Re: International or Internet

[rolf.martens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rolf Martens)]

On the question of the character of Chris B., London,
I recommend the re-reading of the below post, which he
originally sent on 10 May and now on 01.07 has reposted.
(Thanks for that.) It's one of those which I referred to in my
5-part thing on that character on 30.06, too.

Rolf M.


>The problems that the Maoists are enacting in front of our eyes
>about the creation of an International, are instructive.
>
>They confirm my impression that the Internet is very undermining
>of disciplined democratic centralist organisational unity.
>
>The more various Maoists have participated in discussions on this
>l'st the more issues have arisen that are likely to divide them.
>
>It has emerged that early on, Quispe was uneasy about the wisdom of
>Olachaea's handling of the possible assassination of Aczueta, but
>kept a disciplined silence, even though subsequent remarks by Ccoromina
>that Olachaea was psychotic on this issue, could at best only be
>interpreted in the broader psychoanalytic use of the term "psychotic" rather
>than as a strict clinical definition.
>
>The interpretation of the Cultural Revolution alone, gives plenty of
>principles for Maoists to disagree about.
>
>Whether to remain with the PCP within RIM in opposition to Avakian, or
>whether to pull out now with a call for an international movement, which
>may not be constituted as the PCP would wish, is another source of potential
>conflict.
>
>As is the question of whether to have an international at all.
>
>MIM's reappearance to quote Mao Zedong at the time of the liquidation of
>Lenin and Stalin's Comintern, is particularly interesting, historically
>and as a thought experiment. How does a "Maoist International Movement"
>come to present Mao's arguments against a Communist International?
>This could be the source of more conflict.
>
>And merely how to interpret the state of development of a revolutionary
>movement in Nepal was the occasion of a warm exchange between Godena and C.
>
>And all this before checking whether there is an agreed line on nuclear
>power stations (it is not impossible that some Maoists might secretly
>sympathise with Malecki's criticisms of Rolf in this respect) and
>the proletarian policy on gun control, (C did not comment on this
>topical issue.)
>
>And when all these are solved, there is room for debate
>on the Maoist line on homosexuality - Mao's doctor came to the
>opinion after interesting deliberation that Mao was not homosexual but there
>is countervailing evidence that Mao's doctor's book was itself
>"doctored" between for its sexual highlights between the Chinese and
>the American edition.
>
>So how can all this debate lead to a unified Maoist international, when
>internet alone, allows endlessly more detailed discussion of detailed
>questions?
>
>If Trotskyists were to resume the attempt to polemicise into being a
>single International, I suspect they would run into similar difficulties
>soon enough again. The harder the polemic, the faster the fragmentation.
>
>So what we are observing is the dynamics of networks, not of
>democratic centralist hierarchies.
>
>It is a medium that is arguably inherently Menshevik, that does not
>easily permit the thrashing out of Lenin's desired "granite" like
>theoretical unity.
>
>Those who do not undersand this may do themselves a mischief, whatever harm
>they inflict on others on the way.
>
>Chris
>
>London.
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---