Talk:Bob Avakian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cindy Sheehan -- need help

Can someone who knows what Bob Avakian looks like go to Cindy Sheehan and identify whether the unnamed "RCP Leader" in the photo with Sheehan is Avakian, or someone else? A direct link to the photo in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cindysheehan2.jpg. Thanks, Badagnani 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

He is definitely not Avakian. —Sesel 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello. Welcome to the talk page. Please sign all your comments with four tildes (~) like this: ~~~~ Thanks, Vert et Noir^talk 07:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Someone who has actually read Avakian's autobiography (From Ike to Mao and Beyond) needs to go back over this entry for not meeting decent article standards. It explains why Avakian and the RCP chose to send him to Paris, as well as numerous other facts that aren't mentioned or contradicted by this article.

Someone should also find some actual criticisms of Avakian's line and put them up here, not just writing "some people disagree with him about the nature of socialist ussr and china" -- well who, and what do they disagree about specifically? This really needs to be cleaned up if anyone has the time.

This entry is composed primarily by those wishing to score political points through "re-writing" his history, which is why there are no citations. It is not currently reliable and I will begin fixing some of the main issues (exile, basic and distinct political contributions, etc.

From what I can see, the open-editorial function makes these entries something of a free-for-all with truth/falsehood often trumped by persistence and motivation -- from whatever source.

The article does not even make clear whether Avakian is a fugitive wanted in the USA or if his "exile" was part of a goverment deal. NTK 11:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is rank speculation and has no basis in fact. None. Avakian is not currently a fugitive. There was no "deal" of any kind.

The truth is that Avakian is just full of himself, and he runs around in secret because it makes him feel like he's doing something. It makes the members of the RCP feel like they have a special connection. The truth is, no one gives a rat's ass about him. The U.S. government wouldn't give a damn if he lived openly, because he's not worth their, or anyone's, time. Vert et Noir^talk 07:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking to any slander piece on the internet, including those which openly admit they are spreading rumors (see: Greg Jackson piece), is simply hackery and not an attempt to understand or enlighten. That ideologically motivated partisans, both pro- and con- are revising here makes this more difficult. I think in the interest of general collegiality and respect for veracity, links and commentary that are clearly POV should be disregarded. I would also like to note that "Ungovernable Force" holds different positions about proper Wiki behavior depending on his/her personal feelings about the topic. This same "editor" has also moved to remove any critism section whatever on a page relating to "Crimethinc". With this in mind, I think adjustments of this page should be noted.

Addition of unsinged, unsourced and libelous "allegations" should not be accepted. As Avakian is a contentious political figure within the United States, and to a degree internationally, every "allegation" and "accusation" should not be confused with encyclopedic information. By the same token, the talk page does not exist as a holding pen for every half-baked (or deranged) claim made by any random (or not so random) person. Verifiability is the measure, not simply that someone can verify an allegation was made. If "x eats babies" is posted to an entry, anonymously and without even a hint of verifiability – it should be removed and treated as vandalism.In the Stacks 14:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Typical

Has anyone else noticed that entire sections of this talk page tend to conveniently 'disappear?' Is someone deleting discussion that they find unpleasant?

Look at the History tab.

It is almost certainly true that the FBI and the various other govt snoop agencies are more concerned about the most obscure 18-year-old NS skinhead than a comical doofus like Avakian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.6.47 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vert et Noir (talk • contribs)

Cult of personality

I added a badly worded sentence on the RCP being an alleged cult of personality around Avakian (which of course it is), but I wasn't signed in. I didn't want it to seem crafty or anything so I am taking credit/responsibility, I realized afterwards I never signed in. The Ungovernable Force 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This currently has no subhead on Avakian's construction of a cult of personality around himself. Or his attempt to. This has recently led to a full-scale exodus out of the RCP, what is now defined as Avakian's personal vehicle. Recent writing in the RCP press says that change is not possible without the personal vision (undefined) of Bob Avakian, and that the RCP must redouble its efforts to convince other people of this. Considering that Avakian holds that he himself is the essential to human progress, and has repeatedly insisted on apocalyptic fate for humanity if his personality isn't properly "appreciated" – then this should assume a far more prominent place in his entry. Comment?Bandit alley (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Take two on the issue. Avakian has personally and organizationally said that he is a "unique, rare and irreplaceable leader" whose undefined New Synthesis is the dividing line between what he calls revisionism and communism. This is to be understood through cult of personality, what he calls a "culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization" or short-handed as AP&P. While Avakian is a living man, this is his position – and is the most basic statement he has to make. What is the means by which this can be included without controversy? Suggestions are requested.Bandit alley (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RCP CONCERNS

