Stuart Sheild m-18043 at
Sun Oct 13 05:57:55 MDT 1996

>Another Professor!
>How do they hurt when the counter-revolutionary nature of those using
>marxism against the revolution, are shown to be working the same side of the
>class divide that George Orwell, The Peruvian Military High Command, and the
>assorted fleas and cockroaches serving as disease carriers of the
>imperialist slander campaigns, not against individuals, but against the real
>and living revolutions these individuals defend, or at least in the case of
>Louis Proyect, adopt a friendly attitude to them.

If this sentence has any meaning at all (where are you now Henwood, staunch
opponent of empty phrasemongering, the man who takes nothing on trust?), I
presume it has to do with characterising anyone not entirely in favour of
the PCP-SL revolution as an objective supporter of the Peruvian Military
High Command and the Fujimori regime and their witting/unwitting (depending
how far you feel you can get away with slander at any given moment) agents.
This assumes that the MHC has the same aims as *all* anti-imperialist groups
in Peru right across the political spectrum, with the exception of PCP-SL.
Within this assumption lies another: that the MHC would much rather have to
deal with unarmed urban proletarians than the guys with the guns. On the
face of it, it would seem a lot easier to mop up a factory soviet or put
down a strike than neutralise a large-scale guerilla operation. Especially
when the soviet or strike are led by phoneys, windbags, lackeys, imperialist
mouthpieces and the like, who are defined as such by the very fact that
they're doing it. The first assumption is patently false (see below). The
second, apart from resting on a circular argument, has nothing to do with
Marxism- Leninism as I understand it. It is also deeply cynical in view of
the PCP-SL's lack of solidarity - to put it mildy - with the revolutionary
proletarian struggle in Peru, however ineffectively led it may have been in
the past.

>It is here where we have to find this doctoral Professor's reasons for his
>personalised outburts against Louis Proyect, whose only crime is to have
>tried, maybe by not very effective means, to restarin the will to do
>counter-revolutionary propaganda of the Rodwells and maleckis.

Not at all. The reasons for my "personalised" outburst were not related (at
least not directly) to Proyect's political position. Or yours. My objections
were confined to the consistently unprincipled nature of his contributions,
his bully-boy tactics and lack of respect for reasoned argument. All of
which do much to lower the tone of debate on this list; a deterioriation
which Proyect himself has devoted many posts thundering righteously about.
But since he had just boasted of having to biff "people like Rodwell", etc.
to keep them in line (according to Proyect's lights), I picked Rodwell as an
example of someone who actually does observe the decencies, whatever you may
think of his politics. He argues from a stated position with clarity and
concision. He does not make uncorroborable assertions. He replies to points
and criticisms raised, and he does so with *political* arguments. He does
not boast, bully or try to bluster his way out of tight corners; nor resort
to personal calumny, threats or slander. He does not use words like cretin,
idiot, Swedish meatball, vermin, moron, spy. The same applies to the great
majority of subscribers to this list.

That my objections should immediately lead you to conclude that I support
Rodwell's position is *exactly* the kind of thing I mean. If we're going to
talk about toxic posters and poisoned lists THIS is what we should be
talking about. The quality of discussion. If someone can't advance his/her
political position on the basis of the logic of that position alone, I
submit it is not a position worth fighting for.

>It is this kind of marxism which more than justifies the absolute
>indiference of the working people to all the rantings and wishy washy
>admonitions of this "class warriors" stuck on a "Transitional limbo".

Yeah, well.

>The opinion of this twit is absolutely of no importance, since it only
boils down to >assertions and is incapable to expalin the coincidence
between the admitted policy of >the Peruvian Military High Command and the
actions of Rodwell-Poder-Obrero- >Quispe and malecki in this list.

>That is where a good marxist shows his mettle.  Explain this glaring
>"contradiction" which shows itself in CONCRETE FACTS WITHIN A CONCRETE
>SITUATION, and then all your boasting and belittling of Louis Proyect's
>Marxist credentials may be considered as something different but a fit of
>pique on your part, no different in character of that of any one else.

I for one was not aware that the MHC had the policy of encouraging
independent workers' organisation in unions, workers' councils and workers'
militias - when the time is right.  Nor that the MHC was in favour of
disarming the generals and higher officers, of placing the army under the
political control of the organs of power of the proletariat or of
encouraging soldiers to turn their arms against their own reactionary officers.

Since when has the MHC justified its anti-terrorist line with the argument
that terrorism weakens mobilisation of the working class around a
revolutionary socialist programme. Or that it gives the repressive forces an
excuse to crack down even harder. Or that it decimates the ranks of
revolutionary cadres?

Similarly, since when has the MHC advocated the building of revolutionary
strongholds in urban, working class centres, or encouraging political
strikes, or general strikes with the ultimate aim of taking power. Or
factory and workplace occupations, or creating organs of dual power against
the machinery of the bourgeois state?

And, of course, the MHC uses its firepower to back poor peasants and
landless rural poor in their struggles against the big landowners. Or to
chase government goons out of town. Or to protect socialist and
revolutionary democratic fighters from threats to their security or
agitational activities.

Not a whole lot of coincidences, I'm afraid. But then a great deal hinges on
what you mean by revolutionary.

Stuart Sheild

P.S. Thanks for the professorship. I must unfortunately decline the honour
as I believe one is first required to attend university.

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list