Skip to main content

"All Played Out"

Recently, Workers Dreadnought has been posting a series on Bob Avakian's so-called "new synthesis."  Although many of us in the international maoist movement, just like so many communists and leftists in general, have dismissed the "new synthesis" for being neither "new" or "synthetic", there has not been many sustained attempts at engaging all of its claims.  And though non-engagement might be a viable strategy when it comes to hair-brained attempts at new grand universalizing revolutionary theories (for it is often to pay these theories no attention and let them die as they probably will), there is some worth in engaging with the RCP-USA's "new synthesis."  Not because there is necessarily any worth in engaging with an organization that has degenerated into a religious cabal––you won't convince dogmatists that their dogma is wrong with critical thinking––but because of the damage and confusion this theoretical articulation has caused amongst the international maoist movement.  Thus, the Workers Dreadnought series is a welcome and useful engagement and has so far done a very thorough job of pointing out the limitations, the lack of depth, and the failure of Avakian's theory to be anything remarkably new or synthetic.

Generally, when we critique the RCP-USA we tend to focus on their form rather than the content of their thought.  The weakest point to attack is the cult-like manner in which they have grouped themselves around a man who was never entirely relevant to the revolutionary scene in America, though he imagined himself to be another Lenin.  This is, arguably, the most obvious way to dismiss a group that claims it is relevant; after all, it is hard to take a group of people who launch "away with all gods" campaigns seriously when they appear to worship their chairman.  A revolutionary group that resembles the Moonies seems somewhat silly (especially when they spend time and money posting their pope's head all over the place and even at Burning Man) and so it is quite easy to dismiss them through a simple rejection of the Bob Avakian cult of personality.

And yet the potential silliness of the Avakian cult, because it is their obvious weakness, is what the RCP-USA is always prepared to defend.  If you've ever spoken to a young Avakianite cadre about this problem you are probably familiar with their counter-argument: the charge of "cult of personality" is a bourgeois and reactionary charge that has always been used to dismiss communism, thus by making it you are a bourgeois and reactionary, and anyways Bob Avakian is like Lenin.  Yes, I know this is simplifying their counter-argument, but it really breaks down to this logical fallacy.  Of course, it generally doesn't work to: a) fostering cults of personality only provide bourgeois reactionaries with more anti-communist fodder; b) maybe cults of personality themselves are bourgeois and have had a negative effect on worldwide communist movements (i.e. think Hoxha, think Gonzalo); c) and the comparison between Avakian and Lenin has no historical basis.  The problem with cultists, like Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, is that they really aren't good at listening to arguments.  Once you've deviated from the talking points they have in their how-to-argue-with-the-unconverted guidebooks (i.e. Bullets or BAsics), they get confused and start yammering on about principles and their revolution, and etcetera.

Like a fundamentalist christian group or a cult, the RCP-USA falsely believes it is being persecuted.

Thus, it is far more worthwhile to engage with the theory (or, in the case of the "new synthesis", the lack of theory) that overdetermines the form of these cabals.  Such an engagement, it must be said, will not be useful in convincing dogmatists of their erroneous thinking (fanatics are always difficult to sway) but could help in producing a critical understanding amongst the broader revolutionary left about why a group like the RCP-USA is the way it is, why it no longer can even claim to be the vanguard in the USA, and perhaps teaching us something about avoiding the theoretical pitfalls that produce these degenerating groups.

If anything, these types of critiques reveal how bankrupt these groups are when they reply and publicly prove that they are incapable of critical thinking.  Take, for example, the second Workers Dreadnought post on the "new synthesis" where the Avakianites have started to respond in the comments string.  Not one of these comments engages with the critique; instead they attack the author with dogmatic pronouncements and condemnations.  This is probably because the people issuing these comments don't really understand the "new synthesis" themselves.

The first comment argues that by attacking Bob Avakian's "new synthesis", Workers Dreadnought is helping the reactionaries.  First of all, one has to assume that Avakian represents a significant threat to the reactionaries before being able to claim that any attack on his theory helps reactionaries, and judging by the sorry state of the RCP-USA, this is doubtful––chances are, the very existence of the RCP-USA helps the reactionaries because it makes revolutionary communists look silly, it proves the bourgeois reactionary claim that communism is "the same as any other religion", and its behaviour on the international scene in the most recent years (where its chauvinism led to the collapse of the Revolutionary International Movement) has armed worldwide reaction.  Even still, is arguing against a possible revolutionary thinker helping reactionaries?  Lenin, who Avakian is supposedly the reincarnation of, didn't think so––he welcomed the critique of Luxemburg and other communists, and was always willing to exchange polemics with principled comrades, because it sharpened his theory.  Hell, Mao even said "to be attacked is a good thing."  And it is important to note that the author of Workers Dreadnought even replies to a later comment by saying "I am every other communist who argued with Lenin when he was alive, leader or rank-and-file, and whom he had to win over to his positions."  But since I think Avakian is closer to a revisionist than a revolutionary, I would say that any principled and thoughtful critique on Avakian is actually similar (though maybe history repeating as farce) to Luxemburg's attacks on Kautsky.  This type of critique actually helps revolutionaries rather than reactionaries: it is important to struggle against revisionist theory.