The editors of this page need to seriously monitor this unprincipled smearing that doesn't even try to SOUND objective. An editor wisely took this section down last night...I think it should stay down until those who have an axe to grind can be prevailed upon to let Ely's statement and Avakian's work (and the RCP's response to Ely) speak for themselves. Ely said his piece in the "Nine Letters", and the RCP responded. Using Wikipedia as a way to spread rumors about the RCP--and there is no possible way to substantiate the claims made in this section, so they are clearly rumors that intend to cause harm--should be offensive to the editors of this site as an affront to the very concept of objectivity. Let the statements of Ely and the RCP speak for themselves, and keep the rumor mongering off of Wikipedia. Ely has a whole blog dedicated to little more than that--if they really can't help themselves, they at least need to keep it on their own site where it can be recognized for what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.105.56 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to the charge of gossip, though this article could plainly use improved citations and inline references. Perhaps those concerned could assist with this. I understand there are those who may wish that the only discussions of their leaders be those their leaders have approved of, but that isn't how this works. Avakian is a living man, and as such, his entry here falls under far more rigorous rules than historical personages or fictional characters. The main outlines of Avakian's life, politics and philosophy are not particularly contentious and can be documented. In that spirit, rather than playing Roberts Rules it might make more sense to actually include additions and corrections to the entry. It's also recommended that editors use a regular moniker or handle so that discussion can work more effectively towards consensus and not simply be back-and-forths by anonymous, involved parties. Happy New Year.In the Stacks (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear--I don't speak for the RCP, so calling this heading "RCP CONCERNS" is not at all accurate. They can speak, and have spoken, for themselves. There are links in the article where people can see that for themselves. However, I do agree with the RCP when they say that Ely is wrong about everything that matters, whose method is to try and pass unsubstantiated gossip off as principled debate. I was just speaking to what I saw as a pretty raunchy and crude example of that, some of which has been taken down. I guess you can sign me as 65.190.105.56 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)EverOnward

Anti-RCP Propaganda

Somebody tried to turn this article into Anti-RCP agit-prop. I've done my best to reverse that.

Adding a one sentence criticism is not turning an article into anti-rcp agit-prop. In fact, one sentence is not enough criticism for Avakian (I actually added more to it after you deleted my last criticism). Just because you are an RCP follower does not give you the right to take out any and all criticism of the group, in fact it's tactics like that that make people (like me) think the RCP is just a cult. The fact is, many people on the left view the RCP as a cult of personality centered around Avakian, and there is even a link to an essay that expresses this idea. This is more than worthy of mention, and not mentioning it is dishonest. If you want to take it out again, don't do so without discussion, otherwise I will consider it vandalism. The Ungovernable Force 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be a few sentences on the issue of criticism of Bob, especially coming from leftists. Personally I think the whole personality cult thing is kind of goofy. But seriously, there are concerns from leftists and I think they should be adressed.

72.153.37.78 22:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No doubt a range of information needs to be included, but criticisms should be TRUE, not just anonymously cited. Also, there is a long history of distortion passing itself off as opinion passing itself off as "well, everybody knows..." This can be dealt with by CITING particular sources and remembering that this entry is about a living, breathing person and NOT what various (liberal, right-wing, apparently anarchist) critics THINK of him as a person or leader. Criticism should have a separate heading at the bottom where critical entries can be linked externally provided they are factually correct and not just hatchet-jobs.

Criticisms don't need to be true, they just need to be notable, and these are notable criticisms. Saying "X believes Y" is fine, even if Y is incorrect, as long as Y is citable and notable. The Ungovernable Force 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Setting a high standard... but fair enough. Caveat: factually incorrect statements are not criticism, but factually incorrect. You are welcome to think whatever you like in terms of POV, eg "cult." Your opinion need have no basis in fact, which is what makes it opinion. However, there is something peculiarly authoriatian in the attempt to impose one's opinion as the reality of other living people. So, now that "The ungovernable force" has plainly stated his/her agenda, I hope they are prepared for other people who might have some experience in these matters and disagree, quite sharply and might also have been around long enough to know that the opinions of those who openly admit their lack of interest in the truth often tend to miss the mark. What "many people think" is a way of saying "what me and my friends think... oh and the other people who agree with us." Many people think the world was created in seven days, but I'm a little more interested in the geological record...

Any opinion anyone has is true to them. I'm sure many of the things you consider correct (and perhaps even ones we both consider correct) would be considered incorrect by many (such as our belief that Bush purposefully lied to launch an imperialist war, or that religious fundamentalism is fascistic in nature). Does that mean we're wrong? Not necessarily. Does it mean their wrong? In my opinion, yes, but that's just my opinion. That's the funny thing about the "Truth"--there is no such thing as objective truth. It's all relative. And your (seeming) support for Avakian is just as likely to be based on "what me and my friends think" as my lack of support for him. Also, I never said I wanted to impose my view of reality on everyone, I'm merely stating that this is an encyclopedia, and if there is notable criticism it should be mentioned along with citation so that people know about it. They can make up their own minds. Authoritarian would be saying "the RCP is definitely a cult and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong". I'm merely saying that many people on the left have made the accusation, whether it's true or not has no importance. And btw, people in cults rarely realize they are in cults, but my own interaction with the RCP (and other authoritarian left groups) suggest some serious cultish behaviors. So I do believe saying RCP is a cult is true, I'm just merely saying we don't have to prove it objectively (which in my opinion is impossible for anything) to include it, just a notable source. If everything on wikipedia had to be proven true, we would have a pretty small encyclopedia since we can never get everyone to agree on what is and isn't true. Philosophically it raises interesting questions which I don't claim to have the answer for. The Ungovernable Force 04:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference between an "opinion" and a "theory," or a "fact" is not complicated. Some can't see the difference, and therein lies the problem. Bob Avakian exists. That is not an opinion, and if someone says he doesn't exist they are, in fact, wrong. By extension... because someone makes an accusation that doesn't make it noteworthy or true. In a country where laws exist on the books barring communists from immigrating or even visiting the USA, it would seem to me that being extra-careful is in order. Rumors, smack talk and sectarianism are rife in some sections of "the left," particularly among those who think "opinion" is the same as "fact." So, ungovernable force, no one is trying to govern you and you should return the favor. You are welcome to think whatever you want. But don't expect smack talk opinions that can have implications on the real life of real people to just be hosted on an open site. If you'd like to run your opinions, there are plenty of websites and bulletin boards dedicated to that. Wiki is an encyclopedia -- not your comment board.

