2/5 Why do I think Chris is a cop?

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun Jun 30 01:13:49 MDT 1996


2/5 Why do I think Chris is a cop?   [Posted: 30.06.96]


[Continued from part 1/5]

POINT =A43) 	Chris has persistently been urgung people - in=20
		particular during the "Quispe" struggle - to "stop=20
		fighting" and/or to "be nice to each other".=20

For instance, saying that your opponent is an agent, that's *not*
nice at all. - What in reality is very "un-nice", from a cop's
perspective, naturally is discovering, and telling people, that
the agents are agents. Such discoveries precisely may come as=20
results of such struggles. So the "don't fight!" stance is, whether
intentionally or not, an agent-protecting one, among other things.

Chris isn't the only one who's been "critical of the internal
fighting", of course. In particular during he early stage of the
"Quispe" struggle, there were quite a number of other people who
likewise urged us to "stop fighting". But in most cases, they did
so only with one posting, or perhaps with two, and then lost
interest or found it useless to try to persuade the "combatants"
to be "sensible". Noticeable about Chris in this respect has been
his great persistence. Here are some of the things he wrote:


>Date: 20 Apr 96 02:58:20 EDT
>Subject: The split among PCP supporters

>Now we have seen evidence of Louis Godena being expelled=20
>from the CPUSA, the party of Scott Marshall and Charlotte, and=20
>Adolfo challenging Luis in public in front of all their worst enemies=20
>(this is almost the one bit of news of direct immediate interest from=20
>this l'st to capitalist intelligence agencies that the split between=20
>supporters of the PCP in London and New York has taken on a=20
>tone that appears to be irreparable). Having said a few weeks=20
>back that he would continue posting in a personal capacity, Adolfo=20
>has signed his statement on behalf of Sol Peru London.
........
>Nevertheless the force of that attack has got diffused and=20
>complicated, and now the differences *within* that group are so=20
>great that I assume one or other will be unable to continue posting.=20

>Perhaps the simplest lesson is that it is in every subscriber's=20
>direct and immediate self-interest to moderate themselves and=20
>refrain from personally or politically abusive remarks.


The situation in which he wrote this was approximately: I had made
my first postings to this list on 15.04, with a "Hello all" and an=20
article on a certain anti-PCP provocation in Stockholm, Sweden, on=20
08.04, which I analyzed as being directed at least in part against=20
the recent call for the WMC by comrade Adolfo Olaechea and other=20
people, which I also supported but which "Quispe" was against.=20
(I earlier had been posting to newsgroups, advocating the line of=20
Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong.)=20

Immediately upon this, I was attacked by "Luis Quispe" (and=20
"Marcelina Ccorimanya" writing from the same address - not a=20
separate person, as it later turned out) as an enemy.  Adolfo=20
defended me, while pointing out that his views on certain points=20
didn't coincide with mine, and also defended the WMC against=20
"Quispe":s attacks. This brought on the start of the "Quispe" fight.


[I don't have the date of the below, but it was likewise late April]
>Subject: "Two-line struggle"

>Doug has drawn attention to Adolfo's mechanical=20
>counterposing of black and white in "two-line struggle".

>In fact in one of Adolfo's quieter passages he argued
>this is as self-evident as positive and negative.=20

>I am increasingly convinced that this reductionism was
>one of the problems of late maoism, and ended up as an=20
>excuse for extreme arbitariness. Who is defining the=20
>two lines? And who is defining their side as 100% positive?
....
>I suggest by contrast that this l'st is full of struggle
>but the most effective and creative struggle is where the=20
>opposites are not completely counterposed, in which different
>positions are tolerated and examined, and in which people
>learn from each other.


>Date: 05 May 96 15:25:51 EDT
>Subject: The Maoist Wars 1/2

>Like Louis Proyect, I suspect there are important issues involved,
>but the surface impression is bizarre. Within a few weeks of=20
>giving existing members of this l'st the impression of an=20
>invasion, they appear to be tearing each other apart in the most
>ridiculous fashion in front of the rest of us, the great majority of=20
>whom, in their eyes are presumably, petty bourgeois liberals
....................

[On "Quispe" and Adolfo:]
>3. Both are united in thinking their opponent must be denounced=20
>as treacherous and dishonest ("charlatan", "swindler"). Both fail to=20
>see each abusive outburst harms their own credibility in the eyes=20
>of neutral readers, whatever harm it does to their opponent. Neither=20
>ironically seems to follow the Maoist principle of "starting from=20
>the desire for unity".

