January 30, 2008
free bob avakian?
IT WAS HARD to miss, splashed recently across a full page of The New York Review of Books: an advertisement featuring the boldface words, "Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice." ...Some of the signatories were regulars on left-wing petitions, but even for people often associated with radical causes, signing a pro-Avakian ad seemed bizarre. Did they not know what he stands for - or did they just not care?
Avakian is the chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, a tiny Maoist organization whose most visible activity is running several branches of a store called Revolution Books. (There's a branch on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge.) Through the bookstores, the party's website and newspaper, and his prolific pamphleteering, Avakian has advanced his views: Mao Zedong's China was "wondrous," according to Avakian's autobiography, and, despite the show trials, mass purges, and other acts of tyranny that Avakian acknowledges, Joseph Stalin had "an overall positive historical role."
more from The Boston Globe here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 08:45 AM | Permalink
Comments
While making the laughable claim that the Chinese Cultural Revolution (which had more to do with the feudal and Confucian past of China) is the high point of human freedom and history, and still clinging to Stalinist revisionism without blinking, much of Avakian's analysis rings very true, and is not to be discarded as ideological rubbish.
Let's give him some space, his ideas should be welcomed, and are needed in todays world.
If you are curious about his life and evolution, read From Ike to Mao.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 31, 2008 1:25:20 AM
If people would like to see for themselves what those who have signed the Engage statement have to say, go to http://www.engagewithbobavakian.org/comment.htm
Posted by: anonymous | Jan 31, 2008 10:08:28 AM
The article by Mark Oppenheimer, “Free Bob Avakian!” Boston Globe 1/27/08, is a distortion that ignores the content of Bob Avakian’s work where he actually deals with the many questions of revolution - why it’s necessary and possible and questions of democracy, dictatatorship, and leadership.
If you go to www.revcom.us and www.bobavakian.net you can find out about Avakian’s work. For a complete list go to: http://revcom.us/avakian/avakian-works.html.
People from all different perspectives have contributed their comments, which you can read at
http://www.engagewithbobavakian.org/comment.htm on why they think Avakian should be engaged.
Posted by: anonymous | Feb 2, 2008 11:56:43 PM
Revolution is necessary for what?
Posted by: Sagredo | Feb 3, 2008 4:51:38 AM
What a strange petition. Avakian's free speech is nowhere imperiled. He publishes freely. His writings circulate widely in print and on the internet. What wrongs due the signatories want to see addressed? The only one I can see is the widespread indifference toward Avakian's thought. That may be annoying to Avakian and the RCP but it is hardly a reason for outrage among enlightened advocates for free speech. Avakian remains as free to be ignored as anyone else.
The comparison to Finklestein, Ammous and Churchill moreover is unwarranted and misleading. Those three and others are caught up in tenure politics and attacks on academic freedom, not free speech as such. No one is threatening them with jail for what they publish or say. No one is preventing their writings from being circulated. Rather, their jobs in universities are imperiled by concerted efforts by right wing political advocates. This is I think a cause for grave alarm and for concerted response. Nevertheless, confusing assaults on academic freedom with a need to assert the importance of and imminent danger to Bob Avakian is both a little silly and a little disingenous.
Posted by: Jonathan | Feb 3, 2008 10:45:58 AM
You tell 'em, Jonathan!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Feb 3, 2008 12:51:01 PM
Jonathan--
I agree that Finklestein, Ammous and Churchill have been prevented from expression more so than "Chairman Bob".
But Avakian is advocating revolution, a death sentence under BushCo, while the rest have just lost their livelihood and professions.
As to the question of why is revolution necessary?
Systems don't commit suicide. All major change happens outside the reform based mechanism within systems,
As Adorno pointed out, "If voting could really change things, it would be illegal"
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 3, 2008 4:40:24 PM
Dave,
You misunderstand my post. Finklestein, Ammous and Churchill have not been prevented from expression. They've been targets of campaigns against academic freedom not freedom of speech, two very different things. Academic freedom is a contractual matter of the workplace, guaranteed by most universities that provide tenure. Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to everyone by the Constitution. Finklestein was denied tenure at DePaul. Ammous is subject to a campaign to keep him from getting tenure at Columbia (though it probably won't work). Churchill lost his job with tenure at Colorodo. None of them had their first amendment rights violated though each in varying degrees had their workplace guarantee of academic freedom violated. Being fired for something you say as such is not a violation of the first amendment. Just ask Bob Imus. However, losing tenure for the controversial or political nature of something you write is a violation of academic freedom at most universities. Get the difference? It is an important one. To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not like what my tenured colleague writes but I will defend to my life her right not to lose her job for writing it. (Of course, if I don't think her writing is any good I won't vote for her getting tenure, but that's a separate matter.)
