A Response to the RCP-USA's May 1st 2012 Letter
PREFACE
The Revolutionary Communist Party - USA’s [RCP-USA] May 1st Letter (Letter to
Participating Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement)
is, after its new Constitution and Manifesto, the third most important party document
regarding “Avakian’s New Synthesis.” Although this document was initially intended to
be an internal letter addressing the members of the Revolutionary Internationalist
Movement [RIM], the RCP-USA reversed its earlier decision and published the letter
publicly without a clear explanation.
We believe this whole game of internally addressing only the participants of RIM was an
unnecessary theatrical show from the very beginning. There is no reason to pursue an
internal RIM discussion around issues that have been public for several years––issues
that were made into a public matter first and foremost by the RCP-USA itself.
The RCP-USA’s Manifesto (Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage, A Manifesto
from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) publicly broadcasted its new post-
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line in 2008 and thus not as a document for discussion and
debate within the RIM. Then, in May 2009, this same document (as an appendix to a
letter whose audience clearly was not only the members and participants of the RIM) was
presented “to all the communist of the world.” It is worth mentioning that the RCPUSA’s
new Constitution––the first post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document prior to its
Manifesto––was also not an internal document.
The fourth plenum of the central committee meeting of the Communist (Maoist) Party of
Afghanistan [C(M)PA] took a stance against the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line of the
new Constitution and Manifesto of the RCP-USA and shared its position internally in this
regard with members and participants of RIM in August 2009. However, this internal
discussion had no principled or positive outcome since––in violation of the
organizational, political, and ideological commitments of RIM––all of the respective
discussions were openly and publicly broadcasted by the RCP-USA.
Subsequently, the central committee of the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) [CPI
(MLM)] made public their post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document “A Call to all Iranian
Communists.” Approximately around this time, the RCP-USA proposed an internal
discussion around our critique of their new Manifesto and Constitution. We realized,
however, the futility of keeping the debate internal after witnessing the open publication
of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document of the central committee of the
CPI(MLM), the RCP-USA’s continuous international efforts in propagating their post-
MLM line, the harm inflicted by this line upon the existence and activities of the RIM,
and finally, at the same time, the consolidation of this line within the RCP-USA that
purged opposing views under the label of an “inner party cultural revolution.” Thus, we
rejected the RCP-USA's proposal, which appeared to be in bad faith, and published the
position of the fourth plenum of the central committee of our party in our organ,
Sholajawid. Afterwards, we also criticised the CPI (MLM)’s post-MLM document in an
article entitled The Communist Party of Iran (MLM) also fell in the lost road of post-
MLM that was published in the aforementioned party organ.
Now that the struggle for the formation of a new international Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
organization on a solid political and ideological basis against various forms of
revisionism (particularly the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revisionism and the
Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism) has clearly materialized internationally, the RCP-USA
once again wanted to use the ploy of engaging in internal discussion around their post-
MLM line; apparently they immediately realized that their game no longer works.
Nonetheless, the open publication of the RCP-USA’s May 1st Letter, published four years
after the publication of its Manifesto, is its first formal and organized response in regards
to the theoretical struggles against the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line by our party and
other participants in the RIM. Until now it seems as if the RCP-USA expected opponents
of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line within RIM to only engage in internal debates
with the RCP-USA and thus, in our opinion, end up lonely and isolated. However, the
publication of documents regarding the Special Meeting of the members of RIM
illustrated that this expectation was clearly incorrect and unrealistic.
Without submitting itself to a process of discussion and debate within the RIM, the
Manifesto of the RCP-USA was openly published, thus presenting its post-Marxist-
Leninist-Maoist line internationally outside of RIM. This single party's unilateral action
concretely meant the dissolution and dismantling of the RIM and its committee. Given
the effective role that the RCP-USA played in carrying forward the activities of the
committee of RIM, as well as the overall activities of RIM, this act practically heralded
the collapse and liquidation of this vital international organization. No other party had
such a determining role within the RIM. Moreover, this party had a key role in ending the
publication of the RIM's internal journal, eliminating the conditions for internal debate
and discussion between RIM members. For this reason, the RCP-USA did not have the
right to expect internal struggle from other participants and members of RIM.
Now this party, with the publication of its May 1st Letter, accuses us of “sentencing first
and putting [it] on trial later!” This claim is the expression of an Afghan proverb that
states: “accuse before being accused!” In actual fact, it was RCP-USA that sentenced first
and then conducted a trial. For was it not this party that––in the unilateral publication of
its Manifesto in 2008, along with the defenders and supporters of its political line––
sentenced all of the participants and members of RIM with accusations of “revisionism”
and “dogmatism” and, above all, imposed a punishment that was the liquidation of the
RIM? Why did this party imagine that it alone possessed the right to “sentence first and
put on trial later?”
Indeed, the leadership of the RCP-USA, that had purged opposing views within its party
through a supposed "cultural revolution", and considered the RIM its “backyard”,wanting
to restructure this organization––first ideologically then politically and organizationally–
–so that it would tail the RCP-USA's unquestioned hegemony. This plan, however, could
not be executed. Now that other parties, including ours, have begun ideological, political
and organizational struggles for the reestablishment of an international Marxist-Leninist-
Maoist organization, the RCP-USA warns against “sentencing first and putting on trial
later.”
In any case, the RCP-USA should not expect others to follow a framework that was
already decimated by the RCP-USA itself.
We believe that the decision, on the part of ourselves and our comrade parties, to hold a
Special Meeting of RIM not only resulted in a successful meeting where particular and
important decisions were met, but also forced the RCP-USA to once again clearly present
its post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line, thus providing the opportunity to carry out a
mainly successful theoretical struggle against it.
But the RCP-USA avoided participating in this Special Meeting and in fact evaded a
face-to-face collective debate. This party has, over the past few years, constantly
attempted to start one-on-one discussions with different members of the RIM, including
our party, while they have been willing to send their members to many countries to
pursue these isolated discussions, they have never shown any willingness to visit us in
Afghanistan.
