ROLF: Who's the pessimist, Gina?

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Mon Jun 3 13:46:41 MDT 1996


Gina,
You wrote i.a.:

(to me:)
>then=20
>you yourself accepted a position of responsibility in an organization led=
=20
>by him [Avakian - RM]and his line, so, as we say here in Gringo-land,=20
>people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. =20

That=A8s a *ridiculous* untruth, really in the "best" Avakian-"Quispe"=20
tradition. I do have a postion of reponsibiulity in the IEC. But this=20
organization was never "led by" Avakian. In contradiction to the "RIM",=20
which you continue defending, the IEC has something called *rules* -
its by-laws, to be more exact. These by-laws state the purpose of
this organization etc, and expressly state that the IEC is
led by its Steering Committe. I'm one of the members of this
IEC "parliament". The IEC also has a "goverment", its Coordinating
Committee. We, the delegates at the 1993 IEC Founding Conference,
who all became SC members during it and who held our first (and
so far only) pleanry meeting, elected it and voted for the
proposed by-laws to take effect, thus formally founding that
organixation, the IEC.

Please have a little more patience with me on this subject,
Avakian-"Quispe"ist ex-comrade, - I'm going to inform you about=20
something that's obviously new to you: What is an organization?

One of the characterisics of such a thing is that it has *rules*,
to govern the relationship between various parts of it, for
instance. As you may know, as I pointed out in my UNITE! Info
#3en, for instance, the "RIM" is *not* really an organization.
It has no (publicly known) rules whatever to govern the
relationship between its *participating* parties (etc), as they
in official "RIM" terminology are called, and the so-called "CoRIM",=20
which supposedly is a "ruling body" of the "RIM" in one manner or
other - nobody knows in what more precise way. The "RIM" wasn't
"founded" either, as was the IEC; the official term for the
"RIM":s coming into existence is that it was "formed".

The "RIM", organisatorically speaking, thus is constructed on
mafia-like principles, or you could also say Avakianist
organisatorical principles.

You perhaps have seen the IEC by-laws, and also the documents
>from its Founding Conference stating, i.a., who were elected
members of the Coordinating Committee.

*Nowhere* do these by-laws or these documents state that "the
IEC is led by Avakian". I don't think that's really news to you.

Do you think perhaps I'm a "formalist", Gina? But this is how=20
*organisations* - as opposed to mafias - work. What's stated in the=20
papers goes. The international proletariat, for instance, needs=20
organizations. They don't need mafias.

Now let's look at the other thing you stated: That the IEC was
"led by Avakian's line". Well, initially, it was *not*. It
was led, in the beginning, by the line of its documents including=20
the by-laws, which was a correct, or certainly not erroneous,
line for that united-front organization.

Now the people in the Coordinating Committee were "Avakian's
people", if you like, but, as long as they did what they were
supposed to do, nobody could have any objection to that. The
quite open showing by Avakian etc of their true colours had
at that time not taken place yet.

Later, however, the Coordinating Committee did start following
Avakian's line, which from late 1993 onwards openly showed
up as pro-US-imperialism activity - they suppressed the vital PCP CC=20
declaration of Oct '93 which condemned the "peace letters" plot, and=20
also suppressed an important statement by our - the IEC's -
Bolivian chapter of 04.02.94 which expressly supported that
declaration.

Should *I* be criticized for the Coordinating Committe's
following Avakian's line? No. I did vote for those people=20
in Feb '93. But I couldn't kave known in advance - could I? -
that they were going to do such things as they later did.

At that point, we had an *organization* - please note that
word again - which was *not*, as you maintain, led by
Avakian but which had started following his reactionary=20
line. Was there anything I could do about that, and did
I do or try to do anything about it?

On both counts the answer is YES. Your so-called criticism
of me on this point, too, thus is quite mendacious and=20
insulting in the typical manner of your new mafia masters, you=20
hypocritical crook who're pissing and shitting on those
masses you pretend to be so fond of.=20

Your criticism in fact is so far of the mark as to be practically=20
upside-down, for precisely *I* did at least, utilizing that=20
position as SC member which I had, see to it that the IEC=20
Coordinating Committe *was forced to commit an openly illegal=20
act* if it were to continue following Avakian's line. This then=20
gave - theoretically, only, since I was unable to contact the
others - our body a possibilty of *deposing" "our govern-
ment", and also made it clear to the masses, as far my
own information could reach, that the IEC CC *was* not only
Avakianist but also illegal.=20

How did I do this? I utilized those things called *rules*.
I wrote a letter to the IEC CC, requesting it be circulated
to all other SC mebers as well (in more than 30 countries)
and proposing that we, the IEC, *publish* internationally that
PCP CC declaration which Avakian etc so foully were suppressing.

