File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1998/marxism-general.9805, message 319


Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:02:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #66en: 4/9 Detecting some Net cops, I


UNITE! Info #66en: 4/9 Detecting some Net cops, I.
[Posted: 23.05.98]

[Continued from part 3/9]

[List posting "Why do I think Chris is a cop?", 30.06.96 - ctd.]


Here, comrade Jay Miles of the Detcom gets a little pat on his
back. Jay at that time had already said two important and good
things: "Much struggle is good!" and "Be open and aboveboard."
But he so far held the contradiction to "Quispe" to be one among
the people. I'll show below also how Chris has applauded people
when they've been wrong and been quite angry with them when
the've made good decisions. (The "police danger" spoken of here
appears to have been just another piece in the "Quispe" circus.)

>Date: 01 Jun 96 13:05:23 EDT
>Subject: " WE WILL NOT WASTE TIME "

>It is clear that in terms of personal credibility and mutual
>respect Quispe and Olaechea are at rock bottom. For their sake
>as well as the rest of the l'st can we move on to political
>issues.

1 June, that was precisely the day when the Detcom came out with
a very clear statement completely condemning "Quispe", and on
that weekend, 1-2 June, several other people joined in this con-
demnation, so that one might say that "Quispe" was now, if not
even earlier, completely exposed. The next weekend too, 8-9
June, likewise was one of quite general and correct "Quispe"-
bashing. Chris however still tries to put *both sides* at "rock
bottom". 

>Date: 02 Jun 96 03:37:27 EDT
>Subject: Gina-Adolfo polemic

>Considering that Mao himself came to the view that the Cultural
>Revolution was 30% bad in conditions in which the Chinese Party
>had been in power 25 years, it seems to me from the outside
>that these methods are much more disruptive to a movement of
>international solidarity inadequately funded and organised,
>with communications with the mother party weak and under
>attack. But this will all come out in the wash.

>For the sake of the l'st but also for the sake of PCP
>supporters themselves, I would again request that protagonists
>cool it. Let Adolfo argue the case and gather support for the
>WMC, and draw his lines of demarcation. Let Quispe continue to
>report on information from the PCP. Everyone knows that Adolfo
>and supporters mistrust him totally. He, they, and we, will
>have to live with that. Is it so unbearable?


>Date: 02 Jun 96 03:37:21 EDT
>Subject: Gleanings on Peru

>I am posting this initiative now, partly because I would
>frankly like to draw Quispe away from pre-occupation with
>whether Adolfo is or is not a charlatan, and secondly, this
>whole controversy needs to be anchored in the power relations
>that actually exist now in Peru and between Peru and the
>imperialist world.


>Date: 02 Jun 96 14:05:44 EDT
>Subject: Re: "WE WILL NOT WASTE TIME"

>In trying to damp down this time-consuming flame war, it is not
>necessarily a bad thing that Ken should be more sympathetic
>towards Adolfo, and I to Luis, but Ken clearly suspects my
>motives that I "condone" the personal attack on Jay and Tony.

Here, as I wrote above, Ken had rightly attacked the condoning
by Chris of these things. So (only) now, Chris says that he's
*not* condoning them.

>I was therefore dismayed that while endorsing the point,
>Marcelina then made such a personal attack on Jay and Tony.


>Date: 04 Jun 96 19:12:55 EDT
>Subject: Maoist polemic on line or persons?

>C addresses fellow Maoists:

[C: The person writing from Australia whom Adolfo later called a
"clone of Avakian", an assessment which I supported, too - on
somewhat meagre grounds perhaps, I'd like to add. Time will
probably show whether it was correct or not.]

>"Let's all try and be Maoists, raise our struggle to the level
>of line."

>Chance would be a fine thing. The Maoist influx into this l'st
>has turned into a bit of a bloodbath. Slippery stuff, blood.

It so happened that Chris was writing this precisely on 04.06,
the seventh anniversary of the bloodbath against the people on
and near the Tianamen Square in Beijing, China, in 1989 by the
Deng Xiaoping fascist regime, which precisely the Marxists ("the
Maoists") have always strongly opposed but which he, Chris, also
has engaged in trying to"prettify" - see below. Blood indeed is
slippery stuff and so, in my opinion, are people like Chris.
..................

>But it seems the accusation of police agent, is still being
>made against one of the posters. It is a fact that state
>representatives will be gleaning and sifting correspondence on
>this l'st. The sheer volume gives them a rather high dross to
>jewel ratio. But they do not need to be remarkable at all to
>subscribe. The only other thing of benefit to them is stirring
>up utterly divisive conflict. We are quite good at that anyway
>of course, but they may always give it a helping hand. Another
>reason to avoid making personal attacks that cannot be
>justified.


>Date: 22 Jun 96 03:54:30 EDT
>Subject: Another aol provocation

>Please concentrate on the state capitalism debate.

Which was a theme on which there wasn't a conflict having to
do with the work of agents or with their exposure. Chris still
is true to himself, debating the debates (certain of them)
rather than the issues.


POINT =A44)	Chris repeatedly and ridiculously has tried to
		make people believe that this Marxism list, and
		even the Internet as a whole, which at least
		potentially is quite an important tool for the
		revolutionaries and which already has been
		instrumental in the exposure of one obviously
		important and well-placed agent of reaction,
		is "no good at all" for Marxist-Leninist party
		politics and "only causes conflicts" etc.

This extremely stupid idea (for the revolutionaries, but not for
the cops of course) as far as I know has only been put forward
by one [writer] to this list, the so-called "MIM" (Maoist Inter-
national Movement"), about which I in my abovementioned 25.04
posting wrote that there were some reasons for suspecting that
it might be one of the "reserve vessels" prepared by the CIA for
use in particular now that their big "carrier of subversion" the
"RIMitz" was sinking. (Now that the "MIMitz" also has made clear
its support for the WMC and its condemnation of "Quispe", I also
have written that I on my part will try to unite with it on that
basis.) Chris wrote:

>Date: 20 Apr 96 02:58:20 EDT
>Subject: The split among PCP supporters

>I suggested a while back at a time when the conflict between
>many l'st members and the PCP supporters was sharpest, that the
>l'st is not a friendly place for parties.

>The pace of development of these contradictions has IMO
>undoubtedly been intensified by the existence of this internet
>l'st.

>Date: 05 May 96 16:36:26 EDT
>Subject: The Maoist Wars 2/2

>The problems that the Maoists are enacting in front of our eyes
>about the creation of an International, are instructive.

>They confirm my impression that the Internet is very
>undermining of disciplined democratic centralist organisational
>unity.

>Date: 11 May 96 04:17:19 EDT
>Subject: International or Internet

>Thanks Hugh, for trying to give a positive answer to my
>provocative suggestion that this medium is inherently
>Menshevik.


Quite a comedian, is this Chris!

The Menshevik (minority men) idea of how to build the Russian
Social-Democratic Party, on its London congress in 1903 where
there was the conflict over this, was that of a loose party:
"Every striking worker is a Party member". The Bolshevik (ma-
jority men) one was that of a tightly-knit, disciplined party,
in which only those systematically working for the revolution
were members and in which there was democratic centralism, with
the decisions always open to debate and criticism by every mem-
ber, who at the same time had the obligation to carry out those
decisions which had in fact been made. This kind of parties is
what the proletariat needs. Later, most Mensheviks came to sup-
port the bourgeoisie quite openly, and so, "Menshevism" rightly
has become a swearword to the Marxists.

Of course neither the Internet nor this list can be "Bolshevik",
since it's being run by "non-party" people. The very idea that
it might be "Bolshevik" is ridiculous. But for "party people" in
different parts of the world to be able to discuss things with
each other, and in front of, and together with, "non-party"
people too, who then in some respects can supervise these "party
people" and constitute a certain "control instance" of what
they're doing, this of course is a quite exellent possibilty
which the Internet in general and, for instance, this list in
particular offers.

The poor and oppressed masses of Asia, Africa and Latin America
undoubtedly for a long time to come will have few if any direct
representatives on the Net, and this Marxism list, for instance,
is bound to have a certain "tilt" in favour of the better-off
and better educated and in disfavour of industrial workers,
poorer peasants etc in general, but even so, with some 200-300
participants on it as at present, it's reasonable to suppose
that this list has a majority of more-or-less "ordinary" wage
earners, and it's impossible for it to be "dominated" by cops,
simply because the arch-reactionary rulers of the world don't
have enough people for such a thing. 

Has anybody been frightened by these "terrible" words, "in-
herently Menshevik"? Probably not. And nobody should be either.

[This concluded part 2/5 of my 30.06.1996 posting - RM, '98]

[Continued in part 5/9]



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005