Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:33:04 +0100 (MET) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: Rolf M. Fri 23.01 to others at camp Rolf M. Fri 23.01 to others at camp (Silver Spoon Camp, ex-Marxism-General mailing list (M-G), see <http://jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU/~spoons/>. The demand for the abolition of the restrictions enforced 16.01.98, in con- travention of the list's charter, to max 1 posting of max 10 kB a day for each subscriber, still stands. This is also sent to newsgroup 'alt.society.revolution'. Menu of contents follows:) 01. (Again:) What made M-G dangerous and caused the clampdown? People's coming together to air things freely. But also some vital things informed and thrashed out on here, above all: Mao Zedong's criticism of revisionism, both openly-rightist (Khrushchov, Deng) and phony"left" (4-gang, "RIM", "MIM"), the exposure of the arch-reactionary "green" anti-industri- al propaganda (that of imperialism itself e.g. at Rio, 1992, & Kyoto, 1997, and of *practically all* phony"leftists"), the exposure of the fact that cops try to interfere (CB etc) [This will be shown by some annotated quotes which I star- ted on in my "Tue 20.01" and shall continue below. The in- tion is to point to some necessary ingredients of any genu- inely prolatarian revolutionary line.] 02. Reply to Sheila W. on "Khushchov's Phoney" and "MIM" 03. To David S. on "crazy", weichi, lists, *line*, & on C-Ring 04. To Gerry D. who quoted and opposed Bob Malecki's support for Soviet social-imperialism's aggression in Afghanistan NB: Note: Reply to Malgosia A. stricken - sent to her & Usenet NB: Continuation of what I began on with first portion "21.01": 'Some Hans-E.-mail, "MIM"eography and lousy "Nobleman" pro- jections - and I'll include some Doug doggerel too although Doug H. at least did oppose the clampdown - i.e. quotes showing what political line it is that above all has pro- duced that present desperation on some hands concerning M-G.' - will have to be put off a little bit more. 01. See above, nothing further 02. TO SHEILA W. ON "KRHUSHCHOV'S PHONEY" AND "MIM" On your "M-G: Re: Communism vs. Socialism", 22.01, and "Re: M-G: Poisoning the youth", 21.01: Sorry you didn't find a satisfactory answer to your question on communism versus socialism in "Phoney". I still think the most basic facts are in there, as well as some other things which you too find interesting - I already said this article and the whole 1960s "Great Polemics" is most important even today. Since you're reading Engels' "Origins...." (yes, very important too), I'd like to offer you and others a tip on a kind of sequel at least concerning "pre-history": Evelyn Reed: "The Development of Woman", USA, 1974. She i.a. correctly points out two errors Engels made, on why the "gentes" arose and on Pharaos' "incest". Who's got time for reading? Well, nobody. But it's necessary. You like reading "MIM", you say. Actually, that group is an ut- ter phony (as of course is the Lousy "Nobleman" Project too), i.a. dishonest, though saying *some* correct things. Organiza- tions like that are all over the place; I was in one in 1973-74. I had a polemic with the "MIM" in Nov '97 but haven't yet answe- red their last thing then, 16.11, or their recent attacks on me since I've held them to be so utterly refuted anyway. A need for some more bloodbath with "MIM" later then, too see who (if any- one) "wins the souls" of you and some others. Main objections to "MIM's" line are not only their thesis "white US workers are bribed in the main" (*distorting* Lenin) and de- fence of the hypocritical carreerist 4-gang in China (70s-histo- ry and also a line) but also, importantly, their support for the arch-reactionary "green" propaganda of the Al Gore type forces. 03. TO DAVID S. ON "CRAZY", WEICHI, LISTS, *LINE*, AND ALSO ON COMMIE (WEB) RING You David, who say you represent the relatively unknown organi- zation "Trotsky, Sex & Drugs", were also, rather logically, the only M-G subscriber who said he or she got into a trot, was turned on or shot into orbit on account of the recent restric- tions on this mailing list, when they were announced. You wrote on 21.01, under "M-G: When I See an Elephant Fly", firstly, concerning me, commenting on Malgosia A.'s reply to me: >Never argue with a crazy person; others might not >be able to tell the difference. (Malgosia, to me:) >I did, however, very much like your piece about chess. (David:) >Even on that, poor Rolf is playing the wrong game. You may not have meant the term "crazy" all that literally. Certain other people have used similar terms, "lunatic" etc, both recently, concerning the earlier M-G list, and also ear- lier, concerning some of its subscribers, i.a. and, it seems, in