Does Avakian clone "C" really want to debate line?

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Mon Jun 10 00:11:30 MDT 1996


Does Avakian clone "C" really want to debate line? [Posted: 10.06.96]

This is part of a discussion on the Jefferson Village Virginia Marxism
list and is also sent to newsgroups.


Citizen clone "C", Canberra,

In a first of three postings on Tue, 4 June 1996, you wrote to me
(and to the others on the Marxism list):

>Rolf, if you were a Maoist, you would raise your struggle, with
>those whom you disagree, to the level of line.

The background to this was the following:

Since mid-April, an intensive ideological struggle had taken part
on the Marxism list, centred, firstly, on whether to support or
oppose the call raised by some comrades of mine in Belgium and Great
Britain, represented on this list by Adolfo Olaechea, for a World
Mobilisation Commission (WMC) to defend the revolution in Peru,
and, secondly, on the question of whether "Luis Quispe", chief
editor of the New Flag, New York City, who led the opposition
against the WMC, was a genuine supporter of that revolution or
something completely different.

In early May, it became quite clear that "Quispe" was a counter-
revolutionary fraud and in fact a US imperialist agent. He had
pretended to oppose the ill-famed Avakian, chairman of the
"RCP", USA and so-called ideological leader of the phoney
international, in reality a decade-long subversion operation
against the Marxists, the "Revolutionary International Movement",
"RIM", which since late 1993 was openly stabbing the people's
war in Peru in the back. But a number of facts, among those his
massive support for Avakian's agent and liaison person here in
Malmoe, Sweden, Mr T.P., clearly showed that this was only a
camouflage attempt and that - irrespective of whether they were
all on the CIA payroll or not - Avakian, T.P. and "Quispe" in
reality were participating in the same international counter-
revolutionary subversion operation.

All who followed the debate on the Marxism list could clearly see
this. They could even see how "Quispe" was lauded to the skies
by an awowed Trotskyite, Malignki, Sweden, who was very interested
in taking part in this debate, and how he, this Trotskyite, on his
part was twice explicitly called on by his friend the so-called
"Maoist" "Quispe" to attack me, as a common enemy of theirs - this
under the circumstances that to all genuine adherents of Marxism,
Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought it's well-known since many decades
back that Trotskyism is a bourgeois, counter-revolutionary ideology
of collusion with the arch-enemies of the proletariat in the world;
and in the last two-three decades above all has been an ideology of
agent activity in favour of Soviet social-imperialism, respectively,
of Russian new tsarism, and in favour of US imperialism.

During the month of May, more and more people who followed the
debate or took part in it came to see the counterrevolutionary
character of "Quispe" and justly to repudiate him in no uncertain
terms. At first it was mainly Adolfo Olaechea and myself who did this.
We were soon joined by Luis Godena, another signatory to the call
for the WMC, and by journalist Ken Campbell, who took issue with
"Quispe":s lumpen-proletarian "debate" methods and, in seeing
one instance of them, exclaimed "Unbelievable!" - he hadn't seen
such behaviour from others than nazis trying to smear their latest
"favourite jewish target of attack", he wrote. (To people outside
ot the Maxist-Leninist movement, the ultra-Rightist character and
methods of certain phoney"Marxists" no doubt is a novelty, which
is liable to scare some people. In this case, it didn't scare Ken
>from pointing out the truth - good for him, and for others too!)

The Detcom comrades in Detroit, who had earlier long cooperated
with the New Flag and, in the beginning of the debate, considered
that the contradiction was one among the people and found it
wrong to attack "Quispe" as an enemy of the proletariat, likewise
came to see his true character and, after having carried out a
principled ideological struggle with one jesuitical "appeaser" who
went over to the Avakianists (Gina), came ot with a statement of
clear comdemnation of him and support for the proletarian
revolutionary line.

