 |
The
RCP, USA and its New Synthesis |
(Mao, On Coalition Government, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 243)
Since the defeat of the proletarian revolution in China in 1976, there
has been continuous struggle of workers with numerous sacrifices of
the masses and communists around the world. During the last decade,
powerful revolutionary movements under the leadership of the Unified
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and The
Communist Party of India (Maoist) have advanced and the Revolutionary
Communist Party, Canada, the Maoist
Communist Party of Italy, the Communist Party of France (Maoist)
and the Communist Party of Bhutan ( Marxist-Leninist- Maoist) have been
established.
Building a revolutionary movement is a very complicated task and takes
a long time. Indeed, such a tortuous process can only develop when practice
is guided by a correct theory. However, there is no evidence that the
majority of genuine communist parties and organisations which were established
during the 1970s and 80s have been able to build and develop an effective
movement, especially in the imperialist countries. What is clearly evident
is that the proletariat has not been able to lead the masses to carry
out a successful revolution and seize power in any country.
The last 34 years has been the longest period of relative stagnation
of the world proletarian revolution. The stagnation of the revolutionary
movement in different countries requires analysis of the objective and
subjective conditions in each country. With the exception of few, none
of the communist parties either in the oppressed nations or in the imperialist
countries have made major breakthroughs, let alone achieved their strategic
goals. The majority of the experienced parties have not been able to
build a significant movement and more new parties have not been established.
In addition to many other factors, the stagnation indicates that practices
overall have not been guided by a correct theory.
Despite favourable objective conditions and many opportunities, communist
parties have not adequately advanced to lead the masses to rise in revolution.
Indeed, there is a dialectical relationship between practice and theory:
practice-theory-practice. Synthesis of practice develops to theory,
then practice in turn is guided by theory, and most importantly, theory
is grasped and developed through practice. What then is the main reason
for the general stagnation of the world proletarian revolution?
The RCP and revolution in the US
During the last three decades the world has considerably changed, but
the monopoly capitalist relations of production still dominate the world.
Consequently, the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions is
not over. Among communists, one answer to the above question is that
Maoism as the third stage of the development of Marxism, that is Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism, has not been grasped. Particularly, the lessons of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China have not been correctly synthesised
and applied to develop parties and mass movements in the objective conditions
of different countries.
However, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, RCP, believes that
it has correctly synthesised Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. For them, the
reason for the stagnation is that the foundations of the communist ideology
have not been made on a fully scientific basis. Now, Bob Avakian, the
RCP's Chairman, in his New Synthesis, has fulfilled this task. Accordingly,
Bob Avakian's New Synthesis is universally applicable and should be
grasped by all communists around the world and implemented in all countries.
This is the first of a series of articles discussing some important
ideas put forward in the text of a speech entitled: 'Re-envisioning
revolution and communism: what is Bob Avakian's new synthesis?'
(Revolution #129, May 18, 2008). The
speech was delivered by the RCP in various locations around the US in
2008. For more than three decades, the RCP participated in the class
struggle in the US and defended many struggles around the world. This
party played a significant role in building the Revolutionary Internationalist
Movement (RIM), especially affecting those organisations which joined
or supported the RIM.
Certainly, the central task of the communists in the US is to apply
Marxism-Leninism- Maoism to the concrete conditions of the country and
develop a powerful revolutionary movement for the working class and
the masses to seize power. From this point of view, the practice and
theory of the RCP need to be analysed and synthesised. Communists need
to find answers to the question to why this party after decades of political
activity has remained an extremely marginalised force incapable of influencing
the class struggle in the US. There are already valuable struggles going
on along this line; Kasama
and Mass line are cases
in point.
This is also an important struggle for communists in other countries,
because today the US imperialist ruling class is the main enemy of the
working class and the masses in the world. It is true that the US Empire
is in decline, but still through the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations, and many other
institutions, it exercises considerable control over the world economy
and politics. Furthermore, the US has a direct military presence in
132 countries and its intelligence services operate all over the world.
Moreover, the ideological, social, cultural, political and other capabilities
of this global reactionary force are pivotal for all imperialist and
reactionary states to suppress the struggle of the masses to sustain
their power.
In addition to these factors, building a revolutionary movement in the
US would accelerate forming similar movements in other countries, and
undoubtedly a successful proletarian revolution in the US would shake
the foundation of the whole imperialist system in the world serving
many other proletarian revolutions to defeat the imperialist system.
