|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 13, 2004 5:20:26 GMT -5
honky tonk wrote: On this point: Avakian explicitly does not have personal control over the RCP. The RCP wrote a detailed leadership document that affirmed the concept of collective leadership.
Avakian is chairman of the deciding body (the central committee when the congress is not in session). He does not "decide" in some "one-man management way."
Now there's a document that I would like to have a look at! But I would surmise that it's not available to the public.
Indeed, I think there's much to be learned from how organizations are put together on paper and how they actually function. You can see in the American constitution, for example, how it was originally drafted to keep the slave-holding aristocracy in power and how the rising bourgeoisie modified the provisions through amendments to ensure its own dominance after 1860.
In any event, you must realize that the more strenuous your efforts to "build up" your party's chairman, the more people will conclude that the RCP is a personal despotism...no matter how much you claim otherwise. Even people quite favorably disposed to Fidel Castro, for example, nevertheless assume that "Castro decides everything" -- a wildly implausible assumption given the man's age and the complexity of an entire society.
Also, people who join your party will start with the assumption that the Chairman "must be right" -- the more "famous" he is, the "righter" he will be thought. If the Chairman makes a mistake, who will have the courage to challenge him? And what support could she anticipate from the party's membership?
Then there is the problem of succession. Chairman Bob and I are about the same age...and even if he's healthier than I am (which is probably true), both of us feel the icy winds of mortality. If the chairman is "famous", who can replace him? As you noted (I think it was you), "anyone" can be selected to be Chairman of the Communist Party of China...but that doesn't make him another Mao.
Perhaps these are questions that you would rather "not think about right now".
But they are relevant to this thread and to the Leninist paradigm generally.
You may ignore them...but they won't ignore you.#nosmileys
|
|
Maz
Revolutionary
rock out
Posts: 106
|
Post by Maz on Feb 13, 2004 12:46:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 14, 2004 4:23:44 GMT -5
Maz wrote: The documents you'd love to get your hands on are available publicly, online even...
Well, it was only one document. And, in substance, rather thin. I've noticed a high "noise-to-signal" ratio in a lot of RCP material that has been referred to me. Still, we work with what's available, so...
The Central Committee of the RCP wrote (1995): A leadership which can, at all times, keep strategic objectives firmly in the forefront of revolutionary practice. A leadership which can consistently and effectively keep the revolutionary movement from straying off course and which can recognize and take advantage of openings for action and advance.
No "false modesty" here!
Well, do you find those ambitions realistic? Do you think a small group of people can do that?
In my opinion, this kind of ambition completely misunderstands the nature of mass revolution -- it is as if one proposed to "guide" a hurricane and keep it from drifting "off course".
A hurricane is a good analogy. The National Hurricane Center in Miami uses nine different mathematical "models" of hurricanes to predict the course and intensity of a real hurricane. The equations are enormously complex and it takes several hours of super-computer time to run them.
The models are very good ones...most of the time they agree closely and the hurricane really does stay very close to its predicted path and intensity. (From what I've seen, the models are slightly biased to predict a slightly more intense hurricane at landfall than actually happens...this is probably a safety precaution.)
Most would agree, I think, that human behavior -- especially in revolutionary situations when "order" is drastically upset -- is much more complex than the natural forces involved in creating and sustaining a hurricane.
And yet this is what the RCP proposes to "guide" and perhaps even "prepare" and "organize".
Can you even begin to grasp the magnitude of my skepticism? Try galactic!
The CC of the RCP wrote: Today our Party continues to be an evolving expression, distillation, and concentration of the strivings of the masses of people for revolutionary change.
That's a claim...is it true? How would we know that?
The CC of the RCP wrote: Our power resides in our collectivity--this enables us to correctly link with, unleash, and lead the initiative of the masses and give it its most powerful revolutionary expression in conformity with the fundamental interests of the masses.
Why should "collectivity" necessarily result in "correctly" linking with anything or leading anything?
It seems to me that a "correct" understanding of anything is independent of the number of people who have it or who were involved in reaching it. It's either "correct" or "incorrect"...whether the whole world thinks so or just one single person.
