The Will of the People Was NOT Expressed In This Election

Mods: permission granted for full posting and reposting (http://rwor.org/posting.htm)

The Will of the People Was NOT Expressed In This Election

Posted November 7, 2004 at rwor.org

Stunned anguish ... bitter disgust ... even despair. We try to find the words and we can’t.

And yes, it is as bad as you think. Almost certainly, it is worse.

On November 3rd, George Bush called up the newly elected Republican senators who believe in such things as the death penalty for abortion providers and banning gays from teaching and said: “It’s time to get the job done.” Capitalism personified, Bush told the press “Let me put it to you this way: I earned political capital in the campaign and now I intend to spend it”. He is full of himself—on a mission to take this whole nightmare to an even more intense, more repressive level.

If ever there was a leader who should be thoroughly rejected, if ever there was a time for a country to become politically ungovernable, if ever there was an empire that should be stopped dead in its tracks and prevented from shaping the future of the planet—that leader, that country, that empire is right before us. If ever there was a time when millions need to act on their nagging, deep-gut feeling that something is terribly and radically wrong—that time is NOW.

Bush crows that he is backed by the will of the people. Bull! What will of the people—when there was an entire campaign of disenfranchisement and intimidation directed against Black people and immigrants from Ohio to Arizona, from Florida to Mississippi?! What will of the people—when we may never be able to say what the easily-rigged electronic voting machines really recorded? What will of the people—when people were never given the chance to even hear (let alone vote on) a clear strong voice against the war, against the repression, and against the Dark Ages mind-set taking over this country? And where were the voices of people from Gaza to Falluja, Kathmandu to Korea who are the most victimized by this Bush madness? Where were the voices of the people of the majority of the planet who bitterly oppose the war on Iraq? The fact is that the will of the people was NOT expressed in this election!

True, Bush did get tens of millions of people to support him with eyes wide shut. That was and is scary—and we’ll speak to what’s behind that later. But Kerry never really went after Bush, and the whole way that things got confined to the terms of “who would be the better commander-in-chief” was loaded against the people from the gitgo. And now Kerry talks to us about “letting the healing begin?” We don’t think so.

Yes, people who hate what Bush stands for have to ask ourselves a hard question, but that question is this: how did we get to this place where the choices, the limits and the framework we are supposed to accept are marked, on one end by the “Republi-fascists” who are clearly fascist and openly imperialist—and on the other by the “Republi-crats”, who confine themselves to a few petty amendments and even to outrageous talk of healing?

And now what? Do we just accept this as the will of the people and try to find our place somewhere within these new norms?

No, no, NO! This has proven disastrous and we have to change course NOW. We have to build a fierce resistance based on what is truly just.
Two Different Moralities

Oh, but they tell us, Bush won because of his “superior morality.”

Well, what kind of morality plays on fear and the desire for a false and illusory safety to carry out relentless bombing and killing in Iraq, where it is now estimated that over 100,000 people have died as a result of the war?

What kind morality is expressed in the brazenly snapped photos of prisoners dead and wrapped in plastic, or stripped naked and tortured, all sanctioned and systematized by the chain of command and the legal opinions written by Bush’s top counsels?

Who can find moral salvation in whipping up fear and hatred of gay people, in preaching the “loving submission” of women to their husbands and in resurrecting the era of back-alley abortions?

What kind of morality accepts and excuses casting all immigrants under sinister, police-state suspicion, and equates dissent and critical thinking with “treason?”

What kind of morality puts over 2 million people in jail, the majority of whom are Black, Latino and other people of color?

This is a fascist morality, one based on a fundamentalist and extremely vicious version of Christianity. In the face of a rapidly changing world, this Christian Fascism offers people order, certainty and vengeance. Millions of people are severely addicted to Armageddon fantasies which are preparing them to mindlessly kill and die for this empire.

And no, we cannot either hope this will go away or seek “common ground” with this poison—we must “stage an intervention” with these people and directly take on this hurtful and lunatic mindset they have gotten caught up in and are trying to force on all of society. And if we do sharply take on this madness, we can “peel off” some of these people from the Bush bunch. Many of them have sons and daughters killing and dying in Iraq; many of them are victims of the “lean and mean” capitalism represented by Bush (and Kerry for that matter); many, especially women, are still trapped in social relations that scar their spirit and their lives; and whatever solace they find in this Christian fascism cannot ultimately transcend all that. This program of Bush’s is not ending—he is immediately going to try to escalate the war in Iraq in a terribly bloody way, and plan for further aggression. He is going to try to pass a heavier version of the Patriot Act. He is going to further cut the programs people desperately depend on and drive them to the “charity” of the churches.

We cannot afford to either ignore, run away from, or to lose hope in the face of this ignorant fanaticism and the hurtling momentum behind it. We can and must remember the lessons of 911—when Bush started out with the vast majority of the country united around his “War on Terror”, and when people were able to reverse that polarization by exposing the true nature of it and mounting forceful resistance in the streets. Yes, there is no denying, that Bush has just won the last round—and that this will have devastating consequences. But it is an even greater truth that the basis exists to puncture this atmosphere and actually reverse this dynamic and get a different dynamic going—resistance based on the real interests of the people, resistance based on aiming not just to dissent from or oppose this agenda, but to actually STOP IT.

And yes, we do need morality—but a different morality. Our morality cannot be a rationale for oppression and plunder, but must be an ethic based on the understanding that the lives of people born around the world are no less precious than our own. On the belief that the needs and interests of people should determine the economic and political order, not be subjugated to a drive for ever greater concentrations of wealth and power. On our refusal to stuff women and gays back into the brutal box of traditional biblical notions. On our profound rejection of racism and all its “modern, enlightened” coded language and policies. On a powerful vision of human potential and the idea that all people should be brought into thinking critically and scientifically and enabled to take part in determining the goals and policies of our societies on an ever-deepening and expanding basis. On our resistance to inhumanity and our willingness to put it all on the line to stop it.

This morality reflects the interests of 90% of the people—not only around the world but yes, here in the U.S.—and is something that a movement of resistance should hammer out together and propagate. These are heavy times. The Christian Fascist morality is preparing people to fight and die for exploitation, oppression and ignorance. What are WE going to do? What kind of person is it worth being in these days? These are the questions that together we will develop the morality to answer and found our movement on.
Revolution, Resistance and What We Gotta Do Right NOW

Three years ago, shortly after 9/11, our Chairman, Bob Avakian said that, “things are bound to be vastly different ... the America we have known will not exist in the same way anymore.” This is profoundly true and borne out by the events of the past few years.

