Adolfo as hoax
concrete at idiom.com
Wed Apr 24 23:53:51 MDT 1996
hariette spierings wrote:
> >Now I let the cat out of the bag. I hope Adolfo does not feel
> >betrayed because I have so little confidence that my dialogue with him
> >will ultimately lead to agreement. I would like to push this dialogue as
> >far as it can go, and I do not know where the major points of
> >contention will be, but once we know where they are, we can take stock
> >and jointly analyze what causes the impasse. If Adolfo at some point
> >will brand me as a fascist and counterrevolutionary, then I know
> >that we have reached this point. But Adolfo has been listening to this
> >list very carefully, and I think that on some level he knows that
> >I am not his enemy, but that ultimately we fight for the same
> Dear Hans:
> Thanks for your high opinion about my "smarts". It is no good to have your
> head "swollen" you know, one must always let it cool off for a while after
> I hope indeed that I won't dissapoint you or any other serious member of
> this list, and that we can both, as well as others who have willingness to
> listen and think about what is being said, that we have the intellectual
> integrity not to jump to conclussions but to give things enough time to sink in.
> It is impossible not to be one sided at all in arguing any case. However,
> this is much more marked when debates heat up and class interests are
> directly and sharply involved. As Lenin said: "...if geometrical axioms
> affected human interests attempts will certainly be made to refute them".
> There are many themes that relate to the concerns of members of the list
> that we cannot deal but in a one sided manner - by the statement of general
> principles - at present. And this will be so for a time, since the path of
> understanding should not be to bombard each other with questions of a
> secondary nature - although they may appear as of a primary nature for those
> SECTIONS who are directly affected by a problem in particular - in relation
> to the bigger picture these are still indeed questions of a secondary nature.
> That is not to deny their importance, just to give them the right
> perspective. For example, there is the question of sexuality and sexual
> relationships, which for me is a secondary question but for others,
> obviously, is a primary one. On this, I have already stated the general
> principles. General principles are there to be applied, and it is on their
> application that one must judge their validity for any concrete situation.
> This kind of subjects cannot be helped at present, except by re-stating some
> principles relating to the condition of membership of any Communist Party in
> general. That only answers part of the question - I am aware. But the
> question of, in any case, only a tiny minority in this list being willing or
> able to be members of a Communist Party of the type I describe, hardly
> arises now. Or does it? So what is the point in racing down this road at
> I believe that you have stricken the right tone for a proper form of
> approaching the question of furthering mutual understanding, and if you
> stick to the principles - democratic ones - that you have proposed, I think
> that things can indeed advance.
> However, I like to take the opportunity of this note to lay down certain
> ground rules of my own on the question of my participation in this list, so
> that no mis-understandings, or rather, fewer mis-understandings - arise in
> the future:
> 1.- I will now enter this discussions in a personal capacity, not as
> spokesman for Committee Sol Peru, nor of the PCP or any body else including
> the Stalin Society. Here we are in a forum.
> 2.- I will not answer obvious provocations, slanders or flippant questions
> of any kind, unless I wish to do so for my own amusement. So a lot of things
> will not merit an answer from me at all, and no one should expect one just
> because they have posted this type of thing phrased as questions.
> 3.- I will not debate any further the question of Stalin since that was
> pretty much exhausted in the first debate and then some of those who now
> want to drag this back into the fray preferred then to say that "they had
> nothing further to say" on this, and that was that. So why now? However,
> and just to put things in the correct perspective, I have to point out the
> following: I do not believe there is anything as such as "Stalinism".
> For me Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist on the main, and a great one at that.
> Whatever of Stalin's ideological position coincides with that is only
> Marxism-Leninism, and whatever does not, does not constitute an ideological
> school of its own, except if one would like to call those deviations
> "Stalin's Trotskyst deviations" and then that school of thought - minus the
> Marxism of Stalin - is well represented already, even now, in this list, in
> my opinion.
> The documents I have written before on this question stand on the record,
> and they could not refute these then, they cannot refute them now, nor they
> will be able to do so in the future, except by re-stating their original
> position in a different way.
> And what is this position?: Stalinism is bad and is dead, and is responsible
> for every thing that ever went wrong and is likely to go wrong in the
> future, including natural disasters - Lenin's own death from natural causes,
> as I showed in one posting, is attributed among others just as natural, to
> Stalin as well, by these gentlemen who trumpet this line as the main
> obssession of their lives.
> So, if "Stalinism" is dead, and the surface is already so even, why kick the
> floor boards so hard?. No more will be accepted on this issue, until a
> better understanding is achieved on more principal ones.
> 3.- On the questions of subjects to enter into discussions, I will also
> exercise my discretion, accepting some and rejecting or ignoring others.
> Even if I had all the time available that would be needed, I cannot possibly
> deal with everything in a disorderly fashion. A world view can emerge, and
> will emerge, in the debate of any concrete subject in particular.
> 4.- I will cut off any discussion - or refuse to comment on any posting -
> which is entered with the intention to simple dissemble an argument by
> cutting off pieces here and there or taking quotes out of context. We are
> no longer in "open warfare" now in this list. I think that the practice of
> taking apart a thesis by commenting underneath each paragraph is not
> appropiate for a forum of this kind, it shows a superficial desire to
> counterpose everything without bothering to make the effort to actually
> refute something in a coherent fashion.
> One must of course put quotations to illustrate points in one's own line of
> argumentation and in order to show up the inconsistencies of any rival.
> That is a very different practice. People can do what they like, but I would
> not dignify that method with an answer. I have used it myself in the past,
> but then it was a method of "warfare" to counter also "warfare methods"
> being used against us.
> As they say: We are all scholars now!, and who does not want to be, will
> elicit no answer from me at all.
> Otherwise, "Let One Hundred Flowers Bloom and One Hundred Schools of Though
> Contend", and the innevitable weeds in the background will not bother us,
> they are there so that the blossoms can be appreciated all the better for
> being framed by such contrasting background. This is still a "Wild Garden"
> and the weeds will only subside and go away as the real worthwhile blooms
> develop and multiply!
> Adolfo Olaechea
> PS: Despite the claims of some people before, I am indeed a busy person and
> I won't play "Agony Aunt" to everybody, so people must not be offended if
> some questions are not dealt with, or if answers take a while to materialise
> on any "burning issue" that may concern them at any present moment. I am
> not here to "build" anything, and I do not claim all the answers either. We
> are all here to contribute and further an understanding of Marxism that may
> serve for the advancement of the objectives of this ideology.
Your quasi-confessional bureacratese will not contribute one iota to a
Marxist understanding of anything - instead it is an impenetrable
barrier to be swept down the flushhole.
Others: note the (typically stalinist) undertone of grovelling obsequity
in this quite remarkable passage of Adolpho Os'. The remaining
intellectuals on this list should be all over this with a psychological
analysis. Stalinism-Maoism etc., is best understood as a form of
political psychopathology, and, as I have argued before on this l*st, is
most meaningfully understood with this approach. It is also the best
antidote to their assault on this l*st, far better than any attempt to
lend an air of seriousness to their ridiculous political assertions by
any direct political address.
So, any analyses of said above passage?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism