File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1998/marxism-general.9805, message 147


Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 18:51:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: 2/3 List committee turbulence - my views


2/3 List committee turbulence - my views
[Posted: 10.05.98]

[Continued from part 1/3]


8) On Sat, 09 May 1998 21:27:16 -0500, Vlad writes to M-G,
from a new address of his, <rosskommuna-AT-geocities.com>, under
"Re: M-G: Why Revolutionary Marxism":

(Quoting Andrew:)
>>.........
>>.........
>>Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong thought!
>>
>>Andrew Allen Walton.

(Vlad:)
>What's the fuck is going on?  Is this how you understand 
>"openness", Rolf and Juan?

This IMO was a very strange question by Vlad. Andrew had writ-
ten nothing at all against list openness. When he had posted
originally, just briefly stating his wish to be included in
the committee, and Juan had suggested a procedure for deciding
on this, Vlad had written (off-list): "Fine" - nothing more.

No, after Andrew appears to be - a somewhat inconsistent - Mao
Zedong adherent, Vlad starts complaining about a "lack of open-
ness" on the part of Juan and me - why on earth is this?

Now it's known to all subscribers that Vlad is very much 
against the line of Mao Zedong, against his criticism of 
Soviet revisionism in particular. He's stated a couple of times
already that he doesn't even want to read any postings in my
"UNITE! Info" series, which advocate Mao's line of course.

So he's afraid there might be another Mao Zedong adherent - 
besides me, as 1 out of 4 people - on that committee! Isn't
that it? But he advances a different "argument", concerning
"lack of openness" (where?? when?? how??) on my part and also
on the part of the non-Mao-Zedong-adherent (I think!) Juan,
as a "reason" for purportedly thinking "something fishy" is
"going on". But nothing fishy *has* been going on. Andrew has
posted his things to M-G for all to see. Juan has posted his
suggestions off-list to Vlad, Bob and me. 

Clearly, Vlad is somewhat out of line here, making a non-justi-
fied "complaint". He doesn't stop at this either, see 10.


9) On Sun, 10 May 1998 14:09:41, Andrew replies to Vlad on M-G,
under "Re: M-G: Why Revolutionary Marxism":

(Andrew:)
>Why are you so upset? 
>
>I would think that openness would include posts from people 
>who thought different from you? 
>
>Or could it be that openness in you mind means open to what 
>ever you say or believe only. In that case, what the fuck is 
>going on?
>
>Andrew Allen Walton. 

As all can see, a quite reasonable reply on this. It's quite 
clear that what Vlad "is upset" about and ridiculously calls 
"lack of openness" are the political views just recently stated 
by Andrew.


10) On Sat, 09 May 1998 23:15:47 -0500, Vlad again writes to
M-G, now under "A Note of Resignation (was:Re: M-G: Why Revo-
lutionary Marxism)", i.a. (and it can be seen that he's now
also read Andrew's second posting with statements on his poli-
tical view, the one under 'M-G: "Young Tigers"' - see my point
7 above in part 1/2):

>Listen, you, the "young tiger."  I smell a rat when I see it. 
>Only an aspiring FBI recrute could make such a dumb 
>provocation.  And this is what I am saying to you: you are
>an FBI provocateur.  Stick this and all the 1978 issues of 
>Unity in your stupid ass and get lost!.

Say what you may, you other people: I kind of like such open
and frank language as that which Vlad's using here!

His posting is politically very bad, of course, in that it
talks of "smelling a rat", "a provocation", and directly accu-
ses Andrew A.W. of being "an FBI provocateur", *without the
slightest explanation of *how* Vlad has "come to such a conclu-
sion". (Bob and some other people who ostensibly are so much
"against cop-baiting" by people "who give no reasons" for such
accustations of course must react very violently against this?
- No, so far, I have seen *no* attacks by them against Vlad on
this point.) 

Well, there *is* one sort of "reason" indirectly implied by 
Vlad for his angry accusations: ".. all the 1978 issues of 
Unity..." - by which is meant that approving quote from my 
"UNITE! Info #1en" with its "A Basic Statement of Oct 1978". 
Not a very good "argument" for such a thing. See also my com-
ment below. 

(Vlad continues:)
>Now I don't know anything about you,  Juan.  Perhaps, you are 
>just a stupid assle if you thought I would let you play this 
>game with me.  As to you, old stick [Probably meaning me - 
>RM], I am actually glad it'all over.  Ever since you were so 
>stupid or rather so vane as to bragg about betraying a 
>communist to the Swedish Okhrana--ever since I felt uneasy 
>about you being here.  And this is a good lesson for me to 
>learn.