Thus we will debate the May 1st document of the RCP-USA in a serialized manner,
focusing on different key areas, and publish each separate but connected part of this
series upon completion. This first section is specifically related to the discussion against
our party in section VIII of the May 1st document.
***
ONE: ON POST MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM
The RCP-USA, nearly three years after the C(M)PA took a position against its post-
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line, defended its stance in its May 1st 2012 letter. This letter,
however, does not directly respond to the document of the fourth plenum of our party
against the RCP-USA but instead is a response to our document against the statement of
the central committee of CPI(MLM). Such vicarious behaviour avoids the responsibility
of dealing with direct arguments and thus results in an ambiguous and hazy response.
1: the RCP-USA's indefensible defense
All of the points raised against our party in the RCP-USA’s May 1st 2012 letter have been
expressed in only a few pages of a 58 page letter, and even these few pages are affected
by the lazy decision to deal only with our document regarding the CPI(MLM). Why has
the CPI(MLM) itself avoided taking an active role in these discussions? For a while this
party has been obliged to not only respond to our critiques, but has been obliged to
respond to the relatively lengthy discussions regarding A Group of Iranian Maoists
which, in actuality, has been a response to their own call (“…a call to all Iranian
communists”) to act responsibly and engage in a debate and discussion with them.
But why is the RCP-USA refusing to respond to the critiques directed specifically against
them; why are they addressing the wrong document and addressing only a few particular
issues rather than producing a holistic response to all of our arguments and questions?
The reason for this kind of behaviour is clear: this party is unable to defend its post-MLM
line; this is mainly because this line, in itself, is indefensible. Therefore, the RCP-USA
engages in a one-sided and ambiguous debate in order to avoid a lucid and clear
discussion on the actual issue. The result of this kind of behaviour is that, concretely
speaking, post-MLM is defended according to its strategic direction, while being denied
in its tactical orientations.
In 2009, the fourth plenum of the central committee of the Communist (Maoist) Party of
Afghanistan took a stance against the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line of the new
Constitution and Manifesto of the RCP-USA. Now, after all of this party's delays in
responding to us, the onus should be on them to delve into the main issue of the debate,
namely the post-MLM character of their line, in a clear manner capable of providing
equally clear answers to our questions. In the current situation, the importance of
delivering this clear and precise response has gained double importance now that the
opposition to the post-MLM line not only comes from, in the words of American blogger
Mike Ely, a “sterile place” like Afghanistan (a charge which could be equally levelled at
the RCP-USA’s behaviour), but now possesses an international character.
In one of our documents we have claimed that CPI(MLM) has fallen "on the lost road" of
post-MLM and, in this context, wrote:
"The strategic direction of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line of the RCP-USA's
new Manifesto and Constitution, and now the document of the central committee of
the CPI(MLM) that names this line a 'new synthesis' is obviously clear. This 'new
synthesis' is not a thought like 'Gonzalo Thought', a 'path' like 'Parachanda Path' or
an 'ism' like 'Avakianism'––something that is the continuation and evolution of
MLM––but it claims to be a total synthesis, meaning a fundamentally new post-
MLM theoretical framework and ideological weapon. It is thus that we consider it a
deep and wide deviationist line with a depth and breadth that is deeper and wider
than the deviationist line of the Communist Party of Peru that emerged under the
label of 'Gonzalo Thought'; it is much deeper and wider than the deviationist line of
the Communist Party of Nepal that named itself “Prachanda Path.”1
But the RCP-USA’s document eliminates the first sentence from the above passage, the
sentence that we have italicized for the purpose of identification, and has instead quoted
the remaining part of the passage in order to dodge a principled debate concerning the
issues under discussion. And the main issue was clearly stated in the sentence that has
been cut out; we reiterate: “[t]he strategic direction of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
line of RCP-USA’s new Manifesto and Constitution, and now the document of the central
committee of the CPI(MLM) that names this line a 'new synthesis' is obviously clear.”
Due to the elimination of this sentence, the RCP-USA evaluates the remaining portion of
the passage in an ambiguous manner when it writes:
“This statement that Bob Avakian's new synthesis, mislabeled 'Avakianism', is a
'way deeper' deviation than that of the UCPN(M), is itself astounding. Who has
aborted a revolution? Transformed the goal of the struggle to perfecting bourgeois
democracy? Which line has effectively turned its back on the struggling masses all
over the world? Nevertheless, there is something important to be considered
underneath the C(M)PA's denunciation: a wrong understanding of the process
through which Marxism (or any science for that matter) develops from a lower to a
higher stage. In reality, Avakian's new synthesis is not a departure from Marxism
as the C(M)PA suggests but rather a further development of Marxism. But the
C(M)PA understands this whole process wrongly.”
But in the initial passage we did not wrongly label Avakian’s "new synthesis" as
Avakianism, as the continuation and evolution of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but rather
treated it a total and fundamental deviationist synthesis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
and a fundamentally new post-MLM deviationist theoretical framework.
Despite the fact that this party considers it wrong to label “Avakian’s new synthesis” as
“Avakianism”, how does it describe and interpret this sentence from its document: “in
reality, Avakian's new synthesis is… a further development of Marxism"? If this is a
“further development” of Marxism then it would be a continuation and evolution of
Marxism––or, to be more precise, a continuation and evolution of Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism. And if this is what the RCP-USA is claiming, then why is calling it an “ism”
incorrect? Are we supposed to understand “Avakian’s new synthesis” as something
similar to “Gonzalo Thought” or “Prachanda Path” that has supposedly further developed
1
All
the
quotes
taken
from
the
article
CPI(MLM)
also
fell
in
the
lost
road
of
post-‐MLM
have
partly
been
retranslated
as
the
previous
translation
had
some
significant
inaccuracies.
MLM? In fact, this tactical orientation in the RCP-USA’s document, like so many of its
tactical orientations, is merely asserted without clearly and precisely demarcating its
limits and boundaries.
Is the RCP-USA actually astounded by the fact that we consider the Avakianite post-
MLM revisionism much deeper and wider than the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism or
are its ideologues merely playing dumb? We believe that their astoundment is proof that
they are indeed playing dumb and the reasons for this are also obvious.