The CC of the RCP wrote: This collectivity is expressed and realized through the collective functioning of the units of the Party on the various levels, and through the Party's chain of knowledge and of command up and down throughout the Party.
Hmm. "Chain of knowledge and of command up and down throughout the Party". That's beginning to sound familiar.
The CC of the RCP wrote: ...in order to concentrate the best of the masses' collective knowledge and experience over time and return it to the masses in the form of revolutionary line and policies and practical revolutionary guidance.
Yes, I suppose all serious communists try to do this in one way or another. If the masses spontaneously do something that we think is "good", we go to them and say "do it some more." And we usually add "while you're at it, you could try this next step."
I guess you could call this "revolutionary guidance"...but I don't think it's a "big deal". It seems like plain common sense to me. When working people "raise the ante" in class struggle, what kind of "communist" would try to discourage that?
The CC of the RCP wrote: And we do so while maintaining the strongest possible wall of unity and discipline which is difficult for the enemy to breach.
The "fortress" mentality, eh?
Well, I can sympathize somewhat. Bourgeois ideology permeates every facet of our existence...it's in the air we breathe. The last 150 years has seen an endless procession of "revolutionary innovations" that turned out to be the "same old shit" underneath the glittery packaging.
But "difficult for the enemy to breach" is not the same as "impossible" for the enemy to breach. No fortress is ideologically "air-tight".
And the "fortress mentality" is one that, over time, becomes intensely conservative and unable to either effectively deal with new situations or confront ideas that really are new.
I have, as you may have guessed by this time, had some considerable contact with a fair number of "Marxist"-Leninist parties -- and the word that comes to mind is "time-warp".
For the most part, they are "stuck" in a certain time-period that loops back on itself over and over again. Since no one here will be upset at this example, I recently read of a British Trotskyist party arguing vigorously for "re-capturing" of the British Labour Party...on the basis of some quotes from Trotsky made more than 60 years ago. For them, history stopped in 1940.
I could mention other examples, of course.
The CC of the RCP wrote: Inside the Party there is (and should always be) much collective discussion and wrangling over what to do, over right and wrong in the development of the revolutionary theory and practice to which all comrades contribute.
If true, that's "a good thing". Too bad the masses never get to see it. They might learn something.
The CC of the RCP wrote: The Party organization consists of various small groupings and units, each with its own leadership, which funnel into various higher leading bodies. The collectivity of the Party as a whole is most concentrated, and best represented, in our Central Committee.
Well, you'd sort of expect the Central Committee itself to say that, wouldn't you? They're not going to say that the collectivity is best represented by the rank-and-file party members, are they?
The CC of the RCP wrote (after more than 60 lines of effusive praise of Bob Avakian): ...and he has never even lost his sense of humor!
That's good to know. (?)
Not a single other member of the RCP is even identified in the entire document.
The CC of the RCP wrote: The Central Committee of the RCP hereby enthusiastically reaffirms its respect, love, and firm support for Comrade Avakian and his role as Chair of the Central Committee of the RCP,USA.
How does one "love" a political leader? Do you send him Valentine's Day cards & flowers? Or Christmas gifts? Do you have "daydreams" about him? Imagine yourself being thrilled to meet him in person? Do you put his 30-year-old picture up on the wall?
You see, even if I were a Leninist, I could never be this kind of Leninist...someone who took seriously the idea of a "beloved leader".
It's an idea so alien to the culture of the working class in advanced capitalist countries...that I don't see how it will ever "fly".
