Dictionary of Revolutionary Marxism

—   Ra - Rd   —


RABOCHEYE DYELO   [Workers’ Cause]

Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers’ Cause) was an Economist journal, organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, published at irregular intervals in Geneva from April 1899 to February 1902 under the editorship of B. N. Krichevsky, P. F. Teplov (Sibiryak), V. P. Ivanshin, and later A. S. Martynov. Nine issues (three of them double ones, thus making twelve) appeared in all. The editorial board of Rabocheye Dyelo was the Economists’ center abroad. It supported Bernstein’s slogan of ‘freedom of criticism’ of Marxism, took an opportunist stand on the tactical and organizational problems of the Russian Social-Democratic movement, and denied the revolutionary potentialities of the peasantry. The journal propagated the opportunist idea of the subordinating the workers’ political struggle to the economic and glorified spontaneity in the working-class movement, denying the leading role of the Party. One of its editors, V. P. Ivanshin, also took part in editing Rabochaya Mysl, organ of the avowed Economists, which Rabocheye Dyelo supported. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., the Rabocheye Dyelo-ists represented the extreme Right, opportunist wing of the Party.” —Note 4, LCW 7.

From a biological (or genetic) perspective, there are really no such things as “races”, at least as anything along the lines in which the term is popularly understood. However, there are the very important socially constructed categories of race, which divide people into different “racial” categories based mostly on very superficial differences in appearence (such as skin color) or on the basis of generally minor cultural differences (such as forms of speech) and family traditions.
        In many countries, and especially in the United States, these biologically artificial racial designations become extremely important socially, and typically serve as the basis for widespread discrimination and mistreatment of non-white races and minority ethnic groups. The ruling class in the U.S. is overwhelmingly white, and this society strongly promotes the fostering of totally absurd racist attitudes of white superiority. Unfortunately, this ruling class attitude has also been widely promoted and adopted even within the working class, and this is a major obstacle to building class consciousness and class unity within the proletariat.
        [More to be added.]

The differences in average net wealth of different groups of people identified on the basis of their socially defined “race” [see entry above]. In a deeply racist country like the United States, with its extremely long, vicious and continuing history of discrimination against Blacks, Hispanics and other “non-white” or ethnic sections of the population, these differences in wealth are now huge, and continuing to grow. Moreover, during periods of economic crisis (such as the U.S. and world have now entered into for what is certain to be a very prolonged period), this “racial wealth gap” is growing faster than ever.

“Millions of Americans suffered a loss of wealth during the recession and the sluggish recovery that followed. But the last half-decade has proved far worse for black and Hispanic families than for white families, starkly widening the already large gulf in wealth between non-Hispanic white Americans and most minority groups, according to a new study from the Urban Institute.
        “‘It was already dismal,’ Darrick Hamilton, a professor at the New School in New York, said of the wealth gap between black and white households. ‘It got even worse.’
        “Given the dynamics of the housing recovery and the rebound in the stock market, the wealth gap might still be growing, experts said, further dimming the prospects for economic advancement for current and future generations of Americans from minority groups.
        “The Urban Institute study found that the racial wealth gap yawned during the recession, even as the income gap between white Americans and nonwhite Americans remained stable. As of 2010, white families, on average, earned about $2 for every $1 that black and Hispanic families earned, a ratio that has remained roughly constant for the last 30 years. But when it comes to wealth—as measured by assets, like cash savings, homes and retirement accounts, minus debts, like mortgages and credit card balances—white families have far outpaced black and Hispanic ones. Before the recession, non-Hispanic white families, on average, were about four times as wealthy as nonwhite families, according to the Urban Institute’s analysis of Federal Reserve data. By 2010, whites were about six times as wealthy.
        “The dollar value of that gap has grown, as well. By the most recent data, the average white family had about $632,000 in wealth, versus $98,000 for black families and $110,000 for Hispanic families. [It should be remembered that such statistics include the very rich (capitalists) as well as ordinary working class people. This explains why the averages are as high as they are! —S.H.]
        “‘The racial wealth gap is deeply rooted in our society,’ said Caroline Ratcliffe, one of the authors of the Urban Institute study. ‘It’s here, it’s not going away, and we need to care about it.’
        “... All in all, Hispanic families lost 44 percent of their wealth between 2007 and 2010, the Urban Institute estimates, and black families lost 31 percent. White families, by comparison, lost 11 percent of their wealth. The economic turbulence worsened a gap that has persisted for as long as social scientists have measured it, and has its roots in institutional racism, they said...” —“Wealth Gap Among Races Widened Since Recession”, New York Times, April 28, 2013.

The oppression or mistreatment of, or discrimination against, people based on their skin color or socially perceived
“race”. [Much more to be added...]