In this light, the development of a powerful movement in the US could
have a tremendous historical implication for revolutions in all other
countries.
The purpose of these articles is to analyse the latest ideological development
of the RCP presented as Bob Avakian's New Synthesis, and you are invited
to participate in this important debate.
Who are the makers of history?
The speech on the New Synthesis includes five major parts:
Part 1: Humanity needs revolution and communism.
Part 2: A philosophy to understand-and change-the world.
Part 3: The new synthesis: political implications- the international
dimension.
Part 4: The new synthesis: political implications- dictatorship and
democracy.
Part 5: Strategic implications- making revolution
In part 1 the speaker representing the RCP states,¦ what I hope
to do is to give you a sense of a whole new way of approaching human
emancipation and fundamental change, building on the best of what's
gone before but taking it to a new level.
The RCP claims that its understanding of socialist revolution has developed
beyond Marxism-Leninism- Maoism and has reached a new level. The RCP
correctly believes that the International Communist Movement is in crisis.
However, it excludes itself from the crisis and claims that the party
is chartering a whole new way of thinking, which has a vital universal
value. Thus, the RCP believes that the fate of socialist revolution
and humanity is hanging by a thread. And that thread is Bob Avakian!
Here, we can observe a serious ideological deviation from the principle
that the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making
of world history.(Mao, On Coalition Government, Selected Works, Vol.
3, p. 257, Emphases mine) There is a fundamental ideological principle
that the working class and the masses are the makers of socialism and
communism and not the communists. It is true that without a communist
party armed with Marxist-Leninist- Maoist theory and method it is impossible
for the people to defeat imperialism and build socialism.
It is also true that communists are the most advanced section of the
working class. But most certainly, it is not true that communists are
above the masses. Communists need to learn from and utilise the boundless
creative power of the masses and on this basis lead and help to organise
themselves and fight consciously for their class interests. Communists
cannot make revolution on behalf of the masses, rather they lead them
to build a revolutionary movement preparing to seize power.
After overthrowing the old state, communists should not rule on behalf
of the masses. Instead, they lead them to rule the socialist society
by continuing to fight for the working class interest against the new
bourgeoisie. However, the essence of the New Synthesis shows a serious
deviation from these principles; deviation from the fact that defeating
imperialism and building socialism primarily depends on the working
class and the conscious and organised struggle of the masses. Most certainly,
these are not bestowed upon them by any great saviour of humanity. We
should bear in mind the famous line of the Internationale:
'We want no condescending saviours to rule us from a judgment hall..'
Having faith in the vanguard party is essential, but not enough. Communists
must also have faith in the masses. The RCP's New Synthesis shows
that this party overvalues its faith in the Party, and especially its
chairman, while not having enough faith in the masses.
The New Synthesis pays all its attention to the experience of the International
Communist Movement before 1976. But it does not pay any attention to
the struggle of the masses in the US. What knowledge has been gained
from the history of the class struggle in the US? What has the Party
grasped about questions relating to building a revolutionary movement
in the USA? The fact is that every time the RCP has been put to the
test of class struggle, it has failed. Instead of marching at the head
of different movements in the US, it has in actuality trailed behind
them, and in many cases gesticulating at and criticising the masses.
Is the New Synthesis a real rupture?
The New Synthesis correctly states that this whole first stage of the
communist revolution [the Paris commune in 1871, the 1917 Socialist
Revolution in Russia, the 1949 New Democratic Revolution in China, and
the 1966-76 Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China] came to
an end in 1976.... Today there are no genuine socialist countries in
the world. And people all over the world feel, and struggle with, that
weight every day- whether they know it or not.
But, it also states, 'so, how do we go forward in the face of that?
How do we embark on a new stage of revolution?
In this situation, Bob Avakian has led in defending, upholding, and
building on the monumental achievements of those revolutions and the
illuminating insights of its greatest thinkers and leaders. But he has
also deeply analysed the mistakes, and the shortcomings in conception
and method that led to those mistakes. And on that basis, he forged
a coherent, comprehensive and overarching theoretical framework- that
is synthesis. While this definitely comes out of and builds on what
has gone before, this advance has also involved real ruptures with the
past understanding and experience as a crucial element, which is why
we call it the new synthesis.
The RCP was established in 1975, and its literature shows that from
1976 the Party had already realised that people all over the world feel,
and struggle with, that weight every day because “there
are no genuine socialist countries in the world. So, why did the RCP
embark on the new stage of revolution 33 years later, in 2008?! Why
did the RCP not 'go forward in the face of that' many years
earlier?
