory and practice needed in this rapidly changing world?

With great singlemindedness, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP) has been insisting that its leader, Bob Avakian, has the answers for humanity. His New Synthesis, (this party says) is a fundamental break with even the best of previous communism, including Marx, Lenin and Mao. And (this party says) this New Synthesis represents the best and even only hope for humanity.

The Nine Letters unfold a detailed Maoist critique of Avakian’s synthesis. It engages, documents and criticizes Avakian’s method, approach and verdicts. The main author is Mike Ely, a former editor of the RCP’s Revolution newspaper.

These Nine Letters excavate the RCP’s inability to establish any mass base or revolutionary movement over more than thirty-five years. They dissect the escalating claims of the RCP’s cult of personality around Avakian – with special focus on the cult’s theoretical assumptions, denial of practice, and implications for revolutionary strategy.

In a beginning way, these Nine Letters point to a different road for communists and call on others to join in a very presumptuous work of re-conception and new revolutionary practice.

Many people here will undoubtedly find bizarre the suggestion that a Maoist critique of the leadership of an admittedly small leftist organization should be of interest to progressives. They will think that what is wrong with the RCP is simply self-evident and not deserving of this sort of attention. But for those who appreciate the important role that revolutionary-minded forces have, can and will again play in the political life of this country, there is much of interest in these letters.

Tags: World Can't Wait, Revolutionary Communist Party, Revolution, Avakian, Maoism (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 57 comments

  •  Tips (5+ / 0-)

    I don't see this hitting the Rec list, but I'd be very interested in other folks responses to this document. I find it very thoughtful and provocative. I know I'm not the only person here who takes the revolutionary left seriously or at least pays attention to it.

    Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
    "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

    by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:00:11 PM PDT

    •  Never worked with RCP (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, mvr

      But have watched them in action since the late 1970s. They always struck me as impressionistic, with a heady whiff of the New Left bravado and chutzpah about them. They tailed every "progressive" new movement. They were very anti-Soviet. They loved Mao, but now barely mention him. They seem to have very little sense of history, outside of their own small party and its forebearers and spinoffs.

      Avakian himself seemed to be the ultimate political poseur, something less than a cult figure, more of an aspirant. A second rate thinker. He abstented himself for years from the U.S. out of fear of repression here. He never really rose above the origins of his tendency in the Stalinist-nationalist movements of the 1960s.

      As you can see, I'm not favorably inclined towards Maoists (and there used to be plenty of them besides RCP). But I do agree with you that communists and socialists have fought for democratic rights more vociferously than most for many decades now, even when being red-baited and legally/socially persecuted. This has been true since at least World War I, far before Mao or Avakian ever came on the scene.

      I'll try and check out the article later.

      Politically, such articles predate a split in the organization. Anyway, that's my experience.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:13:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not suggesting (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        farleftcoast, Valtin

        that the RCP is the only socialist or communist organization worth paying attention to. Like a number of groups, the RCP has some very smart and talented people in its ranks as well as some mediocrities. Unfortunately the range of intellect in such groups often only becomes apparent when good people like Mike Ely leave them and put their thoughts out in public in ways that they couldn't when operating under party discipline.

        I don't know whether this document will precipitate a split and, frankly, I don't think that is what is most interesting about it by a long shot. It really is a strikingly thoughtful piece of political analysis that will push people to rethink what they thought they knew about communists in general and Maoists in particular.

        Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
        "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

        by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:43:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll read it on your excellent recommendation n/t (0+ / 0-)

          War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

          by Valtin on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:56:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Took a look and, sorry, not impressed (0+ / 0-)

          It seems that Ely just discovered that Bob Avakian is a gasbag. It took him until Avakian now wants him and others to bow down to him as a world-shaking historical figure.

          The mouse squeaked and produced something less than the proverbial elephant.

          Mass, mass, mass, mindless mass action. This was and is the legacy of the RCP. That and their adherence to Stalinism.

          War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

          by Valtin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:10:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  World Can't Wait (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, Valtin

    I'd be particularly interested in what other folks who have worked with World Can't Wait think about the Nine Letters to Our Comrades or even about the how the "culture of promotion" around Avakian did or didn't impact the work of WCW.

    Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
    "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

    by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:02:48 PM PDT

  •  Revolution (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast

    I'd also be interested in a discussion of the question

    How do we make revolution in a world that seems to conspire against liberation?

    I have noticed as frustration with the congressional dems has intensified over the past year increasingly frequent talk  of "revolution." This is usually obvious hyperbole or just blowing off steam. But it has been striking and I think suggestive of more and more people's feelings that all other pathways to substantive change have been cut off.

    Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
    "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

    by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:07:02 PM PDT

  •  Puhleaze... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doinaheckuvanutjob

    I've noticed a greater influence of Maoists and Trotskyites around here these days. This isn't a good thing.

