flaming

[Michael Perelman]

I am going to have to be off line for the rest of the day.  Please,
everybody involved, cool it.

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:5843] flaming path

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

 I have a new system which is seriously malfunctioning 
and which apparently did not send out a long message I 
composed on the issue of Quispe, et al.  I shall not repeat 
it but shall add a few remarks in light of more recent 
discussion.
 1)  Quispe, or Palomino, or whoever he is, is 
certainly inarticulate, a bungler, and given to internal 
inconsistencies.  All of this does not look good, but does 
not prove that he is a cop.  He certainly looks dumb and 
crude compared to the educated and aristocratic Olaechea.
 2)  I regret that Hans Ehrbar signed his message as 
"moderater, marxism list"  He is a "co-mod," there being 
several others.  This contrasts with the role played by 
Michael Perelman on this list.  Sorry, Hans, but I know 
Michael Perelman, and you are no Michael Perelman, :-).
 3)  In fact, although many people on M1 have been 
impressed with Campbell's findings about Palomino/Quispe, 
many are not convinced, including several PCP supporters 
such as Gina from Detroit, who has accused Campbell of 
doing exactly what he has accused Quispe/Palomino of doing,
that is publishing names and addresses of PCP supporters.
 4)  Chris Burford attempted recently to psychologize 
Olaechea into a confrontation or silence.  AO responded 
with a furious flaming assault that raised questions about 
some of CB's actions in the early 1970s.  The mild-mannered 
CB was stunned into silence, regrettably.
 5)  The bizarreness of all this is perhaps epitomized 
by the fact that virtually all of the too-numerous-to-list 
self-proclaimed PCP supporters on M1 claim to be 
"anti-Avakianists."  Each accuses others of being 
insufficiently "anti-Avakian" and all apparently presume 
that being insufficiently anti-A is prima facie evidence 
that one is a police spy (wooo, wooo, w!!!).  For those 
uninformed in such matters, Bob Avakian is the long-time 
leader of the US Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP-USA) 
which claims to be the official pro-PCP group in the US.  
Those criticizing him and it, such as AO, claim that he and 
it support the idea that there is a "pro-peace" faction 
within the PCP, allegedly led by jailed leader, Chairman 
Gonzalo (Abimael Guzman).  This claim is supposedly a 
police plot/conspiracy.  However, my recent perusals of the 
RCP newspaper, _Revolutionary Worker_, suggest that it is 
loudly supporting the PCP war effort and I saw nothing 
about support for any "peace" proposals.  Go figure. 

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:5832] Re: The Flaming Path

[Doug Henwood]

At 7:27 PM 8/23/96, Gerald Levy wrote:

>Did A.O. also make death threats in your direction?

For those unaware of the dramas of the Marxism l'st, A.O. - Adolfo Oleachea
- is an upper-class Peruvian in London exile under a death sentence from
Fujimori. His politics are maniacally Stalinist (do a web search on his
name and you can find his classic speech to the Stalin society), but he's a
smart fellow and a compelling stylist. Thank God he doesn't have state
power, but he's always worth reading; Levy's comment is sort of misleading.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: 

[PEN-L:5830] Re: The Flaming Path

[Gerald Levy]

I want to reply again to Hans Ehrbar since, although peripheral to PEN-L,
the issues (in particular the 2nd issue below) have some importance.

> (1) the death threats on M1 before the split of the lists.  They
> mainly emanated from Adolfo Oleachea.  Oleachea was underlining his
> arguments with a steady stream of obscure hints at extra-list action.
> He was escalating this when he felt more secure, and toning it down
> when he was argumentationally in trouble.  It was very eerie.

Yes, indeed, it was very "eerie."

>  I saw
> this clearly because I was following his arguments closely, being, of
> course, one of the main proponents who wanted Adolfo on the list.  Not
> because of free speech motives, but because Adolfo is a beautiful
> specimen of a Stalinist, and I wanted to drag him under the miscroscope
> of the list and study him, so that we will better be able to free the
> working class from the scourge of Stalinism.

