Unofficial Notes: On the RCP’s March 9 Synthesis
Posted by Mike E on March 12, 2008
On March 9 the RCP held a four-hour public event in New York City on what Avakian’s New Synthesis is. The event consisted of a text read by Lenny Wolff over two-and-a-half hours, followed by few questions answered by the presidium. Over the next few days, we will be featuring reports and assessments of this presentation.
To start this off: Zerohour has sent Kasama his detailed notes. They gives a sense of what was covered — even if they are obviously not precise transcripts of the various formulations.
Help us refine these notes and fill in the gaps — “wiki-style”: post details and any necessary corrections from your own notes. In particular, send in any particular formulations that you wrote down word-for-word of concepts that are worth debating.
Also: what questions SHOULD have been posed to this presentation and its claims? Let’s list them.
* * * * *
Re-envisioning Revolution and Communism: What is Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis?
Notes by Zerohour
Read outloud: Sunday, March 9th – 4:00 p.m. St. Paul & St. Andrew Church, New York City
Sunsara opens it up with an announcement that taping and photography are not allowe, then she introduces Lenny Wolff who kicks off with two points- We should appreciate the theoretical achievements of Bob Avakian- Revolution requires science, study, theory
Why we need a revolution
- Refers to the ACLU report on 4600 cops in the NYC school system, and the various abuses they perpetrate against , mainly Black, kids
- NYT Sunday magazine on the counter-insurgency unit in Afghanistan
- Horrible conditions in India, Angola, Eastern Europe and Mexico
Is revolution possible? In the US?
- The New Synthesis- “let’s get into it”
- Recounts socialist history going through Marx/Engels, the Paris Commune, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions- the first wave of socialism ends in 1976 with the death of Mao
- There are no socialist countries in the world today
- Avakian upholds the achievements of the first wave but also analyzes their mistakes
- The New Synthesis comes out of this summation process and is divided into three components: philosophy, politics, strategy
I. PHILOSOPHY
- How do you see your place in the world; what do you think can/should be done about it?
- Everyone has a philosophy, even those who claim to have “no” philosophy- that’s pragmatism which leads you to accept the world as it is
- Detrimental philosophies in the world [a lot of time was spent on various definitions]
- relativism in which all truths are equal, or another philosophy in which truth is not possible at all
- Communist philosophy is scientific
- Dialectical method which focuses on change and development; driven by the struggle of opposites until one aspect becomes dominant, ex., the sun [I missed the argument]
- Idealism ["ideas create the material world"] represented by Hegel and “The Secret” vs. Materialism in which the world consists of matter in motion
- In Marx’s time, materialism was mechanical and idealist but Marx/Engels stripped materialism of these problems leading to:
- Historical Materialism [HM] which holds that
1] people must produce the necessities of life,
2] in order to produce, they must enter into production relations,
3] the nature of those relations is based on the level of technical/social development,
4] relations take the form of class societies
- Production relations express themselves in forms of government, family, art, moralities, ideas about human nature
- The Bible was written while slave relations were predominant which is why they are not seriously challenged, except to object to the slavery of specific people, i.e., the Jews
- Human nature is used to justify capitalism so we must oppose it
- HM can be used to analyze current issues like that of Biko Edwards abused by cops and educators in his school; we must start by looking at historical production relations and the conditions of Black people from slavery all the way up to the present; 1 in 9 Black men are in prsion in the US, the highest ratio in the industrial world
- There were problems in Marx/Engels and Lenin, that were compounded by Stalin which Mao tried to fight
- Avakian identified four weaknesses:
1] an idealist/”quasi-religious” strain of thought in Marx/Engels,
2] interpenetration of matter/consciousness,
3] pragmatism in the ICM and
4] epistemology
* * * * *
1. Marx/Engels/Lenin/Mao all saw communism as inevitable.
They regarded communism as a “heaven” or kingdom of great harmony”
2. Complexity of material relations magnifies impact of erroneous ideas,
esp. that of reductionism in which the economic aspect of society is overemphasized, but there is a relative autonomy of the superstructure
3.- Ideas should be useful but for what?
