6
Nine Letters to Our Comrades
Letter 6: The Theory Surrounding “A Leader of This Caliber”
by Mike Ely
It would be one thing if Avakian’s many ideas were presented as hypotheses for exploration. But the RCP has articulated specific verdicts concerning leadership and synthesis:
- That human history — and specifically the world’s transition to communism — is shaped by the emergence of special leaders who transform the times in which they live.
- That Avakian can now be recognized as a leader “of the caliber” of “a Lenin or a Mao” — i.e., that he is a “rare, unique, and irreplaceable leader” who makes world-historic leaps in both theory and practice possible.[90]
- That the new synthesis for communism already exists now in the “body of work, method and approach” of Bob Avakian — a synthesis that is seen as still developing, but that is already fundamentally “there for the taking.”
- That this “appreciation” of Avakian and his synthesis is now formally a “cardinal question” for communists in the U.S., and a decisive question facing the world movement. [91]
- That it is theoretically possible for other leaders to emerge as communist leaders of historically special “caliber” (after all Marx had his Engels) — but that this is only possible on the basis of a real appreciation of Avakian’s synthesis. The basic method of communists, in the U.S. explicitly, must be to “race to catch up” with Avakian and “steep themselves” in his synthesis — not to vet each of his many still-unfolding theories critically and test them against reality.
- That once the emergence of this rare leader is grasped correctly there follows a whole sequence of strategic implications for the work of communists and the functioning of vanguard organization.
- And that communism (and by extension the future of humanity) “hangs by a thread.” In not-fully-formulated ways, that “thread” is Avakian and whether he is correctly appreciated (in the larger sense of that word) among communists and the people of the world.
These theses are newly articulated and newly adopted. [92] They reveal that the extreme forms and claims of the Party’s current cult of personality is not just a passing phase — but are foundational to Avakian’s newly articulated synthesis and worldview. These theories are now literally defining the party’s methods at the most fundamental level. They need to be brought fully into view and subjected to sharp criticism.
there is no law of history or biology that creates a special notch or “caliber” within humanity called “a Lenin” or “a Mao.” |
Revolution requires farsighted leadership. But there is no law of history or biology that creates a special notch or “caliber” within humanity called “a Lenin” or “a Mao” — as if some of us arrive stamped as .50 caliber shells and the rest show up as .22s or blanks. There is far more continuity and variation in the spectrum of human potential than that.
Julius Caesar was a history-making military dictator of Rome — but in the hands of his successor Augustus, “Caesar” went from being a man’s name to being a title. It was a bid for borrowed legitimacy. Should we really agree to turn the names of our leaders like Lenin and Mao into categories of stature?
Should we accept proposals from living revolutionary leaders that their “packages” of ideas and method be accepted whole, as comprehensive new overhauls of Marxism — for Gonzalo [93] to style himself as the “fourth sword of Marxism,” or for Avakian to view himself and his work as a “cardinal question”? Are these really the only (or the most likely) choices?
Isn’t it quite possible to be influential or creative in human events and not represent a correct new communist synthesis (as shown by Ho Chi Minh or Che Guevara)? Isn’t it possible to be a prominent and creative revolutionary leader and yet not be bringing Marxism to a new level (as shown by Charu Mazumdar, İbrahim Kaypakkaya or Zhang Chunqiao) [94] ? Isn’t it possible to have a positive impact in one period, and fall seriously short in another (as might be said about Joseph Stalin)? Isn’t it possible to probe important questions without solving some of the key problems or reaching a new synthesis of Marxism? And isn’t it possible to make contributions in one realm of theory or practice, while falling far short in another?
Avakian is alive and engaged. We can expect new amendments and developments for his synthesis to be announced regularly, for years to come — and new initiatives into practice as well. Some things criticized here, in these letters, may yet be modified with new layers of caveat and nuance. And some of his insights may be proven correct by future practice.
But it is wrong to declare that a coherent new leap in Marxism is taking shape (or that the core of it is already “there for the taking.”) And it is especially wrong when there are major flaws and gaps running deep in the synthesis now being put forward.
In addition: Our verdict need not be “either/or” — is our only choice that Avakian is “a new Mao” or a new Kautsky [95] ? No. A later assessment might well reveal that Avakian is comparable to the 19th century’s Daniel DeLeon, who established an early Marxist pole in the U.S. but whose schematic ideas condemned his party to relative marginalization. Or that Avakian may one day appear to us as the abolitionist John Brown, whose passionate belief in the emancipation of slaves drove him toward revolution, but whose sectarian grandiosity left him with only a handful of followers (while millions of people around him were on the verge of waging a revolutionary war).