In response to the question “[w]ho has aborted a revolution… [t]ransformed the goal of
the struggle to perfecting bourgeois democracy?” we assert that the direct factor for this
national and class capitulationism was the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism and that, in
this matter, Avakianite post-MLM revisionism did not have a direct role in this process.
At the same time, however, it must be noted that it was the RCP-USA that directly, and
indirectly through the Committee of the RIM (the embryonic cell of the leadership of the
entire RIM), encouraged, prepared the ground for, and formulated the entire premature
assertions of “thought, path and the new synthesis”, leading ideological line struggles
around these formulations.
At the same time, however, when there is no revolution in existence in the USA, how
could the RCP-USA (or any other party in that country, for that matter) manage to abort a
non-existent revolution or transform “the goal of the struggle to perfecting bourgeois
democracy?”
Therefore, the deviations of this party should be evaluated in the light of its own
theoretical and practical activities and compared in a relative manner to the deviation of
the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). In this regard, two arenas of the
activities of the RCP-USA should be considered: the arena of theoretical struggle and the
arena of struggle in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.
From a theoretical perspective, it can be firmly stated that the Avakianite post-MLM
revisionism is a much deeper and wider deviation than the Prachanda-Bhattarai
revisionism. The Avakianite post-MLM revisionism, from the perspective of its strategic
orientation documented in its new Manifesto and Constitution, in fact considers the
totality of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as outdated and obsolete; it rejects this theoretical
formulation in its basic party documents. Although the essence of the Prachanda-
Bhattarai revisionism has no fundamental difference with Avakianite post-MLM
revisionism, from a theoretical perspective it is not "deep and wide" to the same extent as
post-MLM revisionism. As stated in our document against the statement of the central
committee of the CPI(MLM):
“The post-MLM line raised by RCP-USA and the central committee of the
CPI(MLM) is the most profound and expanded deviation from a theoretical
perspective within the RIM. This deviation is much more dangerous than the
deviation in Nepal and the earlier deviation in Peru. Therefore, we think that the
framework of struggle against the deviations that have emerged among participants
of RIM the struggle against the post-MLM deviation is our principal duty in the
current conjuncture.”
The deepness and profoundness of this Avakianite post-MLM revisionism, as compared
to the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism, can be observed in the inner activities and
performances of the respective parties. The Avakianite post-MLM revisionism within the
RCP-USA has so profoundly and totally corrupted the RCP-USA that not even a single
individual has been able to take a correct and principled stance, or even a comparatively
correct stance, against Avakianite post-MLM revisionism. People such as Mike Ely––
who have either quit the RCP-USA or have been purged by the process of the so-called
inner party cultural revolution––are similar in their deviationism and revisionism to the
Avakianites. The inner party “cultural revolution” within the RCP-USA has in reality
been nothing more than the struggle between the dominant Avakianite revisionism and a
variety of counter-revolutionary, revisionist and liquidationist tendencies.
Within the Unified Communist party of Nepal (Maoist), however, it has been possible for
a new faction to form and engage in an actual line-struggle. This possibility, at least,
eventually led to an initial stance against this party's revisionism and has been successful
in the formation of a new Maoist party—the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist. And
though this initial stance is not yet a profound and comprehensive stance against the
Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism, there is still the possibility that it could transform into
such a positionality.
Moreover, the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism belongs in the 18th century––in that it is
doing no more than demanding a bourgeois revolution––while the Avakianite post-MLM
revisionism is a form of post-modern 21st century revisionism. The former type of
revisionism is influenced by the Nepalese and oppressed nations' sense of inferiority and
presents its universal claims with shyness and timidity; the latter revisionism is
contaminated by the crude hegemony of an imperialist super-power and is thus heady,
reckless in its hegemonic universal claims.
“Prachanda path” has even been cast aside and forgotten within the Unified Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist); and the newly formed party, the Communist party of Nepal-
Maoist, has even announced its struggle against this “path”. Therefore, the Prachanda-
Bhattarai revisionists do not see themselves as standing against the historical waves of
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist struggles for the formation of a new communist international
organization––nor do they oppose it theoretically––but the post-MLM Avakianite
revisionists lay claim to such a position and this is why they have written and published
the current document under discussion.
The crisis in the RIM actually began before the clear and explicit emergence of the
Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism; it started with the undermining of the overall politicoideological
line of the RIM by the committee of RIM––and the RCP-USA was the
primary force behind this development. While it is true that the politico-ideological
expression of the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism (in different realms of practical and
theoretical struggles) further intensified and expanded the crisis of RIM, in the final
analysis it was the RCP-USA that––due to its leadership role in the committee, through
raising a profound and far-reaching revisionist, post-modernist line, and by violating all
of its political, ideological and organizational commitments towards the RIM and all of
its members––decimated the committee of RIM and thus led to the collapse of the entire
RIM, and all of this in order to recast and remold the RIM according to the “new
synthesis”. Thus, despite the fact that the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism played an
important role in the collapse of the RIM, the principal responsibility lies with Avakianite
post-MLM revisionism. Thus, in response to this question "which line effectively turned
its back on the revolutionary masses?” we can honestly say it was the Avakianite post-
MLM revisionist line.
There is no need to refer at length to the discussions in our previous party documents. In
fact, the RCP-USA document under discussion, and its particular invective against our
party, provides ample evidence of the post-MLM strategic direction of the RCP-USA's
political line. Indeed, this document claims that the entire stance of our party against the
line of the new Manifesto and Constitution of the RCP-USA is based on “a wrong
understanding of the process through which Marxism (or any science for that matter)
develops from a lower to a higher stage.” And yet, in the same passage that supposedly
proves the “wrong understanding” of our party we can clearly see that it is actually the
RCP-USA that misunderstands the process through which Marxism develops as a
science.
