4/5 Why do I think Chris is a cop?

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun Jun 30 01:19:07 MDT 1996


4/5 Why do I think Chris is a cop?    [Posted: 30.06.96]


[Continued from part 3/5]

POINT =A47)	One thing for which Chris very clearly has shown
		his great aversion is the important call for the WMC.

Some quotes:

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

>I can see why Gina suggests the call of the WMC comes over as=20
>defeatist.=20
.=20
>Date: 09 Jun 96 03:38:24 EDT
>Subject: Does the PCP want the WMC?

>it is pretty authoritative now that there is *no* public signal of=20
>support from the Pby captives about peace negotiations, about=20
>which some supporters of the PCP are understandably critical of=20
>the RCP, there is no call from the PCP to break its tactical working=20
>relationship with the RCP in MPP committeesCP in favour of=20
>Adolfo and Borja's call for a World Mobilising Commission. There=20
>is no update on the 1986 statement by the PCP on why it will work=20
>in RIM, despite major differences of principle with the RCP.=20
....................

>At the same time, it is not too surprising that some other supporters=20
>of the PCP might argue strongly that to break with the tactical unity
>in solidarity work is against the interests of the working people of=20
>Peru and not in the spirit of previous established PCP statements.=20

>As I caught the remark it seemed a significant and unwise=20
>escalation when the New Flag side (Marcelina?) called Borja a=20
>traitor. On the other hand if it is important for solidarity work to=20
>preserve a wide unity, then nothing could be more disruptive than=20
>Borja's and Olaechea's initiative at this time. If it was taken without=20
>fairly authoritative but clandestine evidence that that is what the=20
>PCP wants, then it was an act of gross individualism and highly=20
>disruptive. It would be expected that other PCP supporters would=20
>be fuming.

Here there's another very interesting element too: Chris the
"neutral and non-involved observer" with unusual fervour (for him)
opposes any idea that initiatives might be taken by any group of
PCP supporters whatever in the world without prior endorsement,=20
at least, by the leadership of the PCP in Peru. I'll return to this
subject below.

>Date: 25 Jun 96 02:22:17 EDT
>Subject: Where were the Turks, Adolfo?

>Where were the Turks and the Kurds?

At the 17 May celebration in Lonon of the 16th anniversary of the
people's war in Peru, he means. The TKP/ML of Turkey had
stated its support for the call from the WMC. Adolfo later replied
to this innuendo by Chris that the Turks and Kurds were absent=20
because they happened to have other even more important
things to do at the time.

>I ask because whatever you think of the political line, it is=20
>clear that some level of organisation, and coherence, has been=20
>achieved by these Maoists.=20

Here there's also a whiff, at least,  of the typically anti-Marxist=20
standpoint "never mind the line - it's organization that's important".


>Date: 26 Jun 96 18:42:48 EDT
>Subject: WMC: you've had it already

>After another round of Adolfo's "confussed" metaphors,

>the awful banal truth of the World Mobilising Commission,
>announced in March, has become apparent. Sorry if anyone is=20
>disappointed.

>It has been unveiled already!=20

>It is Adolfo's participation on this l'st:

What Chris wrote here could be called both "awful" and even
"banal" - as coming from him - but certainly not "the truth". No
hater of the proposed WMC could have been "dissappointed"=20
by these statements by him, I believe.=20


POINT =A48)	Chris pats the (genuine or supposed) adherents
		of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong on the back when
		on some point or other they're wrong and gets quite
		angry with them when they're doing something right.


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

>Adolfo who has denounced the tendency of opportunists to=20
>always to try to see both points of view, is at present
>appealing to Jay's better understanding without denouncing him
>for opportunism, for his even handed remarks.

>5. Jay seems to make sense that the question of the Peruvian=20
>governments peace manouvres has got interwoven with the=20
>question of influence within the Maoist international movement.

Here, comrade Jay of the Detcom gets this little applause since
he at this point still - erroneously - holds that the contradiction=20
to "Quispe" is one among the people.

