Bob Avakian on the Spiral Conjectural Motion

[MundoQueGanar]

It seems to me the tactic of smearing and falsely characterizing one's adversary in order to "win" an argument when you're repeatedly unable to deal with the arguments he or she presents will be around (and "effective") until people in large numbers start taking up a more scientific approach to solving problems--in other words, until communist ideology takes hold broadly and people really start to work with ideas on a mass scale.

I've been really disappointed in the low level of debate put forward by some members of this board in recent weeks, especially over the issue of Avakian's leadership. But you know, it just seems to me to be symptomatic of the generally underdeveloped grasp of politics which capitalist society engenders.

I'm not sure what the answer to that is on a site like this. flyby has done a tremendous job in answering the often low attacks and has tried consistently to keep things at a high level. I have to criticize myself for not jumping in more often, and leaving it to appear that flyby is the only one trying to keep things on a high plane. But at the same time, it's frustrating to see people take the low road time and time again, and run back to this "hero worship" bullshit accusation when there are real issues on the table.

My inclination is to ignore these snippy little comments, but that doesn't seem right either, since they tend to accumulate, and therefore have the cumulative effect of bringing the level of the whole site down. At some level people have to start asking themselves if they are really being honest and really engaging the issues that this site is set up to discuss, or if they are retreating into their "safe spaces" where their stuff goes unchallenged. For my part I hope to be more thorough in putting my positions out there and backing up what I say.

[Deleted]

I think that for a lot of people, myself included, it really does come off as "hero worship." When you reject institutionalized leadership as a matter of principle, it is a "real issue."

When others hold a position you find ridiculous, it can be very difficult to respond to it without mocking it. It does not help when those who disagree with the way you promote your Chairman are labeled as "anti-communists." I think labelling someone anti-communist is unprincipled.

[flyby]

sonofrage writes: "I think that for a lot of people, myself included, it really does come off as "hero worship."

You know, I get that. I'm sure that is true. At least that to you "it really does come off as hero worship."

Now....

What do we do with that?

Do you repeat it over and over in a one-liner superficial way?

Or do we dig into what that means.

In other words, yes, Bob Avakian is a hero to me. Is that so wrong?

Do I worship him? Nope. In fact I worship nothing. I'm a pretty rock-hard non-worshiping kind of atheist and materialist. I think critically, i study all kinds of things, I debate questions.

And the leap to insisting that I "worship" someone is a thing you could "break down." I mean, ok: you have charged this. Ok, you believe it. But can you actually explain your argument?

I see no worship. You do. Ok, break it down for me.

Cuz just saying "these ideas give me the creeps" over and over is not helpful to anyone. It may be true, but where do we all go with that -- it is a statement of our disagreement, but it is not "engaging" over it.

Sonofrage writes: "When others hold a position you find ridiculous, it can be very difficult to respond to it without mocking it."

Perhaps. But so what.

Some men say "when she sasses me, it is hard not to smack her." Well, try.

if it is hard not to be insulting and unprincipled, you should try.

Then you write: I think labelling someone anti-communist is unprincipled."

Well, that is complicated. First there are anticommunist ideas and anticommunist people. In fact it is quite common.

Many rather crude (and even ridiculous) anti-cmmunist ideas are widely held and believed (even by leftists.)

It would be wrong to simply "label" -- but it is not wrong to pont out that some socialists and anarchists have inhaled and internalized the anti-communsts summations of the right.

And then we can (should) move on to engage from there.

And if it was JUST labeling (as in empty namecalling) then I would agree that it is not helpful. However, i don't think the followers of Avakian have limited their arguments to superficial name calling (do you?)

So, let's agree that this issue of communist leadership is a point of deep disagreement, with considerable emotion attached, and agree to engage -- to actually make arguments that are intended to excavate and convince.

And let's see what we discover through that process.

[redstar2000]

MundoQueGanar wrote: I've been really disappointed in the low level of debate put forward by some members of this board in recent weeks, especially over the issue of Avakian's leadership.

Me too, oddly enough.

The number and quality of serious posts on matters of substance seems to be declining...while Bob Avakian seems to be becoming the only recurring topic on this board.

Would it be amiss for me to suggest that this is a reflection of the RCP's line at this time?

If you constantly want to talk about him, is it so surprising that others follow suit?

When you make "over the top" assertions as to his qualities, don't you know -- by this time -- that the vast majority of responses will be less than enthusiastic?

I've tried to explain over and over again that American workers are not Chinese peasants...we are not in the market for a "great leader".

I know you probably disagree with that, so let me offer you a more limited version: internet lefties are not in the market for a "great leader".

You can, if you wish, assert that we're all "middle class" or "brainwashed with anti-communist ideology" or whatever other rhetorical device that you find useful to "discredit" our opinion on this matter.

That changes nothing, much less the world.

And it doesn't leave much to talk about on this board.#nosmileys

[iskra]

redstar2000:

Maybe you could narrow it down a little further to "a few message board participants and I are not in the market for a 'great leader' at this time" because I'm always running into people (online and off) who are fascinated with Avakian's cutting-edge analysis and inspired by this kind of revolutionary communist leadership. They agree that he is, indeed, a great leader.

That said, I am all for getting into (or at least reading other people get into!) other issues "besides Bob Avakian".

However, I think the amount of Avakian discussion is very reasonable (and great!...if only there was even more!) given the fact that this Revolution DVD set has just been released and is currently being screened all over the place. And now there's this text of a new talk he just gave and the Michael Slate radio interview... in this context, I'd be shocked if the amount of Avakian discussion (both on this board and more broadly) was any less.

[kasama]

i'd prefer to discuss the issue here, not constantly return to ad hominem things.

sure we disagree. so? But let's deal with the line questions.

The whole spiral conjunctural thing is a way of looking at how the deep contradictions of capitalism erupt into crisis in the era of imperialism.

It breaks with the general crisis theory of the old comintern. And it says that the contradictions don't mainly express themselves as "economic cycles" of depression and recession.

but that as capital competes and collides as giant blocks of capital (and get represented as rival national social formations and states) that the role of inter-imperialist rivalry and war becomes a concentration of the kinds of underlying contradictions that gave rise to depressions.

it is a view of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism: between private appropriation and socialized production.

and of the two forms of motion of that single fundamental contradiction: the anarchy (manyness and conflict) of capitalism and the struggle of classes.

comments?