Then is the typical and predictable lapses into comparing Avakian with Lenin.  Yes, every ideological party formation imagines that their leader is akin to Lenin, and I suppose these leaders fantasize every night about leading revolutions, but simply believing that this is the fact does not make it so.  Furthermore, I would imagine that a comparison between Avakian and Lenin would require a knowledge of Lenin and Lenin's theoretical-practical accomplishments.  Unfortunately, I have yet to meet a contemporary RCP-USA cadre who seems to have even read Lenin (and I must point out that older members, from decades ago, are quite well-read), let alone Marx or Mao or anyone else in the realm of marxist theory except for Bob Avakian and other RCP-USA ideologues.  Simply put: you can't compare someone to a someone with whom you have no familiarity.  It would be like me saying: that guy plays his instrument like Louis Armstrong without ever having heard Armstrong play.

Besides, it is not Lenin the man who matters but leninism and this theoretical development of marxism was only proved after the fact of revolution: Avakian cannot have his Avakianism before he leads a successful revolution and, anyways, as the cliche goes "the proof is in the pudding."  What has the RCP-USA done recently, not to mention historically, that even warrants this comparison?  Nothing.  And though their answer is that "the situation today in America is harder than it was in Lenin or Mao's time" (as if running a revolution against the Tsar, or against Chinese nationalists and Japanese fascists and imperialists was less difficult), this is a dodge because it is the same argument made by dogmatic Trotskyist groups such as the Spartacists in order to deflect from the fact that they haven't done anything except try to preserve a pure theory to agitate for revolution for a very long time.

But let us look, as some of the comments on that Workers Dreadnought post will claim, at what the Avakianites use to justify their leader's comparison with Lenin and the RCP-USA's status as the American vanguard.  Here it is: Bob Avakian was right about the degeneration of the revolution in Nepal.  Leaving aside the fact that he was probably "right" for the wrong reasons (oddly similar to the critiques made by Trotskyist groups about Nepal), since when does having a good analysis about another place in the world make you the most revolutionary leader?  I'm sure Tony Cliff made some right calls here and there about imperialism and failed revolutions in other countries, but that isn't a reason to accept that the Socialist Workers Party is the vanguard.  Noam Chomsky occasionally has some very good international analysis––should we all start a party with Chomsky as the chairman?  Generally, I think that the analysis of Nepal is constantly cited because the RCP-USA has sublimated the ideology of American imperialism and chauvinism, and this probably is why they spent more time building the RIM than building a movement in their own country: just as the US capitalists imagines it has the god-given right to dominate the world, the RCP-USA imagines it has the marx-given right to dominate the worldwide revolution.

To be fair, the RCP-USA has made some important contributions to the worldwide revolutionary movement.  It was one of the first parties to grasp that China under Deng was revisionist, it was one of the first parties to theorize "maoism" as a universal development of revolutionary science––and Avakian even systematized some of the important whys of this development––and, regardless of its international chauvinism, it did spearhead the building of the RIM which played an important role.  (Of course, it is also one of the reasons why the RIM collapsed.)

But how does being right about a few areas outweigh being wrong in so many other areas?  Does the fact that the RCP-USA was right about Deng outweigh the fact that it was disgustingly wrong about queer liberation to the point of trying to reeducate queer members, using homophobic language in speeches, and never even apologizing for this position aside to claim (in the early 2000s, demonstrating how backwards they were) that it is wrong to push a heterosexist line now (implying it was somehow alright then!)?  Does the fact that the RCP-USA was right about maoism in the 1970s mean that it was right about its behaviour in the Boston bussing crisis where they tailed the reactionary white racists?  Does the fact that the RCP-USA was correct in initiating the Revolutionary International Movement mean that it was correct in maintaining a chauvinist position, aiming all their activities at the international sphere, and allowing their movement to degenerate?

Point being, just like Bob Avakian's terrible attempt to be relevant in modern spoken-word/hip-hop, the RCP-USA is "all played out" even if its members, who are being pacified by a mental diet of Avakian books and nothing else, haven't figured it out.

Comments

  1. Insightful post. One of my best friends from high school started calling himself a "Maoist" and joined the RCP-USA a few years ago, and after hanging out with him I was totally stunned by his complete unfamiliarity with ANYTHING by Marx, Lenin, or Mao that hadn't been paraphrased in one of Avakian's books. It's particularly sad because he is genuinely dedicated to revolutionary politics, but is on this totally fucked party info-diet that omits anything from M-L-M that could potentially contradict Avakian's theorizing, not to mention Fanon, Cabral, Bettelheim, Amin, Dworkin, Sakai, Lee, etc. I also mentioned some communist blogs I read regularly, including this one and Worker's Dreadnought, and he was totally in the dark about the existence of a Maoist web presence outside of the RCP-USA's terrible website. I think what this speaks to is the lack of genuinely revolutionary alternative in the United States; one of the RCP-USA's major recruiting techniques is to hype their (40 year old) connection to the Panthers and ask "What other party in the US is talking about communist revolution?", the obvious answer to which, aside from some small groups here and there, is "no one". That needs to change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, as much as the delusional behaviour of RCP-USA cadres seems silly, it is more sad than anything else. As for their connection to the Panthers, they pretty much pissed on that part of their past when they took a right opportunist line in the Boston bussing crisis and refused to organize against the white supremacist reaction to desegregation. Nor do I understand how anyone joining the RCP-USA now would even begin to call themselves a "maoist" when the "new synthesis" has removed Mao (as well as Lenin) from its ontology. The Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan calls them [disparagingly] "post-Maoist" and in this I think they are correct.