As for Avakian, he has neither had his first amendment rights violated nor lost any of his academic freedom. In fact, he has no academic freedom since he is not an academic. He would clearly *love* to have his writings censored by the authorities since it would give him all the authority of someone who poses a grave threat to the state. But he hasn't and isn't. The truth is he poses a threat to no one and nothing. To repeat, he is as free to be ignored as anyone else. That's why the petition on his behalf was so puzzling. To what were the signatories objecting? What demands do they have?
Finally, it wasn't Adorno who said that about voting it was Emma Goldman.
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan | Feb 3, 2008 5:45:11 PM
Churchill was fired for the content of his writing?
I had heard that he was fired for plagiarizing the work of others.
Not true? Or is that an accepted part of "Academic Freedom" as long as you toe the line?
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 3, 2008 7:20:55 PM
Carlos,
You raise an interesting point. Churchill was in fact fired for academic misconduct, specifically for plagiarism and falsification. Nothing is itself wrong with that. Tenure does not protect fraudulence. Moreover, the investigation into his work was done according to the guidelines of detenuring as specified by the University of Colorado. Again, a good thing. The issue in this case however concerned the circumstances that lead to the systematic review of his work. Had there been no public outcry over an essay he wrote about 9/11 (and in fact two words within that essay describing the victims as "little Eichmans") it is unlikely that such a review would have been undertaken. To put this another way, had Churchill's fraudulence been uncovered through a general review of all tenured faculty in the Colorado system or even in his department it would have been one thing. But he seemed to have been singled out because of something he wrote. Thus the affair had larger implications concerning academic freedom.
Likewise with the Finklestein case. No Professsor anywhere is guaranteed tenure. The process has a series of checks and balances and is governed by peer review. Most of the time it works. Sometimes it doesn't. The review is a several staged process that begins within departments and then moves upward through the administration. At Depaul, cases are voted on first by a department, then by a college wide personnel committee, then by a university wide tenure and promotions (T+P) committee and then by the President. In ordinary cases, the votes tend to mesh with each other (and Presidents tend only to act as rubber stamps). Finklestein's was of course no ordinary case. The department voted in favor of his tenure by a margin of 9-3. Now, those of you outside of the academy should note that this would be considered a weak vote: three negative votes out of twelve (or 30% of the senior faculty in his department) sends a mixed signal to the higher level committees. He was then given a unanimous 5-0 vote positive from the ad-hoc committee and a 4-3 negative vote from the university wide T+P committee. (Typically a Dean votes in between the two, but I haven't been able to uncover if that was true in this case.)T+P committees are typically more tough on candidates than college wide committees. The latter are drawn from fields closer to the candidates, while the former include scientists and engineers. The latter are often younger and more recently tenured, the former are often the most senior faculty in the entire system. Following on the negative vote of the T+P committee, the President voted to turn Finkelstein down.
Now, looked at simply in these broadly formal terms, nothing really untoward happened. Finkelstein was turned down after a series of mixed votes. Happens all the time in border line cases and is often the sign of the system working. But this case was of course considerably more complicated. Tenure is at heart a system of academic self-governance. It only works because academics have a way of evaluating each other's scholarship. Meddled with from the outside, the tenure process can come crashing down like a house of cards. In this case, the process was subject to pervasive interference from Alan Dershowitz (and I can only imagine many others who share Dershowitz's politics). Peer review is supposed to be impartial and impersonal. Uninvited by anyone from Depaul, Dershowitz spent considerable time trying to keep Finkelstein from getting tenure. An already delicate process became clouded with controversy, with the result of Finkelstein's case being turned down. A violation of academic freedom? Yes and no. Yes because the Finkelstein affair cried out for the kind of iron-clad protection of controversial ideas for which tenure was designed. No, because the process was in bald-form adhered to. For my mind, the "yes" in this case is much stronger than the "no" because the process was so screwed with by Dershowitz that (at least from my limited vantage) it ceased to be meaningful.
Posted by: Jonathan | Feb 4, 2008 11:15:44 AM
Unfortunately, it seems like there is a mix of factors determining what degree of retroactive scrutiny an Academic can be subjected to. I seem to recall Lawrence Tribe was also accused of some plagarism in his writings, but nothing came of it that I recall. Presumably he was more fully supported by his workplace than was Churchill following his Little Eichmans essay, revelations of his mail-order-only tribal status and his failure to source.
Could it also be something as simple as economics? If his academic peers were all that faced Churchill he might have survived (he who is without sin...), but when the admissions and advancement offices got involved, there had to be action (my guess).
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 5, 2008 10:44:10 AM
An editor of the RCP's paper recently left and has written a substantial polemic (in the best sense of the word) about the RCP's descent into a cult of personality around Avakian.
