|
Post by porowl on Feb 10, 2004 13:30:06 GMT -5
Your overall approach and post screams "We don't know! We can't know! We shouldn't learn from the past! If I disagree its probably untrue!"
This approach will keep you debating these same questions until you die of old age, you will never answer them because you think they are unanswerable.
You think revolution will just happen, this is convenient since you are content to sum up that understanding and knowledge can never be gained, and history will always be a mystery.
Communists believe that world is understandable and so is history. Bourgeos revolution did not happen in just any way, and neither will socialist revolution. The fact that there were different borugeois revolutions does not mean that just any old way would have worked. And many bourgeois revolutions were defeated.
Until you belive in something to be real you can never believe revolution is really possible. Good luck, I hope you sights are raised some day soon.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 10, 2004 13:52:11 GMT -5
porowl wrote: Your overall approach and post screams "We don't know! We can't know! We shouldn't learn from the past! If I disagree its probably untrue!"
Your post just screams, period.
Why don't you give the matter some more thought and try again.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 10, 2004 17:22:15 GMT -5
I wrote: you think that what we communists do doesn't matter -- that the masses either make revolution or they don't
To that, redstar answered with the subjectivist ¨No, it matters to us.
Meaning, that to redstar: it doesn really objectively matter a hill of beans what we do. We do what we do cuz of how it makes us feel, and there is no real objective import.
He writes: A "sense of urgency" can only derive from subjective factors--there's no real objective historical basis for it.
Try this on for size:
We may have opportunities to contribute to the liberaiton of people -- but to be in position to make those contributions we have a lot of work to do. If the moments of opening/crisis/and opportunity come, and we are *no where* -- then important opportunities can be thrown away.
In other words: the lagging of the communist forces gives rise to urgency among communist forces. The lagging is objective, the urgency is objective.
And -- what is actually the point -- the urgency is not understood enough subjectively. There is an objective urgency, and the more ocnscious and radical forces often dont get it. they often think there is no basis for communist work -- and get drawn into just being organizers for whatever struggle the masses are already waging.
So (quite the opposite of what you have said) the urgency is objective -- and not nearly understood enough (subjectively).
Redstar writes: When abolitionists and ex-slaves organized the "underground railroad", they were hardly under any illusion that this would fatally undermine slavery or the state-power of the slave-holding class.
This is (typically) exactly wrong. There was sharp debate among abolitionists over this. John Brown and Fredrick Douglas (in particular) saw what they were doing as part of the overthrow of the slaveocracy. And the move from railroad to harpers ferry was part of that.
And, objectively, their railroad and abolitionist movement played a huge role in preparing the civil war -- though (for objective reasons) they did not, and could not, lead that war (the bourgeoisie did.)
The difference today is that our *abolitionists* of today will both prepare and lead the revolution.
Redstar says: What conscious communists can do, at their best, is "help things along". Not play ***A WORLD-HISTORIC ROLE***, blah, blah, blah.
This is wrong. On one level it is *inevitable* that capitalism gives way to socialism -- but when, how, through what stages and roads is not inevitable. What we do matters (in world historic ways).
What is your point? dont you think the transition to socialism is *world historic*? Or are you just saying (in yet another way) that what COMMUNISTS do doesnt matter?
As if there is communist revolution without communists playing important decisive roles in that? (What planet is your experience drawn from?)
Redstar writes: I don't want to sound unfeeling here, but the transition from capitalism to communism is not a block-buster movie project in which we are all competing for a "starring role".
Actually it is the greatest event in history. Full of fury and storms. And heroism by all involved in the struggle.
Redstar writes: you are deeply concerned with who is going to get the credit.
This is wrong. Who cares about credit? the point is to make revolution -- and discovering how to make revolution.
Communists want to liberate humanity. Nothing else matters.
Redstar writes: Look at the little blurbs you and others here drop into your posts every so often--"Here is where Bob Avakian made a deep and profound contribution to our understanding of blah, blah, blah". It's not as bad as a pop-up ad yet...but the downside is that I know of no software that will block it either.
Over and over, you have asked what possible contributions of Avakian people are talking about. (Just go reread your posts on ISF.) So -- complying in a friendly way -- I have mentioned in discussion when we are touching on one of those contributions.
