Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 19:26:10 GMT
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (hariette spierings)
Subject: Re: Communicating etiquette and Marxism



>> 1. Adolfo has just posted two versions of
>> "THE FACTS OF THE THEORY OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION"
>> 
>> one at 3:40 GMT and one at 4:06 GMT.
>> 
>> If Adolfo is going to stay up all night to convince readers
>> that Louis is only a third rater, I would feel more inclined to 
>> read the post if
>> 
>> a) I wasn't shouted at with a headline 
>> in capitals, (as with a previous subscriber to the l'st is 
>> a two edged marketing ploy, because it makes it easy to know
>> what to skim or delete), and
>> 
>> b) if Adolfo was courteous enough to explain that I could skim
>> the 3:40 version in favour of the more accurate 4:06 version.
>> 
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>

Hello Chris:  There is netiquette and there is Marxist etiquette - you had
already noted why there are reasons to underline with capitals. More about
this point and your suggestion of asterisks later.

The reason I posted a second time is because a reference was incorrectly
given in the first posting.  Of course that could have been done with a new
posting pointing out the errata, but as you pointed out, it was 4.02 in the
morning!. Sorry, about that, I will in future take that on board if
corrections are needed.

Now is there a contradiction between netiquette in its strictest form and
the needs of marxism.  In my opinion yes.  And it is not surprising if we
consider that Marxism is a wranglism - and netiquette was originally thought
out - although is also evolving - for a purely academic and scientific
milieu.  But that was long ago, and now the masses of "Bulgarians" are
taking to the media, like myself, for example.   I think the future will
bring more and not less need to find a marxist netiquette that is appropiate
to the needs of marxism.

And what are those needs?  marxism is about raising conciousness and not
about putting people to sleep or smuggling sublimininal messages to them.
therefore a certain amount of shouting and WARNING was always used by our
Classics by the use of Italics or <<>> symbols.

Technically that is not currently possible.  You suggest the use of *

Why Have I not taken up your proposal?.  Because at this point there is an
URGENT need to unravel INTENTIONAL and very cleverly concealed plots against
the integrity of Marxism. A case in point seems to me to be Louis Project's
attempt to sell Lenin as unaware of the uninterrupted (or wave) character of
the revolution.

Project is not a baby or an uncultured man. He has read his bits and pieces
and he uses them to beffuddle people intentionally. There is no other
explanation in him, if he has read TWO TACTICS, selecting that quote - which
refererred to something completely different - while ignoring the rest of
the book!.  That was no accident, I am being absolutely frank and
"Bulgarian" in saying it openly.

What was Project's purpose?  To butress the old canard circulated by the
Trotskysts that the April Thesis were "inspired by Trotsky" since Lenin,
only 1917 came to think that the transition to a proletarian dictatorship,
that the socialist revolution could actually result from the democratic
stage of the revolution.  That is why!.  It is part of a sustained attempt
at falsifying both history and Marxism.

In the last few decades only has been possible to dedicate a little time to
debunk this kind of falsehoods, and many of these weeds have grown out of hand.

The tactics of our rivals are clear.  Sleigh of hand and verbosity to cover
up counterfeits and swindles.

Here is an example of how they operate.  Recently a comrade of ours sent us
a mailer from a Trotskyst, feeling himself out of his depth in attempting an
answer.  This is a good example, because it shows how this fellows operate
and why is necessary to SHOUT WARNINGS to people and simple and polite
asterisks won't do, at least until some headway in debunking this kind of
dishonesty is achieved:

Our comrade sent us the copy of the a long anti-Stalin article which it
would be too long to take apart bit by bit, but here is a perfect gem of
their system of deception of the people, and how I approached the question
in advising our comrade to draft his response:


>A cursory glance of the membership of the Central Committee of the 
>RSDLP (b) at the time of the October Revolution proves this. 
>(Parentheses at the end of each passage denotes year of death.)
>
>Artyom, died (1921); 
>Berzin, disappeared during Moscow Trials (1938); 
>Bubnov, disappeared during Moscow Trials (1940); 
>Bukharin, shot after conviction in Moscow Trials (1938); 
>Dzerzhinsky, died (1926); 
>Joffe, committed suicide under pressure from Stalin (1927); 
>Kamenev, shot after conviction in Moscow Trials (1936); 
>Kollontai, dissapeared during Moscow Trials (1941); 
>Krestinsky, shot after conviction in Moscow Trials (1938); 
>Lenin, died (1924); 
>Lomov, disappeared during Moscow Trials (1938); 
>Milyutin, disappeared during Moscow Trials (1938); 
>Muranov, imprisoned during Moscow Trials (1959); 
>Nogin, died (1924); 
>Rykov, shot after conviction in Moscow Trials (1938); 
>Shahumyan, died (1918); 
>Smilga, shot after conviction in Moscow Trials (1938); 
>Sokolnikov, died in prison following Moscow Trials (1939); 
>Stalin, died (1953); 
>Stasova, imprisoned during Moscow Trials (1966); 
>Sverdlov, died (1919); 
>Trotsky, assassinated by GPU (1940); 
>Uritsky, died (1918); 
>Zinoviev, shot after conviction in Moscow Trials (1936)

