Is Spoons an area of serious struggle? If so...

Vladimir Bilenkin "achekhov at" at
Sat Aug 31 14:28:43 MDT 1996

> From owner-marxism  Sat Aug 31 13:48:39 1996
> Return-Path: owner-marxism
> Received: (from daemon at localhost) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6) id NAA24049 for marxism-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 13:48:36 -0400
> Received: from (cbcox at []) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA27372 for <marxis
> Received: by (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03)

> Comrades,
>     It seems to me that many of the howls and shrieks about Spoon are
> close to being a trivialization of the entire history of proletarian
> struggle, as if the loss of a certain kind of maillist were the
> equivalent of the slaughter of the Communards. The bourgeois cliche
> about "radical chic" comes to mind.

Please, substantiate this charge by quotes from Ang's and my messages.

>     In a posting yesterday on communism and religion, I alluded to
> an exchange between Lenin and Trotsky on the importance of Father
> Gapon(s) to the revolution. I think Lenin was correct and Trotsky
> almost tragically wrong on that point. So if we are going to
> treat a few maillists as the equivalent of the entire fucking
> capitalist world, and our activities here as having the dramatic
> importance of the Battle for Algiers, let's bring some major principles
> to bear on this bush league squabble.
>     The communist revolution is not going to be won by forces most
> of whom are communists. The revolutionary forces include many many
> quite different elements. (Carl Davidson's remarks in a posting today
> on the Black Church emphasize just one of such forces.) Among those
> elements, crucially* among those elements are a miscellany of
> non-communist progressives, allies, sympathizers, etc. etc.

Is this a wishful thinking or a conclusion drawn from the
historical experience of proletarian struggle and a marxist
analysis of the present configuration of class forces in its

I am afraid that "revolutionary" forces in this country include
precious few "elements," in dangerous contrast to the forces of
American fascism. And let me also remind you that this is an
international list. Before making your bold projections about the
revolutionary role of the Black Church and a miscellany of other
US communist sympathizers, you'd be well advised to look
 at the experience of revolutionary nations.

>     Just as Lenin regarded it as so much hot air to deny the
> importance of future Father Gapons, it is so much hot air on
> the part of Ang and Vladimir to believe that it is even remotely
> possible to carry on communist work without the cooperation of
> thousands (hundreds of thousands) of people like those in
> Spoons.

This is, obviously, a misrepresentation of my position, and as any
other form of intellectual sloppiness does disservice to communist

>     So, either this list or any other lists Spoons might or might
> not sponsor is not so all fired a big deal as Ang and Vladimir
> are claiming, OR--it is a big deal, a field of battle, and
> serious as opposed to chic revolutionaries take seriously the
> acquisition of such allies as the Spoon collective.
>     Comraely,
>     Carrol

I am not sure I understand the exact meaning of this passage.
I can only say that it would be DISASTROUS for communists not
to work toward the most close cooperation with people like the
Spoon collective, as it would be, no doubt, SUICIDAL to comromise
our principles and goals for the sake of such cooperation.


     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list