Official Notes: RCP’s “Political Truth” about Synthesis Event
Posted by Mike E on March 17, 2008
This website has hosted some detailed reporting, discussion, and an outline of points covering the RCP’s March 9 event in NYC. Now, a week later, here comes the RCP’s own summation of the event. Their article (posted in full below) focuses on turnout. So ok, let’s focus on turnout for a moment.
They say 220 people attended. That seems accurate. To evaluate that turnout, let’s start with context: The RCP has done political work in New York City for over thirty years. Over the past year, the RCP has been moving many of its organizers and “heaviest hitters” into New York City. The focus of their special concentration is to breath some life into their “Engage Avakian” campaign — in the elite colleges (eg. Columbia), in a few select working class communities (eg. Harlem Revolution Club), and generally among the politically interested. March 9 was a nodal point and manifestation of that effort. And the RCP’s article says they went all out — contacting thousands of people for March 9 etc.
We have to ask: What does it mean, that after 30+ years of political presence in NYC, after a year of focus on promoting Avakian, after appearances by the RCP’s well-known figures, after focus on the academics and public intellectuals, after leafleting “dozens of high school and college classes,” and so on…. what does it mean that the RCP was only able (by their own count) to gather 220 people (including their own cadre) for this first public unveiling of Avakian’s synthesis?
Instead of asking such questions themselves, the RCP’s article lists social groupings represented in the audience and quotes diverse individuals — all to give an impression of both success and potential. The article wraps up with a set of claims:
“More major events are scheduled in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco on March 22. The New York City event shows both the tremendous importance of these talks, and the big basis for them to connect. “
Does anyone believe this is true?
Was this a “major event”? Are “more major events” going to happen on March 22? Did this NYC turnout really show “the tremendous importance of these talks”? Did it really reveal “the big basis” for similar events “to connect”? Doesn’t it, in fact, show the opposite?
A moment of comparison: There actually was a MAJOR presentation in NYC that week. On March 11, the left philosopher Slavoj Žižek spoke to a packed auditorium at the CUNY Graduate Center. His theme was “Resist, Attack, Undermine… Where Are We 40 Years After ’68?” Tickets were sold out long before that night. The overflow crowds watched video feeds from surrounding rooms. What happens if we compare Žižek’s talk to Wolff’s (in terms of influence, impact, excitement of listeners and in the ability of ideas to actually connect)?
In Letter 3 of the 9 Letters, we describe the situation: “In some important ways, the masses of people have always remained ‘out there’ for this party — as something separate, distant, unresponsive, and very disappointing.” Why is the RCP endlessly claiming its own POTENTIAL “to connect” — but never ACTUALLY connecting? There is only one way you could believe March 9 was “major” is if you assume that ANYTHING connected to Bob Avakian is (by definition) “historic.”
In short, this official article doesn’t make an objective assessment of this March 9 event. It doesn’t dare contemplate what this event reveals about the party’s larger inability to actually “connect.”And it certainly doesn’t consider the causes of continuing failures — or the ways they are rooted in the flaws of the new synthesis itself. This article is an example of precisely the kind of shaded “political truth” that the RCP claims to reject.
The article reports that “a young Mexicano fast food worker” felt that what stood out to him “is that people were challenging the speaker and not just accepting everything he said.” Writing this in their paper is a calculated and defensive un-truth — since the RCP is so obviously neckdeep in whateverism. In fact, the RCP doesn’t dare speak simple truths about its work — and it doesn’t tolerate anyone who does. One comrade (who was barred at the door to challenge to the speaker) wrote the following:
“For those following these discussions in the cities where this season’s edition of the Bob Avakian Show has yet to play – my advice: ATTEND THE EVENT. Listen, take it in. Ask your questions too. And if you think they are going to change this channel any time soon. You are mistaken. ATTEND. Listen to the rap, its twists and turns and insistence. Will this synthesis and method 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 or 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 the critical thinking that allows us to separate truth from a truth claim?”
* * * * *
From Revolution Newspaper
New York City: March 9 Presentation on Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis
A Journey into Possibilities of a New World
Sunday afternoon, March 9, in New York City: 220 people made their way to hear the first in a series of talks around the country: “Re-envisioning Revolution and Communism: What Is Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis?”
The event promised the first popular presentation of Bob Avakian’s new synthesis—what Avakian himself, in his talk “Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity,” has called his “recasting and recombining of the positive experience so far of the communist movement and of socialist society, while learning from the negative aspects of this experience.” People heard about it from internet listings or radio announcements, or a flyer or poster. But most who came were among the hundreds and thousands who were reached by revolutionary activists, friends, and others who spread the word and kicked off debate and discussion in just a few short weeks before the event.