Criticisms should be linked in a separate section, not laced through the entire entry by the ideologically-motivated. Fact based, well sourced.

There are only two sentences of criticism at the end, how is that "laced through the entire entry"? You are the one who seems to be most ideologically-motivated, refusing to allow sourced and notable criticisms of your beloved fuhrer chairman. If you want me to source it better I can, but don't say I can't put them in. Plenty of pages on wiki have mere opinions in them when those opinions are fairly common and are presented as opinions held by some, not as facts. Nowhere does it say the RCP is a cult, just that it has been accused. This is perfectly encyclopedic. Maybe we should go gut any criticisms of Bush, since they are merely opinions and not necessarily facts. Perhaps the current way of saying it should be revised somewhat to say which specific groups make the criticisms, but we can't just take them out. The page on the RCP has an extensive criticism section. I can just add all the sources from their if I have to. Oh, and for all I know, Bob Avakian is merely a figment of my imagination and may not actually exist. So his existence can be claimed to merely be an opinion. Of course, a line has to be drawn somewhere so we can operate effectively, but epistemology is a very interesting topic and I refuse to accept anything as absolute fact. Honestly though, this isn't a philosophy debate, but still...

As to your being upset of my affecting the "real lives of real people", I am well aware of state repression, I've had groups I'm involved in spied on by the FBI. Don't talk to me about state repression, I know all about it, and I'm sure Avakian would do nothing but increase it if he were to ever gain power. Do you think Maoist China was some bastian of free-thought? It was a police state that ruthelessly silenced dissenters, including plenty of socialists, communists, anarchists and other leftists who didn't accept the party line. Anyways, using state repression as an excuse to never criticize our "allies" (and frankly, I think the RCP would actually be worse than the republicans if they ever gained power) is a cop-out to avoid critical examination of the shortcomings of the RCP. Anyways these things are already talked about online and in real-life, why not talk about it here? And btw, there are a number of communists here in the US, I have a friend who is a commie who was able to immigrate here. People (usually) aren't thrown in jail for it. And how does criticizing them increase the risk of jail time, the article is pretty clear in saying he's a communist, as is he, so how is this criticism in any way a threat to his or anyone's safety? If he's thrown in jail it will be for being a communist, not because some anarchists didn't like him (since we'd probably be sent to jail first). The Ungovernable Force 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RCP puff-piece

The article now reads like a puff piece for the RCP, using all the jargon, and making BA into an altar boy. In more conventional terms, the article presently has lots of POV for BA.Dogru144 (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite, September 3rd

I want to explain the reasons behind the rather extensive edit of the entry that I've posted.

I think most people who have followed the entry would agree that there has been some significant improvement over the past six months or so. Previous editors have eliminated the heavy rumor mongering, subjective criticisms and other problems that I strongly felt violated the NPOV standard. The more recent edits have also clearly been attempting to make an objective presentation of Bob Avakian's history and what his body of theoretical work and political history represent.

Still, I've felt for some time that there has been a need for some extensive editing and "beefing up" of the entry. I don’t think it has been up to Wiki standards as far as giving an accurate, objective and more complete picture of Avakian and his role. Other editors have also commented on their desire for a more extensive rewrite for some time.

I'm a "student of the Left" if you want to put it that way. I grew up during the turbulent times of the 1960s and 1970s and was heavily impacted by all the various political, social and other movements and currents of the time. I've continued to study that period and what has developed since, including the various theoretical contributions and practical activities of the "veterans" of those times, as well as new forces that have emerged since. Whatever one might think about Avakian and his positions, he was a significant force back then and has continued to be a significant part of the "political terrain" since then.

To be clear, I don't have any quarrel with people's right – or maybe better put, their responsibility - to disagree with things Avakian says if they don't think he is correct. There should be lots of room for discussion and debate over how to evaluate Avakian’s theoretical work and history. But it seems to me that a more proper place for that is on political blogs, in theoretical journals, etc. The Wiki entry, in contrast, should focus on presenting what Avakian has done as objectively as possible. Again, I think a number of the more recent edits have attempted to do that.

In terms of the specifics of the entry rewrite, a few points on how I approached this and what I've tried to do:

1. I have studied Avakian's memoir, "From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist". It gave me a real feel for how he actually developed into a revolutionary communist leader in a country like the U.S. I've attempted to convey some of what I learned about who this person actually is and where he came from, the issues and factors that went into making him what he is today. I've also done some independent verification of the factual matters in his memoir and have found that it is extremely accurate in the details it provided.

In doing the rewrite, I've tried in a sense to capture what is said in one of the blurbs on the back of the memoir by Princeton University professor Cornell West where he says that Avakian "is a long distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism. His voice and witness are indispensable in our efforts to enhance the wretched of the earth. And his powerful story of commitment is timely." Again, the point isn't whether one agrees with everything Avakian says or not – anyone familiar with West's views knows that he has disagreements on various questions, some quite fundamental (e.g. on religion). But I thought it was important to try to objectively capture what West's blurb is speaking to.

