Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 03:31:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #37en: 4/6 To Jay M. on RIM & "LeninList" UNITE! Info #37en: 4/6 To Jay M. on RIM & "LeninList" [Posted: 29.06.97] [Continued from part 3/6] 12. HOW AND WHY WAS THE "LENINLIST" CREATED AND HOW SHOULD OTHERS SUITABLY REACT TO IT? (Ctd.) As the circumstances show, two seemingly very different groups of people who however found themselves having a common interest combined to create this list. On who may have been acting as string-pullers and who have in reality perhaps been manipulated to a larger or smaller extent, I cannot of course say anything with certainty. But the list of moderators (above) shows, that there are here, firstly, three people who have long been stating their adherence to Mao Zedong Thought (or Maoism), with its correct repudiation, not least, of revisionism and social-imperialism - Adolfo, yourself, Jay, and Jacques - and, secondly, two others whom I don't know that well but whose writings, as far as I know them, show them to be hackneyed propagandists and representatives precisely of revi- sionism and social-imperialism - Jim Hillard and Mark Jones. Now on principle, there's nothing wrong for Marxists to team up, in a united front for some good purpose, with various bourgeois representatives including of course also propagandists of re- visionism. I on my part have done so repeatedly. Only, two principles must be upheld by Marxists concerning the engaging in such united fronts: The purpose, the program, must be one that actually favours the proletariat (and it must be acted on too and not only remain a dead letter, with opposite things being done in practice). And the Marxist forces (i.e. those rep- resenting the proletariat) at all times must preserve their independence within that front and not have any decisions taken for them by the bourgeois ones (including of course the revi- sionists). That means, for instance, that if you're outvoted, in itself quite democratically as far as the front in question goes, say by 4 against 1 on some decision which however you judge to be unacceptable in relation to the interests of the proletariat (which are the common interests of close to 5.8 billion people), then you're obliged to *break* that front, go against that de- cision and tell everybody why in your judgement it's wrong. In this case, that of the SiberiaSwamp creation, the purpose is not progressive but reactionary, as noted above. Out of the two groups joined together in it, one - that which is probably led by Adolfo - wanted a list where all criticism of the reac- tionary "RIM Declaration", which all the three of you in that group support or at least are protecting, was to be banned. Your group got what it wanted on this. This is clearly shown by the particular decisions by the Swamp against my joining it. The other group engaged in the Swamp list creation - probably led by Jim Hillier - wanted a list where all criticism of old revisionism and social-imperialism was to be banned. This group too got what it wanted, as shown both by the exclusion of Mao Zedong in the picture on the Swamp homepage and also, once again, by the measures taken against participation by me. It's interesting to note, that, on the one hand, your group, Jay, is one that supports the reactionary phony"left" 4-gang of the mid-1970s as "the real revolutionaries" in China. And I'm sorry that I on my part have had to make such a long pause in the discussion that you and I have been having on this theme - I haven't yet replied to your latest postings in February. I do inthend to get back to you on this. You people are - in itself quite correctly - attacking Hua Guofeng for his eventually teaming up with the openly-righist Deng Xiaoping clique. On the other hand, the propagandists of the beaten social- imperialism of the Soviet Union, such as Jim Hillier, of course are making propaganda too for today's revisionist and fascist regime in China, the regime instituted precisely by the Deng Xiaoping clique. So here in your group of moderators who has this anti-Mao Zedong picture on their homepage and who's banning me, the propagandist for Mao Zedong's line, you're repeating in a direct way what the 4-gang forces together with the Deng forces did in an indirect way in China: Combining to combat the line of Mao Zedong. Naturally, Jay, I am taking into account, when trying to assess the character of the actions here in connection with the Sibe- riaSwamp of you and Jacques, the relative inexperience of both of you, the fact, for instance, that you never had an opportu- nity to learn from such a genuinely proletarian revolutionary party as, during a long time, was the NE in Germany, which I was so lucky as to get into contact with, back in 1974. Anyway, as co-moderators on that Swamp, you'll at least get ample opportunity to experience very directly some methods and tricks used by revisionism, and it's up to you both whether you'll draw the correct conclusions from that or not. I don't indend to exclude the possibility either that some of the other moderators might improve their standpoints (too) on the hand of experience gained in connection with the SiberiaSwamp. 13. ADOLFO THROWS TWO-AND-A-HALF BUCKETS OF SHIT UP INTO THE AIR WHICH REBOUND ONTO HIMSELF FILLED BUCKET ONE It was in a posting on M-G on 25.03 that Adolfo Olaechea sent out the first batch of a number of unfounded attacks directed at me. That one contained as many as 30 accusations, all very vague and none of them referring to any actual or imagined con- rcete wrong thing that I might have done; it was all a bundle of riddles or a collection of pure shit. To that posting, I replied on 29.03 with a detailed 8-part posting explaining what was obviuosly the real conflict behind this all: "UNITE! Info #31en: What c. Adolfo's riddles hide". Later the same day I applied for subscription to the Siberia- Swamp, whose existence I had learned of only by that same 25.03 posting by Adolfo, who in it - to me very mysteriously, and, I thought, perhaps quite untruthfully, among other things had written, that in the particular case of me, there was a "rule" on that list of yours that if I were to join it, then "some" of my postings were not to be permitted. *What* postings, in that case, and *why*, he didn't say. Under such circumstances, I might perhaps on principle have desisted from applying at all, but I found I might just as well try and see what would happen; I had nothing to lose by that. Lenin in his time did avocate Marxists' entering those "yellow" or Zubatov trade unions which were organized by tsarism, despite their reactionary nature, because there were some masses of wor- kers that could be reached there. And if what Adolfo had written was true, your list would be an entity of