Early Reports from RCP NYC Event on New Synthesis
Posted by Mike E on March 11, 2008
Kasama received the following announcement from Revolution Books:
Re-envisioning Revolution and Communism: What is Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis?
Presentation followed by discussion Sunday, March 9th – 4:00 p.m. St. Paul & St. Andrew Church, New York City
Corner of West 86th St & West End Ave
1 train to 86th Street, walk 1 block west to West End Ave
$10 sliding scale
ON A PLANET WHERE BILLIONS LIVE A DAY AWAY FROM STARVATION…where the lives of millions of children are cut short by curable diseases…where brutal wars grind on in Iraq and Afghanistan and hellholes like Guantanamo stay “open for business”…where nooses spring up like weeds, immigrants are hunted and the availability of abortion is rapidly disappearing…where youth are treated as either criminals or commodities…and where all this is totally UNNECESSARY–the world badly needs revolution.
Revolutionary state power will set about ending these horrors and meeting the pressing needs of the people. But a truly emancipatory socialism must do more than that. It must lay the basis, and take concrete steps, toward a society where people consciously change the world and themselves, in a society of freely associating human beings and where the need for any kind of state has been surpassed.
In that light, Bob Avakian has done path-breaking work to go beyond even the best of the previous socialist societies and re-envision a socialism that is both visionary and viable. His “new synthesis” has tackled a whole realm of questions, including:
* HOW DOES THE NEW REVOLUTIONARY POWER MAINTAIN POWER and maintain it as a power worth keeping? How does it not just survive in a world dominated by imperialism, but do that as a base area for further revolutions?
* WHAT WOULD BE THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, civil society, and politics outside the purview of the state? What would be the role of a constitution and elections? Why would this re-envisioned socialism not only tolerate, but foster, dissent?
* WOULD BE THE RELATION BETWEEN SCIENTISTS, ARTISTS AND INTELLECTUALS carrying out urgent work to meet the most pressing needs of society and, at the same time pursuing work, experimentation and exploration not tied to those kinds of immediate goals? How would the age-old division between those who work with ideas and those who are locked out of that, be overcome–in a way that does not sacrifice but actually enhances vibrancy and intellectual ferment throughout society, in unprecedented ways?
* WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF A FEARLESS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE TRUTH and what have been the shortcomings and blinders in regard to this in the communist movement as it has developed?
* HOW DOES THIS NEW SYNTHESIS BOTH CONTINUE ON THE PATH FIRST CHARTED BY MARX, LENIN AND MAO–AND YET GO BEYOND IT, IN NEW AND CRUCIAL WAYS?
Come hear the presentation and wrangle over all this.
Bob Avakian is the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. And he is more than that: he’s an innovative and critical thinker who has taken Marxism to a new place; he’s a provocative commentator on everything from basketball to religion, doo-wop music to science; and he’s a pit-bull fighter against oppression who’s kept both his solemn sense of purpose and his irrepressible sense of humor. Bob Avakian will not be in attendance at this event.
Quorri said
Oh I’d really love to hear some comments that come out of attending this….
JJM+ said
Do people think that all kinds of working people and intellectuals will attend this, or will it be more full of cadres and supporters?
Isn’t this supposed to be brought out amongst the masses?
zerohour said
I don’t think Zizek will be there.
SS said
The fact that they just put out a call for it a week ago, and it’s only happening in a few places (not on a speaking tour) probably means that it’s not being promoted widely “among the masses”. I think it’s meant mostly for people who are already party supporters in key areas. Just another strange coincidence happening now. Perhaps in response to all the supporters of the party who couldn’t say exactly what Avakian’s new synthesis was?
DW said
My brief summation of the NYC event: Nothing new here for those of us who’ve read/watched/heard the writings, dvds, soundfiles, and blog discussions. Except for one new thing: someone who was handing out fliers promoting the 9 letters and this website was told by the people staffing the door that they wouldn’t let him/her in. Some elasticity!
saoirse said
might you elaborate on the format, content and breakdown of who wsa there?
JJM+ said
Thats not good. I just dont see what the RCP was willing to accomplish with these tours. I mean, it would take a very long time to really engage the masses in this thing. I was invited to the Bay Area event, but I don’t think I want to waste my time doing so.