2. I also tried to focus the rewrite on how Avakian and his work relates to the legacy of the international communist movement, and Maoism in particular. Specifically, I thought it was important to highlight his unique contributions to communist theory and method and the controversies surrounding them. While I thought a substantial amount of the "Ideology" section of the previous version of the entry was an objective representation of some important elements of Avakian's views and understanding of the world, I also felt that in some ways it more or less "stopped 25 years ago," shortly after the death of Mao Zedong in China and Avakian's assessment of events in the wake of that. The entry did not address some key things Avakian has been working on especially over the last 25 years or so, which actually make up the preponderance of his theoretical and political work. I've tried to capture what I feel are some of those key elements.

3. In terms of method, I also tried to do the rewrite in a way that those not that familiar with the theory and terminology of Marxism would be able to understand these key features. That's one of the reasons I did a short encapsulation of some of the key features of his body of work in the lead to the entry.

4. I've tried to document the main sources I've drawn on and to make much heavier use of citations; the lack of citations in the previous edits has been criticized, and I think fairly so.

5. Finally, while I’ve tried to identify in what I have posted some of the key questions of controversy within the broader Maoist and communist movement (and somewhat more broadly) over Avakian’s theoretical work, I think it would be important to add a more substantial segment at the end of the entry on the controversies, both doing justice (if briefly) to substantive critiques of Avakian as well as dealing with the answers to these critiques that are out there. I plan to add that to the end of the entry as soon as I am able to complete it. In the interim (or in lieu of such a section) I am leaving the links to "critical opinions' in the entry as it was previously.

EnRealidad (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In reality, Avakian is ridiculed by anyone who knows him inside the USA. Recent attempts by the RCP to build interest in Avakian have essentially destroyed that organization, as well as the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. There is no communist party anywhere in the world that accepts Avakian as a leader, and among those Maoist parties he once had contact with – all now reject his puffed up delusions. He is insane, and he runs a cult – which you are undoubtedly a member of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.162.219 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrections to Categories Listing

I removed the "Armenian Politicians" and "Armenian Writers" categories at the end of the article, but left in "Armenian-American Politicians" and "Armenian-American Writers". Avakian is of Armenian background on his father's side, but is not from Armenia, which is implied by references like "Armenian" writer. EnRealidad (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Undo of Hurmata's "revision"

Hurmata claims his/her January 16th revision was done to remove "unencyclopedic content (including polemical, promotional, and laudatory)". However, it removed the vast majority of a carefully researched, thoroughly documented article, stripping it of any sense of what Avakian has been doing and writing about for the past 30 years. If Hurmata has suggestions for improving the article, those should be posted on the Discussion page; arbitrarily and unilaterally gutting most of its content is inappropriate and borders on vandalism. EnRealidad (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Total re write needed

The article contains excessive claims, some substantiated or self-evident, others not. I advocate a total rewrite of the article. Don't expect it immediately, but I will work on it. Please do the same and be sure to include only information that can be accurately cited by reliable sources. Thanks. --scochran4 (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree --- much work is needed. At present it is a poorly written hagiography. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this article are as follows.

1. It is written like an official CCP biography of Mao.

2. It portrays Avakian as an equally important Marxist on the same level of Marx and Lenin.

3. It is organized like a third-grader's paper.

4. Most of the citations are from Avakian himself or the RCP.

The article on Avakian is longer than the one on Lenin himself. It is also much more ridiculously POV than Lenin's is. Commissarusa (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of repeated vandalism by IP address 24.47.154.230

I have removed the so-called "edit" by 24.47.154.230 saying Avakian is "better known as Chairman Bob". This has been repeatedly (and correctly) removed by others as completely in violation of Wiki standards. Adding a so-called citation to a columnist's piece (where that author ALSO says Avakian is known as "Chairman Bob" without any foundation) doesn't give 24.47.154.230's addition any legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing sourced material from this article without explanation. I would like to know why.24.47.154.230 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Either stop doing it or kindly provide a justification for you your removals here. This is really uncalled for. 24.47.154.230 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help

Please stop vandalizing this page. It will continue to be removed. See the comment at the top of the discussion page as well Peopleriseup (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My earlier comment is ofcourse directed towards (talk) Peopleriseup (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While you may not like my edits,(enough to scare quote the word "edit" even!) they have been made in good faith to improve this article. I do not understand why you keep calling them 'vandalism' and removing them without any real or satisfactory explanation or constructive comment. The Boston Globe column that I cited is perhaps one of the most notable sources in this article, as Chairman Bob is a fringe figure who is generally not covered by the mass media- and according to this source, he is also known as Chairman Bob. As he is indeed by a great deal of those outside of his party who have actually heard of him. This may be a relatively small number of people, but it dwarfs the group that would under no circumstances call him 'Chairman Bob,' (i.e. his followers) and most of these folks have heard of the nickname too. If, according to one of the most notable sources of the article, he is also known as Chairman Bob- then he is in fact also known as Chairman Bob no matter what his party has to say about it.