If that was your reasoning, that was *not* the reasoning that you
articulated to the list at the time.

> This was one of my
> motives, the other was that Adolfo's revolutionary commitment, which
> cannot be doubted, brought sensibilities to the list which were not
> there before.

*That* was the reasoning that you explained at the time.  At the time,
that explanation struck me as bizarre. The implication seems to be that
before Adolfo's presence the list was lacking in individuals with
"revolutionary commitment" and "sensibilities." I think this is a very
unfair characterization of the composition of the list at the time. One
should also recall the amount of people who resigned from the list in
protest of the barrage of attacks against "fake leftists", "left
fascists", "police agents", etc. ad nauseum. These people had - on average
- *at least* as much "revolutionary commitment" as Adolfo and the clique
of Shining Path supporters (who, evidently, have since had a big falling
out).

> Now the PCP clearly does not have the resource to send or even hire
> a hit man, and the list members were clearly not important enough to
> merit killing.

The "resource" that the PCP has in other countries is a committed group of
followers. As you know, there is much evidence that has been presented by
such "pro-imperialist" organizations as NACLA, _Monthly Review_, and
Amnesty International that the PCP has assassinated political opponents
on the Left. Under these circumstances death threats coming from
well-known PCP supporters like AO *have* to be taken seriously since the
PCP has a track record for killing political opposition. BTW, these same
people not only defended Stalin on the list but also claimed that the
"killing fields" in Kampuchea were an imperialist fabrication.

> Why then was Adolfo doing this stuff?
> Some time in April I dared a psychological explanation.  

Stop! There were far too many psychological explanations for the behavior
of listmembers, IMO.

> But Chris B. did some excellent
> work exposing Adolfo's sadism.  Soft-spoken Chris can be really
> brilliant if he gets angry, and Adolfo did make him angry, questioning
> his masculinity.

Chris B, a clinical psychologist from London, was - when he was a
co-moderator - very prone to "psychologizing" about the characters of
listmembers. Quite a few listmembers, you will recall, objected strongly
to that psychologizing and some even cited it as a reason (among others)
for resigning from the list. I do find it curious, though, that Chris
would get especially "angry" when his "masculinity" was challenged.

> (2) What is the evidence that Quispe is a cop?  Of course, a list can
> never have evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt, but Quispe's
> behavior cannot be reasonably explained otherwise.  On occasion when
> he got angry he lashed out against those activists who denounced him
> which revealed his deep hatred for the culture of political activism
> he was working in.  Fooled by the heat of the argument between
> comrades he thought everything goes and did not notice the fine lines
> which the other comrades never cross.  He also tries, in subtle ways,
> to discredit the PCP by publishing the PCP material in a way which
> must turn people off, or by publicizing private email.  The list of
> suspicious acts is very long, and people have been publishing such
> lists on M1.  Most of the evidence is much harder than what I just
> wrote, but the points I just gave are those most convincing to me
> personally.

A pattern of inconsistent and erratic behavior and the presence of a few
enigmas is not evidence or proof that Quispe is a cop.

The issue of accusing other Leftists of being cops is a very important one
that needs to be addressed by political activists. It is my belief that
many social movements and organizations have been hurt seriously by such
unwarranted accusations. Too many organizations have disintegrated under
the climate of "You're a cop!" and "No, You're a cop".  We now know that
police organizations themselves are fre

[PEN-L:5829] Re: The Flaming Path

[Hans Ehrbar]

You are raising two issues, Jerry:

(1) the death threats on M1 before the split of the lists.  They
mainly emanated from Adolfo Oleachea.  Oleachea was underlining his
arguments with a steady stream of obscure hints at extra-list action.
He was escalating this when he felt more secure, and toning it down
when he was argumentationally in trouble.  It was very eerie.  I saw
this clearly because I was following his arguments closely, being, of
course, one of the main proponents who wanted Adolfo on the list.  Not
because of free speech motives, but because Adolfo is a beautiful
specimen of a Stalinist, and I wanted to drag him under the miscroscope
of the list and study him, so that we will better be able to free the
working class from the scourge of Stalinism.  This was one of my
motives, the other was that Adolfo's revolutionary commitment, which
cannot be doubted, brought sensibilities to the list which were not
there before.