[To be added...]
        See also:

A journal of “radical” academic philosophy published in Britain since 1972. Although it claims to be a journal of “socialist and feminist philosophy” it has little connection with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism or with revolution. As this summary from its website demonstrates, it is mostly focused on pseudo-“Marxist”
Continental Philosophy:

“The journal is run by an Editorial Collective and appears 6 times a year. It features major academic articles by some of the most famous writers in contemporary left-wing and feminist philosophical, political and cultural thought, including Alain Badiou, Étienne Balibar, Homi K. Bhabha, Pierre Bourdieu, Judith Butler, Michèle Le Dœuff, Paul Feyerabend, Michel Foucault, Axel Honneth, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Jean Laplanche, Michael Löwy, Antonio Negri, Jacques Rancière, Richard Rorty, Peter Sloterdijk, Gayatri Spivak, Rick Turner, Paul Virilio and Slavoj Žižek. Each issue also has a large and diverse reviews section (reviewers have included Daniel Bensaïd, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson and Christopher Norris) as well as commentaries, obituaries, interviews (including Cornelius Castoriadis, Drucilla Cornel, Jacques Derrida, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Stuart Hall, Rem Koolhaas, Edward Said, Jeff Wall and Cornell West), news and conference reports. Radical Philosophy also organises regular conferences.”

Radical Philosophy’s website, which contains all its content from back issues (though most of it in bourgeois fashion available only for sale or for subscribers), is at: http://www.radicalphilosophy.com


“In 1927 ... the US Congress passed a bill intended, as the media historian Mark Goodman argues, to guard against the possibility that radio could be used to stoke social upheaval or to ‘monopolize opinions’.” —Neima Jahromi, The Nation, Dec. 7, 2015, p. 31.
        [This curious event demonstrates the fear that the ruling class had and continues to have about the possibility of the working class escaping the ideological domination of the bourgeoisie. More recently their fear in this regard has centered on the Internet, rather than radio, and although they dominate the information and views on the Internet too, they are still uneasy about it. They seem to instinctively know—even better than the working class itself most of the time—that because of their tiny numbers, the rule of the richest capitalists, the “1%”, is historically precarious. —Ed.]

A coalition of different political groups or forces from multiple nationalities, colors (“races”) and ethnic groups.
        This term was coined by the brilliant young Black Panther Party leader
Fred Hampton (who was assassinated by the Chicago police and FBI in December 1969). Hampton had been leading a successful effort to broker a nonaggresssion pact between Chicago’s most powerful street gangs, and at the same time attempting to unite all the forces possible into a class-conscious unified revolutionary movement, not only Blacks but also Latinos, whites, other working-class nationalities and radical students. In May 1969 Hampton called a press conference and announced that this truce had been declared among this “rainbow coalition”, which also looked forward to future unified action by them all. This turn of events especially alarmed the FBI and U.S. government, which stepped up the aspects of its secret COINTELPRO program designed to divide the Panthers from other radical groups, unfortunately with some success (such as the split the FBI fomented between the Panthers and SNCC).
        Later on the term “rainbow coalition” was adopted by Rev. Jesse Jackson and other reformists and distorted into a bourgeois movement in support of the Democratic Party. Since that time the somewhat discredited term “rainbow coalition” has been mostly used by reformists of one sort or another.

Islamic fundamentalists who collaborated with the Pakistani army during the independence war of Bangladesh in 1971.

RAND, Ayn   (1905-1982)
A quintessential bourgeois philosopher and novelist who actually sought to construct a philosophy (which she called “Objectivism”) based on the open glorification of capitalism and selfishness!
        See also:
Philosophical doggerel about her.


A private reactionary army of the landlord Bhumihar caste in the state of Bihar in India. Its primary purpose is to keep the peasant masses down through terrorist attacks and to attack and kill revolutionaries.

RAPPORTEUR   [Pronounced: ra-por-TER]
The term more and more frequently used for an officially designated investigator assigned to look into the facts about some important matter for an organization, and then to make a report back about what was found out. For example, in the spring of 2011 the United Nations used a rapporteur to investigate and prepare a report about how most countries around the world are now restricting freedom of speech on the Internet.

The view that reason is the primary (or even sole) source of knowledge. In other words, the approach to the philosophy of knowledge which exaggerates the role of reason and underplays (or even entirely discounts) the role of sense perception, experience and investigation of the world. The opposite error is
empiricism, which exaggerates the role of sense perception and experience while downplaying (or even entirely discounting) the role of rationalization of that experience. The dialectical materialist theory of knowledge stakes out a middle ground between these two very one-sided approaches.
        [More to be added... ]

[To be added... ]
        See also:

Rationing means to distribute food or other goods in a fair and equal way when there are shortages. Of course no one likes the need for rationing, but during times of scarcity it is nevertheless something that plays a very positive social role.