    •  Influence? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jxg, Cassiodorus

      What the fuck are you talking about?  Posting of diaries and discussion isn't influence.  It's called discourse. Do you have a problem with that?

      Sorry not everyone is a College Democrat.

      This aggression will not stand, man.

      by kaleidescope on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:02:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So? The mission of the site is to elect better (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Shane Hensinger

        Democrats, not to foster discussion on maoism and trostskyism.

        So yeah, I don't currently have a problem with it, but it's absurd to think there may not eventually be a problem with it.

        Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

        by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:19:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast

          Better Democrats have something to learn from Maoism and Trotskyism.  Maybe at least as much as they have to learn from discussions of Stanford battery breakthroughs or first time grandparents.

          We all want to elect better Democrats.  I want to elect revolutionary Democrats who will overthrow capitalism and advance our society to the state of from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.

          And your whining about us talking about something you don't like or understand just frustrates MY goal of electing better Democrats.

          You and your ilk have way too much "influence" around here.

          This aggression will not stand, man.

          by kaleidescope on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:40:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well there's always Greens Commoons if you're (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Shane Hensinger

            unhappy here with the influence of so many different viewpoints from yours on the far left to some in virtually the center-right. I'd characterize myself as a pragmatic progressive, which you'd probably find annoying. That's ok, to each his own.

            I don't have a problem with your statement about learning. Good luck on finding revolutionary Democrats-- are you referring to Bernie Sanders? He's good with me, and he is a socialist but probably to the right of you want.

            Greens Commons is available as a site if you're dissatisfied with the panoply of views here.

            There's a song, oh yeah, you say you want a Revolution. Hmm... how did that go again.

            Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

            by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:48:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Have No Problem With Panoply of Views Here (0+ / 0-)

              You're the one who seems to have that problem.

              This aggression will not stand, man.

              by kaleidescope on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:06:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No I merely stated the site mission (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Shane Hensinger

                and stated I don't have a problem with the discussion but it is not the mission of the site.

                If you want to continue to be an indignant broken record about it, that's your prerogative. I prefer dialog.

                I also do have a dislike for what historically groups like the RCP have done to the peace movement, hiding under their marxist ideology to undermine and sabotage the peace movement, long history of it. That's where I'd see there being a problem with it here, but I don't see that right now, all I see is a discussion.

                Satisfied? Or do you have a need to continue to raise your hackles?

                Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

                by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:12:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  On the RCP at Demos (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  doinaheckuvanutjob

                  I never actually saw RCPers I knew to be RCPers wrecking demonstrations, but I certainly saw plenty of that from other sectarian Marxist groups, some of whom could've been RCPers.

                  In my experience PLPers were more likely to do that.

                  When I lived in the Bay Area, it seemed like every large peaceful demonstration had to have a tiny hyper-organized Leninist group in attendance who insisted on smashing the windows of cop cars or throwing rocks at the police.

                  Most of the time I figured they were working for the FBI.

                  As for the site mission, electing more or better Democrats is the mission of the site, but people write about other topics constantly.  Darksyde writes about science.  People write about technological developments or about burned down womens' shelters in South Dakota or about Saturday Morning Home and Garden blogging.  

                  Writing about and discussing these other topics isn't forbidden or even discouraged here.

                  And a lot of these "off mission" discussions are more illuminating (and perhaps more politically useful) that yet another stupid candidate diary trashing HRC or Obama or Edwards or trumpeting some dubious statistical noise in some poll that could conceivably look favorable to one of these candidates.

                  That's all I'm saying.

                  This aggression will not stand, man.

                  by kaleidescope on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:18:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  It would be silly (3+ / 0-)

          to think that the lessons of the political fights and failures on the left don't have anything to offer those who struggle politically today, including in the mainstream of American politics.

          Why study history then at all? Why learn about struggles between sides in Cromwellian Britain, in Revolutionary France, in early U.S. history, for that matter?

          Trotskyists, Leninists, Maoists, Anarchists, etc. etc. are not interested at all in taking over this site. To believe otherwise is purely paranoia.

          A number of people on this site, myself among them, have past histories among left groups, including some major figures here. A lot was learned about political struggle back then. Some of it was bad learning, some of it quite valuable. But if you wish to somehow screen the left out (or former left)(not you, doinaheckuvanutjob, but the proverbial, impersonal "you"), it will mean setting off a witchhunt, and that's something that would cripple the site.

          War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

          by Valtin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:08:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Oh great, more factions (3+ / 0-)

    As was once said of Trotskyists, put two of them together and you get three factions.

    The RCP seemed one of the more vile of the bunch. They applauded massacres of gays and lesbians in China because their line was that homosexuality was "bourgeois decadence."

    The sparts at least made up for their uselessness by providing unintended comic relief at major demonstrations.

