From: "Oliver Schnee" <cerebus-AT-zedat.fu-berlin.de>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Date:          Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:13:21 +0100
Subject:       Re: marxism-digest V2 #953


Am 26 Apr 96 schrieb owner-marxism-digest-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU 
<marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>:

> 
> marxism-digest             Friday, 26 April 1996       Volume 02 : Number 953
> 
> In this issue:
> =============> 
>   Robert Malecki         Re: marxism2 list                                 
>   Robert Malecki         Re: The WWMC, the sinking "RIMitz" & Mr. Quispe 2/
>   Robert Malecki         Re: Re Doug's question on China reversal          
>   Robert Malecki         Re: A deal with who?                              
>   Gary MacLennan         Non reply to Luftmensch was re-queer theory       
>   Robert Malecki         Re: VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL LAW         
>   Robert Malecki         Nazi,s find haven in Sweden!                      
>   Jorn Andersen          Re: marxism2 list                                 
>   boddhisatva            Re: Reply to: Re: Capitalist collectivizatio      
>   boddhisatva            Re: Reply to: Re: Reply to: Re: "Second cont      
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:48:01 +0200 (MET DST)
> Subject: Re: marxism2 list
> 
> >Robert Malecki wrote:
> >
> >> no, it is not childness! It is the ivory tower who when it comes down to the
> >> cookie jar hate the proletariat. They are drawing room socialists and when
> >> the real action starts they are going to run the other way..
> 
> Jorn wrote:
> >Problem is that "real action" doesn't start on a mail list.
> >
> >
> >Yours
> > 
> >Jorn Andersen
> >
> Jorn,
> 
> Are you stupid or something. Throwing people off the list and in fact the 
> campaign by the ivory tower earlier were concrete actions "real actions"! In 
> fact what your really trying to say here is workers with there hard and 
> crude way of putting things should just shut up while we real intellectual 
> marxists get on with the "discussion".
> Or that the maoists should shut up because they believe in what their saying.
> Kiss my ass Andersen: People are dying out here. People are starving. 
> Workers are beating their children and all the rest. That is a whole lot of 
> action.The discussion on this list is and action and internet is and action 
> and the action is going on all the fucking time even if you appear not to 
> realise it.
> 
> What do you really mean that the "real action" doesn,t start on a mail list. 
> We are at war all the time. Politics is war and it goes on all the time in 
> many different ways and actions. Even the Social Democrats realise that. 
> 
> But Andersen the under lying meaning in your message is at best- take it easy-
> don,t make waves- let all our intellectuals go on with what they have been 
> doing for years. Don,t ask questions. Don,t get angry. Don,t react. Keep 
> your cool. Know your place in the heirarchy of the marxist list-that is 
> being the most unread, unintelligent-just a worker-or exile.
> 
> There is almost a set of rules of how one should fight on this list. How one 
> should think and most of all workers here according to you where the action 
> hasn,t started yet. Well for working class kids the action has beeen going 
> on all our fucking lives. It could only be sonmebody who claims to be a 
> marxist that would come up with the above.
> 
> Andersen in closing. Some of the things you have said on this list have been 
> interesting and perhaps helpful. But the above is very near a step in 
> defending the ivory tower and Lisa who in actions have acted liked cops. You 
> hear cops!
> 
> Either you apoligise for this defense or take a clear position. For the cops 
> on this list or against them. They have proved through there actions that 
> they hate working class democracy, and in fact workers...
> 
> malecki from exile
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:47:54 +0200 (MET DST)
> Subject: Re: The WWMC, the sinking "RIMitz" & Mr. Quispe 2/3
> 
> Rolf M=E5rtens again:
> >
> >
> >=A412.	 But Mr. Quispe has tried to turn things upside-down
> >	completely on this point too. The fact that I - because I
> >understand Marxism in some respects somehwat better than those comrades
> >whose bulk of information about it apparently has been from the documents> 
> >of the PCP, which hasn't been immediately confronted with these questions -
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Answer to part 3 of 3
> 
> Rolf M=E5rtens is doing exactly what a certain wing of maoism always has>  done.
