From: mim3-AT-mim.org
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 01:49:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-G: MIM replies to R. Martens: Communism vs. Socialism


[Rolf Martens says:]
The "MIM" ("Maoist Internationalist Movement") wrote, on 09.01:

>[MIM3 replies: Sheila, the following from Neil is actually an improvement
>over the usual. Most people on this "Marxism Space" are attacking MIM
from >the vantage point of anti-party idealism. Here, Neil at least leaves
a >reference to a website he supports at the very bottom. The same cannot
be >said for Rolf Martens for instance

[Rolf Martens says:] I must admit that this horrid accusation is true. I
cannot be said to support any one website. There are some which I
recommend, though, for instance

The Marx-Engels Internet Archive (MEIA) at www.marx.org
David Romaglio's archive Marx to Mao at 
http://gate.cruzio.com/~marx2mao/index.html
(Under "Other Documents" there, for instance, is the 1964
Chinese article "On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism..." which
I reproduced in a posting, not knowing that Dave already had
put it up; MEIA say they'll feature it too)

[MIM3 replies: This is a step forward, but if you check out his
references, some are to similar people giving eclectic recommendations.]

 ("MIM", referring to me RM again:)
>who repeatedly attacks on subjects like
>MIM's line on gender, on which he hasn't said a single thing. (I don't
>know if Neil's "italianleft" www site does either.) At least both PLP and
>MIM take stances and take their lumps for them. Rolf Martens has not
>written any positions on gender and there was a degenerated former
>pseudo-communist named Neil who did the same thing on this list: attack
>MIM without standing for anything. 

[Rolf Martens continues:]
I *have* written a few things on gender, i.a. commenting on the
ridiculous "thesis" of those anti-Mao Zedong 4-gang mimics the 
"MIM" that "all sex under imperialism is rape" - which I said is
in the same vein as Empress Hilary's statements that "everybody
should wait until they're 21", only even more extreme. I have on
several occasions made clear my standpoint of supporting 
proletarian feminism. (There once was a debate on whether there
was such a thing or not and on whether it should be supported.)

Rolf M.

[MIM replies: The above is a regression of sorts considering that Rolf M. 
previously admitted to never writing one of his bulletins on gender. How
does Rolf M.  get off criticizing MIM on any gender subject? MIM has
written hundreds of pages on gender--battering, rape, sexual orientation,
child abuse, economic discrimination, abortion, reproduction,
sterilization etc. We are injecting Marxism concretely into the details in
struggles with the activists on these subjects. Rolf M. here is like the
Sparts who call action marching around in a circle holding up signs. Rolf
M. mutters a few sentences and thinks he's done a fine
job! Wow, we sure need a party weekly and theory magazines as directed by
Lenin to accomplish that! 

Our distribution goes into the millions of pages. But where are the
details of Rolf Martens's stance? All he can do is mutter typical Freudian
de-repression Liberalism. For Rolf Martens there is one gender issue:
Victorianism or not. And that is TYPICAL of most men and wimmin calling
themselves "Marxist." They are ordinary libertarians, often of the
Freudian stripe, when it comes to gender. They have nothing in common with
Marxism. What is there in the brain is usually one giant cobweb in the
space reserved for the science of gender. 

Rolf Martens hasn't even replied to our exposure of his gender line via
the "Gang of Four"! His champion of a month -- Hua Guofeng -- arranged the
campaign against the "Gang of Four" calling Mao's wife Jiang Qing a
"witch." That was in addition to "procuress" and "devil." Some of her
comrades were reviled in the press as "unable to get a boyfriend." This is
what Rolf Martens defends, but it's not even the worst of it! 

