File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9707, message 99


Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 02:35:41 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: Ola Eriksson & Ola Echea - eech! (3)


Ola Eriksson & Ola Echea - eech! (3)
[Posted: 12.07.97]

This is part of a debate on the Marxism-General mailing list
(M-G) managed by the Spoon Collective (see http://jefferson.
village.Virginia.EDU/~spoons/), and is also sent to newsgroups.

Generals,

OK, this posting has a *somewhat* unfair title, since it's not
qute directly about the people mentioned in it. But it's of
some interest as to Olaechea's position - that of the more
important of the swindlers mentioned - concerning the line
of Mari=E1tegui, the founder of the PCP, to see what standpoint
that propagandist of social-imperialism and of the "green"
warfare by the US imperialists too, Louis "Nobleman" Proyect,
takes up on the matter.

Nobleman (who, well, IMO isn't *completely* devoid of good
points either, please let me add this at once) just recently
"butted in" (it's good in itself that others are doing this!),
replying to something that Dr Sendepause wrote in reply
to Sabina Astete on Mari=E1tegui.

And that posting by old Pausey, which probably has already gone
out to some newsgroups, I shall quote in full below, for it
(obviously) contains some *facts* in the present debate.

Elsewhere, I've made clear what's wrong with Dr Sendepause's
standpoint on the whole, how you can see that he's not a
Marxist any more. But in this matter, concerning Mari=E1tegui,
he obviously in the main at least is right, and here IMO it's
quite useful to listen to him.

But that will be towards the end of this posting. Here first
my comments on what Nobleman has to say about that reply by
Klaus to Sabina:


Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 17:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
To: Klasber-AT-aol.com
cc: marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: M-G: Klaus Sender's answer  to  Sabina  Astete


"What a bunch of worthless crap. Taking cheap shots at Mariate-
gui who had the courage to think for himself, and made a mistake
here and there in the process."

We all agree, I think that Mari=E1tegui *had* the courage to think
for himself, and that he on the whole played a positive role.

But his mistakes are *not* unimportant. They show up in some
clear deficiencies in the line of the PCP in Peru today. And
this party has had a considerable influence internationally too.
So it *is* important to clarify the matter of these mistakes.

"Worthless crap", that show up the fear of the reactionary
phony"Marxist" Nobleman that his and his swindler colleagues'
attempts att leading some people astray will be exposed even
more. It's noteworthy also that, while the swindlers Nobleman
and Olaechea have some conflicts with each other, *here* they
agree.

Dr Sendepause today *does* take up a bourgeois standpoint.
Among other things, and not least, he's *covering up* the
reactionary character of the "RIM Declaration", which the US
imperialists have fooled the PCP into signing, utilizing the
weaknesses I mentioned in that party's ideology. He's covering
it up by, during a decade now, *not* having said a word
against it. *But* his recent (30.06) article on Mari=E1tegui
*was* a good thing. Nobleman continues:


"Should we join a fucking Mao-Stalin cult like his critics and
walk around like a bunch of fucking Jehovah's Witnesses with Red
Books instead of bibles?"

So you see, here speaks a true revisionist. He just *hates* the
Cultural Revolution in China, hates the criticism of the social-
imperialism of the Soviet Union. The true adherents of Mao
Zedong, such as the early NE in Germany (the then excellent
party led by Klaus Sender) was *never* addicted to any "cult",
but developed and made propaganda for *scientific socialism*.


Nobleman further:
"What killed the radical movement in the 1960s was not
thinkers like Mariategui--who like Gramsci and CLR James--tried
to develop a Marxism based on his national experience, but
Trotskyite and Mao-Stalin cults that competed with each other
who on the basis of who could most slavishly ape Stalin, Mao,
Hoxha or Trotsky. You are a disgrace, Klasber. Mariategui helped
to build communism in Peru. You and other ultraleft sectarians
did nothing but destroy it in Germany, the USA and everywhere
else you show up."

It's lucky for Nobleman perhaps that he *knows absolutely no-
thing* about the developments of the early 1970:s in Germany
(and other European countries) and the *enormous* role that
that *only* genuinely proletarian revolutionary party there,
the KDP/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) (the NE) played in those deveplopments.
This means that Nobleman is *not* quite as bad a crook as his
utter stupidities would otherwise have signified that he was.


Nobleman further:
"Mariategui was not an anthropologist. His understanding of the
Incas was based on the cultural and historical evidence of the
1920s."

Bullshit. It was quite well-known even at that time that the
Inca society had a brutal class character, quite different from
the earlier classless society. At the same time of course,
the development of class societies did propel history forwards,
as noted by Marx etc. But Mari=E1tegui cannot be excused by a
supposed "ignorance existing in the 1920:s".

Now Nobleman gets to speak on an interesting subject:
"What impressed him most was the idea of a communist indigenous
society that could bypass capitalist development. Marx enter-
tained exactly the same ideas in his ethnological workbooks that
are about to be published."

Poor ignorant Nobleman! You're quite right in saying that Marx
entertained that idea, and wrote quite a lot on it, not
least to some *Russian revolutionaries* at the time, where,
as Marx thought, there might be such a bypass.

What you of course *don't* know is the fact that *precisely
this* has been the subject for some *quite important and deep
research*, more than 10 years ago, by that very writer whom
you're now (wrongly) attacking, Klaus S. (before he became
Sendepause). There are several articles by him (very good ones,
I think) which i.a. note the difference between Marx and
Lenin here. And this was part of the basis for a criticism
by Klaus S. of certain elements of Lenin's line. A *correct*
criticism too.