It's just too weird.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 14, 2004 12:32:07 GMT -5
well, all I can say is that Redstar's response shows some differences over some crucial matters that are fairly central to a communist view of the world and the struggle. We have been over much of this. And i don't want to beat it to death. The Central Committee of the RCP wrote (1995): A leadership which can, at all times, keep strategic objectives firmly in the forefront of revolutionary practice. A leadership which can consistently and effectively keep the revolutionary movement from straying off course and which can recognize and take advantage of openings for action and advance."Redstar writes: "Well, do you find those ambitions realistic? Do you think a small group of people can do that?"I think Redstar's remark is helpful because it highlights the core issue involved. Some people think that the "ambitions" of revolution and changing the world are unrealistic. And (from that basic summation and outlook) literally everything the RCP does and believes and says makes no sense. This is about changing the world -- taking the road upon which humanity remakes itself and society. My answer: Yes, these ambitions are realistic. Nothing less is needed. Redstar writes: "In my opinion, this kind of ambition completely misunderstands the nature of mass revolution -- it is as if one proposed to "guide" a hurricane and keep it from drifting "off course"."This is a key issue we have debated. And yes, exactly, humanity has erupted in vast spontaneous uprisings of discontent. To forge socialist revolution out of that requires "guiding the hurricane" -- or, as lenin says, "diverting the spontaneous." Redstar then talks about the unpredictability of hurricaines. That too is a good analogy. There is a lot about the future and events that are unpredictable. Marxist dialectics holds that accident is principal over contingency. Redstar is amazed that communists thinks they can lead mass movements and historical developments. And then he dismisses the role and politics of Lenin and Mao (who are valuable guides and examples and teachers in doing just that.) Redstar writes: "Can you even begin to grasp the magnitude of my skepticism? Try galactic!"You always try to put words in peoples mouths. Of course I grasp your views. Perhaps better than you do. The CC of the RCP wrote: "Today our Party continues to be an evolving expression, distillation, and concentration of the strivings of the masses of people for revolutionary change."That is an important and radical expresson of what a vanguard is, and aspires to be. The CC of the RCP wrote: "Our power resides in our collectivity--this enables us to correctly link with, unleash, and lead the initiative of the masses and give it its most powerful revolutionary expression in conformity with the fundamental interests of the masses."Redstar, with typical incomprehension of communist politics, stammers: "Why should "collectivity" necessarily result in "correctly" linking with anything or leading anything?"Answer: uh, because the point of the collectivity is leading the revolutoin? I don't think there is anyway of explaining it to Redstar because he (a) thinks revolution is impossible (b) thinks leadership is impossible (c) thinks there is little to do to affect or accelerate historic processes. The CC of the RCP wrote: "This collectivity is expressed and realized through the collective functioning of the units of the Party on the various levels, and through the Party's chain of knowledge and of command up and down throughout the Party."Redstar writes: Hmm. "Chain of knowledge and of command up and down throughout the Party". That's beginning to sound familiar.'Typically, I think you are mistaken in your claim of familarity. This concept "chain of knowledge/chain of command" is an expression and application of the marxist view of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) to developing political knowledge. But it is (most likely) not familiar to him, since it is not a common expression in other, previous commuist writings on democratic centralism. It is opposed to many, perhaps-more-familiar views on this. The CC of the RCP wrote: "Inside the Party there is (and should always be) much collective discussion and wrangling over what to do, over right and wrong in the development of the revolutionary theory and practice to which all comrades contribute."Redstar comments: "If true, that's "a good thing". Too bad the masses never get to see it. They might learn something."Of course its true. And of course the masses get to "see it" -- it is inherent in how communists work, not only within their movement, but among the masses. Most examples aren't on paper of course. But this thread and site are just one example. Another example that is online: 2changetheworld.info[glow=red,2,300]Perhaps the strangest and most revealing comment by redstar is this:[/glow] The CC of the RCP wrote: "The Central Committee of the RCP hereby enthusiastically reaffirms its respect, love, and firm support for Comrade Avakian and his role as Chair of the Central Committee of the RCP,USA. "Redstar writes: "How does one "love" a political leader?..It's an idea so alien to the culture of the working class in advanced capitalist countries...that I don't see how it will ever "fly". It's just too weird. "I won't go on about this. But anyone who has been among the people knows how deeply people love various political leaders depending on their consciousness. Ever talk to old teamsters about Jimmy Hoffa or talk to coal miners about John L. Lewis. Or Black people who variously love malcolm or martin luther king, or even Jesse Jackson. Every discuss Ho Chi Minh with people of the vietnam era? In world war 2 millions of fighters rose from their trenches with the name "Stalin" on their lips -- and not just fighters from the Soviet Union. Not to mention the profound love that people in China and around the world have had for Mao (both for leading the chinese revolution, and then for opposing gray, stagnant counterrevolutionary Soviet bloc methods.) Let me put it another way: is there any significant movement in history that has not put its leaders on its banners? (including the anti-leadership anarchists who uphold durrutti and Makhno). Now all of these different names and leaders represent different lines, and views, and causes. So it is common for people to love and respect and support leaders who concentrate a cause (and more who have led it well). I want to comment on your phrase "so alien to the culture of the working class in advanced capitalist countries": First, this is the third or fourth time that you have implied something about the people who are OUTSIDE the so-called "advanced" countries. (they apparently blindly follow and "love" their leaders -- who, you claimed, don't need more skill than "monkeys".) I won't comment more, the tone of all this is clear. Second, you claim there is something in the "culture" of these "advanced" countries that rebels against leaders blah blah blah. I don't know what "advanced" corner you live in. But it is far from reality -- as any experience with the masses of workers in the U.S. will tell you. Finally: You may think it is odd for communists to love their leaders -- especially those who aspire to push through difficult situations, and not abandon the final goal, and who strain to develop the methods and approaches for the next advance. You may be incomprehensible about what such respect, love or support even means. But, to me, it just shows again the wide gap between your views and ANY concept of political action -- the distance you are from any hope of liberation.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 14, 2004 16:16:17 GMT -5
I guess it's time to "sharpen" the struggle a little; honky tonk is definitely in a waspish mood.
