Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:00:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #50en: 4/6 My line & "weklu's" weak lies UNITE! Info #50en: 4/6 My line & "weklu's" weak lies [Posted: 22.08.97] [Continued from part 3/6] 11. YOUR ACCUSATIONS =A49-10 against me =A49. Having signed, in 1996, the call for the WMC (World Mobili- zation Committee to defend the revolution in Peru), without stating any reservations against its weak points - TRUE =A410. Having stated support for that call as a criterion by which to distinguish all genuine revolutionary forces in the world from the phony - FALSE The matter of your accusation =A49, against my in fact supporting the 1996 call for the WMC without making any reservations on points where I actually disagreed with it, is somewhat diffe- rent. Yes, it's true, that call did state certain erroneous things. But these by no means were decisive concerning its character. The call above all said that the revolution in Peru should be defended and that the line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Ze- dong should be defended, internationally. This was a basically correct line. The call in this way represented a certain break on the part of some forces away from that Operation Subversion the "RIM". As a whole, it absolutely merited support, I held. For me to endorse it only with, at the same time, making some explicit reservations wasn't necessary and would in the main only complicate things without achieving anything. My views on various less important points of the WMC call were publicly known (to the extent possible) anyway. You're saying that: 'By his signature, thus, Rolf Martens promises "to de- fend without reservations the People's War, the Commu- nist Party of Peru (PCP) and its leadership".' Yes, one may well say that so I did. But *defending* them with- out reservations of course doesn't mean, for instance, "defen- ding the political line of the PCP without reservations". Had the call had such a provision, it would actually have been wrong for me to sign it. As it was, it wasn't. In order to "substantiate" your accusation =A410, you quoted: "In my opinion, the main dividing line in the present debate among those who state their adherence to the line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong is between suppor- ting the call for a World Wide Mobilisation Commission (WWMC) to support the revolution in Peru and opposing it." (part 3/5) (emph. is mine.) ("Unite! Info #8en: The sinking of the 'RIMitz'" by Rolf Martens, posted 25.4.96) And then you (once more in your own way) "drew the conclusion": "This sentence states nothing less than the adhering to this call by Olaechea and others to be the criterion in order to distinguish between true and phoney revolu- tionaries all over the world." No, that's not true, as all who can read can see. I wrote "di- viding line *in the present debate*". This, on purpose too, avoided including all those existing organizations that were not taking part in that debate. The proposed WMC, although the call for it wasn't wrong, was to be "a somewhat strange animal", being both geared to the de- fence of the revolution in one particular country *and* being a kind of International, or a preparatory such, at the same time. This had to do with certain forces' still being reluctant to break their navle strings to the PCP - and thus to the errors of the PCP too - something which I of course precisely was try- ing to help them do. Suppose some quite other organizations or people had said, ar- guing in *such* quite another way against the call for the WMC: "No, it would be better to try to build up from the start a kind of International that is not by any such statement somehow coup- led to the defence of the revolution in one particular country" - then I would *not* have branded them as phony, of course. The thing is, there were no forces involved at the time which argued in this way. Should I, as one individual in the existing situation, instead have stated my refusal to endorse the call for the WMC, based on such an argument of principle as the above? One could per- haps advance some arguments in favour of this. But I still think I did the right thing, in that situation, when edorsing that "combination" or "navle string" International-resembling entity as *better than nothing*. The continued discussion with- in it, if such were possible (i.e., if it would turn out *not* to be another phony) would be helpful as to the clearing of the vital questions internationally. As it was, of course, in Au- gust 1996, some people *did* put together a "WMC" precisely as a phony, acting on their own and shutting all other endorsers including myself out. But this I couldn't foresee would happen, even if I had to see that there might be such a risk. And your group, i.e. Dr Sendepause & the Klasberries, what did *you* say on that whole matter during those months when it was debated internationally? Neither "boo" nor "baa", of course - as usual. A *very* "principled" standpoint on your part, don't you think? A *very* "unarbitrary" one. An absolutely as "well-groun- ded" standpoint as anybody could wish for, on the part of your "quite advanced", "proletarian revolutionary" organization, showing the peoples of the world very clearly *your* kind of "internationalism" too, your "great concern" for the interests of the proletariat in other countries. 12. YOUR ACCUSATIONS =A411-12 against me =A411. Stealing(!) "key words" from an analysis by Dr Sendepause (the former Klaus Sender) in 1997 - FALSE =A412. Fawning on and expressing confidence in Dr Sendepause in 1997 - FALSE I'm warning those readers who've hung on reading this so far: We're now entering the realm of undiluted unconscious humor on your part, vom auch totalen Kasperletheater, Willie der Goon. As the readers of today's "VEREINIGT EUCH! Info #49de" (parts 10-11/11) can see, you were the one who, together with Dr Sen- depause, signed your organization's letter to me in the autumn of 1994, which i.a. "warned" me against translating and pub- lishing the excellent articles and statements of the former, revolutionary, KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), something which I had al- ready started doing in a so far small way then, saying that Sendepause had "copyright" to every single one of them and that he "expressly forbade" my publishing such things together with statements that didn't suit your now bourgeois-traitorous group. (On this, see also "UNITE! Info #1en", of 23.12.1995.) Here, you're even "going one better". Allow me to tell you, Goonie, that this posting of yours is the very first instance I've seen of someone's actually suggesting that *words* too should be *privatized*, be subjected to applications