- Criterion for truth should be that ideas correspond to reality
- Three erroneous approaches: instrumentalism, a prioriism, positivism
- Instrumentalism and a prioriism [I missed these parts]
- Positivism denies deeper dynamics, isolates phenomena, denies that theory can outstrip practice, ex., Lysenko
- Lysenko argued for the inheritnace of acquired characteristics, this was disastrous in practice and in the way it taught people to think
4.- Truth does not have “class character”
- “Truth is just truth, bullshit is just bullshit” [applause]
- Truth must be compared to reality
- There are no separate realities or truths for different classes
- Insights from non-ICM thinkers must be “sifted”, “synthesized” but not adopted whole
- Debate, the clash of ideas is necessary for an understanding of the world
- We must deal with all truths; even truths that “make us cringe” are valuable
II. POLITICS
[missed a couple of minutes here]
- Avakian holds that class struggle in a particular country is determined on the international plane; but does this mean one can do nothing if the international balance of forces is unfavorable? Communists do not represent nations but the international proletariat; not focusing on the international level can lead one to ignore revolutionary potential in one’s own country
- Historically, the need to defend the USSR led it to sacrifice opportunities to advance revolution in the world
- Revolutionaries must seek to build revolutionary movements in all countries and pay attention to weak links
- We must base ourselves on those who do not benefit as much form imperialism
- We must fight against the “murderous form ” of complicity
- The transition to communism in the first phase mainly dealt with the material conditions of the masses [1st stage of socialist revolution], ie, advances for women in China
- We can’t just cherish the achievements of the past but must critique that past as well
- We must bring the masses into intellectual life; China had made advances in this direction but there were still many restrictions- how necessary were they?
- We must defend socialist society, but is there no room for individuality?
- US Reconstruction as example of worthwhile risk; at first the US government suppressed the planters’ political rights, but when contradictions developed, the US withdrew, allowing planters to suppress former slaves- this period is called “the Redemption”; to repress slave-owners would have been bloody but would it have been worth it? Yes.
- USSR faced imperialist attack from 11 armies, then civil war, then the Nazis; even with all this could they have done some things differently?
- There is no democracy in the US, but capitalism-imperialism
- We can’t use the imperialist state [armies, courts, etc.,] to abolish exploitation or bourgeois forms to mobilize people to change the world
- How can people learn to run society/the world? Science and leadership
- What kind of leaders? Leadership must be judged by its content and effect- does it enable people to understand and transform reality or does it hamper people?
- The leading role of the party will be necessary as long as classes exist
- The party must continually be revitalized so it does not regress
- What will be new?
- There will be no “official” ideology though the party itself will be united around communism
- The extent of “official politics” will be in question; how to deal with spontaneity if something actually opposes the party or is simply beyond its control, like a subculture
- Historically when the USSR and PRC has restricted individual rights it has also constricted the building of socialism
- An example of solid core with elasticity: the socialist government wants to build a dam somewhere; someone like Arundhati Roy agitates against it. She would not only be encouraged but given resources. The Party would have to learn from her even if she’s wrong.
- What is the solid core? It is a minority of people most committed to communism, but not exclusively identified with the Party or sections of the proletariat
III. STRATEGY
- Society as a whole is in the grip of a profound crisis
- We need a revolutionary people numbering in the millions
- For the vanguard everything must be about revolution
- Objective/subjective factors: objective=material conditions, ideologies, subjective =the Party/social movements; both factors transform each other
- Hastening while awaiting: working not just to prepare for changes but to shape those changes
- Transform necessity- objective reality at any given time
- “Enriched What-Is-To -Be-Done-ism”
- Opposed to economism
- Masses must engage issues more broadly; more focus on ideas
- Emphasis on:
1] the pivotal role of the paper,
2] spreading communism boldly,
3] promoting Avakian,
4] popularizing the slogan ” Fight the Power, And Transform the People, For Revolution”,
5] spread revolution widely,
6] recruit for the Party and
7] build struggles around faultline contradictions
- Reject frustration and “infantile posturing”
Questions and Answers
Q1.- How can the solid core with elasticity allow spritual, not religious, people to contribute to revolution?
- What role does love , passion healing play in the New Synthesis?
