Medals to PCP Supporters

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

IMHO, especially humble since I am at best probably no more
than a democrat in their eyes, I think the medals ought
to go to the PCP supporters who have kept quiet this month
in terms of public comments on the l'st about the flame war.

Perhaps I have missed somethings I haven't been able to
scan in the archives from when I was away, but top medals
to Dan and Siddarth for saying nothing. Then to Gina, Jay and
Louis G, for saying what they did, with some degree of self-moderation,
even though they tended to favour different sides in the controversy.

The tone of Louis G's private letters to Dan, although made public
for other reasons, seemed much more appropriate, whatever those
involved might think of the merits or otherwise of the views.

>From my acquaintance through the Anti-Apartheid Movement, with the
ANC, I would suggest that penetration by the enemy of a revolutionary
movement does serious damage at several levels. One is the response
it can create of deep mistrust, inefficiency in communications, and
even quite unacceptable practices in treating your own comrades.
The most damaging accusation against the ANC, which they had
investigated, were about treatment of people detained in their own
camps.

It is a betting certainty that the PCP has been penetrated by its
enemy at several levels. And it has to take many measures to
guard against that. I had not realised until I learned
>from this marvellous l'st, that the Chechyen leader died as a result
of using a cellular telephone. That of course alone is one reason that
the PCP cannot get out a reliable signal to its supporters as to whether it
would prefer them to continue to compromise and work in the international
organisation alongside Avakian or whether to try to organise a new
international, or indeed whether not to put much energy into organising
an international at all.

Allowance must also be made for the fact that at times an organisation
simply does not know. However they present themselves, organisations
are not monoliths. There may be times when key people do not feel
they have enough information in front of them to know how to take
a decision on something important.

Very much from the outside it seems to me improbable that any of the
main protagonists in the conflict on this l'st are members of the PCP.
If they had really reliable channels of communication with the PCP, they
would act more quietly and more authoritatively, and get the message out
about their authenticity in other ways. Threats would be unnecessary.

Meanwhile some allowance surely must be made for the inflammatory nature
of this medium, such quick response times, such public exposure,
such ability to feel alone, so hard to judge between paranoia
and whether you really are being persecute by bastards out to get
you down.

I don't want to appear falsely sympathetic, because as I have made clear,
I think some of the difficulties PCP supporters have got into have been
indirectly linked with problems of its political line about peace negotiations
and problems inherent in Maoist ideology. However I would suggest, because
it may come up for other organisations too, that when there is an
concern that someone has misused funds or may be an enemy agent, (as of course
happens) it is most unwise to treat this as part of the normal range of
healthy polemic on an open l'st, but can only be contained gradually by good
practices, for the sake of everyone.

Impugning the credibility of other contributors is part of the fabric of
conflict on this l'st, and can sometimes be down in a witty and
informative way. But even to those who believe that waging ideological
war against revisionism is a duty of marxists, I would suggest that
doubts about the loyalty or financial reliability of other contributors
are in a completely different category to the normal range of polemic about
people's credibility.

Meanwhile it is good to see that Maoist contributors are not actually
acting as a monolithic bloc themselves, but getting down to debating
for example key questions like the relative strength of the national
bourgeoisie, with contributors coming from other marxist traditions.

Chris
London.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---