for copy- right. What do you think, might the German Patent Office grant me an exclusive licence, should I apply for it, for the term "b=FCrgerliche Erzverr=E4terschweinebande"? And how about my supposed recent "fawning on" and "expressing "confidence in" Dr Sendepause, whose going over to the side of the bourgeoisie it was precisely I who discovered and exposed, back in 1990, which he then tried to counter i.a. with some particular things which I haven't mentioned in English yet? How did you get that idea, and what does it show about you? It's an "accusation", I think, which shows how very deeply you Klasberries must be distrusted and hated by the masses in Germany today. It's also funny how you're now making a quite upside-down "cri- ticism" concerning my (real or purported) standpoint on Dr Sen- depause (the former Klaus Sender) as compared to what you did back in 1990. At that time, during that conference in April 1990 when the break occurred, you were quite angry over my, even then, ex- posing him as now a representative of the bourgeoisie. "An in- sult!" you said then. Now you're making precisely an opposite accusation. And yes, it would indeed show me up in a very strange light if it were true, wouldn't it. But it's quite untrue of course, and really riduculous. Where on earth did you get it from? You wrote: "Rolf Martens steals[!] some key words from Klaus Sen- der's analysis of Mariategui, whom he admits to have never read himself, glues them into his own suddenly[!] utterly[!] negative statements about the PCP [this lie I've already commented on - RM] and affirms his alleged agreement with Klaus Sender in a tone of fawning[!] confidence[!]." This supposedly refers to that passage from my "UNITE! Info #38en" of 06.07.97 which I've already quoted in full above. But that's just confusing to begin with, for Dr Sendepause neither is mentioned nor in any way is even indirectly subjected to those stupidities on my part which you allege, in that passage. The "fawning confidence" you're accusing me of you can have "de- rived", clearly, only from the fact that I wrote, in several postings, that I did think Dr Sendepause's criticism of Mati=E1te- gui, whatver his motives for it, was useful for the proletariat and "damn good", as for instance once wrote. "Fawning"? Just wait, other readers, until you see the whole sentence. As for "confidence", I wrote in Info #38en part 2/3 that: "I on my part haven't read any of Mari=E1tegui's writings at all, but I'm rather certain that a check-out of them will show that on this point, old Pausey is telling the truth and Adolfo is lying. Klaus wouldn't have taken the risk of being caught out as a barefaced liar on such a thing." So, saying that someone on some point "probably isn't taking the risk of being caught out as a barefaced liar" - that's what *you* call "showing confidence"[!] in that person, Willie. Why? Probably because you and your group after so many years of sys- tematic lying just don't know any other sort of "confidence". You haven't experienced any other kind of "confidence" in your- selves on the part of the masses than their sometimes saying: "Well, even those bastards probably wouldn't dare to lie about *this*". As for "fawning", this idea of yours you can only have gotten from some statements of mine as this one, isn't that so: "And this fact exposes their organization as in reality a *very* sinister entity. A very clever one too, one that can make such indeed damned good things as Dr Sen- depause's criticism of J.C. Marti=E1tegui (30.06.97) - and *have* to do such stuff now and then just to try to keep up their camouflage - but which you should *trust* as much as you would a rattlesnake." (From a reply by me on 09.08 to your group's "slanders" posting) It seems to be the case that you're so completely *unused* to *any* kind of positive statements about members of your swindler group by people outside it that as soon as you see these words, "very clever", and "damn good", even if they're only one part of a sentence which in the main attacks you rather sharply, then you're jumping for joy at once, saying to yourself: "Look here, this person simply is *fawning* on us and on our boss!" 13. YOUR ACCUSATION =A413 against me =A413. Not having left your organization - in another country than my own, namely, in Germany - of my own free will when it had degenerated into a bourgeois one, in 1990, but having then been excluded from it instead - FALSE You're repeating this old lie of your group's here. The facts of the matter are, that I at the beginning of the April 1990 NE party conference declared my intention to withdraw my now quite unjustifyable membership in your organization, which I had recently discovered had degenerated and turned bourgeois, a mem- bership that had been suggested by Klaus Sender back in 1987 and one which should probably not have accepted to adopt in the first place; I then explained too how one could tell that the organization was unfortunately no longer a proletarian revolu- tionary one. In order to forestall my volountary exit of course and thus "make things look better", Dr Sendepause on the second day of the conference suddenly proposed, that I should be excluded; he stated no reason why. I then "beat you to the draw" and stated that I herewith did terminate my membership, before you others had put the matter to the vote. You did "vote" on it anyway, thereby once more imitating Groucho and the boys by "ex- cluding" a non-member. In the autumn 1994 letter signed i.a. by you, Willie, which I'm reproducing today in parts 10-11/11 of my Info #49de, you did expressly recognize that this was the way things took place, and although you also tried to "argue" that the decision of your conference "was in force" as soon as the proposal for it had been put forward[!] (a bit more of Groucho etc here), in some other and contradicting passages you did recognize too that I had left your organization volountarily. Not only you, Goonie, but also Dr Sendepause and all the others of your bourgeois group naturally are making utter fools out of yourselves by insisting and insisting and continuing to insist, after more than seven years now, on an *untruth* which you've already admitted to be such in the first place and which con- cerns only a quite minor detail in this whole political con- flict, in the second. It reminds you, doesn't it, of that saying by Mao Zedong about the probability, as experience has shown, that even after the realization of communism all over the globe, there still will be a small number of people shouting "Long live Chiang Kaishek!" _________________ [Continued, with a reprocuction of the posting which the above is a reply to, in part 5/6] --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005