But like Saoirse, I also want a summary of what happened. I hope Kasama will help us there. :)
DW said
Format: Long, dry speech by Lenny Wolff followed by shorter Q&A. Total event time: 4 excruciating hours.
Content:
Ideological: Against inevitablism/determinism, against reductionism, against “class truth,” for truth.
Political: Internationalism: external is decisive (i.e., BA breaks with Mao’s On Contradiction), Democracy & Dictatorship: solid core with a lot of elasticity, against the “hothouse effect” that comes with not listening to critics (ahem!)
Organizational: recapitulation of the resolutions on leadership
Strategic: Hasten while awaiting
Conclusion: “Get with the new synthesis! Be part of emancipating humanity!” (applause)
Who was there: About 100 people at a time, possibly 200 people total throughout the 4 hours. Many familiar faces (familiar from RCP & WCW circles, overwhelmingly not from the broader movement or from other trends). Also some student types, some urban proletarian types, and some other less affiliated types. People came from at least 2 other East Coast cities.
saoirse said
Thanks DW. Four hours. whow.
Jed said
I wasn’t allowed to attend tonight’s event in NYC.
I was told I wasn’t welcome, that I could not enter St. Paul’s church to observe this event. No reasons were given to me.
I know of one veteran comrade who turned around and left when the people manning the doors confirmed this, and I know some of what that man has contributed to the revolutionary movement in this country. He was shocked. He just turned around and left.
For those following these discussions in the cities where this season’s edition of the Bob Avakian Show has yet to play – ATTEND THE EVENT.
Listen, take it in. Ask your questions to. And if you think they are going to change this channel any time soon. You are mistaken. ATTEND. Listen to the rap, it’s twists and turns and insistence.
Will this bring revolutionary change in America? Will millions of folks finally wake up and realize, after enough ads in the New York Review of Books (or wherever) that this is what they’ve been waiting for?
Is this method of leadership actually leading? Who is it leading and influencing? The RCP is putting everything they have into these events: what is the result? Is it really happening? Is this “world historic”?
Is it opening the range of the possible, or resulting in a locked-down, thin-skinned climate of control and frankly fear. Not intimidation in the crude sense, but that short-circuiting of critical thinking that allows us to separate truth from a truth claim?
Is it bundling, with no back-up, the claim that there is literally no difference between communist leadership in general and the particular culture of appreciation (aka cult of personality) around Bob Avakian?
On what basis can it be claimed that Avakian is indispensable, a cardinal (answered) question among communists, when no revolution on earth – or even popular movement and sentiment – has ever put any proof to it?
Should those who think a little beef is in order be excluded from not only membership in this organization… but apparently the right to attend events and simply listen?
Is having an analysis (even a good one!) of the history of the ICM the same as being an indispensable political leader in terms of running an organization?
What is the impact on the effectiveness of this organization when they are burning bridges with the very sections of the RCP set who have blunted the disastrous effect of the cult of personality?
How is the Engage campaign going, by the way?
How many academics and intellectual leading lights (or anyone really) have cited Avakian’s work in any sense whatsoever? (caveat: blurbs don’t count)
What exactly is this man offering the rest of the world in terms of some new, necessary “synthesis” that justifies the refusal of this party to carry out any reporting or analysis on developments in South Asia… for years? To say nothing of initiating (or even suggesting) solidarity projects, anti-imperialist efforts to blunt U.S. intervention… etc.
Oh, I could go on.
I had four hours to stand in the cold wind whipping off the Hudson river. I had a ton of questions.
But the funny thing is, I wasn’t even planning to ask one myself. I just wanted to listen and observe.
Instead, I spoke with around 40 people outside – far more than I would have if I’d just gone in and sat down in the back of the church. I spoke with some for a few minutes; others just words in passing, a handshake or embrace. Still others watched their own shoe laces as they passed by.
Tonight’s conversations were interesting. And to every person who took my hand, offered thoughts or concerns: thank you.
I tried to attend this event out of respect to many of the individual people in that room, true lovers of the people trying the best they can to make a contribution. To those who could just talk like human beings, in solidarity or not – thank you.
zerohour said
Fundamentally I agree with DW. I would add that the Q&A was also unsatisfactory [surprise!].
There was no analysis of the current situation or a summation of the Christian fascist line.
“Ideological: Against inevitablism/determinism, against reductionism, against “class truth,” for truth.”