    •  Well (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ben masel

      I'm hardly surprised by this response. But a factual correction is in order. While the RCP had a truly foul line on homosexuality until several years ago, I don't think they ever "applauded massacres of gays and lesbians."

      I also think the comparison with the Spartacist League is way off. While the Sparts can be comical, they are often highly disruptive of mass organizing efforts in ways that few other groups are. The RCP in contrast has been pretty principled in their actions in the coalitions I've seen them in. Generally they have sought to build their own "mass formations" under their leadership, some of which, despite various limitations, have played a useful role in promoting resistance to the worst feature of this society. (I'm thinking here of No Business As Usual in the 80s and the Oct 22 Coalition Against Police Brutality in the 90s.) The Sparts are simply incapable of building anything with anything approaching the independent vitality of these groups.

      In any case I'd be interested in what you have to say after looking over the Nine Letters.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:32:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not a communist in the least, but... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, Cassiodorus

    I think it's good to have broader discussions of strategies and methods for social change on this site, be they liberal, radical, socialist, libertarian, communist, etc.  As long as there is open dialogue for progressive change and how to make our collective situation better, I'd love to hear more.

  •  interesting (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    crankyinNYC

    How do we make revolution in a world that seems to conspire against liberation?

    if the world doesn't want it how is it more than  the sheer egotism of the movement's leaders to make a revolution?

    i guess the trump card is to call any who disagree as uninformed who need to be "educated."

    as a leftist i bristle at those who call themselves "maoists, simply because i consider mao to be a mass murderer who used ideology for his own advancment.

    i tend towards believing max schactman dealt more rationally with the factual world and who thought that any real-world communist bureaucracy tended to be worse than capitalism for the worker.

    think Lech Walesa would argue?

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:31:54 PM PDT

    •  Actually (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      I think your characterization of Maoists is a bit of a cartoon.

      You should check out the letter titled Particularities of Christians and Fascists to get some of the flavor of nuance here.

      As someone who has casually accused Mao of being a mass murderer myself, I've come to see the historical record on this as much more complicated that such dismissals suggest.

      I don't think there is anything inherently more egotistical about trying to win people over to revolutionary politics that they don't presently hold than trying to convince them to support a presidential candidate that they don't yet support. You can put scare quotes around "educate" to make it seem sinister, but it doesn't really speak to the content of their politics.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:54:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  how complicated is mass murder? (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doinaheckuvanutjob, crankyinNYC

        whether you point a gun and kill a hundred or point a finger at a person to go and kill a million they are grouped alike.

        as to politics Che spoke of love being at the center of revolutionary politics, but it seems that the far right and far left regularly produce mechanisms that don't yield leaders who love people, but kill them instead.

        "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

        by kuvasz on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:09:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What Mass Murder (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast

          are you talking about? There is an extraordinary amount of sloppiness in how Chinese history sometimes gets talked about.

          The Chinese Revolution involved a lot of people dying. There is no question about that. It seems to me that there are several periods that get talked about as examples of supposed mass murder by Mao or the CCP. Which are you talking about?

          In the years immediately following the Chinese Revolution in 1949 there was a huge upheavl in the countryside as peasants struck back at the landlords who had long exploited them. It is noteworthy that the bloodletting was worst in those areas where the CCP was weakest (namely the south) and that there was a concerted (and ultimately successful) effort on the part of Mao precisely to stop that bloodletting.

          A second period was the years of famine that occurred in the wake of the Great Leap Forward. Failed agricultural policies are not the same as mass murder even when they are just as (or more) lethal.

          The third period is the Cultural Revolution. Here most of the violence occurred when the country was teetering on the edge of civil war in 1968 and it is not at all clear that this was directed from the center.

          In assessing these different events we must also pay attention to what else was happening: the end of the hundred-year long cycle of famine that had gripped China, the abolition of the slavery of women, the huge increases in life expectancy, and the massive expansion in access to education -- all of which SAVED millions of lives.

          This stuff is complicated and our understanding is not advanced by regarding people as either angels or devils but in really trying to grasp complex processes and what drove them.

          Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
          "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

          by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:38:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  On Mass Murder (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      Mao sought to transform Chinese society, to bring it from a decentralized agricultural, industrially backward economy into an advanced industrial economy controlled by himself and his Communist Party henchmen.

      Mao sought to suck capital out of the agricultural sector and use that capital to build up industry in China, particularly heavy industry.  This was seen as necessary not only to develop a proletariat so that China could advance to communism.  It was also a long-standing goal of all Chinese nationalists, who thought that industrialization would allow China to stand up to Japanese and western imperialism.

      The biggest crime hung around Mao's head were the estimated 40,000,000 who starved to death during the Great Leap Forward.  This was Mao's most blatant attempt at primitive accumulation.