A friend of Luis Godena's, Charlotte Kates, strongly comdemned
"Quispe":s lumpen vilification of him and voiced her support for the
WMC too. Towards the end (so far) of the debate, even such a non-
Mao Zedong adherent as Zeynep, Turkey, who at first had taken a
typically "appeasing" stand and scolded us for engaging in a "fight
which could only make the enemy happy" (the exact opposite in fact
was the case), made some fun at "Quispe":s "double personality"
game, which we had in the meantime had been informed of by comrade
Adolfo, that of sometimes signing himself "Luis Quispe" and sometimes
"Marcelina Ccorimanya" (full of admiration for "Luis with the light
of Maoism"), and started to feign a "double personality" herself -
"Zeynep will be back soon"; another "outsider" too, Hugh Rodwell,
took up this little cautious but definitely anti-"Quispe" "double
trouble" comedy which so to speak celebrated that reactionary agent's
total exposure.

Perhaps it was unnecessery of me to recount all the above to you,
"C", since as far as I know you've been on this Marxism list during
this entire debate But I've done it just in case you perhaps missed
some part of that whole thing.

Now, *after this debate*, *you* came out with a statement
expressing "support for the New Flag", meaning, *support* for the
completely-exposed and extremely isolated US imperialist agent and
Avakian collaborator "Quispe" and "disagreement with" us who
had exposed or/and attacked him! What should people rightly say
about such a thing? Precisely, for instance, what comrade Adolfo
did. He simply and with not a great deal of explanation - for not
much such was needed in those circumstances either - pointed out that
you were a clone of Avakian. You protested, ridiculously complaining
about his and others' "rushing to slander" you as a such. But here
there was no "rush" nor any "slander". On 3 June ,I briefly pointed
this out to you and to the others on the list, and stated that,
because of those recent postings of yours,

>I offer you "clown" as an alternative if you prefer that to "clone",
>clone.

To which you made your retort on 4 June about "preferring" the
struggle to be "raised" to the level of line. But at that time, you
yourself had already *lowered* it to the bare-faced expressing of
*support* for a recently exposed reactionary agent, hadn't you?  Did
you state any reason why, in your opinion, we who had exposed and
attacked that agent were all wrong as to matters of fact? No.
Therefore, there wasn't much else to say to you than simply to call
a clone a "clone", was there?

In a second posting on the same day, 4 June, you also reproduced
a statement by two organizations in Australia, the Committee to
Support the Revolution in Peru, CSRP(Australia), and the Committee
for a Revolutionary Communist Party in Australia, CRCPA, in which
they stated their decision *not* to endorse the call for a World
Mobilisation Commission. The line of this statement, some four pages
long, absolutely is an erroneous one. At the same time, it raises some
questions which indeed are important, concerning the WMC, questions
which need to be answered, I think, by those who, like myself, support
the call for the WMC. I on my part intend to get back to the issues
raised by the CSRP(Australia) and the CRCPA later, to make my
standpoint on them clear.

You also wrote that you're the only one of those citizens in Australia
who has Internet access and that, up till then, you had been bound by
democratic centralism not to take any individual stand of your own in
the earlier Marxism list debate - fair enough. And then you made a
third posting on 4 June, now obviously considering yourself free to
speak out. That posting precisely was headed "OFF THE FENCE".

And in this posting, one of your so-called criticisms of those (other)
people who support the call for the WMC was - that by doing so, they
among other things, in certain respects, at least, are joining forces
with *me*. You wrote i.a., firstly:

>Yes clarity is important. How is the WMC going to reconcile the
>bizarre and reactionary views of the MIM and Martens with MLM,
>Gonzalo Thought?

Concerning which I'd first of all like to comment, since here you
mention me together with the US-based so-called "Maoist
Internationalist Movement", "MIM", that I never have had anything
to do with that entity except for precisely this fact that it, too,
has expressed its support for the WMC, and that my standpoint
concerning the "MIM" can be seen in part 5/5 of my posting of
25.04.96 "UNITE! Info #8en: The sinking of the 'RIMitz'" and in my
posting of 27.05.96 "The 'wars': 'MIMitz' on unsteady course", both
of which were sent to newsgroups and also to the Marxism list. And
secondly you wrote:

>Remenber what Mao said, "If you lie down with dogs, you get
>fleas". (That goes for Martens too).

So you - rather clearly, I think - stated that my views are "bizarre"
and "reactionary" and that I should be likened to a "flea" whom it
would be better to avoid. What line is it that you're attacking here?