Incidentially, I first, before writing on my own, tried to
get our Malmoe IEC group to write such a letter, and when they
refused, following the order of the "local Inka" your gangster friend
Mr. TP, I also had achieved something else, namely, nailing that
scum squarely and for all to see to the defence of your common
master Avakian. This recently turned out to be a good thing,
since I and others then could nail your gangster master No. 2,
Quaspie, through his continued support of the Avakianist T.P.
scumbag, to Avakian himself, whom he, like youself, has tried to
decieve the masses into believing he "opposed".

Now, on receiving my letter, what did the IEC CC in London, sitting
there in the same house as the "RIM" central, do? What I suspected
they would, of course. They suppressed it, did *not* circulate it,
as they according to our by-laws - again these little "formalistic"
things, Ms mafia member - were obliged to do.

So now they were exposed! I already, immediately after sending
off my letter, had started publishing it, first in English and
then (in June '94) also in Spanish, and I distributed these
papers as widely as was then possible to me. In my leaflet
of 12.08.94, the later #3en posting, I pointed out that the
IEC CC was refusing circulation and thus was breaking our
by-laws, and in Feb '95, I with a leaflet in English publicly
called for the *convening of an IEC Steering Committee plenary
meeting* to depose the Avakianist IEC CC, a body which *I*,
and nobody elae, now could point to as being *illegal*,
which I did in that paper.

Our "formalistic" by-laws i.a. stated that if half the number
of SC members plus one so demanded, a plenary meeting of the
SC *was* to be held, regardless of what the CC said. Or in
parliamentary terms, we, the "parliament", could call
ourselves into session to make, for instance, a vote of no
confidence in our "government" - which was clearly called-for
since that "goverment" had made itself illegal - and elect
a new "government", a new SC, kicking the Avakianists out.

It was only my lack of international contacts, and lack of
support from others, that prevented this from being carried
out. *I* certainly did what I could, and, I believe, more
than any other SC member or other person to try to PUT A
STOP to that Avakianist line in the IEC, whose existence you=20
miserable Quashpie admirer have the gall to CRITICIZE me for.

Eech! The likes of you really make me puke!


You also quote me as writing:
=20
>>But then your postings started getting worse and worse,
>>above all by avoiding the concrete issues and hitting at people
>>from "ambush" positions.

and ask:

>Excuse me, could you elaborate?  What concrete issues have I=20
>avoided?  What constitutes an "ambush" position in an e-mail=20
>discussion?

Excuse *me*, but you now pretend to have forgotten my repeated
attempts at getting you to comment on my criticism, in my #3en,
of the "RIM" and the PCP's continued support of it. Despite your
knowledge of that - correct - criticism, you continued to main-
tain that which, formerly, had been excusable because of ignorance,
namely, that the PCP had a *correct* line on the international
situation and "provided guidance" to the peoples of the world
on this. Thereby, you made an *ambush* attack on that correct
criticism and contributed to the continued *misleading* of the
masses on important internationl issues.=20

In actual fact, the PCP was being *misled* by the Avakianists on=20
them, and still is. You had the opportunity of seeing this, or at=20
least of investigating the matter, finding out whether that=20
criticism was correct or not - which was and is very *easy* to do.=20
You refused to do so and cintinued to spread the erroneous views just=20
as if nothing had happened; you *refused* to discuss the matters with,
for instance, me. Such a line of action also is one of not taking=20
the real interests of themasses into account at all but is one
of trying to avoid those making those mistakes sour, perhaps, so that
they might stop patting you on your back.

Errors out of ignorance is one thing, continuing to commit them while=20
knowing they're errors - or simply refusing to investigate although=20
there obviously are good reasons for doing so - is quite another.

When later again, I once more suggested you comment on my #3en
and the criticism in it of the PCP*s supporting the "RIM"
bullshit, you still refused to comment and instead posted to
the Marxism list *another* document by the PCP, its "inter-
national line" from 1988, in which it said *something else* than
that what, at the same time, it was maintaining by its continued
endorsement of the document of the "RIM". Another time, I'll put
forward that point of criticism against the PCP more in detail.
But your action here was once more *avoiding the issue*.