A1.- Religious thinkers have tremendous insights we can learn from; they can play a progressive role and their ideas must be engaged; there will be no thought police
- Quotes from Wittgenstein ["Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"]; there was a great deal of Puritanism and chauvinism in the movement beginning with Stalin and reflected in the Party’s old homosexuality line; the new position on homosexuality is a reflection of the kind of thinking that guides the New Synthesis
Q2.- Mao said contradictions come from social practice; what practice verifies the New Synthesis?
A2.- One divides into two; social practice viewed as practice of society
Q3.- What are the personal qualities that make Avakian qualified to lead the new society
- Cult of personality: why is it necessary to promote an individual as opposed to the Party
A3.- Urged people to read the “Making Revolution…” articles; genuine connection to the masses, love of going for the truth [Cuban Missile Crisis example], strategic thinker, sense of humor, sense of purpose; check out the memoir and the dvd
- There is a unity between a person and what he’s brough forward; examples: John Coltane- if you’re in his band- he’d be laying down the line, whose plays do you see: Christopher Marlowe or Shakespeare; Avakian’ s shit is “next level”; what about the cult around Barack; “we are lucky to live in a world Avakian does his work in”
Q4.- What is the practice that verifies the New Synthesis?
A4.- “Critique of the Gotha Program” as an example of how theory can run ahead of practice ; it dealt with bourgeois right; verification arises from 50 years of socialist history; must avoid such a positivist /empiricist viewQ5. The questioner said that she works in the mental health profession
Q5 How does one raise the consciousness of the proletariat? Devastation of capitalism is evident in their sense of hopelessness, etc.
A5.- Need a whole vision of how things can be different and where all this shit comes from; need ideology; build resistance, spread revolutionary ideas
Q6. Questioner said RCP was only left-wing group qualified to lead a revolution; rejects both mainstream parties
- How do we learn and use the science of Marxism?
A6.- Study groups, watch DVD, join Revolution Clubs [where they show the DVD, study the paper, sell the paper and do "things" to fight the power]
Q7.- The New Synthesis critiques inevitabilism but thinkers like Lukacs, Gramsci and Althusser had already made such critiques; how do their ideas relate to the NS?
A7.- Read the “Conversations…” book; Avakian wants to meet thinkers halfway, Party wants to engage their ideas
Q8.- Once the proletariat is in power, would it make sense for regional/local elections for fuller participation of those not in the Party- but not to replace Party power?
A8.- Electoral question should encompass the national level; there must be space for arguments; can’t rely on institutional control; these questions should have “real consequences”
Q9. Questioner notes a factual error on the flyer. It is not true that billions are a day away from starvation; it’s millions who face malnutrition- not the same thing. How do we deal with errors without discrediting the whole thing?
A9.- We must distinguish between mistakes of principle from mistakes of execution; criticism of RCP’s busing position an example of :
1] a mistake made with good intentions and,
2] how to criticize and learn from mistakes
Q10. [Not a question just a point that accuracy is what distinguishes fact from propaganda]
Q11.- How does the Party intend to sustain Revolution over time? In larger countries like the USSR, Stalin killed tens of millions and when the USSR fell, women lost the greater freedoms they had under socialism, esp. in the Central Asian Republics, but in smaller countries like Cuba they have remained committed to the revolution after 50 years.
A11.- Come to Revolution Books Tuesday night to hear Raymond Lotta; Cube is not socialist, not moving towards communism; she’s also wrong about the Soviet Union but she should come to the bookstoreHere Sunsara takes the mic to address the issue of mistakes, both on the flyer and in socialism. She said that there is great urgency and when combined with lack of personnel it could lead to mistakes. But we cant get paralyzed by mistakes and never make the mistake of giving up.She publicized the Raymond Lotta program at Rev Books on Tuesday night and the IWD program the next night.At this point discussions became informal.
Published: 2008 | Available online at mikeely.wordpress.com | Send comments to: kasamasite (at) yahoo (dot) com | Feel free to reprint, distribute or quote with attribution to Mike Ely and a link. | This website and all contents are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License
zerohour said
I heard Zizek speak last night at the opening of the Left Forum. The contrast between content and tone of that event and the New Synthesis event couldn’t be more stark. Where Zizek’s presentation was agile, suggestive and challenging, Wolff was simplistic, formulaic and predictable.
