Adolfo: "don't pay any attention to Faatz!!" Ha!

Chris Faatz cfaatz at
Thu Apr 4 22:42:54 MST 1996

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, hariette spierings wrote:

I am truly honored. Chariman Adolfo has deigned hisself to take a few
well-spoken swings at me!

Onward, as a friend puts it....


> >Yeah. Scurrilous names and defamation are hardly Maoist practices, are
> >they, Jay? I mean, Gina and I have serious differences--obviously--but
> >she didn't feel the need to dis me, but, rather, attempted to dispute
> >the points I made. Same with Matt D.
> >
> >The evidence you've given of Marxist knowledge is strangely non-existent,
> >outside the use of certain terms of opprobrium worthy of a ML-wanna-be
> >kindergartner. Can you debate the question raised above, or can't you?
> >What comes first, the nation or the class? Who leads the revolution,
> >the peasantry or the workers? What are the priorities involved in tactical
> >and strategic struggle?
> >
> Those are the typical questions of a philistine who does not distinguish
> between oppressed countries - who have no independence, mainly economic, but
> also political one - and imperialists countries.

Fascinating analysis.
> Lenin said:
> "Nations are an inevitable product, and inevitable form, in the bourgeois
> epoch of social development.  And the working class cannot grow strong,
> become mature and take shape if it does not "CONSTITUTE ITSELF THE NATION",
> if it is not "NATIONAL" ("though not in Bourgeois sense of the word"), but
> the development of capitalism more and more breaks down national barriers,
> destroys national seclusion, substitutes class antagonisms for national
> antagonisms.  It is, therefore perfectly true that in the DEVELOPED
> CAPITALIST COUNTRIES "the working men have no country" and that "united
> action" by the workers of the civilized countries at least, "is one of the
> pre-conditions for the emencipation of the proletariat (quotes in "..." are
> from the Communist Manifesto).

I have no argument with this, nor have I raised one. You're being foolish,
Adolfo--I asked questions, and you took umbrage at the questions with no
idea what my response would be. *Of course* the liberation of the nation
>from imperialism is among the first steps of any revolution in an
oppressed nation--China, Peru. And, it's equally true that, due to their
subservient relationship to international capital--imperialism--that the
national ruling classes are incapable of leading such revolutins. So, who
does? The oppressed, under the leadership of the working class and its
Party and allies.

Dialectics is not a simple either/or as you seem to think, from your
quote, and the following paragraph. I don't posit "class or nation,"
as you seem to do; I see the two, in a world balance of forces, as
being inextricably bound together. The act of the emancipation of the
nation is *inseparable* from the act of the working class assuming its
leadership; and, the revolution's success is, in turn, dependent, to a
more or less extent, on the nature of the relationships of support it's
capable of building with other revolutionary regimes internationally,
and with solidarity movements in the oppressor countries.

The Peruvian revolution *does not* stand alone. And, it can't. Too bad
the PCP goes so far to isolate it from revolutionary movements in every
otehr nation in the world--oh yeah, 'scuse me, they're not pure enough....
> In the oppressed countries the workers must still constitute themselves, the
> nation, since this countries are oppressed countries. The ignorance and
> reactionary position of this fellow is veritably monumental, serves its own
> imperialist ruling class, and babbles "maoism" out of any context!

But they're doomed to sink in on themselves if they don't take steps,
while taking the necessary steps to *defend* their revolutions at home, to
*aid* and *spread* revolution abroad. And, if your behavior on this list,
and that of your political co-thinkers (if that's the correct verb) is
any indication, then your arrogance and deceitfulness and inability to
argue facts without using malicious innuendoes and mischaracterizations
worthy of the most infantile of Trot sectarians already is a potent
indicator of the potential of your success in all of these things.

I know how you'll defend your "revolution" if, God forbid, you win it--
by killing everyone who disagrees with you, and eventually capitulating
to imperialism. Your class roots show, Adolfo--p.b. to the core. No
depth to your thinking. No serious analysis, just "quotifying." You're
sad, dude, sad.

Oh, and btw--I'm no more maoist than my mom is. But then, neither are
> Don't pay any attention!

Did you get that PCPers? Don't pay any attention to me. I might have
something to say. This is pathetic.
> PS: The country of the Peruvian proletariat, its national land and wealth,
> is being sucked dry by imperialist monopolies who give these "marxists" a
> few crumbs from their table in order to get them to swear against the
> "national interest" of the opressed nations in the name of "Marxism".
> Proletarians in oppressor countries must oppose the national interests and
> thus sacrifice their own "immediate" (economic) interests - that is true
> proletarian anti-imperialism.  That is their duty.  And how a fellow like C2
> discharges it? It discharges insulting the revolutionaries who wnat to
> snatch a colony from his bosses!  Great internationalism.  The
> internationalism of the banks and multinationationals!

Jesus, you really don't read well, do you? You asked what my opinions were
on the Peruvian revolution. I answered. You don't like them. So, now I'm
insulting the "revolutionaries," etc. I think my positions are clear. And
I don't think you provide any kind of vanguard banner at all, except for
those who need bullies and liars to push an artifical and extremely
fragile pseudo-political edifice.

Quotes and undisputable assertions. Oh, and mischaracterizations galore.
What is it that Lenin said? Nothing is more revolutionary that reality
itself. You might check it out....
> Proletarians in oppressed countries MUST FIRST win the nation back for
> themselves - away from the vampires that feed C2, because without a country
> you can call your own there cannot be socialism, nor the long term interests
> of the class be fulfilled.  Unmask the social-imperialists (socialists in
> words, even "maoists", but imperialists in deeds!)

Hey--at least I've moved up from being a reactionary to being a

Yours for the Peruvian revolution under a *real* vanguard,


     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list