|
Post by celticfire84 on May 3, 2006 9:23:04 GMT -5
Ok, I don't want this to turn into a meaningless back and forth. So lets get to the content and skip the rhetoric. A cult of personality is an instrument of promoting a living political leader as a way to popularize that leaders views.
That sounds like a good idea by itself, detached from reality, but when we apply it to reality, we get a very negative effect. For one, as repeater pointed out, a cult of personality can be used by “friend and foe alike” thus making the RCP's attempts to draw a line in the sand for communists of whether or not they uphold Avakian's cult ridiculous and unnecessary.
Those of us who refuse to participate in cults are characterized as the new revisionists, or simple minds not yet molded by Avakian thought. We know the revisionist forces in China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution utilized the cult around Mao just as easily as did the sincerest revolutionaries. Another example of why a dividing line around a cult is lame.
Secondly, it creates false unity. Lets examine the Black Panther Party. There was never a congress of members held to my knowledge, and differences developed. In response to this, a cult around Huey was created. This eased tensions of the moment, but eventually contributed directly to the collapse of the BPP. Instead of solving differences and arguing line in a democratic fashion, they used a cult of personality. Of course there were other objective difficulties like the severe police repression, but the BPP's internal failure is directly caused by the lack of internal democracy. Again, the cult of personality is proven useless and counterproductive.
Third, it creates an atmosphere of zombie like following and smashes out real personal initiative. How many times has the RCP been accused of being zombie like or having a cultish behavior? One person said it seems like the RCP wants a rock star, not a revolutionary. The RCP replies to these accusations with attempts to minimize the severity of their faults, by stating it is only a small number of intellectuals who claim this, but the masses of people will “get it.” In my practice this is the farthest from the truth. I've met homeless, union workers, non-union workers, people of color and welfare mothers all who were “creeped out” but the way Avakian was promoted.
Fourth, it reinforces what the RCP claims to be against, the stereotypical commie. Many believe the RCP is trying to install Avakian as a dictator, and the message of revolutionary communism gets lost in that. The cult of personality becomes the important factor, not building a socialist society. Who is a better revolutionary is decided by who can memorize the most quotes from the leader, not who can think the most critically and contribute the most to the collective. It reminds people of Stalin, Hitler and Kim.
Contrary to what flyby claims, there is everything mechanical and absolutist about a cult of personality. Promoting a leader this way isn't scientific or effective, its unscientific and ineffective.
Flyby said: “If lenin had died in 1914, there would not have been a Russian revolution. No one else in his party saw the opening in 1917. No one else could have fought to have the Bolsheviks adopt a position of going for power in october. He was irreplacable.”
This might be true, but did Lenin need a cult of personality to mobolize the masses towards revolution? Did he need a cult to promote Marx? No.
flyby said: “Did the promotion of Mao give Maoism a bad name? Uh, no. It was a key part of what made Maoism possible. If no one had promoted Mao, and pointed out that he was making unique contributions in theory and practice, how could a Maoist movement have emerged?
The Maoist movement sang as its anthem "The east is red, arise the sun, China's given birth to a Mao Tsetung." It is worth thinking about that deeply.”
The cult of personality did not make Maoism possible. The conditions in China made Maoism possible, and it's very metaphysical to think that a cult of personality “made it all possible.” Mao's ideas could have been argued by Mao. Lenin didn't need one. Marx didn't either. And they managed to “get known.” Mao's cult was aggressively promoted by revisionists forces at the time, as was Stalin's – there's something to think about, DEEPLY.
Mao was wrong about the cult of personality. It was a mistake among millions of truths. But uncritically upholding the mistakes isn't MLM, it's a direct path to revisionism. Lets not forget the peasants who worshiped Mao as the new god, and the Lin Biao forces telling people to repeated the Red Book, even if they didn't get it. Lets also put it in the context that the Chinese communists were in the midst of revolutionary struggle when the cult of personality developed around Mao.
Avakian's ideas haven't proved to be correct. Some have proven to be flat wrong (ie the 80's analysis, “Stop the Busing!”, the line on homosexuality until a few years ago, etc) – the fact of the matter is that you “believe” Avakian is correct. Even though you assert I reject leadership in the concrete, there is little that concretely exists from Avakian. I am not saying this alone makes him wrong, I am saying it makes him vulnerable, like everyone else, to be wrong. So promoting him as certain “truth” is an error, because there is no certainty.