Throughout history, leaders (of many classes) left unique marks on their times. [96] There are moments in history when movements will fall apart and fail if key leaders are “neutralized” (which obviously means that they are functionally irreplaceable).
But leaders can claim to be “special” in ways they are not. And the importance of key leaders can be exaggerated in ways that promote a false theory of history that (among other things) denies the role of the masses.
For example, Avakian’s synthesis misstates how exceptional leaders are forged, and denigrates therole of revolutionary practice in the development of both theory and leadership.
Revolutionary communist leaders are fundamentally a product of the struggle of the broad masses of people, especially (but not solely) of movements they actually lead. It is not the “emergence” of “rare and special” people that “repolarizes” the political alignments of society in ways that make revolutionary change possible. The objective emergence of deep social fissures and the collective struggles of the people to make fundamental change have more to do with the “emergence” of great leaders than the other way around. [97]
One comrade wrote:
“Lenin and Mao became Lenin and Mao through the process of gaining and giving leadership in the world-historic Russian and Chinese revolutions. Not: that’s how they attained the stature in the eyes of the world that they would have (should have) had anyway by right, but rather, it’s only in this way that their theories were forged. Bob Avakian’s contributions are exploratory and unfinished. He is often not able to fully or correctly answer the important questions in revolutionary theory he raises. This is not a criticism, and in fact I don’t think these questions, which are crucial questions of revolutionary theory, are resolvable by one person reflecting and struggling with them, or one person with the resources of this party (certainly not as it stands).” [98]
The RCP argues correctly that you cannot judge the value of a leader by simply measuring the size of their forces. Marx was more correct than the leaders of the Paris Commune. Lenin was more correct than Kautsky (despite his legions of supporters in Germany). It is wrong to dismiss Avakian’s theories simply because he is not yet leading a significant revolutionary movement. But, it is possible to connect some of the real weaknesses and failures of this “party of Bob Avakian” to real weaknesses in his method and approach.
The adoption of a new synthesis requires critical scientific evaluation, including real testing and modification in practice. It can’t be done on faith or decree. It can’t be done sight-unseen. In other words, it can’t be done the way Avakian demands, as we will now discuss.
Previous Letter | Next letter..
Notes
[90] Sometimes a tactically softer “our Lenin” is used. The RCP does not use the formulation “Avakianism.” “A Lenin or a Mao” means a communist leader who is revamping all of communist theory in a world-historic leap. And the operative summation the RCP uses is that Avakian is “on the level of a Mao or a Lenin” with all the implications that holds for MLM around the world.
[91] A cardinal question is an issue that is a dividing line between revolutionary communism and counterrevolutionary revisionism. The RCP now holds that the appreciation of Bob Avakian and his synthesis is such a question – literally on the level of whether to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat or the need for a vanguard party. Here is how it was popularly put in Revolution’s “Special Issue on Bob Avakian”:
“At a time when the ‘science of revolution’ demands a leap in its understanding in a number of crucial realms, he has stepped forward to fill that great need. The contributions that we have outlined here are essential to the further and future advance of the revolutionary cause and communist project; they are a treasure for humanity.” (emphasis in original).
[92] It is said, at times that these theories have been the party’s line since 1979. But that is not true. They are recent, and negate previous understandings about collectivity and mass line.
[93] Chairman Gonzalo (Abimael Guzman) is the leader of the Communist Party of Peru, also known as the Shining Path.
[94] Charu Mazumdar (1918–1972) was leader of the 1967 “Spring thunder” uprising of peasants starting in Naxalbari that gave rise to the Maoist movement in India. İbrahim Kaypakkaya (1949-1973) was the founder of the Maoist movement in Turkey and leader of an early attempt to launch protracted people’s war. Zhang Chunqiao (1917-2005) was a leader of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, and first-rank figure in the Maoist circle called the “Gang of Four” by their enemies.
[95] Karl Kautsky was a top leader of German socialists and the Second International who was promoted as the successor to Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, but proved himself to be a scholastic pedant who clutched at old formulation and an enemy of the first socialist revolution in Russia.
[96] If Lenin had died in 1914, a communist revolution would not have taken place in 1917 Russia. Had Attila or Napoleon died young, world history would have taken some different turns.