      Mao should, of course, be condemned for this. But let's take a look at our own founding fathers.  Primitive accumulation occurred both in this country and in England.  And it was initially accomplished via African slavery -- the capital that fueled the industrial revolution in both America and England was extracted surplus value taken from the work of African slaves (and American indian slaves) who were worked to death on the sugar plantations and silver mines of the New World.

      We can also talk about the opening of the new frontier to farming, ranching, mining and industry and the deliberate genocide of the American Indian that was done to accomplish this.

      So, yes, Mao was a mass murderer.  But this was really in the sense that Jefferson and Pitt the Younger and Grant and Sherman and Sheridan were also mass murderers.

      And when we condemn Mao and Stalin -- as we should -- for mass murder, we should also condemn their colleagues: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, W.T. Sherman and Phil Sheridan.  People who are on our currency and for whom parks, streets and monuments are named in every city in the U.S.

      So get off your bourgeois high horse and smell what industrialization really means.  The money you spend is dipped in the blood of slaves and indians.

      You yourself feed at the table set by mass murder.

      This aggression will not stand, man.

      by kaleidescope on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:20:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You conveniently forgot the Cultural Revolution. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        kuvasz, Shane Hensinger

        People didn't just die from starvation as you claim.

        They also lost their livelihood, their homes, their families, and their lives in the brutal Cultural Revolution, so despised in China today that any remnant of it is thought of as a very bad period in their history.

        Mao manipulated it, just as he continually manipulated the "let a thousand flowers bloom" trick where openness was temporarily allowed in order to crack down on those who wished for greater freedom and accountability. The Party used that trick and still does today.

        Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

        by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:31:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Verdict (0+ / 0-)

          on the Cultural revolution is more complicated than you suggest. I highly recommend Some of Us: Women Growing Up in the Mao Era. Its a collection of writings by Chinese women now living in the U.S. that challenges som eof the simplistic narratives about this period that dominate views in the US much more than they do in China.

          Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
          "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

          by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:45:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've read a lot on the subject already. (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            kuvasz, Shane Hensinger

            You claim nuance on a vicious era of purges and terror known as the Cultural Revolution. A bizzarre era with mixed factors of ideology, whim, personality cult, purges, and systemic manipulations of power to name but a few. Yes, it was complex but not benign.

            I'd agree with you on your earlier post that there were many good advances in China under Mao, especially in nutrition and basic physical needs, and even political gains for perhaps most Chinese. I would agree there are positives. But I see you leaning towards being an apologist for the bad events many of which were by cruel design even if you are trying to obfuscate that.

            Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

            by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:54:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

              of a single era in human history that I would call "benign."

              I think the Cultural Revolution becomes a lot less bizarre if you take it seriously as a struggle over the restoration of capitalism in China. I think this view is strongly supported by the fairly clear shift that occurred after Mao's death up to the present

              This is not to make apologies for whatever real atrocities were committed in the course of such an intense struggle, but it is to reject the sort of lazy "it was all terrible" verdict that is so aggressively promoted in the US literature.

              How many people do you think were killed in the Cultural Revolution? How? And by whom? I think that the deeper you actually get into that the harder it is to sustain the simple verdict that Mao was a "mass murderer." It is noteworthy, for instance, that Mao's second main nemesis in this period, Deng Xiaoping, was not only not killed but ultimately able to return to power. This is quite different from what took place in teh USSR.

              Much of the cruelty of this period was decidely not by design, but rather the consequence of unleashing all sorts of popular frustrations at the bottom of society.

              Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
              "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

              by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:20:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That is a seriously whacked out analysis. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Shane Hensinger

                Full of straw men too.

                Popular frustrations are no excuse for dictatorial manipulations. The People's Army as well as many armed factional intimidators are not what any objective analyst could call an innocent result of struggle.

                Deng Xiaping was under house arrest for years. When he was wasn't, playing cards and ping pong among his colleagues was frowned upon as 'bourgeois activities'. Deng's sun was crippled as a result of jumping out of a tall building because he was locked by his sweet Maoist captors in a room full of radioactive contaminants.

                Such illusions of a non-tyrannical 'struggle' and apologies are sweet for those addicted to the sugar of their illusions, but not for the reality of what actually occurs to human beings. Good luck selling that swill to people around here.

                Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

                by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:34:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Couldn't Disagree With You More (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                doinaheckuvanutjob, Cassiodorus

                The GPCR was a massive blunder by a seriously whacked-out Mao.  It was designed to liquidate his perceived enemies who (he feared) would get the upper hand on him because of the mass starvation caused by his other major blunder -- the Great Leap Forward.  Mao's chosen method?  Proto-civil war.  

                Check out Roderick MacFarquhar's recent history of the Cultural Revolution.  Or read his three volume series on the origins of the Cultural Revolution.  On a more popular level, the memoirs of Mao's personal doctor, Li Zhisui are particularly illuminating about the imperial decadent lifestyle Mao and the top CCP leadership lived.  If Deng Xiaoping was a capitalist roader, then Mao was a pampered ignorant ruthless callous feudal emperor.