Then you turn around and make this nasty comment -- when you yourself asked for this.
go figger.
Look, major new strides are being made for Marxism -- which are very important for whether we make revolution or not, and for how the transition to socialism (and past it to communism) is made.
Redstar writes: Why do you want to make this guy into a "political rock star"? Are you so impressed with the bourgeois media's success at diverting the attentions of the masses with these cult figures that you feel as if you "must" have "one of your own" to "compete"?
the bourgeoisie smothers us with their bullshit. We need our own leaders, heros, organizations, ideas, movement, goals, dreams. And we need to FIGHT (in the realm of ideas) for OUR line and ideology.
And one key way to promote a revolutionary line and ideology in this society is to make millions of poeple aware of the lifeswork of bob avakian.
And it is no small deal: the enemy will come to crush the movement, and people cannot defend what they don t know about. they have something precious (objectively) but (subjectively) are far too often unaware of it.
Redstar writes: But what you have to realize is that we've reached a point in history in which all the old scenery and costumes of the Leninist paradigm have become shoddy and worn...and easy to see through.
This only seems true to those who have swallowed and joined the anticommunist parade. The seeming *victory* over Leninism -- is nothing but the crowing of the bourgeoisie, and those who have been taken in by that crowing.
Redstar writes: It's really no longer possible to fly some red flags and throw out some "Marxist" terminology and expect to maintain any credibility.
This is the chatter of the defeated and capitulated. honky tonk wrote: And then in your evaluation of Maoism (in particular) you take that to its conclusion -- this is just some peasant phenomenon. No new methods of work. No new insights into socialism. No insights into restoration of capitalism. No insights into socialist economics. No insights into revolutionary warfare. No insights into methods of analysis, or philosophy, or methods of leadership or whatever.
Redstar responds: Yeah, that's my summary.
On that, apparently, we agree.
For my part: I think MLM is omnipotent, because it is true.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 11, 2004 0:00:41 GMT -5
honky tonk wrote: We may have opportunities to contribute to the liberation of people -- but to be in position to make those contributions we have a lot of work to do. If the moments of opening/crisis/and opportunity come, and we are *no where* -- then important opportunities can be thrown away.
This is, at least faintly, an almost bourgeois outlook...the revolutionary as "entrepreneur" on the prowl for "investment opportunities".
If you don't "get in on the ground floor", you're sunk! The "opportunity" is "thrown away".
I'm sorry, but this all strikes me as utterly subjective. Consider two rival Leninist parties: one says that such and such a situation is "a real opportunity"; the other says that it's a minor "tempest-in-a-teapot" and not worth fussing over.
We actually have little way of knowing ahead of time whether it's "a real opportunity" or not...and afterwards there can be decades of discussion on whether or not it was "a real opportunity".
So we judge "the easy way"...if the party that said it was "a real opportunity" grows substantially as a consequence of its participation, then we say "they got it right; it really was a real opportunity".
But if there is no success to celebrate, then we either say it wasn't a real opportunity after all or else we say that the party's line was fucked up in some crucial fashion...and "a real opportunity" was "thrown away". The Leninist party that claimed all along that it was a "tempest-in-a-teapot" now crows about its "correct evaluation" of the situation.
All pure subjectivity. It always boils down to "if we had done this" or "if they had done that", etc., etc.
Don't misunderstand me. We all want to make a "difference" in history. In certain very limited ways it is possible for us to do so.
But do you have any idea "how it looks" when you claim that this or that individual or small group was "indispensable"? Or even go so far as to claim that for yourselves?
The transition from capitalism to communism is indeed a "world-historic event"...indeed, it's the biggest change in human society since the emergence of classes some ten thousand years ago.
Do you really think "it can't happen" unless you or someone like you is there to "make it happen"???
honky tonk wrote: As if there is communist revolution without communists playing important decisive roles in that? (What planet is your experience drawn from?)
You betray your mixed feelings here. Which role do communists play? Important? Or Decisive?
Since we have not yet had a proletarian revolution in the Marxist sense (that is, in an advanced capitalist country), my "experience" comes from the same planet yours does...just a different part.
You are still trying to squeeze proletarian juice from a peasant fruit...an utterly futile endeavor.