Embarking on revolution means establishing a communist party and mobilising
the working class and the masses to build a revolutionary movement.
So, why does the RCP not deal with this fundamental question and synthesise
its failure? The RCP states that Bob Avakian has led the RCP in defending
the previous socialist revolutions. But has the party been able to go
further and transform its understanding of socialist revolution into
a considerable material force in the US?
The New Synthesis claims that Bob Avakian has also deeply analysed the
mistakes, and the shortcomings in conception and method that led to
those mistakes. But if the RCP has deeply analysed and overcome those
mistakes, has it been able to apply them to develop the class struggle
in the US? The New Synthesis claims that Bob Avakian has forged a coherent,
comprehensive and overarching theoretical framework. If during the last
three decades any aspect of this universal theory has been tested in
practice and proven to be correct, where are the examples?
A real rupture with the past understanding and experience of the International
Communist Movement requires a major two-line struggle within each communist
party as well as the existing International Communist Movement. But,
has such a major two-line struggle taken place? In fact, there is no
evidence that the leadership of the RCP has allowed any major inner-party
two-line struggle to be carried out at all. Furthermore, the RCP has
not produced any serious self-criticism nor rectification campaign.
Not executing any major two-line struggle shows that the RCP has
not grasped the fact that, opposition and struggle between ideas of
different kinds constantly occur within the Party; this is a reflection
within the Party of contradiction between classes and between the new
and the old in society. If there were no contradictions in the party
and no ideological struggles to resolve them, the Party's life would
come to an end. (Mao, On Contradiction, Selected Works, Vol. 1,
p. 317)
Ideological struggles within a communist party are inevitable. When
there is a major ideological struggle within a communist party, it should
not be kept as a secret. Ideological struggle between classes within
the Party is an important aspect of the struggle of the working class
against the bourgeoisie, and therefore, assists the international proletariat.
Also, the struggle between the new and the old within the Party helps
the masses to transform their outlook. This is one of the most important
lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Thus, not only
should major two-line struggles within communist parties openly involve
the working class and the masses nationally, but also internationally.
However, without going through a major two-line struggle, the RCP claims
that it has reached a new ideological height. This declaration shows
that the RCP does not have a correct grasp of the method of two-line
struggle. Not involving the working class and the masses in the US as
well as the international proletariat, shows that the RCP has not understood
the method of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It also shows
that the RCP considers itself above two-line struggle, the International
Communist Movement and the masses.
Moreover, without building a revolutionary movement and advancing class
struggle in the US, the RCP claims that Bob Avakian's New Synthesis
has advanced communist theory. This claim shows that the Party does
not have a correct understanding about dialectical relations between
revolutionary theory and practice. It also illustrates that the RCP
considers itself above practice.
Philosophical foundations of Marxism
It is true that scientific laws are prone to change, and they are further
refined by creative application of these laws to the objective reality.
Human knowledge advances through a spiral of practice-theory- practice,
where putting theory into practice is the principal aspect in the whole
process. Proletarian revolutions in Russia and China have proven that
the science of revolution also advances by the conscious struggle of
the masses.
The knowledge of class struggle mainly improves through a process of
advancing the class struggle, and not just thinking and talking about
it. Development of the science of revolution depends highly on building
a movement, where theories are continuously tested in practice. And
a successful revolution is the ultimate proof of these theories. Marx
wrote that 'the question whether objective truth can be attributed to
human thinking is not a question of theory, but is a practical question.'
(Theses on Feuerbach, Marx & Engels collected works, Vol. 5, p.6,
Emphasis mine)
The RCP claims that the philosophical foundations of Marxism, i.e.,
dialectical materialism, have not been adequately scientific and Bob
Avakian's New Synthesis has put those foundations on a more fully scientific
basis. But the content of the New Synthesis, particularly on philosophy,
shows that the RCP has not grasped the kernel of dialectical materialism
- 'The principal contradiction and the principal aspect of a contradiction'
developed by Mao. Without understanding the kernel of dialectical materialism
it is not possible to apply the Marxist philosophy, let alone develop
it.
Does the RCP's practice show that Bob Avakian and his New Synthesis
have put the foundations of dialectical and historical materialism on
a more scientific basis? It is true that the RCP has persistently defended
Marx, Lenin, Mao, and particularly Mao, against the revisionist line
of the Communist Party of China led by Deng Xiaoping.
