File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1998/marxism-general.9805, message 323


Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:03:11 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #66en: 7/9 Detecting some Net cops, I.


UNITE! Info #66en: 7/9 Detecting some Net cops, I.
[Posted: 23.05.98]

[Ctd. from part 6/9]


[List posting 30.06.96 - ctd.]

Here there was a certain acceptance of religion which, to me,
seemed quite out of place in a person purportedly interested in
Marxism, and which contributed to my starting to wonder whether
Chris was above-the-board. I'll make a brief note of that as my
Point 9 below.

>My recollection, is that you, Rolf, were the catalyst for the
>Maoist wars becoming antagonistic. You started posting things
>about the RIM and Avakian, and persisted. Someone, either Luis
>or Marcelina responded from the New Flag side, Adolfo defended
>you and enlarged on the politics, and someone from Quispe's
>address said they knew you to be a member of a large number of
>organisations, and to have been associated with dissension in
>a number of place, and they wondered if you were a police spy.
>It was a serious charge and I suspect contributed in a major
>way to the contradictions becoming antagonistic, to the
>amazement of much of the l'st.

Like the Detcom and also Adolfo, I in fact am pretty "horrible",
too.

>I do not think you are a police spy because you are too unique.
>But to a suspicious observer you could appear a provocateur.

How lucky for me that Chris isn't such a "suspicious" person!

>It is somehow the counterpart of your strange story of how
>you once found the almost perfect party, which existed in only
>one country for a very short period of time.

Here the once extremely important KDP/ML (NEUE EINHEIT) in
Germany is "getting the axe", too - and no wonder. (See other
postings of mine.) This party indeed very unfortunately went
over to the bourgeoisie in the late 80:s, but had by then exis-
ted as a genuinely proletarian revolutionary party since 1970 -
for too short a period, agreed, but certainly not only "for a
very short period of time", as Chris tries to make people be-
lieve.

>Everything else will be a disappointment for you, whatever
>short-term alliances you may make.

Thank you for that prediction!

>I certainly see the beastliness, on both sides of these Maoist
>wars. It would be better if New Flag subscribers withdrew the
charges of police agent against you, and in fact all charges of
>police agent are withdrawn on all sides.

Yes, wouldn't it, Chris?

>But I suggest, Rolf, you have a bitter style. In these polemics
>Jay and Gina have tried to show some restraint in what they
>have said publically on the l'st, although it is a fair guess
>there have been bruised feelings. Louis Godena reported on
>Jay's restraint. You however commented on Jay's description of
>Gina, encouraging him to go beyond his criticisms of her, which
>he said were *unlike her normal social practice*, and think of
>her as an opportunist and a supporter of reaction. [quote
>below]
..................

> Who is helped by this bitter incitement?

To characterize one's own style is difficult of course. But cal-
ling mine "bitter", I venture to suggest, is a bit ridiculous
and just one more thing which shows how much Chris is against my
actions in the conflict at hand.


POINT =A49)	Chris, although puportedly interested in
		Marxism, seems not to be against religion - a
		rather sharp contradiction.

See a quote under Point 8 above.
	=09

POINT =A410)	On one or two instances, Chris has suggested
		themes for discussion on which, as he knew,
		there were differences among the opposers of
		"Quispe" and which might perhaps, if handled
		clumsily, draw attention away from the struggle
		against this reactionary agent and cause some
		friction within the anti-"Quispe" camp.

One thing I think is a fairly clear instance of this:

>Date: 10 May 96 09:00:34 EDT
>Subject: International or Internet

>And all this before checking whether there is an agreed line on
>nuclear power stations (it is not impossible that some Maoists
>might secretly sympathise with Malecki's criticisms of Rolf in
>this respect) and [......]

One thing which I on my part had already made several postings
about to newsgroups was indeed the entire matter of the "green"
genocidal warfare (by no means only the reactionary anti-nuc-
lear-energy campaign, although this is an important element in
it) by the main forces of the bourgeoisie against the peoples of
the world.

Most comrades, unfortunately, so far had/have no idea of this
even going on at all and thus haven't opposed this warfare,
something which IMO absolutely must change. But to have a big
debate on this precisely at the moment when the common struggle
against "Quispe" was at its most intensive might have been un-
suitable, from our point of view.