As I noted earlier, I think conscious communists can "help things along", period. That may be "important" in certain limited circumstances...it will never be "decisive".
honky tonk wrote: Over and over, you have asked what possible contributions of Avakian people are talking about. (Just go reread your posts on ISF.) So -- complying in a friendly way -- I have mentioned in discussion when we are touching on one of those contributions.
Then you turn around and make this nasty comment -- when you yourself asked for this.
go figger.
Puzzling. I don't believe I've ever posted at ISF...perhaps you are thinking of someone else.
I have questioned the "contributions" of Chairman Bob here...but I sort of expected to see a developed argument that I could respond to, not just a series of blurbs.
In any event, and to avoid further misunderstanding, I withdraw the request. Let us hear no more of Chairman Bob.
honky tonk wrote: We need our own leaders, heros, organizations, ideas, movement, goals, dreams...And one key way to promote a revolutionary line and ideology in this society is to make millions of people aware of the lifeswork of Bob Avakian.
Spoke too soon!!! To be honest, I find this a simply staggering statement for a communist to make.
It sounds downright religious.
Is it so hard to understand that what the masses need is an understanding of communist ideas and not "leaders" and "heroes" and "dreams"? (Why not "myths" while you're at it?)
It is almost as if you see the relationship of communists to the masses as a kind of "courtship ritual"...you will inspire them with dreams and they will love you for it.
It makes me feel so..."old-fashioned". All I wish to accomplish is to enlighten people with communist ideas. I don't expect to be "loved" or even necessarily "liked" -- and I expect the masses to give up dreaming in favor of changing the real world.
Clearly, I am either far behind the times...or far ahead.
honky tonk wrote: For my part: I think MLM is omnipotent, because it is true.
Omnipotent?
Let us pray!#nosmileys#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by lil bit o che on Feb 11, 2004 6:12:24 GMT -5
Redstar writes: Look at the little blurbs you and others here drop into your posts every so often--"Here is where Bob Avakian made a deep and profound contribution to our understanding of blah, blah, blah". It's not as bad as a pop-up ad yet...but the downside is that I know of no software that will block it either.
This is about the funniest thing I have ever read.
Honky says: Then you turn around and make this nasty comment -- when you yourself asked for this.
RCP supporters complaining about nasty comments? How ironic.
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Feb 11, 2004 13:55:29 GMT -5
I find it ironic that both romanmeal and redstar2000 ask for clarification on Avakian's theoretical work, and then complain when it is offered.
And i find it ironic that someone who puts "che" in their nick complain when someone else promotes the theoretician/leader that THEY like.
Isn't the point really that we are allowed to promote some figures (Debs, Subcommandante Marcos, Che, DeLeon, chomsky, etc.) but NOT Avakian?
The issue is not promoting a political line and leader, but the fact that some people don't like the revolutionary Maoist line and leader?
Let me also ad, that I agree that REdstar's pop-up remark was funny. It was both funny and cynical. And cynics are often funny (in a caustic kind of way).
In the current climate, cynicism (especially about revolutionary projects) is fashionable. And revolutionary plans or enthusiasm is met with "oh come on, get over it."
When it comes to evaluating humor -- i also think we need a Sian or Yenan approach.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 11, 2004 22:54:13 GMT -5
eat the world wrote: The issue is not promoting a political line and leader, but the fact that some people don't like the revolutionary Maoist line and leader?
Well, there is that.
Speaking only for myself, I detest "leader worship" and "hero worship" in the realm of serious politics.
I think it always leads to a "bad end"...no matter who the chosen icon is.
Why? Because it's always an invitation to us to give up the hard work of figuring out things for ourselves...we let "daddy" take care of it. "Daddy" always has "our best interests" at heart...and he "knows a lot more than we do". All that's required of us is that we "do what daddy tells us to do" and everything "will work out fine".
Bob Avakian could be a perfectly decent chap with a poor understanding of Marxism. He could also be "Jack the Ripper".
Granting him a personal despotism--even over a tiny group like the RCP--seems to me to be a...well, imprudent decision. You're gambling that this one particular guy will not fuck you over...like so many leaders in the past have done.
It's your life, of course, and you can bet it on anyone you wish.
I would rather keep mine in my own hands. At least I can really trust myself.
eat the world wrote: In the current climate, cynicism (especially about revolutionary projects) is fashionable. And revolutionary plans or enthusiasm is met with "oh come on, get over it."