However, since its formation, the RCP has not been able to apply the
universal truth of Marxism-Leninism- Maoism, and particularly the lessons
of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, to the concrete conditions
of the United States. Where is the RCP's scientific class analysis of
US society? Obviously, a communist party cannot build a revolutionary
movement and advance without having a Marxist class analysis.
If the RCP had grasped Marxist philosophy properly, it could have discovered
the particularities of the class struggle in the US. It would have been
able to carry out a scientific class analysis of the US society and
identify the most advanced section of the working class, the motive
force of revolution in the country. On the same basis, the party would
have been able to identify the main strategic ally of the proletariat
as well as its secondary class allies. The questions of identifying
our friends and enemies are fundamental for making revolution in any
country. Despite producing tons of literature, the RCP does not have
any proper answers to these questions.
Without a revolutionary movement there can be no revolution
The RCP actively participated and even led international campaigns through
the RIM to defend real communism against the phoney communism of Soviet
social imperialism, especially during and after the collapse of the
Soviet Empire. But it has not been able to mobilise workers and the
masses in a qualitatively and quantitatively developing revolutionary
movement in the US, which is its central task.
The silence of the New Synthesis on the role of the working class in
revolution reveals the RCP's orientation. In fact, for the following
questions:
What is the role of the working class, particularly industrial workers,
in the class struggle in the US?
Has any section of the tens of millions of workers in the numerous and
massive industries been organised under the leadership of the party?
Has the RCP been able to mobilise workers in the working class towns
and cities such as Detroit, the heartland of the car industry?
Does the RCP have any influence among the industrial workers at all?
One would not find any answers. Therefore, it is not clear at all, how
a socialist revolution can be carried out in the most advanced industrial
country in the world without the participation of the industrial workers.
It is important to note that any reference to workers, industrial workers
and the working class has nearly vanished from the RCP's literature,
including the New Synthesis.
Exposing the US ruling class and insisting that it should be overthrown
is essential, but not enough. What is also needed is a clear revolutionary
strategy. A communist party, on the basis of the concrete conditions
and particularities of the class struggle in the US, should develop
a strategy for the masses to seize power. The RCP has neither been able
to develop a clear strategy to solve the fundamental contradiction between
the working class and the ruling class, nor has it been able to analyse
different objective situations at various times to identify the principal
contradiction at each stage, and find correct tactics to serve the strategy.
It is true that developing a powerful revolutionary movement takes a
long time. In fact, successful proletarian revolutions in Russia and
China took 23 years, from 1894 to 1917, and 28 years, from 1921 to 1949
respectively. However, communist parties in these two very different
countries and world situations were able to grasp Marxism and build
a successful revolutionary movement. They were able to analysis their
concrete conditions, carry out major two-line struggles and develop
an independent ideological- political line and a correct strategy.
On these bases, communist parties in Russia and China were able to recognise
and respond properly to various demands of the working class and the
masses. They identified and relied on the advanced section of the masses
to mobilise other sections. At each stage, these parties identified
the principal contradiction and worked out suitable tactics to unite
the people and divide the enemies of the people to advance the revolution.
These successful revolutions proved that without a revolutionary movement
there can be no revolution.
Indeed, these parties understood their central task and the particularities
of their societies, without which they would have not been able to develop
a powerful revolutionary movement to smash the old state and build a
new society. It is true that US society is very different to Russia
and China in those periods, and also that the world situation has considerably
changed. However, after 34 years of political activities, the RCP is
still stuck in the first bend of a long and tortuous road, and yet is
still negligent of the fact that it cannot play any tangible role in
the class struggle in the US society.
Proletarian revolution in the most powerful imperialist country in the
world is undeniably very complicated. It is true that the RCP has been
able to sustain its organisation and political struggle, and train many
valuable communists. Furthermore, the party has been able to initiate
or participate in many struggles against the oppression of women and
national minorities, opposing Christian fascists and supporting science
against obscurantism.
Indeed, this is an experienced party, but it has not been able to integrate
itself with workers and the masses, identify their just demands, and
develop a correct mass line. It has not been able to identify and mobilise
the most advanced sections of US society, and on this basis mobilise
others in a broad united front against the ruling class. A communist
party is a unity of opposites: a vanguard aspect and a mass aspect.
Generally, the vanguard aspect is the principal aspect. But the mass
aspect is absolutely necessary.. The vanguard is like the sharp cutting
edge of an axe, while the heavy rear side represents the mass aspect,
both essential to split the firewood. However, with the RCP's blunt
edge and a very light rear side, splitting and defeating the working
class enemies in the US even tactically has not been possible.