Most of the sources in this article are party sources, often penned by the subject himself- which when one is dealing with a party that has Chairman Bob's name written into it's constitution (another important and sourced fact that keeps disappearing for some reason) this is problematic. No Wikipedia policy states that factual and sourced information about a living subject is verboten simply because his followers do not like it. I am particularly confused as to why this popular (and sourced) nickname is so offensive to certain editors of this article. Has Chairman Bob officially voiced his disapproval to it? 24.47.154.230 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

24.47.154.230 (talk) Not only is your "source" an op-ed hit piece trying to pass off opportunistic rumor-mongering as journalism, buut it doesn't even attempt at supporting your ridiculous claims. The author, Oppenheimer, quotes a single person refering to Bob Avakian as "Chairman Bob" in a demeaning and childish manner. You are turning his distortions into outright lies. You should stop before your vandalism is brought to the BOLP Noticeboard. And please review encyclopedic standards and methods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Peopleriseup (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please assume good faith as per WP:GOODFAITH. Your hostile attitude is very counterproductive. I am only adding this information because I have heard Chairman Bob referred to as thus quite often- perhaps more than I have heard him called by any other name. My edits are not vandalism, and pretending that they are runs counter to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I will look for more sources- though your argument that it is an anti-Avakian piece says nothing about the fact that it demonstrates that he is indeed also known as Chairman Bob. If it is so unreliable, then why did you not object to it's having been linked to in this article as it was before my involvement in this matter and as it still is? Perhaps the information (along with the source that I provided) should be added in another part of the article, with a clear distinction that he is known as Chairman Bob outside of his party. Maybe I will write an entire section on Chairman Bob's image outside of the RCP- with the Globe article as one of the sources.. This article is written entirely from an "in-party" perspective and it can be improved by the inclusion of other perspectives. Your further removal of the sourced fact (official RCP source and one that is used elsewhere in the article) that Chairman Bob's name is written into the RCP constitution however remains unexplained and unaccounted for and I shall thus add it back into the article. Please note that I am not yet calling your repeated and unexplained removal of that information "vandalism," though I can see how it could be interpreted as such. This is because I am assuming good faith on your part. Doesn't that feel nice? :) 24.47.154.230 (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your word is not a source for the validity of your claims about the phrase. (And an op-ed in the critical OPINIONS section is not a reliable source, either.) Whether a critical opinions section, full of unreliable, "tabloid," and self-published material is even up to WikiPedia standards is itself debatable. (Should we list the plethora of non-communist positive opinions available in print and on the web?) Additionaly, your POV does not represent the extremely varied perceptions and knowledge of Bob Avakian among the population of either the United States or the English-speaking world. Secondly, the addition of the sentence stating Avakian's name is "written into the constitution" is disingenuous and mis-leading. Avakian is mentioned in the constitution only insofar as the communist theory he has developed is the ideological foundation of the constitution. Avakian is explicitly not "written into" the constitution as a person or as the Chair. Thirdly, the article cannot benefit from or be improved by adding more perspectives. This article could be improved by adding more information of encyclopedic value from reliable sources. Peopleriseup (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction too long?

I added a template suggesting the introduction is too long.--Darrelljon (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The article itself is much too long. This is an infinitesimal figure and doesn't deserve such lengthy treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClutchCargo (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is such a fringe figure and non-entity it is to be questioned if any article is proper. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob Avakian is very definitely a fringe figure but he also very definitely passes WP:NOTE. It's unfortunate that this article seems to be edited mainly by his... associates (at least that is the inference I make from the overlong and vastly oversympathetic treatment.) On the other hand I don't think anybody is going to be fooled; it's so ponderous and turgid that nobody will ever even read it, let alone take it seriously. TiC (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Updates to citations, corrections of some titles, etc.

This article has not been updated in a couple years. I added links to Avakian's books and articles since then and corrected some links that were no longer valid. I corrected some of the subheads to make them a little more accurate in terms of the context of what's discussed in the part of the article that follows (for example, it makes more sense to say " 'Capitalist Restoration' in China, Arrest and Exile" in part of Avakian's background than simply "Arrest and Exile" which doesn't really contextualize the situation leading to those events.

I also removed some of the extraneous wiki-links (e.g. no need to hyperlink to "Alameda County" when talking about Avakian's parents, it really doesn't add to the article and distracts from the content.] And I updated the ISBN numbers for teh books that are cited. EnRealidad (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cult of Personality Controversy

Cult leader hagiography

I removed the copy produced by a cult member on behalf of Bob Avakian, reverting to an earlier version. New additions should be added shortly, and should not rely primarily on the internal self-conception of Avakian within the cult he has built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.162.219 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire article has to be scrapped and re-written. The RCP, USA is a cult and is not a political organization. Over the last several years, the RCP has used manipulation, isolation and a culture of paranoia to develop a cult centered around Bob Avakian. There are many, many testimonials of former members. Using Bob Avakian's self-published memoir as a historical document may work internally, but it must be noted that "From Ike to Mao" was published by Avakian, and NOT by any publisher. No one would publish it. Some things to add to this entry: there is not one single published piece of criticism or engagement written anywhere on earth that is sympathetic to Avakian's delusions of grandeur.

Let's fix this entry now. The RCP cannot be allowed to take over this encyclopedic entry for their own cult purposes. Avakian's memoir is NOT a historical document. Avakian is respected by NO ONE outside the cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.162.219 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What else can be said about a man whose name (according to this very article!) is actually written into the very constitution of his little club? Did even The Great Helmsman ever garner such a distinction? 24.47.154.230 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He's a minor douche who happens to be the center of a cult of personality, and this all reads like hagiography