> They critisize anyone that begins to think independently of there fake mass> 
> line. I remember so well these people accusing anyone who raised the slogan> 
> of "victory to the Vietnamese and Take Saigon" as being agents of
> imperialism at best.
> 
> This attack on Luis is in a certain way the swedish geman variant of how to> 
> build solidarity groups. But it has nothing to do with building a party in> 
> these countries which can begin to think about What should be done against> 
> our own capitalist being the best support one can give our comrades fighting> 
> on the ground in Peru.
> 
> It is M=E5rtens paying lip service to  maoism and supporting in a>  bureaucratic
> way third world movements. In fact these maoists in Sweden enjoyed
> recruiting alot of middleclass types with perhaps a sense of guilt to
> collect money and even create their own clothes store. But anybody who
> seriously wanted to bring the war home or turn the guns around they attacked> 
> as counter revolutionary and agents of imperialism.
> 
> Luis many times has acted in strange ways but his gut feelings are with the> 
> people on the ground. M=E5rtens is a seasoned solidarity bureaucrat who sees> 
> anybody that takes it more seriously, other then cheer leading from a
> distance, now accuses Luis of at least siding with the Bader Meinhof gang.
> 
> Well i was on the side of the Bader Meinhof people. That does not mean that> 
> i believe that murdering individual capitalist politicians or isolated
> terrorists acts will solve our problems. But I defended these militiants
> against the cops and the state.
> Just as i defend the PCP from the brutal dictatorship they are incorrectly> 
> fighting
> with "peoples war" as being the only way forward.
> 
> But M=E5rtens he only supports the heroic efforts of the maoist PCP fighting> 
> in the countryside of Peru under the conditions that they understand that
> Mao was always right. In reality M=E5rtens and company want to see the blood> 
> of peasants in Peru flowing. Fight the revolutionary battle over there.And i> 
> will collect money over here and build solidarity with maos ideas.But never> 
> has M=E5rten said that real solidarity is fighting your own swedish
> imperialists here now. That is real solidarity.
> 
> Lenin has time and again said that the main enemy is at home. In this case> 
> the German and Swedish imperialist bourgeoisie. M=E5rtens and company have> 
> been building alliances for years with their own bourgeoisie. Anybody can
> hold a can
> Liberal, left, conservative, student, house, worker, don,t make a
> difference. But don,t ever take up the question that the real enemy is at
> home and the best way of building solidarity is by overthrowing your own
> bougeoisie.
> 
> Luis i think your are politically wrong. But your are light years away from> 
> M=E5rtens and Aldolfo. The first is a slick organiser of middle class fake> 
> solidarity, the other is and ego tripped fake ideology trickster trying to> 
> make a name for himself.
> 
> Man with leaders like these the Peruvians are in real trouble..
> 
> Finally i would like say thanks again to M=E5rtens who presents us with a
> docuemented history of the decline of Maoism in the western imperialist
> countries.It has been extremely interesting to read. The one think that
> really amazes me is the old trick of calling anybody who disagrees with the> 
> leaders as "Trotskyite" counter revolutionaries at best. This has been the> 
> history of the Mao variant of Stalinism in a kernel. If you can,t win them> 
> with your ideas-accuse them of being Trotskite. That has been the unifying> 
> thread of all wings of Maoism. Well Trotsky and his ideas live and are well.> 
> Stalinism and Maoism are dead. Aven M=E5rtens says this himself. The reason> 
> they are dead is because it was a wrong political line which led to the
> disintergration of the first workers state in the Soviet Union and a bizarr> 
> form of bureaucratic dictatorship of the CCP in China which is heading
> towards a capitalist counter revolution in that country. It is time for our> 
> "maoist worshippers" to rethink there whole line and fight for a new
> Communist trotskyist International which has a program and analisis that can> 
> really lead the workers forward...
> 
> malecki from exile
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:48:13 +0200 (MET DST)
> Subject: Re: Re Doug's question on China reversal
> 
> Gina, 
> This is one of the few intelligent things that you have presented to the 
> list. i like it. But I think that the fight leading up to the cultural 
> revolution and the aftermath was an inter-bureaucratic fight in the 
> leadership of the CP. Yes, Mao had the authority to start the cultural 
> revolution, but his general line was not revolutionary, just perhaps to the 
> left of the capitalist roaders. Mao also made a lot of deals with the 
> surrounding imperialists in his time and in fact as earlier discussed on 
> this list sold out some real revolutionary situations like in Indonesia for 
> "peaceful coexistence".