Unfortunately I didn’t take notes for this one.
Skwisgaar said
I believe video and/or audio of the event is going to be available at some point, hopefully soon. I’ll make sure and announce where to find it when it is.
The Cold Lamper said
Was there anything in the presentation which struck you as a possible swipe against the Nine Letters/Kasama project?
zerohour said
Cold Lamper -
The last point in my notes before the Q&A section was about frustration and “infantile posturing”. That’s the closest I could recall and even then I’m not really sure. It was most likely an affirmation to those in the room that RCP would struggle against these easy pitfalls in this period.
They were focused on trying to get across the New Synthesis and avoided addressing any criticism, even obliquely.
Recall that they did not let Jed into this public event even though he had done nothing more disruptive than flyer for the 9 Letters outside. Nobody knew I was working with kasama until I was already in the event, but they didn’t ask me to leave. Not sure what the inconsistency was about. I think we can consider that a “response” of some sort.
Mike E said
Early in the presentation the following formulation appears:
The fact that this presentation is broken down into 1) Philosophy, 2) Politics — including socialist transition and 3) Strategy is an expression of the claims of “coherent, comprehensive.” This presentation of Avakian’s synthesis is not limited to the talk of “solid core with a lot of elasticity” but is a direct claim to “overarching theoretical breakthrough.” By implication, Avakian’s work it put forward essentially as the latest leap and highest development of modern Marxism.
This is formulation (and the surrounding presentation) represents a public claim being made for the RCP’s view that Avakian is “on the level of a Lenin or a Mao” both in his theoretical work and the importance of his personal practical leadership. (In the case of this day’s presentation, the focus was not on his supposedly irreplaceable ability to provide unique practical leadership to the people of the U.S., and the world).
Ulises said
There was no direct or indirect response to the 9 Letters in the actual presentation. On the other hand, there were what I believe to be MANY instances of implicit polemic with the Nepalese. These ranged around Avakian’s particular take on Internationalism, and Democracy and dictatorship.
It was said for instance that “the bourgeoisie and the proletariat cannot share power” (a point which is technically untrue and contradicts Mao, who said that the bourgeoisie was regenerated in the Party, thus defacto at times shared power with the prol).
The emphasis on the resolution of this contradiction was on a violent overthrow. There was an argument against the particularities of national contradictions motivating a revolution and an argument that the international is determinate. In this case the logic suggests (when put next to Avakian’s theory of “two tracks” for revolutionary work domestically) an implicit three-worldism.
They seemed to suggest that it is the responsibility of the Nepalese to seize power in a very specific way, even if that means massive bloodshed and ultimate failure, as it would benefit the global revolution (perhaps qualitatively changing the ability to maneuver in the imperialist centers).
zerohour said
“There was an argument against the particularities of national contradictions motivating a revolution and an argument that the international is determinate.”
I’d like to think about this point more.
At one point, the Nepalese did suggest that the revolution would have to occur in both Nepal and India almost simultaneously due to the intertwined nature of both countries. However, the conditions in India didn’t develop at the same pace as Nepal, so that line seems to be a non-issue now. How did this affect their current strategy? The CPN strategy also seems to contain an awareness that China will not intervene if they are successful. What if Chinese intervention were a factor? Wouldn’t that affect the revolution too?
I don’t think we can assume that Avakian is wrong on this overall point even if he draws self-serving and dogmatic conclusions.
Ulises said
There is no doubt that the international level interpenetrates with the national level of revolution, but there is no predetermined relationship between the two. It is not ALWAYS the case that the international aspect is primary or determinate, and it is quite difficult to show how it would be determinate in relation to the particularities of a nation.
For instance, WWI set the stage for the Russian Revolution, but it was the particular conditions of Russia that brought it to fruition (not just the leadership of Lenin, as the RCP emphasizes). So the international exists in a very complicated relationship with the national, and is in fact particular to every conjuncture and every nation in the ways that it relates.
But just to point out what has become a pattern of selectively reading history with Avakian, the Russian revolutionary movement preceded WWI by decades, with the first anti-autocratic upsurges in the 1860′s around the time of the “abolition” of serfdom, and the first revolutionary attempt in 1905. Let us not forget that the original “What Is To Be Done?” was written in 1863.
Another example is the argument that a revolution could not have occurred in China without the Japanese invasion. Mao’s line was that this invasion was a new particularity injected into the already developing internal contradiction of China, which was already undergoing the internal break down of its feudal system. Avakian’s line would be that WWII set forth the dynamics which led to the Chinese revolution, that the international crisis of Imperialism at that time “set the stage” and was the motivating force.
I actually wonder to what extent this is a simple chicken or the egg issue, where Avakian proclaims very loudly “chicken” and then acts as if he’s come to some new theoretical breakthrough. What I mean by this is that extricating what is the primary part of the contradiction between national and international revolution is not a simple matter, and that it is the particularities that define which is primary or not at any given time, and in what way they are primary or secondary.
There is no rule that says that revolutions can only occur in the midst of a World War, or only in the midst of such a radical crisis in imperialism. And Avakian’s position on this in some respects smuggles in the theory of general crisis that he previously criticized, except in the the place of an inevitable final crisis with accompanying revolutions, you have periodic crisis with revolution. To be sure these are not just any old crisis of capital imperialism, but things on the level of World War. It brings me back to my point on the “spiral-conjuncture theory”… if you pull on the ends hard enough its still a straight line. And Avakian and the RCP have a tendency to always pull on the ends quite hard in their analysis of the global and domestic situation.
Overall, Avakian’s take on the international question is both one-sided and self-serving.
Mike E said
I think you are digging into an important point.
I don’t think the connection of the revolutions in India and Nepal are a “non issue” — i think it remains THE issue. It is a source of great controversy between the two parties there, and it is a contradiction that has given rise to the Nepali Maoists’ decision to maneuver in a number of ways (to broaden their support before seizing power, to neutralize or even attract parts of the former-Royal Army on an anti-Indian basis, to draw other parties to their eventual government, and to find ways to blunt the Indian government’s ability to find excuses.)
Even if the Indian revolution can’t (at the moment) play a major role in the Nepali approach to power — it clearly will play a major role in their ability to hold power. And the forms of “support” from a socialist (or New Democratic) Nepal extended to a revolution in India are going to be the focus of sharp struggle.
There are a number of questions:
1) First, overall, because of the nature of modern capitalist society (its market, the intensely intertwined nature of world production, the existance of highly mobile imperial armies, etc.) the revolutionary process is fundamentally global. Some comrades say “we either all get to communism or none of us do” — and this is true. But there are also more immediate ways the process confronts us demanding internationallism.
2) There is a question of how smaller countries can make revolution. It is one thing to “build socialism in one country” — if that country is the USSR (with 1/6 the earths land surface) or China (with a quarter of the world’s people) — and even there we have seen the difficulty of continuing on the socialist road in part because of external pressures (Hitler in 1939, the Soviet imperialists in 1970). But how do you build socialism if your country is puerto rico, or nicaragua, or zimbabwe, or Nepal? The idea of envisioning larger socialist federations is an important one raised by the Nepali Maoists (and others with them), and earlier by people like Carpio in Central America.
If Mugabe had seen his Zimbawean revolution as a radical fuse for all of southern Africa (rather than making his compromises with Ian Smith and the white landowners) history might have been different in Africa.
3) Avakian raised that there has been a mechanical view of “internal and external” that assumes that the nation state sets the main dividing between that inside-outside divide (i.e. China had internal contradictions, and the world war was external conditions). But in fact, I believe the situation is far more complex and dynamic than the schema Mao assumed (though Mao was perhaps correctly focusing on that divide 70 years ago at the very start of the global anti-colonialist wave!) I think it is one of the places where Avakian asks some of the correct questions, but does not succeed in actually creating the correct synthesis. His rather simple view of all nationalism as inherently bourgeois (with its rather fundamental break with Mao, not just Ho Chi Minh!) is something to re-examine critically. (Are there times when, as mao said “Patriotism is applied internationalism”? IN national liberation struggles? In socialist countries under attack? How absolute is the divide between patriotism as an ideology and national united front as a political strategy/alignment?)