Here the RCP-USA document quotes other sections from our document, but this time
both the first and last section of our passage (both of which that have been italicized
below) were ignored and thus, rather than dealing with the entirety of our critique, the
RCP-USA again gets caught up in a tangential issue. We wrote:
"Different natural, social and ideological phenomena, from their occurrence until
their turning into other phenomena, go through different stages of development.
These different stages of transformation and development can in general be divided
into the two types of quantitative and qualitative levels of transformation and
development. The process of quantitative to qualitative transformation is an
expression of the fundamental law of development of every phenomenon––that is,
the law of contradiction. In this process the quantity and quality and also quality
and quantity form the unity of contradictions. In the quantitative level of
transformation, although the quantitative changes are the principal aspects of
transformation in the phenomena, there is also partial qualitative transformation.
Also, in the qualitative level of transformation, while the qualitative transformation
is the principal aspect of the phenomenon transforming into another phenomenon,
there also is partial quantitative transformation as well. Therefore, in the entire
process of quantitative transformation, qualitative transformation is also
accumulated. This qualitative transformation that has been gradually accumulated
in the period of the qualitative transformation of a phenomenon transforms into a
qualitative leap that result into the resolution of the fundamental contradiction of
the phenomenon and transforming it into a new phenomenon. […]
The theoretical framework founded by Marx is also not an exception in regard to
this law. Since the time of Marx and Engels, this ideological weapon has passed
through two new levels of quantitative transformation and development that were
Leninism and Maoism. This is not intended to underestimate the importance of the
new qualities of Leninism and Maoism. Our intention is to clarify that in Marxism-
Leninism, the continuation of Marxism and generality of Marxism-Leninism is the
principal aspect transformation. Rupture from Marxism is the non-principal aspect.
Also in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the continuation of Marxism-Leninism in
Maoism––and the generality of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism––is the principal
aspect of transformation. Rupture from Marxism-Leninism is non-principal aspect.
This is why the different levels of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism are fundamentally different levels of development of a single
ideological weapon. […] We can only talk about a new ideological weapon instead
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism when this ideological weapon has reached a further
level of qualitative transformation and development after passing through different
stages of its quantitative changes and its life is over after its final synthesizing to be
replaced by another ideological weapon. Only in such a situation does the "new
synthesis" finds its fundamental meaning and content. […] Choosing titles such as
"new synthesis", "new ideological weapon" and "new theoretical frame" presented
by the RCP-USA and CPI(MLM) are exactly expressing this theme that finally
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has reached its ultimate qualitative and quantitative
stage of transformation and development, and with its final synthesis to give its
place to a new ideological weapon and framework."
Therefore, the main issue under discussion about the theoretical reasons behind the
choice of the title “new synthesis” for the theoretical works of Bob Avakian, and thus
how this title is indicative of the post-MLM character of this entire ideology, is set aside.
Instead, the RCP-USA document chooses to address another topic:
“The C(M)PA touches on the important question of the relationship between
continuity and rupture in the development of the revolutionary communist science
from a lower to a higher level. In an overall sense, the principal aspect is continuity
– that is, the upholding and enriching of the propositions, theses, methods of
analysis first developed by Marx and later raised to successively higher levels by
Lenin and Mao and today by Avakian, while rupture, which involves (although not
exclusively) the rejection of those elements of the previous understanding that are
discovered to be wrong or partially wrong, is in an overall sense secondary in the
process through which Marxism has taken leaps which does involve synthesis. On
one level, this seems to be what the C(M)PA is arguing in the above cited passage
and with which we would agree – there is a single continuity of Marxism and it
does represent a single ideological weapon. But this correct observation must not
be used to negate that Marxism has gone through leaps in the course of its
developments and these leaps also involve rupture with what were previously
understood truths. Achieving synthesis involves both rupture and continuity,
whereby the whole, including even previous positive elements, are recast. In the
C(M)PA discussion, reaching a new stage is a very mechanical process essentially
resulting from the accumulation of incremental advances in understanding. This
leaves out the central role of synthesis in reaching a higher level of understanding,
especially at key nodal points in the development of our revolutionary science. As
Bob Avakian has expressed it, communism is an integral philosophy and political
theory at the same time as it is a living, critical and continuously developing
science.''
“The C(M)PA constructs a Great Wall between rupture and continuity. First, to
note what should be obvious: rupture and continuity are a unity of opposites. It is
the dialectical inter-penetration that needs to be grasped. In the development of
Marxism it is necessary to stress that without rupture there can be no continuity.”
“If Marxism does not rupture with those aspects and elements that are wrong, onesided
and unscientific, Marxism cannot maintain its continuity with its scientific
kernel. If Marxism does not weed out its own previous wrong understandings as
they are discovered in the course of social practice and the advance of human
knowledge more generally, if it is not in this sense continually re-examining and
probing its premises, it ceases to be a science at all. This is what Avakian has been
doing in criticizing those secondary but nonetheless real and damaging elements in
the previous understanding and practice that has actually gone against the basic
scientific understanding of Marxism. And the result is not simply to add
corrections or amendments to the existing body of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism: the
previously existing understanding itself is recast, a synthesis emerges.”
“The C(M)PA's mechanical description of quantitative advances in understanding
leading to qualitative leaps and its efforts to apply this to the development of
Marxism is very much linked to the erroneous viewpoint that the application of
Marxism in a specific country will automatically lead to the corresponding advance
in theoretical understanding.”
“Let us return to the C(M)PA's arguments about the quantitative and qualitative
additions to Marxism. In fact, qualitative breakthroughs are not only the result of
an accumulation of partial truths, although that is definitely involved. At certain
nodal points in the development of any science accumulated experience, further
debate, the influence of discoveries and controversies in other fields will require reexamination
of some of the postulates and previous understandings.”