                Mao pulled a reverse McCarthy -- accusing his political opponents of being Capitalists and instigating a bloody purge that went nowhere and that finally succeeded in extinguishing any enthusiasm for Communism that remained among the Chinese people.

                This aggression will not stand, man.

                by kaleidescope on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:05:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I Haven't Forgotten the GPCR (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast, doinaheckuvanutjob

          If you really want to see good film on what that was like, I suggest two very great movies:  Farewell My Concubine and The Blue Kite.

          People were certainly murdered during the Cultural Revolution -- I suggest a reading of William Hinton's Shenfan for a real flavor of how base that was.  But the GPCR was NOTHING like the mass executions conducted by Stalin during the Great Terror of 1937.

          You seem to have conveniently forgotten the deliberate slaughter of the Buffalo and Wounded Knee.  I have a good friend whose great grandmother was murdered by the U.S. Army, simply because she was an Indian. Here in Eureka, California, in that very late 19th Century, the white citizens of Eureka  slaughtered all the women and children of the Wyot tribe at the conclusion of that tribes bi-annual jump dance when the men of the tribe were exhausted from 10 days of fasting and dancing.  These were indians who were already wearing western clothing and who worked on ranches.

          Take a look around you at what slavery has wrought in this country.

          Americans who get up on their high horses about mass murder in China and Mao are either ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or deluded by the Johnny Trumain version of history they had to internalize so that they could run for president of student government in high school.

          As Menachim Begin said about Jimmy Carter's (mild Casper milquetost) criticism of Israel's slaughter of Palestinians, "We all know what you did in Vietnam."

          So, yes, we can add the following:  the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Indonesia's slaughter of 400,000 mostly ethnic Chinese precipitated by the Ford Foundation and the CIA; the contras in Nicaragua, death squads in Guatamala, El Salvador and Honduras; Saddam Hussein's gassing of Iranian troops, and the current war in Iraq.

          Were as many people murdered by the U.S. and its proxies in these abominations as were killed during the Cultural Revolution?  Maybe, maybe not.  But they are certainly in the ball park.

          If you're as old as I am, your tax dollars paid for it.

          And many of these crimes against humanity were wrought by Democrats like FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter.

          We must elect better Democrats.

          This aggression will not stand, man.

          by kaleidescope on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:00:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can agree with you on most of that. (0+ / 0-)

            I myself didn't use the 'mass murder' phrase.

            I find apologizing for the crimes of Communist regimes just as nauseating as you find apologists for U.S. crimes. I think it better to be honest and realistic about both, just as you were about American history.

            Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

            by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:09:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  so according to you we are all mass murders now? (0+ / 0-)

        sorry, no way. don't accuse this old boy of the sins of slavery or killing off the native americans, my ancestors were running away from pogroms (and the army) in eastern europe and fomenting their own revolution in italy, but if i take to your own bizarre historical insanity maybe i could "historically" be responsible for the destruction of charthage in the third century before christ.

        simply, mao set in motion the economic programs that murdered millions and while he could have decreased that number he choose not to. that is as far apart from lee sending in pickett's brigade at gettysburg as a fish is to a bicycle

        ps:the other poster beat me to the cultural revolution and the human ruin it caused.

        since i spent most of my life working in a factory, tell me again about what industrialization really means and how bougie my tastes run.

        i laid out already my belief in the trotskyite ideas behing schactman's third camp, so calling a trotskyite like me bougeois is laughably lame and clueless.

        either you're a pompose, soft-handed, little university punk who never worked a day in your life with your back or a complete idiot. and that is run of the mill for the so-called "communists" i run into now and then. so stuffed with theoretical bullshit that they can't even see what the theory was supposed to describe about the real world.

        you're like a college sophomore who sits up all night reading the manifesto while downing his first bottle of cheap wine and believes he understands the world.

        you know why communism never stuck in america, as marx thought it likely would, it is because its greatest advocates were never trusted by the working class they were supposed to help.

        and you sir, appear to be their 21st century avatar.

        "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

        by kuvasz on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:13:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You Obviously Didn't Read My Comments (0+ / 0-)

          Or if you did you didn't understand them. Pickett's charge had nothing to do with anything.  Stealing the indians' land and wiping them out in "pograms" did.  And so did African slavery.   These crimes provided the primitive accumulation needed to kick off the industrial revolution and to develop the English and American industrial economies.

          Similarly, the slaughter of the Chinese gentry, the expropriation of their land and the herding of Chinese peasants onto communes were the crimes that allowed the Chinese Communist Party to achieve the administrative control it needed to extract the surplus value needed to begin to industrialize China's economy.  Millions of Chinese died during the revolution and the famines of the Great Leap Forward.