Now the PCP clearly does not have the resource to send or even hire a
hit man, and the list members were clearly not important enough to
merit killing.  Furthermore, Adolfo's threats were very damaging to
the reputation of the PCP.  Why then was Adolfo doing this stuff?
Some time in April I dared a psychological explanation.  I wrote:
there is only one person on this list who has reson to be afraid of
the PCP.  And this is Adolfo.  His threats stem from his unconscious
desire to communicate his fears to others.  Adolfo gave me a lame
rebuttal that he was too old to be afraid.  He did *not* say that he
was not in danger.  And then his flow of sublimial threats stopped!


I have not yet gotten around to challenging Adolfo's Stalinism, but I
have announced publicly that this was the next thing I was planning to
do.  Until now, the main contradiction bogging down the list was the
fact that Quispe was a cop, and attacking his rival Adolfo, who is not
a cop, would have muddied the issue.  But Chris B. did some excellent
work exposing Adolfo's sadism.  Soft-spoken Chris can be really
brilliant if he gets angry, and Adolfo did make him angry, questioning
his masculinity.  Adolfo, on the other hand, who was so lucid when he
had to fight for entrance into the list, turned into a conceited bore
after he was in it, always trying to look beautiful, and trying to
sneak into the circle of supporters which Louis P. was assembling
around himself in order to re-gain leadership of the list.


(2) What is the evidence that Quispe is a cop?  Of course, a list can
never have evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt, but Quispe's
behavior cannot be reasonably explained otherwise.  On occasion when
he got angry he lashed out against those activists who denounced him
which revealed his deep hatred for the culture of political activism
he was working in.  Fooled by the heat of the argument between
comrades he thought everything goes and did not notice the fine lines
which the other comrades never cross.  He also tries, in subtle ways,
to discredit the PCP by publishing the PCP material in a way which
must turn people off, or by publicizing private email.  The list of
suspicious acts is very long, and people have been publishing such
lists on M1.  Most of the evidence is much harder than what I just
wrote, but the points I just gave are those most convincing to me
personally.


Hans Ehrbar.

[PEN-L:5828] Re: The Flaming Path

[Gerald Levy]

Hans Ehrbar wrote:

> The fact that the list turned out to be an instrument of murder
> certainly has been a matter of great concern to the spoon collective.

Yes, I can imagine that the list becoming an "instrument of murder" might
now be of some concern to the Spoon Administration.

However, to my knowledge, no one has been murdered *yet* as a result of
goings-on on the marxism1 list. Am I mistaken?

When there were death threats in the Spring, I don't recall any  great
concern from the former and current moderators. Indeed, some went out of
their way to say how "valuable" the culprits were and how their rights to
"free speech" should not be interfered with. (this can be verified
by an examination of the marxism archives). Perhaps this was because
some of them identified with the Maoist supporters of the Shining Path
who were the ones issuing verdicts against list members and making death
threats. Evidently the tradition of opposing  "censorship" on the
marxism1 list was deemed to be more important than possible fatalities.

> But one thing Barkley did not quite say is this: due to these
> incidents, Quispe/Palomino has been exposed to the world wide Left as
> a police agent.  Quispe is not really a supporter of the Peruvian
> Communist Party, and Callero is apolitical.

*Where is the evidence that Quispe is a police agent* and that he and _The
New Flag_ are not really supporters of the Shining Path? Has the PCP
issued a statement to that effect?

Jerry

[PEN-L:5825] Re: The Flaming Path

[Hans Ehrbar]

I am very grateful to Barkley for having stayed on the marxism list.
The fact that the list turned out to be an instrument of murder
certainly has been a matter of great concern to the spoon collective.
But one thing Barkley did not quite say is this: due to these
incidents, Quispe/Palomino has been exposed to the world wide Left as
a police agent.  Quispe is not really a supporter of the Peruvian
Communist Party, and Callero is apolitical.  Quispe bragged that
Callero was one of his followers only in a desperate attempt to gain
more credibility in a confrontation with Campbell, who Quispe knew was
able to expose him.  I have not seen the VV article and don't know if
it suggests or even permits this interpretation.