Even beyond the immediate grotesque inhumanity of the Bush agenda, there is an utter absurdity that in the year 2004, with all the tremendous resources and technological advances, with the unparalleled wealth of knowledge and communications, and with the creativity of billions on our planet, that we sit perched on the edge of being plunged into darkness. But these very conditions also hold the possibility of an entirely new era based on revolutionary transformation. The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a programme and an eminently sane and necessarily bold plan for revolution. And it has the leadership of Bob Avakian, who has led in looking at the whole experience of socialist society—upholding the great achievements while critically examining the shortcomings—and has re-envisioned a radically new “model” that not only eliminates the terrible inequalities of capitalism but brings forth a vibrancy and flourishing of the critical spirit never before seen in any society. And as part of that whole vision, we see the urgent need right now to join with others to build a movement founded both on our common opposition to the Bush juggernaut and an ethos where we discuss and wrangle over what should replace that and how we get there.

And as for the elections? Okay, we took a hit, a bad hit. But it ain’t time to leave the country or to put your head down and figure out how to live under fascism. For the past few years the people in this country have been taking our place as a part of a global humanity, filling the streets and letting the world know about the opposition to the whole Bush agenda of war, repression and enforced ignorance right here in its homeland. It was only two months ago that half a million converged to protest the Republican National Convention. That half a million folks—and the millions more who put their hopes in Kerry only to find them crushed yet again—have to act and act NOW.

Right now Bush & Co. are getting ready to carry out a horrific massacre in Falluja. They are preparing a disgusting coronation of their blood-soaked arrogant champion. They are moving quickly to bring down the hammer and beyond that to set the terms for the next generation. Is the Bush crew gonna face resistance to this? Will people all over the world see Americans marching in the streets, refusing to be bottled up—or will they be left with an image of a sheep-like populace rolling over for Bush, reinforcing the image of America as a monolith evil? Will people walk the streets of America, not even daring to think about the future and fearing for the present, or will they take heart when they see windows full of “NO” posters, whole towns declaring themselves “fascist-free zones”, and a rebirth of the traditions of the Sanctuary movement of the 1980’s and the Underground Railroad of slavery times? Will we have each other’s backs—the librarians, the professors, the artists, the everyday folks who dare to step out and say NO? Will we discuss and debate even as—and as part of—solidifying our own unity, while we boldly step to and try to win over people still under the sway of the Bushian mentality of fear and ignorance?

Will the people resist with an aim of defeating this monstrous shit?

They will if we have anything to say about it. And we aim to.

Hey everybody, we need to talk with each other. We need to work together. We need to struggle for our lives and for the future of this planet. Get with us. Check out the revolution. Resist.

Revolutionary Communist Party,USA November 2004

rwor.org

bobavakian.net

1. Kick

I know it's in bad taste to kick your own post, but this article is really amazing and something alot of people need to see. There is too much cynicism and demoralization out there and on top of that people I think are underestimating how bad this could get.

[harpo]

2. Dem leaders are afraid to stand up and fight...it might be up to us

3. It is up to us.

There isn't even a doubt about it. If we wait too long debating whether the Dems are going to fight or not we'll lose our chance to organize ourselves and make some change.

[noiretextatique]

4. it is up to us...read this, i'll been reading it a lot lately

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their Safety and Happiness."

5. Noiretblu: what do you think of this article?

I mean do you think the analysis is good? What about the ideas about what to do now?

[noiretextatique]

6. i think it's right on the money...a wake-up call is needed

massive protests are needed, but we also need to get more people on board to do it. here's my letter to friends and family. i posted it in a thread here yesterday. it's just a start, but i am crafting a vision.

I was going to simply share some information with you, but this turned
into a major rant, so bear with me and read all of it, please. I am
sickened by what's happening in this country, and disheartened and
discouraged about its future. But, I also firmly believe in the power
of the good people in this country, and I believe we all have to stand
up, come out of our comfortable spaces and face the reality...we are in deep spiritual trouble in this country. Yes...the problem is spiritual in nature. We have allow the worst in our natures to flourish in commerce, in politics, and yes, even deep in our own souls: our acquiesence to it all. Consider the lingering problem of racism in this country...WHY can't we get beyond it? We cannot because it serves a purpose for those who seek division and control...the same is true for lingering misogeny, homo-hatred, and all the other irrational and destructive isms.
We cannot, and must not tolerate this destructive mindset any longer.

I, and many others, feel it is time that we speak our truth to the destructive power that has taken hold of the national psyche and say: ENOUGH!!!!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

I am sending you this article and several links regarding ongoing
efforts to uncover fraud in this election. It's very important that we, as citizens, hold our government accountable for ensuring the integrity of our election process...and its outcome. We all know what happened in 2000, and there are a lot of good people out there working to make sure it hasn't happened again.

As you may know, Ralph Nader http://www.VoteNader.org/ is challenging
the New Hampshire vote, so there will be a recount there. The Voter
Integrity Project is also working on the NH recount.
http://www.ballotintegrity.org

Also, the folks at Black Box Voting are working on a number of issues,
including attempting to get the source code from some eletronic voting
machines.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Folks, we have an historic opportunity here. Even if we cannot oust
the fraud from office, we can certainly limit his so-called mandate.
But, I think we have a chance to do a whole lot more:
MAKE THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE KNOWN. The Supreme Court stole that
opportunity from us in 2000.

These efforts take time, energy, and most of all money. So, please ask
yourself what it would be worth to you to restore some semblance of
democracy, decency and fairness to our national government, and save
our country from further disgrace, ruin, and war, including cultural
war issues that do nothing but divide us, so we can be more easily
conquered. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't want gays to
get married? Don't marry a gay person. It's all so simple.

I am so sick of hearing religion used an as excuse for bigotry, hatred,
and the denial of the rights of full citizenship and personhood.
Remember when religion was used against black people...to justify
slavery, jim crow, and segregation? The only VALUE worth having is one
that YOU LIVE, not one that you bestow upon yourself because you are a
follower of one religion or another. Let me tell you something: GOD is just fine with me. I am by far a more MORAL person than that pea-brained moron squatting in the white house. And when I marry the woman I love...GOD will still be just fine with me, and I will still be more moral than all the people who would deny me the same rights of citizenship to prove to themselves that their morality is superior to mine. IT IS NOT!
I never gave a damn about the gay marriage issue until it was used by
the republicans in this election...YES, THEY STARTED THIS SHIT. YES,
IT WORKED AS PLANNED. YES, THEY USED IT TO APPEAL TO homophobes, just
as they used Willie Horton and "welfare queens" to appeal to racists.
Please don't tell ME it's any different.

