Will Napoli Biography
Biography, Part 1
|
I'm not all about politics, but there's been some recent misunderstanding about my politics that I'd like to address here. This
confusion stems from my signing a statement in support of a revolutionary communist's right to speak publicly. You may have seen
the "Engage with Bob Avakian" ads or website. There was a recent (January 2008) story about this ad in The Boston Globe.
Following is my letter to The Boston Globe.
February 10, 2008
To all interested parties,
This letter is in response to Mark Oppenheimer’s article entitled “Free Bob Avakian! Oh, he’s already free? Never mind.” (Was that
a Roseanne Rosanna Danna?) I’m one of the original signatories, back when the list was under 200 names. I originally wrote a
much longer response, but when I saw how little room was given to other respondents I decided to trim it to the main points, but that
does necessitate more than a couple of paragraphs.
First, I only knew about the Revolutionary Communist Party USA that which I had just last year discovered through a local
advocate and member. He was on a mission to increase party membership (and coffers) and find people willing to do the same. I
was in a position to possibly promote the small newspaper Revolution to others, so he followed up with me.
The reasons why I knew nothing about the party before are complex and took up a good deal of the longer version of this
response. Let’s just say I see good reason for despair regarding mainstream politics. I live in Cleveland, Ohio, and we’ve been
trampled of late and anyone around here who takes an interest at all in real world politics can see plenty of examples that lead only
to despair. But, I’m a philosopher, not a philosophy student, an actual independent philosopher, among other things, of course.
I have developed my own secular philosophy on many subjects from cosmology to politics and I did so by avoiding the
academic discussions for the most part. I spent about a quarter century in this endeavor and feel ready to reconnect with the wide
world of human thoughts on the same subjects, which is one reason for my highly visible support of free speech.
It was partly an experiment too. I figured that even though I didn’t know much about Avakian, I’d sign on and see where that led.
I’m a sometime journalist and I saw an investigative story here. Well, here’s my initial report. (And, although it’s creepy and evasive,
his supporters are right that an actual interview with Bob Avakian isn’t necessary to understanding what he stands for. Just jump in
and do the research. But his autobiography is not the manifesto at the top of the must-read list, although it is a logical starting point.)
Anyway, those are the personal reasons for why I didn’t know about Bob Avakian before last year but signed the statement
anyway. The others include that socialists and communists in the USA and in most places in the world have very real reasons to
fear for their safety. History makes this abundantly and inarguably clear. That’s one point Mark Oppenheimer clearly didn’t get.
Snipers don’t usually start with a lawsuit against their target first and then move on to assassination, I’m guessing.
Still, when Oppenheimer says, in essence, that Bob imagines himself to be more important than he is in the world of politics, I
strongly agree. Bob is extremely overblown and he’s doing the clown’s share of the blowing. Only, it’s not funny.
I signed the Engage with Bob Avakian statement on the grounds of supporting free speech, true enough, but I was also under
the impression from my talks with Bob’s missionary that he was the leader of a real political party in the USA. I believe that it’s
extremely important for alternative parties to emerge for the US to have any hope of changing its dangerous, world-threatening
ways. I’m third party all the way. So supporting alternative voices in the political arena was a bigger reason for me to sign.
But I have since learned more about the party and there’s something not expounded on yet in any of the discussion I’ve seen or
heard that I believe is critical to analysis of Bob and the party. Here I speak about the contents of the Draft Programme of the
Revolutionary Communist Party USA, yeah, with the fancified, French-fried spelling. This is not a third party! This is a ninth party,
non-participatory, a coup in the making. Oppenheimer is very right and I thank him for openly calling the party a cult of personality.
Bob is pretty good at avoiding the details of his vision and concentrating on the evils of the day and of the history of capitalism, but
that’s pretty easy to do. But then he goes on to position himself as the sole solution, a unique and superlative thinker. Still, I liked
his digs initially, but I disliked his evasions and posturing.
I was never taken with Bob, the man. Here’s a guy who was sold to me by a long-distance groupie of his because we have
some similarities in our personal stories. He’s had epiphanies from growing up white but engaging black America. He’s an
outsider. He’s a writer. But he is unconvincing and disingenuous.