Here the "Quispe" fight had developed further. I for instance had also
joined it more directly with a long posting to newgsroups, 3 of whose=20
5 parts went to this list too, "UNITE! Info #8en", on 25.04, in which I=20
attacked "Quispe":s reactionary views on several political issues.=20
Even before that, Adolfo had pointed out, and demonstrated, that the=20
Right had come out into the open and found a representative in=20
"Quispe", who was now pouring black venom over the revolutionaries.=20

After a report of mine on a 1 May pamphlet by "Quispe":s close ally=20
here in Malmoe, Sweden, Mr.T.P., in which open propaganda was
made for the already exposed US imperialist agent Avakian, Adolfo
stated that now "a snake has been found out in our midst", a correct
assessment which I supported and (on 07.05) argued the case for
on newsgroups too: "The Avakian-Quispe-T.P. impostor group
exposed".  More from Chris after that:


>Date: 11 May 96 18:35:26 EDT
>Subject: Lessons from the Maoist wars

>While this is obviously a difficult situation for a revolutionary=20
>movement to handle, the idealist undialectical approach to its=20
>disussion does not help.=20
.....................

>Luis, Adolfo and Marcellina have indulged in personal abuse and=20
>ridicule.
..................

>More systematically, Adolfo has insisted  not just that criticism=20
>should be sharp to wake the person up, but that there is a place for=20
>"merciless" criticism because this is a struggle against revisionism.=20
>The heartlessness of this is disturbing. Even Jay who has strong=20
>criticisms of Luis, waited until he was sure that Luis was out of=20
>police danger.

Here, comrade Jay Miles of the Detcom gets a little pat on his=20
back. Jay at that time had already said two important and good
things: "Much struggle is good!" and "Be open and aboveboard."
But he so far held the contradiction to "Quispe" to be one among
the people. I'll show below also how Chris has applauded people
when they've been wrong and been quite angry with them when
the've made good decisions. (The "police danger" spoken of here
appears to have been just another piece in the "Quispe" circus.)=20


>Date: 01 Jun 96 13:05:23 EDT
>Subject: " WE WILL NOT WASTE TIME "

>It is clear that in terms of personal credibility and mutual respect
>Quispe and Olaechea are at rock bottom. For their sake as well=20
>as the rest of the l'st can we move on to political issues.

1 June, that was precisely the day when the Detcom came out
with a very clear statement completely condemning "Quispe",
and on that weekend, 1-2 June, several other people joined in
this condemnation, so that one might say that "Quispe" was
now, if not even earlier, completely exposed. The next weekend
too, 8-9 June, likewise was one of quite general and correct
"Quispe"-bashing. Chris however still tries to put *both sides* at=20
"rock bottom". =20

>Date: 02 Jun 96 03:37:27 EDT
>Subject: Gina-Adolfo polemic

>Considering that Mao himself came to the view that the Cultural=20
>Revolution was 30% bad in conditions in which the Chinese Party=20
>had been in power 25 years, it seems to me from the outside that=20
>these methods are much more disruptive to a movement of=20
>international solidarity inadequately funded and organised, with=20
>communications with the mother party weak and under attack. But=20
>this will all come out in the wash.

>For the sake of the l'st but also for the sake of PCP supporters=20
>themselves, I would again request that protagonists cool it. Let=20
>Adolfo argue the case and gather support for the WMC, and draw=20
>his lines of demarcation. Let Quispe continue to report on information=20
>from the PCP. Everyone knows that Adolfo and supporters mistrust=20
>him totally. He, they, and we, will have to live with that. Is it so=20
>unbearable?


>Date: 02 Jun 96 03:37:21 EDT
>Subject: Gleanings on Peru

>I am posting this initiative now, partly because I would frankly
>like to draw Quispe away from pre-occupation with whether=20
>Adolfo is or is not a charlatan, and secondly, this whole=20
>controversy needs to be anchored in the power relations that
>actually exist now in Peru and between Peru and the imperialist=20
>world.=20


>Date: 02 Jun 96 14:05:44 EDT
>Subject: Re: "WE WILL NOT WASTE TIME"

>In trying to damp down this time-consuming flame war, it is not=20
>necessarily a bad thing that Ken should be more sympathetic=20
>towards Adolfo, and I to Luis, but Ken clearly suspects my=20
>motives that I "condone" the personal attack on Jay and Tony.

Here, as I wrote above, Ken had rightly attacked the condoning=20
by Chris of these things. So (only) now, Chris says that he's *not*=20
condoning them.=20

>I was therefore dismayed that while endorsing the point, Marcelina=20
>then made such a personal attack on Jay and Tony.=20


>Date: 04 Jun 96 19:12:55 EDT
>Subject: Maoist polemic on line or persons?

>C addresses fellow Maoists:

[C: The person writing from Australia whom Adolfo later called a
"clone of Avakian", an assessment which I supported, too - on
somewhat meagre grounds perhaps, I'd like to add. Time will=20
probably show whether it was correct or not.]

>"Let's all try and be Maoists, raise our struggle to the level of line."

>Chance would be a fine thing. The Maoist influx into this l'st has=20
>turned into a bit of a bloodbath. Slippery stuff, blood.