It was actually claimed that Avakian identified and overcame those problems! What’s next: Avakian discovers a warming trend in earth’s temperature?
Jed said
If I had to sum up this same-old-shit packaged as the next-new-thing: You can’t open a door by banging your head against the wall.
Jesus said
That sounds pretty shady. Haven’t these events been billed as “important”? I honestly would have thought that the RCP placed importance on dissent and debate. Have I been naive or is the 9 Letters criticism so unprincipled that it warrants barring from public (RCP) discourse?
I’ve held back on this forum waiting to see some RCP response, but this type of action taken by folks in New York sort of indicates to me that I shouldn’t hold my breath.
I’m honestly confused and am very interested in what RCP supporters on this site are thinking . . .
Ivy said
Can people who attended be more specific.
Was this a speech by Lenny Wolff or was it a Party statement that is being read at all the programs? What kind of questions were asked? Were the questions from people familiar or unfamiliar with the New Synthesis? Was it a rehash of what’s in the paper or was anything “new” said, be it formulations or new “parts” of the New Synthesis? Was the CCW line addressed? Of the 4 hours how much was of that time was the speech and how much was the Q&A? Were the 9 Letters addressed (not by name of course)? Was the event recorded? Will the speech be in the newspaper?
I ask because here was the RCP putting forward Lenny Wolff to declare to the world (or actually the people who sat through the whole event) what is the the New Synthesis. So they obviously though this important.
To Jed, what were you trying to talk to people about outside the event? Did most people you talk to know about the 9 Letters? Had they read them?
Ulises said
What is the CCW line, Ivy?
Jaroslav said
Those who attended, also please elaborate on section ‘Strategic: Hasten while awaiting’, was there any real content to this or just another promising title with no follow-through?
Ivy, I think the question of ‘was it a Party statement that is being read at all the programs?’ will have to wait because so far only the NYC one has happened. But it is a good question which I’d like to know answer of also.
Jed what happened to you is so surreal — though at the same time not surprising –, that they’re talking inside the ‘hothouse’ about accepting criticism but even refusing entry to undesirable elements. This makes me think that a further response to 9 Letters probability just went down more.
SS said
For people who were turned away at the door… Have you all been directly involved in writing the letters, or just posting on this site and offering support? Were you given an explanation? Can you be more specific?
zerohour said
I’m trying to transcribe my notes, but I will say this for now: it was a condensed restatement of what was already in print, presented by Lenny Wolff. The Q&A had a couple of interesting moments but the answers were revealing in how typical they were.
Jed was the only one turned away. It’s not clear why others were not, since they were visibly flyering for the 9 Letters.
It would be interesting to hear about the other events so we can note the differences, if any.
Ivy said
CCW= Coming Civil War
Blackstone said
I was in NY that day to and completely forgot. 4 hours though? That’s brutal.
Eddy said
I attended specifically for a further, fuller explanation of what was new and synthetic about this new synthesis (NS), hoping to get some clarity regarding what I’ve perceived as discouraging subjective muddle. I have been trying to ‘engage’ over a few (to me key) questions that seem at odds with this new direction; most importantly dialectical materialist epistemology (being preceding consciousness, the primacy of social practice).
In response to the direct question of whether the NS upheld or repudiated Mao’s thesis of ‘correct ideas come from social practice and from it alone’, (and if repudiated, where do new ideas come from?) the answer was an brief comment that On Practice (sic!) should be critically reexamined. (next question)
But one other outcome was that I received a flyer about this website. Very interesting.
Mike E said
Eddy: Was this your first contact with our website? Welcome (obviously!) and check out the 9 letters/
On theory and practice: I heard that there was a new formulation that “Theory can and must proceed ahead of practice.” This is something to confirm from the actual text. I am curious of the context in which this was said. The analysis of the 9 Letters on theory-practice are in Letter 4: Truth, Practice and a Confession of Poverty.
Ivy said
If it’s a SYNTHESIS, shouldn’t it be able to answer a question of a paramount importance such as the one Eddy mentioned?
I think a lot of what got people excited at first about the NS was that it appeared to be a truly “fearless materialism.” But in fact it has shown itself to be abandonment of basic MLM tenets with a “fearless” ability to criticize Marx, Lenin, Mao willy nilly. It’s important to grasp that not only does the NS claim to have synthesized–I don’t think it could possibly get away with using the word “discover”–a Maoism that discards previous incorrect thinking in the ICM, but it must dispose of certain MLM theses so that it claim to have come up with something “new.” For example, somehow the RCP has gotten its supporters to beleive that Mao’s concept of “class truth” was some postermodernist thing of the bourgeois “has its truth” and we–the proletariat–”have ours.”
d said
Jesus,
I’m confused too.
