7
 |
| Ahmedebad, India, Photo: TMG (all rights reserved) |
Nine Letters to Our Comrades
Letter 7: Whateverism in Evaluating Avakian
by Mike Ely
In April 2007, the “Special Issue” of Revolution dedicated to Avakian announced, “There has never been a leader like Bob Avakian in this country.” [99]
This may well be true. Avakian is a visible tree on a parched political scrubland. He has put his stamp on this generation of communists in the U.S. But that does not necessarily make him “a Lenin.”
And no matter how highly we esteem and value a leader, the communist movement this person leads has the obligation to deeply, collectively and critically evaluate the theories, analyses and plans put forward, no matter who the author of those ideas is.
However, before the core theses of Avakian’s synthesis were ever debated, understood or even elaborated (including before any real discussion of “epistemological break” or “solid core with a lot of elasticity”) — it was formally asserted to the RCP that the “appreciation” of Avakian’s work has become a “cardinal question” for communists and that the outlines of communism’s new synthesis “is there for the taking.” [100]
This was argued on the basis of a specific discussion of the “relationship between simple and complex.” It was said: It is possible to understand all theoretical matters at different levels — on a simple basic level for beginners, and on a deeper and complex level later on. And, it was argued, communists had to acknowledge that many of them accepted important doctrines of communism (like the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat) on a quite simple basis, at least at the beginning, often without having yet looked deeply into the details, controversies and history surrounding the concept. This was then used to argue that communists can and should embrace (on a “simple” basis if necessary) the theory that Avakian’s leadership has become “the cardinal question” within the movement.
This is what country people call “buying a pig in a poke” — meaning: embracing something without close scrutiny.
Advocating that a whole movement accept a new ideology (in this case, a still-unelaborated synthesis of Marxism) on such a basis imposes an unscientific method upon that party over precisely the most defining questions imaginable, and over matters that should precisely be vetted in the most full way possible. In short, this argument around “simple and complex” was used as a call for acceptance on faith.
It is further asserted with great energy that communists need to “Have the humility to be led.” There is (of course) nothing wrong with humility. But in context, this campaign has been an assault on critical thinking and the RCP’s righteous old slogan, “Communists are Rebels!”
A scientific method demands that we evaluate all ideas (including Avakian’s) against reality — that we not assume the correctness of whatever Avakian says (or of whatever he will say). Revolutionary leaders have to “prove it all night.” [101] And all communists have the responsibility to evaluate the concepts, methods and plans of their leadership and party.
Honestly, this kind of supervision has never been a feature of the RCP. Obviously there is a range of practices within any organization and generalizations don’t apply to all experiences and places. But there is something about the party’s specific overall conception of democratic centralism — with its militarized view of organizational discipline — that routinely squeezes out wrangling or collective research on major matters. Democracy in this party is conceived as little more than “a chain of knowledge” passing opinions upwards for consideration in the deciding centers. Security is routinely misused as an instrument of control and information diet.
Open and Shut Discussion
Some burning political questions are “opened” briefly in a highly limited way, others are never opened at all. It is worth looking at the RCP’s views on homosexuality as an example of this.
From 1970 until 2001, the RU/RCP [102] held that homosexuality was incompatible with revolutionary communist goals and ideology. Gay men and lesbians could not be members. Formal programmatic statements held that homosexuality would be abolished under socialism through ideological struggle or “re-education.” The party’s wrong and backward views became rather notorious through the 1980s, as the AIDS crisis exploded and the Republican Right sought to exploit anti-homosexual bigotry.
What is less well known is how such views were maintained. In the early 1970s it was said that gay people couldn’t be communists because they were a security risk of blackmail. [103] Then after the party’s founding in 1975 the stress was on ways homosexuality was linked to “bourgeois degeneracy.” Then after 1988, the argument was that homosexuality had to be rejected because male homosexuality was (supposedly) inherently hostile to women and lesbianism was (supposedly) inherently a manifestation of lifestyle reformism. [104]
In other words, over the first thirty-plus years of the RU/RCP, the end verdict (the incompatibility of homosexuality with communism) remained the same, while the public justifications for that position morphed with time. And there were essentially no open discussions of these views allowed within the party’s ranks, though controversy and debate increasingly raged around the party’s youth brigade (RCYB).
