Favorite Communists of the Past

[StalinRevolution]

I think having a great leader is essential.He or she make their movement appeal to those who might dissmiss it first and what not.They can also inspire people,especially the young.I was just reading an article about how many young Chinese are inspired by Mao's simple quote "Study Hard, Make Progress Everyday."

[readpunk]

After the revolution, we are all supposed to be equal.

The reason we are revolutionaries is because we do not believe in the current system and think that reformism is not going to be able to fix things. To analogize, cutting off the branches of an infected tree, causes infected branches to grown back (reformism). So we work for and believe in revolution so we can grow a new tree, that is not infected.

By starting to grow that new tree, with leaders then we have already infected it with the same disease the other started with. If we are to end our struggle with being equal, then shouldn't we start it the same way?

Is it utopian to think this way? Or does history show us that it is far more utopian to believe that a "leader", or perhaps "chairman" is a better term, will give up their power when the time is right?

[eat da reality]

In fact we don't "grow a new tree."

We "build a new world on the ashes of the old" -- but we do it with the economy, the people, the divisions, the ideas, the habits and traditions inherited from that old world.

We can't just "fire humanity and invent a new one."

So there is a process, a complex one, of creating new ways (that also have to work and provide goods and meet needs) -- and winning people to following the new ways (we can't just decree it, we actually have to build political movements under socialism for the deepening of egalitarianism and new leaps in socialist relations.)

[readpunk]

When I am talking about the tree, I am referring specifically to the abstract social and economic systems we subscribe to. Not the people or the cultural traditions we have. Though a real revolution would inherently have to destroy some cultural traditions because some cultural traditions are based on prejudice.

Also, the new ways you refer to that I agree with, could not be rooted in statist capitalism. Hence the need for a new tree to grow the new ways rooted in libertarian communism. I'm not saying we should stop being what we are, I am just simply saying that accepting the dominance of a leader is keeping part of what should be, the old oppressive world, with us as we move into a new free world.

I think we are, philosophically speaking, having compatabilist issues.

[eat the world]

I (however) AM saying we should "stop being who we are." And i agree precisely that tradition needs to be overthrown.

But I'ms saying that we should recognise that the process of building that new world take place on the basis of the society that emerges from revolution -- and can't simply be declared, but requires important new changes right away, and then a protracted period of transformation to reach communism (classless society, abolition of war and armies, end of scarcity, etc)

[readpunk]

Guest-eat said:

I (however) AM saying we should "stop being who we are." And i agree precisely that tradition needs to be overthrown.

But I'ms saying that we should recognise that the process of building that new world take place on the basis of the society that emerges from revolution -- and can't simply be declared, but requires important new changes right away, and then a protracted period of transformation to reach communism (classless society, abolition of war and armies, end of scarcity, etc)

If there is no social revolution before the physical revolution then that revolution will always be flawed. After the social revolution if the people who are going to be participating in said revolution are not prepared for communism then I don't think the social revolution is complete.

[eat the past]

readpunk writes: "If there is no social revolution before the physical revolution then that revolution will always be flawed. After the social revolution if the people who are going to be participating in said revolution are not prepared for communism then I don't think the social revolution is complete."

This is exactly part of the dynamics i'm talking about.

before a reovlution can win "countrywide power" there clearly has to be a vast upheaval among the people that involves more than just "political" demands -- but that has a culture of resistance, changes in social norms among the people, and lots of personal ideological transformation.

Revolution needs an element of "prepare minds and organize forces."

KM talked about needing waves of struggle to "make the workers fit to rule." He is saying that people can't (and won't) somehow just "take over" without undergoing many changes (before, and then again after, the seizure of power.)

Like readpunk says: there are changes (among the people) that are needed for a revoluton to succeed. But , there are further changes (many of them) that only really become possible to conceive and carry out once the "heights" of power are in the hands of the oppressed.

MLM talks about TWO radical ruptures at the heart of revolution: "radical rupture in the realm of ideas and radical rupture in property relations" -- those two are deeply involved in the *political* revolutionary process. But clearly "all the way revolution" is not some simple "change of policy and powerholders." It is as readpunk is indicating, something more sweeping, transformative and elemental.

[little timmy]

Norman Bethune. The man was an incredible example of selfelessness and courage, he finally gave his life in the struggle to help others to live on to build a better world. Wounds is a cool little ditty her wrote: bethuneinstitute.org/bethunedocs/wounds.html

Lei Feng. The selfless PLA soldier who spent all his spare time and money to help others. He worked tirelessly to work to strengthen socialism in his country. He was killed during a work accident at the age of 22.

and of course all the historic leaders of the international communist movement and all communists who have struggled, sacrificed, lived and died to make the world better. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong. And the martyrs who never backed down like Edith Lagos and Ibrahim Kaypakkaya.