Flyby, I thought we agreed to no straw men, yet your arguments are chalk full of them. I agree with Avakian that totalitarianism is largely a mythical thing created by the ruling class during the Cold War. However, millions of people believe in totalitarianism – my point is that it doesn't make sense to dress like a wolf when approaching sheep when you're trying to win them over.
Flyby said: “Of course you are. But lets be clear: "leadership" is not some rootless abstraction that floats through society like fog in a swamp. We are talking about a person who leads, who formulates line and policy, who forges unity and draws dividing lines, and who strains to connect our present with a communist future. You may say 'leadership is necessary" -- but not this leader. so you uphold it in the abstract, while denying the concrete, historic and material way it has infact emerged and been concentrated (inthis person).”
You start off with yet another straw man. Leadership is not abstract. No one disagrees. I firmly believe we need leadership, again, ACCOUNTABLE leadership. If that is “abstract” to you, then I don't know how to even engage you.
Flyby says: “Simple challenge: give me one example of where Avakian is presented as "superhuman." Just one. Document it, and post it here.”
“Bob Avakian is irreplaceable.”
Like I said above, you don't know that – you believe that. Thus making him superhuman, or equipped with extraordinary mental powers.
I would advocate something different. Proof.
|
|
|
Post by flyby2 on May 4, 2006 13:07:15 GMT -5
cf writes: "I don't want this to turn into a meaningless back and forth."
Fair enough, lets try for a meaningful back and forth.
So lets get to the content and skip the rhetoric.
Hmmmm. To me, the use of this word "rhetoric" is best left to the anti-communists for whom any scientific marxist language, any talk about "up on the mountain" is just that, empty rhetoric.
Surely you don't mean that, and surely you don't want to come off as if you adopt their language and approach.
[/b]A cult of personality is an instrument of promoting a living political leader as a way to popularize that leaders views. [/b]
Well, that is half right. Meaning that is only a part of it.
First, it is important to popularize and promote the cutting edge of marxist thinking -- which for us (at this moment and place) means the body of work, method and approach of Bob Avakian. (Or else, if you don't support THOSE views, it means not supporting the popularization and promotion!)
But there is also an element of promoting the PERSON, the actual leader. Why? Because someone like Bob Avakian is more than a stack of books and previous positions.
To make a revolution you need living leaders, who have proven themselves able to chart the course -- to provide a living link between the present and the communist future. That living link is the essense of communist leadership.
And when our oppressors come to crush the revolutoinary movement, to crush the hopes of the masses of people -- they won't be coming just for a stack of books, for disembodied "ideas." They will be coming for a specific core of leadership.
And what is the protection against that? How do the masses of people defeat that (the famous decapitation strategies of imperialism)?
It requires the mass line -- relying on the masses of people fundamentally. And (as a crucial part of a revolutonary, communist Mass Line) that means goiong deep among the people to make them conscious of things that are not obvious -- to make them aware of the leadership they have, and what it means to have it, and what it would mean to lose it, and what they can do (as a crucial part of making and winning revolution) to protect their leadership.
And so, our responsibility is not just promoting "the ideas" of a leader like Avakian -- but also making people aware of who this person is, what he is about, what he has done, and more importantly, what he can lead them to do.
And (while I just stressed the defend part) there is also the crucial and important part -- which is to win the people to "engage" with what is being put forward. Deeply.
And I don't think it is an accident, that often the same people who complain about "cult of personality" ALSO, in practice and theory, DON'T engage with the content of what this leadership is putting forward.
As if promoting your leadership is just some cheap marketing ploy, or gimmick. (More on this later).
That sounds like a good idea by itself, detached from reality, but when we apply it to reality, we get a very negative effect. For one, as repeater pointed out, a cult of personality can be used by “friend and foe alike” thus making the RCP's attempts to draw a line in the sand for communists of whether or not they uphold Avakian's cult ridiculous and unnecessary.
This is so one-sided that it is wrong. Let me break it down.
First of all, the opposite is true: if we DON'T apply this to reality, we will get a very negative effect. Which can have dissasterous effects for the cause of revolution.
Because if we don't energetically promote and popularize this leadership, then we will be actually obscuring what is new and crucial. And we will be standing in the way of the masses grabbing hold of precisely the key links they need to do what is needed -- and here I don't just mean in the preparation for rev.... but ALL THE WAY THROUGH... through the two humps, through the transition, on a world scale.
cf writes: Those of us who refuse to participate in cults are characterized as the new revisionists, or simple minds not yet molded by Avakian thought.
I urge you to be careful and precise in your writing. Because you often distort and degrade. And this doesn't help.
For example: there is a difference between a party that has a "cult of personality" (as you call it). And an organization that is a cult.
Clearly the RCP is an organization that appreciates what this leadership can mean if it becomes an even more powerful material force -- is grasped by the masses.
If you want (by a not-so-clever sleight of hand) to reduce that to "a cult" -- you should know that we can see through it.
As for the label "new revisionists" and 'Avakian thought" etc.
Well, you know as well as I do that the RCP has never put forward a concept of "Avakian thought."
And you also know (as well as I do) that the RCP doesn't simply or crudely level everyone as "new revisionists" on some simplistic basis.
So try to stick to reality, and don't argue by distortion.
We know the revisionist forces in China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution utilized the cult around Mao just as easily as did the sincerest revolutionaries. Another example of why a dividing line around a cult is lame.
This is a very shallow argument. And basically a false one.
First of all, it was not as easy to "use" Mao's banner for reactionary purposes as it was for revolutonary purposes.
If they could (and when they could) the reactionaries prefered to fly their OWN banners.
But in conditions where the revolutonary line had great support, and great strength (under socialism), then (as a deceit) they used Mao's banner to promote anti-Maoist ideas (like slavishness, dogmatism, pragmatism, contentless cheerleading, etc.)
Here is a basic truth: nothing (without exception) is impossible for our opponents to try to usurpt (including the revolutionary party, the proletariant state, the red army, and even our science).
But the fact that such things can be claimed (seized and distorted) by our opponents, can't (and doesn't) mean that it isn't essential for us to take up building a vanguard, fighting for a d of the p, upholding and developing MLM.
And, this is an important point, arguing in the context where the contributions of a Mao (or an Avakian) are UPHELD (and where even their opponents PRETEND to uphold them), is far better than a context where they are unknown.
Lets examine the Black Panther Party. There was never a congress of members held to my knowledge, and differences developed. In response to this, a cult around Huey was created.
Every part of this is laden with misinformation and illusion.
First of all, no communist party in history has a "congress of members." Congresses are (of necessity) a representative body. And it goes against all kinds of necessities of revolution to gather every member (and with it every infiltrator) together. Communist parties are not little anarchist circles that run by debate of "the membership" and such. so set that aside.
Second: The idea that "differences developed" because there wasn't such mass democracy in the Panthers is nonsense. Differences developed because differences developed -- because different lines contended (as they objectively WILL everywhere, regardless of HOW you organize your ranks, or what kind of meetings you hold.)
Now, it is true that, the leading core of the Panthers put forward Huey -- to develop a common ideology, a common sense of purpose, and to strengthen a core coherence that was slipping away.
What was wrong with that? The thing that was wrong with that was that the line Huey was putting forward was not a revolutionary one. When he got out of prison, and in opposition to a rather crudely capitulationist line of "ones and twos" coming from Eldridge, he put forward a very rightist, electoral, non revolutonary approach of "survival pending revolution."
The real problem with promoting Huey was the content of his line.
CF writes: This eased tensions of the moment, but eventually contributed directly to the collapse of the BPP. Instead of solving differences and arguing line in a democratic fashion, they used a cult of personality.
This is nonsense. And (like everything you write) it posits "democracy" as THE magical cure for every ailment.
In fact, (a) promoting huey did not "ease tensions." (B) was not the cause of the collapse.
Also, let me point out, that their leaders (as leaders, as individual people) were under attack and facing assassination. Fred Hampton was assassinated. Bobby Seale was threated with a bogus charge of murder. Huey was shot and imprisoned. Eldridge was targetted in other ways.
It was important, and necessary, under those conditions for the masses to know about these people. To understand what the enemy was up to.
Let me say again: the oppressors use a decapitation strategy. How do you want to respond? By babbling about "democratic methods" inside the party, and opposing the promotiion of those who are the focus of such attack?
It is naive, and it is dangerous.
CF said: "Of course there were other objective difficulties like the severe police repression, but the BPP's internal failure is directly caused by the lack of internal democracy. Again, the cult of personality is proven useless and counterproductive."
This is bizarre. And it is an example of where you think "democracy" is magic, and by definition, is more universally important than anything.
You think that if the panthers had adopted your dogmatically-preferred forms of organizaiton that these problems would have evaporated? puleez.
Part of their repression was that their organization was innundated with infiltrators. Does that argue for more "democratic" power for the hastily formed chapters, and less for the center?