“The process that the C(M)PA objects to so violently, of reaching and uniting
around a new higher understanding of Marxism, is not so puzzling. Indeed, in the
process to form RIM itself and in the subsequent adoption of the formulation of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism the problem of stage and leap in our understanding
was directly struggled out…”
“Today revolutionary communism has again reached a new stage in its
development through the elaboration of Bob Avakian's new synthesis. Like
previous advances in our science it involves both continuity and rupture and the
recasting of the ensemble. The new synthesis provides genuine continuity with
Mao by going beyond Mao, and identifying elements, albeit secondary, which are
actually in contradiction to the overwhelmingly scientific aspects of Mao's
teachings. As the Manifesto from the RCP,USA puts it, ''It is very important not to
underestimate the significance and positive force of this new synthesis: criticizing
and rupturing with significant errors and shortcomings while bringing forward and
recasting what has been positive from the historical experience of the international
communist movements and the socialist countries that have so far existed; in a real
sense reviving – on a new more advanced basis – the viability and, yes, the
desirability of a whole new and radically different world, and placing this on an
ever firmer foundation of materialism and dialectics... So we should not
underestimate the potential of this as a source of hope and of daring on a solid
scientific foundation.”
The above passages were quoted at length in order to illustrate that the RCP-USA is
hiding the post-MLM strategic direction of its new line within a correct MLM tactical
orientation. We believe this tactic is being intentionally employed and that is why it is
condemnable.
For example let us examine the following quotations from this RCP-USA document:
“In an overall sense, the principal aspect is continuity – that is, the upholding and
enriching of the propositions, theses, methods of analysis first developed by Marx
and later raised to successively higher levels by Lenin and Mao and today by
Avakian.”
“Today revolutionary communism has again reached a new stage in its
development through the elaboration of Bob Avakian's new synthesis.”
“In reality, Avakian's new synthesis is not a departure from Marxism as the
C(M)PA suggests but rather a further development of Marxism.”
In these passages there is no mention of the end of the period of Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism and the start of another period, as current RCP-USA documents generally imply;
rather, there is a contradictory attempt to demonstrate that “Avakian’s new synthesis” is a
new stage after Maoism that is principally the continuation of Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism and, in a minor sense, also a rupture from the stage of Maoism. If this claim,
repeated several times in the above passage, is compared with the claims presented in the
Manifesto and Constitution of the RCP-USA––as well as the statement of the central
committee of the CPI(MLM)––and if it becomes the fundamental claim of RCP-USA in
these ongoing debates, then while it would still be fundamentally wrong and deviationist,
it would seem as if this party, to certain extent, is descending from the ivory tower of
post-MLM revisionism and, perhaps in confronting a principled MLM line struggle,
might be made to descend further so as to eventually accept revolutionary science and,
through this, earthly reality and its concrete positionality. Unfortunately, in the passages
cited above, there was an emphasis on three other formulations that, once again,
demonstrate the post-MLM strategic direction of the new synthesis. We will examine
these three formulations in further detail in the following section.
2: three erroneous formulations of the RCP-USA's post-MLM
.2.1. “A totally new and fundamentally different world” that has been emphasized in the
Manifesto of the RCP-USA.
But “[a] totally different world” means a world that is different in both base and
superstructure––a totally new world even from the time of Mao, and also from the
worlds understood by Lenin and Marx. So, if “a fundamentally different world”
means a world fundamentally different in its material base from the world of the
time of Mao, Lenin and Marx, then is such claim correct? Naturally a party that
has asserted such a claim in its Manifesto, and has continuously defended this
position, would strongly believe its claims. In this case, according to this party, the
current world, though it is still an oppressive and exploitative world, is also
somehow a world that has moved beyond imperialist capitalism or has moved
beyond capitalism as whole. And in such an imaginary world Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism cannot be of any utility and should be considered obsolete.
In fact, such an imaginary understanding of the current world is the objective (and
erroneous) basis of Avakianite post-MLM revisionism. A detailed discussion about this
revisionist and incorrect understanding of the current world is not possible in the current
exchange; hopefully we will be able to have a detailed discussion about this problematic
understanding––as well as its politico-ideological developments and consequences on the
line, program, tactics and strategies of the RCP-USA in relation to the American
revolutionary movement and its international responsibility.
To be brief: the current world, despite the many transformations experienced since Mao
Zedong, is still a world under the domination of capitalist imperialism––and in this
context the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist system is the contradiction
between social production and private appropriation, and the contradiction between
imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples, the contradiction between proletariat
and the bourgeoisie, and the contradiction between different imperialist powers, are still
the major contradictions of the world or the expressions of the fundamental contradiction
of the world, even though the contradiction between socialism and imperialism has
temporarily disappeared.
Moreover, we should note the following problems: the weakening of the theory of
proletarian dictatorship and the weakening of the theory of the continuation of the
revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat; disregarding the strategy of general
armed insurrection and replacing it with a strategy of frontism; the lack of emphasis on
revolutionary armed forces as one of the three weapons of revolutions; crude humanist
theorizing, the lack of emphasis on the role of the working-class, and the lack of
emphasis on proletarian internationalism by the RCP-USA is either the total or partial
reflection of this incorrect and revisionist understanding of the world.
2.2. “if [Marxism] is not in this sense continually re-examining and probing its
premises, it ceases to be a science at all.”
Let us evaluate this formulation of the RCP-USA in the light of the two preceding
sentences: “[i]f Marxism does not rupture with those aspects and elements that are wrong,
one-sided and unscientific, Marxism cannot maintain its continuity with its scientific
kernel. If Marxism does not weed out its own previous wrong understandings as they are
discovered in the course of social practice and the advance of human knowledge more
generally, if it is not in this sense continually re-examining and probing its premises, it
ceases to be a science at all.”
Here we can observe the assertion that “elements that are wrong, one-sided and
unscientific” should be discarded; this assertion is immediately employed to “continually
re-examin[e] and prob[e] [Marxism's] premises.” But rupturing from "elements that are
wrong, one-sided and unscientific", and weeding out the previous wrong understandings
of Marxism (that is, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) first of all requires emphasizing the
foundation of a correct, comprehensive and scientific kernel. Without this axiomatic
understanding, Marxism cannot save its scientific kernel. In other words, a firm emphasis
on the scientific kernel simultaneously means a firm emphasis on the continuation of this
science.