And I answered in this way:


What is the key here? The key is the words "cursory glance".  That is all
the Trot wants you to do, take a cursory glance.  Why?  Because a serious
glance reveals their trickery.  Take it now, comrade, and tell me what you
see in that list AFTER CAREFUL STUDY?

Take it apart and analyse it. Out of 24 people in the Central Committee of
October:

How many were shot after conviction as enemies of the people? = 6

How many were imprisoned and RELEASED?                        = 2 

If that were not to be the case, would our Trots 
have said just: "imprisoned during the trials"?  

Now the one chiding you for squeamishness in the 
face of the "necessary blood" to defend the 
revolution, is throwing his hands up in horror just 
because a couple of people were placed in protective 
custody while being investigated during a very 
serious plot against the People's Government?

How many "dissappeared"?                                     =  5

Trots won't tell you this, but you must work it 
out from the fact that if these five had been 
killed, both the Khruschovites and the Trots 
themselves would not be claiming "dissapearance".  
How do you dissapear without trace a famous 
person like Kollontai?  Or Milyutin?

Would it not be more logical to think they retired 
to a private life?  If the Trots - who accusse 
Stalin of every crime under the sun - only claim them 
as dissapeared, and the revisionists, who have already 
handed over to the imperialist scholars all the records 
of "Stalinism" do not claim they have turned up as 
"victims", maybe they were "dissapeared" to a "dacha 
with a seaview".  It is something you start thinking 
once you realise that it is false that Stalin did away 
with "political opponents" only by killing them as a matter 
of "administrative expediency" and that only Chairman Mao 
came up with a "new method" in this respect!.


How many died in prison:                                       = 1

Since the Trots themselves do not say more than that - and
they would IF THEY ONLY COULD, is it not reasonable to think
that it could have been a natural death?  A heart attack?
In any case, find out!

How many committed suicide:                                     = 1  

The Trots say that "under pressure from Stalin". 
What? A communist that kills himself "under pressure"?. 
Maybe he killed himself because he was deranged or had 
other psichological problems.  Are the Trots crediting 
Stalin with the capacity of putting pressure on people 
to the point of making them pull the trigger?  
What dishonesty in throwing in every piece of garbage 
they can think of against Stalin.  Watch out, this one 
wasn't even arrested, otherwise the Trots would have 
said "committed suidide in prison"..

How many died a natural death?  (Including Lenin)                = 9

However Stalin is also blamed for nature's course, 
and if you ONLY take "a cursory glance" you can 
easily overlook this fact.

How many DESERTED THE REVOLUTION and went to 
work FOR THE OVERTHROW of proletarian power out of pique?        = 1  

Here ONLY TROTSKY is left - hobnobbing with the bourgeois press in churning
out anti-communist propaganda!   The fact that he was later killed, is
neither here nor there since many claim, with good reason that he died as a
consequence of internal splits of the Trotskysts organisations, and, or
alternatively, that Mercader was an agent working for the anti-Stalin
faction (revisionists) who, realising that Trotsky was more useful for them
dead than alive (maybe he knew too much about their plots and feared
exposure), did away with him so that later they could parade him and use his
shroud as the "most illustrious victim of the Monster" to slander communism
and the proletarian dictatorship on that account too?.  
So, what do we have here?  Sheer Trotskyst shroud waving based only in 6
self confessed traitors out of 24 members of the Central Committee of 1917.

I hope this has been of some help to you".


So, Chris, you can see why a bit of SHOUTING and making people pay attention
is necessary at the moment.  

As to marketing techniques?  What use will be in a revolution those who are
only into a marxism for a "quiet life"?  One does marketing to a particular
segment, if you like, where quality, rather than quantity is the goal.

Regards 


Adolfo 
    



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