“In Britain and North America during World War II ... every strata of society was required to make do with less, even the very rich. And in fact, though overall consumption in the U.K. dropped by 16 percent, caloric intake for the poor increased during the war, because the rations provided low-income people with more than they could otherwise afford.
        “There was plenty of cheating and black market profiteering, of course, but these programs enjoyed broad-based support because they were, at least in theory, fair.” —Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (2014), p. 115.

“First, let’s be sure what rationing is not. It is not starvation, long bread lines, shoddy goods. Rather, it is a community plan for dividing fairly the supplies we have among all who need them. Second, it is not ‘un-American.’ The earliest settlers of this country, facing scarcities of food and clothing, pooled their precious supplies and apportioned them out to everyone on an equal basis. It was an American idea then, and it is an American idea now, to share and share alike—to sacrifice, when necessary, but sacrifice together, when the country’s welfare demands it.” —“What is Rationing?”, a U.S. Office of Price Administration pamphlet from 1942. Quoted in Naomi Klein, op. cit., p. 116.

The notorious secret foreign intelligence agency of India that interferes with other countries, particularly in South Asia. Its operations in Nepal over the past few decades have been especially extensive. Many politicians in Nepal and other countries seem to be working for, or with, RAW, sometimes even those of nominally revolutionary parties.

RAWLS, John   (1921-2002)
A very influential American bourgeois philosopher in the last half of the 20th century who specialized in moral and political philosophy. He is basically a philosopher of bourgeois liberalism. He spent most of his teaching career at Harvard University, and is best known for what contemporary bourgeois philosophers consider to be his “magnum opus”, A Theory of Justice (1971).
        A Theory of Justice is, however, a confused and inconsistent work. Because there are many conflicting and fairly obscure threads in it, it is the sort of work that bourgeois philosophers love to discuss and “interpret”. One would think that a major work on moral philosophy (
ethics) and political philosophy would begin by clearly stating what the foundations of morality are. But Rawls does not do that; his obsession is with the higher level principles of moral and political philosophy which depend on the foundations of morality which he never coherently establishes. Thus it often goes unnoticed that Rawls is pretty much just a Kantian when it comes to the foundations of morality. This is brought out more clearly in another of his books, Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy (2000).

“As in all his writings, he [Rawls] gives pride of place in these lectures to questions about moral reasoning. He is concerned above all with the logic of morality, its presuppositions, its principles, and the basic legal and political institutions that flow from it. Rawls finds inspiration chiefly in the daunting writings of the great 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. He does discuss other thinkers. David Hume, with whom he begins, raised the question that Kant attempted to resolve: How can there be universal moral standards untainted by our passions and interests? Part of Kant’s answer is elaborated in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781): The very structure of reason, independent of our passions and interests, provides universal standards. Another part is found in ... his other works in which Kant develops the idea from a variety of angles that the universal moral standard takes the form of a law, the Categorical Imperative, which requires us to act according to a maxim that we could will to be a universal law. Rawls concludes with Hegel, who clarified, corrected, and supplemented Kant. But, as in Rawls’s other writings, Kant is the looming philosophical presence.
         “... [Rawls] turns to Kant in order to make sense of the moral life as it truly is. The implication is that the history of moral philosophy culminates in Kant and more or less comes to an end in the Kantian-inspired moral philosophy that Rawls’s own work exemplifies. What Rawls introduces as a circumscribed scholarly effort to understand Kant is actually a bold defense of the Kantian idea that the very essence of morality consists in reasoning correctly on the basis of universal moral laws.” —Peter Berkowitz, “John Rawls and the Liberal Faith”, in the bourgeois journal, the Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2002, pp. 61-62.

From the point of view of revolutionary Marxism, this so-called “bold defense” of universal moral laws is instead just another tiredsome repetition of Kantian doctrine that has long been seen through on our part as the idealist nonsense that it is! Since all of Rawls’s arguments in A Theory of Justice and his other writings are constructed on this Kantian basis, they are all essentially worthless from our point of view, and would still be so even if they weren’t so confused and obscure. All his endless discussions of the nature of “justice as fairness”, distributive justice (how goods should be fairly distributed in a society), and so forth are found to rest on idealist and bourgeois foundations. Rawls not only appeals to the quintessentially bourgeois “Social Contract” idea, but also affirms the “right” of individuals to own and control private property in the means of production as a basic principle of “liberty”, which is supposedly justified on the basis of human “moral capacities” and “self-respect”. Thus this supposed paragon of the defense of moral justice sees nothing at all wrong in the capitalist exploitation of the workers or the imperialist economic domination and exploitation of the world.
        Rawls’s conception of a “well-ordered society” is that of bourgeois liberalism (meaning “liberalism” in the contemporary social sense in the U.S., as opposed to conservatism and laissez-faire). Thus he favored the liberal’s notion of supposed social justice, the regulation of capitalism and the mere mitigation of some of its worst “excesses”. His whole career was devoted to giving a theoretical excuse for liberal capitalism.

Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index