4) I believe we do (as communists and revolutionaries) have to proceed from humanity overall first. (In the sense of the conditions, interests and future of the broad masses of oppressed humanity as they actually live and suffer — not mainly in the sense of some abstracted human species view).
This humanity first view particularly relevant and important in the U.S. (where people are trained to think of international events and economics in terms of “how does it affect me, my job, prices of my goods, my security etc.” If we are to develop a revolutionary movement in the U.S. this is something we have to stress — it is a powerful argument in our favor, and significant numbers of people are prepared to look at “the whole world first” and “humanity first” in an unprecendented way. The crisis developments in the biosphere and the further undermining of nation states (and national markets) by the new leaps in globalization — all create new material bases for internationalism (that is not viewed as merely an extension of “working class solidarity” or “solidarity among resistance movements” across national borders — but as a major rupture in thinking from “whats in it for me” to “we are all in this together across the planet.”
It is also a basis for new breaks from “working class identity politics” (sometimes called economism or workerism) — which gets revealed as something cramped, narrow, and based on an expanded conception of “self-interest.”
Zerohour: expans on some of your points: how is BA’s point “self-serving,” how do you perceive dogmatism?
Ulises: I suspect there is a lot of “indirect response” to the 9 Letters in this presentation (including in just the snippets I have been able to see so far. And how can there not be given the crisis that surrounds the RCP inside and out (and not just because of, or limited to, the politics of the 9 Letters).
Jaroslav said
1) I just checked my e-mail & there was a message from Revolution newspaper which contained info on further New Synthesis events, & it still had the ‘billions’ sentence, it was not corrected.
2) One thing which I do agree with BA on is what he said in Conquer the World?, that socialist states should be seen as base areas, i.e. one tries to protect them & advance socialism within their borders as much as possible, but at the same time one must be willing to temporarily sacrifice them in order to make an advance in the larger global revolution.
3) On Nepal & India…
a. The AWTWNS article puts out that in the event of Nepali Maoist seizure of power &/or intervention by Indian Army, this could spark upsurge in regional support for revolution. Note that it’s only ‘could’, I wouldn’t support just blindly surging ahead in hopes of such rescue. The Indian Maoists are quite strong in regions bordering Nepal. This would mean that, at least on the ground, Indian Army would have to go through them to get to Nepal. Also remember Royal Nepal Army had a bunch of hype, but was nowhere near as effective as predicted (by all sides, including the Maoists). Similarly Indian Army’s attempt to deal with Sri Lanka & LTTE ended in failure. They’d also have to deal with the fact that going into Nepal would mean backing away from Pakistan & Kashmir. I’m not at all saying this would be smooth sailing for the revolutionaries, but just pointing out the paper-ness of the expansionist paper tiger.
b. In terms of federations, remember there was the Xinjiang Autonomous region of China (which however is minority nationality area), that is along the border with Russian Empire, & was liberated many years before the seizure of power in China. On the other hand, the USSR also didn’t include the entire Russian Empire (& some areas like the Baltic states, did join but not at the beginning).
c. India is a very multinational country. In fact there was a problem in history of communist movement in India, where some forces thought there could only be a sum of national revolutions (under communist leadership), i.e. a Tamil revolution, a Panjabi revolution, a Marathi revolution, a Telugu revolution, etc ad infinitum. On the other hand, like a great many places in the world, the country borders actually divide nations: Panjabis & Kashmiris are split between Pakistan & India; Bengalis are split between ‘Bangladesh’ (East Bengal as the Maoists call it) & Indian state of West Bengal; the great bulk of Hindi people are in India but make up a sizeable minority in Nepal’s Tarai (Madhesh) region also. (I think Tamil Nadu in India & Tamil Eelam on Sri Lanka is a bit different since they’re separated by water as well as country border.)
d. So taking points b & c together, it’s quite possible for a South Asia revolutionary federation to develop which is not including of the entire region right from the start.
ulises276/2 said
Well I think the indirect response would relate to criticisms of pragmatism, but this same criticism, I think, is directed at anyone who isn’t on board with the Avakian Express.
