Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 07:10:27 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #31en: 2/8 What c. Adolfo's riddles hide


UNITE! Info #31en: 2/8 What c. Adolfo's riddles hide
[Posted: 29.03.97]

[Continued from part 1/8]


W H A T  C O M R A D E  A D O L F O' S  R I D D L E S  H I D E
(ctd.)


WHAT IS REALLY THE ISSUE OF CONTENTION HERE?

As those readers at least know who have followed the Net debates 
since a year or more back among those who claim they're Marxists, 
it has been above all one thing that I on my part have been 
stressing in these debates: 

How necessary it is that the really sincere among those people 
actually get to inform themselves of, to understand, to adhere to 
and to advocate to others precisely that correct, really 
proletarian revolutionary line that was developed and 
represented by Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong.

That's the line that I've been representing and making propaganda 
for, to the best of my ability, in Sweden since 1974, and 
internationally too, as far as I've had the opportunity, this to
any significant extent only being the case since approximately 
1993-94 - in fact it was the people's war in Peru and the support 
which that just cause received in a number of countries that at
that time helped bring me (too) to some extent out of a long-time 
situation of comparative isolation geographically - and in
particular since late 1995, when I got Net access.

In fact I happened to get the opportunity, because persecution 
in (West) Germany at the time occasioned the presence of some
exiles here in Malmoe, Sweden, in the mid -'70:s, to get some
information, schooling and in due course some experience on
a level which, I believe, existed in few other places in the world
then and probably in fewer still today. In several postings already,
I've mentioned my long-time close association (1974-1990) with
the once genuinely proletarian revolutionary party the KPD/ML
(NEUE EINHEIT). It i.a. was the only party at least in Europe, 
and possibly in the whole world, really to continue to adhere to 
Mao Zedong's correct line after the overthrow of socialism in 
China in 1976/78, but most unfortunately degenerated in the late 
'80:s. (Its remains have the addresses <klasber-AT-aol.com> and
<wagerd-AT-aol.com>.) 

It's precisely that correct line that Adolfo *charges me* with 
"holding dear" - not untrue, but a ridiculous way to express it - 
and some vital elements of it that he alleges to be "my own"(!) 
"pet theories"(!) - no, they're *not* "mine", neither in the sense 
of who developed these elementes in the first place, on the basis 
of what experience this took place, nor in the sense of who today 
badly need them, which of course is not this or that individual as 
an isolated person but is precisely the international proletariat 
and the oppressed peoples. *They* need those vital elements of 
the correct Marxist-Leninist line.

What is it that comrade Adolfo on his part has "held dear", that
has been his "pet theories"? On a number of important issues,
precisely the reactionary "theories" of the "RIM Declaration".

I'm not forgetting the fact that Adolfo also, since many years 
back, has been representing, making propaganda for and 
organising support for the just people's war in his country of 
origin, Peru, a people's war that long has been and still today 
is a not unimportant positive factor in the whole international 
situation. Marxists always have held armed insurrection by the 
masses to be the highest form for revolutionary struggle.

And after the overthrow of socialism in China, which resulted in a 
reactionary international landslide, the PCP in Peru to its great 
merit showed the world that the idea of such insurrection was not 
dead, that the idea of communism "had not vanished" after all.

But the imperialists have various resources in their struggle
against the revolutionary forces in the world, who have long
been practically isolated from each other, each within their own
country, who are few in number, who have various weaknesses 
caused by objective factors, and so, in the case of the PCP, the 
US imperialists and their Avakianist muppets managed to fool 
that party into endorsing the reactionary anti-Mao Zedong "RIM 
Declaration" in 1984 and into continuing that endorsement, 
which in its turn has led to two lamentable facts today:

1. A considerable part of the entire international Marxist-
Leninst movement is "struggling" in a significantly wrong
direction, has been misled on to a wrong track. This is very
harmful to the proletariat and the oppressed peoples.

2. The just people's war in Peru to a great extent has become
isolated from that support, which it really would need and
merit, from the masses in other countries, from those in many
comparatively highly-developed imperialist countries, for
instance, because of this association of the PCP with the
entire Avakianist ideology and program, which many clearly
see or sense are wrong and can bring themselves no good.

What can and must be done against this? Naturally, to unmask
and refute that phoney"Marxist" ideology and program, to
start discussing it in the very first place, to compare it to the
ideology and line of Marxism, to do all one can to unite the
revolutionaries in all countries on the basis of Marxism, Lenin- 
ism and Mao Zedong Thought (or "Maoism", as some say).

To contribute precisely towars this is what I've been striving to 
do, not least via the Net since more than a year back.

