Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: ¡UNIOS! Info #79en/es: 7/11 Lucha en el CIE, 1994 -

>By Rolf Martens, Malmoe, Sweden, 17.09.1996
(I've snipped this here)
It's a good thing you support this important principle of prole-
tarian international democracy that was trod under the feet 
here.
Of course it's OK by me if you publish my declaration. As far as
I'm concerned, anything I write to this list is free for repro-
duction too.
Concerning your suspicion "palace coup from London", I'd like to
add that to me, it seems that it's some comrades in Brussels 
who're involved in this wrongdoing, along with some in London 
too, one might guess. 
I think I used some unneccesarily harsh words against comrade 
Adolfo in the heat of the moment when first seeing that "Commu-
nique" from the EDI 35 - after all, he at that point just func-
tioned as a messenger. But on principle, my strong criticism, 
against *all* responsible, does stand.
I shall try to make them realize the gravity of their erroneous 
actions. And once more: It's a good thing *somebody* else speaks
up on this.
Needless to say, I'll return to this subject!
Rolf M.
DOCUMENT ¤17en:	Public Net reply 19.09.96 by RM to Adolfo    (*)
		Olaechea re "WMC"
		Thu Sep 19 11:32:16 1996
To: 		
hari...@easynet.co.uk
 (hariette spierings)
From: 		
rolf.m...@mailbox.swipnet.se
 (Rolf Martens)
Subject: 	Re: Your declaration
Comrade Adolfo (and I'm making this as a reply to the comrade 
representing the Action Socialiste, Canada, too),
What has taken place here (I'd like to reply to your below) is:
In March, a call for the creation of a WMC was put out. This 
call was endorsed by several organizations and by some indivi-
duals including myself.
What was and is the importance of this call and the proposed
WMC?
To defend and support the revolution in Peru. Also, to defend 
and advocate internationally the line of Marx, Lenin and Mao 
Zedong.
This last-mentioned means nothing less than: Providing political
guidance to the international proletariat, something of the ut-
most importance.
It's clear that in such a situation, *all* those who have en-
dorsed this call must be consulted for the formation of a genu-
ine such organization as the WMC.
We have - or had - a situation similar to that existing before 
the creation of the First International, in 1864. There are dif-
ferences too, of course. But because of that important point in 
the call I mentioned, the WMC, if genuine, would also function 
as a kind of International.
How does one create a such? Obviously, by international discus-
sions and consultations, by international joint action. Needless
to say, this is a very difficult business indeed. But it's in 
this way that things MUST be done.
When reading the documents on the First International, in the 
Marxism Archives on the Net, for instance, you can see that one 
principle is stressed as vital:
"No responsibilities without rights, no rights without respon-
sibilities".
In this case, we who have endorsed the Call for the WMC have de-
clared our joint responsibility for this thing - this goes for 
all the organizations as well as for the individuals who have 
signed.
And now, what has taken place?
Some people, not more precisely known who - for they aren't even
saying this - have taken upon themselves to put together a so-
called WMC without the least discussion whatsoever with the 
other endorsers. I at least was not consulted, and it's obvious 
that at least some others were likewise in no way asked.
This is NOT a real WMC! This is a WRONG Mobilisation Commission!
You absolutely must realize, comrades, that one must NOT proceed
in such a manner!
Do you perhaps think that such a thing should pass without PUB-
LIC criticism and attack against it?? That I, for instance, 
should make criticism against such flagrant disregard for inter-
national proletarian democracy *in private*??
You must be joking, what? This is a thing that concerns many 
more people than just a couple of individuals!
Before I wrote the Declaration you're now replying to, I in the 
heat of the first moment of my seeing the "Communique" made 
another posting in which I used some words against you, comrade 
Adolfo, which I now think were unnecessarily harsh and which I 
wish to apologize for. It also was not quite appropriate of me 
to single you out in that manner, since at that point, you were 
only transmitting a message, from obviously, several people. But
on principle, my strong criticism against and opposition to the 
actions reported of course stands. 
Concerning the manner in which signatures were presented, there 
is one scandal too which I by no means can be silent about:
The "Communique No 1" was dated (and placed) "Brussels, August 
1996". This makes it look as if those organizations then ap-
pearing as signatories had all assembled then and there in order
to put out such a statement. But facts show this was not the 
case. 
Well then, perhaps it might be taken as a summary of what dif-
ferent organizations and individuals had said when endorsing the
Call for the WMC?
Even if so, *some* signatures are *missing*. *I*, for instance, 
as an individual, have endorsed the Call. This is *not* shown 
here. Politically, in this case, this omission is not unimpor-
tant, since I'm the one who have pointed out the *reactionary* 
character of the 1984 "Declaration" of the "RIM" - which is the 
phoney "International" from which the initiators of the Call
have emerged. 
The initiators themselves have *not* in any way criticized that
"Declaration". Thus, in the circumstances, leaving my signature 
out politically signifies *the absence of a break with" the line
of the "RIM", the making of the (so far only!) critic of the 
"RIM" from the standpoint of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong 
Thought into an "unperson" in practice.
"Instead of" my signature, so to speak, there appears the one of
the Malmoe IEC group. *But* there has been *no* endorsement on 
the part of that group for the Call for the WMC, nor for that 
August '96 Communique. 
There can be no mistake whatsoever about this on the part of 
comrade Luis Arce Borja or other responsible people for the EDI.
So this "signature" is nothing less than a *falsification*.
Such methods, comrades, are quite impermissible!
And once more, when such falsifications are being disseminated 
internationally, by the EDI - which btw I shall continue to dis-
seminate too - then some of you would have me only criticize and
attack this "in private"??
This is another thing which is being done that goes completely 
counter to international proletarian democracy. It's a thing 
which goes against the interests of the workers and the oppres-
sed peoples. One can NOT sit idly by and let such things pass!
So, far, an immediate and incomplete reply.
I'll return to this matter, which I hold to be of great impor-
tance and in which some people have acted in a manner which is 
absolutely unacceptable.
Rolf M. 
[Continued in part 8/11, with end of Document ¤17en etc]



with the above approach is an isolated little click of pick up