CF said: "it creates an atmosphere of zombie like following and smashes out real personal initiative. How many times has the RCP been accused of being zombie like or having a cultish behavior?"
All i can say to this is this is factually wrong in every way.
First of all, the best way to defeat dogmatism, slavishness, and anti-scientific thinking (including among communists) is by struggling to grasp and promoting Avakian's method and approach. Because (as anyone who has actually engaged in the content here knows) this method and approach is diametrically, militantly, and rather profoundly OPPOSED to dogmatism and slavishness.
Now what about "personal initiative"? Well, it depends. The revolution needs "initiative" but on what basis, on what line, for what goal? Not everything people do "on personal initiative" is a good idea.
A big part of what Avakian is fighting for "solid core with a lot of elasticity" is the CORRECT way to view initiative. It must take place ON THE BASIS OF solid core -- i.e. in the context of, for the furtherance of, in line with policies and goals that take the communist future and line in mind.
One person said it seems like the RCP wants a rock star, not a revolutionary. The RCP replies to these accusations with attempts to minimize the severity of their faults, by stating it is only a small number of intellectuals who claim this, but the masses of people will “get it.”
In fact, you DON'T get it.
Avakian has been fighting against this kind of knee-jerk "intellectual" baiting. And the RCP does not (in fact) as an organization just attack its critics as "a few intellectuals."
That is a big part of the epistemology essay -- which i recommend you read.
Avakian argues for listening to critics, even those who are reactionaries -- because there is often things to learn. And he is EXACTLY against a knee-jerk rejection of criticism (by "consider the source") or by inventiing "political truths" that communists know best.
I don't think that "the masses get it" automatically.
In fact, one argument I have over your naive illusions about "democracy" is that you assume that if the masses get to debate and decide that they will (spontaneously) know what is right.
That is not true. "Getting" truth things requires science, summation and work -- and even the masses don't "get it" easily or spontaneously.
So your very charges here reveal that you have not grappled with (very deeply or honestly) with what Avakian is arguing for.
CF writes: "I've met homeless, union workers, non-union workers, people of color and welfare mothers all who were “creeped out” but the way Avakian was promoted."
Gee. I have met homeless, union workers, non-union workers, people of color and welfare mothers all who were “creeped out” by gay people, too.
What is your argument? What is your point?
CF said: Many believe the RCP is trying to install Avakian as a dictator, and the message of revolutionary communism gets lost in that.
Lenin famously said "better me as dictator than you."
Meaning that the issue is not whether society will be ruled by core forces representing different classes -- the issue is which cores, which lines, based on which social forces will rule.
Not seeing that is the core of your illusion that real, and complex, and material issues of society and power can just be solved by "internal democracy" plus "external democracy" and (I suppose) more and general "democracy" of some other kinds.
CF writes: "Contrary to what flyby claims, there is everything mechanical and absolutist about a cult of personality. Promoting a leader this way isn't scientific or effective, its unscientific and ineffective."
Ok, let's put it straight: show me where Avakian is promoted i na way that is unscientific. Where it is mechanical or absolutist?
Where is he promoted with falsehoods?
Post it here so we can all judge and debate your verdict.
Cuz I don't think it is true. I think what is said about him is careful, scientific, measured and true.
Whether it is "effective" is a different matter -- that is a matter of whether we do our work well.
But are you only for promoting those truths that prove EASILY effective?
My opinon: the key way to make communism a mass movement, to inject communist thinking and views into the mainline of political debate, is to promote Avakian now, here. Nothing we have is more effective.
And refusing to do it is literally throwiong away the most powerful instrument we have.
Flyby said: “If lenin had died in 1914, there would not have been a Russian revolution. No one else in his party saw the opening in 1917. No one else could have fought to have the Bolsheviks adopt a position of going for power in october. He was irreplacable.”
cf answered: This might be true, but did Lenin need a cult of personality to mobolize the masses towards revolution? Did he need a cult to promote Marx? No."
Heh.
Notice the sleight of hand: "this might be true, but...."
Let's stop for a moment, and consider whether it IS TRUE. Because if it is, if leaders are sometimes unique and irreplacable -- then it makes a difference.
Do you know that the Bolsheviks put up posters of Marx?
Do you know how they promoted Marx and Marxism?
Do you think it was wrong that they chose to call their ideology MARXISM?
Was that undemocratic, slavish, mechanical and ineffective?