There's some truth to that observation; we do live, after all, in a period of reaction.
But it's not my approach. I am certainly willing to entertain any ideas that people may have for revolutionary projects or strategies. But I insist on looking at them in the same way Marx and Engels looked at ideas when they were alive: in a critical fashion. Red-flag waving, "Marxist" rhetoric, and icon-worshiping do not impress me. I've lived too long and seen far too much of that sort of thing to be intimidated into silence about it.
Real communists don't need a "daddy".
|
|
|
Post by roman meal on Feb 12, 2004 10:08:01 GMT -5
This is a reply to ETW:
Actually, I said I would refrain from comment on Avakian until I read that that last reference ETW gave on "waves of revolution". I am still trying to find it.
I reread Immortal Contributions last weekend and am rereading Harvest of Dragons. I actually own a few Avakian books. I keep hoping that I am missing something, some great insight..
Like I said before, every few months someone gets me to read the "profound" "original" contributions of Bob Avakian. I usually am not impressed by them.
Hey, but I keep trying..
Although I do share many of redstar's opinions about Avakian as a theorist. I have refrained from saying anything since I replied to ETW's post about "waves of revolution".
roman
|
|
|
Post by roman meal on Feb 12, 2004 10:33:37 GMT -5
I will also add, I don't mind people qouting Avakian or the RCP DP - so long as it is on point.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 12, 2004 15:00:05 GMT -5
Romanmeal wrote: "I said I would refrain from comment on Avakian until I read that that last reference ETW gave on "waves of revolution". I am still trying to find it. I reread Immortal Contributions last weekend and am rereading Harvest of Dragons. I actually own a few Avakian books. I keep hoping that I am missing something, some great insight."
I think romanmeal is raising some issues that are not obvious. In academia, people put little citations at their own little "original ideas" -- and expect those nuggets to be *starred* with their names forever.
And obviously we are not talking about "new" works in that sense. We are talking about synthesis (in the sense of synthesising the history, practice and theory of the historic internatoinal communist movement so far, and putting it at the disposal of the world revolutionary movement at this historic moment.) And we are talking about a vast project of sorting through many verdicts and experiences (including the Soviet/Stalin experience, the whole experience of capitalist restoration in China and Russia, the inability-so-far of proletarians in imperialist countries to make revolution, and so on). And we are talking about questions of method and approach (criticizing and rejecting dogmatic/religious approaches to Marxism, rediscovering a critical and self-critical marxism, etc.)
Like i said, none of that is obvious in regard to Avakian -- or anyone else. Both because the verdicts and theories of varous marxists are often controversial and disputed. And also because developments within marxism are dismissed by those outside of marxism (i.e. who have other goals, projects, class interests).
Let me take for example the one book you mentioned: "Mao's Immortal contribution." (MIC)
To me, it is fascinating to watch someone discuss rereading it, and then say "where's the insight?" So let me add my own perspective:
That book is twenty five years old. The contents of that book are (in many ways) the very basis of modern Maoist. Its (then-shocking) summations and methods are now seen as part of the very tissue of modern MLM.
At the time that book was published, no one had publicly called out the coup in china. Maoists around the world were stunned, confused, and huge sections of the former Maoist movement were stampeding into line to embrace revisionism ( and often their own bourgeoisie).
The upholding of Mao's contributions and their articulation (which mao had never done in a full work) was pathbreaking -- both in fact that it was unique in the world, and in the way that it synthesized (put together) the (then unwritten) theory and practice of "continuing the dictatorship of the proletariat."
To put it another way: When that book was written *no one* had summed upthe contributions of Mao that way. It had not been done. And the world (including the Maoist movement!) was full of many different colliding and inccorect summations of mao.
The Hoxhaites (who still had state power) had just come out with a sweeping attack on Mao -- calling him a revisioist who allowed the oburgeoisie into power, and who vacilated on his class stand and (like the soviet revisionists and our own RedStar) called mao basically a petty bourgeois adventurer and not a Marxist.
On the other side, the Chinese revisionist were still waving Mao's banner -- while denouncing (one by one) ALL of the contributions listed in MIC.