This article does not fairly represent how insignificant Avakian is to the broader Left. More to the point, since this is an encyclopedia, the article fails to explain why anyone should care about him at all. He's notable for some positions that students of recent developments in revolutionary Marxism might know about, and for being arrested for a confrontation with the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party. Make that into the lead, fer crissakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.243.253 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A brief response to the comment from 199.200.243.253 (above) and also the "RCP puff-piece" comments from Dogru144 (below). I did extensive research to make sure the article was accurate and that it objectively spoke to Avakian's history and contributions, including focusing in on some of the most controversial aspects of his theoretical positions. That included widely reading Avakian's books and printed talks, studying his memoir, and then independently verifying everything said in the article with other sources -- sources that could hardly be characterized as pro-Avakian/RCP. For example, I would seriously urge people to read the Cornell Law Journal article by Athan G. Theoharis, "FBI Surveillance: Past and Present" and the article "Bazooka Justice: The Case of the Mao Tse Tung Defendants" by Peter Erlinder and Doug Cassel in Public Eye that are cited in footnote no. 35 to the article for a real sense of how forces in the legal community saw the significance of the arrests in 1979 from the legal and political repression standpoint, and the two articles from David Johnston in the Los Angeles Times in December 1982 cited in footnote no. 38 for a serious investigation of legal and police repression directed at the RCP in Los Angeles. If you believe material in the article is inaccurate, please note that and provide some supporting references, not simply your opinion.

In that regard, I appreciated Yania Tierra's removal of the phrase "better known as 'Chairman Bob' " that was posted by 199.200.243.253. I have reviewed an extensive amout of material from Avakian and the RCP, including numerous issues of the RCP's weekly newspaper that has been produced continuously since 1979, and I have never heard Avakian or anyone associated with the RCP refer to him as "Chairman Bob". If you have a source for that statement, please provide it. EnRealidad (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A simple google search will easily reveal that he is in fact better known as Charman Bob outside of the RCP. While such a google search does constitute original research for the "better known as" claim, one of any number of the links that such a search would yield would be a more than adequate citation for the fact that Avakian is "also known as" Chairman Bob. 24.47.154.230 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, 199.200.243.253's edit of the entry (as well as her/his comment here) was, frankly, childish vandalism and did not contribute at all to this entry. I've read this entry in the past and have to say that the re-write done by EnRealidad is a huge improvement. My only minor suggestion would be to remove the two sentences in the lead paragraphs that refer to subsequent references in the article (eg "See below for...") just for stylistic reasons of form -- I haven't seen many references like that on other Wikipedia pages, and as the references are later on in the entry it doesn't strike me as necessary. However, I'm new to this thing so if others can provide counter-arguments I am not firmly decided on this, just a first impression. Also, as a side note for EnRealidad, I read your point #5 as well as going back over the WP:NPOV Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, and it seems to me that the "Critical Opinions" section of links would violate the "giving equal validity" rule - in an article focused on one person, for instance, articles or authors which are exponentially more "insignificant" (as 199.200.243.253 puts it) than the person in the entry do not have some "right" to get a link up to their own views (also see WP:SOAP). However, I do think perhaps the section entitled "Other Questions – Democracy and Religion" could perhaps be expanded into approaching some of the key controversial questions surrounding Avakian and his work, and cover what both sides say (in the lead paragraphs Karl Popper and other forces in the communist movement are referenced, for example) but at the same time not turn into something that would violate Wiki standards for biographies of living persons with some of the issues I've raised so far. YaniaTierra (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay, okay, okay. Calling him "Chairman Bob" is an ad hominem, I admit. It's a bit overboard. What I want to do is goad y'all into explaining why anyone (other than those who are ardent Marxist scholars) should care about Bob Avakian. I personally care because he's a horrible example of what party-line commies can become if they aren't careful: isolated, dogmatic, involved in cults of personality. But he's relevant to general readership because he attacked the Chinese officials. That's about it. All of the other stuff, in addition to being sourced from materials written by the subject of the article, is interesting but the lead should emphasize what makes him notable for those of us who aren't highly-skilled Marxist technicians.

Most of this entry is rather silly, most of the notes alone are unrelated and unnecessary. Avakian isn't even a trivial figure in the history of Marxist thought, he's damn near non-existent. No serious Marxist scholar would (or has) waste time with this guy. (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

rewrite of the page

bobavakian.net has an excellent bio that could (probably should) replace the current scattered eclectic descriptions of Avakian's activities and views. I will attempt to integrate it when I have more time ... unless someone can start sooner. Peopleriseup (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that running Bob Avakian's self-description is not going to pass NPOV encyclopedic muster.In the Stacks (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding references and sources ... we'll see what happens. Peopleriseup (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Three years later, this piece is still in dire need of rewrite, the RCP cult members keep deleting anything that puts an unfavorable light on their dear leader. xcuref1endx (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The cult member comment was meant more as a joke than an attack. But seriously, they need to stop removing the section in regards to the controversy about the cult of personality. It is a valid topic that at least warrants some point and counter-point. xcuref1endx (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Links to primary Avakian texts in the main body of the article

The main body of the article should be used to explain the content, but instead there appear to be vague and general points within a particular section, then a link to an article by Bob Avakian that supposedly further elucidates the reader on the topic. The links to primary sources should be in the external links section, correct? The body of the paragraph should be used to explain it further, not link the reader to a different site for further explanation. xcuref1endx (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sections six and seven can be combined

There is a lot of fluff in these sections, very little substance. A lot of "Avakian polemicizes this"....and "Avakian offers a more nuanced position than (Persons name)" but rarely does it get into these supposed nuanced ideas in a substantial or even really a general manner, at most someone will just leave a link to the RCP website or a primary text of Avakian. These entire sections should be scratched and redone, or at least grouped together now and shortened dramatically. xcuref1endx (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The section titles are a bit self-promotional too like they use his choice of words only. "Restoration of Capitalism in China, Arrest and Self-Exile" should read "Arrest and self-exile". "Avakian's New Theoretical Synthesis" should just read "New Theoretical Synthesis".--Darrelljon (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Correcting prior edits to accurately reflect views of subject