honky tonk wrote: Some people think that the "ambitions" of revolution and changing the world are unrealistic.
But I, of course, am not one of them. Revolution and changing the world are inevitable...IF Marx was right.
honky tonk wrote: To forge socialist revolution out of that requires "guiding the hurricane" -- or, as Lenin says, "diverting the spontaneous."
Emphasis added.
And this after I went to some length to show how difficult it is to predict a hurricane.
You propose to "guide" one. Very well, what kinds of algorithms have you developed to predict human behavior in periods of revolution? How long does your super-computer take to run your "models"?
Or do you envision yourself "just doing what Lenin did" in October 1917?
Wow! Perhaps you should go back to my previous post and consider more carefully what I said about political time-warps.
honky tonk wrote: Redstar is amazed that communists thinks they can lead mass movements and historical developments. And then he dismisses the role and politics of Lenin and Mao (who are valuable guides and examples and teachers in doing just that.)
Lenin staged a coup. Mao led a peasant revolution. If you want to do either of those things, those are good guys to study and learn from.
When it comes to proletarian revolution and communism, they're not of much use. So yes, I dismiss them. I have no interest in staging a coup or fomenting a peasant revolution.
(In both cases, by the way, their versions of "socialism" just led back to capitalism...so any "lessons" there would be almost certainly negative.)
honky tonk wrote: You always try to put words in people's mouths.
That's a criticism I hear with some frequency...so perhaps on occasion it's justified. It seems to me that I take what people say and draw the logical inference of their view.
If you say A and it seems to me that B is a logical continuation of that view, then I assume that you are comfortable with B.
The usually unstated alternative is that you're not really aware that B follows A.
honky tonk wrote: Answer: uh, because the point of the collectivity is leading the revolution? I don't think there is any way of explaining it to Redstar because he (a) thinks revolution is impossible (b) thinks leadership is impossible (c) thinks there is little to do to affect or accelerate historic processes.
That's a non sequitur -- my point is that "correctness" doesn't have anything to do with the actual number of people involved at any given point in time. There was a point in history when the knowledge of the correct size of the earth resided in the brain of one old Greek mathematician...and then he wrote a book and now anyone who's interested can look it up.
Simply because you have a collective -- whether it's "leading the revolution" or thinks it is or not -- is no "automatic guarantee" of "correctness"...which contradicts what the RCP document seems to be saying.
But, speaking of putting words in people's mouths, where and when have I ever said that "revolution is impossible"?
What I have said is that "making" a real proletarian revolution -- as if you were making a pizza -- is impossible.
Or, if you like, the Leninist paradigm cannot deliver on its promises; the nature of proletarian revolution will not permit that.
I think it's also reasonable to assert that "leadership" -- in the Leninist sense of "command & control" -- is likewise impossible in a real revolution.
As to "accelerating historical processes", I think that there are things we can do to "help". But I very definitely balk at the idea that history is something we can "mold" to suit our own priorities...it's too big...and far too complicated.
