Same old sterile discussion

Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Thu Oct 10 14:37:58 MDT 1996


Louis P characterized his own contributions very well with this heading:

"Same old sterile discussion".

For instance:


>Speaking as somebody who has warm and comradely feelings toward JJ,
>Richard and Adolfo alike

Watch yer backs!

>I want to speak in favor of avoiding the
>temptation to turn Internet mailing lists into tribunals..
>
>(I of course make an exception for myself in smoking out the
>Malecki-thing.)

This is the hardened political thug speaking. "I do what I like when I
like, and the rest of you do what I want you to." Bureaucrat-speak and
Stalinism.

>Part of the
>problem is that nothing can be proved. All you have is allegation after
>allegation that clogs band-width without shedding light on the matter

Wrong. And JJ put Louis straight on this.

I don't think Louis would recognize light if God Almighty brought him some
by angelic courier.


>There is absolutely no reason why opponents of the PCP should not put
>forward their analysis of how socialism can be won in Peru. When we are
>dealingwith ideas, we can make progress. We simply don't have the means to
>proveor disprove that somebody was "guilty" or not.

You don't want to prove or disprove anything except that party-builders and
especially Trotskyists are loathsome insects, and that everything that
Louis P has blessed with his presence is Real Socialism.

>Furthermore, we have to be a little bit more critical in the way we think
>of violent conflict on the left.

Louis's infamous "we" again.

>While nobody in their right mind would
>support the bloody Maoist or Vietnamese repression of Trotskyists,

So why has Louis been so silent about it??

>nobody would use this as a
>litmus test for defining the revolutionary character of these currents.

Completely and utterly *wrong*. Killing other left fighters as a matter of
deliberate policy to stifle dissent and strangle discussion is an excellent
way for an anti-revolutionary current to define itself.

>Another thing to keep in mind is that under conditions of fierce
>repression and highly polarized factional warfare, even the most
>enlightened forces can make mistakes. For example, Roque Dalton, a poet
>and revolutionary, was murdered by political rivals on the Salvadoran
>left.

Whoever defined the Salvadoran left as "most enlightened"?? This sort of
thing is a hangover from Stalinist methods and is anti-revolutionary to the
core. It is demobilizing in the extreme, and makes it incredibly difficult
to reach good decisions, because rank and file input is non-existent if you
risk getting shot for speaking your mind.

>Also, just because a Trotskyist is being repressed, it doesn't mean that
>the repression is wrong. For example, the Simone Bolivar brigade was ready
>to launch an insurrectionary struggle against the FSLN the very first year
>Somoza was overthrown. Was the FSLN wrong to put these adventurers on the
>next plane to their country of origin? I don't think so.

We know your line on this. It's one of the reasons why the Nicaraguan
revolution failed. A failure you can only blame on the omnipotence of the
enemy.

The Simon Bolivar brigades did not attempt to launch an insurrectionary
struggle against the FSLN. They were helping the workers and rural poor to
organize unions and community councils. This was too much for the topdown
substitutionist petty-bourgeois leadership of the Sandinistas. And of
course Louis P, their faithful lapdog.

>At any rate, for those who want to re-ignite the PCP flame wars, I welcome
>you to join Hans Egbar and Chris Burford's unmoderated list where all
>sorts of shenanigans will be encouraged.

Wishful thinking.

Cheers,

Hugh




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list