On another thing, which perhaps - I'm not certain about this,
though I in retrospect have reflected on whether it might have
been so - was put out by Chris with a similar purpose, I'll
quote from my own first brief reply to him:

>Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 23:57:00 +0200 (MET DST)
>From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
>Subject: Re: Luftmensch on maoism

>Hello Chris,

>Here you're touching on something important (I hope you won't
>mind my saying, for once!):

>>The spontaneous mass mourning at the death of Zhou Enlai,
>>who very significantly died just before Mao, was treated by
>>all sides in the Chinese leadership as a signal of hostility
>>towards Chiang Ching and Co.

Chris did remember that - interesting. I believe most of those
who today are saing they're for Mao Zedong had forgotten it. At
this "bait" - if it was one - put out by Chris, I did bite, and
after a reply by Jay this led to a certain debate about the
long-ago exposed reactionary group the Gang of Four in China,
whose ideology remains of importance today since it's rather
exactly that of the Avakianists, too.

I on 13.05 started the posting of a whole series on this theme,
which I by then thought it was quite OK, also tactically, to
take up, since the "Quispe" battle to me appeared in the main to
have been already won. This debate, which has continued, IMO
is very important, and I don't think today that it was wrong at
all to start bringing this matter up at that time.

If indeed Chris had wanted it as a deflection then - I don't
know whether he did - at least later, he's written something or
other showing that he now doesn't like this debate too much
either. (This only from my recollection - no quote on this.)

[This concluded part 4/5 of the '96 posting - RM, '98]


POINT =A411)	Chris even has tried to persuade people that
		"Luis Quispe" and "Marcelina Ccorimanya" must be
		two different persons, after their oneness had
		already been revealed by comrade Adolfo, and has
		brought two "arguments", the one if possible
		more ridiculous than the other, in favour of
		this.

This has really been a desperate move by Chris, and one which it
would be strange indeed for an "uninterested observer" to under-
take. In fact it can only be explained, I now suggest, by the
great interest the cops have had in trying to protect that quite
important member of their "corps", the "Quispe" thing. It sur-
prised me, the first time he tried it, into suggesting - at that
time, only as a joke - that he himself was probably a "third
member" of that thing.

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

>A number of people assume that Luis and Marcelina are the same
>person. I do not think that is so. Some of the most aggressive
>posts have been signed by Marcelina in defence of Luis. I do
>not think that is necessarily in Luis's interests, but it may
>have been intended that way

Which was a piece of comedy, since everybody - even people like
me, for instance, who don't have English as their mother tongue
- could clearly see that the styles of "Luis" and "Marcelina"
weren't different at all but, on the contrary, were precisely
quite similar to each other. Probably you could even have a
computer program proving precisely that the two "different" sets
of postings were written by one and the same person. Next piece
of comedy:

Chris here replies to comrade Tony Frosinos of the Detcom, who
had asked him: "Are you serious? Do you really believe there is
a Marcelina?":

>Date: 26 Jun 96 15:52:27 EDT
>Subject: Re:  Adolfo's Sado-machismo

>Yes I know she was very sectarian to you, and I am sure your
>hair does not reach the ground,

(which of course was a very friendly thing for Chris to say,
since big boss "Quispe" himself in his profound argumentation
had already pointed out, i.a., that the opposite was the case -
after the Detcom's 01.06 statement telling all what a fraud he
was.)

>but on the broad politics of it, the idea that a woman
>contributor to this l'st does not exist and is just a cypher of
>a man, reveals a lot about those who argue that way.

So in fact we poor sods, whether our hair do reach the ground or
not, in maintaining that good old Marcelina doesn't even exist,
thereby only are showing up our utterly sexist approach to
things. This must be said to be an argumentation on a rather
high level of Marxism.


POINT =A412)	Chris, though not a Mao Zedong adherent himself,
		is quite adamant in "pointing out" that no such
		adherent or group of adherents in the world
		should do anything at all of any major impor-
		tance except on an express order from the
		leadership of the PCP in Peru.

There is of course a certain purpose behind this, which I'll
comment on below. And naturally, Chris combines it with defence
of the US imperialist agent Avakian (see Point 6 above) and
those phoney"Marxist" entities the "RCP" of the USA and the
"RIM". Quotes:

[Continued in part 8/9]



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005