Colombia and Ireland

bernie wool bernard.wool at SPAMtesco.net
Wed Oct 27 17:09:01 MDT 1999



Look, Proyect,

You are the only guy who can't get thrown off this list for gratuitous insults
because you are the goddamn owner.  You indulge yourself nightly, it seems,
tossing off splenetic outbursts against anyone who disturbs your little cyberworld
and those of your mates.  Meantimes you immerse yourself in a scholarly fashion,
in the mystical world of "Marxism between the lines".  Every response to anything
you don't like has studiously avoided the serious points that have been made, by
myself and by others.

On the contrary, dear chap, your method is very like that of the Healy's and
North's of the other world.  You bury discussion in bile and dissimulation, but
amidst some cosy tea-taking with 'scholars' - that does indeed set you apart from
those two thugs.  I am not surprised that your list involves hardly a single
contributor from the working class, keen to either learn or to take understanding
forward.  The whole schemozzle is backward looking when it comes to real
struggles.  Despite the fact that a lot of contributors are from the USA, apart
from the odd publicity for this or that TU matter, there has not been a single
item in about a month on the US class struggle, nor indeed that from any other
part of the world.

Well, maybe what you write is provocation as a means of 'theoretical cleansing'.
That is your privilege as 'moderator' - an excellent oxymoron that I shall relish,
considering your double standards when it comes to moderate language.

Now to business -

Proyect:  "we have different definitions of reformism. Yours is based on idealism,
while marxism is based on the dialectical action between ideas and activity."

Wool:  Very glib, so what _is_ your conception of reformism?

Proyect:  "to work on developing something called a PROGRAM, which is solid,
unyielding and shines bright like diamonds."

Wool:  Please quote back anything that I said regarding "the PROGRAM",
"Transitional" or not.  I can't be bothered to go through all my posts, but I am
quite sure that I make it explicitly and implicitly clear that my view is that the
matter of programme is not for parties but for the class itself, developed out of
its own "dialectical action between ideas and activity", if that's the way you
like to formularize Marxism - but quite frankly it is meaningless gobbledegook

Proyect:  "Everything that is not equal to the CORRECT REVOLUTIONARY IDEA is equal
to INCORRECT REFORMIST IDEAS."

Wool:  In this case - Columbia - it is a matter of two guerrilla groups whose
practice ends up in trying to clinch a deal for the more "humane" administration
of capital's to's and fro's.  No matter how much you shout and rave about their
their social bases being among peasants and the oil workers away from the cities,
you avoided my question about whether or not the occupation of the power plant was
unilaterally by the FARC or whether it was an occupation by the workers as part of
the general strike.  Do the FARC and ELN substitute themselves for the masses or
not?  If either had mass support, then why would they enter the "Peace Process"?
And by the way, what is their "PROGRAM"?  Do they still have one?  It is a matter
of tedious historical record that every nationalist movement from William Wallace
to the ANC have continually trimmed "POLICY", using "socialist" when it suits the
moment and then abandoning it when it does not.  How does that serve the interests
of either workers or peasants?  OK, fine; should the FARC or ELN (or/both)
overthrow the state, momentarily that would be an advance for both oppressed
sections of Columbian society.  But when will you and your co-thinkers  realise
that we have been this route before on every continent this century - "See the new
boss, same as the old boss" (Even Daltrey and Townshend said "Don't get fooled
again" pal!)?

Is this is a discussion group, or just a place to play word games?  When the FARC
and ELN were in bitter struggle against the Columbian state, and likewise when the
Provos were fighting the British state, critical support was obligatory.  But both
struggles are played out to the end game,  that is the same in essence, and
results from the poverty of outlook by petty-bourgeois nationalism.  News here is
that a growing section of the IRA looks on Adams as a traitor like Collins, in
fact worse because the compromise is not about the breathing space needed by the
emergent southern state, but a grovelling need to administer capital's "power" in
Stormont Castle and to be seen to do so.  So, lets hear what the working class in
Columbia has to say about FARC and ELN, and for that matter the peasant farmers.
And, come, come, what you and Jose are really saying is that we should also be
even handed with the Senderos.

My point in engaging in this thread is not to try to win buddies or some sort of
"scholarly" reputation on the list, but to ask the question, "When do Marxists
cease to give critical support to nationalism, and call things by their proper
name before the working class?".  Sooner or later that question must arise.  So
how about getting you gums into that one, for no doubt your teeth have long since
been ground away.  How's the edge of the carpet by the way?

BW














More information about the Marxism mailing list