I don’t know whether I would consider myself a “supporter” anymore, but to the degree that there isn’t anything else out there yet, I will still say the RCP the best we’ve got for now. Mainly because of work that it does, as YO mentions in another thread, in exposing crucial and “potentially explosive” contradictions and outrages in society (Jena, the Horowitz offensive, atheism and science, immigrants) and bringing people forward in fighting against those- not from any old perspective, but from a COMMUNIST one, (a perspective I think the RCP still mainly has with regard to analysis of the current situation- though I’m still working through some of my disagreements with regard to its approach on religion, CAPP work, and other things)
I don’t know Jed’s situation (and I don’t mean to suggest the following is the case), but if the RCP had reason to believe that he might disrupt the program (beyond asking a “reasonable number” of provocative questions –not dominating the discourse and effectively shutting it down) or that he had unprincipled and dangerous/infantile delusions or some other behavior issue, that, by association or mere presence there, could compromise the security/ability for the RCP to function (beyond that particular event), then I would expect that his presence would be welcomed.
In fact, if we are in fact trying to get to the truth, I would argue that the difficult questions raised by those who have a little beef- which the RCP also claims is in order (just not in the case of the 9 letters, for reasons I’m still somewhat lost on)- would serve very well in assisting all involved in gaining a deeper understanding in what ways the claims of New Synthesis and Unique and Irreplaceable Leader are true, and in what ways the work of the Avakian being spread to the masses and others will actually enable a breakthrough, not only in preparing minds and organizing forces, but in building a society actually worth living in. You would think.
Also how this inspires and actually transforms people’s ability to think critically and act creatively and powerfully- rather than develop the ability to memorize assertions and “translate” these assertions (memorized in catch phrases) and tell people how this or that is or is not just right (whatever the RCP thinks is how this or that will or wont lead to making rev, getting to Communism), when we haven’t ever gotten anything off the ground for more than a few months before its dropped. But this is coming from the perspective of someone who actually wants to make revolution and build a better society, not do whatever the leadership of the RCP says that is.
I think the correct way to “deal” with this is to take these questions head on and it seems that there is at least some sign that the RCP is going to do this in a substantive response to the 9 letters in and of themselves (not as “a matter of orientation”).
I’ve been thinking that the reason why the letters are deemed an attack is because it delivers a final verdict, and does not request a dialogue onto whether or not/how this or that question regarding the RCP is right on, partly off, way off etc. (why this is so is probably apparent- it seems because the authors have tried to struggle this out and have found a brick wall (that has some holes in it)).
I assume that the reason that those who have this particular sort of beef aren’t yet invited to join the discussion is because there hasn’t been a cohesive response to the 9 letters formulated yet, that those who support could utilize to answer such thorny questions. (though this wouldn’t make sense seeing that people flyering were allowed in). Also, from the perspective of the RCP, this might not matter that much in comparison with all the other things they are trying to do, or to the degree that it does matter, it can’t serve to paralyze them. (Of course I doubt this is really the case seeing that they have launched a whole tour that seems to be in large part, a response to the 9 letters, while it doesn’t take them off the track they were on already at all).
One thing I’m thinking while reading these posts is if the RCP’s line is so futile and thoroughly wrong, why is everyone so interested? I feel like there is a lot to work out here still and this is why people are digging into what was said, if the RCP are having or can have some influence, if that influence is harmful or good or both in some ways, and how. What is their “defense” of the new synthesis, etc. (personally this isn’t “old news” for me, for my involvement always sort of took this for granted in a certain way and although I had to struggle with others over this topic and I don’t think it was developed very deeply). There are many other things that I feel are helpful to put us on the right path and if the RCP really can be open to things I would think there are certain aspects that would try to be corrected (though clearly not the line on Avakian’s role). In that case should that decisive for people working with the organization on the sidelines or even within it?
zerohour said
Mike -
“On theory and practice: I heard that there was a new formulation that “Theory can and must proceed ahead of practice.””
