|
Post by babbavakian on Aug 15, 2004 7:58:18 GMT -5
The wisdom of Bob Avakian as told by Ray Lotta: On Cheese Burgers: Once I sent him a draft of a chapter on trends in accumulation in the U.S. In discussing employment patterns back then, I made a point about how (and it still holds today) a significant proportion of the U.S. labor force under 30 had worked at one time or another for McDonalds. After mentioning McDonalds, I cleverly quipped (so I thought): "that's two all-beef patties, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame-seed bun." Bob made his customary comments on the margins, but next to this statement he wrote in large print "WRONG: that's two all-beef patties, special sauce , lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun!" I had left out the sauce. Bob Avakian knows his culinary culture and his Marxism! On the Spiral Conjectural Motion: I was posing some questions and he threw a darting glance at me and said, let me show you. Whereupon he bolted up from his chair and began vibrating his arms, raising them over his head and bringing them closer together--all the while emitting a whirring sound. And, then, as his arms were fully outstretched, there came a loud clap of the hands. I think I got the point about spiral/conjuncture motion.or did I? The following morning I was in the bathroom and when I reached for the toilet roll I saw a message scrawled on the tissue: "don't forget the conjuncture." I let out a huge laugh, and outside the bathroom Bob broke into even louder laughter (older readers will recall a bathroom tissue ad with the same set-up). Bob like to wrangle: Bob likes to quote Mao that "Marxism is a wrangling- ism. " Is it ever! We were wrangling with issues of analysis, as we applied the tools of Marxism.and we were wrangling with the tools of Marxism, as we applied ourselves to the challenge of analyzing complex structures and processes. It was very demanding. It was very stimulating. And it was great fun (Bob believes in that). www.rwor.org/a/1248/avakian_lotta_learning.htm
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 15, 2004 14:41:58 GMT -5
yeah, I found it hilarious and revealing too!
The Chairman has that mix of "cut up" funny and profound -- which I guess goes together.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 15, 2004 14:43:59 GMT -5
this things about a wrangling ism is no small matter.
Much of "marxism" is treated like a dogma. or fixed text. or a settled matter.
Someone in another thread even talked about "Marxism 101" etc.
But the whole idea that it is in transition, and that it grows through debate and struggle is rather radical (even among marxists). And should not be dismissed lightly -- as if we all "get it" or as if it is obvious.
It is an unusual, and provocative, and rare assertion about marxism -- and is in contrast to most "marxism."
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 15, 2004 16:10:29 GMT -5
I love Lotta's article in the RW on this. Sadly I did not get the toliet paper joke.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 15, 2004 23:02:40 GMT -5
So "Bob & Ray" used this "spiral-conjuncture" method of analysis back in the 1980s and... got the wrong answer.Not too encouraging. By the way, I thought the original post in this thread by "babbavakian" was intended as satire.No matter how long I live, my naiveté continues to astonish me.
|
|
|
Post by Achokeian on Aug 17, 2004 10:45:14 GMT -5
Lol ;D This is satire right? If not then it is actually even more funny
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Aug 17, 2004 16:44:33 GMT -5
"This is satire right? If not then it is actually even more funny"
Even if it were not satire, I don't really find the "humor" in it. Please explain what tickles your funny bone here?
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 17, 2004 19:59:51 GMT -5
clearly someone who posts under the name "babbavakian" is mocking things (i.e. it is intended as satire.) The implication is that the chairman is some kind of a mystical cult guru. Every time someone makes a hostile putdown (disguised as "humor") I don't feel like responding angrily. So sometimes I just look for some content that I CAN respond to. I really don't want to respond in kind. We are fighting to actually RAISE the level of discourse -- and one of the methods of those who oppose our politics is to insist on LOWERING the level of discorse. And (to me) it is closely related to the climate of the times -- where the rush limbaugh ditto heads mock and degrade anything they don't like, and refuse to engage it seriously. And it is all these stupid republican "jokes" -- and if you don't "get the humor" then they act like you are an asshole. So this is the climate out there, and I just don't want to be part of it. And I don't feel like answering every "dumb joke" with anger, or with giggly acceptance either. And if you analyze the method of this babbavakian post: they went through a very serious, and interesting article, (by Ray Lotta) and pulled things out of contest so they could make it look stupid. They left all the points behind, and just pulled out some personal anecdotes. Now these anecdotes make a point -- cuz it is important for people to know that communist leaders are human, and funny, and pranksters -- (and not the grim, heartless, authoritarian/totalitarian types that are in anti-communist stereotypes.) But his method was not to engage Lotta's ponts but just to mock the whole thing WHILE IGNORING THE POINTS. Let me contrast this to the method that our main man calls for. In his recent essay he wrote this: "One time someone wrote me a letter and asked: how do you read things, do you do what's called "proof-texting"? -- which is a way of reading to refute something. Do you read it in order to make your point? What he was referring to was the approach of only looking for things that confirm what you already believe; for example, you start out with a disagreement with somebody and in reading what they write you look for those things that you don't agree with, things that prove your point, and then sort of tautologically you go around in a circle. You end up with: "Aha, it's wrong." And I replied, no I don't approach things that way. Even things I vehemently disagree with, going in, I still try to look to see what there is that they are grappling with, what ideas they may hit on even inadvertently or may stumble on, or may actually wrangle with more systematically. There are things to be learned even from reactionaries. There are things to learn from reactionaries, even about politics and ideology, let alone other spheres. That doesn't mean we take up their outlook or their politics. [laughs] But there are things to be learned. And this is an important point of orientation."rwor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/avakian_democracy_dictatorship_speech.htmAnd you can see this is a very different method than the opening post of this thread. One method leads to insights (and serious engagements on serious matters) -- the other is just a cheap shot, designed to drag down opponents without really digging into any of the cardinal issues we all face.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 17, 2004 20:04:50 GMT -5
actually, redstar, the spiral conjuctural analysis is (i believe) a powerful and correct analysis of how crisis manifests itself under imperialism.
this theoretical work marked a huge leap over the previous analyses (long wave crisis theory, and especially the comintern's theorry of general crisis, which is still widely upheld in some places.)
