Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:15:34 +0200 (MET DST) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: Others sign Samara support letter; a note on Mumia Others sign Samara support letter; a note on Mumia [Posted: 11.04.98] [Note: This goes to besieged Marxism-General mailing list (M-G), see http://jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU/~spoons/, and to news- groups, i.a. 'alt.society.revolution'.] Two more M-G subscribers have signed the proposed letter of support to the workers of Samara, Russia (I refer newsgroup readers to a posting of mine yesterday): David Stevens (San Fransicso, California, USA) and Mark Jones (Great Britain). David S. in his posting also attacks me for pointing out that the statements on Soviet history which his fellow Trotsky ad- herent Bob Malecki (whom he refuses to accept as a such) wanted us to add to the letter, were all wrong and long-since refuted. He writes (On 10.04, under "Let's draft Mumia, too!"): >After all, Rolf's view of a "correct" history is the one that >[LITERALLY] retouches the old photographs to erase the picture >of the original Red Army commander standing next to Lenin. This is a lie, as all who've read my postings can see. I've always been attacking not only the Trotskyites but also certain false and reactionary practices which there were under Stalin's regime too. These included the retouching away of (the later traitor) Trotsky from certain photographs. Such things I've *never* defended. It's typical for dyed-in-the-wood Trotskyites though to try on such lies when they're refuted. David S. will not be able to cite the smallest example to support this one. Hans Ehrbar is writing a support letter of his own to the Samara workers, he informed the subscribers of the M-G list (which he administrates on behalf of the Spoon Collective) on 10.04. He's writing in his mother tongue, German, and i.a. wants to tell the recipients that "After the fall of the Soviet Union, capitalism became more unabashed [unverbluemt] in the West too", thus indirectly repeating the false statements of the other Trotsykite/Khrushchovites that the very reactionary social-imperialist system of the Soviet Union in its latest years was somehow an *opponent* of international capitalism in- stead of precisely one *of its most important pillars and poli- tical reserves*. The Samara workers will also read in Hans E.'s letter that he "during his entire grown-up life has combated...the capitalist system". I beg to disagree; the reactionary clampdown on this very list last January when subscribers were limited to max 1 posting a day of max 10 kB, an attack against some actually Marxist tendencies on this list which was met by a storm of jus- tified protests, was undertaken precisely by him - just to men- tion one very clear thing. He and David S., who was the only subscriber who (half) supported that clampdown, really must be said to belong to a species of "Good Samara-itans" whose sin- cerity there are good reasons to doubt. David S. also (as shows his subject line) wants M-G subscribers to support a campaign "Mumia Abu-Jamal for President of the USA". Co- (or counter-) Trotskyite Bob Malecki (of Sweden, ex- USA) supports this, advancing himself as a possibe Vice on such a ticket (but Dave says Bob knows too little about vice). Whether those subscribers seriously mean what they're proposing or not: I'm against such a campaign. The political line of Mumia Abu-Jamal, as it has been reported on, may have positive ele- ments in its repudiation of racism but is not really a proleta- rian revolutionary one. Since this proposal brings up the question of the case of and campaign for Mumia Abu-Jamal, I'd like to add a few comments on that: A NOTE ON THE CAMPAIGN FOR FREEING MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, AND ON THE UNCLEAR FACTS OF HIS CASE Concerning the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a considerable defense campaign for whom has been going on in the USA and internatio- nally for several years, it's not easy for someone abroad like myself, without access to various relevant records, to ascertain the facts. But from what I've gathered so far, some basic facts are these: Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1982 was convicted of having murdered police officer David Faulkner in Philadelphia on 09.12.1981 and senten- ced to death. He has spent 15 years awaiting execution. He is black and during many years had been a political activist against racial discrimination. Jamal's conviction clearly *was*, as he maintains, based on in- sufficient evidence and a result of gross police manipulations. The campaign for freeing him thus in the main is justified. But clearly also, Jamal and his defence lawyers are not telling the whole truth, but are withholding vital facts about it, obviously so as to protect the real murderer, whoever he is. This means that the pro-Mumia campaign