To tell people that we "can" do something that we quite obviously cannot is to invite the justified scorn of the working class. That wouldn't be so bad if it was just us as people...but the scorn will attach itself to our ideas as well.
For example, "The USSR proved that communism can't work."
honky tonk wrote: This concept "chain of knowledge/chain of command" is an expression and application of the marxist view of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) to developing political knowledge.
Would you like to elaborate on this claim? I'm curious to see how a chain of command gets converted into a "theory of knowledge".
honky tonk wrote: Of course its true. And of course the masses get to "see it" -- it is inherent in how communists work, not only within their movement, but among the masses.
Do you mean to say here that the RCP, unlike any other Leninist party that I've ever heard of, opens its internal disputes to the inspection of the masses???
I find this unbelievable...but I have to be willing to look at the evidence.
If you actually do this, then what becomes of the traditional Leninist doctrine that the party presents "one face and one line" to the masses? Have you junked that approach?
honky tonk wrote: But anyone who has been among the people knows how deeply people love various political leaders depending on their consciousness. Ever talk to old teamsters about Jimmy Hoffa or talk to coal miners about John L. Lewis. Or Black people who variously love Malcolm or Martin Luther King, or even Jesse Jackson. Ever discuss Ho Chi Minh with people of the Vietnam era? In World War 2 millions of fighters rose from their trenches with the name "Stalin" on their lips -- and not just fighters from the Soviet Union. Not to mention the profound love that people in China and around the world have had for Mao (both for leading the Chinese revolution, and then for opposing gray, stagnant counterrevolutionary Soviet bloc methods.)
I think you laid it on pretty thick there...but let it pass. Do you think this is a "good thing"? Something to be "encouraged"?
Of course you do. To me, such displays are evidence of profound backwardness...the ancient heritage of class society; the search for the good king. If only we could find "the good king" and put him on the throne of the world, then "all would be well". We would "love him" and he would "love us".
To those enmeshed in such fantasies, there is little that a real communist can say except WAKE UP!
There have never been and will never be any "good kings". (One reason for that is that you don't get to be a king by being "good".)
Some people believe in a "good God" and others in a "good king"...and it's all for nothing.
Very sad.
honky tonk wrote: Let me put it another way: is there any significant movement in history that has not put its leaders on its banners? (including the anti-leadership anarchists who uphold Durrutti and Makhno).
The answer to your question is mostly negative. SDS, to its credit, did not put its leaders on its banners...but to that you might well reply that SDS was not really a "significant movement".
But there is a question that stands along side yours. Has there ever been a historically "significant movement" that has actually freed us from the chains of wage-slavery and class society?
Not yet.
Is is possible that there might be some connection between the answer to your question and the answer to mine?
I think so.
honky tonk wrote: First, this is the third or fourth time that you have implied something about the people who are OUTSIDE the so-called "advanced" countries.
So-called? What are you implying? There are clearly advanced capitalist countries and others that are less advanced and some that have not even begun the transition to capitalism.
The political consciousness of the people in those countries corresponds more or less with the material conditions in those countries.
That's basic Marxism -- are you giving up on that?
honky tonk wrote: Second, you claim there is something in the "culture" of these "advanced" countries that rebels against leaders blah blah blah. I don't know what "advanced" corner you live in. But it is far from reality -- as any experience with the masses of workers in the U.S. will tell you.
Well, I suppose we could argue about who has "more experience with the masses"...but I see little point in it.
The general trend in capitalist societies as they develop (with ups and downs) is the discrediting of "leadership" and "authority" -- partly because of the demonstrated failure of this or that leader or authority to perform in a competent manner and partly because as the general cultural and educational level rises, people are more conscious of their autonomy (such as they think it is) and more resentful of anyone who attempts to infringe upon it.
"Faith" in "God", "Leaders", or anything else is a recurring casualty of capitalism.
Before people can overthrow a social order, they must first "disengage" their sympathies will all the major characteristics of that order. Every viable class society lives in an "age of faith" -- the abolition of class society requires the abolition of all faith.
honky tonk wrote: But, to me, it just shows again the wide gap between your views and ANY concept of political action -- the distance you are from any hope of liberation.