I have to check my notes, but I don’t remember a must being in there.
Let me provide a little background. After the event, there were smaller discussions. By the time those started to dwindle down, it was late. A few of us had to get up early for work so we talked a bit about the event, but did not literally compare notes. That’s why I’ve been hesitant to write a more detailed account. I want to minimize the possibility of misrepresenting the positions expressed.
Ulises said
Zero,
My notes have it exactly as “can and must”.
But there is some truth to that. The problem is the other two ends of practice which should be informing the theory are missing. The response that “On Practice” should “be critically engaged” suggested that they have some differences with social practice being the source of theory. And a defense of this line came with a distortion of Karl Marx’s experience in developing theory, as if he had never led in the actual struggle, but just sat in the British Library his whole life. A second question asked about the other end of the process, that is, HOW, once a theory is put out, do you verify that it is true, if not in practice. In which case, what in the RCP’s practice verifies the truth of the New Synthesis? Needless to say they thought any kind of tying down their “truth” to a process of verification as to its veracity was “narrow”. And they did not offer up the analytical basis upon which they judge ideas to be true, except to say that they “reflect reality”. Of course the question is whether they do in fact reflect reality AND how do you know. They would, I think, lean on a inappropriate use of the word “science” without explaining how that method applies to their particular theories and practices.
There was a tense moment in the Q and A when two different people pointed out that the flyer for the event itself carried a literal untruth (the statement that billions of people are a day away from starvation, this is not actually true, it is an exaggeration of the actual situation). In relation to Lenny’s statement that “the truth is truth and bullshit is bullshit” what do you call something which is not technically true, and which was firmly implanted in the propaganda of the event announcement itself? Lenny was finally reduced to saying, if you don’t get it “I don’t know what to say”. This after trying to parse out different kinds of mistakes (of principle vs. execution). When the point we all know was that this is a pattern not only with the RCP, but with the left in general of hyping reality for pragmatic gains politically.
To answer Ivy’s question about the CCW, that was COMPLETELY absent from discussion. They spoke of a handful of elements that are their politics of hastening: 1) something about WITBD (which I have to go back through my notes to get fully), 2) the newspaper, 3) Promotion of Avakian, 4) Fight the Power (Jena), 5) recruitment, and 6) WCW. In that order. I suppose CCW could be embedded in WCW, but it was not explicitly spoken to ever. The analysis of Christian Fascism was NO WHERE to be seen.
There was a lot of rehash, but some of the elements that were drawn forward as essential hadn’t been drawn forward in that way before. They were not new, but the emphasis was new, and certainly putting it out on a relatively concise level, so that their case and claims can finally be judged, was very new. And in fact something which should have preceded the imposition of the verdict. There was also a lot of very boring pedantic defining of terms, this easily took up half the time. And the speech was roughly modeled on Avakian’s DVD speech, starting with the horrors of black oppression and then laying out some very rudimentary definitions.
The Q and A wasn’t just disappointing, it was embarrassing. About 10 questions were asked. They did not answer questions posed to them, but rather hemmed and hawed and parsed the meanings of things, while ultimately simply referring people to specific texts of Avakian or the DVD. Bottom line, there was no wild and open debate, as it was billed, not in relation to the stage. There was a breakout period where more intense discussion took place, but even this was a way of making sure that debate didn’t overrun the very carefully controlled atmosphere.
Anyway, much more to be written and said, but overall, for the first time I had the real sense that this party has LOST that revolutionary spirit that was so attractive to many of us. Even as a critic I was saddened by what I was seeing.
There is a lot to unpack in everything they said. And I intend to do so tonight and post a full report either tonight or tomorrow.
Ivy said
I keep thinking I can’t get more disappointed but…
Rosa Harris said
Ivy,
I understand the feeling. Even though I have been with this project around the nine letters from the start after having left the party, I still hoped that there would be some type of substance to the party’s response to the letters. That has not happened, as we have seen in Rev. I’m almost ashamed to say it, having been with this party, but the level of the response is about the same as that of an Internet troll.
Why can they not engage this on the same level of the K Venu article that Bob wrote? I believe it is because the letters are actually correct and the response would only further reveal this. The current response and lack of substance already point to it.
What to do now? Well, in another way this is not disappointing. Instead it is part of how the struggle progresses and how new ideas and conceptions are synthesized. So, how about joining in with us on building something exciting, new and truly revolutionary?