Only, around 1989-90, Klaus S. and others in the NE of that
time because of this *wanted to abandon Leninism*, to a conside-
rable degree at least; they because of this even wanted to
change the very name of their party. *Against this* I protested,
and this was part of the background of our conflict then.

There's much more to be said about this. People should read
some of those articles written by Klaus S. at that time.
Only, the "NE" have so far *not* translated or posted *any*
of them. Perhaps they'll do so? That would be good.

But Nobleman, when mentioning that Marx was interested in
the possibility of *bypassing stages*, actually, precisely
like Mari=E1tegu, *pretends* that the society of the *Incas* was
such a classless society. That's nonsense.


Nobleman again:
"My suspicion is that you could care less about these matters,
but are just involved in a factional dispute in the Maoist
subculture and are looking to score points--a struggle between
midgets. This is not serious Marxist scholarship."

The pro-social-imperialist midget Nobleman of course would put
things that way. Actually, the mistakes of the PCP, whose
struggle despite them is a just one, *is* a serious and impor-
tand matter, and so, an investigation into their roots, such
as has actually been done by old Pausey, *is* a valuable
thing for all sincere adherents of the proletarian revolution.

I on my part asked the question of old Pausey's motives too,
since at the same time as his publishing that (good) article,
he (and his party) keep(s) being totally silent on the
matter of the "RIM" and its 1984 "Declaration". (See earlier
postings by me.) But the results at least are valuable!

Otherwise, neither you, silly Nobleman, nor that friend of
yours, Ola Echea, wouldn't have been screaming so loudly
against them!

Nobleman, *your* kind of "communism", and also Ola Echea's
kind, is one where there is a particular "tribe" that *rules
over everubody else*, precisely in fascist fashion, precisely
in the fashion of those Soviet social-imperialists whom
you admire so much - that's also the old *Inca* fashion.
It's only natural that *this* is what *you're* trying to
peddle off to people as a "classless" society!

How many among "ordinary people" do you think will buy that?
Not many at all, once they see what you're up to!

In order to be a little more precise: I don't think Nobleman
actually would fancy himself all that much in the role of an
oppressor. But it's clear that he *admires* those "oppressor
tribes" at least, and wouldn't mind living in a system
where he and his "title" (he does fancy himself as a member
of at least the lower nobility) would be protected by one
of them.

So far some rather quick comments of mine. Now for the reply
by Dr Sendepause to Sabine A, with its further quotes from
Mari=E1tegui - the entire rest is a quote.



KLASBER:

Klaus Sender's answer  to  Sabina  Astete   

The picture of the "harmonious" Inca society is only my
interpretation?

"Never did Mariategui see the Incas as a classless society" ??

The Paragraph, which was quoted by me, is very expressive and
supports my comment. But perhaps, if you like, you need even
more direct quotations, it is no problem! With regard to the
Incan society he wrote  in a very important annotation
(NR. 15, El  problema de la terra):

"In our times autocracy and communism are incompatible, but
this is not valid for primitive societies." (like the Incan
one.!!) See "Siete ensayos", German  edition, p.73 , OC, BD 2,
p.68 Ediciones populares).

The whole annotation is very interesting. Here Mariategui
defended his opinion, that the Incan society, in spite of its
despotic character, is a communist one. For instance here we
find the remark:

"The 'Ayllu', the 'Communidad' was the cell of the empire. The
Incas created a unity, built an empire, but they didn't create
the cell. The state of law organized by them certainly
reproduced  the state of nature that had been existing before.
The Incas  didn't use violence here. It is important to pay
tribute to their work but upon this one may not forget the
collective effort for thousands of years, of which this work
is only the expression and last result. One may not regard
carelessly or just deny what has  been achieved to this work
by the masses." (p.73 Germ. Edition or  OC, p.68/69)
Translation.)

The last sentence is well said. It stressed the role of masses.
But the crucial point is: "The state of  law organized by them
certainly reproduced the state of nature that had been
existing  before." That means, the society which existed
before was perpetuated in the new Empire. In the opinion of
Mariategui the  Inca autocratic regime only organized the system
of early communism on a higher level, which already existed on
the level of village community.


The following is another very unequivocal opinion :

"And finally, socialism is founded in the American tradition.
The most advanced ancient communist organization ever known in
history  was the Incan one."
("Obreras Completas", Bd. 13, p. 249, compare the preface of
Eleonore von Oertzen, "Revolution und Peruanische Wirklichkeit",
p.38)

And finally, in his article "Problems of Race in Latin America"
we found:

"It was only by political and administrative necessities in
order to strengthen central control in the vast empire, the Inca
government was caused to organize  this communist order, spread 
in their whole territory since a long time, in a certain form."
(p.132 "Revolution und peruanische Wirklichkeit", published by
Eleonore von Oertzen.)

It is very clear,  Mariategui called the Incan state an early
communist order on a higher level, an autocratic reign and
communism at the same time. And all I read was a very positive
description of this early society.
You said, that there are many articles, even describing  the
exploiting character of this early society. Give us some examples
with quotes like "Weklu" already asked about.
These quotations above disprove also your second posting from
july 5 1997, which answered to "Weklu".

      Greetings

      Klaus Sender


 07/04/97  /  07/09/97

 (Translation)                Posted on behalf of the author

[So far the quote from "Klasber"]



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005