In fact, the plain failures and obvious set up for more failures for the RCP seem to be taken as PROOF that they are not being pragmatic, and are thus ultimately right. Just as they point out the length of time in rectifying the line on homosexuality positively indicated that they are not pragmatic, and don’t go whichever way the wind blows (though I actually believe that there is a strong wind of pragmatism coming out of the RCP).
In this respect the Nepalese are being “pragmatic” when they try to maneuver in relation to the bourgeoisie and the Indian state, as opposed to simply charging into Kathmandu and inviting the invasion of India (something which would likely lead to failure, but would definitely not be pragmatic, at least from the Nepalese perspective).
Likewise, any questioning of how the theory of the New Synthesis, and Bob’s leadership here in the U.S. has advanced the revolutionary movement, is viewed as coming from a “narrow” and pragmatic viewpoint.
Which brings me back to something which was said in relation to Stalin during Lenny Wolfe’s talk:
“Stalin had an a priori assumption that once agriculture had been mechanized, once they had tractors, and once production had in the main been put under socialized ownership in the 30′s there would no longer be antagonistic classes in Soviet society, but struggle nonetheless continued. Since Stalin’s a priori model of a socialist society without class antagonisms… he was led to conclude that all opposition must be the work of agents or imperialists”
The RCP has an a priori assumption that Avakian’s synthesis is correct. Therefore all critics of it must be either parasitic wreckers, or viewing the issue from a narrow and pragmatic perspective.
I would add that this kind of thinking does not engender a debate, discussion or wrangling, no matter how much you say you want one. And indeed there was no “wild and wooly debate” at this carefully controlled event, where one critic was barred from entrance, and questions were not directly answered (instead favoring to redirect people to the writings and speeches of Bob Avakian).
Mike E said
Jaroslav writes:
It is true that the Indian Maoists have some activity and strength in areas bordering on Nepal — but let’s not be naive that their guerrilla bands would represent a force that the Indian Army “would have to go through” in any sense of a serious challenge. I suspect the Nepali Maoist thought deep and hard about the practicality of that “could” — not just acknowledging the possibility, but actually quantifying the likelihood (or unlikelihood in any near term crisis).
* * * * *
On the question of Conquer the World, the 9 Letters say: “We should be fans of Conquer the World. It opened doors toward a materialist examination of the history of communism by communists.”
And part of what is worth taking seriously is this discussion you raise:
zerohour said
“Zerohour: expans on some of your points: how is BA’s point “self-serving,” how do you perceive dogmatism?”
Let me begin that I don’t know exactly what Avakian’s line on Nepal is. We have all been inferring from the RCP’s silence, suggestive hints from Nepal and RCP, and his overall methodology. While we can triangulate and extrapolate a credible line, it is my opinion that we have no more than strong impressions.
I see dogmatism as the stubborn adherence to a viewpoint in the face of challenges from either contradictory evidence or a plausible alternative logic. If it is in fact Avakian’s position that all socialist revolutions can only be implemented by armed struggle, this would reflect an unwillingness, or even inability, to not only look at the particulars of Nepal, but to appreciate the particulars of others who have attempted an electoral road to socialism and failed, like Allende. Some obvious differences between Chile and Nepal, are obviously: the CPN has engaged in people’s war, has it’s own army and base areas, has hegemony in the countryside and are in a stronger position to dictate the terms of struggle. As far as I know, the CPN has not taken armed struggle off the table.
As for my point about being self serving, it was in reference to Ulises: “They seemed to suggest that it is the responsibility of the Nepalese to seize power in a very specific way, even if that means massive bloodshed and ultimate failure, as it would benefit the global revolution (perhaps qualitatively changing the ability to maneuver in the imperialist centers).” Even if this were Avakian’s conclusion, the point itself was not beyond discussion.
Ulises said: “What I mean by this is that extricating what is the primary part of the contradiction between national and international revolution is not a simple matter, and that it is the particularities that define which is primary or not at any given time, and in what way they are primary or secondary.”
I agree with this. I just wasn’t sure if you were negating one aspect of the argument too hastily, only to replace it with another one over-emphasizing the national aspect.
