InfoMartensBlaaaah #3456578

C u961680 at student.canberra.edu.au
Mon Jun 10 03:28:50 MDT 1996


There has never been any 'exposure' of so-called 'reactionary' Quispe.
You've fooled no one here. There has been nothing but assertions and a
'logic' that says: disagreement with WMC = Avakianist clone/dupe =
counter-revolutionary.

You oppose the line of Mao's closest comrades in arms, who together were
the "Gang of Five". I say that is a not a Maoist position, it is reactionary.

More later,

	~C

On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Rolf Martens wrote:

> 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 ---
>


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




More information about the Marxism mailing list