It gets lonely out there when you don’t have your own paper.
Really though… I’ve said there should be as many schools of Marxism as there are Marxists. I would think that would be an accepted statement amongst my Leftist comrades, or at least something that would make them think. This, however, has not been the case, in particular with my close comrades that are supporters of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. This is not to say members of other Leaderist parties wouldn’t react this way, but I’m in closer contact with the RCP because of my involvement with World Can’t Wait.
But I am singling out the RCP here in particular. Because they have some of the most contradictory stances on dissent and criticism. Their much-fronted chairman Bob Avakian recently said in a closed Q&A session: “The revolution that we are about should certainly be able to encompass (dissenters to our party)—in fact, not only encompass but welcome them in their role—as maddening as it might be at times!”
The RCP has paraded this sentiment in the forefront as a defining characteristic that sets the RCP apart from any other Leaderist Vanguard group, and it certainly would be fantastically refreshing if Bob Avakian or the RCP itself had ever actively gotten behind it. Unfortunately, though, this is nothing more than another Bob Avakian quote that can quickly be thrown into the “bullshit” pile. And here’s why.
The RCP loves to claim itself “objective,” “searching for truth,” and “willing to admit when they’re wrong.” Much like the WWP, they believe in a very controversial Marxism and uphold an even more controversial communist leader that everyone else is simply “misinformed about.” In order to sway the general public from anti-communist conventional wisdom, these groups take it a few steps too far and refuse to admit that the Maos, the Stalins, etc have ever done anything wrong or contrary to the beliefs of Karl Marx. They assume, I can only imagine, that the general public has been so programed by capitalist-imperialist society that everything is to be seen in black and white terms. That is, capitalism is all bad and Maoism (in the case of the RCP) or Stalinism (in the case of the WWP) is all good. They much prefer in-party propaganda to contrasting historical accounts that are often just too hard to sift through (i.e., Mike Ely’s “historical” account of the Maoist revolution in Tibet from a Maoist’s eyes only), and enjoy denouncing dissenters as “reactionaries.”
Really though, I suppose Avakian only said they’d welcome dissenters in the throws of the revolution. I suppose that means once we really *are* in the throws of a Maoist revolution and a few simple “truths” have already been accepted and never challenged. But given the RCP’s unwaivering Maoist stance, are we really to believe dissenters would not only be accepted but “welcomed”? This would play into my idea that there should be as many schools of Marxism as there are Marxists… and that’s obviously not what a pro-vanguard Leaderist party is about, hence the reactions I’ve gotten from RCP supporters (as well as some ISO members, and the few SWP’ers I know).
The idea of the Vanguard Party is in and of itself flawed in this way. You take a set of ideals that may or may not be true (or may be both true and false, depending on the situation… sorry, Bob A, that *can* happen), you run with it, you try your best to convince others that you’re 100% correct, and you fail 90% of the time. Vanguards like to blame capitalism/ imperialism/ anti-communist programing/ red-baiting/ etc for that, and many times I do think that’s to blame, but what very few Leaderists fail to realize is that they are to blame as well. They are to blame for both their flawed ideals as well as their inability to adequately address the anti-communist sentiments people have grown up embodying. The main struggle for the Marxist today is, in my opinion, to be able to figure out what the People are thinking, where their biases lie, how far their dissatisfactions with capitalism reach, and how we can struggle with them in a constructive and non-elitist manner to build a revolution that is not dictated by some Ivory Tower Vanguard, but by the people… that’s Communism. And that’s what Marx was getting at in essentially all of his works on building for the people’s revolution.
It hurts me to think that my personal understanding of Marxism is what keeps me from not belonging.
October 21, 2007 at 11:52 pm
you fucking reactionary bitch what do you know about fucking bob avakian long live chairman avakian!!!!
October 22, 2007 at 12:03 am
Wonderful. I write an article critiquing the RCP and I get called a reactionary. But aside from its vernacular meaning (a person opposed to change, also used in Marxism to describe an anti-revolutionary), let’s look at what the word means in its most simplistic form.
re·ac·tion·ary (adjective) : relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction
-from Merriam-Webster; M-W.com
And “Benja” writes a comment simply for the sake of reacting strongly to something I said that offended her/him.
This person really doesn’t do a good job for the RCP… criticisms aside, most RCP-supporters I know are better than lashing out over some petty ideological differences we may have.
And it CERTAINLY doesn’t prove my point about wanting the RCP to SHOW me they welcome dissent in the ranks.
Sorry Benja, your group may not be with you on this one (hopefully, that is).
January 14, 2008 at 4:36 pm
the picture is hillarious
February 25, 2008 at 12:32 pm
quote:
there should be as many schools of Marxism as there are Marxists… and that’s obviously not what a pro-vanguard Leaderist party is about, hence the reactions I’ve gotten from RCP supporters (as well as some ISO members, and the few SWP’ers I know).
The idea of the Vanguard Party is in and of itself flawed in this way.
comment:
I consider your post thoughtful and I agree with much of what you say.
I have written an article on how the many shades of marxists could work on a common project (a revolutionary news service) that might lead to a network of cooperating organziations. My view is that a genuine mass party might develop from a more informal network that would make it easier to see and understand the real strengths of weaknesses of all trends. My article is based on the study of the history of attempts to create revolutionary mass organization.
http://struggle.net/Ben/2008/222-HowTo.htm
Your thoughtful comments, questions are criticisms are very
welcome. Included below is the table of contents. — Ben
———————————————————-
– Contents —
———————————————————-
Sections of main article:
* Why do we need organization?
* What form will our organization take?
* Party will emerge from network
* Network will self-organize around revolutionary news service
* Poles of attraction will emerge
* The revolutionary pole
* The reformist pole
* Competing agendas
* Emergence of mass organization without reformists
* Why will this take so long?
* The experience of Russia (1903 to 1912)
* The experience of the Communist International (1919 to 1935)
* Cargo-cult attempts to clone Lenin’s party
* We cannot “grow” a small group into a mass party
* Which is better ? Building a brick wall–or casting a wide net ?
* Can we build “a party of a new type” ?
* Cargo-cult method cannot create the revolutionary pole
* Revolutionary core will emerge from primal struggle
———————————————————-
Charts:
———————————————————-
* The development of the split in the Russian Party (1903-1911)
* Party of working class may emerge from a mass organization
March 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm
If Benja is really a supporter — let alone an actual representative — of the RCP, then things are worse than I thought.
I’ve been following the online struggle over Mike Ely’s “9 Letters” for a few months now. As mean spirited as supporters of the RCP can be, they have IMHO honestly attempted to reply in some substance — none of the purely derogatory and outright misogynist behavior displayed by Benja.
If I had to bet, I would wager that Benja is just some apolitical internet creep looking for any opportunity to harass women, including posing as a RevCom if that’s what helps him fit in. I wouldn’t worry too much about it (meaning, I wouldn’t worry that the RCP have degenerated into violent misogynists — clearly, the fact that there are violent misogynists on and outside the internet is something to be distressed about).
I hope that’s some consolation…peace out.