Youth came from the neighborhoods and high schools of Harlem, Brooklyn, and Washington, D.C. And there were also people who work with youth—teachers, mental health workers, and those involved in social programs—who are up against trying to keep a generation out of the meatgrinder of this system. Revolution Books staff people and young revolutionaries had visited dozens of high school and college classes in the weeks before the program to invite students and teachers, and to start opening up the questions that were going to be addressed, and to get out flyers and posters. One high school teacher showed the “Imagine” section of the DVD talk by Bob Avakian, Revolution: Why It’s Necessary, Why It’s Possible, What It’s All About, which captures what state power in the hands of the people can accomplish, and studied sections of Avakian’s “Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity” series with his students.
People from World Can’t Wait were there, along with university students studying Marxist philosophy. Ex-Black Panthers and other veterans of revolutionary struggles, who now find themselves challenged by Avakian’s re-envisioned revolution and communism, turned out. Two out-of-state high school students drove several hours each way after being encouraged to come by their teacher. One crew of youth kicked up a raucous argument about communism and revolution in the subway car back to Brooklyn, and has been debating and telling others what they missed in the days since. Revolution Club members built for the program and also came with a range of questions about what the new society would be like and how to get there.
Just about everybody who came followed the two-hour talk intently. They got a vital and gripping journey into the possibilities for a whole different world—and a different way of thinking and approaching the world, and of transforming it. Lenny Wolff’s presentation addressed Chairman Avakian’s synthesis of the methods and experience so far of communists leading people to understand and revolutionize the world, on three levels: philosophically, politically, and in the realm of strategy for revolution, especially in a country like this. Wolff explained that Avakian’s new synthesis comes out of 30 years of hard, scientific work—and that one afternoon could only hope to introduce people to some of the major outlines of it. The point is to give people a sense and a springboard to get more deeply into this work.
The presentation involved a high level of science—but that’s necessary, as emcee Sunsara Taylor told the audience in her introduction of the speaker, if you’re really serious about revolution. She explained that there would be parts of the speech that everyone could relate to, and parts that people would have to—and did—stretch and strain for. The seriousness with which people responded, and the hunger of most people to stay as long as they could to discuss and debate—people went at it for nearly three hours of question-and-answer and then free-form discussion after the speech—bore out that there are a lot of people who are way past ready to get this new synthesis. Indeed, it is up to communists, and revolutionary-minded people more generally, to take it out there and engage people with this.
A carload of suburban anti-war and World Can’t Wait activists told about their excited conversation on the way home and one of them remarked, “This is a road map to get out of this shit… This is not just mouthing off about the system. Get on the road. This is not just saying that the system is fucked up but this is a way out.”
One New York City youth wanted to know how to join the revolution and how the revolution will bring forward a new generation. He said, “We need more young people, because the young people need to know what’s needed to be done to get there…. We let, including us young people, including myself, we let society get the best of us. We’re so used to the bling, we’re so used to wearing the clothes, whatever, that’s all basically getting us away from what’s really happening… Everything he said made sense. He broke it down in a logical, scientific way, and he also did it on the effect on society, on the lower levels. So he basically touched on everything, so people would hear this and it would really change their minds…. There’s a lot of youth that don’t like what’s going on here, or in other countries…. There are so many kids in the Brooklyn schools and the Manhattan schools that have to deal with the metal detectors and all that. If you reached out to them, they would join the program.”
Many commented about how sweeping the presentation was, and that it “challenged people to think on a whole other level,” as one middle-aged woman put it. A graduate student in international public health said, “It was incredibly interesting and wide‑ranging. I really got a sense of what Avakian is doing that is new, and it is really needed in terms of an alternate vision for the world.”
A young Mexicano fast food worker said he had to come because he considers himself a communist and it means a lot to him and to people around the world that there is a party that could lead a revolution in this country. What stood out to him about the program is that people were challenging the speaker and not just accepting everything he said. “Criticism of this sort actually helps the party,” he said. “This is what I expected to see, people coming to learn more about Avakian and to see if revolution is actually possible and how it is possible.”
Some experienced and scientific communists who have been following Avakian’s work remarked that the speech showed the living interconnections between the philosophical, political, and strategic dimensions on a level they had not quite grasped before. One compared it to the work of T.H. Huxley to popularize Charles Darwin’s thesis to a broad audience. This speech started to do just that: and many looked into Avakian’s works (which were referenced in the speech) at the Revolution Books table, and a special pre-release of his new book, Away With All Gods! Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World, sold out on the spot.
Young people from the neighborhoods—one of whom quietly asked some revolutionary leaders if they believed “in their heart of hearts” that a revolution like this could really happen in this country—are still debating, wrangling over the concepts of the speech. Two nights later, 70 people came to Revolution Books for a follow-up session with Raymond Lotta focusing on the accomplishments and shortcomings of the socialist societies up to now—and the vistas opened up by Avakian’s new synthesis. And various groups of people are getting together for more discussion, making plans for taking revolution and communism out to the people, and doing events in Spanish and in the neighborhoods and schools.