A new day is about to dawn.
Rosa harris
Eddy said
My recollection is the statement that ‘theory often runs ahead of practice’, but I wasn’t taking notes.
That said, I would not disagree that hypotheses are proposed before they are tested, but that does not mean that hypotheses drop from the sky, are innate in the mind, etc. The basis for conceptualizing a hypothesis is past practice.
As any natural scientist (as well as Marx, Lenin, and Mao) would attest, hypotheses are tested — and become validated as theory — through practice (i.e. experimentally). Most importantly, I would expect that a dialectical materialist would want to clarify that ‘social practice’ is a broad and ongoing matrix of intersecting processes (i.e. social relationships).
(In response to Mike’s invitation above: yes, thanks, I investigated the letters and a whole series of posts before I concluded that this discussion was honest and worthwhile. I have no interest in a gripe fest. The stakes are too important.)
blackstone said
Time out, does anyone see the irony of the RCP having there event in a church?
More Unofficial Notes: Receiving Avakian’s Synthesis, and Getting Beyond It « Kasama said
[...] on The Party’s Overchegitz guevara on Africans’ Exploitation b…blackstone on Early Reports from RCP NYC Eve…JJM+ on The World We Live InJJM+ on Uh, what about drugs?blackstone on Women’s [...]
matigari said
Rosa H:
“What to do now? Well, in another way this is not disappointing. Instead it is part of how the struggle progresses and how new ideas and conceptions are synthesized. So, how about joining in with us on building something exciting, new and truly revolutionary?
“A new day is about to dawn.”
Yes!!! Let us learn all we can from the RCP, both positive & negative. They can help to sharpen issues. For example, the reports of zerohour, jed & ulises raise a number of things that if we get clear on them–that’s what I really care about–can help to propel things forward.
I happen to think that we are in a crisis situation that is accelerating very quickly, especially with the high degree of leveraging of investments (30-50 to 1) that produced a fantastic speculation, making 1929 pale in comparison. However, according to the reports of their NYC talk–which have the ring of truth about them–the RCP is de-emphasizing the economy & unhinging the superstructure from the base. OK–let’s have more details on this “revolutionary,” “new,” “improved” version of Marxism(?). THis might force us to dig a lot harder on questions of political economy. So how do they envision what constitutes the crisis & why it is happening? I expected this one because of how shoddily political economy was treated by the RCP through the years, the most glaring thing being the total lack of discussion of the Great Stagflation of the 1970s, its impact on the masses & the ability of imperialism to get out of a very serious bind.
Right now, without more information & without definite statements & reasons for their accusation against Marx, Engels, Lenin & Mao concernings their “quasi-religiosity,” there is very little anyone cans say. So, again, we need more details & concrete arguments. However, I tend to believe what our reporters had to say, because it fit philosophically with the stand that Avakian took on the issue of the negation of the negation. I believe we can learn a lot by tangling with the RCP about the Critique of the Gotha Programme & other pronoucements of Marx on communist society, as a continuation of the battle between Scientific socialism (Marx) v. Utopian (quasi-religious) socialism (Avakian).
Ulises’ remark about their two-track strategy will also be very salutory to pursue. I don’t know yet what to make of it but I can just smell the possibilities for us to learn a lot of politically useful stuff by digging into it. By all means, let us Engage!
One thing that has occurred repeatedly in my life, from early childhood til today, is, first, the crying over the enormous grief & pain we have to suffer, hte utter unfairness of it all. But then, a moment comes & has never yet failed to come when I did not wipe the tears from my eyes, take a deep, relaxing breathe & set forth to understand how this m**f** works & do what I can to end its existence, no matter how hard I have to work or how long it takes. (It has taken its toll on my health, which is a reminder of the need to be more thoroughly materialist about myself, my limitations.) I will accept lessons from any & every one to achieve this, even if they laugh in my face for being so stupid & needing those lessons. Sarah Conner in Terminator I & II, captures a lot of how I have felt–feel. Once again, with the RCP’s further open upholding of what looks like a very impoverished line, I feel the fierce rage that has driven me all my life to seek scientific answers for how to get out of this nightmare–not that I am always right–but I seek. So, while I really have no desire to thrash the RCP, I do want to use both their strengths & their errors to hone the science of Marxism. Let’s get it on!!!
I’m with you, Rosa.