          It doesn't get Mao and his henchmen like Zhou Enlai, Liu Xiaochi, Deng Xiaoping (or the rest of the Communist Party) off the hook to realize that Americans committed similar crimes to achieve similar ends, if only eighty years and more earlier.  And under the ideology of Christianity rather than Communism.

          But it's kind of silly to make a cardboard villain out of Mao while Americans who committed similar crimes still appear on our money, and still have parks, streets and cities named after them.

          We should at least be realistic about history, shouldn't we?

          As for your ancestors, I don't know what you mean.  If by saying they were fleeing Russian pogroms you imply your ancestors were Jews, then I seem to remember reading somewhere about King David collecting thousands of foreskins.  What was that about?

          I'm sure it wasn't about committing genocide in order to steal someone's land and then using religion to justify the crime.

          This aggression will not stand, man.

          by kaleidescope on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:52:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  As a veteran of the New Communist Movement (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mvr, Kimball Cross, Matthias

    of the 1970s, I've observed that much of the "left" opinion here faintly echoes the erroneous assumptions we indulged in way back then.

    The basic problem is: People don't want revolution. Self-styled revolutionists have to explain this as being a product of false consciousness or ignorance, but fail to consider that the "masses" may have the right idea and it is the self-styled revolutionaries who have it all wrong.

    I continue to believe in the need for and inevitability of a society where the producers control the means of production, which would constitute an epochal revolutionary change.

    But achieving it via revolutionary organization and overthrow of the established order?

    I can no longer see it that way.

    •  Then How? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      I often share your skepticism, but I find the suggestion that working through established channels like the Democratic Party will accomplish it even more far-fetched. I think you are correct that the vast majority of people in this country don't want revolution, but there have been times when a much larger fraction did want it and I don't think its ridiculous to believe that if present trends continue such sentiment will experience a resurgence.

      As someone with some background in this history, I'd really be interested in your thoughts on how the Nine Letters deals with that experience which was really before my time.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:47:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I skimmed through them. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Cassiodorus

        The letters are reminiscent of criticisms made of RCP and its rivals during the 1970s -- no success in mass organizing, no real link to working class constituencies, and a self-serving, rather dogmatic theory of the their own vanguard role.

        So not much new there.

        It is true that a much more significant proportion of Americans desired revolution in the 1930s and notably in 1969-1970.

        My thinking is that the best current prospects are to come from social-democratic reforms. If we actually elect a liberal Democratic President and Congressional majority, and people get a taste of how their lives could be improved, I think it could give rise to a upward spiral of escalating demands and increased political power for working people.

        •  I'd be very interested (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast

          in your comments on the document if you get a chance to do more than skim it. I actually think there is more that is "new" in it than you suggest.

          I think your optimism about what the Dems will give people a taste of is, sadly, unfounded. I think we are likely to just get more austerity, militarism and surveillance only without so much of the pious Christian morality.

          I want to see Dems elected too, but more because it is only then that people will be able to see how misplaced their hopes in them really were.

          Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
          "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

          by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:12:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  People may not "want" revolution (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      YellowDogBlue, farleftcoast

      But when the existing system effectively dies, there will be an alteration in the fundamental relationships of power, call it what you will.  It's rather plain to me that the whole USA-ian system is creaking toward that point, as the political, economic and media structures of our society become increasingly remote from and hostile to the needs of the vast majority of Amerticans  while under the sole control of a very narrow stratum of wealthy and powerful people.  If we dig in our heels and resist building the strength of popular forces, radical forces, then as the present system gives up its last gasp, the only forces that will be in place capable of dealing with that situation will be the powers of concentrated wealth, and what they will design and implement, what they are in fact designing and implementing in front of our averted eyes, is a structure and a culture that will grind the rest of us under their heels for a millenium as their feudal forerunners did to the serfs.

      A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow

      by ActivistGuy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:04:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I used to be in a parallel trend, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      YellowDogBlue

      1970's Trotskyism (YSA and SWP), and I agree completely. In rejecting ML in any of its variants, the average American actually understands more than their self-styled "liberators," the vanguard party.

      You can't serve the people in any concrete way unless you respect them.

      "George W. Bush ... has shown phenomenal restraint while being constantly attacked by people not fit to hold his coat... " --- From a RW website.

      by Kimball Cross on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:04:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another reason to be suspicious of the RCP (3+ / 0-)

    is that they at least sometimes try to take credit for the work of others.

    One of my favorite moments was at a Black United Front organized rally in Portland Oregon in the late 70s or early 80s where the local RCP folks decided to unfurl a large banner over the rest of us.  Several tall black men who were serving as informal parade marshalls asked them to take it down.  They refused. They were then told to take it down. Capitulation was the only wise strategy given that they were a lot smaller than the people asking. And they were going to look like very stupid and racist white people for failing to obey the legit requests of black march organizers. It would not have looked good to start a confrontation.