I say it's time our country live up to it stated principles...I say
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! Our forefathers and ancestors did not work and die
for our country to be taken over by a vicious group of folks who rule
by hate, fear, intimidation, and who have succeded in turning most of
the world against us, and pitting American against American.
We can no longer sit back and wait for someone else to do the
work...our nation, and the world needs us to stand up and say:
NOT IN MY NAME: NO MORE STOLEN ELECTIONS! NO MORE BULLSHIT WEDGE
ISSUES! NOT MORE PITTING US AGAINST EACH OTHER! NO MORE HATRED AND
FEAR! NO MORE...

The great African-American poet, Langston Hughes wrote: "America was
never America to me," back when lynching was still a common practice in
this country. It pains me to think that yet another generation of
folks will not recognize themselves as Americans because of the hateful
atomosphere some have been working so hard to create, and the ugly
divisiveness that will eventually destroy all that IS great about this
country. It really doesn't matter what your political persuasion is,
or who you voted for, or what your religious beliefs are. What matters
is where we are headed, as a nation, and as a people, and if we are
going to allow the further destruction of our most basic values as
Americans, per the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We all know these lofty words did not apply to most of the people in
the country when they were written...not the native indians, not the
men who didn't own land, not the women, not the indentured servants,
and not those held as slaves. What we need to ask ourselves now
is...who else do we exclude? Who else gets demonized and scapegoated so
that we can claim our moral superiority?

So please, do what you can, even if it's just spreading the word.
And remember: EVIL FLOURISHES WHEN GOOD PEOPLE DO NOTHING.

An American who wants America to finally be America to ALL Americans.

7. I think...

People need to give up on electoral illusions. The election did not represent the will of the people not simply because Bush won (and frankly I don't think any investigation will get far enough to prove that he didn't and even if they do it will be a mute point because Kerry conceded), but because they were illegitimate to begin with. There is an interesting article about this which is related to the one I've posted here you can read it here: http://rwor.org/a/1257/elections-not-will-of-people.htm

It has a very similar title but it is different.

[noiretextatique]

8. you know, i can read that & grasp its meaning

but the people i know wouldn't even read it. if i can engage them in taking baby steps, perhaps then they will be open to taking larger ones.
there is a lot of apathy and fear, and acquiesence, and there is the belief that things will never really get that bad. things are bad...that's the message i'm trying to get people to ACT on.
see what i mean?

9. Yeah, I see...

You should try to give people the real deal though, just to see what happens. My experience has been, not only are people ready for it they're begging for it.

[noiretextatique]

11. i will take your advice

with a focus group and see how it works. i know my dad would love it :D

13. cool

:yourock:

[Karenina]

10. Copy, SEND!

:loveya:

12. I think I'm going to make copies of this and...

Hand it out to people. Especially all the depressed dems and progressives. Some people were on the verge of tears, and others were blaming the people of America for their "stupidity" and "ignorance". I like this article because it's not cynical or arrogant and it's not defeatist. It gives a real accounting of the stakes of this moment and what to do about it, something that is missing from most of the political discourse right now. We have to change this discourse before it's too late. We can't let people get suckered into believing that Bush has a mandate and that religion and politics are just going to be linked from here on out. We can't let people think that gaybashing, racism and sexism are O.K. now because the "people have spoken" and endorsed Bush's fascistic agenda.

14. What do people think about...

the prospects of revolution in this country?

[ever_green]

15. A sick, twisted morality

That's what they support.
I want to do something, I think we all do, but what?

16. I think we could start by popularizing this analysis

The more people grasp on to this the better. From there we have to start uniting and defending the first who are attacked, getting in the streets, building political power that is not beholden to the electoral process and the rich and powerful.

Check this out: http://www.refuseandresist.org/about/art.php?aid=1524

We could start building new chapters of R&R and uniting with other activists while discussing what kind of future we really want.

I would also encourage people to checkout rwor.org

[ever_green]

17. Think about how zealous religious fanatics are......

WE need to be just as fervent about getting OUR message out!! We could take some lessons from them, it seems to work.

[mikehiggins]

18. mmmm...let's see now

revolution? Nah.

Communist? Nah.

So far, two for two.

Unite with others while we discuss what the future should look like? Wasn't that a plot point in the musical les Miserables?

So on one hand the Christian Taliban is getting ready to hand us our asses on a daily basis, and on the other hand the hard-core lefties are getting ready to talk about what they're going to do.

Well, folks, the general 'merican isn't ready for that yet, even assuming he or she will ever be. It isn't going to fly and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, is as much of an anachronism as anything left over from the last millenium.

In your heart, if you are not one of the hard-core cadre around the RCP, you have to know I'm right. Nobody is going to win by storming the barricades, except if you define winning as breaking a few Starbucks windows.

There are some folks in the world who would rather be right than succeed. Some would rather be right than even survive. Most average citizens don't come anywhere near those extremes.

If the destruction of the American system is your goal--futile as that goal may be--then things like the RCP make sense. If making this a better country is your goal, then you are wasting your time going down that road.

We are in the third century of our democracy and it has been improving by fits and starts all along. This Bush aberration is a danger to the survival of our republic but not an insurrmountable one. Trying to bring about a revolution in this nation will do no more good than letting Bush run amok for the next four years. Better by far to use that energy and idealism on programs with some chance of succeeding.

24. Some comments

First of all no-one is talking about storming barricades. What the RCP is bringing forward, if I'm not mistaken, is the seriousness of the direction which the Bush crew is sending things.

I think if people continue to hold onto illusions about the system, whether it be voting or the mythology around the founding documents, then people are going to be limited in what they can do to defeat Bush and everything he stands for.

Right now we're watching the total capitulation of the Democratic Party. They are shortly going to stop even pretending to care about gay rights, women's rights, the rule of law, peace, etc. They've stabbed us in the back over and over again and Kerry's concession is just the latest. But then Clinton comes out and says that this election "brings great opportunities to Bush, and great opportunities to us, and the two are not necessarilly in conflict." I think people really need to measure the difference between the DLC and the Bushies. Look at what this country has brought down on the world throughout its history and ask if it is really something worth defending.

Universal healthcare? not without a massive resistance demanding it. Troops out of Iraq? Again not without millions in the streets in this country. Massive resistance works and it is the only thing that has ever brought progressive change in this country.

Again you can't vote racism out of existance. You can't vote an end to patriarchy. You can't vote to fundamentally change social relations in a way that benefits the majority of people. Even when they do allow you to vote the decisions are so constrained that you really do have to pick the lesser of two evils. Why not fight for a real vision of the future? What is that vision? Let's discuss it.

As for this idea of the invincible American Empire, no empire lasts forever and there are plenty of contradictions tearing this one apart. The question is what will take its place, more of the same or a world worth living in.

