File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/97-01-04.073, message 17


Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 17:34:36 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: Dr Sendepause &  Klasberries posting again!


Bob M. wrote, on 31.12:

(Rolf:)
>>Hello Dr Sendepause & the Klasberries,
>>
>>you old swindlers and ex-exellent Marxists. (The former
>>Klaus Sender and the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), to those who
>>haven't heard of them.)

(Bob:)
>Christ! I knew it! Rolf did you read my answer to these people.
>
>Bob Malecki

Yes, I did. See some briefly stated opinions of mine below.

But what was it that you (and Christ) (suddenly) knew? That I was 
calling the Klasberries swindlers and ex-Marxists? I've been referring 
to their party as now bourgeois since 1990, on the Net since 1995.

>From the *former* KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), which I was in close
contact with from 1974 to 1990, I did learn very much, I've
also written. That party once was an extremely good one, which
really did represent the interests of the great majority of people
and dealt reaction several hard blows.

On the questions under discussion now:

I did, in a part of my posting that you didn't quote here, say:

>>This thing about the Dutroux affair in Belgium...
>>wasn't all that bad in the main, I think.

The Klasberries IMO are quite right about demanding further
investigation of that nasty child murder and abuse affair. Also,
they *rightly* attacked *certain* elements of present-day 
imperialist/bourgeois so-called "culture" which indeed *are* 
rotten in the extreme - and which i.a. are being defended by
some phoney"Marxists".

You, on the other hand, are *right*, I also hold, in *one part* of 
your *criticism* against them, saying that they in fact are using 
this affair to make propaganda for legislation which would infringe 
on "ordinary people's" freedom, a propaganda, as you say, in that 
old and reactionary *church* etc direction. 

You in fact IMO are quite right in saying that there is a general
bourgeois anti-sex campaign (against good old ordinary sex, that is)
which one must *combat*.

Two examples of what the Klasberries were saying which went
in the direction mentioned:

(Klasber:)
>>A state, for example, which furthers the talk that prostitution 
>>is "a normal profession" is furthering also the excesses deriving
>>from it. Such a statement is nonsense because such a person sells
>>herself, also psychologically, and ruins herself in the long run.

This is unclear and on the whole bad. Engels in his well-known
book "The Origins of Private Property, the State and the Family"
points out that prostitution is the other side of a coin whose
"front side" is the *family*. (There are some things in that book,
btw, that would merit a more detailed discussion - some other time.)

Why do the Klasberries include this in that posting? Are they
implying that the bourgeois state should prohibit prostitution?
Engels rightly made fun of those who, in his time, did that.

As for "normal" and "ruins herself" - these are matters that
have to do with the existing culture, and relatively complicated
ones too, which I don't want to give my viewpoints on here,
since this would take a rather long article to do.

(Klasber:)
>>Let us take another liberal example. It was the Netherlands 
>>to allow an official position to the pedophiles, to lower the
>>protected age of children to twelve years and in this way to
>>comply directly with these activities.

On "allow an official position", I don't know what they mean.
On the only concrete example they're mentioning, that of lowering
the age limit for prohibited sex to 12 (from 15, then, probably),
they IMO are wrong. Many 13- and 14-olds are sexually mature, in
European countries too. Lowering that limit in this way is *not*
in itself an encouragement of abuse of children. 

One one point again, you, Bob, IMO are wrong and the Klasberries 
right: You're making propaganda for so-called marriages between 
homosexuals. This I'm against. I'm also against persecution
by law against persons for homosexual actions. But I *concur* with 
the Klasberries (and Engels, and a great majority of workers) in 
finding homosexuality to be a very negative phenomenon, which
it's no coincidence that the rotten bourgeoisie of today is
making massive propaganda for:

(Klasber:)
>>For the perfidity, which also in the FRG has come out at the most 
>>various spots and has to be seen as a parallel to the incidents in
>>Belgium those have to answer fully who assert that any kind of
>>minority, consequently also homosexuals or even pederasts must be
>>declared to possess equal rights. What a boundless nonsense! 

And your statement, Bob, that "workers too prostitute themselves",
are "selling their bodies", of course is wrong.

Much more could be written on this. In my opinion, Marx said
a very correct thing about the family in one of his so-called
Feuerbach theses, written in Brussels in the spring of 1845.
(On this, please see those Marx-Engels archives by Ken Campbell etc)
Engels, IMO, later goofed on a couple of points. Lenin's
standpoint I'm not so very well acquainted with, but I have
certain suspicions that he was wrong on some not unimportant issues. 
(There was a discussion on M1 about a conflict between him and
Kollontay - who did wrong on other issues - on these questions.
I didn't take part in it - know too little. But I think it's quite
possible that Kollontai was right on *these* things.) Mao Zedong, as 
far as I know, was very good on the issues in question. But there were 
some things in China as a whole in his time that I'm sceptical of.
Another matter in this connection: There are lots of people who
call themselves "Maoists" but are violently attacking Mao's line. 

The above is just a rather brief and scetchy reply; I thought
I should put forward my main views on these questions at least.
At the moment, I still think that some other matters are more
vital to deal with.

Rolf M.




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005