Now, now, let's not get carried away. There is no "gap" between my views and "any" concept of political action -- my concepts are just different from yours. In a real situation of potential or actual class struggle, we might even come to identical conclusions regarding the best thing to do next.
The difference is that I would merely propose the step and "let the people decide". If it were possible, you would command it.#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 14, 2004 17:36:26 GMT -5
I don't wanna hog the conversation. And I encourage others to jump in (so that it is not just me and Redstar). So I won't deal with all the issues but make a few shorter remarks. Redstar writes: "Revolution and changing the world are inevitable...IF Marx was right."REvolution is only inevitable in the sense that the contradictions of living society produce (sooner or later) living people (in groups, organizaitons, classes, intellectual movements, political parties, etc.) that make those changes. As the Internationale (the anthem of the communist movement) says: "We must ourselves decide our duty, we must decide and do it well."There is no Hegelian or Platonic "inevitability" other than the processes that forge and bring forward human beings and their actions. And if human beings don't form organizations and develop plans, things don't happen. Redstar wrote: "Lenin staged a coup. Mao led a peasant revolution."This is the standard highschool anticommunist summation of these things. It denies ideology, political theory, development of parties, years of political work, new insights, complex line struggles within the international communist movements, views on bourgeois wars etc. etc. Redstar writes: "Simply because you have a collective -- whether it's "leading the revolution" or thinks it is or not -- is no "automatic guarantee" of "correctness"...which contradicts what the RCP document seems to be saying."There is no guarantee of correctness anywhere. period. Ideas have to be developed, tested, debated, revised, and put in practice -- and if necessary discarded, to be replaced by better ideas. Redstar writes he would like to discuss "This concept "chain of knowledge/chain of command"...I'm curious to see how a chain of command gets converted into a "theory of knowledge".
I imagine that means you admit (now) that this is not a (ho-hum) familiar concept? We can discuss it. Perhaps in another thread.
Redstar writes: "Do you mean to say here that the RCP, unlike any other Leninist party that I've ever heard of, opens its internal disputes to the inspection of the masses???"
I mean that the very method of (say) Chairman Avakian is about wrangling over truth -- laying out problems, issues, new ideas, tentative hypotheses, contradictions, disputes -- before people, and "inviting them into the conversation."
Or, perhaps you should also visit 2changetheworld.info before spouting off (i.e. saying "I find this unbelievable."
In another section Redstar insists that "advanced capitalist societies" is marxist -- and I am no for saying it is "so-called"
Actually the whole language of "advanced" versus "backward" countries is colonialist. And MLM speaks of "imperialist ocuntries" (not "advanced capitalist countries). Bourgeois sociology is full of that language of "advanced," or "developing" etc. And (as in so many other ways) Redstar adopts whatever is floating through the bourgeois air, and (indignantly) insists it is "marxist."
____________________________ [glow=red,2,300]let me end with this:[/glow] The core issue we are debating is whether revolution is possible, and what the role of conscious activity is in fighting to have the larger world revolutonary process advance toward classless society. And whether we can just passively sit back and abandon the responsibility of struggling to understand events around us, and then transforming them in line with communist politics and goals.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 15, 2004 0:50:27 GMT -5
honky tonk wrote: Revolution is only inevitable in the sense that the contradictions of living society produce (sooner or later) living people (in groups, organizations, classes, intellectual movements, political parties, etc.) that make those changes.
Did you imagine I was speaking in terms of the "world-spirit"?
Come on! Yes, living humans develop the understanding required to both justify and execute revolutionary change. Who do you imagine is going to argue with that?
If you think that commonplace observation serves as a "material basis" for Leninism, then permit me to disabuse you of the notion.
It doesn't.
honky tonk wrote: And if human beings don't form organizations and develop plans, things don't happen.
Ah, but which humans and what plans and under what circumstances?
A commonplace observation is not sufficient foundation for your very particular form of organization and its plans.
honky tonk wrote: This is the standard high school anticommunist summation of these things.
You must have gone to a different high school than I did.
But I fail to see how it is "anti-communist" to state the simple truth of the matter.
I have no doubt that Lenin and Mao were subjectively convinced that they were "on the road to communism" -- that they thought they were "doing the right thing".