By the late 1990s, these anti-homosexual politics were so controversial (inside and outside the party) that it would have been impossible to create a new program without major changes. The question was opened briefly but then shut down when the discussion proved highly volatile.
The method used for cutting off this debate is revealing: The new party analysis acknowledged that homosexuality is not inherently counterrevolutionary, [105] but insisted that the Party’s long-standing condemnation of gay people had not come from any influence of anti-gay bigotry. The error, it was said, came from general problems of method and reductionism, not from anti-gay prejudices within the Party. [106]
It was officially argued that the question of homosexuality itself had never been a cardinal question, but the method used to criticize the party’s previous position had to be considered a cardinal question. Translated: The party would still not consider the previous anti-gay errors a huge deal, but it would consider any discussion of possible homophobia among leaders to be completely intolerable. Also considered hostile to the party: Any discussion of why the change in line had taken so long, any appraisal of the huge political cost to the revolution because of this error and any discussion of “the closet” within the party (i.e., ways that secretly gay or bisexual members may have been forced to deny their sexual orientations).
In short: The party had adopted a new (and truly better approach) to homosexuality, but slammed the door hard on any real exploration of anti-gay bigotry among communists and its real-world consequences.
What emerges from such methods is a party where discussions are maddeningly confined and ritualized. They generally take place only after positions (or even a whole new synthesis) have been formally adopted. Questions are “opened” so a new orthodoxy can replace an old one, and then discussions are slammed shut again. Throughout that process ready agreement is expected. Real dissent is assumed to be backward (or worse).
Without a healthy climate of ongoing struggle, a party’s life cannot be an engine of new ideas, mutual supervision, and new levels of party unity. The actual process in this party codifies a deep distrust of debate (except as a means of indoctrination in official positions).
Such training sharply undercuts this party’s ability to even hear other voices.
Whatever else we now do together, let’s not repeat any of this. [107]
The RCP correctly (if too quietly) criticized the notion of “jefatura” that emerged from the Communist Party of Peru. It was seen as wrong that Peruvian party members should swear their loyalty or subordination to the person of their chairman, who is seen as being above the collectivity of the party and portrayed as a living guarantee of victory. It was correctly argued by the RCP (in connection with Peruvian line controversies in the 1990s) that new lines and sharp departures needed critical evaluation, and the key issue should be “line not author.”
The new formulations of the RCP are not identical to the PCP’s. But I cannot, for the life of me, see any difference between the PCP’s disastrous dogma of “jefatura” and the RCP’s new refrains that “this is the new party of Bob Avakian” and “appreciation of the Chair is the cardinal question.” Can anyone point out any real difference?
The assertion of “Avakian as the cardinal question” is whateverism. [108] It is a blank check signed in advance by the collectivity of party leadership. It is inherently slavish and metaphysical. It denigrates the test of practice and violates any scientific approach to ideas. And it inevitably unleashes a party culture of sycophancy and cynicism.
Previous Letter | Next letter..
Notes
[99] “The Crossroads We Face, the Leadership We Need” Revolution #84
[100] This whole process is in rather stark contrast to the methods explicitly promoted as part of the new synthesis. For example, Ardea Skybreak wrote: “The fact that it can take quite some time for new syntheses or theories to be tested and verified (and the fact that many will be ultimately discarded as dead-ends or significantly re-worked) typically does not disturb intellectuals, for they accept this state of relative uncertainty over protracted periods of time as a necessary and unavoidable part of the process of expanding human knowledge and understanding. Newly emerging and developing syntheses should not be grown in a hothouse and they should also not be held close to the chest in miserly fashion: they need to be sent out in the world. Reasonable efforts should be made to avoid excessive sloppiness, the regurgitation of that which has already been shown to be false, or dismissive discounting of the efforts of others (of whatever perspectives) who have been working on similar questions. Efforts should also be made to properly distinguish (and label accordingly) that which is known from that which is not yet known, and indicate clearly what may simply be informed speculation.”
Very true, but in sharp disconnect with the party’s approach to its own process of synthesis. (Ardea Skybreak, “Working with Ideas and Searching for Truth: A Reflection on Revolutionary Leadership and the Intellectual Process,” 2002, revcom.us)
[101] “Prove it all night” is the title of a Bruce Springsteen song. For the RCP, it means that communist veterans and leaders cannot rest on reputations or past laurels.
[102] The Revolutionary Union (RU) was the pre-party communist formation established nationally in 1970 that gave rise to the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (founded in 1975).
