Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 00:56:49 -0400
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: M-G: TO ALL M-G MEMBERS: Re: Attempt to Establish a New List


Juan replies to Bob's purposal..
>
>Secondly, who belongs to a "working class political trend"? Who
>determined this? What is NOT a "working class political trend"? And who
>determines THAT?  Nearly everyone who posts to the list on a regular
>basis has been accused of anti-Marxist, anti-communist, anti-proletarian
>ideas and practices.  The Trotskyists accuse the Stalinists of being
>anti-proletarian.  The Stalinists accuse the Trotskyists of the same. 
>The "middle-roaders" accuse both the Stalinists and the Trostskyists of
>the same, and Rolf and Bob accuse just about everyone of being anti- or
>at least non-proletarian (or, in words from one of Rolf's posts,
>"bad").  Both of them, in turn, have had the same accusation hurled at
>them from many directions. 
>
>Then, take my own case.  Apart from any political standpoint, my
>personal and family situation does not permit me the time for the
>political activity or organizational life which I once was able to
>maintain.  Does my current inactivity mean that I am not part of a
>"working class political trend"?

Well, historically we have in the workers movement workers like yourself and 
those who belong to the mass organizations of the proletatiat like the trade 
unions.. Then there are a number of categories historically which in a broad 
sense cover the spectrum. "Trotskyists", Stalinists (both Mao and Russian 
variants), Mensheviks or and Social Democrats, Anarchists..

That pretty much covers the spectrum. Of course we have the diverse versions 
of state capitalists and even some Bordigists which should be included...

>
>> 2. This list will not have any limit on posting. However in the umbrella of
>> lists now
>> available at this server like thaxis, a list for Zines/news, it is 
>> recommended that this list not be a bulletin board for political trends to 
>> paste their propaganda. Use the Zine/news (or Usenet) lists for this kind
>> of 
>> stuff and use this list to discuss politics...
>> 

>
>Again, we run into a problem similar to that encountered with Article 1:
>What is a fascist?  We can pull outr definitions by Trotsky or
>Mariategui if we want to, but they wouldn't be much help in this
>context.  Nor would the Stalinist definitions from World War II, whose
>war slogan -in direct contradiction to Bolshevik practice in WW I- was
>simply "Kill Germans."  Some people I've met have accused former
>US-President George Bush of being a fascist, but he hardly fits any of
>the usual criteria, nor do most of the leftist activists and others whom
>the PCP has accused over the years of being fascist.  There are even
>those who talk of Nazism and Bolshevism as being examples of "fascism
>from the right" and "fascism from the left."  So, a rule of "NO
>FASCISTS" is not so clear-cut as it seems at first glance.  Moreover, do
>we really want to kick people out for unpopular IDEAS?  

Well, I think Hugh's purposal of having in turn a couple of people from the 
opposing ideologies keeping and eye on the list will quickly spot what we 
consider real fascists and not the ideological flim flam operations of 
certain trends to paint up their oppenents as "social fascist" and all the 
rest..

>If we are going to go the route of having a formal expulsion policy, I
>don't recommend that those who are accused of being cops be unsubscribed
>by the steering committee unless INTENTIONAL ON-LIST DISRUPTIVE ACTIONS
>toward the List are *proven* and appropriate and PUBLIC warnings
>issued.  In this contect, repeated, unsupported accusations in this
>regard would also count as disruptive actions.  Off-list activities of
>susbscribers, no matter how distasteful, would not be in the purvue of
>the steering committee.

I agree here. Of course anybody being accused of being a cop/agent should 
not be dumped. But unless some *real* proof is forthhcoming by those who 
dare to accuse people of being cops then they should be warned and if it 
continues shown the door..
>
>On the matter of "unpolitical wackos", well, we're all a bit wacky at
>times, and what constitutes "unpolitical"?  Surely if someone decides to
>whine about their personal life of post commercial advertisements (or
>both as in the case of an individual in Switzerland) we can all just
>ignore them, can't we?

I take this part back and agree with Hugh and you on this..


Warm regards
Bob Malecki



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