I don't think they were "power-mad maniacs" or "agents of the devil" or any of the usual slanders directed against them.
I do think that they profoundly misunderstood both the consequences of their actions and the constraints of material reality.
After all, even within the limits of the Leninist paradigm, how can you really establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in two countries where the proletariat was a small minority?
How could such a dictatorship not degenerate into a despotism?
Granted, this is "hindsight"...no one probably understood what was going to happen at the time Lenin and Mao began their work.
But that's why we study history, isn't it?
"Hindsight" keeps us from making the same mistakes over and over again.
honky tonk wrote: Or, perhaps you should also visit before spouting off (i.e. saying "I find this unbelievable.")
I have visited the site before. Perhaps you could recommend one or two threads where RCPers actually developed a serious argument with one another. The thread I looked at -- "straight to communism" -- was one in which all the RCPers jumped on some hapless wretch from Progressive Labor.
honky tonk wrote: Actually the whole language of "advanced" versus "backward" countries is colonialist.
Well, the words may be. But if you deny the material differences between the "imperialist" and the "colonized" countries, then it seems to me that you've tossed Marx into the garbage can.
honky tonk wrote: Bourgeois sociology is full of that language of "advanced," or "developing" etc. And (as in so many other ways) Redstar adopts whatever is floating through the bourgeois air, and (indignantly) insists it is "marxist."
You wish to quibble over terminology and then conclude that I "adopt whatever is floating through the bourgeois air"?
You're not being serious.
honky tonk wrote: The core issue we are debating is whether revolution is possible, and what the role of conscious activity is in fighting to have the larger world revolutionary process advance toward classless society. And whether we can just passively sit back and abandon the responsibility of struggling to understand events around us, and then transforming them in line with communist politics and goals.
There's that damn armchair again. Anyone who rejects the Leninist paradigm "must" be "guilty" of "passively sitting back" and "abandoning the responsibility" of "transforming events".
I shall pass over that grotesque assertion with the silent contempt that it so richly deserves.
|
|
Maz
Revolutionary
rock out
Posts: 106
|
Post by Maz on Feb 15, 2004 12:28:06 GMT -5
I find it "a little weird" that people shouldn't have love for revolutionary leaders. To borrow from Ludo Martens, how could we not love those who incarnate all our hopes?
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 15, 2004 16:24:52 GMT -5
maz wrote: To borrow from Ludo Martens, how could we not love those who incarnate all our hopes?
Incarnate? You mean like the "incarnation" of "Christ"?
To borrow from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, curiouser and curiouser.
|
|
|
Post by honky taonk on Feb 16, 2004 13:38:06 GMT -5
actually i think we should mean the OPPOSITE of the "incarnation of Christ."
We should reject embodying our hopes in false ideals, and magical world.
And embody our hopes in parties, movements and leaders who are actually focused on reaching classless society.
Not cuz we want leaders in the abstract but because some parties, movements and leaders are concretely (i.e. really, literally, now) leading toward liberation.
There is nothing "religious" about it -- it is anti-religious.
However, it is "floating in the bourgeois air" that any firm believe if "ideological and metaphysical." The post-modern mood of agnosticism and despair holds we can't "believe" or embrace anything. That we can't know anything. That scientific understanding is merely "scientism" (i.e. another idoelogical illusion). That the very idea of "correct ideas" is a conceit. The very idea that we can act (based on some real knowledge) and change the world (in directions we have resolved to go) is not just an illusion, but is the roots of "totalitarianism" -- and so on blah blah blah.
All of this we need to reject.
We need materialism -- we need to actually uncover and promote truths in a world of lies. And we need to change the world based on KNOWING something about that world.
And when we find someone who leads us in doing that, whose work "pulls back the veil" in many ways -- then we need to help make more people aware of that. For obvious reasons. Some people "hold some truth in their hands" and we need that for our liberation.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 16, 2004 20:02:48 GMT -5
honky tonk wrote: However, it is "floating in the bourgeois air" that any firm belief is "ideological and metaphysical." The post-modern mood of agnosticism and despair holds we can't "believe" or embrace anything. That we can't know anything. That scientific understanding is merely "scientism" (i.e. another ideological illusion). That the very idea of "correct ideas" is a conceit. The very idea that we can act (based on some real knowledge) and change the world (in directions we have resolved to go) is not just an illusion, but is the roots of "totalitarianism" -- and so on blah blah blah.