    Free speech is great but it includes the freedom to disassociate from a bunch of people trying to make it appear that you support something you don't.

    •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mvr

      That sounds pretty shady. I haven't seen anything nearly that ham-handed on their part since I first ran into them in the mid 80s.

      I think rather than look for reasons to be suspicious of the RCP (or any group) that it is more productive to engage them at their best, that is to look for the most thoughtful things they have to say or do and to figure out what is wrong (or right) in that. Thats what i really like about this document.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:59:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Probably a good general strategy for dealing with (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Kimball Cross

        people, but I also think you've got to pay attention to how people treat you.  People who never listen are not going to be good political allies or very instructive teachers.

        I'm not saying there can't be anything in something they say that might turn out to be true. Just telling a story from long ago really, because it amused me then as it does now.

        •  Actually there's a long history of the RCP using (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          mvr

          such tactics into today.

          And a long history of them, along with SWP and other such groups, being so infiltrated by the government that it's hard to tell apart the zealots from the agents, nor does it really matter because they are essentially similar. Both certainly share the same goals of promoting their organization at the expense of the peace and justice movements.

          Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:41:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Maoism in Practice (3+ / 0-)

    I was once a Maoist, in a New Left, opposition-to-the-rise-of-a-post-revolution-new-class kind of way.  Yes, there was a time in my life when I was preoccupied with how to reconstruct society after the revolution, how to keep it revolutionary.  

    I had several friends in college who were RCP (or RCYB) members and of all the sectarian Marxists (PLP, October League, Sparts, SWPers) the RCP people were the most sensible and fun, except when it came to Party matters, and then they were just weird as shit.

    I spent years learning Chinese so I could read Mao in his own language and get a deeper understanding of revolutionary practice in China.

    Then I went to China in 1983 and traveled around on my own for about a year.  I saw that Leninism had wrought a new feudalism in China and that Mao's pronouncements were base hypocracy.  Errant nonsense at best, more likely bullshit on stilts.  The Mass Line?  GMAFB.

    I have a very dear friend who once was an RCPer and many of her friends were RCPers too.  And they are now like ex-Catholics and the way they feel about Bob Avakian is the way ex-Catholics feel about the Pope -- resentment and shame at having wasted their youth following the precepts of someone so deluded.

    But for the most part they are still committed to revolutionary change.

    So for me it comes down to something Bill Ayers recently said, which is that there should be a draft for national service -- no exceptions.  And people should get drafted, say, every ten years up until they are sixty.

    If that were to happen in this society it truly would be revolutionary and -- in a sense neither Mao nor Bob Avakian would ever have actually lived themselves -- it would be a Maoist, or, perhaps, New Leftist participatory-democracy solution to class conflict in a post-revolutionary society.

    But Leninism and that of Maosim that is Leninism is a problem, not a solution.  Leninism  -- as practice has shown -- is a reactionary approach to the very real need for revolution.

    No Leaders; no followers.  Destroy what destroys you.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:57:23 PM PDT

    •  Lots of Folks (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, Cassiodorus

      I know lots of folks with experiences like your friends. My views on Leninism are more contradictory. I tend to view it more as an outdated technology that can still teach us some things if we understand it as an expression of a particular historical period.

      While I loathe the present regime in China and don't imagine life during the Mao-era as some sort of utopia, I do think that the Chinese Revolution was a hugely positive event in world history. Leninism broke the stranglehold that colonialism had on Asia and to a lesser extent Africa and along with defeating Nazis that has to count for something.

      In any event I think the present moment demands something new, but the new must always reckon with the old. And that is what I find exciting in these letters, the attempt to envision the possibility of something new in the course of breaking with something old (that was itself once new).

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:21:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lenin and Mao built _contender_ regimes (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    YellowDogBlue, Matthias

    The notion of a "contender" regime is something I'm borrowing from Kees van der Pijl, about whom I've written two diaries: a review of his most recent book, and the short, brilliant 1998 volume.  Contender regimes are nation-states which exist in competition with the "Lockean heartland," the core nation-states of capitalist imperialism.  Lenin's contender state was the Soviet Union; Mao's, the PRC.

    All of which is to point out a major roadblock to "global communist revolution" on the Marxist plan: the fact that, throughout capitalist history, the main successes of "actually existing Marxism" have been in organizing peasant nations to challenge imperialism.  Revolution in the "most advanced nations" seems to have been taken off of the table.  Instead, Marxism has been adapted to the organization of peasant nations to challenge the capitalist core through authoritarian forced-march attempts to catch up in what has essentially become capitalist development.  The resultant to-do about what has been called (to use the propaganda word) "totalitarianism" has eclipsed the liberatory content of Marx/ Engels' writings as well as the truth-content of their critique of the capitalist system.