While Ely's communist allegiences might be out of bounds for the 3quarks crowd, his "Nine Letters to Our Comrades: Getting Beyond Avakian's New Synthesis" is food for thought.
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/
Posted by: the burningman | Feb 14, 2008 6:50:34 PM
The back and forth on what is going on in academia is interesting, but people do have to step back from what is happening to this or that individual in this or that sphere to what CLIMATE is being created and what PRECEDENTS established in academia and more broadly in U.S. society, which is overall quite chilling.
Moreover, while campus politics (and economics) probably play a role, there is an orchestrated effort to shut down one of the few remaining broad venues for critical discussion of such questions as the real role and history of US imperialism in the world, and these efforts are linked to the White House (Cheney and Rove in particular).
This is on top of the Patriot Act, etc., and in the context of a long history of radical and revolutionary leaders being persecuted and even killed in the U.S. (Which often went on side by side with critics deriding such leaders -- like the Panthers, Malcolm X, etc. -- as "isolated extremists", etc.)
Avakian is speaking to some really crucial questions facing humanity, and this kind of thought always was and is INCREASINGLY dangerous in the U.S. But folks should not let fear, prejudice, nor bad-mouthing from the media (or anyone else) keep them from checking it out.
A great opportunity for this is coming up -- around the country there will be major presentations of Avakian's New Synthesis (the deeper understanding he has developed about the nature of revolution, socialism and communism) followed by what should be wild discussion. The New York Event is announced below:
Sunday, March 9th - 4:00 p.m.
Revolution Books presents:
"Re-envisioning Revolution and Communism:
WHAT IS BOB AVAKIAN'S NEW SYNTHESIS?"
Presentation Followed By Discussion.
Agonizing about the direction of society? The world? Think communism is dead, but hope that another world is possible? You need to hear this. Presentation followed by discussion of how Bob Avakian has re-envisioned socialism which is both visionary and viable. How he has tackled a whole realm of questions, including how a new revolutionary power could maintain power and maintain it as a power worth keeping.
St. Paul & St. Andrew Church
Corner of West 86th St & West End Ave
1 train to 86th Street, walk 1 block west to West End Ave
$10 sliding scale
Further info: 212-691-3345
www.revolutionbooksnyc.org
www.bobavakian.net
Posted by: ReenvisioningSocialism | Mar 2, 2008 11:56:36 PM
Does the RCP seriously expect anyone to take them seriously while they build a cult of personality around Avakian?
People have worked with them, often tangentially, because they have a generally responsible cadre that sometimes hits the right note.
But whatever good stirring of the waters they're up to, it all gets brought down to their bottom line: they don't just want people to read and "appreciate" Bob Avakian, they want him to be the ruler of the world, or at least America.
Avakian's monomania regarind his own, personal "status" in the canon of Marxism is peculiar. Like a grade school teacher demanding respect, he always comes up short.
The RCP is fracturing right now because many activists and intellectuals, including long-time and founding members, are unable to pretend that this is going to go anywhere, let alone anywhere good.
Their members are forbidden from participating freely in internet forums. And they are labeling serious critics as beneath contempt, encouraging shunning and distancing for disagreeing not with communism or the need to recognize the gravity of the moment (for us all) – but simply for saying a cult of personality around Bob Avakian is just not going to happen.
The long, slow and now complete descent into sectarianism is a sorry coda to a once formidable organization. Chasing off people who don't just mouth the party line has left them a shell of what they once were, to say nothing of what they portend to be.
That so few people here even care about arguments among communists is a sign to some of us of how deep down the rabbit hole of sectarianism we ourselves had gone.
The world needs better. And taking ourselves seriously is a good place to start.
READ KASAMA:
http://mikeely.worldpress.com
Posted by: plain talk | Mar 8, 2008 6:47:42 PM
Well, that's all interesting.
I tried to attend their event at St. Paul's Church in NYC tonight and was denied entry. Though no reason was given, I think it had something to do with my playing Toto to the Avakian's GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ.
Anyway, if these erstwhile revolutionaries are scared of a question from little old me... I wish them the best of luck in bringing down Babylon. The real argument isn't in their well-regulated closed-circuit debates, but out there on the proverbial streets.
And how is that going?
Did anyone else notice tonight's world historic event?
Anyone?
Posted by: Jed | Mar 10, 2008 1:26:38 AM
And Morgan...
However wrong I was about Avakian, you still haven't unpaved your road to hell on that whole "Trinidadian Conversion".
I mean... Naipul? Did you even read Guerrillas? Lord.
Beers are bound to find themselves in our good company.
Posted by: Jed | Mar 10, 2008 1:30:52 AM
Post a comment