> 
> malecki in exile 
> 
> 
> 
> >In a message dated 96-04-12 01:37:32 EDT, you write:
> >
> >>At 8:34 PM 4/11/96, Rubyg580-AT-aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>The leadership in China now says "to get rich is glorious" because that is
> >>>what those leaders have been saying since the 70s.  Mao called them
> >>>"capitalist roaders" and led theChinese people to defeat them thru the
> >>>upheaval of the cultural revolution and the struggle in the mid 70s against
> >>>the "right deviationist wind."
> >>>>>>
> >>This isn't really an explanation. Did the Chinese revolution depend
> >>entirely on Mao, and once he was gone, the capitalist roaders took power?
> >>Is that a serious social analysis in the Marxian tradition? What happened
> >>in Chinese society that led to this reversal? Is it just a matter of a
> >>handful of gerontocrats turning their back on Mao Zedong thought?
> >>
> >>Doug
> >
> >In 1976, a few weeks after Mao died, the faction led by Deng Xiaoping 
> >siezed power in China, by arresting Chiang Ching, Chang Chungchao,
> >Wang Hungwen and Yao Wenyuan.  These were the people they called
> >the "Gang of Four", and villified mercilessly in the press from then on.
> >
> >These four were leaders of the Cultural Revolution, and in the struggle
> >against the right deviationist wind, i.e., against Deng and his clique of 
> >capitalist roaders.  The capitalist roaders aparently had enough control
> >of the army that they were able to pull off this coup, defeating the 
> >resistance that was mounted in various parts of China, particularly in 
> >Shanghai, where the Cultural Revolution had been particularly intense.
> >(In January, 1967, the masses overthrew the old city government and 
> >elected a Revolutionary Committee to run the city;  I believe this was 
> >the first municipal Revolutionary Committee in the country)
> >
> >There aparently was some disorganization and confusion among the
> >revolutionary masses, too.  They were not prepared to respond quickly
> >and strongly enough to an attempted coup after Mao's death.
> >
> >These problems indicate the truth of what Mao himself said about the
> >question of which class would win out being an unsettled quesiton 
> >all the way through the period of socialism (which he defined as the
> >transition to communism--not "prosperity for all" or whatever phrase 
> >was used a few days ago on this list.)These are his words:
> >
> >     "Socialist society covers a considerably long historical period.
> >     In the historical period of socialism, there are still classes, class
> >     contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between 
> >     the socialist road and the capitalist road, and there is the danger
> >     of capitalist restoration.  We must recognize the protracted and
> >     complex nature of this struggle.  We must heighten our vigilance.
> >     We must conduct socialist education.  We must correctly
> >     understand and handle class contradictions and class struggle,
> >     distinguish the contradictions between ourselves and the ensmy
> >     from those among  the people and handle them correctly.
> >     Otherwise a socialist country like ours will turn into its opposite
> >     and degenerate, and a capitalist restoration will take place.
> >     From now on we must remind ourselves of this every year, 
> >     every month and every day so that we can retain a relatively 
> >     sober understanding and have a Marxist-Leninist line.
> >           ---quoted in Peking Review, No. 43, October 26, 1973, P.5;
> >              in an article titled "Importance Must Be Attached to the 
> >              Party's Basic Line"
> >
> >
> >It also illustrated the very real problem of the confusion generated by the 
> >fact that a new bourgeoisie arises "daily, hourly, and on a mass scale",
> >and is concentrated within the Communist Party itself during the period
> >of socialism due to what Lenin called the "birthmarks" of socialism: the
> >aspects of capitalist relations of production, particularly in the realm of
> >distribution and consumption.Mao spoke about this in 1975:
> >
> >     "Why did Lenin speak of exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? 
