Vladimir Bilenkin "achekhov at" at
Thu Sep 26 08:35:27 MDT 1996

Hugh Rodwell wrote:

> Louis P is determined to continue his consistent but unprincipled and
> criminal (libellous accusation of a comrade as a police spy) smear of Bob
> M. No proof just a mindless repetition of innuendo and suspicion.
> This time it's guilt by association, Using "Elwood's pamphlet on the
> Malinovsky case. Malinovsky was an infamous provocateur in the Bolshevik
> party."
> Let's take our usual close look at this effort of Louis's.
> >1. Descriptions of Malinovsky refer to his 'disdain for the usual
> >rules of spelling and grammar'.
> That makes the majority of the kids at my school Tsarist spies. Louis's
> spelling and grammar aren't so hot either come to that.
> >2. Malinovsky's own accounts of his background fluctuated. But in his
> >formal evidence to enquiry he described his poor background and
> >limited education.
> Poor background and limited education! Well, Adolfo can't be a Tsarist spy
> then, can he! A "poor background" -- I say fellows, good job we didn't let
> that chappy in rags into our meeting, eh! "Limited education" -- well, *I*
> can breathe easy, too! Phew...
> Feels good pointing that finger eh? "Poor background", huh? "Limited
> education!" -- must be rotten to the core!
> "Poor background" -- under capitalism! What a perverse deviant!
> "Limited education" -- under capitalism! Obviously a professional
> troublemaker of the worst sort!
> And the cheek of talking about it! Have these gutter-rats no shame! It's
> bad enough to *have* a "poor background", but to *talk about it* as well!
> Words fail me...
> >3. Malinovsky had a record of minor crime before entering politics.
> >This resulted in at least one prison spell, during which the
> >authorities obtained the information with which they controlled him
> >later.
> "Minor crime", too. One in a million, this bloke. And a spell in prison! He
> can't have been a young, black American male, then, can he, or a young
> Irish catholic male? The evidence against Bob M is piling up, merciless in
> its precision and crushing in its mass.
> >4. Malinovsky's political activity begins suddenly and with a high
> >level of intensity. following a prison term. The circumstances of his
> >conversion to the marxist cause have never become clear.
> This is really odd. A new convert showing a high level of activity! And a
> conversion about which we know little, *most* unusual.
> >5. Following his appearance in political activity he moves rapidly
> >into leading positions, showing an ability to impress and convince
> >large numbers of people.
> Again very strange. He shows "an ability to impress and convince large
> numbers of people", and "moves rapidly into leading positions". We'd have
> kept him in quarantine as a rival, wouldn't we lads?! Soon shown him his
> place.
> Now, since Louis is trying to push the similarities between Malinovsky and
> Bob M, why doesn't he prove this particular political point? Give us
> evidence of Bob's rapid advancement to leading positions? Say where he sees
> the same "ability to impress and convince large numbers of people"? Most of
> the past few months have been spent by Louis trying to assert that Bob is
> totally incapable of convincing anybody.
> >6. A further arrest and short imprisonment, followed by release and
> >(internal) exile.
> Uh-huh...
> >7. An ability to inspire obstinate loyalty on the part of leading
> >revolutionaries (inc. Lenin) even in the face of the facts. This was
> >attributed to 'reverse snobbery' ie exaggerated respect for a working
> >class origin, on the part of his most loyal supporters.
> But wait a second. Aren't the "leading revolutionaries" on this list such
> worthies as Lou P, Adolfo and HMV Henwood?
> So where do the boundaries for "exaggerated" as opposed to "justified"
> respect for working class origin go?
> And the important question of the facts, of course. What facts were
> available that Lenin should have recognized?
> What *facts* do we have in our own case of libel against Bob M? *None*. A
> few rotten assertions slung out by Louis P. A few words of braggadocio
> about spending his vacation backing them up -- and then NOTHING. NOTHING.
> Note here the supercilious arrogance with which Louis P presumes to condemn
> Lenin for not recognizing Malinovksi, a real spy, while he himself is much
> more clear-sighted and unfazed in the face of pressures from workerist
> reverse snobbery, and sees a police spy where there isn't. Oh glorious
> revolutionary example to us all! If only we had your pellucid brain and
> unclouded vision! Lenin the knucklehead, the reverse snob, the defender of
> lousy spelling and police spies! Defender of people with a "poor
> background" and "limited education"! Louis P the seagreen incorruptible
> exposer of all lousy spelling and police spies! Louis our saviour from
> people with a "poor background" and a "limited education"!
> >8. A manner of discussing that 'made me feel tired immediately'
> >(Voronsky).
> What was Lenin's opinion on that?
> >9. A career episode in publishing and journalism, despite the
> >limitations of his language skills.
> Louis is out to cleanse the publishing world of editors and proof-readers.
> Stalin's Russian wasn't so hot either, come to that. Most writers and
> journalists scrape some sort of living together, despite the limitations of
> their language skills. Most contributors to political journals would rot in
> hell if their work was judged on the basis of their language skills! Maybe
> Louis can dig up some survey or other where political value is correlated
> to spelling skills? Or if he can't, maybe Doug can? Dan Quayle can't spell
> for potatoes, so maybe he was a spy acting as vice-president of the US?
> So once again Factoid Man has piled a heap of ill-smelling refuse on our
> nice clean cyberlawns, and draws our attention to it by hopping up and down
> on top of it pointing for all he's worth and making more din than a
> roomfull of parrots.
> Cheers,
> Hugh
> PS It's good to know the unity-list takes all of cyberspace into account
> when it decides who to let on and who to keep off. Louis performances here
> undoubtedly give him some desirability for the unity-list discussions.
> Perhaps it's because he's a second Lenin come to judgement, only better,
> cos he's got a way of justifying censorship, disruption and exclusion by
> accusing people who disagree with him of being police spies.

Well done, Hugh!  I can only add that Louis' grotesque behavior and
his maniacal charges against Robert may be a case of guilt transference.

I believe that he not only willingly ignored a real provocation against a
real revolutionary on this list, he actually got carried away by his petty
offence, his false pride and let himself to be drawn in it.

And I think he knows this.  How else could we explain his silence
to my repeated requests to answer a simple question:

 >True, you have infinitely more political experience than I do.  So let me
>learn from you. You claim that a seasoned left politician can confidently
>accuse some one in being a provocateur - which is the most serious charge
>possible - on the following basis:

 >       - this person tell lies about his past

  >      -his behavior is "disruptive" for list discussions

>Have I missed something else?  I don't think so. Unfortunately, you
>have not specified what do you mean by "disruptiveness." I am not
>a native speaker, of course.  So I may not be aware of all possible
>meanings of this word, but to my knowledge, disruptive does not
>include: informing on revolutionaries, provoking splits between them,
>intimidation to obtain secret information from them, or to force them to
>change the course of their struggle, or to stop them from proclaiming
>their views publicly and disseminating information about their struggle.

>Am I correct, Louis, that all of the above belongs to the concept
>of the provocateur but not to the definition of disruptive behavior?
>Would you be willing to call someone a provocateur if it were
>demonstrated by quotes from this person's writings that they
>(the writings) had intention to achieve all of the above?

>I will trust your judgment.


>I am still waiting, Louis.  Why, my question sounds so simple.

>Just say: YES or NO.



     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list