Sure mistakes have been made in the past by communists. Mistakes continue to be made, but communists have brought more people closer to true liberation and freedom in this world than the genocidal, slave-trading, World War waging, colonizing, western powers and their "democracy" and "freedom". The problems with socialist societies, while real in many places have been exaggerated and distorted by such amazing public opinion makers as the House Un-american Activities Committee. The advances have been completely ignored.

Right now in Nepal, India, Bhutan, Philipines, Peru, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and many other places communists are making tremendous advances. The first wave of revolutions in the 20th century was just that, the first wave. We are about to recieve the second and much bigger wave of revolution in the world.

But again the RCP is not talking about organizing the resistance NOW by dividing between people who want revolution and those that don't. They're talking about a much more general ferment with everyone and anyone who wants to see the direction of this country and the world changed uniting and resisting. It happened to some extent during the 60's, but we can do it bigger and better.

[Straight Shooter]

19. Not morality issues. Even Rove says it was Iraq War and terrorism

Polls are showing about 20 percent voted their "moral values."

What does that tell us? bush will try to shove some of that "lip service evangelical" agenda down our throat, but they really don't have the clout they think they do.

The real clout is big pharma and insurance companies. That's where the fight needs to be taken. They control everything. The rest is smoke and mirrors, just like the entire bush administration.

Note: I don't have the link handy, but it was a yahoo article where Rove was interviewed. Damn, he's everywhere lately, and he's doing it to take focus off bush, who is being medically rejuvenated.

[The Wielding Truth]

20. Sorry, Communism does not work. It is too prone to corruption.It

also stifles creativity,and individual freedoms. Out of the frying pan into the fire on this one.We fought to free so many from Communism it would be so foolish to revisit it. The thoughts of total equality is not and will never be viable, because every single living being is different. Now equal rights under the Bill of Rights is the sensible way to secure a somewhat classless society.Capitalism is very workable, but it must be controlled. Balance of power is a must.
We must insure that monopolies will not continue. States should regulate the more sensitive matters of personal behavior not addressed in the constitution.
I agree we should speak out about being turned into sheep and about losing rights already fought for. Remember the past. Use what works .
Keep the balance.Liberty, Life, Pursuit of Happiness. Now that sounds familiar.

[Oak2004]

21. The criticisms are sound, the criticizers are not

Marxists are the fascists/Dominionists of the left. They have an ideology which, they believe, trumps reality.

That's not to say that a Marxist can't direct valid criticisms at those they oppose -- they often do raise very good points, just as at times the Right has raised some valid criticisms of the excesses of the left. I don't have much, if anything, to disagree with in that criticism.

But when it comes to following someone or something, it's not enough to tell me what's wrong with someone else. You have to tell me what's you're going to do. And what Marxists would do, if they could, is try to impose an ideology upon reality with the use of force.

This dimension of Marxism is not often mentioned by historians of Communism, but in my opinion it underlies many of its atrocities. The Great Leap Forward became a great famine because Marxists thought that revolutionary fervor would create new realities in manufacturing and agriculture, yet, just as always, manufacturing and agriculture is a matter of science and technology and economics. The Soviet Union, earlier, damaged its capacity to grow food through an insane adherence to Lysencoism, a discredited, crackpot theory of biology. Why? -- Lysenco's idea's corresponded to their theory of the New Soviet Man.

Everywhere, Communists demanded that science and technology and economics and the human mind and body do the impossible, and when they failed, they purged the hapless humans who could not reshape reality to fit the ideology. Sometimes the hapless humans to save their own necks cut corners and constructed falsehoods to cover their failures, and the consequences were unacknowledged shortages and shoddy goods and plenty of innocent people swept up to meet arrest quotas. I had studied the Soviet Union for a long time, and I had heard of the shortages and quality issues, but it took seeing Brezhnev's Russia with my own eyes to fully appreciate its dimensions. Everything bent, crumbled, stained, broke, wore down and fell apart before its time. I went home convinced, as few others were at that time, that the Soviet Union would certainly collapse within my lifetime.

What's chilling, in fact, is that the neocons are sticking so closely to their Marxist roots. The founders of the neoconservative movement (Kristol, et. al.) began their political journey as Trotskyites, firm believers in the Marxist dogma that the revolutionary man makes reality. Disillusionment eventually deposited them on the doorstep of Leo Strauss, who taught them that the ruling elite through ruthless self-centered force of will makes their own reality. They went in a circle and came back to the same spot, leaving only their optimism behind.

That anecdote about empires making reality really does reflect their views. And those views, Marxist views, are the views that led to more suffering and death and economic decay than any other point of view in the 20th century, Hitler included.

22. Avakian has spoken directly to these criticisms

Part 1:
The Struggle in the Realm of Ideas
by Bob Avakian

Revolutionary Worker #1250, August 22, 2004, posted at http://rwor.org

(Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from the edited text of a recent talk by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA. This talk was given to a group of supporters of the RCP who are studying the historical experience of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and preparing to take up the challenge of popularizing this experience and engaging in discussion and debate with others about it, particularly on campuses but also more broadly.

The entire talk is online at rwor.org. Footnotes and subheads have been added for publication.)

I am going to talk for a while--I don't know how long, but usually the smart money bets that it'll be a little while. And then we can have some questions and discussion. So I'm very excited about all this.

As you know, the title of this talk is "Dictatorship and Democracy, and the Socialist Transition to Communism," but before getting more directly into questions relating to that, I want to talk about the importance of working with ideas, and the struggle in the realm of ideas. Many of you have probably read the article on this subject which was printed in the RW a while ago now by Ardea Skybreak, titled "Working with Ideas."* And the article stresses the importance of actually getting deeply into this realm in its own right, really wrangling with ideas, and having an open mind about what you're dealing with, and then ultimately taking your ideas into the real world, into the realm of practice and testing them out there.

This is a very important approach generally for people in the sciences, or people generally who work in the realm of ideas. And it is something that people who seek to apply the outlook and methodology of communism should be the very best at. But that takes work. It isn't an automatic thing. Just because you take up the most scientific, the most comprehensive and systematic world outlook and method doesn't mean that you are therefore automatically good at working with ideas, or that you automatically arrive at the truth about something. And conversely, as we have also emphasized, there are people who not only don't apply this outlook and method, but who disagree with it--or even detest it--who nevertheless discover important truths. And understanding that is also a very important part of really grasping and applying the world outlook and methodology of communism. That's the contradictory nature of it.