> >      It is essential to get this question claer. lack of clarity on this 
> >     quesiton will lead to revisionism. This should be made known to the
> >     whole nation....Our country at present practices a commodity
> >     system, the wage system is unequal too, as in the eight-grade
> >     wage scale, and so forth.  Under the dictatorship of the proletariat
> >     such things can only be restricted.  Therefore if people like Lin
> >     Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the 
> >     capitalist system. "That is why we should do more reading of 
> >     Marxist-Leninist works."
> >
> >     "Lenin said that 'small production engenders capitalism and the
> >     bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on 
> >     a mass scale.'  They are also engendered among a part of the 
> >     working class and of the Party membership.  Both within the 
> >     ranks of the proletariat and among the personnel of state and 
> >     other organs there are people who take to the bourgeois style
> >     of life."
> >
> >The thing is, no country is isolated unto itself.  It exists in a world
> >so far still dominated by imperialism.  The capitalist roaders had
> >powerful allies in the imperialist world, particularly in the U.S.  To 
> >think that the Chinese revolution depended entirely on Mao, and 
> >once he was gone, the capitalist roaders took power, is certainly 
> >not consistent with using dialectical and historical materialism to
> >understand the events of history.
> >
> >I can't recount blow by blow what happened in the coup and all the
> >contributing factors.  I recommend the book "China Winter" by 
> >Edoarda Masi, E.P. Dutton, NY, 1982.  She was a witness to the
> >events of 1976-77 in Shanghai.
> >
> >Gina/ Detroit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:48:22 +0200 (MET DST)
> Subject: Re: A deal with who?
> 
> Robert wrote:
> >> The above i assume means that Comrade G. is prepared to make a deal with the 
> >> Peruvian bourgeoisie! If he gets the countryside and peru does not become a 
> >> north and south OK.
> 
> Luis writes:
> >Luis:  Not at all. He is saying that if the big bourgeoisie wants 
> >"negotiation," the PCP is willing to negotiate their complete surrender, not
> >a partial one. As in any revolution, the old State accumulate forces in the
> >city, which will be at the end the last fortress of the reactionaries,
> >in the situation of Strategic equilibrium, can the PCP negotiate? No.
> >Because that would mean a split of the country (the countryside, about 1/3
> >in control of the People's Committees) and the cities in relative control
> >of reaction. So, at this stage, negotiations do not proceed. The balance
> >of power has to shift to the PCP in an strategic offenosive to undergo 
> >negotiation with the enemy , which in the diplomatic table, will reflect the 
> >situation in the battle field. It means the absolute and complete surrunder
> >of the Armed Forces (the backbone of the old State.)
> 
> Luis the above makes some sort of sense to me. If it is true...
> 
> Robert writes:
> > But what does this have to do with class struggle.If a 
> >> peace is neccessary, it would have to be along the lines of Lenins and 
> >> Trotsky,s peace deal with the Germans, preventing any outside intervention 
> >> if the Peruvian proletariat and the peasantry were to seize power. That 
> >> would be legitimate. But making deals with the Peruvian class enemies is a 
> >> betrayal and Gonzalo the main spokesman for sticking a knife into the back 
> >> of a victorious seizure of power in Peru..
> Luis writes:
> >You are missing the point here. You began by a wrong assumption that I 
> >clarified before, and obviously arrived to a wrong conclusion. The threat
> >of massive U.S. military intervention is a reality, it eventually will take 
> >place (directly or indirectly through bordering countries using the UN or
> >OAS charade), but that's not reason to cut deals with imperialism. In these
> >circunstances the situation of the war will change into a National 
> >Liberation struggle, the National Liberation Front led by the PCP will be 
> >broadened. The PCP Document "Let the Strategic Equilibriun Rock
> >the Country" explains in detail these possibilities [for our readers, we 
> >will put it in the PCP Web page shortly.] Malecki, I'll be glad to 
> >send you a copy so you can understand better this issue. Chairman Gonzalo
> >is the main architect of the PCP, he would never capitulate to the enemy.
> >The intelligence forces falsify his views, even fabricate "peace letters"
> >which were denounced by the PCP as counterrevolutinaries hoaxes.
> >That's why important to study the documents which is at your disposal
> >in the web page http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp
> >First investigate, then talk. Comrades may be posting partial quotes,
> >it is neccesary in what context President Gonzalo is being quoted.