More major events are scheduled in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco on March 22. The New York City event shows both the tremendous importance of these talks, and the big basis for them to connect. To our readers: not only should you be sure to come to these events, you should do all you can to take this to people you know and bring them out. And watch the pages of Revolution for follow-up reporting.
saoirse said
summations anyone? was anyone at the Slavoj Žižek event at the grad center?
zerohour said
In a sense, it’s pointless for them to report on the content of the talk since it’s almost exactly what’s in print already. What’s left to talk about if not attendance and morale? This is something I did not get a handle on since I did not talk to people in the audience. It’s possible that the article is correct in a general sense, after all, Party critics don’t make it a priority to attend Party events, so it’s almost a given that the overwhelming response will be positive. Some criticism was expressed in the Q&A which was not referred to in the article, except obliquely:
“A young Mexicano fast food worker said he had to come because he considers himself a communist and it means a lot to him and to people around the world that there is a party that could lead a revolution in this country. What stood out to him about the program is that people were challenging the speaker and not just accepting everything he said. “Criticism of this sort actually helps the party,” he said.”
Nowhere in the article is there an example of this criticism, either during or after the official event. Considering that the flyer invites us to “wrangle over all this”, you’d think they’d actually provide an account of this. Instead, what we have is a narrative that sounds like a successful tent revival.
“Some experienced and scientific communists who have been following Avakian’s work remarked that the speech showed the living interconnections between the philosophical, political, and strategic dimensions on a level they had not quite grasped before. One compared it to the work of T.H. Huxley to popularize Charles Darwin’s thesis to a broad audience.”
Please.
matigari said
Sad, but hardly unexpected. I agree with Zerohour but I want to add a comment to the thing he cited:
“Some experienced and scientific communists who have been following Avakian’s work remarked that the speech showed the living interconnections between the philosophical, political, and strategic dimensions on a level they had not quite grasped before. One compared it to the work of T.H. Huxley to popularize Charles Darwin’s thesis to a broad audience.”
As 9-Letters pointed out the RCP’s “analysis” on the rise of fascism in the US was a bit thin & pointed to the need for some historical analysis of the rise of Nazism. I had raised my apprehensions about 9-Letters from the beginning of my contact with this site over this point because political economic questions were not raised in connection with the historical analysis. I think the analysis of the economic compulsion behind what 9-Letters labels as fascization is primary over the analysis of the Nazi experience, though one both are necessary.
Today, I heard an important radio interview on the KPFA show, Guns & Butter, with Wesley Tarpley, an economic historian. I have been working on an assessment of the status of the economy from the standpoint of fundamentals—the currents in the deep recesses of the river that reveal themselves in the turbulent foam on its surface. However Tarpley took on exactly this topic–which means I should wait till I see his detailed analysis in print. You can hear him using this link:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25366
I think the RCP’s analysis should have been at least as deep as Tarpley’s (assuming he actually fleshes out more thoroughly in writing, what he sketches in his interview-I have no doubt that he will, given what I know of his track record).
He first sketched out why he thought we were facing a massive economic disintegration & hyperinflation. He then compared the neocon strategy of today, based upon the economic compulsion they face with what the Nazis were facing in Germany. He then went on to draw parallels in the strategies. While some of his details might be off, overall, he made a compelling case that was well worth considering.The range of factors he considered was wider than what you usually find among economists & he examines the crisis not just on the level of finances but more fundamentally on the level of production–which to me makes him better than Roubini.
This is the kind of thing that I was hoping to get started on Kasama–analysis in this kind of direction. Tarpley’s interview, when contrasted with the RCP’s chest-thumping–”scientific communists who have been following Avakian’s work remarked that the speech showed the living interconnections between the philosophical, political, and strategic dimensions on a level they had not quite grasped before.” shows what a sick joke it actually is. But I suppose if your view of science is merely the crudest kind of empiricism, then anything goes.
matigari said
Oops! I forgot.
Also, I was glad that Tarpley has at least a partial recognition of the (crypto-my terminology!) neocons in the Democrat party. However, his recognition of the elements of unity of Democrats with Republicans, partial though that unity may be, is not thorough enough & this constricts his analysis. For example, he never once raised the complex issue of the Brzezinski view of foreign policy around the question of oil & how it is note compatible with the neocons. So while he was quite willing to call Hillary a neocon–I prefer to call her a crypto-neocon—he does not call out Barack despite the fact that Brzezinski is Obama’s advisor on foreign policy. I think his blurred vision of what is happening in the Democratic party is, at bottom, related to the weakness of his proposal for how to get out of the crisis–a Rooseveltian New Deal in modern dress. Tarpley implies that the powers-that-be willfully turned away from Roosevelt’s Bill of Economic Rights & not that its embrace would be the economic equivalent of them committing group suicide.
BobH said
The link to the inteview says it’s an interview with Webster Tarpley. Googling around, I see he’s listed as the author of “Irangate, the secret government and the LaRouche case”, which is out of print but published by Executive Intelligence Review, which is the LaRouche press, isn’t it? His book on 9/11 looks pretty flaky too, judging by the blurb.
I’m not a fan of guilt by association, but I’m not sure I’d take him too seriously after seeing that.