[103] This was the position first explained to me and others around the early Revolutionary Union – a view lifted from the policies of the Communist Party USA.
[104] “On the Question of Homosexuality and the Emancipation of Women,” Revolution magazine, 1988
[105] It was a position that more or less adopted the work of a special writing group, “On the Position on Homosexuality in the New Draft Programme” revcom.us/margorp/homosexuality.htm
[106] Avakian used his conversations with Bill Martin to broach the nagging question of how the RCP could have been so stubbornly wrong for so long on its analysis of gay people. He asserts that the problem was reductionist and mechanical thinking inherited from the previous communist movement, and mainly manifested in analysis made on other topics (i.e., not just in matters of sexuality). Bill Martin describes anti-homosexual arguments made to him by party supporters, and probes whether there should be exploration of a “puritanical mindset” towards sexuality generally. This is an important question ruled out of order by the party’s approach.
[107] These Nine Letters do not excavate the internal operations and structures of the RCP. For that reason necessary criticisms of organizational line can only be touched on in this very general way. However, it has to be said that a very different approach to communist organization needs to be developed and fought for. We need real discussion of burning political controversies, active supervision of leadership, and appreciation for the views, experience and disagreements of cadre at all levels and of all generations. “If you know what I’m talking about, you know what I mean.”
[108] Whateverism is the uncritical acceptance of “whatever” comes down from above within a communist party.
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 20, 2007 at 10:49 pm
nice comments. i appreciate your honesty in your evaluations of the personality-cult of Avakian and the obvious political failures of the RCP. i don’t mean to be offensive in any way, but at this juncture you may benefit from speaking to a counseling service which specializes in people transitioning out of cults. you are taking a big step and i am know it is not easy for you.
December 21, 2007 at 12:41 am
Hey Dr. Phil!
This is a political critique, not therapy. And politics is not pathology. Such comments betray a unfortunate instinct among many Americans to read popular psycho-babble into political struggles. To say that the RCP’s understanding of leadership is incorrect, to say that they are increasingly cult-like, is not to compare them to the cults of popular imagination, the Moonies and such.
December 21, 2007 at 7:41 am
While I agree with desire to resist this sort of facile psychologizing, I also think we need to be careful about depoliticizing the psychological by too sharply delineating them. Communists often seem allergic to discussions of mental health issues. The RCP is an organization that demands pretty intense commitment from its members, so it is probably true that there is an important psychological dimension to the process of making a political break like this. That doesn’t mean Mike needs to see a counselor, (he seems pretty well-adjusted to me) but I suspect that more than one person who has left the party might have (or actually has) benefitted from some therapeutic decompression whether from a mental health professional or a bartender.
While (as far as I know) the RCP doesn’t engage in the sort of sleep-deprivation and related techniques of outfits like the Moonies, the practice of “keeping the advanced tense” can have some of the same effects on a lower register and we shouldn’t shy away from unpacking the implications of that.
While we should resist the pathologizing of political struggle, an all-rounded view of the question should also acknowledge the actually pathological dimensions of different political lines/practices. Although he later lost his marbles, there is much to be gained still, I believe, from reading Wilhelm Reich’s writings from the 1930s during his involvement in the KPD and immediately after.
December 21, 2007 at 8:42 am
Actually I think JT has a point: tiny cults like the RCP often have similar group dynamics as religous cults, political practice not withstanding. I knew a person who was a 13-year veteran of the RCP, and a telling critique from her was that she consistently found more human sympathy from some of her bosses at work than the ones in the “party”. Years of submission to the distorted reality field of groups like the RCP take their toll, regardless of the political merits of Maoism.
Years ago I was at a pro-abortion rally where Mary Lou Greenberg was screaming to women that they had to “get over the mindfuck”. From what I’ve seen, for many people getting over the mindfuck of Bob & Mary Lou (i.e. returning to useful politics) is quite difficult. Groups like the RCP act as a kind of innoculation against the Marxist “virus”: by exposing people to a diluted, harmless form, they will never by infected by the real thing.