      Delete
    2. Bob Avakian makes an important contribution in his analysis that dissent is required within a Socialist Society.This was valid as in U.S.SR and even in China in the period of the Cultural Revolution,sufficient scope of debate or dissent was not promoted.This was particulalry true when you analyze the attacks on musicians,artists and poets in the G.P.C.R period.I respect Avakian's role in asserting that we have to refute all trends that negate the concept of proletarian dictatorship but silmuntaenously combat dogmatic trends and be more critical of mast mistakes in Socialist Societies in U.S.S.R.and China.

      However it is ridiculuos to evaluate that Bob Avakian has taken Marxism-Leninsm to a higher stage or Maoism.Mao Tse Tung Thought or Maoism as a higher stage was only esatablished afer Mao launched the Cultural Revolution where he implemented his theory of continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.Lenin's leading the Bolshevik Revolution and Mao's new democratic,Socialist and Cultural Revolution gave them the right for their thesis to be converted into an ism or higher stage.Infact the RCP,has declined in the last 2 decades,not able to establish any heeadquarters in the working class or building revolutionary mass structures.THe concept of solid core with great elasticity hardly defends Lenin and Mao's contributions to the defending of the concept of the dicataorship of the proletariat or continuous revolution in a Socialist Society.Without implementing the polemics of Lenin and Mao we will destroy the backbone of the Communist Movement The RCP in recent times is hardly supporting the peoples Wars worldwide.

      Infact the very defects lay in the foundation of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement that was formed pre-maturely.Unfortunately the looseness of the R.C.P.is refuted from a rightist trend like Kasama project.Although it promotes the concept of debate and dissent,it advocates multi-party system,rejects Leninist ideology and analyses Maoism as something different from Leninism and virtually negates the legacy or contribution of Stalin.Bob Avakain's concepts have to be refuted from a Marxist-Leninist stand.Can Avakian's concepts be applied to the Peoples Wars of the world today in Phillipines or India?

      Revolutionary cadres have to defend the backbone of Marxist Leninist ideology as Com.Harbhajan Singh Sohi of India did through his writings on Comrade Mao in 1979,defending his contribution to the dictatorship of the proletariat.Com.Sohi made a great contribution in combating the wrong trends within the International Communist Movement .

      Delete
    3. The problem with the contributions you've outlined in the first paragraph is that they are not, and have never been, original to Bob Avakian although he tends to act, just as he does with the so-called "new synthesis", that he came up with these ideas first. Nor do I see people in the RCP-USA as it exists now really having the mindset to uphold a dictatorship of the proletariat without being dogmatic: they are now as dogmatic as the cadre of a lot of insignificant Trotskyist cabals who react with fury when Bob Avakian is criticized and, incapable of responding to principled critiques, just call people names and repeat Avakian ad infinitum. If these are the kind of people that Avakian has gathered around himself (after purging everyone with half-a-brain in the RCP-USA's so-called "inner party cultural revolution") then any hope for a non-dogmatic trend within their imagined dictatorship of the proletariat is lost.

      Delete
  2. Is their any organization, internet discussion group, or periodical, in the United States, that is close ideologically to the Revolutionary Communist Party, Canada?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there are some, primarily in the New York area, that came out of the FRSO. If you email me, I can pass along your email to some of them.

      Delete
    2. How do people email you? I don't see an email listed on your profile or the About Me section

      Delete
    3. So that I can filter my emails and am not spammed, I have myself in the "followers" link on the side bar. The email goes through blogger first before appearing in my inbox. Email me from there.

      Delete
  3. Bob Avakian was right!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About what? And this is a rather vague assertion; a broken clock is right twice a day.

      Delete
  4. Could you provide some links or go into more detail about how it is that the RCP-USA contributed to the collapse of the RIM? I've been looking for a while for info on how exactly this occurred but information seems to be rather sparse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I have been spotty regarding this blog and so this comment was stuck in my moderation bin for a while. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there are no links I can provide… This is because this assessment is what certain groups of the collapsed RIM have been saying to each other, barring an organizational document, for a while. I learned this from speaking to people who were involved with those former RIM orgs that were critical of the RCP-USA's eventual behaviour but not too critical to dismiss the experience altogether. One of the reasons they never put this in a document is because they still debate whether it's an internal criticism or not, or what the worth would be of dragging it out into some sort of public arena. But you can get the sense of this conflict when you read, for example, the documents critical of the RCP-USA that are produced by the CmPA or the former Naxalbari Indian group that merged with the CPI(Maoist) [in particular Ajit's critique of "Avakianism"].

      Delete

Post a Comment