All of this we need to reject.
Yes, I agree that is probably the most "fashionable" ideological current of the present time...and its usefulness to the ruling class is obvious.
Except there is a tiny kernel of truth in that mountain of obfuscation: "beliefs" are "metaphysical".
There is a profound difference between saying "I believe another world is possible" and saying "I think another world is possible based on this knowledge and that line of reasoning". The first is essentially religious; the second is scientific (or at least may be scientific).
I trust you will not think I'm merely "word-splitting" here; the choice between the metaphysical and the materialist approach to reality makes all the difference in the world.
If what you convey to the masses is a message of "faith in us, our party, our leader" then you have conveyed a religious message.
That wouldn't necessarily stop you from "winning" -- religious messages have proven to be, on occasion, very powerful in motivating the masses to act. Consider the "Crusades", for example.
But the outcome will be "rule by priesthood", especially the "great leader" (high priest). You may have heard, perhaps, of the "natural miracles" that supposedly "take place" on the birthday of North Korea's "beloved leader". These manifestations of superstition are not at all unusual in the circumstances -- don't they remind you of the sorts of things that were said about the supreme ruler in ancient despotisms...when the ruler was "god" or the "son of god"?
What the working class needs to hear is not a message of faith -- even in itself, much less in any leadership. What's needed is a materialist understanding of how the world came to be as it is...and what would have to be done to change it.
I note that you express the same sentiment...
honky tonk wrote: We need materialism -- we need to actually uncover and promote truths in a world of lies. And we need to change the world based on KNOWING something about that world.
But then you...hedge.
honky tonk wrote: And when we find someone who leads us in doing that, whose work "pulls back the veil" in many ways -- then we need to help make more people aware of that. For obvious reasons. Some people "hold some truth in their hands" and we need that for our liberation.
You want to make people aware that "this particular person" "holds some truth in their hands". I think the identity of the "truth holder" is utterly irrelevant and even a counter-productive distraction.
What really counts is the "truth"...and how true it actually is.
|
|
|
Post by readpunk on Feb 22, 2004 5:37:12 GMT -5
what are the politics of someone who denies that his ideology is Green Beret macho (in one thread) and then yells "booyah" like some killer grunt (in the next thread)? hmmmmmm Ba ha ha ah ha ha haha. Someone made a graphic of a bunch of young kids wearing pokemon shirts leaping in the air cheering about something (I forgot what) and underneath wrote "Boo-YAH!". Whenever I say it I think of those joyful young kids. If I say "strategy" in the future does that make me a nationalist general?
|
|
|
Post by readpunk on Feb 22, 2004 5:39:46 GMT -5
isn't *booyah* the chant of the u.s. army as they kill or what? and what does it mean when someone comes on this site and yells that? I'm not nitpicking, i'm trying to understand where this ultra individualists who talked about ramming guns down our throats is coming from. There is a place where anarchism bleeds over into rightwing survivalism. And the talk about killing people on this board one minute and shouting booyah the next minute -- just made me ask this question. Why not waste posts addressing each individual statement? I think they say boo-YAH in NBA Jam, take a ccchhhiiiilllll pill. "ultra individualist", rrriiiggghhhttt. I trust people to not have to have an authoritarian state formed by a vanguard to work together.
|
|
|
Post by porole on Feb 26, 2004 12:54:05 GMT -5
isn't *booyah* the chant of the u.s. army as they kill or what? and what does it mean when someone comes on this site and yells that? I'm not nitpicking, i'm trying to understand where this ultra individualists who talked about ramming guns down our throats is coming from. There is a place where anarchism bleeds over into rightwing survivalism. And the talk about killing people on this board one minute and shouting booyah the next minute -- just made me ask this question. "DO YOU FEEL THE URGE TO SAY "HOOAH" AT THE END OF EVERY SENTENCE?"
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Feb 26, 2004 15:28:54 GMT -5
uh, can we not focus on the MOST petty bullshit? An interesting debate gets sidetracked into "booyah versus hooah" !!
|
|