I happened to have the knowledge with which to refute the "RIM
Declaration". I did so with my 1994 article posted on 01.01.96.
(See parts 4/8 and 5/8 below.) Fortunately, the Avakianists from
late 1993 on had started to unmask themselves to practiaclly
everybody at least as persons, with their open support for the
"peace letters" hoax in Peru, thus stabbing the people's war
there in the back. 

But those comrades, among them comrade Adolfo, who had 
swallowed their original and most important hoax, the "RIM 
Declaration", and since 1984 had been presenting these 
swindlers to the world as "genuine revolutionaries" (well,
precisely in Adolfo's London group there were grave doubts
about those people  - *but* apparenly not about their bullshit
programme) did not, not even after they had now come to
consider them as traitors, understand that they had been 
fooled by them all along.

This is what I've been trying to make these comrades realize.

Among others, and not least, the PCP must correct its serious
error of endorsning the "RIM Declaration", I've urged. I have
repeatedly explained why. I've called on the comrades, to many
of whom the facts on the various matters might not be known,
seriously to investigate them and to discuss them internationally,
with me for instance and among themselves. 

As an an example of this, I bring below in part 6/8 the May '96 
posting "Debate needed on M-L general line", in which I pointed 
to three important matters on which the Avakianists' reactionary 
and harmful "theories" needed to be debated and refuted, on 
which there was great need for the comrades to help the masses 
by disclosing to them the truth and supporting the struggle in the
right direction instead of in the wrong one. The three points
enumerated there remain important today.

Does that which I'm advocating on these three points perhaps
constitute some curious "pet theories" "of my own"?  Or does 
it constitute the line of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong
Thought? In several other postings, I've demonstrated that the
latter is the case. If you disagree, then let's discuss the issues.

By no means can it be said to be unimportant whether the "RIM 
Declaration"'s vile misrepresentations of and open attacks on 
Mao Zedong's correct line are continued to be supported and
upheld, now that the facts on this are long since known, or
whether the comrades repudiate them and put an end to them.

With the comrades in Peru, for instance, most of us here in 
Europe have as good as no direct contact. Obviously, it is and
has been an important thing for me to try to make those 
comrades who in various ways may have such contacts see
the demonstrable facts concerning the Marxist line on some
vital international questions versus the Avakianist one.


BRIEFLY ON THE "QUISPE" FIGHT AND ON THE WMC

The Call, in March 1996, by comrade Luis Arce Borja, comrade 
Adolfo and some others for a World Mobilisation Commision 
(WMC) was a good initiative. The WMC was to support the 
revolution in Peru and i.a. call together a broad international 
conference for this. And it was also to "defend Marxism, 
Leninism and Maoism" internationally, thus taking on itself also 
the tasks of an International. It meant in practice an effort at, 
if not actually breaking with the "RIM", then at least creating 
something that would not lie under the "organisatorical juris- 
diction" of that "aircraft carrier of subversion against the inter- 
national communist movement", as *I* at least knew it was. (See 
"UNITE! Info #8en: The sinking of the 'RIMitz'", 25.04.1996.) I 
endorsed the Call, as did several organizations and indivuduals.

The swindler "Quispe", an agent of the CIA or something of that
order, didn't like the WMC idea at all. He and his helpers, during
that Internet struggle in April-June '96 in the course of which 
they were completely exposed, showed extremely great interest in 
having the PCP continue its endorsement of the "RIM Declaration".

I was able to contribute some things to that struggle, in which
comrade Adolfo played an important part. Among other things, I
had already, using my position as Steering Committee member 
within the united-front organisation the IEC, exposed one not 
completely unimportant swindler here in Malmoe, Sweden, "Mr. 
TP", back in April 1994, even before he started calling for a 
boycott of El Diario Internacional and later justly got his 
story told by that monthly too. 

The actions of Mr. TP, which I wrote about, helped expose 
"Quispe", for he, who pretended to "oppose" Avakian, could be 
clearly seen staunchly to support - precisely Avakian's agent 
(with influence in other countries too) Mr. TP. And I exposed 
some of "Quispe's" ultra-reactionary political standpoints, i.a. 
in the abovementioned "UNITE! Info #8en".

With these swindlers exposed and not being able to sabotage
as much as they had before, the road seemed to lie rather clear 
for the formation of a WMC, by those not inconsiderable forces 
that had endorsed this plan. (A list of them appears in a note at 
the end of the posting in part 6/8 below.)

What was the most important thing in connection with this
formation and the further development of a WMC? Naturally, what
political line it more precisely would represent and advocate.

"The line is key" - this is a most basic principle of Marxism. 

And precisely with a view to this it was that I urged, as in the 
part 6/8 posting, "Debate needed on M-L general line". It would 
be very bad if the WMC, because of the comparative lack of 
knowledge that there still undoubtedly was in many quarters, 
would just "take over" the reactionary ideology of the "RIM" and 
not at least make a critical appraisal of it. It would also be 
very bad if those different forces which had an interest in the 
formation of a WMC would get together only in name and not - 
despite all practical difficulties - in reality also.