Blackstone: Yeah–they held their meeting in a venue appropriate to their line–but let’s get down on specifics & details. analysis & synthesis. Was there anything inevitable with their degeneration, despite their repudiation of “inevitabilism?” What could they possibly mean by scientific law & the proclamation that “Marxism is a science”, given their philosophical views?–please, let’s get it on!
zerohour said
“Right now, without more information & without definite statements & reasons for their accusation against Marx, Engels, Lenin & Mao concernings their “quasi-religiosity,” there is very little anyone cans say.”
It refers to the supposed tendency in their thinking to posit communism as inevitable. Wolff said that it as described as a “heaven” or a “kingdom of great harmony.”
In the first place, it was a minority tendency in Marx through Mao, which was not prominent in their ideas, except when magnified by mechanical ICM thinkers or anarchist opponents, and has already been rejected by Marxists. In the second place, the language uses religious imagery and seems to be in the style of Mao but I don’t remember if he used such terms. Even if he did, it doesn’t refer to inevitability of communism but a metaphysical notion of it’s features. It should be noted and critiqued, but it’s hardly a significant source of problems in Mao’s thinking.
Mike E said
By the way, I have not heard the details of Wolff’s presentation, but I think it would be wrong for anyone to claim Mao viewed communism as heaven or a “kingdom of great harmony.” The nationalist movement (which the communists emerged out of) had as one of its principles such a “kingdom of great harmony” (it is inscribed for example in quotation of nationalist principles in the arch introducing the Chinese community here in Chicago). And some early Chinese communist agitation borrowed (lifted, used, continued) that phrase. And this dovetailed (in some ways) with mechanical views of communism promoted elsewhere (including with the notions of dying out of contradiction raised by various political lines and philosophical schools.)
But it is hard to miss that Mao did the “heavy lifting” of opposing such views — more and more as he “came into his own.” He talked against the dying out of contradiction, saw things as a raging torrent not a placid pool, talked about communism as its own process (not a place we could arrive at).
Mao’s contribution to dialectics involved dipping into the pool of Taoist dialectics to undermine a growing metaphysics in Soviet philosophy (under Stalin), but he did so while removing the “two into one” of the great Tao. Mao’s whole approach of “one into two” (as opposed to “two into one”) in dialectics runs against, undermines and prevents a view of communism as the “great harmony.”
We will see how Wolff and the RCP describe their “break” with Mao — but I don’t believe anyone (including they) could argue that his view of communism was religious or metaphysical (especially as we get to the “mature” Mao, who was out from under the shadow of the comintern and the Soviet Union.)
Rosa Harris said
Matagari,
I apologize for the delay in my reply.
I suspect that what we are seeing has more to do with Hubert’s peak ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil ) than MacWorld vs Jihad – as well as increased global industrialization resulting in increased demand and competition over oil resources. Hubert’s peak is popular within right wing think tanks and is much more likely to be the source of the drive to war than any other factor although other factors are certainly involved and have a major influence on this.
However, unless the Hubert’s theories are correct and there is some evidence that they may be, then it is highly unlikely that we will see a crisis of capitalism like we saw with the great depression.
Rising oil prices have a very negative effect on the economy because it leads to rising prices at every step in production and distribution from lubrication of machines, plastics and rubber, production of electricity to run plants, and transportation of goods and raw materials to the market – and more. This could lead to underproduction, loss of jobs internationally as well as nationally, and rapid inflation and inflation negatively effects the baking industry because loans are repaid with money that is worth less than it was when it was loaned out as well as defaults on loans. But even with this we cannot bank on a crisis of capitalism in building for Rev.
This is all a bit simplistic and I know that there are many more features to deal with as well, not only in the effect of oil shortage and increased cost – but in other features within the economy and the state as well as in class analysis related to this.
We need to put our energies into meeting the conditions for revolution – especially stepping up to organize and fill the need for a revolutionary party – something that is not easy for many reasons. One is that we need a real theoretical leap in many areas to be able to move forward. I do believe that we can make the necessary leaps as we have a vast accumulated knowledge to synthesize – both in success and failures of the rev movement worldwide.
But to make these leaps we are not only going to have to work collectively, we are going to have to burst through while both thinking outside the box and at the same time applying Communist Philosophy to analyze the concrete conditions that exist and unravel the contradictions – as they are – not according to some dogmatic formula drawn from past revolutions.
