Re: AUT: Re:Sylvie and George (fwd)

[Ilan Shalif <gshalif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi comrades.

> (2) The question about "soft Maoism" is interesting.

The "soft Maoism" can be contradicted with the "common Maoism"on few main
points. It was seldom to find among Maoists people who
took Mao ideological split with the "common leninists" seriously.

(It is well defined in his "on the correct handling of contradiction
among the people".)

If Mao and his Ideological followers (me included till 1967) were
not for the centralist party structure of revolutionaries, they were
on the border of libertarian communism.

> (3) I was not very impressed with the complaint that Reeve/Deneuve did not
> have archival evidence of Marcos's origins in the maoist-guevarist foco
> effort. of course, a couple of Parisian nonacademics are not going to do
> better than speculation.

You do not have to be academian to adhere to facts and objectivitywhen
presenting them.

It is shame for serious rebels to publicize speculations and gossip - even
if it is only among "us".

They, and the one who posted it, did not warn us in advance about
the nature of the text. It seemed to me when I have read it and more so
now, that it is a kind of "under the belt" tactic.

> --perhaps only Marcos and his former friends in the
> philosophy (?) department can do better--but that speculation makes sense,
> has not been contradicted by anyone with knowledge of the story, and is,
> so far as I know, unchallenged by any alternative contextualizing account.

The big deal is that any serious person who try to clean up garbage, catchpart
of the stench. (Me too.)

> So what's the big deal?

Really what is the deal?

How much it is really important what was Marcos and his comrades
initial political point of view more than ten years ago?

Are not we strong believers in the molding ability of mass struggle to
change these involved in it?

Ilan





     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---