    None of these people, neither Ely nor Avakian nor anyone of their associates, are going anywhere with this stuff.  First off, they've failed to recognize a basic tenet of political organization in general, as argued by Paulo Freire: any movement that hopes to succeed must argue in the language of the people.  Ely may come closer to a decent repertoire than Avakian; yet in Letter 3 we see:

    A party without a correct mass line — without a correct approach toward leading and learning from the people — cannot hope to lead a great revolution or a new society.

     There may be a "correct approach," but its name is "dialogue," and there certainly isn't any hint of a "mass line" in it.

    Generally speaking, any real future revolution is going to be conducted by people who disagree about what the new world will look like, but who otherwise agree that a wholesale change is necessary.  The "correct mass line" stuff seems more a product of the need to hold contender states together for that expected forced march toward capitalist development.

    That stuff is all in the past now.  If we're really going to do something to create an alternative to a capitalist world, we've got to pose ecological thinking, thinking about the natural relationships that make up resilient ecosystems, as the missing ingredient in all lost aspirations to a better world.

    "The freeway's concrete way won't show/ you where to run or how to go" -- Jorma Kaukonen

    by Cassiodorus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:02:58 PM PDT

    •  Friere (0+ / 0-)

      What is interesting in your invocation of Friere is the ways in which Friere's pedagogy was directly influenced by Mao's theory of the Mass Line, (its in the footnotes!) which contrary to popular misunderstanding is very much about dialogue.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:50:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Footnotes? (0+ / 0-)

        (its in the footnotes!)

        When Freire was quoting Mao in an approving way in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he was engaging a basic appeal to an audience already convinced of the correctness of Mao's thought, as was appropriate to the intellectual ferment of 1968, when that book was written.

        Where is that audience now?  

        Sure, there are nice words about dialogue in Mao's writings.  I suppose it's a good thing, too, for Ely to remind Maoists in the US of them; I'm sure it would free their minds a bit.  That I will concede.

        But just how many people are we talking about now?

        Later, in 1992, Freire's Pedagogy of Hope talks about his practice as "democratic."  Was Mao's practice "democratic"?  

        Freire was a teacher, writing for other teachers.  If you're a teacher, and you're still stuck in the Bob Avakian mode of ranting about "Christian Fascism" while promoting "Marxism/Leninism/Maoism," you've probably chosen the wrong profession.  Will anyone hire you?  And what will you add to the world of your students?

        "The freeway's concrete way won't show/ you where to run or how to go" -- Jorma Kaukonen

        by Cassiodorus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:40:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not upholding Avakian (0+ / 0-)

          and neither is Ely.

          Freire was not just a teacher, he was interested in pedagogy as a tool of liberation.

          Mao's thoughts on the Mass Line are not just of passing interest, a convenient reference in 1968, but have everything to do with why he was able to lead a quarter of humanity through a revolutionary process, which in turn has everything to do with his relevance to Friere.

          What Mao understood was that the masses had more to teach their would-be leaders than the other way around. This wasn't a crude rejection of the need for leadership, however, but rather an argument for a specific kind of leadership, what Friere would call dialogic.

          Friere is not just interested in enriching his students, in being a better teacher, but in enabling them to become historical actors in a global process of liberation. He understands that popular education is as much a process of organizing and leading (and developing new leadership from) the oppressed as it is about being a more effective teacher.

          Friere critiques the woodenness of the revolutionary left, but not in order to simply dismiss it. Rather he is interested in a pedagogy/method of leadership that actually overcomes the central problem of how to lead people into not neeeding your leadership, that is into really taking power over their own lives and the direction of society when everything in society trains them to be passive.

          Those who would separate Friere from the revolutionary Marxist underpinnings of his thought do not really understand Friere (or Marxism as aliving body of theory).

          Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
          "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

          by Christopher Day on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:21:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ely (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      While Ely describes himself as a Maoist and certainly uses a fair amount of that language, I don't think what he is arguing for is so easily dismissed. Your comments suggest that you think the Mass Line just refers to positions handed down from on high by the leadership of a party, when in fact it is about the process by which effective leadership draws out the correct content of ideas that already exist among "the masses" precisely because they reflect the reality of their experiences. Now this is not a simple matter since there are also all sorts of wrong-headed ideas out there as well, often co-existing in the same heads with the "correct" ones. The Mass Line is about the process through which "the masses" are able to advance in their own understanding through a continous process. I don't think Mao had the last word on this by a long shot, and agree that Friere is a critical point of reference, but an accurate understanding of how Mao's approach departed from the previous practice of Leninist parties and in turn how it informs Friere is critical.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:03:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mao... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Kimball Cross

    ...by his own admission, never read anything by Marx.

    I think Mao's notions of socialism were based on his own fantasies of what socialism should be even though he didn't have any fundamental, academic understanding of socialism.

    I see Maoism as a strange, ersatz caricature of socialism.

Permalink | 57 comments