particular, me. This has a very definite political background and I shall comment on it elsewhere. But you, David, do not explain in any way *why* you might hold that I'm crazy and/or to be pitied. Nobody can read this out from those many oblique references to various strategy games that your posting contains either. So the first part of my reply of course is a question: Would you care to tell people your reason or reasons for this? And that question of course is a rethorical one. I already know you won't do it. Your kind of anti-Marxist bullshitters practically never want to specify such things. Your nebulous but clearly deeply felt attack most probably is caused by your hatred of what you know I stand for on either of the three political mat- ters mentioned in my point 01. above, or on all of them. What's instructive about your throwing such terms as "crazy" and "poor" up into the air in this manner is that they show how *desperate* you are. The struggle between genuine and phony Marxism in our time is a very sharp and also very important one, and you representatives of the phony are in deep shit, aren't you? On strategy games we have some common ground, and as I've writ- ten I hold they may have instructive value. I've actually at least learned the rules of hsiang chi (the River Game, resemb- ling present-day "Western" chess, and those special pieces in it the cannon, there because the Chinese of course long ago knew gunpowder, perhaps makes it more interesting than "antique chess", but the later, Renaissance, development of "il guiccho della dama furiosa" mirrors Europe's getting ahead of China, one could say) and the rather different weichi (called "go" in Ja- pan), which has existed for a very long time and seems to be quite as advanced and instructive as chess. It stands to reason that this was also Mao Zedong's game. And your mention of that 1969 Rand paper of course goes to con- firm what I wrote in my "Wed 21.01" about the imperialists' having whole sets of institutions etc studying thier oppponents. You're lying, even, on one point, attributing to me a statement concerning politics that "one careless move loses the whole game." Of course I never wrote anything like that. What I re- peatedly have pointed to is Mao's, and others', important state- ment that "The correctness or incorrectness of the political and ideological line decides everything." That's another thing. Marx also said approximately that the proletarian revolutiona- ries need fear nothing but their own mistakes. That idea of yours which you told people about once more on 22.01 under "M-G: a plug for Commie Ring" I find quite good. I absolutely disagree with Bob Malecki's criticism of your "not disallowing cops and other sleezes" in the web ring. At least 99% of those forces on the Net that say they're communists pre- cisely *are* cops and/or sleezes, so in such projects one has to let people find out for themselves which are which. Your stand- point of openness in that case strangely contrasts, though, to your at least partial support for the reactionary clampdown here on M-G. 04. TO GERRY D. ON OPPOSITION TO AND QUOTE OF SUPPORT FOR SOVIET SOCIAL-IMPERIALISM'S AGGRESSION IN AFGHANISTAN You quoted, opposing this once more, on 21.01 under "M-G: Re: SV: Gerry D and Arturo of the LTT Vs Robertsonism": (Bob Malecki:) >But we also have another foundation of Trotskyism and that is >the unconditional defense of the deformed and degenerated >workers states at this particular time in history. This is really a very nasty reactionary statement, openly supporting social-imperialism's genocidal aggression in 1979- 1989 against that third world country on which, as we've seen in earlier postings, you're something of an expert, Afghanistan. You're quite right in condemning it. On this point, you and I am in agreement despite the fact that you (for reasons unknown to me) don't support Mao Zedong's line analysis of the situation in the world in his time - which I can demonstrate were correct - but are a Trotsky adherent, which Bob M. says he is too. There was a sharp dispute on this question on the M-G predecessor "M1" towards the end of its existence, in October 1996, during which some people demonstrated a similar nastiness to that of Bob M., this including not least Louis Godena, to whom I've since referred as "Louis What's Go(o)de- naough-for-the-Afghans". If that particular type of "communism" that consists of napalm bombing of the people, mass destruction of cities and villages and the strewing of tens of millions of anti-personell mines is "good enough" for the Afghan people, then of course it's so for everybody else, such persons mean. END, Fri 23.01.98 [Post measured by me at 9.5 kB] --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005