I corrected prior edit about how Avakian describes all he does "as leader of the RCP" to "as a communist leader". He has explicitly said he does all this as a communist leader, not simply as head of the RCP; this is part of his emphasis on the view that communists need to start from the standpoint of what is needed in the world as a whole, not simply what this or that party or grouping is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

But his actual leadership role is within the RCP, which has its own ideology and has limited membership which makes it difficult to view it as a legitimate political or social movement, his influence really only exists within the boundaries of the RCP. To use "communist leader" conflates Avakian with more notable communist leaders like a Lenin or a Castro. xcuref1endx(talk) 3:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that Avakian says everything he does is as a communist leader, not whether xcuref1endx who removed that reference or I or anyone else agrees with this. That's why its written that "Avakian describes . . ." Wiki entries on individuals are supposed to accurately reflect what those individuals think or say.

I added back the sentence about the controversy over what Avakian calls his "new synthesis". I don't think it was correct to remove this section. The fact that his views are controversial, including among others who describe themselves as communist, is indicated by many of the past edits to this page themselves. The fact he says he's developed a "new synthesis" concentrates much of the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Restored what is now footnote #7. This footnote is important; the view that the Soviet Union was socialist from 1917 through the mid-1950s, and that China was revolutionary from 1949 until shortly after Mao's death in 1976, are controversial assessments. Without the footnote, this would simply be unsubstantiated opinion, in opposition to the Wiki standard of referencing statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I added footnotes on "proletariat" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" back in. Frankly, the Wiki definition is (a) not the Marxist definition, and (b) it keeps changing, depending on the latest edit, and so gives people a distorted view of the Marxist meaning of those terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Coup in China

A minor point, I put in a footnote, rather than a cite to a Wiki link, as a more appropriate way to explain the "Gang of Four" reference. The Wiki page on this changes frequently, and many of the edits reflect partisan perspectives on the "Gang", rather than objective statements on who they were. The original reference tried to describe their role vis-a-vis Deng Xiaoping and others in the CCP and how Avakian viewed them, which I think is more illustrative of the point about why Avakian and the RCP took the position they did.

While the wiki page does change, it will at least provide the inquisitive reader with the appropriate general information instead of the partisan RCP take on it. This wiki should be objective in providing information and not serve as a soap box for Avakian and his followers. Stating that Avakian views them as "capitalist roaders" is not an objective statement as to who they are, that is Avakians own subjective opinion on them. If this is important to Avakian's thought, it should be included in the body of the article. xcuref1endx(talk) 4:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

More significant, the edit that reduced the internal debate and eventual split in the RCP over events in China to simply Avakian "taking up a position". My research into the history of this development, including the documents referenced in the footnote, make clear that while Avakian unquestionably played a highly influential role in the position that was taken, it actually was something reached after a long process of internal study, debate over various positions, etc. People may disagree with the position reached (which is what led to many RCP members leaving the party at that point from my research) but it is a more accurate description of what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Section on religion

I added back in a sentence on Avakian's views on religion that was previously removed because I don't think any objective observer can contest the fact that this is a very sharp point of controversy, both among progressives and radicals that are themselves religious, as well as among others who are not personally religious but disagree with Avakian's viewpoint on religion. Wiki articles should deal with real controversies, which I think this sentence does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason why it is unnecessary is precisely because of what you said. "Wiki articles should deal with real controversies." In no way can anyone honestly and objectively state that Avakian's writings have "sparked great debate". He certainly engages with a controversial topic, but he is not at the center of it. He is very much in its periphery. That statement suggests he pulls equal amount of weight in the religion debate as Hitchens or Dawkins, which is obviously not true. xcuref1endx(talk) 14:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored footnote on revolutionary nature of China under Mao

Deletion of this footnote meant removal was done without any explanation or justification. This footnote is important; the view that the Soviet Union was socialist from 1917 through the mid-1950s, and that China was revolutionary from 1949 until shortly after Mao's death in 1976, are controversial assessments. For example, most newspapers in the world continue to describe present-day China as "communist" or even as "Maoist", which is sharply in opposition to Avakian's views and the views of other Maoists in the world. Without the footnote, the sentence would simply be unsubstantiated opinion, in opposition to the Wiki standard of referencing statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 03:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Communism as a science" point

It is simply a fact that the idea that communism is a science has been and continues to be a major point of contention. The reference to the Avakian polemic in the footnote speaks directly to this and is one of the elements of Avakian's thinking and writing. Removing it does nothing to add to the Wiki entry. I fail to see how the edit improves the article, other than to remove the very kind of footnote that would enable readers to see what the nature of the controversy is. EnRealidad (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Formation of views in 1960's