Clearly, both continuity and rupture are part of the process of the evolution of every
science, because this process of evolution––of every phenomenon in the natural realm,
society and human thought––is informed by the unity of opposites. Hence, a one-sided
emphasis on rupture at the expense of continuity is incorrect, just as the inverse emphasis
on continuity at the expense of rupture would also be one-sided and incorrect. Therefore,
a Marxism that proceeds according to the correctness of its fundamental foundations and
is capable of creatively applying its universal aspects in the three arenas of social practice
(class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiments) can and should
develop. In this context, there are indeed the two related tasks of continuity and rupture––
not simply the task of continuously re-examining the fundamental foundations, and not
simply the task of continuously weeding out wrongs. If we imagine, however, that the
process of development of Marxism is completed, there would naturally not be a
discussion about the continuation of Marxism; rather, the discussion would concern post-
MLM. This is precisely the point of the RCP-USA's position: that it imagines the process
of Marxism to-date completed and that it is "rebooting" Marxism because all it can see is
"rupture" and, despite speaking of "continuity-rupture", is not really interested in one side
of this dialectical understanding.
2.3. “recasting all elements including previous positive elements.”
The above sentence has been emphasized several times in the RCP-USA document.
Moreover, the document also claims that “previous progress in our science” has also
included this “recasting [of] all elements.” Phraseology such as “recasting all elements,
including previous positive elements” and “these syntheses similar to previous advances
in our science, also includes continuity and rupture and recasting it entirely”––which
ultimately means “recasting all elements including continuity and rupture”––are different
features of post-MLM formulations.
There is no doubt that every rupture and advance––either partially or especially
important––in the process of the evolution of the science and ideology of proletarian
revolution produces the necessity of recasting our theory. However, this recasting can and
should be to the extent that the ideological content of the rupture or advance is
appropriate to the particular concrete circumstances; otherwise there will emerge
contradictions between the ideological content of the rupture and its theoretical
formulation.
The RCP-USA and the central committee of the CPI(MLM) claim that Avakian’s new
synthesis is the realization of a series of ruptures and advances from the secondary and
subordinate unscientific elements in the theoretical corpus of MLM. Thus, due to this
realization, Avakian is said to have further developed Marxism. The corollary of this
claim should be that Avakian’s new synthesis is not a total rupture from Marxism, or
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but in fact is this theory's further development––that is, only
a partial rupture. However, based on this new synthesis, they are actually claiming that
they are recasting the entire theoretical body of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Such a
claim can only mean a total rupture from the theoretical body of MLM, rather than a
partial rupture, and thus not at all the dialectical relationship of continuity-rupture they
claim.
Contrary to what the RCP-USA claims, “previous advances in our science” (such as
Leninism and Maoism) did not mean the total recasting of the continuities and ruptures in
this science's development and, since Marx, has never experienced such a total recasting.
There is no doubt that Leninism was a rupture from Marxism, a rupture from its
secondary or subordinate mistakes and inadequacies (including, in specific cases,
ruptures from elements that, until Leninism, were understood as basic and fundamental),
but at the same time Leninism is also the continuation of Marxism. Therefore, in the
stage of Leninism, the ideology and science of proletarian revolution was not entirely
recast; it was only recast to the extent required by the ideological content of this
development. In this partial recasting, Marxism was not entirely erased and replaced by
Leninism; rather, the principal feature of Marxism was summed up in the term Marxism-
Leninism. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Maoism, while expressing partial ruptures
(a rupture from its secondary and subordinate mistakes, inadequacies, and unscientific
aspects, as well as a rupture from some of its accepted fundamentals elements) mainly
upholds the continuation of Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, it was in the Maoist phase
that the science and ideology of proletarian revolution was recast only to the extent that
the ideological content of the development of Maoism required within its particular,
concrete circumstances. Again, in this partial recasting, Marxism-Leninism was not
eliminated in order to be replaced by Maoism; rather, the principal aspect of the
continuation of Marxism-Leninism is summed up, and short-handed, in the phrase
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
3: the erasure of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
Contrary to the previous Leninist and Maoist ruptures and advances, however, the RCPUSA
has removed the phrase Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from its Manifesto and
Constitution. It should be repeated that our complaint is not about literary form––that is,
it is not about the use of words––but that this literary form precisely reflects the deviation
of its politico-ideological content.
The erasure of the phrase Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from the Manifesto and
Constitution of the RCP-USA, by the orders of Bob Avakian, has occurred without a
debate and discussion, and without any significant opposition from within the party. This
reflects the fact that within all of the RCP-USA's organizational ranks, after the
implementation of the so-called inner party cultural revolution, there was a willingness to
accept this openly revisionist action.
As we noted earlier, those who either quit or were purged from this party, including
bloggers such as Mike Ely and company, are in a similar or even worse situation than the
Avakianite revisionists. For example, Ely expressly supports the erasure of Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism from the RCP-USA’s documents and has called the C(M)PA's
criticism of this problem "dogmatic". Since Ely's condemnation of “Avakian’s new
synthesis” is primarily because of its cult of personality, he entirely rejects the C(M)PA’s
criticism of the political line of the RCP-USA’s new Manifesto and Constitution, content
to mock it for coming from a “sterile place” like Afghanistan. Thus, while expressing
happiness at this criticism of the RCP-USA, he does not forget to openly express his
American supremacism without bothering to hide it in a web of words.
The central committee of the CPI(MLM), some time before publishing its post-MLM
statement and during an internal discussion with the RCP-USA, had discussed the issue
of removing the phrase Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from the RCP-USA's new Manifesto
and Constitution, and had even questioned the contradiction between this literary form
and the ideological/political content of the “new synthesis”. From that time, until the
publication of the statement “A Call to All Iranian Communists”, we thought that there
were still disagreements between the two parties. After all, since the RCP-USA's
justification for the removal of MLM was not only baseless but ridiculous, it was natural
for us to think that there might have been disagreements between this party and the
CPI(MLM).
One RCP-USA rationale was: “Avakian asked us to remove it and we obliged.”
