From: lquispe-AT-nyxfer.blythe.org (Luis Quispe) Subject: Re: PERU: The Tale of Killing "Leftists" Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 02:08:06 -0500 (EST) > To: lquispe-AT-nyxfer.blythe.org (Luis Quispe) > From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (hariette spierings) > Subject: Re: PERU: The Tale of Killing "Leftists" > Content-Length: 21351 > > >> > >> Hey, Quispe, you are for executing agents of the Fujimori government. > >> What about all those people who had been leaders of the Bolshevik party that > >> Stalin charged as agents of German and Japanese intelligence--people like > >> Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and Trotsky. Were they on the payroll of the > >> class enemy like the IU in Peru? > >> Luis Quispe: > > There is no comparison. Trosky and the others were protagonists of the > > Bolshevik revolution whereas the few scoundrels in Peru (IU) were not > > even part of the PCP nor have been participants in any revolution except > > elections and government posts. Actually IU is almost inexistent and > > irelevant in Peruvian politics. They split into tiny groups (democratic > > left, patria roja, PUM, MAS, Unidad, etc.) > > > > With regard to Stalin, we believe that in the process of building > > socialism, Comrade Stalin generally followed the work of Lenin. > > Yes. He waged a struggle against the deviations of Trosky, Zinoviev, and > > Kamenev that concluded in 1937. It is not true that he resolved > > contradictions amongst the people administratively. We agree wit the > > position of Mao on the legacy pf Stalin as being 70% positive. As > > communists of today, we have the task of making an adequate analysis > > of WW II, the standing of the International Communist Movement and > > particularly to study well the VII Congress, and within this, the role > > of comrade Stalin along with the actions of revisionists in France, > > Italy, etc. Imperialism was not being succesfull in defaming the > > contributions of Stalin, today the masses in Russia and the former > > lands of the USRR raise up the figure of Stalin. The distortions > > on his revolutionary role have been mainly reported by the > > imperialist media. > > > >> What is your concept of socialist legality? How does one establish the > >> guilt of somebody accused of being a police agent? Does the Shining Path > >> allow the accused to have an attorney? > >> In the People's War, the forms of strugle are not exclusively armed > > clashes between both armies: People's Army and the reactionary army. > > Thera are also semi-legal and legal forms of struggle -that can be > > considered socialist legality. If you meant why does not the PCP > > participate in the electoral circus? Is that socialist legality? > > No. Peru has a reality that has been analyzed by the PCP and elections > > is not part of it. However, at the local level, without the state > > interference, in several cities ther have cases in which the PCP > > fronts have practiced socialist legality (case of election of association > > of small merchants of Villa El Salvador, a shantytown in which PCP > > candidates defeated those of the Church-NOGs-IU-Fujimori). > > > > An attorney? I thought only OJ had attorneys. In Peru hundreds of > > attorneys members of the Association of Democratic Lawyers were > > murdered, jailed, and disappeared by Fujimori. Hooded judges > > adminsitered a faceless justice. As part of the low intensity warfare > > against the people's war anyone can can be accused of being > > a "terrorist." On the other hand only the people judge and punish the > > criminals. The people's committees administered justice through > > people's assemblies where the accused has the opportunity to > > amend its mistakes and be useful to the revolution. "Save the patient" > > teaches us Chairman Mao. Most of the captured soldiers are released, > > they are part of the people and many desert to join the People's Army, the > > majority of the PCP army including its leadres are of peasants origin. > > > >> What about all the Trotskyites and ex-Trotskyites on this list? Are we > >> police agents as well? How do you sort out the good reds from the fake > >> reds? Do you just kill them all and assume that the ones who were really > >> innocent end up in red heaven. > >> Peru has a different reality than this beast (known as US imperislism), > > Marxists believe in dialectics materialism not in methaphisics like you. > > Nothing is absolute. One is split into two. There are honest > > "Trotskyites" in the U.S. as well in Peru. We friends who are Trotskyites > > and support the revolution in Peru. The People's War belong to the > > International Proletarian. Any honest revolutionary is welcome to the > > struggle, unite in the struggle comrades not in the coffee shop. > > Hope I have answered your questions. > > Luis Quispe. Editor, The New Flag. > > > >> Just curious. > >> > >> Louis Proyect > >> > > > > > > > > > Comments from A. Olaechea: > > I think that the question of the United Left should be understood > dialectically and taking ito account it's historical development. > > It is not right to get the impression that the IU of today is the same as > the IU of, let's say 1978 - 1980. One must also make a distinction between > the masses that followed and voted for IU, the militants at the base, local > and regional levels in its early development - before it became exclusively > an electoral apparatus - and the handful of revisionist and trotskist > counter-revolutionaries who progressively deserted the camp of revolution > and went to work OPENLY for the defence of the reactionary state. > > This history reflects itself in the electoral levels that this opportunist > conglomerate has achieved in the various elections in Peru - commencing with > up to 45% of the national electorate in the 1978 elections for the > Constituent Assembly, and culminating with its total collapse to levels > below 0.4% in the last Fujimori 're-election'. Also, one must not forget > that this degeneration mirrors closely the degeneration and collapse of > modern revisionism at the international level. > > In 1978, the differences between the leadership of Chairman Gonzalo and the > red fraction struggling for the reconstitution of PCP and the launching of > the People's War, and a good number of the organisms and personalities - > some even adopting the communist - even Maoist - banner, and participating > as United Left on the Constituent Assembly elections, could AT THE TIME - > and as can be seen from the documents of the Party itself (Against > Constitutional Illusions, Let's Retake Mariatigui's Road, etc. - be deemed > to have been - at least at the mass and ordinary militant level - including > here many honest intellectuals - as differences among the ranks of the people. > > We must not forget, for example, the case of El Diario - the Lima national > daily that began its life as a semi-official organ of the United Left and > that later up, due to the action of its own red fraction among the > journalists and print workers, took a stand in defence of the People's War a > couple of years after its initiation having in the past played a role in > support of the electoralist line of the IU. A case of internal revolution > within the apparatus of the people's movement, then controlled by the > revisionists and opportunists, and of further reconstitution of the People's > Movement at the service of the People's War. Today El Diario is recognised - > both in its Lima and Brussels editions as a voice in defence of the Party > and the revolution that closely reflects at every turn the interests of the > People's War. > > So a distinction between the rotten revisionists elements who HAVE > PERSEVERED in the road of electoralism and SET THEIR NOSES against the > People's War, should not lightly be overlooked. This has also been the case > at the international level. Many organisms of the Left and the people's > movement in the world have - once more information was available, and the > very development of the revolution had become evident and confirmed this > information - changed sides from support and illusions about the United > Left, and gone progressively over to take a stand on the side of the > revolution and Marxism. > > In this context, one must remember the words of Chairman Mao: (I am not > here quoting verbatim for lack of time to look it up in the Library, but the > gist of the thought is preserved in full in my memory) - "Soon millions of > peasants will rise like a storm and communists and revolutionary comrades > will have to take a stand. Those who take a stand against this mighty storm > will be deemed to be counter-revolutionaries, while those who take the side > of the revolution in words, will be deemed as revolutionaries only in words. > Those who take a stand in words as well as in deeds, will be regarded as > true and complete revolutionaries". > > Has that not been and continues to be the process among many people in the > USA, Europe and the rest of the world vis-a-vis the mighty storm of the > peasant war led by the PCP since the last 16 years in Peru? Are we not > seeing this very process unfold before our own eyes? > > Have we not have seen in many countries a handful of people who puffed > themselves up as great socialists, communists and revolutionaries, who have > gone over - and continue to go over, openly, to the side of > counter-revolution and imperialism on this very account? > > Are there not some others, too, who have proven - and continue to be proven > only revolutionaries in words?. And are there not so many more others who > are proving to be revolutionaries in the full sense of the word, as well as > in deeds? > > What is now the trend? The trend is towards the victory of the > revolutionary line. In that, the Peruvian process is