From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 20 Jan 93 17:25 PST
Subject: Re: M.A.P.: When in doubt, play word ga
Nf-ID: #R:C12oFA.Fu5@usenet.ucs.indiana.ed:1714909136:9301210122.AA03704@poly.math.cor:-1432836498:000:4156
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Jan 20 17:25:00 1993


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: Re: M.A.P.: When in doubt, play word games (Re: Pol-Pot)

		**Furhter discussion in gen.socialism on PeaceNet
		**alt.activism.d and ACTIV-D or other appropriate
		**places, on UseNet/maillists, please. If
		**carbon-copied by email, I will reply to posts made there.
	--Harel Barzilai

Perhaps the only item worth replying to is MIM's explanation, at
least, of its claims that Pol-Pot had something to do with it's ouster
from MAP. MIM's exact words were:

** MIM does not dispute that the issue of the Shining Path lies 
** at the center of the ban. We believe Barzilai et. al. were 
** finally driven to frenzy by our repeated rebuttals of their 
** fallacious attacks on the Shining Path. In particular, we 
** refuted that the Shining Path is a follower of Pol Pot. 
** Barzilai had posted articles not just once but at least twice 
** on this subject--including once after we informed him of the 
** difference between Shining Path and Pol Pot. 

Then MIM *lies*:

** After learning this fact about the Shining Path, Barzilai et. 
** al. continued their falsehoods about the Shining Path and Pol 
** Pot. At this point, these falsehoods were no longer falsehoods: 
** they were lies. Barzilai et. al. KNEW otherwise about the facts, 

There are no replies in gen.socialism to my re-post of _The
Reactionary Shining Path_. Since they did not send me personal email,
their statement-as-Known-Fact that I read any of their replies -- let
alone cared, doubly let alone the sugestion that this was a reason for
hte discontinuation of MIM posts on MAP -- can fairly be called a lie.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now MIM explains that:

** Yet, the very articles he posted and tells everyone to read as an
** explanation for why we were banned do just that.  In the Socialist
** Workers Party article "Peru's Shining Path uses terror to impose
** reactionary policies on working people" titled "Reactionary Shining
** Path" by Barzilai, one subhead reads "Same course as Pol Pot." The
** article goes on to say "Shining Path represents the opposite of a
** communist and internationalist perspective. It has much in common with
** the reactionary course of the terrorist Khmer Rouge gang head by Pol
** Pot."

Interesting. A sentence here and a subheading these means that the
citing of this article means MAP decided that MIM was not
"progressive" and did not belong in MAP "because [we thought they are,
or think they follow, or whatver] Pol Pot"

I just searched through the entire article as no doubt MIM did -- the
only two occurences of Pol Pot were the two cited by MIM -- the
subheading and the sentence; the sentence appeared in the *last
paragraph* which concluded the article after the crimes of Sendero had
been listed, merely noting that *these crimes* just enumerated mirror
those of Pol Pot in the author's opinion.

The same article contained key charges about Sendero such as:

**     In fact, Shining Path uses its coercion and terror to prevent
**     any independent effort by peasants to organize to defend their
**     interests. The group imposes forced communal labor rather than
**     voluntary cooperation among farmers. Its insistence on
**     provincial "self-reliance" glorifies the isolation and
**     backwardness facing many peasants that capitalists and
**     landlords use to keep them divided.

and yet MIM sees "Pol-Pot-baiting" as the reason for the "ban."
Whether this is self-deception of deliberate, consider the following
analogy: an article cited condmens John Smith is guilty of manyvicious
crimes, and enumerates them, concluding finally that John Smith is
"Charles-Manson kind of guy" in the last paragraph. When MAP decides
we don't want submissions from John Smith, this, to MIM, then, is
"banning Smith BECAUSE" we think he is a follower of, or a twin of,
Charles Manson. Or if the article listed many crimes by John Smith and
then at the end "we think he admires Stalin" -- then MAP "banned"
Smith "because they think John Smith admires Stalin, which we refuted
many times, and MAP knows it..."

Enough said.