Another reason was that: “the name would get very long.” Apparently, the phrase
“Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Avakian’s new synthesis” was too long and cumbersome,
thus they kept “Avakian’s new synthesis” and removed the rest!
The third rationale was that: “adding different names, such as Leninism and Maoism,
have given the impression of quantitative additions, if we add new synthesis today and
another name tomorrow, that impression would be further reinforced.”
Finally, there was also this ridiculous rationale: “we have removed this phrase, but we
would not present this as a precondition for others.”*
There is no need to discuss this baseless and ridiculous reasoning. When we read the
statement “A Call to all Iranian Communists” we observed the removal of MLM in that
statement as well. We also noticed that between this removal and the post-MLM strategic
direction accepted by both the American and Iranian parties there is no contradiction;
rather, there exists an overall conformity, despite any contradiction between it and the
tactical orientations of the statements. We believe that when the CPI(MLM) notices this
strategic consistency between the two statements, they will have no reason to be in
disagreement with the RCP-USA about the removal of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
The May 1st Letter of the RCP-USA, unlike its Manifesto and Constitution, in some cases
does refer to Marxism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. But all references to MLM in this
document lack any serious emphasis so as to not disobey Avakian in this regard and thus
keep its post-MLM strategic direction intact.
4: a brief summation
At the end of this part of discussion, we would like to provide a brief summary of the
assertions the RCP-USA makes about the C(M)PA in the aforementioned document.
4.1. The document describes our position as “dogmatic" and "left in form.”
The RCP-USA in its Manifesto considers all of the member parties and organizations of
RIM "revisionist" or "dogmatic", without a discussion of each specific case, if they do
not agree with the “new synthesis”. Now the RCP-USA, in its May 1st letter, has
identified one of the “dogmatic” or more dogmatic parties––the Communist (Maoist)
Party of Afghanistan. In fact, according to the RCP-USA, the criteria for our
"dogmatism" is not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the positive accomplishments of
RIM, but our failure to adhere to post-MLM and “Avakian’s new synthesis”––which was,
in fact, the main deviationist line that emerged within RIM resulting in its collapse.
Indeed, the entire document that the RCP-USA chooses to address––CPI(MLM) also fell
in the lost road of post-MLM––clearly indicates that our party is neither dogmatic nor
left-deviationist.
4.2. The document claims that our critique of Avakianite post-MLM theory is
*
The
quotations
are
rough
translation,
close
to
meaning
from
a
Farsi-‐Dari
document,
not
the
exact
words.
contaminated by “venomous and gratuitous attacks” that the C(M)PA has launched
against the RCP-USA and “especially against comrades from the CPI(MLM).”
It would have been helpful if our “venomous and gratuitous attacks” against the RCPUSA
and the CPI(MLM) were indicated clearly rather than simply mentioned in broad
general terms. Definitely our critique, as well as the critique of any other MLM party
against post-MLM ideology, cannot be—and indeed should not be––a comradely mild
and calm discussion; it needs to be sharp and decisive.
4.3. The document states: “The C(M)PA's main point is to argue that it is wrong to
recognize that a stage of the communist movement has ended and it is necessary to usher
in a new one, and similarly it is wrong to believe that the understanding of communists
must also reach a new level.”
Here, once again, the strategic direction of the post-MLM line of the RCP-USA is
demonstrably clear. Announcing the end of one stage of the communist movement
without the start of a new stage is to announce the end of the continuation of that stage.
This also includes the end of this stage from a theoretical point of view.
However, it is not the position of the RCP-USA in its new Manifesto and Constitution
that the phase of Maoism––more precisely Marxism-Leninism-Maoism––which follows
the phase of Marxism-Leninism has ended and we have to move towards a successive
stage. Rather, this party considers all three phases of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to be a single phase that is completed. The Manifesto and
Constitution of the RCP-USA claims that “Avakian’s new Synthesis” is the theoretical
foundation for the beginning of a new stage. The publication of another Manifesto after
the Manifesto written by Marx and Engels is this party's practical step towards pursuing
this claim.
Not only do we believe that it is incorrect to accept that one stage of the communist
movement has ended, we also believe that it is incorrect to claim that there is a need for a
total qualitative rupture from the history of the communist movement in order to begin a
new stage of struggle. Nor do we accept that we have reached a fourth phase in the
evolution of the science of proletarian revolution. We also reject the notion that the
acceptance of this “thought” or “path” or “synthesis” somehow indicate the development
of a fourth revolutionary phase. We only accept the qualitatively real, though often
partial, steps that the RIM––either as a whole or on the part of certain members––has
made in marking the path of development towards a fourth phase; we do not accept frail
and unfounded grandiosity, or hegemonic and deviationist tendencies.
We are not opposed to an understanding of communism that claims the science of
proletarian revolution should evolve into a higher stage––should reach a fourth
revolutionary stage. But in order to reach a fourth phase of political and ideological
development, we believe that any advancement towards such a stage must correspond
with, and can only be achieved by, the course of revolutionary struggle. As it was stated
in our document regarding the CPI(MLM)'s statement, we (that is, the entire MLM
international movement) have achieved real and partial steps on the path of ideological
and scientific development. We believe that this unfounded and frail grandiosity of the
RCP-USA, this deviationist and hegemonic tendency, demonstrates ingratitude to the
struggles and sacrifices that have made it possible for us to take real steps towards
concrete ideological and political transformation.
4.4 The RCP-USA document claims: “[T]here is something important to be considered
underneath the C(M)PA's denunciation [mislabeling Bob Avakian’s new synthesis]: a
wrong understanding of the process through which Marxism (or any science for that
matter) develops from a lower to a higher stage. In reality, Avakian's new synthesis is not
a departure from Marxism as the C(M)PA suggests but rather a further development of
Marxism. But the C(M)PA understands this whole process wrongly.”
As we discussed in a previous section, we have not simply “mislabeled the ‘new
synthesis’ as Avakianism” but, actually, have examined its much more profound and
deeper deviationist essence as post-MLM. However, since it is being claimed here that
“Avakian's new synthesis is not a departure from Marxism as the C(M)PA suggests but
rather a further development of Marxism” there are a few points worth considering.