Rolf Martens has shown an ability to admit mistakes publicly. I'll give
him credit. He's covered about 30% of his casual mistakes so far. Let's
review where we stand: 

I. Most important areas: The Cultural Revolution in China

a. Rolf Martens has no stand on whether fighting "Gang of Four" 
"revisionism" is evidenced by calling wimmin witches and so on. 

b. Has yet to say what the "Gang of Four" did in the few days after Mao's
death to warrant their arrest-- especially given that he has already
admitted that Hua Guofeng degenerated and turned the country over to Deng
Xiaoping and capitalism. 

c. Has yet to admit that it was known that Hua was co-authoring articles
with Deng Xiaoping before Mao's death. In other words, we should not be so
surprised by the turn of events as Hua was trying to work with the
right-wing all along. What Hua did was rather unmask himself, not
"degenerate" as R. Martens claims, as if Hua was good for a whole month.

d. Has yet to say what the "Gang of Four" did while Mao was alive that
warranted splitting the proletarian camp. Has yet to take a stand on
whether Hollywood movies should have been shown in China as demanded by
some Western-leaning masses. 

e. Has failed to acknowledge the truth that Mao believed it was best to
keep the right-wing in the open and not staging military coup d'etats. For
this he was criticized by Hoxha, but Mao's stated views toward Chen Yi and
Hua Guofeng were proof of this attitude. Hua Guofeng was Mao's choice of
someone reflecting the balance of power in the party and preventing
military coups. Mao believed that if people were not given a role to play
in government, they would turn to coups and also no one would learn from
political struggle.  His dying struggle was to focus the fire on Deng
Xiaoping and Hua promised to do this. 

The "Gang of Four" was still in charge of the media, culture and Shanghai,
plenty of areas for them to mobilize the masses for better position should
Hua turn out to be a genuine ally of Deng Xiaoping as he did. For all
these reasons Mao gave Hua a chance, in order to "unite all who could be
united." However, from the Cultural Revolution, we learned to judge
actions of the top party-leaders. Hua was maybe OK as a bureaucrat under
Mao's leadership, but he was a capitalist-roader on his own. 

II. Most important areas: Sweden's own economic conditions

Rolf Martens has never addressed any of MIM's challenges regarding Sweden
or any imperialist country. Like most people on the "Marxism Space," he
blathers vaguely about "workers," without ever specifying the class
structure of his own society. He is supposedly all excited to distribute
Mao's early work on the class structure of China, but he has nothing to
say about Sweden or imperialist countries generally!  He'll talk about the
"Hunan Investigation" and no doubt Lenin's treatise on the peasantry and
agrarian conditions, but where is his own analysis or the analysis of the
party he supports? Compare the precision of Mao's and Lenin's efforts on
these questions in even just a few short articles and you will see that
Rolf Martens calls himself a Marxist lightly by comparison.

III. Gender questions: already noted above

IV. Rolf-MIM questions

These areas of Rolf Martens's mistakes are least important but exposing. 
He was here on "Marxism Space" spouting whatever the cop-outfit "New Flag"
told him to spout about MIM when he had the realization that "New Flag"
was not what it claimed. 

When MIM returned to Marxism List in 1996 as Rolf Martens was realizing
all this, Rolf Martens made a series of mistakes with regard to MIM
mis-attributing positions to it, some of which he admitted already in
print.

Suggestions for further action

Rolf Martens should finish with his self-criticism and do a thorough job. 
He had no basis to be mouthing criticisms of MIM before he even met us in
1996 when he was hanging around with Quispe. He should also not criticize
others doing work on gender issues until he is prepared to write detailed
bulletins on the subject himself. 

When Rolf Martens has done with the gender and history of relations with
MIM questions, he should focus on I and II. They are more than enough
reason for Rolf Martens to claim some difference or opposition to MIM. He
need not worry that we would hide these differences. Some readers may
wonder about this Rolf Martens: how can he just sit there on questions I
and II? The thing about revisionism is that it often faces blanks in
theory. It feels justified as "status quo." Rolf Martens is isolated
today, but on those two questions he fits right in in the mainstream of
revisionism. To this extent, we will vouch for his strategy to those who
wonder. 







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