It so happened that Chris was writing this precisely on 04.06, the
seventh anniversary of the bloodbath against the people on and near=20
the Tianamen Square in Beijing, China, in 1989 by the Deng=20
Xiaoping fascist regime, which precisely the Marxists ("the=20
Maoists") have always strongly opposed but which he, Chris, also
has engaged in trying to"prettify" - see below. Blood indeed is=20
slippery stuff and so, in my opinion, are people like Chris.=20
..................

>But it seems the accusation of police agent, is still being made
>against one of the posters. It is a fact that state representatives
>will be gleaning and sifting correspondence on this l'st. The=20
>sheer volume gives them a rather high dross to jewel ratio.=20
>But they do not need to be remarkable at all to subscribe.=20
>The only other thing of benefit to them is stirring up utterly=20
>divisive conflict.We are quite good at that anyway of course,=20
>but they may always give it a helping hand. Another reason to=20
>avoid making personal attacks that cannot be justified.


>Date: 22 Jun 96 03:54:30 EDT
>Subject: Another aol provocation

>Please concentrate on the state capitalism debate.

Which was a theme on which there wasn't a conflict having to
do with the work of agents or with their exposure. Chris still is
true to himself, debating the debates (certain of them) rather
than the issues.


POINT =A44)	Chris repeatedly and ridiculously has tried to make=20
		people believe that this Marxism list, and even the
		Internet as a whole, which at least potentially is quite=20
		an important tool for the revolutionaries and which=20
		already has been instrumental in the exposure of one 		        obviously=
=20
important and well-placed agent of reaction,=20
		is "no good at all" for Marxist-Leninist party politics=20
		and "only causes conflicts" etc.

This extremely stupid idea (for the revolutionaries, but not for the
cops of course) as far as I know has only been put forward by one
other writer to this list, the so-called "MIM" (Maoist International
Movement"), about which I in my abovementioned 25.04 posting =20
wrote that there were some reasons for suspecting that it might
be one of the "reserve vessels" prepared by the CIA for use in
particular now that their big "carrier of subversion" the "RIMitz"=20
was sinking. (Now that the "MIMitz" also has made clear its support
for the WMC and its condemnation of "Quispe", I also have written
that I on my part will try to unite with it on that basis.) Chris wrote:

>Date: 20 Apr 96 02:58:20 EDT
>Subject: The split among PCP supporters

>I suggested a while back at a time when the conflict between many=20
>l'st members and the PCP supporters was sharpest, that the l'st is=20
>not a friendly place for parties.=20

>The pace of development of these contradictions has IMO=20
>undoubtedly been intensified by the existence of this internet l'st.

>Date: 05 May 96 16:36:26 EDT
>Subject: The Maoist Wars 2/2

>The problems that the Maoists are enacting in front of our eyes
>about the creation of an International, are instructive.

>They confirm my impression that the Internet is very undermining
>of disciplined democratic centralist organisational unity.

>Date: 11 May 96 04:17:19 EDT
>Subject: International or Internet

>Thanks Hugh, for trying to give a positive answer to my provocative
>suggestion that this medium is inherently Menshevik.


Quite a comedian, is this Chris!

The Menshevik (minority men) idea of how to build the Russian
Social-Democratic Party, on its London congress in 1903 where
there was the conflict over this, was that of a loose party: "Every
striking worker is a Party member". The Bolshevik (majority men)
one was that of a tightly-knit, disciplined party, in which only those
systematically working for the revolution were members and in
which there was democratic centralism, with the decisions always
open to debate and criticism by every member, who at the same
time had the obligation to carry out those decisions which had in
fact been made. This kind of parties is what the proletariat needs.=20
Later, most Mensheviks came to support the bourgeoisie quite=20
openly, and so, "Menshevism" rightly has become a swearword to=20
the Marxists.=20

Of course neither the Internet nor this list can be "Bolshevik", since
it's being run by "non-party" people. The very idea that it might be
"Bolshevik" is ridiculous. But for "party people" in different parts of=20
the world to be able to discuss things with each other, and in front of,=20
and together with, "non-party" people too, who then in some respects
can supervise these "party people" and constitute a certain "control
instance" of what they're doing, this of course is a quite exellent=20
possibilty which the Internet in general and, for instance, this list=20
in particular offers.=20

The poor and oppressed masses of Asia, Africa and Latin America
undoubtedly for a long time to come will have few if any direct=20
representatives on the Net, and this Marxism list, for instance, is=20
bound to have a certain "tilt" in favour of the better-off and better=20
educated and in disfavour of industrial workers, poorer peasants etc=20
in general, but even so, with some 200-300 participants on it as at=20
present, it's reasonable to suppose that this list has a majority of=20
more-or-less "ordinary" wage earners, and it's impossible for it=20
to be "dominated" by cops, simply because the arch-reactionary=20
rulers of the world don't have enough people for such a thing. =20

Has anybody been frightened by these "terrible" words,=20
"inherently Menshevik"? Probably not. And nobody should be either.

[Continued in part 3/5]



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




More information about the Marxism mailing list