The marxism list, which cannot agree on anything, is almost unanimous
in its judgment that Quispe is a cop, although the PCP itself is
apparently at this time not yet aware of this.  Now one can
argue that this exposure alone may prevent much greater damage in the
future.  I also think that the evidence presented by the list is the
best defense of Callero.  Callero's lawyers are aware of the
situation, and I heard rumors that Quispe now charges that the
archives of the marxism list have been tampered with.

Hans Ehrbar, moderator of the marxism list.

[PEN-L:5824] Re: The Flaming Path

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

On Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Gerald Levy 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
> 
> >  Yeah, well that's barely the half of it.
> 
> Barkley: does that mean that you *stayed* [!] on that ...[undead] list? Do
> you also enjoy sleeping on a bed of nails and walking barefoot on hot coals?
> 
> Did A.O. also make death threats in your direction?
> 
> Jerry
> 

-- 
To Jerry,
I have been on and off the infamous M1 list.  I have had
some serious encounters with AO, but always wear my 
asbestos suit when I do so.  He has not threatened my life, 
only called me a fascist along with a lot of other people.  
Not a big deal.

Barkley Rosser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:5823] Re: The Flaming Path

[Gerald Levy]

Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:

>  Yeah, well that's barely the half of it.

Barkley: does that mean that you *stayed* [!] on that ...[undead] list? Do
you also enjoy sleeping on a bed of nails and walking barefoot on hot coals?

Did A.O. also make death threats in your direction?

Jerry

[PEN-L:5822] Re: The Flaming Path

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

On Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Gerald Levy 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> The current (8/27) edition of the _Village Voice_ has an article by
> Richard Gehh called "The Flaming Path" which PEN-Lers may want to check
> out. The article, subtitled "What happens when rhetoric becomes
> evidence?", concerns a flame war on the marxism1 list that may have led to
> the arrest of Juan Calero, a Connecticut landscaper, by the FBI and his
> possible extradition to Peru.  A Toronto reporter, K.K. Campbell, believes
> that a post written by Luis and Marcella Quispe, two Shining Path
> supporters, may have led to Calero's arrest. That post was written as part
> of a long flame between Campbell, Adolfo Olaechea, and the Quispes.
> Calero, the article reports, is currently being held in isolation at the
> Metropolitan Correctional Facility.
> 
> Jerry
> 

 Yeah, well that's barely the half of it.  For those who
have not followed this glorious mess over on "M1," there 
have also been allegations that Marcellina ["Quispe"] 
Ccorimanya is actually Luis's brother in disguise, or maybe 
Luis himself in disguise.  Ken ["Zodiac"] Campbell has more 
recently claimed that Luis is probably actually somebody 
named Palomino who supposedly goes under various assumed 
names. Zodiac claims Palomino is fairly white.  This led an 
enraged Luis to respond that he is a Peruvian Indian.  
Pretty murky stuff.
-- 
Barkley Rosser 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:5817] The Flaming Path

[Gerald Levy]

The current (8/27) edition of the _Village Voice_ has an article by
Richard Gehh called "The Flaming Path" which PEN-Lers may want to check
out. The article, subtitled "What happens when rhetoric becomes
evidence?", concerns a flame war on the marxism1 list that may have led to
the arrest of Juan Calero, a Connecticut landscaper, by the FBI and his
possible extradition to Peru.  A Toronto reporter, K.K. Campbell, believes
that a post written by Luis and Marcella Quispe, two Shining Path
supporters, may have led to Calero's arrest. That post was written as part
of a long flame between Campbell, Adolfo Olaechea, and the Quispes.
Calero, the article reports, is currently being held in isolation at the
Metropolitan Correctional Facility.