You quoted me again:

>>My theory about "your" particular kind of opportunists is that they
>>above all feel a need to be patted on the backs. They look around
>>to see where such patting might be coming from and find certain
>>forces which are good at beating the drums for themselves as
>>"the really strong ones" - but this "happens" to be because they
>>have the (more or less secret) backing of the imperialists.=20

and made this quite notably reactionary reply:

>Gee, what about those who beg the imperialists for favors?  Better=20
>election methods; a "real" choice to keep nuclear energy for the=20
>masses in imperialist Sweden--to deposit the lethal waste in what=20
>third world country?  To sicken how many uranium miners? To risk=20
>massive destruction how many times?

Not "begging for favours", miserable Avakianist. Putting on
pressure to force your friends the bourgeoisie either to
make concessions - and I and others, very few at the start,=20
*did* force them to make such, too, in 1989-91 - or else risk
even "worse" things. *Exposing* the arch-reactionary actions
and motives of your crooked friends the Swedish bourgeosie and
your common masters the US imperialist and also Russian new
tsarist main forces. *That* was what I and others have been
doing.

And as for your *other* sentences here - now openly repeating
the bourgeois anti-nuclear-energy and generally anti-industry
lies, part of their whole *genocidal" policy in the world today,
you're just getting closer and closer to Quaspie, too, aren't
you. That point was "his" MAIN and FIRST arch-reactionary
theme in attacking me, in mid-late April. =20

A quote from me.

>>To think, to take up positions that may sometimes appear
>>difficult and perhaps aren't supported by so many at the beginning,
>>that's not what your kind of persons like. But that's what's
>>necessary for the revolution.=20

Your reply:
>
>Hmmm....It looks to me like that's exactly what I'm doing right=20
>here on this list--taking a position that perhaps isn't supported=20
>by so many--or I guess that doesn't count in your book, huh?

You're supporting the US imperialist agents Avakian and "Quispe".
SHAME on you!

Quote from me:

>>Luis G. made a criticism of you yesterday; it IMO was good except for=20
>>- perhaps - one thing: He suggested you make use of your experiance=20
>>after 10 years in the "RCP". I on my part have noted several times,=20
>>here in Sweden, that those vile phoney organizations of that type are=20
>>giving people exactly the wrong "upbringing", "teaching" them to be=20
>>dishonest, etc. So I would suggest instead that you make an effort
>>to "throw off" those years, in certain respects at least.That is,
>>if you don't want to turn into a die-hard Avakian-"Quispe"-ist but
>>could imagine breaking with that nasty "ideological current". But
>>you'll not make such a break, will you?=20

To which you have:

>I hate to break it to you, Rolfie baby, but that "ideological current"=20
>was thrown off quite some time ago.  You don't know the half of it. =20
>But I didn't throw off "Avakianism" to take up Evelyn Reedism (on the=20
>woman quesiton) or pro-nuclearism, or anti-"Gang-of-Four"-ism, or=20
>any of those other crazy ideological currents you're into.

Those "crazy" currents are called Marxism. (One of them, "Evelyn-
Reed-ism", is *not*. But I never in those brief discussions with you
stated that I supported ant *line* of hers; what I wrote was that
I had learned a lot from her information on early history - I did
not then and do not now pretend I could judge with any expertise
whether perhaps it wasn't so correct. You apparently know more on
these matters than I; its pretty ridiculous of you even to bring
such an issue up here.)

You, Gina, again:

>And, frankly, if you think Quispe and Avakian have anything in=20
>common, you haven't been paying attention to reality, you've only=20
>been soaking up internet prose.

NO reality? You want me perhaps to send you a copy of that
1 May panphlet of "Quispe":s agent TP here in Malmoe which
openly supported Avakian and "CoRIM"? That became the pint where
"Quispe" was quite clearly exposed, for all to see, as a real
BACKER of Avakian. And you, by your backing of the "Qu/Cco" and
again with this LIE about there being "no reality" in this very
concrete thing, expose yourself as a dyied-in-the-wool Avakianist
too.

>>So:=20
>>May you long stay with us (alongside your present masters and allies)
>>as another teacher by negative example, if nothing else!
>
>Gee, how many times do I get this honor?
>
>Gina/ Detroit

As many times as you yourself choose, Ms.

Rolf M.



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




More information about the Marxism mailing list