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

>The statement by the PSC/Detroit is a striking illustration of the=20
>effects. Although much of what happens on this list could be seen=20
>as froth, here there is evidence of how the interchanges have almost=20
>led to the split of a support committee. Although the statement is=20
>brief, it is likely to have taken at least several evenings to hammer=20
>out, time taken away from other work. No wonder the Financial Times=20
>thought it newsworthy to carry Simon Strong's recent piece about a=20
>war of words had broken out on the internet between "Shining Path"=
 >supporters.

"Ayeee, ayeee" (or whatever the Chris:es say when they're really
upset), "that Detcom statement of 01.06, clearly denouncing 'Quispe'
as a reactionary fraud, is nothing less than 'horrible, 'horrible,=20
most horrible'! These people actually have carried out a principled
ideological struggle! This is very dangeous! It could have led to=20
their being split! Not to talk about how much time it must have=20
taken away from other work! Ayeee, ayeee!" =20

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

>But perhaps it was inevitable. The Detroit PSC statement had the=20
>merits of brevity but had denounced Quispe in these terms:
>" We denounce "Quispe" as a fraud.  He has exposed himself
>to be both a liar and an imposter".=20
>Fraud, liar and imposter is quite strong stuff.

"Strong stuff, in the class struggle? We certainly don't want that!"
("We cops in fact would have our enemies use only weak stuff,
if they're to use anything at all.")


Against me, Chris didn't write anything in particular in connection
with the "Quispe" fight except when directly replying to postings of=20
mine where I critizised his standpoint. But in these replies, I got=20
approximately the same treatment by Chris as had alrady Adolfo=20
and the Detcom. (The below quotes could have been put under=20
Point 5 above instead - on supporting the "Quispe" side in the=20
conflict.)

I on 09.06 had called Chris, because of something silly he wrote,
by the name of "Chris Tian Neigh Bour(ford)ly Love, London". He
replied i.a.

>Date: 09 Jun 96 16:25:54 EDT
>Subject: Re: What is a Jesuit?=20

>Rolf however picks up the Jesuit theme by repeating his=20
>convoluted word play on my name mocking me for christian=20
>neighbourly love. To the extent that marxists regard religious ideas=20
>as reflections of social practice and human experience, it doesn't=20
>seem to me to be silly, except marxists might talk more  of=20
>"comradeship".

Here there was a certain acceptance of religion which, to me,
seemed quite out of place in a person purportedly interested in
Marxism, and which contributed to my starting to wonder
whether Chris was above-the-board. I'll make a brief note of
that as my Point 9 below.

>My recollection, is that you, Rolf, were the catalyst for the Maoist=20
>wars becoming antagonistic. You started posting things about the=20
>RIM and Avakian, and persisted. Someone, either Luis or=20
>Marcelina responded from the New Flag side, Adolfo defended=20
>you and enlarged on the politics, and someone from Quispe's
>address said they knew you to be a member of a large number of=20
>organisations, and to have been associated with dissension in=20
>a number of place, and they wondered if you were a police spy.
>It was a serious charge and I suspect contributed in a major=20
>way to the contradictions becoming antagonistic, to the=20
>amazement of much of the l'st.

Like the Detcom and also Adolfo, I in fact am pretty "horrible", too.

>I do not think you are a police spy because you are too unique. But=20
>to a suspicious observer you could appear a provocateur.

How lucky for me that Chris isn't such a "suspicious" person!

>It is somehow the counterpart of your strange story of how
>you once found the almost perfect party, which existed in only
>one country for a very short period of time.

Here the once extremely important KDP/ML (NEUE EINHEIT) in=20
Germany is "getting the axe", too - and no wonder. (See other=20
postings of mine.) This party indeed very unfortunately went over=20
to the bourgeoisie in the late 80:s, but had by then existed as a=20
genuinely proletarian revolutionary party since 1970 - for too short=20
a period, agreed, but certainly not only "for a very short period of=20
time", as Chris tries to make people believe.