So working with ideas is a struggle in its own right. It's something that has to be gone into deeply in its own right, while of course ultimately it can't be divorced from the real world, from the world of practice, from people struggling to change the world, and from the masses of people in all the different endeavors and spheres of life that they engage in. But even while we keep that in mind and remain firmly grounded in that as a basic point of understanding and orientation, it's nonetheless crucial to recognize that in any sphere, if you are really going to learn about it and make changes in that sphere, you have to immerse yourself deeply in it, you have to engage other people who are also working in that sphere, and you have to take their ideas seriously.

One time someone wrote me a letter and asked: how do you read things, do you do what's called "proof-texting"?--which is a way of reading to refute something. Do you read it in order to make your point? What he was referring to was the approach of only looking for things that confirm what you already believe; for example, you start out with a disagreement with somebody and in reading what they write you look for those things that you don't agree with, things that prove your point, and then sort of tautologically you go around in a circle. You end up with: "Aha, it's wrong." And I replied, no I don't approach things that way. Even things I vehemently disagree with, going in, I still try to look to see what there is that they are grappling with, what ideas they may hit on even inadvertently or may stumble on, or may actually wrangle with more systematically. There are things to be learned even from reactionaries. There are things to learn from reactionaries, even about politics and ideology, let alone other spheres. That doesn't mean we take up their outlook or their politics. But there are things to be learned. And this is an important point of orientation.

Now, I'm stressing this because, on the one hand, we know that the backbone of the revolution will be the masses of exploited and oppressed proletarians; but there is a great importance to winning people, and to bringing forward people broadly, from among other strata. And in particular there is an importance to bringing forward people from among the intelligentsia--winning them to sympathy and support for our project and our vision of a radically different world, a communist world. We need to increasingly win as many of them as possible to become revolutionary communist intellectuals, actively partisan to our cause, and more than that, to become part of the vanguard. There can never be a communist revolution without this.

CREATIVITY AND THE VANGUARD
And there is a real question that comes up and is often raised: Can you actually work with ideas in a critical and creative way and be a member of a vanguard communist party? Or can you really do creative work in the arts or sciences and be a member of such a party? Many people answer this by adamantly saying no--that, by definition, a party that is disciplined, that applies democratic centralism, that has a strong central core of leadership, and in some cases has a very strong individual leader, by definition will stifle the initiative of other people, will prevent them from really thinking creatively and critically, and will prevent them from bringing forward anything new; that by the dint and weight of the discipline and "bureaucracy" of such an organization, it's bound to crush and suffocate any kind of creative and critical impulse.

Well this is a real question, and it doesn't have an easy answer. I do believe that fundamentally the answer is and must be resoundingly yes, this can be done. But again, it's not easy, and it's not simple and we haven't entirely solved this problem in the history of the international communist movement. There is much more to be learned, critically summed up and brought forward, that is new in this regard. There is important experience of the international communist movement and socialist society and the dictatorship of the proletariat, very real positive experience in this sphere, but also considerable negative experience, which again, needs to be critically examined and deeply and all- sidedly summed up. And, frankly, we need to learn how to do a lot better.

For example, I have spoken a number of times in various writings and talks about the Lysenko experience in the Soviet Union.** Lysenko was an agronomist, a botanist, who claimed to have brought forward new strains of wheat that would make production leap ahead in agriculture. And this was a real problem in the Soviet Union, that agriculture was seriously lagging industry. And, of course, if that gap continues to widen it throws the whole economy out of whack and basically unhinges your attempts to build a socialist economy. So this was a very severe problem they were facing, particularly in the early and mid 1930s. And Lysenko basically brought forward a theory which contradicted basic principles of evolution and fell into the whole idea of the inheritability of acquired characteristics and so on, which is not scientifically correct. But pragmatically it seemed like a way to solve the agricultural problems, so Stalin and others threw a lot of weight behind Lysenko. And this did a lot of damage. Not only in the short run and in a more narrow sense--it didn't lead to the results that they were hoping for--but it also did a lot of damage in the broader sense in terms of how people were being trained to think, and how they were being trained to handle the relationship between theory and practice, and reality and understanding and transforming reality. There's a way in which this has had long- term negative consequences. First of all, it did in the Soviet Union. And it did in the international communist movement, because it trained people to think in a certain erroneous way.

Now, this situation was very complicated, because many of the people who were the experts and authorities in the field of biology, botany, and so on in the Soviet Union were carried forward from the old society. And many of them were political and ideological reactionaries. So here you see the contradiction is very acutely posed. Lysenko was trying to make a breakthrough to advance the socialist cause, and being opposed by authorities, many of whom--not all, but many of whom--were political and ideological reactionaries. But it just so happened that they were more correct than him about the basic point at issue. Yet political expediency dictated what was done there, and the people who were critical were actually suppressed.

So you can see the complexity of the problem. And it's not so easy to handle. These are real life and death questions. Whether people eat is a life and death question. That's what was at issue, was whether people eat, whether they have clothes in the winter. And the Russian winter is worse than Chicago, okay?

When you have a socialist economy you are not relying on the imperialists any more. And you are not relying on exploiting the masses of people. So you are trying to bring forward new forms, new relations in which to carry out production, and "it's all on you"--it's all on us, it's on the proletariat, it's on its vanguard, it's on the masses of people. How do you solve these problems?

Well, Lysenko was trying to solve this problem, but the method he came up with wasn't correct. But what was worse, was that he was supported out of instrumentalist thinking. In other words, you make your ideas an instrument of your desires or aims. You want something to happen, so you "reconstruct reality" so it falls in line with what you want. You make reality an instrument of predetermined aims, rather than proceeding from what reality actually is, and then figuring out how to transform it on the basis of what it actually is and how it's actually moving and changing and developing, which reality always is. So this is a fundamental question of outlook and methodology.

And, beyond this particular experience of Lysenko, there is overall a real contradiction and real tension that objectively exists between the line and discipline of a party at any given time, and creative, critical thinking and work in the realm of ideas broadly speaking. There is a real, objective tension. The Party is trying to mobilize its own ranks and the masses to change reality. It has to make its best estimate of what the key aspects of reality are at any given time, and how to go about mobilizing people to change them. Which means by definition that there are many things that it can't pay attention to at any given time. And we have to resist the tendency to "know-it-all-ism." Communists are people who by definition have strong convictions . So, there's nothing that goes on that communists don't have an opinion about. But it is very important to know the difference between your opinion and what's well established, scientific fact, that has been determined and established from many different directions through a whole process to be the best approximation you can make of reality at a given time. You go into a movie, you have an opinion coming out. But your opinion is just that. And it's very important, especially for communists, and especially for leaders of a communist movement and a communist party, to know the difference between their impressions and opinions and what is scientifically grounded fact that is established through many different pathways, has been deeply and all-sidedly confirmed to be true.