Rosa harris
Rosa Harris said
Another note on this – even if Hubert’s peak results in sever oil shortages does not mean that this will be a crisis for the US economy – in fact if they gain control over significant amounts of the oil resources and are able to develop technology in the area of energy and such things as new lubricants and new products to replace plastics -for example – they may be able to use the shortage to gain another competitive advantage over other nations.
Just pointing out that we can not bank on crisis for a number of reasons.
zerohour said
“Hubert’s peak is popular within right wing think tanks and is much more likely to be the source of the drive to war than any other factor although other factors are certainly involved and have a major influence on this.”
It would make sense. For the US, controlling oil today is intended to cement its hegemonic position in the world. But I think the US ruling class knows that the oil-based world power is nearing its end within a century, so controlling the oil supply now would buy time for the US to research, develop and monopolize the next major natural source of energy, whatever that would be.
If other nations, like Iran, develop nuclear energy, US dominance wouldn’t be so assured. I know this is a bit simplistic, but I don’t think US antagonism towards Iran is just based on Christian fundamentalism, or oil supply in the more immediate sense.
Rosa Harris said
Oh, if anyone wants a more detailed peek inside what those in power think about Peak Oil – check this out – its very revealing
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
Wikipedia’s intro to it says:
Hirsch report, the commonly referred to name for the report Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management, was created by request for the US Department of Energy and published in February 2005. It examined the likelihood of the occurrence of peak oil, the necessary mitigating actions, and the likely impacts based on the timeliness of those actions.
Rosa Harris said
Zerohour,
Already high oil prices have had a negative and continuing effect on the US and world economy. The US economy has been struggling for some time now to maintain. Although affected to some extent by the invasion of Iraq, the increase in prices of oil has more to do with growing world demand for oil.
Pacific Rim industrialization has been driving up oil demand as well as the continued process of industrialization in other nations through the world – especially ‘third world’ nations.
Saudi Arabia may have also already reached its peak and they have put caps on their oil production at this point and refused to try to raise it significantly – pointing to the possibility that they cannot raise it significantly and are already functioning at full capacity. Other estimates put Saudi Peak in 2013 but there are concerns that the numbers are being over inflated and that they actually can not increase at this point – barring new technology.
This is not a future threat that they are preparing for but rather a situation where they are already feeling acute economic pressure – pressure resulting from both a declining ability to continue to increase oil production worldwide significantly to meet the growing world demand for oil for production and distribution as well as for agriculture. Of course the world peak has not been reached yet (imo although some say it was reached in 2006). Certainly the actual decline in oil production has not been reached as oil production in bpd is still climbing with the introduction of new oil fields.
Iran is believed to have reached its peak oil production in 1974 where Iraq is not expected to reach its peak until 2018 – of course that depends on how well they are able to stabilize the political situation to allow for the extraction of the oil. Iran developing nuclear technology would not be a threat in terms of developing alternative methods – Iran is instead a threat to the US gaining and maintaining the ‘peace’ – the stable conditions necessary for the oil extraction (that is all ‘peace in the middle east’ has ever really been about). They are actually concerned about Iran having ‘the bomb’ because it changes the terms of the fight and the balance of power. Iran could drive them toward settling the problem by invasion. Iran has significant oil fields itself that direct control over could help –yes buy time – for US imperialism so invading would not be a total loss for US imperialism but at this point in time it appears to be something that they prefer not to do while at the same time letting Iran know ‘you cause problems and you are next’.
It is also interesting to note that the only other nation that is not believed to have reached peak yet is Kuwait – expected to reach peak in 2013. Appears to me to be a pattern here…
Rosa harris
Mike E said
Early report from March 22 RCP Chicago presentation of the new synthesis.
I was refused entrance to the presentation, and so was one other comrade. The security detail for the event refused to give reasons — adopting that quasi-religious “shunning” approach of refusing to talk to people who have left the party.
From the outside, the event looked small — my guess between 100-120.
We destributed a leaflet about this Kasama site and the 9 Letters — and the reception was excellent. Those who have orders to refuse contact (more shunning) did not take the flyer — but virtually everyone else was interested to hear about this Maoist critique of Avakian’s synthesis. And some had (of course) already heard about them or read them.
There will be a bit more to report, of course, after we have some sense of what went on inside.