>Everything else will be a disappointment for you, whatever=20
>short-term alliances you may make.

Thank you for that prediction!

>I certainly see the beastliness, on both sides of these Maoist wars.
>It would be better if New Flag subscribers withdrew the charges of=20
>police agent against you, and in fact all charges of police agent are
>withdrawn on all sides.

Yes, wouldn't it, Chris?

>But I suggest, Rolf, you have a bitter style. In these polemics
>Jay and Gina have tried to show some restraint in what they have=20
>said publically on the l'st, although it is a fair guess there have been
>bruised feelings. Louis Godena reported on Jay's restraint. You=20
>however commented on Jay's description of Gina, encouraging him=20
>to go beyond his criticisms of her, which he said were *unlike her=20
>normal social practice*, and think of her as an opportunist and a=20
>supporter of reaction. [quote below]
..................

> Who is helped by this bitter incitement?

To characterize one's own style is difficult of course. But calling=20
mine "bitter", I venture to suggest, is a bit ridiculous and just one=20
more thing which shows how much Chris is against my actions in=20
the conflict at hand.


POINT =A49)	Chris, although puportedly interested in Marxism,=20
		seems not to be against religion - a rather sharp
		contradiction.

See a quote under Point 8 above.
	=09

POINT =A410)	On one or two instances, Chris has suggested
		themes for discussion on which, as he knew,
		there were differences among the opposers of
		"Quispe" and which might perhaps, if handled
		clumsily, draw attention away from the struggle
		against this reactionary agent and cause some
		friction within the anti-"Quispe" camp.

One thing I think is a fairly clear instance of this:

>Date: 10 May 96 09:00:34 EDT
>Subject: International or Internet

>And all this before checking whether there is an agreed line on=20
>nuclear power stations (it is not impossible that some Maoists=20
>might secretly sympathise with Malecki's criticisms of Rolf in this=20
>respect) and [......]

One thing which I on my part had already made several postings=20
about to newsgroups was indeed the entire matter of the "green"=20
genocidal warfare (by no means only the reactionary anti-nuclear-
energy campaign, although this is an important element in it) by the=20
main forces of the bourgeoisie against the peoples of the world.=20

Most comrades, unfortunately, so far had/have no idea of this=20
even going on at all and thus haven't opposed this warfare,
something which IMO absolutely must change. But to have a
big debate on this precisely at the moment when the common
struggle against "Quispe" was at its most intensive might have
been unsuitable, from our point of view.


On another thing, which perhaps - I'm not certain about this,
though I in retrospect have reflected on whether it might have
been so - was put out by Chris with a similar purpose, I'll quote
>from my own first brief reply to him:=20

>Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 23:57:00 +0200 (MET DST)
>From: rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
>Subject: Re: Luftmensch on maoism

>Hello Chris,

>Here you're touching on something important (I hope you won't=20
>mind my saying, for once!):

>>The spontaneous mass mourning at the death of Zhou Enlai,=20
>>who very significantly died just before Mao, was treated by all=20
>>sides in the Chinese leadership as a signal of hostility towards=20
>>Chiang Ching and Co.

Chris did remember that - interesting. I believe most of those who
today are saing they're for Mao Zedong had forgotten it. At this
"bait" - if it was one - put out by Chris, I did bite, and after a=20
reply by Jay this led to a certain debate about the long-ago exposed
reactionary group the Gang of Four in China, whose ideology
remains of importance today since it's rather exactly that of the
Avakianists, too.

I on 13.05 started the posting of a whole series on this theme,
which I by then thought it was quite OK, also tactically, to take
up, since the "Quispe" battle to me appeared in the main to
have been already won. This debate, which has continued, IMO=20
is very important and I don't think today that it was wrong at all=20
to start bringing this matter up at that time.=20

If indeed Chris had wanted it as a deflection then - I don't know
whether he did - at least later, he's written something or other
showing that he now doesn't like this debate too much either.
(This only from my recollection - no quote on this.)

[Continued in part 5/5]



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




More information about the Marxism mailing list