Zubatov character or a kind of Siberia, the place to which both the old tsarists and later the new tsarists too deported large numbers of ordinary people and had them confined in camps. (In the time, in between, of Stalin, of course above all bourgeois elements and in the main not proletarian ones were sent there, but that's another matter.) It was obvious, I think, that this first bucket of shit thrown up into the air by Adolfo, the one of 25.03, could only fall back onto himself, in particular after I had explained to all the actual cicrumstances of that perhaps mysterious-looking conflict that had seemed to erupt so suddenly. A SHIT-BUCKET WITH NOT YET ANY CONTENT IN IT After I had applied to join your Swamp list, Jay, Adolfo sent to M-G first a posting, on 29.03, commenting on this application and then one other on 30.03, mainly in reply to the profuse but not very progressive writer Luis "Nobleman" Proyect, as indica- ted by its subject line - which is why I didn't even read it un- til weeks later. Both of these postings contained further un- founded vilification of me. Those I haven't so far commented on. I shall do so now. In the one on 29.03, with subject line "Rolf Martens request for Subscription to LeninList", Adolfo wrote that my application had "been received and will be passed to the commissioners (modera- tors) panel for their decision." He on his part was "for allowing me in" (most graciously), he wrote, "under those [fantastic] conditions" he had already written about before. And it appeared that his statement about them had not been an invention, for he added the following, which neither of you other moderators have denied the truth- fulness of either, Jay: "There is a consensus among the commissioners at present (arrived at before hand) that unless you would abide by the rules IN YOUR OWN PARTICULAR CASE, your subscription will not be accepted."[!] Even more fantastic, wasn't it: You had all agreed that I would "have to abide by" "rules" saying that "some" postings (quite unclear *which* ones) of one particular ("possible") subscriber, namely, one representing Mao Zedong's line, would be banned - this I supposedly should sign "acceptance of" in advance! In the same posting, Adolfo also tried to "explain the charac- ter of" the SiberiaSwamp, enmeshing himself into a tangle of ridiculous contradictions. On this, later here. And that posting further contained the following: "In your particular case there is already a demand from a Swedish subscriber that you should not be admitted at all. I will ask that comrade to forward again the charges for counter- revolutionay activities he brings against you, and I will forward them to you for your comments, so that the commissioners panel can study the case properly if they so wish."[!!] Which meant his once more throwing a shit-bucket up into the, air, only now not yet with any contents in it - instead a pro- mise that it at some time in the future *would* be filled. Reactionary rumour-mongering, that's what such things are right- ly called. Regardless of whom it might be direceted against, persons who are even halfway fairminded don't engage is such things as saying "look, people, there's a comrade of mine whose name I'll not tell you who's levelling charges against someone, charges whose contents I'll not tell you about either but my nameless comrade says they're about some counter-revolutionary activities or other on the part of that person I'm naming." As for my real political activities in Sweden since more than two decades back, they're well-known to rather many people and can be documented too on the hand of a large number of leaflets and other things which I've published here from 1974 on. See also the end note to this Info posting. I have little cause to fear any rumours here, however vile they might be. Have these "charges" later been "forwarded again" and for in- stance brought to my knowledge? No. Who on earth might this "comrade" of Adolfo's and of yours, Jay, be? At the time, I racked my brains a bit on that one. And why was it that he so incredlibly quickly, and so suitably for you moderators too, could protest against my application, which I had posted only the same day? Well, actually I've recently been able to solve that problem, Jay. And later here, I shall tell you and all others I can reach about its indeed very revealing solution. YET ANOTHER BUCKET, THIS TIME WITH SHIT IN IT AGAIN By this I mean Adolfo's 30.03 posting to M-G with subject line 'LOU PROYECT "Flees from Communist Dictators"' [No, Louis "Nobleman" P. was already fed up with and "fleeing" from your SiberiaSwamp, with its by no means "communist", but as all can see for instance here above, revisionist, i.e. bourgeois-reac- tionary regime]. Adolfo here took out his anger at poor "Nobleman" by lashing out at me. The shit he threw into the air this time was much less in quantity than his first batch but, as if to compensate for this, even quite a bit viler, as I think all who know a little about the political positions and histories of the various persons mentioned will agree: "Lou ["Nobleman" Proyect] is dreaming his usual nightmares.... What he will get is the Rolf Martenses and the Quispes. Conge- nial company indeed, just the same as the maleckis but wearing a "maoist" hat. Well, why not, in that world of ennui of the impotent "left", even that can give you a laugh or two." Adolfo Olaechea's now even likening me, of all people, to the US imperialist agent "Quispe", after it, less than a year ago, had been precisely I who, together with himself, had been the main exposer of that agent in that important struggle against the whole "Quispe" gang, and after it for instance precisely had been above all I who more or less finally had brought down the political curtain over that, at the time, important "Quispe" ally Chris-B, London, who just then had been doing his very best to pester precisely Adolfo - that must be said to represent his, Adolfo's, political "all-time low" at least so far. Or, that was what I thought at the time I saw it. But then I hadn't yet discovered *who* was Adolfo's and your "comrade in Sweden" and thus, why you didn't even dare to tell it on M-G, and what he had already posted to SiberiaSwamp, which naturally you preferred to keep "somewhat confidential" too. (See below.) As for Adolfo's referring to me in the plural - sorry, I haven't yet found such allies or comrades that an expression of this kind might have any more solid basis in fact. This of course is reflected in the fact too, which I'm certain of, that no other applicant to join that "LeninList" of yours has been met by a "response", on the part of you moderators of it, that was even remotely similar to the one that I have gotten. [Continued in part 5/6] --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005