On yet another side, many revolutionaries upholding Mao were viewing his contributions very very narrowly. there was (and remains) a narrow Lin biaoist view that associates revisionism simply and only with rejecting "armed struggle" -- and so upholds Mao (mainly) for carrying out and uphoolding armed struggle. (These forces had a great deal of difficulty seeing what was wrong with Hua Guofeng's line, or the press for modernization that the revisioists were calling for in china.)
The idea in MIC that Mao's key contribution was "continung the disctatorship of the proletariat" -- was shocking, not understood, and even widely opposed.
And the idea that Mao had made contributions on a wide wide range of issues (not just peoples war and new democracy) was simply not well known or understood -- even among Maoists, and even among the leaders of maoists around the world.
In addition, the whole way Chairman Avakian approached Marxism was shocking, and remains controversial. At that time, many thought that Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought (as MLM was then known) was a seamless addition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Where each defended and applied the teachings of the one before. The idea that scientific ideology is a synthesis, and that its development requires destruction as well as defense (or to be precise: new construction on the basis of defense of its revolutionary essense) was shocking.
[Just one example: this book, for the first time, says that Mao developed the first comprehensive military doctrine for proletarian revolution. This summation -- with all its implied criticism of the doctrine of previous proletarian armed forces -- was and is controversial. And even the controversies today over the universality of peoples war and the "two roads" of strategy for different kinds of countries are deeply entrwined with that summation. There are many many such crucial issues and summations taken up, almost in passing, throughout the book.]
And the fact that this book MIC carried out a systematic and repeated criticism of Stalin was shocking and controversial. The idea that Mao's project (and Maoism) needed to be seen as a summation of the Soviet experience (and a rather critical summation of great errors as well as great accomplishments) was shocking and controversial (then and today).
The whole last chapter was a blockbuster -- and put forward a vision of Marxism (and Maoism) that had not been put together like that. The idea that each new revolution inevitably must break with sacred cows of the past (and even cherished verites of previous Marxism) was shocking.
the idea that the heart of marxist analysis is the observation that life involves the "ceaseless emergence and resolution of contradiction" was a ringing challenge to dogmatic notions that had (and still have) great power among Marxists.
In short, let me just say, as someone who read it "hot off the presses" in the late 70s -- that these chapters by Avakian (that appeared one by one as articles in Revolution) sizzled in your fingers -- as a breathtaking and daring new way to view Mao (and Marxism as a whole.)
And today (twentyfive years later) i still meet lots of people whose minds are blown by this book. But on the other side, it is hard to imagine the modern Maoist movement without it -- not only is it hard to imagine what it would look like, it is hard to imagine that it would literally exist! without Avakian's literally unique defense of Mao and the Four (when all around were bending and breaking), and without the spirit of a living, critical, restless, developing Marxist synthesis.
Now obviously the book was about "Mao's immortal contributions" -- it gathers, systematizes, sums up and explains Mao's contributions (at a time when the issue of Maoism had not yet been posed in the ICM). However, they way this was done, the theoretical methods and approach implicit in how this books views our ideology (critical, scientific etc.) is itself a contribution.
No one (not even mao or the four) had synthesized Mao's contributions that way -- and in the process of doing that (as a life and death defense of Maoism at a time when it was under allsided attack) Avakian significantly developed it (right in that book) -- identifying and bringing forward things that were correct in MLM, identifying and criticizing things that were false but-largely-unchallenged within MLM.
If all that seems "old hat" and "obvious" today, to you or other revolutionaries, I just think "Thank god that book and the other writings of that time made such a powerful impact."
And I just realize how it may be, for today's revolutionaries, who did not go through that (and who are not familiar with the many views and lines that have passed as "Maoism") to even imagine the impact of MIC.
All the more reason to dig into this, and grapple with the conversation (about communism, revolution and ideology) Avakian has been unfolding over the last decades.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 12, 2004 16:41:13 GMT -5
honky tonk wrote: In academia, people put little citations at their own little "original ideas" -- and expect those nuggets to be *starred* with their names forever.
Indeed they do; often, their jobs depend on it.
Genuinely original "breakthroughs" are rare indeed. But they certainly do exist...and the names of the people that made those breakthroughs are rightfully honored even if, in the long run, only by historians.
