Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:02:19 +0000 From: Jim <jim-AT-cag1.demon.co.uk> Subject: M-I: New List I do not understand why people like Mark Jones and Lou Godena are *still* whining about what happened at the Lenin List some time ago. Anyone who really cares has made their own views clear by voting with their feet. A tiny handful of subscribers left with Adolfo. Whether than is enough to set up a new list for Adolfo's brand of PCP-cheer leading (as we know, their are other brands of this on offer on the Internet) is of little concern to me. As for the Lenin List (aka the Hillier list, the bogus list etc etc according to Mark and co), it has about 50 subscribers - about a third of the size of m-i last time I checked. Lou Godena shows his true colours when he complains that an "underling" (me) acted in an insubordinate manner. What an upstart that Hillier is! I confess to not being sure whether Lou Godena deliberately distorts what people say, or whether he genuinely does not understand them. He says I broke democratic centralism on the Lenin List. But there was no democratic centralism on the list, nor could there be. Democratic centralism is appropriate to a political party, not an Internet mailing list involving people from different organisations and different trends. What I actually said was that Adolfo and co on more than one occasion tried to force me into breaking the discipline of the communist organisation that I belong to (The Communist Action Group) and capitulate to the virulent nonsense that Adolfo was spouting at that particular time. In the "debate" about the MRTA, Adolfo wanted me to attack my comrades in our sister party, the DHKP-C of Turkey. The fact is that I did not agree with his attacks on them. But even if I did, I am in no way at liberty to publicly criticise CAG policy. I *am* at full liberty to criticise CAG policy *within* the organisation, though. This is standard practice in left groups, I believe. I never said the Lenin List should be subject to CAG discipline. But *I* am subject to that discipline. That should have been clear to anyone. The Lenin List reached an impasse with the "debate" on Cuba. What had started as an honest attempt to reaffirm revolutionary Marxism was being turned into an idiots convention by Adolfo with his claims that Cuba was fascist, which he then toned down to be social-fascist. I believed that this is no way to reaffirm revolutionary marxism, but raher a prime way of discrediting it. I still hold that position. Having lost the argument on the list, Adolfo then tried to bring me to heel through some unwholesome manoeuvres on the moderators panel, on which he had a built-in majority. What happened next has been described, hysterically, as a fascist coup d'etat by one of Adolfo's supporters (Jacques Beaudoin). What actually happened was that I made it clear that I was not prepared to put in the donkey work (all the everday work was done by me to keept he list afloat) so that Adolfo and company could further discredit marxism by vilifying the Cuban Communist Party as socialists in words and fascists in deeds. I then split the list: I said that anyone who wanted to alow Adolfo to continue to have the list as a platform for his attacks should write to him and form a new list. Those who wanted to stay on a list where such attacks would be banned, should just stay put. And those who wanted to leave the list because of its new rule should write to me and I would take them off the list. I was in no way bound by the discipline of the moderators panel at this time. That panel gad ceased to function properly - if it ever did. For four days, an urgent proposal I put to the moderators went unanswered except by Adolfo and, indirectly, by Tim Willets. That proposal was in the form of an ultimatum: either we stop Adolfo's ranting or I go. Then I went: and brought the old Lenin List to an end in the process. There are people on this list (m-i) who know what happened - Doug, Lou P, Gary Mc, for example - who are not commenting here. I do not blame them. I apologise to other list members for prolonging this matter by relying to Mark and Lou G. The Lenin List split because of a political polarisation between those who represent a minor current within Maoism, and those who support the Cuban revolution. On the Lenin List, the latter were the overwhelminb majority, something which no doubt surprised Adolfo, Mark and Lou. It should not have done. Mark claims, amazingly, that outside North America and Western Europe, the majority of communists take Adolfo's line that the CCP is fascist, with a veneer of socialism. Where, Mark? In the former Soviet Union? You know full well that that is not true, and that every Communist organisation supports Cuba. Or India? The three biggest parties of Marxism in that country - CPI, CPI-M and Socialist Unity Centre - all support socialist Cuba. Vietnam? Not a chance. Where, then, Mark, except Peru? At the recent world festival of youth and students in Havana, revolutionary and communist movements from all over the world sent delegates to socialist Cuba. If it had been fascist, as these clowns claim, this would have been to have sent them to their deaths. As far as I know, they all returned safe and sound, and strengthened by their cvontact with a real, living socialist revolution with its back to the wall, but with its spirit in tact. Go ahead, Lou. Go ahead Mark. Go ahead Adolfo. Form your new list. Attack Cuba for being fascist. Rot in isolation. True, it will be a waste of a little minor intellectual talent, but the working class will not miss you that badly in the long run. In struggle Jim Hillier -- --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005