Mass movements and lost opportunities
In 1992, at the time of the mass rebellions due to Rodney King's beating
by the police, the RCP had 17 years of experience. But it was not able
to mobilise a considerable number of African-Americans and Hispanics
as well as progressive white workers against the white-supremacist ruling
class.. What about since then? Has the party in any effective way been
able to influence struggles of the national minority workers and the
masses against the racist state?
The restoration of capitalism in China, the demise of the Soviet Empire
and the economic crisis in Japan were some important factors creating
a huge opening for the circulation of western monopoly capitals and
its global expansion. These capitals, particularly from the US, penetrated,
restructured and subjugated the oppressed countries of Asia, Africa
and Latin America at unprecedented levels. Globalisation under the leadership
of the US, not only intensified the super-exploitation of billions of
workers and peasants around the world, but severely accelerated the
rate of destruction of the environment at a global scale.
These factors created massive anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist and
anti-environmental destruction movements. These movements correctly
targeted the heads of the most powerful imperialist states, wherever
they gathered. In 1998 in Seattle, hundreds of thousands of people,
especially working class youth and students, staged a massive show of
force. They acted with rage against the G7, super-exploitation of workers
and peasants in the oppressed countries and destruction of the environment.
These movements have overall shown a marked level of anti-capitalist
as well as internationalist spirit. But has the RCP been able to influence
any section of these huge movements and unite with them?
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, where more than 70% of the
population is African-American. The hurricane destroyed the city, especially
the run-down working class areas. Hundreds of thousands of people, particularly
African-American workers, lost their homes and did not even have access
to clean drinking water, food, sanitation and electricity. At first,
the US rulers concealed the scale of the disaster. However, opposition
and resistance grew very rapidly. Many people stormed the supermarkets,
and some people had taken up arms to fight the armed police who were
guarding the supermarkets and preventing people from getting food and
water.
At this stage, George W Bush ordered the National Guard to move into
the area, crush the resistance and protect private property. And today,
thousands of these workers are still homeless and live in caravans.
Where was the RCP at that time? Why after three decades of its existence
did the RCP not even operate in a city with such a large working class
population?
The US war on Iraq
In 2001, US imperialism, with the most powerful army and economy, initiated
its strategic offensive to establish an undisputed empire for the 21st
century. However, even before the occupation of Iraq, millions of workers
and the masses poured into the streets opposing the US ruling class
preparation to attack the oppressed nation of Iraq. Yet the RCP's concept
of 'Crusading McWorld versus Reactionary Jihad', which will be discussed
in part two, clearly undermined the role of the Iraqi people in the
conflict, and served to equate the two sides (US imperialism and the
resistance of the oppressed nation against it) as mutually reinforcing.
Hence, after a few years of confusion and failing to identify US imperialism
as the principal enemy, the RCP eventually launched a campaign to 'Drive
Out the Bush Regime'. This campaign aimed at putting pressure from
below on the US ruling class, especially on the Democratic Party to
impeach Bush. The organized mass upsurge to drive out the regime, along
with the still unorganized but widespread and increasingly intense mass
anger against Bush and the yearning to see him go, has been another
important factor forcing the hand of Democratic Party leaders. (The
Word Surfaces: New Openings and New Challenges, Revolution #30,
January 15, 2006)
Despite a massive anti-war movement and surge of political activities
among all sections of the masses, particularly the advanced, all the
party could do was to aim at mobilising the backward sections around
the question of regime change. Besides the conflict at the top, there
has also been a movement from below forcing the question of regime change.
In the section of 'Waiting for November [Presidential Elections
in November 2006] Won't Do!' of the same article, the RCP emphasises
impeaching Bush as an urgent and a determining factor to build a mass
movement, and states, 'Look: there will be no impeachment without
mass upsurge. Even if you pin your hopes on the top Democrats for this,
you have to recognise that they will not act unless and until they fear
that their base is getting beyond their control.'
Well, which section of the masses pins their hopes on the top Democrats?
Obviously, the backward. The RCP urges these sections of the masses,
particularly the supporters of the Democrat Party, to put pressure on
their leaders.. The RCP hopes that the leaders of the Democrat Party
can be persuaded to impeach Bush only if they are pushed far enough.
Frankly, this is creating an illusion among the masses that tailing
one faction of the reactionaries against another is for the benefit
of revolution.
