Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:08:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: World Mobilization Commission & Rolf Martens


Louis G.,

You wrote:

>Rolf,  I don't want to spend 600 posts on this subject between now and All
>Saints Day,  but do try and calm down--and remember you and a lot of other
>people (including myself) put our signatures to a statement very similar to
>this one last spring.   
>
>So,   what's changed?  
>
>
>Louis Godena


It's the manner of doing things, for Chris' sake, comrade Louis!

See also a declaration which I just posted.

*You* signed a statement last spring, and so did *I*.

*Now*, a communique appears, one of August 96, in which
some of those organizations appear as signatories which
likewise endorsed that statement, but your name, for instance,
is *not* on it, nor is mine. I suppose you haven't been
asked beforehand about whether you wanted to sign it either?
I at any rate was not.

Then what *is* this? Are not we two (and Charlotte Kates,
who also endorsed the Call for a WMC as an individual) in
practice made into "unpersons" here? Why were we not asked?

It's *not* unimportant to inform the public *correctly*
on *who* are the endorsers of the Call for the WMC!

This is not done here, is it?

True enough, that committe which I understand you belong to
appears as a signatory. Has it really held a meeting to endorse
an *August 1996* statement? NB it's *not* exactly the same
statement as the Call either, but something mysteriously called
a "Communique No 1".

The IEC group I'm in, the group here in Malmoe, figures as
a signatory. It certainly has *not* been asked to sign.

If you personally don't mind being made into an unperson,
I certainly do. And I do mind people pretending certain
organizations signing things, when in fact they have not.
Even if, as in this case, I would wish that this was the case.

Doesn't the suspicion arise here that "IEC - Malmoe - Sweden"
is being used as a "substitute" for my name. But I and that
group are bloody well not the same thing, dammit!

And this here thing is being done by comrades in which until
now I had trust. Do you think that, because of that, we should
swallow it, or what? *De ninguna manera*, on my part at least.

In my case, at least - I don't know about you, but I hold
the same principle must apply to you too - I occupy a certain
position in international political life, since some time back
too. True, I am only an individual, a microbe if you want,
but the thing is, I've consistently represented and advocated
a certain political line, namely, that of Marx, Lenin and
Mao Zedong, for a couple of decades within Sweden, for a
couple of years visibly internationally too. I don't accept
things being described as if I were not, as an individual, one
of the endorsers of the WMC.

And this is not the only thing that's
completely impermissible about this "comminique".

It hints, not least, at there already existing a WMC,
doesn't it? Though this is not clear either. So we have
confusion. And if there already were a WMC - would you
accept its formation without us co-endorsers being as much
as consulted in the least way beforehand? I think you
shouldn't

Do you really not see that things must *not* be allowed to
be presented in such a manner?

I'll certainly *not* "calm down" on this, you can rely on that!

"600 posts on this between now and All Saints Day"? You said it
Louis, I do think the comrades need to get 6000, so perhaps 
they'll understand how *not* to do things!

I hope the other WMC endorsers who likewise are on the Swoons
Collection Marxism list see this too.


Rolf M.



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