Unfortunately, precisely these bad things were what took place. 
In August 1996, the initiators of the Call for the WMC made the 
grave mistake of going ahead themselves, together with who
knows how many or which others, but certainly not together with
all those organizations and indivuduals in many countries who
had endorsed that original Call, and creating a so-called "WMC"
on *that* "basis". 

This we other endorsers were suddenly informed of in mid-
Sepember '96 (in my case at least) by some El Diario Interna-
cional articles that were also posted on the Net and which on
one point, for instance, one that I on my part could ascertain,
brought incorrect information concerning what had taken
place - the signature of the (then completely dormant) Malmoe
IEC group "replacing" mine on a document that would have
been important had it not been a hoax. I protested with a decla- 
ration on how this had been, even dishonestly, mishandled.
(See documents and a note on this in part 7/8 below.)

A *real* WMC would have been obliged sharply to criticize and
repudiate the erroneous and reactionary platform of the "RIM".

Should it perhaps have avoided doing so, "out of consideration
for the PCP", which might still be continuing its grave error?
Absolutely not. The first duty of Marxists is to the masses, that
of telling them the truth (as well as they can). If communication
between people here in Europe, say, and the PCP leadership in
Peru in practice is so difficult as to prevent discussion of the 
most important things there are, then this of course must not  
be taken as a reason for accepting that people here should
continue what they've already seen is misleading the masses.


THE RESUPMTION NOW (IN A TWISTED WAY) OF THE 
DISCUSSION BETWEEN COMRADE ADOLFO AND ME,
AND SOME REACTIONARY "ARGUMENTS" IN IT

There was a certain discussion, or a discussion on whether
we should have one, on some of the things I pointed to as
important, beteween comrade Adolfo and me, in June-July '96.
(See "UNITE! Info #21en", from which are the "RIM Declaration"
quotes in part 4/8 below.) It ended on the note of Adolfo's
writing that "we" (the PCP, I think he meant) "are not going to
take lessons from individuals" and my criticizing that statement.

Since then, comrade Adolfo has avoided discussing the crucial
matters of the general political line with me in any (direct) way.
I suppose it can surprise nobody that I find it important to discuss
these matters with representatives (direct or indirect) of the PCP,
to convey to them that knowledge which I have on at least some of 
the questions connected with this and which I think may be of 
value to them, and vice versa. When this is constantly declined,
one must wonder why.  

In Adolfo's posting now with all those charges against me in it,
certain "ways of reasoning" appear which are definitly not Marxist.
They in fact are a continuation of his "we are not going to take
lessons from individuals" of July '96, whose Chrushchevite
character he doesn't seem to have realized at all. And he added
some even worse things.

First of all, he brings as a purported "argument", without regard
to what is correct or what is erroneous, a statement on what 
"other Marxists", "(the overwhelming majority)", think and want to
do - in this case, they supposedly don't want to discuss those
points I hold are crucial. (Charge No. 10.) In many others of his
"charges" there also are references, based on no facts, to a 
supposed "individualism" of mine, etc.

Should the Marxists - now supposing we're talking about actual
such - have as criteria for what to do or say what "other Marxists",
"in their majority", for instance, do or say? They shouldn't. At 
least, such a thing ought never to be a principal factor in this.

What is true, what is false? What is in the interest of the over- 
whelming majority of all people? *Those* are the criteria. It's 
the Chrushchevites who have always been "arguing" as does 
comrade Adolfo now, with "a majority of Marxists", in order to 
stop the revolts within or against their degenerated revisionist 
parties, revolts which as all know have usually been started by a 
minority of cadres, or from outside these parties.

Another question is, who those people might be that in this 
connection comrade Adolfo is referring to. Doesn't he recognize 
the fact that in order actually to be a Marxist today, you must 
at least adhere to Mao Zedong Thought (Maoism to some)? Among 
those which he and I both have contact, via the Net, for instance,
how many qualify on this point? Is it two or three? It's no secret 
either that there are a number of the "mao"_quack or "kisspee" 
type swindlers around, whose "Long live!" camouflage statements 
one would be silly indeed to believe.

On the M-G-list, for instance, I've had fruitful discussions with 
several IMO sensible and progressive people, whom I'd not 
however actually qualify as Marxists. It seems to me that Adolfo
is "lowering his standards", for the purpose of such "majority
reasoning". That's an old Chrushchevite ploy too.

What did Mao Zedong and other actual Marxists always stress,
concerning the questions of line and of "majority/miniority" 
among e.g. the cadres of a party? Below I shall repeat this.

[Continued in part 3/8]




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