Re: New 5-part MLM-Rolf Thought!!(or, the quintessence of cyber-idealist thinking)

[rolf.martens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rolf Martens)]

Galloppin' Gina,

To those parts of what you wrote, on 01.07, which seem to be
touching on some reality, I'll briefly reply:


>His evidence of
>this "copperhood" seems to be exclusively drawn from the fact that
>Chris has been a voice of reasoned arguement and pleader for
>concilliation among the feuding factions on this list.

It "seems" you cannot, or don't want to, read. I had 12 points
on the issue. Only one of them do you refer to. And this
incorrectly. Your group and mine weren't, and aren't, "feuding
factions". They represent  bourgeoisie and proletariat,
combating each other. All the facts since mid-April show this.

>What practice has indicated to Rolf that Chris is a cop, or that Luis
>and Marcelina of the New Flag are one person (on the petty end of the
>spectrum)?  Or that the international line of the PCP is wrong (at the
>other end)? In fact, NO SOCIAL PRACTICE AT ALL! In the case of
>Luis/Marcelina, he has only idle speculation. And it is for not going
>along with this kind of idle speculation that he lables Chris a cop.


On "Luis" and "Marcelina", two things: 1) Adolfo's saying they're
one - together with the many things pointing at his being reliable
and thos pointing at his having knowledge of the matter. 2) The
identical styles of the "Qu" and "Cco", likewise pointing at
"their" being one and the same "Qu/Cco".

On the errors of the PCP: The social practice, if you will of
the Chinese masses, giving rise to Mao Zedong's correct analysis,
which the PCP erroneously attacks. The social pratice of the
German (etc) proletariat, giving rise to the parallell (to
Mao's) likewise correct analysis by the former KPD/ML(NEUE
EINHEIT) of the actual general situation.

>In the case of the PCP, in fact social practice has shown just the
>opposite of Rolf's thesis.  Unless you think that an organization can
>just "luck out" and continuously defeat armed forces backed up by
>the most powerful imperialists on earth, the only conclusion that can
>be drawn from the revolutionary success of the PCP is that their
>understanding of the international situation is AT LEAST principally
>correct.

Not necessarily true. The Vietnamese people won in their war of
liberation against the US imperialists. Yet, for instance, in
August 1968, the Vietnamese leadership erroneously (or foully,
if you will) condoned and applauded the aggression by Soviet
social-imperialism against Czechoslovakia. Despite this, it
was correct for the peoples of the world to support the struggle
of the People's Republic of Vietnam and the National Liberation
Front in South Vietnam.

>
>Yet Rolf, that great follower of "Mao Tsetung Thought" denies this
>social practice as the test of the correctness of theory, and instead
>whines that the PCP isn't following the lead of his favorite ghost, the
>previous incarnation of Neue Einheit, whose social practice was so
>correct that it no longer exists in the form Rolf so admires.

"Social practice" is *not* the test of the correctness or
incorrectness of a theory. The test is whether it corresponds
to reality or not.

The KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), in the decade and a half, approximately,
when it was a revolutionary party, dealt the reactionaries many
very hard blows. This because it was connected with the masses
and represented their interests.

The Communist Party of China likewise, and during a much longer
period still, likewise dealt the reactionaries in the world many
hard blows, and for the same reason.

Both those parties, the one always very small, the other
eventually having 30 million members, were in the end
conquered from the inside by the bourgeoisie.

>And neither Rolf nor Adolfo can deal with Proletarian Feminism.

In my case, could you bring something to show this? I believe
I can deal with it, and hold that there is such a thing.

>The words appearing on the screen tell us NOTHING about the
>social practice or the specific character of person writing them; they

>These words in cyberspace give no indication as to whether the
>ideas expressed here have ever stood the test of practice.  Especially
>when the various contributors live and work in far-flung areas of the
>world, it's easy to simply lie about what you do in the rest of your life.
>Who will know?  Who can check up on you?

>Gina/Detroit

Two points here: 1) The words people write *do* tell *something*
about their social practice etc. For instance, people can see
that in the "Quispe" fight, there's been a correct (proletarian)
side and an erroneous (bourgeois) one. This - so far - speaks
well of the social practice of those who've defended the
proletarian line and, even more clearly, shows there's
something very wrong vith the social practice of those very few
people who,like you, actually have defended the "Quispe" thing.

Also in general: Theories which different people advance at
least in certain respects can be checked on independenly
elsewhere. This gives a plus for those who advance good
theories - and/or report correctly - and a minus for those
who're obviously advocating bullshit.

2) In putting the question about checking up, your'e, so far,
right. People need to be checked up on. In your case, this
can be done by Jay and Tony, who also write from Detroit.
In my case, there are certain possibilities for checking up
on me, even if we restrict ourselves to this list: Malecki,
Hugh Rodwell and Jorn A all live in Sweden/Denmark and can
read Swedish. Whatever should be the correct assessments
of the reability of reporting from thoose three, they at
least do constitute a certain possible "control instance"
of what I'm writing, saying and otherwise doing outside of
this list.

Rolf M.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---