[psychoinhell]

Lets see what sort of reaction I get LOL.
Please no arguements about he was this and not that. If we all want to head to the same place, then do not allow little differences force us to make the journey seperately, because we might just succeed together, but we are likely to die seperately.

Plato (he truly was the origin of it all)

Jesus Christ (if he ever existed, his preachings are definitely not in support of capitalism)

Ho Chi Minh (man stuck it out for 40 years and 3 world powers and WON!!!)

Ernesto Che Guevara (say what you want, the man was passionate, respected and was beyond corruption)

Lenin (though I still question why he did many things, he laid the foundations that helped USSR rise up from a divided, farm based economy into an industrial and military world power in 30 years)

[tryntryagain]

psychoinhell said "Please no arguements about he was this and not that. If we all want to head to the same place, then do not allow little differences force us to make the journey seperately, because we might just succeed together, but we are likely to die seperately."

There is a problem here. We are not all headed 'to the same place'. We have radically different visions of the future we are fighting to bring about! I would rather die fighting against the revisionist than accept a vision of socialism such as they have in Cuba.

The society that I envision is not one where the people continue to be oppressed and exploited under a state capitalist regime.

I think that if you put forward people like Che, JC and Plato as revolutionaries you had better expect some sharp criticism and be willing to debate your position because simply saying that they were will not make them that.

Plato upheld and rationalized the role of slavery and he even wrote specific instructions on whipping slaves. The society (and the 'democracy') that he was from was founded on slavery (not unlike that of the US) so perhaps it is fitting that he is upheld by the ruling class today as one of the 'luminaries of the western world'.

His society was one not only of slavery and class domination but also of patriarchy and the oppression of women -- which were key parts of the social structure.

Plato insisted that society should be ruled by a specifically selected and rigorously trained elite and that a philosopher-king was the ideal ruler. he was a bitter opponent of the common people in decision making.
Sound like where I want society to go and what i'm fighting for?

Hell No!

[repeater138]

1) Mao Tse Tung

2) Louis Michele

3) Lenin

4) Edith Lagos

5) Prachanda

6) The martyrs

honorable mention:

Chu Teh

Vo Nguyen Giap

Ho Chi Minh

Che Guevara

Rosa Luxembourg

Tito

[kasama]

this thread has always bothered me.

but i bit my tongue and didn't say anything.

But writing about the issue of promoting our leader, chairman Avakian, it came back. And i'm gonna write about it:

I think it is wrong to look back for leadership. As if our class produced leaders in the past, and is doing nothing at that level now.

I think this list confuses many things:

I mean Edith Lagos was a heroic Maoist martyr and a fighter.

But is this really the same as the leaders of our class who forge the path forward?

We have a leader now who is working day and night to chart the uncharted course, to train us and lead us.

And so I wanted to say that Chairman Avakian is my "favorite communist" -- and i think we should not wait til leaders are dead (or martyred!) to appreciate them.

Or assume our best leaders are "in the past." This is a revolution, not a backwardlooking nostalgia movement!

If we don't talk about Chairman Avakian now -- how can we struggle to understand what he has been saying? How can we protect him? How will the people know who to look to, study, support, follow?

Our class has produced great leaders (and we need to discuss why Marx and Lenin and Mao are head and shoulders above all their contemporaries that might be mentioned.)

But Marxism didn't stop thirty years ago when Mao died. It is dogmatism to think Marxism froze in 1976 -- (some people think Marxism ended with Marx!) Especially when it is being developed and advanced in very important ways today by Chairman Avakian!

On page three of the RW each week it lists the "three ours":

[glow=red,2,300]Our ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
Our party is the Revolutionary Communist Party!
Our leader is Chairman Bob Avakian![/glow]

Not everyone will understand the importance or correctness of this. And that is OK.

but if those of us who do understand it, don't talk about it -- if we go along with mumbling or only looking backwards -- then how will the revolution happen?


So that's what I wanted to say, at the moment.

[repeater]

Don't hyperventilate.

I would like to point out that Prachanda is still alive (and hopefully for a long time to come).

[Deleted]

kasama said:

We have a leader now who is working day and night to chart the uncharted course, to train us and lead us.

Are we to follow his example and flee the country? ;D

While I see nothing wrong with argeeing with someone's theories or admiring them for their ideas and action, this obsession with a "Dear Leader" figure is disturbing. This kind of thinking will not lead to the emancipation of the working class. It can only lead to another beaurocratic State ruling in a dictatorship over the proletariat. I think Eugene V. Debs said it best:

"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again."

So, follow your Moses if you wish. As for me, no thanks.

[repeat]

Read this SonofRage: www.rwor.org/bob_avakian/video-ad-en.htm

carefully