There were weaknesses in the analysis -- not in the spiral concunctural part of the analysis, as much as in the analysis of the relative freedom and necessity of the colliding blocs.
If everytime science had to adjust itself we mocked science, then we would not be understanding the process.
Welcome to life. Welcome to science. Welcome to the process of developing revolutionary theory.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 17, 2004 21:17:12 GMT -5
The different readings of the "babbavakian" post are interesting; some took it seriously and some as satire.
I actually went to the link and read the article...and, yes, all those quotes are in there.
As to "spiral-conjunction" theory, its utility has yet to be demonstrated.
"General crisis" theory, on the other hand, has at least one partial confirmation to its credit -- the great depression of the 1930s. It showed up everywhere in the capitalist world and was only resolved in a world-wide imperialist war.
Of course, that was more than six decades ago...and it's certainly not impossible that a different theory might turn out to be a better one for late capitalism.
But I think, to put it mildly, that "the jury is still out" on this one...
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Aug 24, 2004 15:26:56 GMT -5
redstar: people (including the rush limbaugh ditto heads) complain that communists are "humorless."
But then when Ray Lotta writes a theoretical article that includes passages about how our main man is a cut-up and practical jokester -- then someone like babbavakian turns it around and writes "what kind of a leader is this, making silly stuff like this."
Obviously for people who don't want to deal with the essense of what BA is saying, and who just want to snipe, you can snipe for being "humorless" and then snipe just as easy at his penchant for jokes and silliness.
Whatever.
I do think he performed something useful, by gatherings some funny passages from an otherwise rather serious article about how theoretical work and development happens (and the role of BA in the work that has been done).
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 24, 2004 19:25:36 GMT -5
kasama wrote: redstar: people (including the Rush Limbaugh ditto heads) complain that communists are "humorless."
An old complaint; I remember when it used to be said about feminists.
Actually from my experience, humor on the left is rather "specialized" and consists largely of "in jokes".
A song from the early 1940s that was still being sung by young lefties in the early 1960s...
They call it that good old party line, and for them that adheres to it, it's fine. It's not very static; It's extremely acrobatic. Read the Worker and get the party line.
"Babbavakian", it turns out, was making a political attack in the guise of satire (and some rather selective quotation).
But let's face it: every time you "hype Avakian", you make yourself vulnerable to this sort of "humor"...it "comes with the territory".
Especially as you are now the only people doing this; to the best of my knowledge, no other Leninist party in the English-speaking world is promoting their party leader in anything like the way you are doing.
The quotes that "babbavakian" pulled together read as if they came from the pages of People magazine...tidbits from "the lives of the rich and famous".
You see the "contradiction" (to coin a word). On the one hand, you suggest dead-pan that Avakian is "a living Marx" and on the other that he's "a regular guy" with a recognizable "sense of humor".
The plausibility of your portrayal is in inverse proportion to the number of attributes that you credit him with.
Remember those North Korean "titles".
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 24, 2004 20:16:01 GMT -5
redstar: "You see the "contradiction" (to coin a word). On the one hand, you suggest dead-pan that Avakian is "a living Marx" and on the other that he's "a regular guy" with a recognizable "sense of humor".
There is only a mistaken view sees a contradiction here.
The original marx was also a "regular guy" with a raucus sense of humor. It has to do with being a real communist -- and a dialectical thinker.
Mao liked to make earthy comparisons about shit and farting. Stalin was a practical jokester.
There is no contradiction.
People want to know who Bob Avakian is as a person, what is he like? What makes him tick? What motivates him? it is part of how they grasp what the party and the movement are about.
And it is important to understand that communists actually understand life -- how people live and think.
And it is part of understanding the Chairman's lively way of thinking. The fact tha t he likes junk food, and is a gourmet of pop culture.
You think a living marx has to be stodgey? I think that is exactly wrong. How could some stodgey communist bureaucrat be seen as a leader?
|
|
|
Post by Chubby on Aug 27, 2004 11:01:35 GMT -5
"What motivates him?"
Having alot of followers praising him like a living god maybe?
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 27, 2004 12:35:09 GMT -5
this is someone who has dedicated his life to the people -- and to carving a way out of this madness.
And that matters to people, who want to judge that kind of thing about those who lead them, and into whose hands and judgement so much is places.
As for the charge of "living god" etc. it is, rather simply and crudely, bullshit. No movement in history has been more opposed to god worship than the communist movement, and the Maoist movement is specifically accused for its opposition to the "living god" theories of Tibet.
The leaders of our class are men and women, humans, products of our struggle and our history. And we are lucky when we have leaders of vision and insight, and we have suffered (repeatedly) when leaders rose who were not like that.
But you can repeat this "living god" charge over and over -- but it has no content. No one says anyone is divine, or has magical powers, or has mystical insights, or prophetic vision from beyond. And (in fact) many of those who accuse COMMUNISTS falsely of "worship" are rather liberal towards those who do believe in prayer, or divinity, or mystical insights.
This country is packed with REAL (not imaginary) god worship -- and who has opposed it more deeply and openly than the Communists (and Bob Avakian) in particular? And who in the process has more energetically and creatively promoted critical thinking and scientific analysis?
I mean, get real.
|
|