So this is another contradiction we have to deal with. You are trying to change reality, and you are trying to grasp reality in its changingness, so to speak--because it doesn't stand still and wait for you to understand it, it's moving, changing--and you are trying to mobilize people to grasp and to change reality. And you have to all pull together to do that. In a real vanguard party you can't have people all going off in different directions, all implementing their own lines, and still mobilize masses of people to change reality. But by definition when you do that--when you all pull together to mobilize masses of people--there is a danger and a tendency to impose thinking from the top. It would be simple if it were just a bureaucratic problem, but there is a necessity to mobilize people behind what you understand to be true, and that does require leadership and, many times, mobilizing people "from the top."

How do you handle that contradiction--between mobilizing people around what you understand to be true, while at the same time having a critical attitude and being open to the understanding that you may not be right about this or that particular, or even about big questions? That's a very difficult contradiction to handle correctly. It's something we have to sum up and learn how to do better on as well. And it's not easy. But we do have to do better.

The essence of the problem is not, as people sometimes say, learning to think for yourself. In something I wrote a number of years ago, I pointed out that, on the one hand, this is kind of a truism, thinking for yourself. It's impossible to think with anybody else's brain. So, in one way or another you are always thinking for yourself. You are always using your own mind to think. The question more essentially is, are you thinking according to one outlook and methodology or another. That's the fundamental question that's involved. It's not "free thinking" in the abstract, or as some principle raised above everything else, but thinking in accordance with and by applying the outlook and methodology of communism in order to arrive, in the most comprehensive and systematic way, at an understanding of reality. Not all of reality--that's never possible--but the essential things that you can identify at a given time that you need to deeply go into, understand and transform, while having an open mind about both those things you're not paying attention to, and even those things you are. And you have to do this even while you are moving forward to change these things.

So the essence is not free thinking, but what outlook and methodology you are thinking with. But there is an element of free thinking that has to be involved. And this should certainly be no less true for communists than for other people. It should be more true. And that's where you do run into contradiction and tension. Because free thinking in a communist party--a disciplined, democratic centralist party--doesn't come automatically and spontaneously either. Or if it does, it often goes off in directions that are harmful. How to get that right, how to handle that contradiction correctly, is something we need to do more work on.

All that I have been speaking to so far has a lot to do with a principle that Mao emphasized--that Marxism embraces but does not replace all these different spheres of society and human endeavor. Each of them has their own, as Mao put it, particularity of contradiction. Each of them has its own particular features. Each of them has things that have to be dug into deeply and wrestled with and wrangled with in an all-sided and deep-going way. That was the point of that Ardea Skybreak article. And whether it's music, or physics, or biology, or any sphere that you can think of, there are particularities to these things that people who are in these fields are grappling with all the time.

23. Some truth

(There is much more on this here: http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#democracyspeech )

Your summation of Communism is the same summation as the House Unamerican Activities Committee. Seriously read their reports and you'll find the same lies and slander. Certainly the Soviet experience and even that of China were not perfect, but they were better than what they had before in most ways they were immensely better (if still not good enough). If you truly investigate REALITY not simply what "common sense" and popular knowledge have to say about these experiences you'll see that the very accusation you make against Communists holds true to your analysis.

Here is part of an article talking about the truth of the Cultural Revolution:

The Truth About the Cultural Revolution
Revolutionary Worker #1251, August 29, 2004, posted at http://rwor.org

The rulers constantly bombard us with the message that "communism is dead," that it hasn't worked and cannot work, and that revolutions in power lead to tyranny. One aspect of their ideological crusade is to systematically distort the revolutionary experiences of the Soviet Union and China, especially the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. And the lies and slanders they put out often have the veneer of factuality.

The Revolutionary Communist Party has initiated a project to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. Its aim is to bring out the truth of these revolutions--their great achieve- ments and victories, along with their mistakes and shortcomings--and to bring forward the works and insights of Bob Avakian in summing up these experiences and pointing to lessons for humanity today. The campaign will involve research, writing, debates, and outreach. It will focus on colleges and universities. Our goal is to significantly influence the terms of discussion and debate around communism and the historical experience of socialist revolution. We invite all who are interested to take part.

The first effort of this project is a fact sheet that refutes the charges and distortions of the bourgeoisie: Everything You've Been Told About Communism Is Wrong: Frequently Asked Questions About Socialism, Communism, and the Cultural Revolution. An excerpt follows.

China's Cultural Revolution is so controversial. Many accounts describe it as a power-mad purge of opponents by Mao Tsetung that plunged China into great chaos. What was it really about?
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976 was a mass revolutionary upsurge involving hundreds of millions of people. It was a kind of "revolution within the revolution."

In 1949, China's worker-peasant revolution overthrew the old order. The revolution established a socialist political and economic system that empowered the masses and brought great benefits to people (see "Setting the Record Straight: Economic and Social Achievements Under Mao," RW No. 1248). But significant economic differences and social inequalities still existed in the new socialist society. Most dangerously, a new privileged elite had emerged. Its political-organizational center was right within the Chinese Communist Party, and its political and ideological influence was growing.

By the mid-1960s, the top capitalist-roaders(so called because they were high-ranking Party leaders who used a watered-down Marxism to justify taking China down a political-economic road that would lead to the restoration of capitalism) were maneuvering to seize power. Their goal was to re-institute systems of exploitation and to open China back up to foreign domination--in short, to turn China into the "sweatshop paradise" that it is today!

Far from being a "palace power struggle," the Cultural Revolution was a profound and intense struggle over the direction of society and over who would rule society: the working people or a new bourgeois class.

Mao and the revolutionary forces in the Communist Party mobilized people to rise up to prevent capitalist takeover and to shake up the higher levels of the Party that had become increasingly cast in a bourgeois-bureaucratic mold. But the Cultural Revolution was much more than that. The masses were carrying forward the revolutionary transformation of the economy, social institutions, culture, and values and were revolutionizing the Communist Party itself. This is what Mao called continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.1

But was this really a popular upheaval? Mostly what you hear was that it was a terrifying "cleansing" of society.
The Cultural Revolution was not about "round-ups," people being sent to "forced-labor camps," or "totalitarian group-think." The methods of the Cultural Revolution were quite different. Workers, peasants, and people from all walks of life engaged in mass criticism of corrupt officialdom. They engaged in great debates about economic policy, the educational system, culture, and the relation between the Communist Party and the masses of people. Mao wasn't interested in "purges." He was calling for mass action from below to defeat the enemies of the revolution. Here are some examples of how the Cultural Revolution was waged.

