A modicum of civility

Ken Howard kenhow at werple.mira.net.au
Tue Apr 2 10:11:11 MST 1996

>>On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, hariette spierings wrote:
>>> So why don't you put politics in command my dear fellow and give as your
>>> position on the questions raised instead of simple comments that only add to
>>> the confussion.  This is the last time I at ll bother with you if you do not
>>> now yourself put "politics in command" in deeds and not just in words. OK!
>>How *odd*, Adolfo. I'm a very recent newcomer to this list, and I *have*
>>been putting my views out. Most primarily, in terms of a) the need to
>>reassess revolutionary politics in a new period (a point on which you and
>>I may not agree), b) on Stalinism in general, c) on economic growth and
>>direction under socialism, and then on a number of peripheral issues.
>>Of course, should you choose not to see my positions, that's a very
>>different kettle of fish altogether.
>There you are, you are putting generalities and peripheral issues in
>command, apart from your admonitions - mostly directed against the
>revolutionaries, since it took me to point it out to you for you to even
>"notice" the minor detail that "doug" was in fact using "unpolitical"
>language which could not but be answered with scorn.  That is not putting
>politics in command, that is ducking the issues and putting trivia in
>command, C2.
>May we now have your position on the fundamentals of this discussion, are
>you for or against the revolution in Peru, are you with its friends, or with
>its enemies, and in a question like that, there is no room for equivocation.
>If you equivocate in something so fundamental to a class position, you would
>not be putting politics, but equivocation in command.  So, in a short and
>clear note, if at all possible we await your response.  When you actually
>put "politics in commnad" clarity is one of the fundamental results.
>     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
What absolute bullshit you spout. Yeah, I'm for socialist revolution in
Peru as for the rest of the world, but how pretentious of you to consider
that you have won a "victory" and can get away with the nonsense that the
only revolutionary is one who supports the PCP leadership faction. Do you
deny the following :
a. A significant section of the PCP on the ground is opposed to the current
unflinching line of the leadership faction.
b.The PCP leadership faction has only ever allowed one congress of members
in 14 years.
c. Homosexuality is considered by the leadership faction of the PCP to be a
corrupter of youth
d.The debacles of the PKI in Indonesia,the CCP in Phillipines, the
Naxalites in India, all who followed the "peoples war line" to the
exclusion of mass work led to the needless slaughter of hundreds of
thousands if not millions of people.

Over the last few days the posts from the PCP leadership faction supporters
have started to make some sense in respect to considering the very real
problems of revolutionary strategy today. However,even though you are only
speaking for yourself (as you have admitted) to revert to this arrant
secterian bullshit does you a disserve and once again exposes you as the
unflinching secterian that you are.When will you ever learn.
Ken Howard.

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

More information about the Marxism mailing list