December 21, 2007 at 8:55 am
An observation about “the cardinal question” and the “jefatura”. I was an RCP supporter in the 80s and worked with the Gonzalo-thought organizations in the 90s. While I personally didn’t agree with the “jefatura” thesis, Gonzalo’s record of accomplishments combined with his theoretical work (e.g. he is chiefly responsible for the notion of M-L-M, principally Maoism) gave some basis for his supporters to argue this was something worth defending. I and others in that movement felt that the RCP’s/CoRIM’s opposition and even opportunist practice on this question (e.g. suppression of documents) boiled down to a desire of Avakian to be “el jefe”. Now that the Gonzalo is yesterday’s news, the decks are clear for Bob to assume his “rightful” place; what Gonzalo said in 1984 about hegemonic tendencies of the RCP within the RIM proved quite prophetic.
December 21, 2007 at 10:24 am
Tellnolies makes a good point. I don’t wish to start a discussion of the slogan “The personal is political,” but I sure we can all agree that the two are not separated by the proverbial Chinese Wall.
I can’t speak authoritatively on the inner workings of the RCP since 1978 nor on theoretical work that has been done on the psychology of membership in high-demand small groups. Common sense, however, should tell us that if you spend over three decades of your life, pretty much your entire adult life, dedicated to a cause and a view of the world that goes starkly against the hegemonic mainstream in a society, it is going to be damn hard to break with that without feelings of loss, inadequacy, anger, rootlessness, anomie. That’s one of the main things an outfit like the RCP has going for it–the same denial that keeps people rationalizing stuff like the anti-gay line also prevents them from taking a step that they sense, even if unconsciously, might cause them to conclude, “Hey, I’ve been chumped, or chumped myself, on a massive scale and wasted the last 20, 30 years of my life.”
Mike has taken the commendable step of putting politics in command here, grappling with the political, ideological and organizational lessons to be learned from the RCP experience, with the goal of continuing to build red organization in this country. We should commend and assist this, but perhaps avoid the idea that everybody can just emulate him and deal with the internal contradictions that result from breaking with (or staying in!) an organization like the RCP in the same way.
It would be very interesting to hear what others who have broken with the RCP, especially in the recent Cult of Personality period, have to say about what kept them going in the RCP (or in its orbit) and what the impact of leaving has had on their lives and emotional states.
December 21, 2007 at 10:38 am
I’m hopeful that the thoughtful, principled and backed-up method used by the author will set the tone for commentary. As a close observer of the RCP, and revolutionary movements in general, these Nine Letters are a breath of fresh air – and not just because they address Avakian’s elephant in the living room.
Calling people nuts papers over anything we could learn. It’s a way of reducing a discussion, to claiming it shouldn’t even be necessary. Which is not to say there aren’t aspects of how Avakian has steered the RCP’s organizational culture. But it is NOT the principal issue. I think it’s nuts when people say “I have a personal relationship with Jesus” – because they don’t, whatever they think and however many people agree. “Nuts” is just a way of saying “beyond the pale, beneath discussion” – so if you’re hear to talk, do it!
The RCP has developed several national groupings, made genuine attempts to develop communist theory and, in my opinion, played a good role when there was (most times) little else on the ground. For all the reasons the RCP has, in fact, been a leading pole of revolutionary communism is why I care to engage this. The RCP did, for years, attempt to build popular base areas among the proletariat, industrial workers, intellectuals and artists. This was not nothing. Why they have failed in their own objectives, and been reduced to a simulacrum of political party is a good place to dig in.
———
One other thing: I’m really not interested in third-hand sour grapes about any organization. It’s all light and no heat. Any group will have people who’ve felt let down, used, burned. Some of these gripes may be valid, I don’t mean to take that away – I’ve seen it myself. But these kind of anecdotes, and the method behind it – they are poisonous to constructive discussion and debate.
So, comrades, we’re all free to share. Let’s talk like what we say matters, and dump the methods of “I heard someone say they had to eat babies.”
December 21, 2007 at 10:53 am
I think we need to leap from perceptual to conceptual on this.
In the opening to these 9 letters I wrote: “These letters attempt a critical excavation of political and ideological substance. However, they carefully avoid direct reference to internal events, documents, organizational structures and internal activities of specific personalities.”
I think that kind of restraint and caution is justified and a matter of principle.
* * * *
I think it is true that the RCP has employed some control mechanism in an instrumentalist way.
These letters discuss information diet several times and mention how security culture is used to prevent supporters from getting a bigger picture of their own trend, its problems and weaknesses. (A revolutionary party obviously needs to be cautious, but all kinds of things can be used for dual purposes.) This is part of an or