Mike E said
Zerohour writes:
First of all you may (speaking for yourself) not know what the RCP’s line is on Nepal (because it has not been published). You may be working on impressions and triangulation. But that does not mean that there aren’t people all over the world who are much more familiar with those disputes, polemics and documents.
Put another way: You should not assume that because you are working with impressions and triangulations that everyone in this discussion is similarly unfamiliar with actual positions and polemics.
On the question of “self-serving”: I do not believe that Avakian would urge a rash advance in a country like Nepal because it might serve the interests of a revolution in the U.S. I just don’t believe the motives of people in the RCP are so crass or narrow. I think their views are the views of revolutionaries who genuinely want to see the greatest advance possible for revolution in the world, and are struggling (as we are) to understand how that best could happen. I believe that their line gives them a dogmatic and idealist view of how such advances happen — and they are operating with a rather marked overestimation of their own ability to discern right from wrong in distant, complex and very particular situations.
zerohour said
“You should not assume that because you are working with impressions and triangulations that everyone in this discussion is similarly unfamiliar with actual positions and polemics.”
Fair enough.
I don’t remember if you or anyone else has answered this, but why don’t they make the line on Nepal public?
JJM+ said
Zerohour, I think Mike has said it( I hope I’m correct): we and even RCP cadre are being kept on an information diet. The Party’s politics have in a sense like this become self-isolating. I don’t care what twists and turns that Party takes, but they are displaying a reversal from basic proletarian internationalism.
tellnolies said
tellnolies said
Apparently I can’t post anything here without demonstrating my own illiteracy in XHTML.
The above is a response to”
“Q7.- The New Synthesis critiques inevitabilism but thinkers like Lukacs, Gramsci and Althusser had already made such critiques; how do their ideas relate to the NS?
A7.- Read the “Conversations…” book; Avakian wants to meet thinkers halfway, Party wants to engage their ideas”
The Cold Lamper said
Mike wrote: “It is one thing to “build socialism in one country” — if that country is the USSR (with 1/6 the earths land surface) or China (with a quarter of the world’s people) — and even there we have seen the difficulty of continuing on the socialist road in part because of external pressures (Hitler in 1939, the Soviet imperialists in 1970). But how do you build socialism if your country is puerto rico, or nicaragua, or zimbabwe, or Nepal?”
Or, one might add, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam or (half of) Korea.
This is a common sticking point in dealing with apologists for the revisionists in those countries. It’s not a justification for betrayal of the revolution (although it’s questionable in Cuba’s case in particular — Castro didn’t even claim to be a communist until Dec. ’61, etc. — if they would have been able to move from New Democracy to socialism in the first place), but it’s still a pressing problem that hasn’t been handled well enough in the Maoist movement up until this point.
One of my favorite lines in CTW is Avakian’s observation that “Just to say that it’s been proven and settled historically that socialism is possible in one country—even if we unbeg the question by coming to a deep understanding of what socialism is and say that there is a real socialist road and it’s possible to go and stay on the socialist road, at least for a significant distance, to use the analogy of a road—it still hasn’t even been settled that it’s possible to have socialism in absolutely every country under every circumstance. The fact that it’s been possible to do it in certain countries in certain times doesn’t prove it’s possible to have socialism in every “one country” at all times.”
This leaped out at me when I was rereading CTW fairly recently — more so than any of my previous readings of CTW — not just because of Cuba et. al., but because of how it pertains to Nepal, which has a whole set of other problems not faced by Peru, the Philippines or the aforementioned revisionist countries (being landlocked, for one thing). But perhaps not surprisingly, the RCP (AFAIK) never followed through on this subject. Maybe bending the stick was unavoidable in the 1980s, when Cuba was still a Soviet point-man in the Americas, making it particularly urgent to expose Castroism’s fundamentally counterrevolutionary nature…but we need to do better now.
Apologies if my writing sounds a bit unclear or stilted, I’m really fucking tired…
Hanel cung cấp dịch vụ sửa chữa tại nhà và cơ quan said
Hanel cung cấp dịch vụ sửa chữa tại nhà và cơ quan…
[...]Unofficial Notes: On the RCP’s March 9 Synthesis « Kasama[...]…