Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 07:10:57 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #31en: 3/8 What c. Adolfo's riddles hide


UNITE! Info #31en: 3/8 What c. Adolfo's riddles hide
[Posted: 29.03.97]

[Continued from part 2/8]


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.)

I'm bringing here, one more time, some quotes which I've already
used at least once before in a reply precisely to that same
writer, who styles himself a "Maoist" yet in posting after posting
directed at me so far has argued, not in the way which precisely 
Mao Zedong so much stressed that you should do but in the one
typical to Chrushchev and similar people. I think the below merits
another repetition. (From "Does c. Adolfo & PCP need lessons 
>from individuals?", part 1/5, 14.07.1996:)

2.  LESSONS FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF MARXIST-
    LENINIST PARTIES CONCERNING THE IMPORTANCE
    OF THE QUESTION OF LINE

Perhaps it's not superfluous once more to repeat some things 
on this IMO crucial point which by no means have been thought 
out by me, for instance, but which were the results of the 
experience of the abovementioned parties:

[The quotes below are from the Documents of the10th Congress 
of the Communist Party of China, in August, 1973, and (in my
translation) from a pamphlet published in Germany in 1979 by
the then still proletarian revolutionary party the KPD/ML(NEUE
EINHEIT), respectively - see "UNITE! Info #13en" and "#12en".]

"The correctness or the incorrectness of the ideological and
political line decides everything." (Mao Zedong)

"*To go against the tide is a Marxist-Leninist principle.* During 
the discussions on the revision of the Party Constitution, many 
comrades, reviewing the [Chinese Communist] Party's history 
and their own experiences, held that this was the most
important in the two-line struggle within the Party."

"There were many instances in the past when one tendency 
covered another and when a tide came, the majority went 
along with it, while only a few withstood it."

"And when a wrong tendency surges towards us like a rising 
tide, we must not fear isolation and must dare to go against the 
tide and brave it through."

"If one's line is incorrect, one's downfall in inevitable, even with 
the control of the central, local and army leadership. If one's line 
is correct, even if one has not a single soldier at first, there will 
be soldiers, and even if there is no polical power, political power 
will be gained. This is borne out by the historical experience of 
our Party and by that of the international communist movement 
since the time of Marx."

"When confronted with issues that concern the line and the 
overall situation, a true Communist must act without any selfish
considerations and dare to go against the tide, fearing neither
removal from his post, expulsion from the Party, imprisonment,
divorce nor guillotine." 

These things were said by the CPC, and the following two by
the likewise formerly revolutionary KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT):

"Even if the small Marxist party would be one of, say, ten people,  
and the party such as the 'KPD' a party of, let us suppose,
three hundred thousand people, even in such a case the party
of ten people would be the party of the Marxists, while the other
one would be the opportunist party."

"It can in history not be overlooked, for instance, that Marx and
Engels, as a comparatively small circle of persons, were 
basically right in their criticism of the Gotha progamme, while
all those who, a hundred years ago, defended the Gotha 
programme were taking up an erroneous position..."  

[The NE in 1979 i.a. continued concerning this, I'd like to add:]

"Marx and Engels were right, while the others were wrong. To
this we must connect."


*This* is the proletarian revolutionary standpoint on such 
questions.


In that first group of charges which I*m still refering to - they 
were listed as a group in part 1/8 above - there are some other 
things too that merit comment. I shall be briefer on them:

*A threat of suppression of Marxism in favour of revisionism*. 

In charge 26, *Adolfo* i.a. says that some postings of *mine* "will 
not be allowed" on a certain mailing list. In our debates (if any), 
and in my postings in general, I have always represented and 
advocated Marxism. He has defended the vile revisionism of 
e.g. the "RIM Declaration". He thus here advocates "defending" 
such things by suppressing, for instance, that correct criticism of 
them which I've been bringing. This is counter-revolutionary. 

*Baseless slander*

I'm accused, in charges 24, 25, 27 and 30, of wanting to make 
a "deal" with reactionaries in order to get "my pet theories" 
a "free ride" - a ridiculous but all the same nasty charge - further 
of wanting to bring some comrades, and the monthly El Diario
International too, "down to the level of the swamp" - likewise nasty
and even more ridiculous since it has all the time been I who have
tried to *raise* their level. And what else is the continued support
today, by comrade Adolfo, for instance, of the long-refuted "RIM 
Declaration" other than precisely the standpoint of the *swamp*?

In No. 27, I'm accused of "disruption". A lie.

*The defender of the swamp talks of "discipline"*

In charge 27 too, *Adolfo* has the gall to accuse *me* of "in-
discipline". One might have thought, perhaps, when reading that,
that *he* was the one who in our controversy had represented the
Marxist standpoint, and *I* the one standing for the "RIM Declara-
tion", instead of the other way around. On the question of 
discipline or lack of it, it should be noted that this is something
that has to do with people working together, in the case of
political activity such as discussed here, within an organization
of course. And Adolfo and I are in *no* organization together, 
except for the IEC - unimportant in this context. So he has just
as little business discussing "discipline" with me as I have
doing the same with him. 

Perhaps some comrades in the London Sol Peru Committee, which he 
leads, might be impressed if Adolfo replied to some criticism of 
theirs to his "pet theories" of the reactionary "RIM Declaration" 
with "Indiscipline!" or "Shut up!"? I at least am not.


2ND GROUP OF ACCUSATIONS: SOME LIKEWISE
MORE SERIOUSLY SLANDEROUS

On these, which I in the main shall just enumerate here, there's
no need for much comment except at once to say that they're
all false, baseless. A couple of comments I shall add after them.

