Richard B writes a report card

Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun Oct 6 08:04:02 MDT 1996


Richard writes:

>I do not expect any special privaleges Hugh, but I appreciate the help
>of Comrades.

I quite agree.

>That is what we are here for.

Well, there are other reasons, like fighting for the leadership of the
proletariat at a very sensitive juncture in the international class
struggle.


>Each has different strengths
>which should complement each other, in order to give a fuller picture.

That's too idyllic. They *should* complement each other, but it usually
turns out to be a very dialectical process with clashes of opposites and
the abolition or sublation of one of the poles of the contradiction to
raise the general state of awareness to a higher level.

>I do not have a "list image", just me. Some people like the way I am;
>some don't. I do not pretend to have all the answers, or to be able to
>quote Marx and Lenin from memory. I try to talk about the work that we,
>on the left do, and discuss our problems. Hopefully I can learn
>something from the experience of others around the world which can help
>further the cause of workers here. I have learned some useful things
>from you too, Hugh, and I hope to learn more.

Richard, paragraphs like this *are* your list image. Smooth, saccharine
humility with not the slightest hint of conflict or contradiction -- and
all the time your support for the counter-revolutionary butcher Stalin
lurking in the background.


>It would be helpful if you would write about the work that political
>that you yourself are involved in.

Don't personalize. I intend to step up the presentation of work my party is
involved in.

>What are your past experiences in
>life that have shaped your political views?

Well, you know Bob's book? Want my book too?

>If you allowed more of your
>personality into what you write, then it would be easier to understand
>some of your views.

Hasn't helped Bob's political opponents to understand his views. It's just
got him even dirtier slanders.

Richard. Go to the archives. Read my stuff. It's not impersonal -- you
could piece together a pretty good picture of my interests, reading and so
on if you wanted to.

I take it that this is not just a request for *me* to cough up some
personality while everyone else carries on the same as ever?

>Being aggressive, and repetitive does not help you
>to communicate; in fact it is a barrier to communication.

Well, "aggressive" and "repetitive" are your words. And pretty negative --
so the saccharine isn't always there.

I wouldn't say aggressive. I'd say *combative* and *showing a bit of
temperament*. In fact I see myself as a rather peaceable old bird most of
the time, smoothing over waves more than whipping them up. A bit too much
of a compromiser and temporizer to tell the truth.

As for "repetitive", I'd say *attempting to patiently explain*. Teacher
that I am, I never expect anything to sink in first time round.

I'm not sure about "barrier to communication". None of my teachers (Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Trotsky) minced words. Yours (Stalin and Mao) weren't
exactly smooth-talking once-is-enough types either.

People communicate best when they know what they're talking about. Getting
to know what's at issue isn't always a painless experience.

For instance a good translator always has two rates. The basic rate: "I
translate what you said", the premium rate: "I translate what you intended
to say".


And now that you've given me my report for the term, Dick old son, how
about those two tearaways over in the corner, little Louis P and artful
Adolfo? I mean, if you think I'm "aggressive" and "repetitive", what on
earth will you find to say about them?

Cheers,

Hugh




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list