also has a very doubtful touch to it, as a considerable part of its character. This is quite typical for how certain phony"left" forces are working. They in reality are instruments for the imperialist oppressors in helping to hold the masses down and for instance to split them as much as possible, not least along racial lines. People in general in this case once more are being caught bet- ween two fires: The racist brutalities and machinations of the US police corps or at least considerable parts of it - an in- strument of the bourgeois dictatorship in the USA -, on the one hand, and the efforts by the fake "left" forces - ventriloquist dummies of the "establishment" and likewise instruments for maintaining the bourgeois dictatorship - at splitting the mass movement and diverting it off into false or dubious directions, on the other hand. The police officer, Faulkner, *was* in fact murdered. He was hit by two shots, the fatal one while lying on the ground and being incapacitated. Someone stood directly above him and shot him in the head. This is not disputed by anyone. Faulkner had been beating up Jamal's brother, Bobby Cook, on the sidewalk of Locust Street, near its intersection with 13th Street, in Philadelphia, shortly before 04.00 in the morning of 09.12.1981. (Mumia Abu-Jamal's original name was Wesley Cook.) He, Faulkner, had stopped a car in which Bobby Cook and (possibly) an unknown number of other people were travelling, and after Bobby Cook got out, there was a fight or a beating-up. Jamal, the reports agree, saw this and approached the spot on foot. Guns were fired, unclear precisely by whom and in what order. At any rate, Jamal was found lying in a pool of blood four feet from where the dead body of Faulkner was lying. He had been shot once by Faulkner's gun - this apparently is one certain fact. He also carried a gun of his own and it was found on the spot too. The defence says its bullets don't match the one with which Faulkner had been killed, and that the police hadn't even bothered to ascertain whether it had been fired re- cently or not - or covered up the result of this. The defence also maintains that as many as four witnesses originally had said they saw another man - the real killer, it's presumed or maintained - run from the spot before the police arrived. Some of these witnesses were later intimidated or coerced. It's impossible to get a clear picture of the events from the conflicting statements that have been presented to the public. But supposing - hypotethically - that someone (Jamal or another person) had fired on the officer once to stop him from beating up Billy Cook further. Clearly, that would have been an act with a certain degree (depending on the circumstances) of justifica- tion. But the second shot against Faulkner, who was then lying on the ground and temporarily incapable of harming anyone, this can be justified by no-one. This must be considered as a wrong- ful act, also as seen from a proletarian standpoint and under the circumstances, which are well-known (or infamous), that black people were and are constantly being harrassed and ter- rorized by racist police. Jamal himself has always refused to testify about what actually took place, utilizing his right to silence under the Fifth Amend- ment of the US Constitution. In a 1995 petition, his lawyers rather weakly argued that this had been in protest against his being deprived of the right to conduct his own defence. If he's been silent in order to avoid incriminating another person as the real killer, then this must be said to be wrongful too, un- der the circumstances, though of course it by no means can jus- tify an execution of him. Certain actions by Jamal's defending lawyers show that they don't want the whole truth to come out. According to the legal system, they're not required to contribute towards such a thing of course. But in this case, people in general are being asked to make a defense campaign, while obviously not being told the whole truth. One part of this is the fact that apparently nobody, not the defence either, has taken the least interest in what Jamal's brother, Bobby Cook, might have to say, or what the others with him in the car (if there were others) are saying. Does he (or do they) refuse to testify? This again would go in the direction of protecting the person who wrongully did kill that police offi- cer. My conclusion from all this is, that the campaign for Mumia Abu-Jamal, while justified in the main, does not deserve un- conditional support, since it also contains a certain propaganda in the direction that "it would be all right (for a black person at least) to kill a police officer in the USA today, regardless of of what acts of persecution he personally has committed or not committed". Such propaganda is wrong and needs to be coun- tered instead. Rolf M. [This posting measured by me at 9.7 kB] --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005