There is a very good reason for Bob to worry about making public appearances practically anywhere. He’s a wannabe thug.
And that’s not meant to be any connection to his “affinity” for black people, but for people like Stalin and Mao. He and those in his
party who have read the real platform and stuck with him are deluded in thinking that there is an acceptable amount of murder in
progress and that progress can be forced. As a kind of amateur anthropologist I’ve come to share the field’s tenet that there is no
such thing as social progress, just change. Technology tends to make that less readily apparent. But I do not feel that is our
inevitable future.
Avakian promises a lot, but has no great vision for it. Instead, he believes his clear hypocrisies are justified and that his
tinkering with bloody revolution has made all the difference, although the bloodshed is still important, not just inevitable, but
necessary. It’s funny that such a coward as Bob Avakian is so “macho”. He believes it’s necessary for his front lines to bloody their
hands, but also that he can’t himself because the leaders that come after the war have to be able to separate themselves from the
murderers. Let’s say “machito”.
Hey, Bob, you’re not only an accomplice if your dream ever pans out, you’re the ringleader. Bob should be afraid because he
spreads fear and wishes for a wildfire of it and that’s dangerous stuff. He also has the nerve to promise women previously
unrealized equality in his eventual utopia and to treat rapists in his army to the “ultimate punishment”. But here again he’s setting
the stage for the opposite.
The Programme actually calls for Maoist purges and vigilante justice. I have to wonder how many women will be abused in that
process along with men and children. And in such a climate, how is he attempting to prevent his own forces from succumbing to
such animalistic atavism as could be expected? He proposes capital punishment, so advanced is his reasoning. Not only this, he
wants to “crush” the police, to slaughter them for their atrocities. Hey, I’m no police booster, but he doesn’t even mention trials of
any kind in these rants. So much for his reputed respect for rule of law!
Okay, the Programme does not list an author or any signatories. That, I am convinced, is another hypocritical calculation. But
Bob is purportedly the one and only chairman of a party that’s been around for decades. He cannot seriously claim any distance
from the Programme and I would expect he authored all or most of it. But even if he authored none of it, he is its spearhead.
Avakian is a scavenger trying to stir up abused circus lions, a clown as funny as John Wayne Gacy, and equally demented. He
claims to be a supporter of justice for black people, but the Programme first suggests the idea of a separate black nation in the USA
then backpedals and says it doesn’t mean to propose it but only suggests the party would support black nationalists in their
endeavor and here’s how. Let’s see, in a climate of mob rule you do and don’t promote black people isolating themselves from
others in the South. Could that lead to bloody genocide? If so, we’re sorry, but it wasn’t the party’s idea. It was their own damn
fault. Nice work, Bob.
The slim newspaper Revolution has some good little articles by various contributors, but they donate their work. Meanwhile, on
the same pages, Bob is given sprawling spreads in which to hawk his books and the price of the paper goes to support the party.
Bob is violent communism’s unabashed top salesman.
I was willing to see what was meant by “revolutionary” and knew enough of the history to have reservations, but when I actually
read the plan, I was shocked. There’s nothing thoughtful about Bob Avakian’s plans for the world. His time has come and gone
and he missed his chance to be significant so he tries to revive a failed agenda and claims to have modified it in critical ways.
If you have any interest in the party I suggest you don’t spend any money until you read the Programme and then if you do join up
I hope you go into exile too and stay there. The real reason Bob has to fear for his safety is because his whole plan amounts to riot
incitement. However, I do still support his right to speak publicly because he does very craftily avoid openly inciting riots. He doesn’t
plan to participate, for instance. And that makes his whole shtick an interesting experiment in civil liberties. I hope he does begin a
speaking tour, but I’m not going to wait for it. Oppenheimer was right to expect that Avakian is not serious about attempting to take
his message on the road unless it’s very exclusive and greatly staged.