[He probably refers to my long ago having written that, in 
cases where I've seen strong reason to suspect *infiltration
activities* here in Sweden by *KGB or GRU agents* of *the neigh-
bouring big and aggressive power* Soviet social-imperialism
- certainly no "communists" whatsoever, quite on the contrary! -
I've told the of course bourgeois security police here in this
small country about this too, and have not contributed towards
any shielding of such activities, which were posing considerable
dangers to the masses here and in other countries. - RM] 

(Vlad:)
>I inform you, "comrades," that I am resigning from your fake 
>committee because of my poor health.  I am also forming a 
>committee to prevent your committee from highjacking this 
>list.
>
>Vladimir Bilenkin

An accusation completely without foundation: That some of us
are "highjacking" this list! The "reason"? Only this: the
possible inclusion, in the committee for creating a new list,
of one member who (somewhat inconsistenly) states his adherence
to Mao Zedong's line and his repudiation of the Soviet revisio-
nism of Khrushchov, Brezhnev etc!

How was it now, didn't the Stachkom of the Samara workers - whom
we, Vlad, Juan and I etc, 9 people in all, recetly supported
with a joint letter (and a very good thing *that* was too!) -
in one of its statements, forwarded by Vlad to this list, pre-
cisely likewise repudiate, among other things, the policies of 
the former so-called "CPSU" ("Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union")? Are they in Vlad's mind perhaps "hijackers" too?

Of course his resignation from our committee is a (sad) fact.
It left it with (so far) 3 members still on it. More to come:


11) On Sun, 10 May 1998 17:04:49, Andrew replies to Vlad on
this on M-G, under "Re: A Note of Resignation...":

(Andrew:)
>Look, I have no idea what the hell you are saying! Can you 
>clear something up for me? why are you calling me an FBI 
>agent? Hell, this is far from the truth. I'm a poor student 
>in New Zealand and a communist! my only intention on this 
>list is to take part in godless communist discourse.

Probably no such clarification will come from Vlad. More on
this subject in my comment further below.


12) Now Bob Malecki, the 4th M-G subscriber out of those whom
Juan proposed (and I agreed) should constitute themselves as
a committee for a new really open list, enters the fray, with
two postings (i.a.) to M-G:

On Sun, 10 May 1998 02:07:51 -0400 to M-G (under "M-G: Out of 
the ashes of Jefferson Village!") - the same text was posted
off-list by him to Juan, Vlad and me somewhat earlier - and:

on Sun, 10 May 1998 02:09:26 -0400 to M-G under "M-G: Re: 
UPDATE Re:Proposal to Vote on New List Charter".

Bob is posting from <malecki-AT-mail.algonet.se> and, like Vlad, 
is clearly very discontented. (I shall number his posts: 1 & 2.)

(Bob, in his 2:)
[First quoting Juan's saying that his, Juan's charter proposal
had now been carried since 3 out of us 4 had voted for it]
>Being that the vote was taken and "carried" without even 
>waiting for any reply from me I withdraw from cooperating in 
>any way with this coup de tate! 

So he too withdraws from the committee. Well, that's a (sad)
fact too. 

And his reason for it? Simply the fact that Juan had said the
charter proposal was "on" without waiting for a 4th vote on it,
that of Bob. Is this justified on Bob's part? IMO, no. It may
be that Juan was a little quick in saying "carried". He might
have waited a bit, asking Bob, "will it be unanimous, then?",
for instance. But Juan did nothing wrong on principle. There
were the 3 "yes" votes, out of those 4 possible from the only
people who had so far seemed to take an interest in these pro-
ceedings. And he obviously was/is eager to get things moving.

Bob's withdrawing, solely for that reason which he gave, is
much too like the reaction of a "princess on the pea" - as in
that H. C. Andersen tale: "hurt feelings"!? on a *small* matter.

In his next line, he - with no reason given for it - suddenly
attacks Andrew Allen Walton too, indirectly indicating the sug-
gestion that Andrew might be included in the committee as "one
further reason" for him, Bob, to withdraw from it:

(Bob, in his 2:)
>I suggest that Andy now take my place...I think he would pass 
>in your little group of conspirators!

Like Vlad, he suddenly talks about "conspiracy"! But there has
been *no* such, on our part!

What seems to be "wrong with" Andrew, from Bob's "standpoint"?
Possibly, his having repudiated Trotskyism, which Bob warmly
adheres to, and now advocating the study of Mao's writings?
Or something else? - See comment below, in part 3/3.

[Continued in part 3/3]



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005