[97] The RCP now talks of “repolarizing society” specifically around Avakian, as a person and a leader, (and the work of promoting him) playing a role of decisive importance in repolarizing society from the current hostilities between secular liberalism and recently ascendant rightist conservatism. It expresses this thought publicly like this:
“Two futures confront each other. Will imperialism force a future of darkness and suffocation onto the people? Will tens of millions more needlessly suffer and die? OR, will the critical spirit be unleashed in a way that does a great GOOD for humanity? Will society move forward in a revolutionary direction and set about removing the great suffering and misery cast down on the people by capitalism? To put it another way, which vision will prevail: that of George W. Bush? Or of Bob Avakian?” from “The Battle For The Future,” op. cit.
[98] From an unpublished paper shared with Mike E.
Published: December 2007
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.
December 31, 2007 at 11:34 am
Any thoughts on why the RCP hasn’t formally adopted “Avakianism”?
I mean, that is what’s going on here – especially when the demand is made (however far-fetched) that Bob Avakian should be the field marshal of the world revolution… that he, personally(!), is the “cardinal question” among communists internationally?
If the RIM is no longer promoted, if the Nepalese revolution is ignored (including absolutely ZERO sustained work against U.S. intervention), if the significant parties such as in the Philippines, India and Turkey are all “kept from view” of U.S. revolutionaries… the effect is to detach the members and supporters of the RCP from the very international movement that should be the air we breath.
Mike is on point in criticizing the notion of “leaders of this caliber” – that we should oppose this whole line of thinking pretty much on general principle. It’s also worth noting, particularly for a U.S. audience, that Avakian’s vision of himself has FLOPPED internationally. The Nepalese have come out against both backseat driving and the idea of transcendent leaders. They said quite clearly that one of the defining problems of socialism has been the replication of leadership generationally.
That’s heartening. Let’s learn from that spirit. This is an debate among communists that is just now coming into the open. Some will try to stuff it back into the box, wrapped in a cult of personality that uses tautologies in place of praxis. But it’s not working, it hasn’t been working – and people who work to serve the people should not get caught up in nonsense that will literally waste all that effort and good intention.
December 31, 2007 at 9:54 pm
The reason that it was explained to me (by a party supporter) that they don’t use the formulation “avakianism” is because, basically, it’s not a settled question. There is still much debate to be had around the New Synthesis, and to declare it “avakianism” would stifle some the discussion. The important thing is not to assert another “ism” and another head on the wall, but for people to “engage” what avakian is saying. Of course, everything I just said contradicts the theme running through 9 Letters of the RCP demanding that people accept the New Synthesis as dogma… and if not they are counter-revolutionaries. Here’s my question: Why does Ely not even mention the “engage” statement in his critique? Is it because the actual content of the statement itself contradicts the straw man that he has constructed for the RCP?
On a side note, the RCP does promote the RIM, almost every other issue of the newspaper when they print articles from A World To Win News service.
December 31, 2007 at 10:27 pm
That doesn’t negate the criticisms of the 9 Letters. A debate over what to call Avakian’s new synthesis, and how to formulate it, whether as a “thought” or an “ism”, is decidedly not a debate over whether that synthesis is correct or not. I believe that Ely’s position is that the the verdict as to whether Avakian’s leadership and synthesis is correct is what is not up for discussion within the RCP. The verdict that his contributions are on the level of a Lenin or Mao (thus calling forth this problem of whether to call it a “thought” or an “ism”) is likewise settled and not up for discussion. Moreover, it seems to me, that he is saying that the discussion and struggle over exactly this verdict was superficial.
Letter 7 deals with exactly how this verdict developed in the RCP, and characterizes it as an example of “whateverism”.
Printing an article from A World To Win news service does not address the question of internationalism. The question of internationalism posed in these Letters and elsewhere is a question of why the RCP has been silent about major revolutionary upsurges in South Asia.
Confusing the outward face of the Engage! project with the fully developed line of the RCP on the question of Avakian’s leadership would be incorrect. The Engage! statement, like all the other signing statements and calls of the RCP, is aimed at middle forces in the U.S. And particularly, in this case, at intellectuals. Just as the “World Can’t Wait Call” did not project the same political line as the “Battle for the Future statement”, in which we were told that the future would be defined by the “vision” of Bush or the “vision” of Avakian, the Engage! project does not plainly express the fullness of the RCP’s position on Avakian’s leadership. Though one could read into it where it talks of him being a “necessary part of the ferment and discourse required in this society and the world in this dark time.” I don’t believe that the RCP uses words like “necessary” lightly. I’m pretty sure they mean this literally. Just as sure as they mean the previous sentences about his “sweeping view” and his “fresh” take on Marxism literally (this is just a restatement of their verdict of the gravity and correctness of Avakian’s new synthesis).