I added back in the point about how through writing for The Black Panther and "Ramparts and involvement in things like SDS, Avakian began to develop as a revolutionary. My extensive research – including sources who explicitly disagree with the conclusions that Avakian drew – indicates that these experiences were definitely "formative" ones for Avakian. To me, the point of the Wiki piece is to not only explain what Avakian thinks, but where that thinking came from. Leaving this out and simply saying "he wrote for" or "he worked in" doesn't do that. Many, many people wrote for The Black Panther and Ramparts or worked in SDS or the Peace and Freedom Party and did not form the views Avakian did. EnRealidad (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Related to this, while it seems a small point, I corrected the prior edit about Avakian's study of Marxism. It isn't correct to say that Avakian "started" to study Marxism at the time but to leave out the phrase "more seriously" study it. He says in his memoir that he had read some Marxism (as well as other philosophical and political theories) prior to this period, but at this point he and others took up this study with more seriousness. Again, I'm basing my edits on extensive study of the history of the political movements at the time. If someone wants to find a source that Avakian began to study Marxism at this time, please do so and I'll be happy to consider it. But let's try to live up to Wiki standards about sourced statements, not simply opinion. EnRealidad (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There were problems with removing the prior sections and footnotes. First, the footnote on the CPUSA is important. While people who were part of the political movement of the time may have a better understanding of the debates of the time and why different forces felt the need to build a new communist party, this is not widely understood today. This footnote explains things that many people who have grown up since the late 60's (more than 40 years ago) don't know and shouldn't be assumed to know.

Second, the footnote on questions facing revolutionary and communist organizations in the 1970's both conforms to Wiki standards about giving sources for things, and also addresses the fact that many – perhaps most – people alive today don't know what the political currents were in the 60's and 70's and don't necessarily know the terms of political discussion at the time.

Finally, the edit removing the sentence about Avakian being fiercely opposed to inequality and oppression and how that led him to Marxism is much richer (and much more accurate) than simply saying "his approach eventually led him to a certain understanding towards Marxism" which gives no content whatsoever to how and why that occurred. Avakian himself has said that his opposition to inequality and oppression led him to Marxism; leaving this out misses the actual reasons behind why he turned to Marxism and makes it seem a little abstract and "up in the air".

I frankly don't understand how xcuref1endx's edits are supposed to be "contributing" to the improvement of the Wiki article, and instead seem to simply reflect his/her own perspectives or theoretical views. This is not a Wiki entry about that editor's views, it is about Avakian's views, and it should be edited accordingly. EnRealidad (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The change from Red Papers being "a" journal of the Revolutionary Union to the theoretical journal may be a minor point, but I've done a tremendous amount of study of the history of the Revolutionary Union and the RCP and Red Papers was not "a" journal of the Revolutionary Union, it was the only theoretical journal of that organization. If you can point to other journals, your edit may have merit. Otherwise, Wiki articles need to be accurate. There's also a difference between saying that Avakian began developing a method and approach to examine historical questions and experience, and simply saying "Avakian wrote about" various questions. And xcuref1endx keeps removing footnotes that give sources for statements, a violation of Wiki standards that call for statements – and especially statements about the views or activities of living persons – to be sourced. EnRealidad (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Arrests, etc. in 1980

I don't understand the purpose of the edit. The articles in the Los Angeles Times document a series of arrests and other political suppression by the LAPD. The euphemism "special projects" hides what was going on and makes it seem innocuous, which is the opposite of what the Times articles document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, more problems with the removal or poor editing of footnotes. Perhaps xcuref1endx hasn't read the articles by Athan G. Theoharis and by Peter Erlinder and Doug Cassel cited in one of the footnotes. They make clear that there the heavy charges against the demonstrators and other aspects of the case represented significant and serious developments related to the legal attack on political opposition forces. The edit of the footnote on David Johnston's LA Times articles is also troublesome; Johnston documented repression aimed at the RCP in one city, he didn't attempt to discuss events in other parts of the country during that time period.

More significant, I'm baffled by the removal of the reference to the killing of Damián García. Again, maybe the previous editor isn't familiar with that time period, but everything I've read about the RCP and Avakian during that time viewed the García murder as a major event. If there is some reason for leaving this out, please state it. Otherwise, it is a factual reference to a significant event that shaped much of the RCP's and Avakian's views and actions during that period. EnRealidad (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Description of Avakian's "new synthesis"

The prior edit removed a significant element of what Avakian describes as his approach to the prior experience of socialist societies -- both upholding their mainly positive experience, but also ruptures with approaches and ways of thinking that he describes as real limitations of those experiences. Without this, the edit presents Avakian's views as very one-sided and cuts out the essential point he's tried to make about his approach. EnRealidad (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I added three paragraphs back in that had been removed previously. I think the removal was another sharp example of an edit which interposes the views of the individual editor, rather than an accurate representation of the views of the subject of the Wiki article. These three paragraphs give content to what Avakian has actually been doing, especially in terms of the development of what he calls his "New Synthesis". The removal and edit of this section (which reduced the section to Avakian's statement about the significance he attaches to his "New Synthesis") leaves the reader with no ability to evaluate what the "New Synthesis" is built on or even why he calls it a new synthesis. EnRealidad (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I put back a couple sentences on the controversial nature of Avakian's "new synthesis" in the international communist movement. I think this is accurate -- the editor who removed it apparently disagreed but I don't think there's any question about the controversial nature of Avakian's theses in that movement. Putting this part into the article gives more context to Avakian and his role, including the controversy surrounding some of his positions.

In a similar vein, I changed the wording about Avakian's views on how to sum up the experience of the socialist revolutionary movement so far, especially in the former Soviet Union and China, from the prior wording ("Avakian challenges the notion...") to "Avakian challenges the conventional wisdom..." because "conventional wisdom" is a much more accurate way to describe the widespread viewpoint that communism has been a failure. Avakian differs on this, and in that sense he is definitely going up against "conventional wisdom" on the topic. EnRealidad (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)