First of all, it should be asked which rupture/departure is being denied here––an
“Avakianist” rupture or a “post-MLM” rupture? The RCP-USA's document fails to
directly address this matter, specifically when it totally overlooks the discussion
regarding post-MLM; this indicates that the RCP-USA cannot—and does not want to—
have a clear and honest discussion about this issue. Indeed, the RCP-USA's May 1st
document, in its very arguments against our claim that "Avakian's new synthesis" is post-
MLM, calls this "new synthesis" a further development of Marxism, a complete rupture
from Marxism's history to date. It is interesting that we are being accused of an incorrect
understanding of the entire process by which Marxism (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism)
develops.
4.5. The RCP-USA claims that the C(M)PA rejects the fact that “Marxism has gone
through leaps in the course of its developments and these leaps also involve rupture with
what were previously understood truths.”
This is an attempt to confuse the critique: rather than a discussion about post-MLM there
is instead a discussion about the development of Marxism.
Here we should restate that partial advances and partial ruptures in all natural, social and
ideological phenomenon results into partial developments. While the final leap and final
rupture results into the ending of the existing phenomenon and sprouting of another
phenomenon. Our discussion in the document CPI(MLM) has also fallen in the lost
road… is about post-MLM, that has supposedly materialized after the completion of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as Avakian’s new synthesis to illuminate and enlighten the
world.
4.6. The RCP-USA states that: “In the C(M)PA discussion, reaching a new stage is a
very mechanical process essentially resulting from the accumulation of incremental
advances in understanding. This leaves out the central role of synthesis in reaching a
higher level of understanding, especially at key nodal points in the development of our
revolutionary science.”
Here again is a mixing up of our discussion regarding post-MLM and “the partial
development of our revolutionary science” which we don’t need to repeat in detail. In
short, and in regards to the accumulation of incremental advances in understanding, we
can say that we believe these advances will result in partial or total advances and
ruptures, resulting in a partial or total new quality––not spontaneously but as a result of
the final partial or total struggle between contradictions at war with each other, where
after the victory of one side, a new partial or total quality will emerge. The evolution and
development of revolutionary science is not an exception to this rule.
4.7. The document claims that: “The C(M)PA constructs a Great Wall between rupture
and continuity. First, to note what should be obvious: rupture and continuity are a unity
of opposites. It is the dialectical inter-penetration that needs to be grasped. In the
development of Marxism it is necessary to stress that without rupture there can be no
continuity.”
This allegation, however, is clearly unfounded and baseless. It needs to be noted that,
with the completion of the final rupture, the continuation and existence of the previous
phenomenon is out of the question; rather, a new phenomenon comes into existence. It is
therefore, when there is discussion of the emergence of a new phenomenon that we
cannot talk about the continuation of the previous phenomenon from which this new
phenomenon emerges. Thus, in the context of post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist formulations
we cannot talk about the continuation of MLM.
4.8. The document claims that the C(M)PA tries to apply its “mechanical description of
quantitative advances in understanding leading to qualitative leaps…to the development
of Marxism.”
Again there is confusion in this discussion between the development of MLM and the
discussion of post-MLM. Quantitative advances in understanding cannot exist without
qualitative partial advances. These partial advances facilitate the emergence of final
qualitative advances that push the contradiction towards antagonism. But the fruition of
any qualitative advance requires the emergence of an antagonistic struggle between
contradictions and the conclusion of struggle––and such an advance cannot emerge
spontaneously.
4.9. The document contends: “In fact, qualitative breakthroughs are not only the result of
an accumulation of partial truths, although that is definitely involved. At certain nodal
points in the development of any science accumulated experience, further debate, the
influence of discoveries and controversies in other fields will require re-examination of
some of the postulates and previous understandings.”
Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the mixing up of the discussion between
post-MLM and the development of Marxism. We re-emphasize that the accumulation of
partial truths prepares the condition for final rupture, which means pushing the
contradiction towards antagonism; we repeat, the existing qualitative rupture requires the
antagonistic struggle between contradictions and the conclusion of this struggle and thus
cannot emerge spontaneously.
4.10. The document complains that: “The process that the C(M)PA objects to so
violently, of reaching and uniting around a new higher understanding of Marxism, is not
so puzzling.”
This allegation is extremely unfounded and unjustified. We are not criticizing the process
of reaching a higher understanding of Marxism; rather, we are seriously criticizing the
futile claims of reaching a higher understanding of MLM (i.e. in Peru and Nepal) and the
even worse claim of a higher understanding beyond MLM (i.e. the Avakianite post-MLM
revisionism).
Moreover, the issue of unity between communists of the world––at the national and
international level, meaning the formation of new parties and the strengthening of
existing parties, and the formation of a new international communist organization––is not
only emerging from the necessity of reaching a higher understanding of Marxism (MLM)
but from the necessity of a wide range of other political and theoretical struggles, which
includes the aforementioned necessity, and so the requirement for a higher understanding
of Marxism is not the principal necessity in the current conjuncture.
We believe that the primary requirement for reaching a new unity on an international
level is to properly address the real necessities of struggle internationally and within
various and particular countries. The process of reaching a general summation of the
struggles of revolutionary communists (Marxist-Leninists-Maoists), including a
summation of the positive and negative experiences, over the past three and half decades,
of the RIM can and should provide the theoretical framework for this requirement.
In the closing sentences of the present discussion, it is necessary to mention that the RCPUSA
in its May 1st document, particularly in the section directed against the C(M)PA is
again and again referring to only the phrase “Marxism” and not "Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism" or even "Marxism-Leninism". If this party has really become purely "Marxist",
then they should add the phrase “Marxist” at the end of their name and call themselves
the RCP-USA (Marxist)! But this is not the case for the phrase “Marxism”, according to
the RCP-USA, actually means that "Marxism-Leninism" and "Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism" belong to the past and should be replaced with Avakianite post-MLM.
To be continued.