The Red Guards. Millions of young people formed into these political brigades. They criticized government and party leaders taking society down the capitalist road. They called out elitist practices in the universities. They roused workers and older people to lift their heads and to question and challenge reactionary authority and policies. They traveled to the countryside to spread the movement and to learn about the conditions of the peasantry.
"Big-character posters ." These handwritten posters went up on the walls of schools, factories, and neighborhoods. They were an incredible expression of public criticism of policies and leaders. Paper and ink were provided free of charge. Accessible to everyone, they gave an immediate platform for debate. Over 10,000 kinds of newspapers and pamphlets were published by ordinary people in China as a means to debate political issues on a large scale (and in Beijing alone there were over 900 newspapers).2
Overthrowing capitalist-roaders and creating new power structures from below. 40 million workers in China's major cities took part in intense and complex political struggles to seize power back from entrenched elites. The political atmosphere was electric--in the city of Shanghai, there were over 700 organizations in the factories. Through political debate and experimentation, and with the leadership provided by the Maoist revolutionaries, new institutions of proletarian rule were forged.
Wasn't great violence perpetrated during the Cultural Revolution, with many innocent people suffering?
Standard Western accounts suggest that violent attacks on people and physical elimination of opponents had the official blessings of Mao--and that, policy or not, thuggish violence was widespread. Both of these claims are utterly false.

Mao's orientation for the Cultural Revolution was clearly spelled out in official and widely publicized documents. In the Sixteen Point Decision , it was stated: "Where there is debate, it should be conducted by reasoning and not by force."3 Other Maoist policy statements gave further direction. For instance, Red Guards were not allowed to carry weapons or to arrest or try anyone.

Mao called on the masses to "bombard the headquarters" and overthrow the handful of capitalist- roaders who were trying to lead society back into the clutches of capitalism. These were overwhelmingly political up- risings. Mass debate, mass criticism , and mass political mobilization --these were the main forms of class struggle during the Cultural Revolution. Party and administrative officials at all levels were given the opportunity to reform and participate in the struggle (and no more than 3% of cadre were even expelled from the Party--not exactly a draconian purge).

Was there violence? Yes, there was. This was intense and turbulent class struggle. In an unprecedented mass movement of this scale (we're talking about 30 million young activists alone).in a country of this size (800 million at the time).it would be hard to imagine otherwise. And it is inevitable that any great social movement that rights injustices is going to lead to some excesses. But three points must be stressed.

First, the violence that did occur was limited and sporadic--it involved only a minority of the movement.

Second, where harmful trends persisted on the people's side-- for instance, Red Guard students physically attacking people or humiliating officials, or people using the movement to settle personal scores and grievances--these things were criticized, condemned, and struggled against by the Maoist leadership. Take one crucial episode of the Cultural Revolution that you seldom hear about. In Beijing, workers following Mao's line went into the universities to put a stop to factional fighting among students and to help them sort out differences.4

Third, much of the violence that occurred was in fact fanned by high-ranking capitalist-roaders seeking to defend their entrenched positions. When they came under sharp criticism, one of their tactics was to mobilize groupings of workers and peasants to attack sections of people in the name of the Cultural Revolution. They even created their own conservative Red Guard formations that went on rampages! This was part of their effort to deflect the struggle away from themselves and to discredit the Cultural Revolution.

These capitalist-roaders eventually succeeded in overthrowing proletarian power in 1976. And speaking of reactionary violence, they were the ones who turned the army loose on protesting students and workers at Tiananmen Square in 1989.

What about the treatment of artists and intellectuals and the policy of sending people to the countryside?
Artists, intellectuals, and professionals were not targeted as a social group or stratum. Artists were encouraged to engage in the revolutionary movement. This included carrying out self-examination of how their works either advanced the revolution or held it back, and viewing their work in the context of the struggle to create a new society. The Cultural Revolution was aiming to foster revolutionary art that would portray the masses and help the masses propel history forward.

One of the objectives of the Cultural Revolution was to break down the cultural lopsidedness that existed in China. It was a social situation in which artists, intellectuals, and professionals were concentrated in the cities, and in which their work was largely divorced from the greater society, especially the 80% that lived in the countrysideat the time. The Cultural Revolution spawned society-wide discussion about the need to narrow the inequalities between mental and manual labor, between city and countryside, between industry and agriculture, and between men and women.

Artists, doctors, technical and scientific workers, and all kinds of educated people were called upon to go among the workers and peasants: to apply their skills to the needs of society, to share the lives of the laboring people, to exchange knowledge, and to learn from the basic people. Great numbers of youth and professionals answered Mao's call to "serve the people" and go to the countryside.

Now for social change to take hold, it was also necessary to institutionalize new social policies. For instance, high school graduates were required to spend at least two years in rural villages or factories before being considered for college. So there was an element of coercion (policies were enforced)--but would you object to school desegregation because it was mandated? And for many intellectuals, abandoning privilege and integrating with the masses in the countryside was a tremendous experience.5

Attacks on the Cultural Revolution for "ruining lives" and "destroying careers" are really taking issue with the Cultural Revolution's radical, anti-elitist social policies.

It is often alleged that the policy of sending doctors and engineers and intellectuals and other skilled people to the countryside was "punishment." No, it was not. This policy has to be seen in a larger social-economic context of Maoist China's quest to achieve balanced and egalitarian development. In the Third World, there is a crisis of chaotic urbanization and distorted development: overgrown and environmentally unsustainable cities with rings of squalid shantytowns; massive inflows of rural migrants who cannot find work; economic policies, educational systems, and health care infrastructure skewed to the well-off in the cities at the expense of the urban poor and the countryside.

Maoist China was consciously seeking to avoid Western-style urban overconcentration, integrate industrial and agricultural development, decentralize productive capabilities, and overcome regional inequalities. It was a strategy of development that paid attention to the welfare of the countryside and gave priority to the needs of the formerly exploited and neglected.

But I've read or heard about many first-hand accounts of the Cultural Revolution that describe great personal agony.
Different social classes and their literary representatives have very different conceptions of what's "right" and what's "wrong," of what's "horrible" and what's "liberating." The fact that someone "lived through an event" doesn't change this in the slightest, or necessarily give him or her special insight.

Many privileged urban-professionals in China felt "wronged" by the Cultural Revolution. They were subjected to criticism; their normal routines of life were disrupted; their privileges were undercut. These were the "wounds" they suffered, and this is the story they tell...with no small amount of distortion. It is hardly surprising that such works are lavishly praised and promoted in the U.S. and in China (where the enemies of the Cultural Revolution came to power in 1976). Positive assessments of the Cultural Revolution and positive "inside accounts" of what it meant for the ordinary laboring people don't generally get published.

