"One Big-Tent-ism"

[Michael Pugliese]

    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