Whenever someone claims to have made an original contribution to a field of knowledge, critics will gather at once...to see what holes they can poke, what faults they can find, etc. Sometimes an important discovery can actually be suppressed for decades--it's "on the fringes", a "crackpot notion", or even a "deliberate fraud".
But, as you know, material reality prevails. Sooner or later, the truth gets out. Perhaps someone rediscovers the suppressed discovery; perhaps new and compelling evidence suddenly emerges; etc.
And it goes into the books as a "win"...even if the honors are all posthumous. So-and-so made a brilliant discovery in 18-- or 19-- and the dolts surrounding her completely missed the significance. Fools!
honky tonk wrote: And obviously we are not talking about "new" works in that sense.
So I gathered. Your argument seems to be that Chairman Bob has simply come up with a variant on Maoist ideology...one that you feel incorporates and develops its "strengths" while negating its weaknesses.
So that we might someday speak of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Avakianism".
And, of course, I'm obviously one of the "fault-finding" critics. Am I one of the "fools" who fails to recognize the significance of Avakian's contribution?
Or is "MLMA" really a "crackpot notion"?
honky tonk wrote: All the more reason to dig into this, and grapple with the conversation (about communism, revolution and ideology) Avakian has been unfolding over the last decades.
Yeah, I guess there's no getting around it.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 12, 2004 17:15:49 GMT -5
Red Star writes: "Your argument seems to be that Chairman Bob has simply come up with a variant on Maoist ideology...one that you feel incorporates and develops its "strengths" while negating its weaknesses."
There is nothing "simple" about it.
The body of MLM and the experience of world revolution so far is highly complex and contradictory. And there is a process of forging a correct and living synthesis that can actually lead to revolution (on one hand) and a parallel process of uniting the world communist revolution around a correct synthsis (on the other).
Clearly we need to self-interrogate ourself and our ideology -- developing new insights, building on strengths, and rather fearlessly uncovering and exposing weaknesses and errors.
And yes, that is the process i'm talking about -- and that is what Bob Avakian's "conversation" is about.
Redstar writes: So that we might someday speak of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Avakianism".
None of us know what "someday" will bring. And that is not the point.
We are engaged in a great work of political theory and struggle -- not to someday be "credited" with great work -- but because there is a great need. Without this project, there will not be successful socialist revoltuion.
The name MLM is getting long and awkward, and I don't imagine people will continue stringing names along it forever. MLM is the ideology of communism. And the term "communism" is quite fine too, and is tidy.
Redstar writes: "I'm obviously one of the "fault-finding" critics. Am I one of the "fools" who fails to recognize the significance of Avakian's contribution?"
I am not into personal put-downs. I am not into pinning labels on you. I want to discuss ideas, and lines, and evaluate them.
There is nothing wrong with "fault finding critics" if the faults they point to really exist.
And more to the point: there are many, many people who don't actually have a sense of the importance of MLM, or a sense of ways it is being developed and applied. I have never called those many people "fools." (So please don't put words in my mouth.)
Most people (including most proletarians) have not had any real chance to grapple with all this. And even you, who are obviously quite politically knowledgible, clearly didn't know much about Maoism or Avakian's body of work, before this discussion started.
While we are on this topic: if you want to use deliberately insulting terms like "chairman bob" it makes OUR discussion more difficult. Why not work for some mutual respect, along with exploring real differences?
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 12, 2004 17:18:17 GMT -5
Redstar wrote: "Granting Avakian a personal despotism--even over a tiny group like the RCP--seems to me to be a...well, imprudent decision. You're gambling that this one particular guy will not fuck you over...like so many leaders in the past have done."
On this point: Avakian explicitly does not have personal control over the RCP. The RCP wrote a detailed leadership document that affirmed the concept of collective leadership.
Avakian is chairman of the deciding body (the central committee when the congress is not in session). He does not "decide" in some "one-man management way."
There is a relationship between collectivity and leadership. Both are important.
|
|
|
Post by roman meal on Feb 13, 2004 2:04:41 GMT -5
honkey:
Thank you for that post. I had not considered that in 1970, Avakian's synthesis WAS NEW. I had kind of taken it for granted. You make an interesting point.
roman
|
|
|
Post by roman meal on Feb 13, 2004 2:26:21 GMT -5
Typo.. 1979 I mean.
|
|