Myself, I like Ben Seattle's http://www.leninism.org/pof/ label for Klo, "Klueless." http://www.leninism.org/pof/pof6-reply-cc.htm On 6-17-97 Carrol Cox wrote:.. Michael Pugliese
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/ISML/AllOpenLetterMLL2000.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=Hari+Kumar+pen-l
>...Members of the "Maoist Documentation Project" (MDP) had correctly
recognized that the moderators exercised a somewhat personal and arbitrary
expulsion policy. True, the specific complaint of the MDP , was on weak ground,
revolving around the specific case of one Adolfo Oleachea.
Moreira, defended the expulsion on the grounds that Oleachea’s behaviour was both provocative and insulting. One member of the list Klo McKinsey (who figures in the Statement itself) labels Oleachea’s behaviour as "childish", and embarrassing to Marxist-Leninists who wish to convince the world .
This is correct, Oleachea's repetitive behaviour of refusing to engage in scientific debate, and hurling invective is far from Marxism- Leninism. Collectively, comrades of the ISML have also experienced, the slanderous and violent behavior of Oleachea. Comrades of the "Maoist Documentation Project" chose to launch their case on a rather weak case. On this matter, there is no doubt whatsoever that Moreira is correct.
A. The Antecedents and Founding of the List
As Moreira points out, Kumar was a co-moderator. Kumar had attempted to engage a vituperative individual (named we believe "L.Bourgeois") in a prior list initiated by Jim Hilliers and Sven Buttler. But Mr. Bourgeois persistently replied to arguments invoking ML logic with strings of abuse. Finally after an especially long and abusive tirade, Kumar finally said to the List and its moderators: "Why do we need to put up this?" Hilliers and Buttler had reigned with a naïve liberalism, and had been quiet as church mice throughout this long escalating abusive "so-called debate". Kumar’s query finally impelled the moderators Hillier and Buttler to start a new list. This became the MLL, and responding to a call for moderators, Kumar applied to Buttler. Kumar became a co- moderator of the new list - "Marxist-Leninist List".
This is relevant in so far as Hilliers and Buttler were content to put up with nonsense until confronted with a demand that the list made principled debate a requirement for participation. In its subsequent transformation into the MLL, they went to the opposite 'heavy-handed' extreme, but only in so far as this suited their own purposes.
B. Early Discrepancies About the Purpose of the MLL
Some of the MLL co-moderators were adamant that there had to be real authority resting with the co- moderators and that the moderators should be on the "look out " for potential deviants and "disrupters". The underlying wish seemed to be to maintain some sort of MLL purity. It was Kumar who repeatedly pointed out that the MLL could not be regarded as in any way functioning as a party, but more properly its role was as a United Front where shades of opinion would be respected while subjected to the most rigorous testing and examination.
Finally, by force of reality– this viewpoint was more or less accepted. It was also Kumar who repeatedly asked for a set of rules of conduct, to be placed visibly; and for an "Introduction" (however brief) from each participant so that all on the list would know how it was they were communicating with. This was never clearly dealt with by the co-moderators.
These are not trivial matters. A refusal to have clearly understood – instead of vague generalities – sets of rules – is an underlying manifestation of revisionism.
C. Notions of scientific debate
Despite early protestations of being "open for debate", some issues were so "delicate" and firmly held dogmas, as to be made the fulcrum of intimidatory tactics. These included any challenge to Maoism, any challenge to Castro’s Cuba and any challenge to the Third International. The belligerence expressed to counter-views was hardly worthy of the term scientific debate. The majority of subscribers to the MLL, had either only relatively recently divorced themselves form Soviet right revisionism; or were long time Maoists. These was counter-posed by relatively few pro- Hoxha forces. The international situation at that time in the Marxist-Leninist movement was (and is) fluid. Three forces had arisen: (1) : The forces led by Parti du Travail de Belgique led by Ludo Martens; of the forum of Brussels, who advocated "Unity at all costs"; (2): the Quito forces around the journal "Unity & Struggle"; led by the Communist Party Ecuador (ML); who argued that only one path was Marxist- Leninist – that of Hoxha - and that all other forces were unable to assist in finding the way forward; moreover only one group per country was recognised as representing Marxism-Leninism; (3): The International Struggle Marxist-Leninist (ISML) groupings, who argued that a non-sectarian and open debate along ML-ist lines had to be conducted on which parties in the world had been ML-ist. This followed the Leninist path expressed in Lenin’s calls to Iskra to find the demarcation lines. (See Principles & Founding Statement of ISML at ).
In this fluid situation, two forces joined on the MLL, anxious to rid themselves of an awkward "burr under the saddle". One camp adopted the viewpoint of Brussels: Let all who call themselves "Marxist-Leninists" share the same tent, and no critiques of "ML-ist leaders" were allowed. In this camp were neo-Trotskyites such as those of "Workers World"; and those who had relatively recently shrugged off Soviet revisionism such as Hilliers [Now reportedly of the social-democratic Socialist Labour Party (UK)], Alexander Moumbaris (editions Democrite- France) – who to this day refuses to reply to specific critiques on Kosova. All these basically subscribed to Maoism and to Brussels "One Big-Tent-ism". Unity at all costs. The second camp were Hoxha-ites of the Quito grouping, led by George Gruenthal (USA). They allied with the first camp, sharing one particular viewpoint: ie That the history of the Third international was ""off-limits"; including the issue of the so-called "Black nation" in the USA. Gruenthal sided with Moumbaris’ call for expulsion. Gruenthal swayed the moderators to relinquish pretence at "debate", and precipitated the fevered call: "Expel any and all who disagree that the ONLY call is against USA-NATO imperialism. No Coupling to anti- Milosevic statements!" (D) The Kosova Crisis The line of many of groups of the ISML, was a two-pronged response: Anti-NATO and anti-Milosevic. The hysterical attack upon those who did not exonerate Milsoveic fascism – was indicative of a failure to accept any but the shallowest analysis. None of the concurrent critiques (of Moumbaris and of Dover); or of the later critiques of Alliance 33 – have been scientifically replied to. This is certainly not Leninist. The MLL proudly professes that it is the only place where frank debate can occur amongst ML-ists. But interestingly they are able to tolerate hidden and open Trotskyites on the site, while expunging others who have repudiated Trotskyism but pose the "co-moderator gurus" awkward questions. But awkward questions have an unpleasant habit of recurring. Hence the MLL’s somewhat unclear views upon Timor and Chechnya. The co-moderators see themselves as Marxist-Leninist saviors, and behave in arrogant style: "They do not agree! Out of This ‘pure’ list!" The trouble is, that real life is not like that. How will such people ever become Lenin’s "tribunes of the people"? It is unlikely they will. These are the types of Marxists of whom Marx famously said "Save me from Marxists!"
3. An Announcement If anyone is truly interested in non- sectarian debate along clear lines, we suggest that they consider signing up to the ISML list at http://www.egroups.com/GroupPostEventsPage? listName=internationalstrugglemarxistleninist
We would like to re-iterate that Adolfo was expelled for calling other subscribers names, for example "Klod" McKinsey and for subsequently insulting Sven by calling him a "pipsqueak" after Sven warned over the "Klod" ephitet.and not because of his stand on Castro's comments about Stalin and accusing us of being revisionists for still regarding Castro a socialist.
We are willing to debate that point, but in a comradely manner. Fraternally, Charles, For the Moderators' Panel