Tailing one faction of reactionaries under the pretext of using contradictions
among different factions of the ruling class is old reformist politics.
However, this time it is theorised by the RCP like this: 'So it
may not be bad when thieves fall out, not bad at all …
if their victims seize on it to do something good.' Historically,
such a dependent line has been the main cause of the failure of mass
movements.
Even when powerful working class and mass movements were under the leadership
of communists, e.g., in France, Italy, Greece, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia,
etc., they failed because communists could not develop an independent
ideological- political line. Consequently, the whole movement became
futile, and in many cases a large number of communists and people were
slaughtered. In the imperialist countries such as the US, the source
as well as the content of the line of labour aristocracy and this line
are the same, where both strive to limit the struggles of working class
and the masses within the framework of the existing system.
In this case, instead of drawing a clear anti-imperialist line against
the whole ruling class and its reactionary war on the oppressed nation
of Iraq, the RCP's campaign strived to mobilise the backward sections
of the masses to unite with some factions of the ruling class who were
opposing Bush. Here, the RCP’s political stance shows
that the party did not recognise that the antagonistic contradiction
between US imperialism and the Iraqi nation was shaping the class struggle
in the US society. Therefore, the working class and the masses in the
country should be mobilised to support the Iraqi nation and its armed
resistance against the US.
The RCP states, 'The White House and Congress need to look out and
see that country is overwhelmingly polarized against them and they need
to seriously fear that if they don't put a stop to this whole direction
that they are going to lose the allegiance of millions of people.'(Daring
to Change Minds and Move Millions: The Case for Impeachment Now, Revolution
#75, January 7, 2007, Emphases mine)
The RCP states that the 'country is overwhelmingly polarized'
against the ruling class, but instead of putting forward a revolutionary
political line to overthrow the imperialist state, the RCP warns the
ruling class that they would lose people's support if they do not change
their direction. This is certainly not the way to raise the masses political
consciousness, who were overwhelmingly and in colossal numbers defying
the ruling class. Hence, with such a reformist line, the RCP was unable
to mobilise the advanced section of the people to build a revolutionary
movement.
Moreover, after the occupation of Iraq, the vast majority of the working
class and the masses continued to actively oppose the Bush regime's
atrocities in Iraq. Even many people who used to hang the US flag outside
their homes, openly declared that they were ashamed of being American.
Instead of mobilising these people in the US to support the just struggle
of the Iraqi nation, the RCP condemned the Iraqi people's resistance
movement against the occupation of their country by the US forces. Clearly,
such a political line was not anti-imperialist, and therefore could
not mobilise the advanced section of workers and the masses in the US.
During the last two years of the discredited Bush regime, a huge political
crisis developed within the ruling class. In this favourable situation,
due to the absence of a thoroughgoing anti-imperialist line, communists
were marginalised and the revolutionary alternative remained extremely
weak. Therefore, the ruling class was able to create its own alternative
without having any serious opposition. This is one of the reasons that
even after years of political legitimacy crisis during the Bush regime,
the ruling system in the US could mobilise large sections of the working
class and the masses behind Obama.
Conclusion
Alas, once again, the RCP failed the test of class struggle and history.
It is ironic that the Party did not criticise its line and the campaign
at all. Perhaps because Bush was driven out by the Democrats after all!
In any case, the RCP did not analyse its serious shortcomings in using
such a great opportunity. Instead, Bob Avakian criticised the masses
who voted for Obama for not having a scientific understanding of racism!
(On Obama, Redemption and the Need for a Scientific Understanding,
Revolution #148, November 2008 )
Is this the role of the Party, or should the masses themselves develop
a scientific understanding of this complex phenomena? Well, with this
kind of spontaneous thinking, encouraging the masses to tail a faction
of the ruling class and practically having nearly no effect on the class
struggle even during a period of intense polarisation of the society,
can anyone accept that the New Synthesis has put the foundations of
Marxism-Leninism- Maoism on a more fully scientific basis?!
The practice and theory of the RCP and the content of Bob Avakian's
New Synthesis show that they are based on serious deviations from the
science of revolution. Now, the main question is: is the ideology guiding
the RCP's political practice still Marxism-Leninism- Maoism, MLM? Some
communists point out that the party is in the process of dropping MLM.
Others say that the RCP has already abandoned MLM. And the RCP and its
New Synthesis imply that the proletarian ideology has "advanced"
to Avakianism!
