Don Adolfo responds was Re: The Shining List

g.maclennan g.maclennan at
Mon Apr 8 22:31:07 MDT 1996

>Mr. Mcllelan, unlike Rodwell, has given us his family history, and a
>illustrious one it is, all the way back to the potato famine and the
>oppression of the peasantry in Ireland, the Great Depression, and the slums,
>and moreover, he derives great pride on this, and uses it shamelessly as
>political capital.
>Mr. Macllelan is also an aristocrat, and "aristocrat of labour", the heir of
>past struggles and sufferings which he now uses to attack and vilify the
>struggles of other peasants and workers.  That is how he uses his political
>Hugh Rodwell, on the other hand, is even more aristocratic since he does not
>even bother to conceal his disgust about how "ugly" the real revolutionary
>movements are. His is more an Oscar Wilde kind of political capital.

Lord Olaechea  does not spell my name correctly but you know droit de
seigneur probably gives him some sort of obcure right here.  Now the point
of my mentioning my family background is that it gives me the shits to see
the poseur from Peru raving on about the "oppressed masses."  Nothing that
this Junker has said gives me any cause to change that view.

Significantly the great revolutionary aristocrat has not deigned to reply to
my challenge on his position with regard to gays  nor my characterisation of
Stalin's criminalisation of homosexualtiy in Russia in 1934 as a counter
revolutionary act.  There is also nothing but silence from the cackling
jackals, gina, Tony, Jay and the Qusipe connection.

There is a serious point here underpinning the homophobia of the machismo
culture that has spawned Prince Olechea,  that is that Don Adolfo and his
Maoist minions operate with a crude undifferentiated totality, namely the
"masses".  this is classically typical of stalinist and Laborist thought.
Here the prince has more in common with the Labor Aristocrats that he would
care to admit.

A basic  problem with operating with notions like the "masses" is that it
becomes all too easy to define some person or groups out of the "masses", to
construct them as "other",  and then to liquidate them either literally or
metaphorically.  To be properly emancipatory we need to preserve a notion of
the rights of the individual.

Now within traditional socialist thought gays have been seen as the feared
other to be hated or laughed at or pitied depnding on the amount of fear
involved and the strategy adopted to cope with it.  Whatever the case Gays
were typically thought to be "middle class" and not part of the decent
working class.

Within Stalinist thought gays have remained the feared despised Other. they
were not regarded as part of the "masses". As Ken has pointed out Castro's
first actions towards gay people were conditioned by this belief. It is good
that this is changing.

However one can only guess at the consciousness of  the PCP on the question
of the self emancipation of gays...  Certainly  the silence from their
representatives on this list is not a good sign.  And what did Don Adolfo
mean by the reference to "Oscar Wilde kind of political capital"? hhmmm



BTW comrades I apologise for the double posting of The shining List.  The
uni took a break over the weekend and my mail backed up.

school of media & journalism

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list