> 
> Luis: if the first at least made sense the above nonsense does not. There is 
> always a danger of imperialist encirclement yes. But thaty does not turn the 
> struggle into a national liberation front. The Peruvians can not rely on 
> their own bourgreoisie nor make any deals to fight outside intervention. A 
> Bolshevik party would turn to the workers and peasants in the whole Latin 
> America and made the struggle a struggle against not only imperialism but 
> there lackies in power who support them. Many of the so called situations in 
> Haiti, Nicaragua, where the possibility for revolution was beginning to 
> mature was side tracked just because the question was put as you put it 
> above. We must stand for independence of the working class and spreading the 
> revolution throughout Latin America rather then turn towards making deals 
> with "the progressive bourgeois forces" in individual countries that might 
> lean towards some sort of anti-imperialist stance in order to stab the 
> revolution in the back. 
> 
> The whole discussion of the February revolution and the October revolution 
> that Lenin stood for and tactics for revolutionaries is the question then 
> just as it is now in Peru. The Mensheviks put the revolution in the hands of 
> the "progressive Bougeoisie" after the February revolution. Lenin and the 
> Bolsheviks including Trotsky turned the party towards the Octber revolution. 
> In fact dragged the party including Stalin away from a dangerous tendency to 
> capitulate to the Menshevik line..
> 
> Gonzalo and Mao are doing the same thing. Although Mao finally did take 
> power and in Vietnam the liberation front did take power and these gains 
> should be defended does not mean that it was correct. In fact the reasons 
> that we have the situation both in Russia and China today is because both 
> Stalin and Mao never followed the line of Lenin on this question. What is 
> going on constantly wioth these tendencies historically has always been, 
> which part of the bourgeoisie or imperialism one makes a deal with. 
> 
> For Lenin it was never a question of a deal. He stated clearly to the 
> workers the reasons for signing a peace treaty with the Germans. It was to 
> consolidate the russian revolution and smash the capitalists and fuedalists 
> in Russia while at the same time trying to extend the revolution 
> internationally. This by building the Communist International and supporting 
> the building of Bolshevik parties everywhere to fight for the dictatorship 
> of the proletariat...
> 
> malecki in exile
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:02:44 +1000 (EST)
> Subject: Non reply to Luftmensch was re-queer theory
> 
> At 03:02 AM 4/25/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >re-queer theory
> >
> >Hello Gary -
> >
> >Reading your post on queer theory, I found the identity politics 
> >you invoke reminiscent of zionism. Being opposed to zionist practices 
> >and ideological mystifications, I find myself at loggerheads with 
> >the spirit of your argument.  
> >
> >1. I question the application of the term homosexual to people - 
> >rather than acts. Likewise, the term heterosexual. I was under 
> >the impression that the term queer was advanced to overcome 
> >that kind of either/or sexual world of straights or gays by positing 
> >a polymorphically perverse alternative that is not reducible 
> >to the sex of your partner(s). 
> >
> >2. You  wrote of "the emanciaptory potential of identity  politics." 
> >But where is the potential if, in your own words, it is  "an identity 
> >which above all is built on the fact of existence or survival." 
> >
> >3. Sartre had a nuance to the biographical politics he evolved which,
> > although much evident in identity politics, goes unregonized. It is called
> >self-deception, or bad faith. In identity politics, it takes the form of an 
> >essence which is accepted as natural or ahistorical. 
> >
> >Michael 
> 
> Like everything you write comrade Luftmensch this is bloody clever.  i will
> mull over  it over the week end and try and come up with a response as half
> as smart.
> 
> thank  you for responding
> 
> gary
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:55:12 +0200 (MET DST)
> Subject: Re: VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL LAW
> 
> Someone write:
> >
> >A well disciplined Communist Party armed with the theory of 
> >Marxism-Leninism, using the method of self-criticism and linked with the 
> >masses of the people; an army under the leadership of such a Party; a 
> >united front of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups 
> >under the leadership of such a Party -- these are the three main weapons 
> >with which the class-conscious workers and the oppressed and 
> >revolutionary masses in Australia can overthrow the reactionary state 
> >power. 