Since approximately the beginning of this year (or somewhat earlier),
I've made several postings to newsgroups, since mid-April also to
the Jefferson Village Virginia Marxism list. As readers have been
able to see, I've consistently advocated the ideological and political
line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. It would be fair to say, I think,
that I'm a representative of that line. I've advocated it here in
Sweden, in much the same manner - taking into acount also the
development during the period in question - since 1974. Since 1975,
I've been publishing a series of leaflets, the INFORMATIONSBLAD series,
which, as during two decades the only publications in this country
really to do so, and one of very few indeed in Europe as a whole,
has represented Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.

You, on the other hand, what line do you represent? One of openly
defending and supporting the publicly completely refuted and
exposed US imperialist agents Avakian and "Quispe".

In directing your attacks even in particular precisely against me,
incidentially, you are in agreement also with that abovementioned
person in Sweden who makes no bones about his advocacy of Trotskyism,
Malignki. He likewise has raised that particular "criticism" against
the other signatories of the call for the WMC, that they're "taking
the risk" of teaming up with me, whom - flatteringly but, I hope,
also correctly - he recognizes as a particularly consistent opponent
of his ideological masters, the Russian new tsarists and the US
imperialists. (I'll do my best not to disappoint you in the future
either, Malignki!)

And now it seems that you'd like to discuss *line* with me, "C".
That sounds fine! I on my part would welcome such a debate
with you. Only, you on your part have *not* so far stated *why*,
in your opinion, the line I advocate, would be "bizarre" and
"reactionary"; you haven't given anybody the least clue as to
why precisely I in particular should be "shunned" as people shun
fleas. Thus you at least made a *very bad start* in that - supposed -
"effort" of yours to "elevate" the struggle to the level of line,
as far as your struggle against me is concerned.

But perhaps you really *do* want to debate line. Then, first of all
you should tell me and others of your concrete objections to what
I've been advocating. If you remain silent on this point, you realize
of course that you'll be liable to be justly called, instead of "clone",
"clown" etc, also "Citizen *clam* 'C', Canberra" (sorry, you other
inhabitants of that city!).

I hope you've seen my postings. You probably have seen some of them,
at least. But perhaps you havent found them "worthy of even saving".
So for safety and to save you some trouble, *if* you *should* wish
do do something else than just "clam up" at this point - and if it
should turn out that I somehow or to some extent was mistaken about
you, I'll not be sorry about that, on the contrary - I'll e-mail to
you  those postings of mine which I myself hold to be the most
relevant in the April-May debate on the Marxism list and in the
general international debate on the genuienly Marxist-Leninist line.
I'll mail you the 16 items listed below ("rather too much than too
little"), for you to fire off your criticism at, at any time you
may see fit:

1.	UNITE! Info #1en: A Basic Statement of Oct 1978
	[Posted: 23.12.95]
2.	UNITE! Info #3en: '94 art. on Mao, RIM, US, PCP, 1/3
	[Sent: 01.01.96]
3.	#3en 2/3
4.	#3en 3/3
5.	UNITE! Info #4en: A barbaric anti-industry attack 1/2
	[Posted: 21.03.96]
6.	#4en 2/2
7.	UNITE! Info #8en: The sinking of the "RIMitz" 1/5
	[Posted: 25.04.96]
8.	#8en 2/5
9.	#8en 3/5
10.	#8en 4/5
11.	#8en 5/5
12.	Attempts to keep subversive carrier "RIMitz" afloat
	[Posted: 02.05.96]
13.	The Avakian-Quispe-T.P. impostor group exposed 1/2
	[Sent: 04.05.96]
14.	The Avakian... 2/2
15.	Debate needed on M-L general line
	[Posted: 27.05.96]
16.	The "wars": "MIMitz" on unsteady course
	[Posted: 27.05.96]


I'll admit to being a "flea" in *one* sense: I don't at present have
many "troops" at my "disposal". But if you want to subsantiate your
attacks on the *line* I represent as a "bizarre" and/or "reactionary"
one, you'll have to make some concrete objections to things in
one or some or all of these postings, you miserable Avakian
clone "C".

Rolf Martens



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




More information about the Marxism mailing list