Think about it for a second. What kind of understanding of the French Revolution would you gain from someone who was part of the old aristocracy? What would you learn about the U.S. Civil War from a member of the plantation gentry? Or about the struggle today around affirmative action in education from a white person who describes his "persecution" when he was skipped over for admission to his law school of choice? It stands to reason that such "eyewitness accounts" would be deeply biased against social change.

It's no different for the Cultural Revolution. More privileged social forces see, and distort, the Cultural Revolution through a particular social lens. This is not to say there's nothing that can be learned from any of these works, or that no mistakes were made in how some people were treated. But these highly personal narratives greatly misrepresent the actual events, the mass movement, and the main trends of the Cultural Revolution. They obscure the class interests and social programs that were in real opposition and conflict.

Can you point to real accomplishments of the Cultural Revolution?
First and foremost, the Cultural Revolution succeeded in maintaining proletarian rule and preventing capitalist takeover in China for 10 years (1966-76). It also led to profound social and institutional changes and deepened the orientation of organizing society around the principle of "serve the people." Here are some examples.

Education.
China's universities--which in the early 1960s were still the province of the sons and daughters of intellectuals, cadres, and the former privileged classes--were transformed. The old curriculum was overhauled as part of meeting the needs of building an egalitarian society. Autocratic teaching methods were criticized. At all levels, education was taken as much more than just classroom schooling--it was understood to be a broad social and lifelong process. Study and research were combined with productive labor. Revolutionary politics and political study were integral to the educational process. The Cultural Revolution attacked the notion that education is a ladder to "getting ahead" and that skills and knowledge are a ticket for gaining advantage and privilege over others. It promoted new values and the outlook that knowledge must be acquired and used to serve the collective good.
The universities instituted open enrollment: by the early 1970s, worker and peasant students made up the great majority of the university population. Educational resources were vastly expanded in the rural areas: for instance, middle-school enrollment rose from 15 to 58 million!6 The charge that the Cultural Revolution was a "wasted decade" in education is a gross distortion.and another example of class prejudice.
Culture. "Model revolutionary works" in opera and ballet put new emphasis on workers and peasants and their resistance to oppression (in place of old imperial court dramas). Western techniques were integrated with traditional Chinese forms, and many new performance works brought forth powerful depictions of revolutionary women that challenged patriarchal relations. There was an explosion of creativity among the masses: short stories, poetry, paintings and sculpture, music and dance. Cultural troupes and film units multiplied in the countryside. Between 1972 and 1975, Beijing held four national fine arts exhibitions (with 65% of exhibited works created by amateurs) that attracted an audience of 7.8 million, a scale never reached before the Cultural Revolution.7
Economic management. In factories and other workplaces, traditional forms of "one-man management" were dissolved. New "three-in-one" combinations of rank- and-file workers, technicians, and Communist Party members took responsibility for day-to-day management of factories and other types of work. Workers spent time in management and managers spent time working on the shop floor.8
Science conducted in new ways. "Open-door research" was introduced: research institutes were spread to the countryside and involved peasants; technical laboratories literally opened their doors to workers; and universities set up extension labs in factories and neighborhoods. Popular primers made scientific knowledge available to the masses.9
In conclusion.
The Cultural Revolution was an historic event without precedent. In a situation in which a socialist system had been established, Mao and the revolutionaries in the Chinese Communist Party mobilized the activism and creativity of the masses to prevent the restoration of the old order and to carry forward the socialist revolution towards communism: the elimination of classes and all oppressive relations. History has never seen a mass movement and struggle of such scale and guided by such revolutionary politics and consciousness. History has never seen so radical an attempt to transform economic relations, political and social institutions, and culture, habit, and ideas.

Were there mistakes and shortcomings in the Cultural Revolution? Yes, even some serious ones. But viewed in the context of its enormous achievements, and certainly set against the horrors of capitalist society, these are secondary.

But the communist revolution cannot stand still. It has to critically learn from its experience, not fear to interrogate itself, and advance further and do better. Bob Avakian has been providing the pathbreaking Marxist- Leninist-Maoist understanding to do just that.

Bob Avakian has been bringing forward a vibrant vision of socialism and communism. He has been enlarging the understanding of the tasks and contradictions of revolutionary leadership and how the masses can be unleashed to rule and transform society. He has been speaking to the indispensable role that dissent plays in socialist society, especially in contributing to the critical spirit that must permeate all of society. He has drawn attention to the importance of the intellectual and cultural spheres under socialism and that socialist society needs--and must foster--great intellectual ferment, creativity, and experimentation.10

If you hunger for a different kind of world…you need to explore the truth of the Cultural Revolution.you need to explore the visionary writings of Bob Avakian.

FOOTNOTES:
1 See Bob Avakian, Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions (Chicago: RCP Publications, 1979), chapters 6 and 7.



2 Mobo C. F. Gao, "Debating the Cultural Revolution: Do We Only Know What We Believe," in Critical Asian Studies , Vol. 34, No. 3, (2002), p. 428.



3 "Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (Adopted on August 8, 1966), in Important Documents on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1970).



4 Han Suyin, Wind in the Tower (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976), Part II, chapters 3-5.



5 See, for example, Xueping Zhong, et. al., Some of Us: Chinese Women Growing Up in the Mao Era (New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press, 2001).



6 Dongping Han, The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Educational Reforms and Their Impact on China's Rural Development (New York: Garland Publishing, 2000), p. 88; Suzanne Pepper, "Education," in Roderick MacFarquhar and John K. Fairbank, eds., The Cambridge History of China , Vol. XV (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), p. 416; Ruth Gamberg, Red and Expert: Education in the People's Republic of China (New York: Schocken, 1977).



7 Gao, "Debating the Cultural Revolution," pp. 427-430. Gao, who participated in the Cultural Revolution, describes the impact of the new culture in villages like his: "The rural villagers, for the first time, organized theater troupes and put on performances that incorporated the contents and structure of the eight model Peking operas with local language and music. The villagers not only entertained themselves but also learned how to read and write by getting into the texts and plays. And they organized sports meets and held matches with other villages. All these activities gave the villagers an opportunity to meet, communicate, fall in love. These activities gave them a sense of discipline and organization and created a public sphere where meetings and communications went beyond the traditional household and village clans. This had never happened before and it has never happened since" (p. 428).



8 See Stephen Andors, China's Industrial Revolution (New York: Pantheon, 1977).



9 See Science for the People, China: Science Walks on Two Legs (New York: Avon, 1974).



10 See, for instance, Bob Avakian, "Grasp Revolution, Promote Production--Questions of Outlook and Method"; "Reaching for the Heights and Flying Without a Safety Net"; and "Dictatorship and Democracy, And the Socialist Transition to Communism," all available online at rwor.org.