Was it wrong to then talk about Leninism?
Did Lenin make unique contributions or not?
Was the struggle to put his views in command of the world communist movement a CRUCIAL STRUGGLE or not?
Not just the views of his party, but specifically the views, writings of this person (above and beyond his party, which was much more complicated, and not nearly as advanced without him)?
flyby said earlier: “Did the promotion of Mao give Maoism a bad name? Uh, no. It was a key part of what made Maoism possible. If no one had promoted Mao, and pointed out that he was making unique contributions in theory and practice, how could a Maoist movement have emerged? The Maoist movement sang as its anthem "The east is red, arise the sun, China's given birth to a Mao Tsetung." It is worth thinking about that deeply.”
CF answers: The cult of personality did not make Maoism possible.
And you make such an assertion based on what? I'm telling you (as a matter of historical fact) that the promotion of the red book the Mao pins, the use of Mao as a banner for the next stage of communism was CRUCIAL for the creation of a MAOIST movement. (And it is not accidental that it was called THE MAOIST MOVEMENT -- how cultish?!)
CF writews: "The conditions in China made Maoism possible, and it's very metaphysical to think that a cult of personality “made it all possible.”
The single most crucial "condition in China" was the emergence of a Mao Tstung. Without him, without his work, his method and his approach -- China would have been a sad swamp of suffering and despair.
The other "conditions of China" without mao were no different from the "conditions of India" in many ways.
CF writes: "Mao's ideas could have been argued by Mao."
Actually this is wrong and unmaterialist. If only Mao argues Mao's ideas, it is chatter in a room. Ideas only become a material force WHEN THEY ARE TAKEN UP BY THE MASSES. And much of Mao's party was (in large ways) fighting for an approach OPPOSED to what Mao was saying. It was important to get Mao and Mao's line, and Mao Tsetung Thought OUT THERE IN A GLOBAL WAY -- in opposition to, in contrast with, in struggle with what other forces were saying and doing.
CF writes: "Mao was wrong about the cult of personality."
hmmmm. At least we agree that Mao's line was that promoting unique and irreplacable leaders and their leaps in communist theory is important. That this is an important part of Maoism.
CF writes: Avakian's ideas haven't proved to be correct. Some have proven to be flat wrong (ie the 80's analysis, “Stop the Busing!”, the line on homosexuality until a few years ago, etc) – the fact of the matter is that you “believe” Avakian is correct. Even though you assert I reject leadership in the concrete, there is little that concretely exists from Avakian. I am not saying this alone makes him wrong, I am saying it makes him vulnerable, like everyone else, to be wrong. So promoting him as certain “truth” is an error, because there is no certainty."
Heh. I am always amused when someonehas to go back to the Busing controversy of the mid 70s -- to find a complaint.
Do you know what Bob's approach and line was during that? Have you read his memoir on that passage and those events?
Puleez.
We are arguing for a communist leader, not for some infallible prophet. You accuse us of being slavish, and then you attack us for promoting a person who has not proven perfect.
Well, leave your metaphics aside! No one argued that only the perfect and infallible are capable of unique leadership. Because we are materialists who understand that to reach a certain level you need to BE GOOD AT LEARNING, including from your own mistakes.
Read avakian on the homosexuality question in the Conversations book!! The issue is not "has this person made a mistake" but how does this person handle mistakens, and what does he teach us about learning from mistakes.
CF writes: "I agree with Avakian that totalitarianism is largely a mythical thing created by the ruling class during the Cold War. However, millions of people believe in totalitarianism – my point is that it doesn't make sense to dress like a wolf when approaching sheep when you're trying to win them over.
The basis argument about promoting the Chairman and communism always boils down to a rightist one that "you can't get over with this stuff." It is not about if anything is true, it is whether it is effective (in your opinion). And your opinion (that we can't win over people on a communist basis) is wrong, unmaterialist and defeatist.
We can and will. join us.
|
|
|
Post by flyby2 on May 4, 2006 13:10:40 GMT -5
on final point:
there is nothing superhuman about saying someone is "irreplacable."
We give the example of Pele on a soccer team. If you say "he is irreplacable in this champioinship" -- that doesn't mean he is superhuman, or that you are slavish.
It may simply be true.
And there are many examples in human history -- where one person's involvement, insights, role made all the difference.
Deal with it. It is materialist dialectics. It is reality.
Not some hazy lazy fog of bourgeois democratic illusions and naive consensus-circle egalitarian dogmas.
|
|