They more or less plainly say that he is a leader of a “special caliber” when they discuss his “special role in organizing and leading that change”. Again, they mean this literally. Avakian has a special role to play in changing the world. Sounds a little weird when you strip away the carefully structured language that frames the whole thing. Why should he have a special role? On what basis? Is his synthesis really sweeping, fresh, and relevant? Does he and his party really boldly and clearly discuss the short comings of past communist states? Do they really engage opposing ideas and public intellectuals? The 9 Letters answers “no” to all of these claims, and it gives a pretty good accounting of why the answer to these questions is “no”.
January 1, 2008 at 12:29 am
Yo says,
“Of course, everything I just said contradicts the theme running through 9 Letters of the RCP demanding that people accept the New Synthesis as dogma… and if not they are counter-revolutionaries.”
Yo, I have some experience dealing with RCP cadre and the experience I’ve had (subjective) corresponds pretty well with what Ely has written here. In fact, the cadre I’ve dealt with have explicitly pointed out that in order to get to communism one must “go through bob’s synthesis.” This may not explicitly mean that those who don’t are counter-revs, but it’s easy to see in what direction its leaning.
January 1, 2008 at 9:55 am
YO,
You raise some important questions and I think folks here should really treat them seriously.
I think the question of why the party hasn’t used the formulation “Avakianism” is not really the key issue. Given the present trajectory I wouldn’t be suprised by such a formulation down the road, but the real issue is not the choice of terminology ao much as the contradiction between the rhetoric about openness to discussion and the actual practice of the RCP when real substantive criticisms are raised.
(On this point I would urge you to check out the post here: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters)
The point I think that Ely is making here is not simply that party supporters “accept the New Synthesis as dogma” but that the actual content of the New Sythesis itself is neither particularly clear, nor particularly new, and that this reflects a real failure of the party to actually engage.
Its fine to call for people to “engage Avakian.” The problem is that when they do and they actually respond critically or express the fact that what he is saying is not nearly as daring and exciting as he seems to think, the conversation comes to an end. “Engagement” should be a two way street.
The “debate” that the RCP seems interested in having around the New Synthesis is not a real debate, but a stage-managed process leading to a foregone conclusion that the leadership has already decided on.
The best evidence of this lack of interests in real debate is the public silence in response to the Nine Letters, which quite frankly, are BY FAR the most substantive actual “engagement” with Avakian’s “new synthesis” that I’ve seen anywhere.
Ely can probably explain for himself why he didin’t specifically address the Engage statement, but I don’t really see how including it would have damaged his argument.
This is not a “straw man” argument. It is a highly principled, serious and thoughtful critique by someone who dedicated their life for over three decades to building the RCP, who served as editor of the newspaper, and who represented the best of what the party had to offer. It can not be dismissed so casually.
As for the RCP’s promotion of the RIM, the real issue here is the silence of the RCP on rapidly developing situations in Nepal and India. Running articles from AWTW News Service is is a pretty feeble standard for international solidarity.
January 5, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Tellnolies and others,
Once again I find myself compelled to raise the fact that I recently contacted supporters of the party who have been close to it for a number of years (one for around 30 and the other for a substansive number, although not as long as the first) as well as a few who have only been around for about 1. All of them welcomed the idea of discussing the 9 letters. I have serious doubts that that letter is representative of the party as a whole, and should not by any means be a reference point for people in regards to the party. As was stated over and over again in a different post on this website, an individuals opinion does not necessarily reflect the line of a party.
Now with that being said I do believe that the way the party structures its paper and promotes Avakian, can and probably does inadverdently promote a lack of critical thinking among the party supporters. This is a contradiction, and it is one that should be pointed out and criticised. However that is not an RCP line. My assumption is that it is expected among party supporters to pay more than lip service to the idea of real and rigorous thought. In my experience, although many of them do not engage in deep intellectual inquiry into deep questions of philosophy, they certainly do not shrink from principled questioning and criticism. Maybe my town happens to be unique in this respect, but somehow I doubt it. I appreciate the 9 letters very much and have been reading them with great interest (numerous times). However I do no agree with the way that that email is presented because my experiences contradict the way it is being portrayed as official party line, memo, or whatever you want to call it.
January 5, 2008 at 3:01 pm
SS,
Lets hope you are correct, because the e-ma