Jerry

[PEN-L:1033] flaming & "socialism from below"

[James Devine]

In response to Louis N Proyect's flame:  

Louis, I sent you a very gentle _personal_ comment, one which I
thought was to a friend, even though I'm sure we disagree on a lot
of stuff. So you make this note _public_ and flame it. Why?  
(I must admit that I've made private comments public on the net 
before, but it's because I've _agreed_ with what their authors said.)

>>Once again I get a lecture from a professor<<

I don't see _one paragraph_ as a "lecture." Maybe that's the kind of
lectures they give at Columbia. The valid content of all of their 
economics lectures probably adds up to a paragraph. ;-) 

>>Meanwhile Bill Mitchell stands on his remark about me being a
prick. Have you sent him some e-mail chastising him?<<

I've done so, a long time ago. But mostly he has some content to
back up (and to justify) his impolite style. I haven't paid enough
attention to the current debate to notice him insulting someone
without having some kind of backing.

>> By the way, it is nice to receive some advice on my netiquette
from somebody who has nothing at stake in these sorts of questions:
Jim "Socialism from Below" Devine. How low is below, Jim? Below or
above Lenin? Below or above Castro? What exactly is your model?
...<<

Hmmm... flamed because of a signature file that I usually don't use
on pen-l (but instead on such places as the Marxism list, where
basic political issues are more on the agenda). Oh, poop! it's
provoking me to produce a lecture! Well, you asked for it! (I really
should use that signature file more, since it does provoke useful
questions.)

The tradition surrounding the phrase "socialism from below," among
other things, says that leaders such as Lenin and Castro can only be
as good as what the organization and consciousness of the workers
and other oppressed groups allows -- and can only do better if they
work actively to improve the organization and raise the
consciousness of their bases. (BTW, I have no patience for those who
talk about Lenin or Castro or even Stalin as "betrayers" of the
people, since that's a misuse of hindsight and an invalid
abstraction from the social context.) They can also be much worse,
as with Pol Pot, empowering themselves by appealing to peoples'
worst instincts. I'll let Louis decide how close to those those
extremes Lenin and Castro have been, because I don't want to get
into a debate on that issue.

The key political point is to avoid what Trotsky (one of Louis's
favorites, if I remember correctly) called "substitutionism," in
which the leaders or the leaders' political parties are substituted
for the followers and sympathiser, where the means becomes an end in
itself. This critique is not simply aimed at the "Leninist" movement
(which is typically much worse than Lenin himself) but also at the
social democrats, who empower state bureaucrats, union leaders, and
parliamentary parties within capitalism. Avoid the glorification and
undemocratic empowerment of leaders and parties, because the point
of revolution and even reform is to empower the people, not the
leaders. Without the latter empowerment, the relatively progressive
achievements of the leaders and their parties sooner or later turn 
to rust.

As for my "model," I would be the first to admit that there are no
clear models in the real world that I can point to and say: "this is
what all working people can and should strive for." This is
especially true here in Los Angeles. I would point to elements of a
large different number of real cases (some aspects of Mondragon,
some aspects of the old Yugoslavia, some aspects of the old Sweden,
some aspects of the old USSR, some aspects of the Brazilian Workers'
Party, etc.) while trying to be as honest as possible about the
limitations of these cases. I see it as very important task to
figure out how to bring together the positive elements of these
cases and exclude the negative elements -- and I don't see this task
as being done yet. On this question, I'm a student and not a teacher. 
Diverse efforts such as those of Albert & Hahnel, Pat (no relation) 
Devine, and David Schweikert give us some inkling of the kind of 
system that needs to be built. I wish I had had enough time and 
energy to sift through the current pen-l debate to get more light 
on this question; I also wish that there weren't so much heat on 
what is basically an abstract question.

In the end, such ideal models of the way in which the world should
work only have a meaning, an impact, if there's a mass democratic
movement pushing to overthrow capitalism and replace it with
something better -- or even a mass democratic movement pushing to
reform capitalism, to get a better deal out of the system. Debates
about the nature of the system that should replace capitalism can
help build this base, but only if the debate is serious, not a
flame which drives serious discussion out.

>>Listen: professors of the world. You can continue writing your
articles ... from now until doomsday and it will have