> >
> >FOR MORE INFORMATION
> >contact the
> >Committee for a Revolutionary
> >Communist Party in Australia 
> >(CRCPA)
> >by writing to:-
> >
> Well the above incapsules the very basis of our differences. When you say "a 
> united front of all the revolutionary classes" and Luis goes on about "the 
> national Liberation Front". They are both the end of the same stick. The 
> maoists see for some reason their are revolutionary classes other then the 
> proletariat. That is what all this stuff about "peoples war" really means.
> 
> You do not want to arm the proletariat as the only revolutionary class! You 
> are always trying to find partners. The proletariat has time and again been 
> sold down the drain with tjhis idealogy. It has been the grave digger of 
> most revolutionary situations since 1917. Perhaps the only time this policy 
> was not used by the Stalinists was in Germany whern Stalin made the Social 
> Democrats the main enemy in a brief "red front" period. This led to the 
> destruction of the German Proletariat and probably a lot of good communists 
> who followed that line.
> 
> You will never make me believe that it is right to build and alliance with 
> the bourgeoisie.
> 
> Another thing is that luis compares the Is as being trotskyists. Bulllshit 
> in fact they are so far from anything that both Lenin or Trotsky ever said 
> or stood for.
> 
> Only complete independence from all wings of the bougeoisie and proletarian 
> independence to struggle and make the dictatorship of the proletariat is 
> correct. Only by spreading the revolution to all of Latin America is correct.
> 
> All talk of multi revolutionary classes is to throw sand in the eyes of the 
> only really revolutionary class the proletariat..
> 
> The bottom line in the fight between you and luis and i is this 
> question.Your bottom line is not proletarian revolution by the working class 
> but peoples revolution with revolution of classes in the plural. This line 
> means making a deal with the class enemy and ultimately of stabbing the 
> revolutionary proleatriat in the back comrades.
> 
> No way my friends. Anybody that sees more then one revolutionary class then 
> the one i belong to is going to betray us..
> 
> malecki in exile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:21:44 +0200 (MET DST)
> Subject: Nazi,s find haven in Sweden!
> 
> On Swedish text tv news.
> 
> The Nazi,s in Europe have found a haven here in Sweden. Here they can freely 
> produce cd,s, books, newspapers and nazi symbols which is forbidden in many 
> European countries today.
> 
> The above is true and the Nazi,s in Europe are using Sweden as a base to 
> produce their material. 
> 
> malecki in exile
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: Jorn Andersen <ccc6639-AT-vip.cybercity.dk>
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:21:26 +0200
> Subject: Re: marxism2 list
> 
> Stop this crude workerism, Robert. I'm just as much
> a worker as you are - there's a lot of us on M1 as
> well as on M2.
> 
> You said:
> > Some of the things you have said on this list have been
> > interesting and perhaps helpful. But the above is very near a
> > step in defending the ivory tower and Lisa who in actions have
> > acted liked cops. You hear cops!
> 
> I don't think Lisa "acted like cops" - more like a chair of
> a meeting (whose decissions of course you can agree with or
> disagree, but that demands that you accept the purpose of the
> metting - and as I remember you were against the M2-project
> from the outset, weren't you?)
> 
> I think the creation of two lists with a different "culture"
> was a good result from a *boring* debate. It was stated clearly
> from the start that M2 would be moderated with Lisa as "chair".
> 
> I haven't been on the list much longer than you , but one thing
> I've learned is that if you want to get something from it, some
> sort of accommodation to the "culture" on the different lists
> is necessary. This of course doesn't include *political* 
> accomodation.
> 
> You wrote: 
> > There is almost a set of rules of how one should fight on this list. How one
> > should think and most of all workers here according to you where the action
> > hasn,t started yet. Well for working class kids the action has beeen going
> > on all our fucking lives.
> 
> Don't tell me that. And don't tell me that workers don't
> know that there has to be some rules of how to fight
> and debate. If I didn't know better, I would have
> doubted that you'd ever been to a trade union meeting,
> a meeting of strikers or whatever.
> 
> The problem with cyberspace is that you have no physical
> power to
--------------------------------------------------
      Thomas Faust,  Berliner Volksuniversitaet
             E-Mail: cerebus-AT-fu-berlin.de


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