2)  	endorsing anarchism

3)  	failing to understand the need to "ball and chain"
    	reactionaries and agents provocateurs, fascists
    	and criminal anti-working-class wreckers

4)  	failing to understand the need to establish the
    	supremacy of Marxism

8)  	not understanding the need for them (the Marxists)
    	to raise their level among true comrades and to 
    	resolve their differences in a democratic and 
    	principled fashion *among revolutionaries*

9)  	being like a "lone wolf"

13) 	on many occasions ending up giving ammunition to the
    	enemies of the communist cause

14) 	not understanding the need for the "ball and chain"
    	of revolutionary discipline 

17) 	spending quite a lot of my time finding points of 
    	"agreement" with agent provocateurs 

21) 	having a narrow interest and putting it above the
    	class's interest

Among these, No. 9 (and a number of similar things elsewhere 
in Adolfo's posting) actually must be taken as alleging something
negative, in fact a *wish* to be "like a lone wolf". About someone
who has been posting things with "UNITE!" as a recurring call in 
their subject lines, not too flattering. In fact, circumstances may 
sometimes necessitate it for people to continue acting, in the 
main, on their own. Very helpful in this respect has not so far 
been, for instance, the behaviour of comrade Adolfo.  

Two of the things already quoted above I'd like to stress once
more, concerning such a thing as No. 9 as an "accusation". Tthey 
are both from the 10th Congress of the CPC, in 1973:

"*To go against the tide is a Marxist-Leninist principle.*"

"And when a wrong tendency surges towards us like a rising 
tide, we must not fear isolation and must dare to go against the 
tide and brave it through."

If Adolfo wants people to "seek company", why doesn't he advocate 
that all join some social-democratic party or other? It's 
really ridiculous to hear such things as the above from a repre- 
sentative of the PCP, who on other occasions always get to hear 
"O you sectarians, how can you fail to join the Izquierda Unida?"

On the nastier things of his above, I repeat: They're all dirty lies.


3RD GROUP OF ACCUSATIONS: THOSE ON LIST AFFAIRS

Those charges in all cases are less important, so I shall not
bother to quote them all, but I'm referring to No:s (on the list in
part 8/8): 5, 6, 7, 16, 19, 20 and 22, as well as to some parts of
those charges already discussed.

What am I really being "accused of" here? It all in fact, as far as
I understand, boils down, firstly, to a strange idea that comrade 
Adolfo has concerning what people it really is that control those
lists to which we both are subscribing (in my case, only one), and
secondly, to a difference between us that is not all that important,
concerning the way that Marxists today might fruitfully engage in
international discussions.

He levels at me the charge (No. 22) that I want to "necessitate" 
him "likewise to hear the predictable and imbecilic whines of the 
dogs of reaction". Why is this? Because I wrote, in effect: "why not 
give up that slave list M-I and emigrate to us here on M-G instead?"

Were or are there no imbecilic whines on M-I, the moderated one
of those two? In fact the dogs of reaction, of which there of course
are a number on M-G, are probably at least as numerous on M-I,
whose rule "no cop accusations!" must suit them much better. And
how do you get to be "forced" to read their predictable whines?
The delete button functions equally well in both cases. 

On both lists, managed by the Spoon Collective, Adolfo and I
are guests. We have the chance of discussing things with many
non-Mao-Zedong adherents as well as among ourselves. This I
at least want to do, and of course the unmoderated list must be 
preferable. Does Adolfo think that *he*, or he together with some 
friends, can prevent dogs of reaction from whining on either of 
them? Some of his charges seem to contain such an illusion.

It there existed a mailing list that was in fact managed by Marxists,
it could be useful to try to keep dogs as mentioned out - only, 
there's the considerable difficulty of telling dog from non-dog. And
Adolfo's recently discovered or constructed "LeninList" will on 
certain points, he writes, ban posts from *me*. Why? Because I 
advocate the line of Mao Zedong, of course. That list obviously is
really a "RIM Declaration" list, an "AvakianismList", if he's right. 

I advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat, and thus the
suppression of reactionaries wherever and whenever necessary.
But for instance a "RIM Declaration" list, managed by some 
phoney"Marxist" fools who would have people believe they're 
Marxists, this has nothing whatever to do with such a system.

In the actual world today, the actual Net world in fact, which is
what we're discussing, there are for Marxists the possibilties
of using newsgroups and also such mailing-lists where they're
welcome or at least accepted, as guests. Since the adherents
of that ideology supposedly represent an important truth, they
need not fear the contact with any elements whatsoever but on
the contrary, have a need to make propaganda for that truth,
explain it to others.

And there's another element that Mao Zedong always stressed:
The need for supervision and control by the masses of the
revolutionaries, or the supposed such. Even under the conditions
that people with Net access are a far from "representative"
group, this element exists and can be made use of. Behind
"closed doors", swindles can in general be much more easily
perpetrated than out in the open air, where actual Marxists
have nothing to fear.

One accusation against me which I've already quoted once, the
very last one, was the very strange one that I supposedly was
"advocating that the communists, who have already 'come 
together and set themselves apart', return to the swamp."

What did Adolfo mean by this "having set themselves apart"? I 
have the awful suspicion that he meant, "having gathered behind 
the closed doors of some mailing list" - a "Lenin" or "Avakianist" 
one perhaps? But Marxists don't really set themselves apart by 
*such* means. What was meant by Lenin when he spoke of that 
was the setting themselves apart *politically*. For comrade
Adolfo, this first of all ought to mean, I hold, setting himself 
apart from the disseminating of baseless reactionary slander, and 
secondly - why not, at last? - also from the counter-revolutionary 
"Declaration of the RIM".

[End of comments]

[Continued in part 4/8]



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