Here’s something else to consider though. Why should Bob worry about making physical appearances? Why can’t he just get
a website like everyone else and make his speeches there and be okay with that, as far as the party work is concerned? Sure, it
sucks to feel threatened in public, but then, maybe that’s a good reason for not calling for the murderous abandon that he does. No,
Oppenheimer is right on again when he states his belief that the party’s real effort is to inflate the apparent importance of Bob
Avakian. Hey, if no one else is going to do him the favor of demonizing him, he’ll get someone to claim they do. Sure, it can be said
I’m demonizing him here, but I’m not suggesting suppression or retaliation. I gave him a chance and still support his right to speak
openly, whether he does or not.
Those of his supporters whom I’ve met are all kind-hearted people who have lived a life of frustration at not seeing political
justice, ever, anywhere. But they all also believe there’s one way to cure all that, which totally misses the point that it’s not one way
that can solve the problem. Instead, I prefer to believe in political diversity and greater self-determination. So I believe socialists
and communists should be allowed to co-exist with capitalists in the world and that the lack of agreement on this in most camps is
the primary problem.
Yes, I believe there are better examples of socialism and certainly of communism than we’ve seen so far that can be had, but I
also believe that there are far better forms of capitalism than we’ve seen too. But it’s only through an agreement to allow separate
experiments in these varied philosophies to peacefully co-exist that they can emerge. Warring is not solving. It is dissolving.
Military victory is not justified. In true self-defense it is acceptable, but never properly desirable. And the people know this even if it
comes out in strange ways. The differences in the aftermaths of World War II and Vietnam are not solely due to the differences in
winning and losing.
However, I support Bob Avakian’s right to speak publicly in the USA in the same way that I would have supported Osama Bin
Laden’s right to speak publicly in the USA before his bombing campaigns had I been asked. I’d rather have an angry, bloody
revolutionary behind a microphone in an auditorium than behind an army in the streets and I’d rather have any army that emerges
visible rather than invisible. I’d rather engage Bob Avakian in debate than his goons in Armageddon. I’d rather that people see and
hear what Bob Avakian is really about rather than engage the myth of his superior reasoning and global influence. He may even be
taking his cues from Osama in that he sees what a huge following can be had with greater visibility, but I still think the gathering of
additional followers so openly, although perhaps more abundant, is better than a gathering in the shadows. This alone may greatly
explain why there hasn’t been another great terrorist incident in the USA since Osama has exploded on the airwaves and the
Internet.
Not only do I find Avakian’s message hollow, but I find the party that has emerged around him even more so. As Bob’s
followers put their faith in his unchallenged vision they become excusatory in the extreme. If they are rebutted skillfully in debate they
claim not to have spoken well of his policy. If inconsistencies in his message are revealed they claim that these are simply
inevitabilities that pre-exist Bob’s vision and must be worked through. Then there’s the fact that the party members I encountered
are not themselves signatories, but maybe this is because they’ve taken some kind of oath that says they do support all of Bob’s
ideas and decrees, I don’t know. Still, it seemed very cultish to ask the new blood to make a public declaration of support while the
others stay in the shadows whispering encouragement.
Bob claims to support and cherish dissent in his utopia, although, anyone actively attempting anything fundamentally contrary
to the party’s plan is to be killed by mobs unaffiliated with the party itself. Well, I offer a jump start on that dissent. Bob, I signed the
statement. I’ve given you support. When your party put out a call to us signatories for statements to pass on to the press with
assurances of postings of such statements on the Engage website prior to our signing even, I sent in a two-page letter, but never
got any press inquiries and never saw it posted on the website.
I too have a vision for a better future, but mine looks harder and truer, I believe, at what “better” really means. It means not
slaughtering the opposition, even the oppressor. It means actually standing up for your beliefs and speaking out, not doling out the
dirty work and disassociating yourself from it. In fact, it means no dirty work. But I’m not going to ask anyone to support my
campaign to become ruler of the world. That post ought never be filled. The fact that you don’t get that marks you as a minor
intellect in the debate, but because you are not alone, I welcome you to the debate still. And as you attempt to gather supporters
around you I will attempt to free them. Speak so that the world may truly see what a fool you are. I support the right of all
comedians, even the unconscious, vulgar ones. That doesn’t mean I’m laughing though.
Will Napoli
Cleveland, Ohio
I'll add more thoughts on other subjects soon, but this one required earliest attention.