proving to be an acid > test serving the cause of combating capitulation, revisionism, and bourgeois > ideology within the people's movement at the international level, and the > developing process of arriving at a new revolutionary - and fully Marxist - > unity. We must always look at things dialectically and do not write off > people wholesale. We must understand the law of contradiction in full. > > Therefore it is misleading to speak of liquidating agents of the Fujimori > regime and equating that with ALL the United Left militants, and even > leaders and cadres, even today. Those who have been punished have not been > punished for being members of the United Left or for being 'Leftist > deviationists'. They have been punished by the people for specific crimes > against the masses - delation, oppression, assassination, > counter-revolutionary crimes, etc. within the context of a People's War. > > In this context, there are clear historic precedents. For example, in Italy > during the war of resistance against fascism, many of the worst criminals in > the service of fascism were people who at one point or another had presented > themselves before the masses as socialist, even as communists. Mussolini > himself had regarded himself before his foundation of the Fascist party - > and continued, even during the war, to regard himself as a 'socialist'. > > The last redoubt of the Italian fascist regime, the Salo Republic, was > officially know as the Italian Social Republic, and within its 'parliament' > laws were proposed, debated and even enacted on many occassions for the > 'socialisation of the means of production'. > > Trotskists and old style revisionists - self-proclaimed 'leftists' who later > had further occassion to convert themselves in 'leaders' of 'Left-wing' > parties in the post-war regime, and to parade themselves as 'anti-fascists', > also had representation in these 'representative chambers' where they > continued to butress and serve this reactionary regime in various > capacities, even at the ministerial level, or as regional governors, mayors > of towns, members of municipal councils, 'trade union-leaders, members of > 'Peace commissions', 'pro-fascist militias', and such like. The same role > played today by a good number of United Left bigwigs inside the Fujimori > regime. A knowledge of history always helps in not being hoodwinked by > 'Leftist' labels. > > And Mussolini himself, in his last desperate months - harried on every front > by the people's revolution and the partisan armies - even spoke of > introducing a classless society as the aim of his regime, in an attempt - in > complicity with such 'leftists' - to rally working class support for > fascism. Would that have qualified Mussolini into some sort of member of > the United Left? In Peru, there were and still are many 'leftists' of > Mussolini's sort. > > In China, during the Japanese occupation, the regime of the 'socialist > leader' Wang Ching-wei (a Trotskist), played the same role regarding the > Japanese imperialists, as that played by another self proclaimed > 'socialist', Vidkun Quisling, Prime Minister of the Nazi puppet regime in > Norway. That is why it is correct to use the term of 'quisling' to describe > the role of those 'leftists' in Peru and abroad who are setting their noses > against the people's revolution on various pretexts. > > On the question of comrade Stalin we must also adopt a dialectical approach, > and take the concrete circunstances of the time fully into account. > > Kamenev, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and other ringleaders of opportunism and > revisionism, were not executed for 'desviations'. Any serious study of > their trials cannot but conclude that these were fair and fully legal trials > and that the accussed were guilty as charged of having plotted the downfall > of the Soviet regime. There is the testimony of impeccable foreign > observers and international public opinion never questioned the legality or > the fairness of these trial at the time these took place. That is one > historical factor. > > Moreover, the confessions of Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin and other are there > in black and white, and they themselves requested the punishment they > received. It is only the agents of the bourgeoisie who - without regard to > the integrity of the very 'Bolshevik leaders' they 'defend' who questioned - > several years after the facts were known - these trial alleging > 'brainwashing', etc. > > I myself, have studied this in full and have no doubts on the question of > their guilt, particularly that of Trotsky, their mentor and manipulator. > Trotsky had already deserted the Soviet Union and gone over to publish > anti-Soviet propaganda in the fascist press abroad (Lord Beaverbook's Daily > Mail - the notorious British fascist and patron of Oswald Moseley, was his > first port of call - it was the Daily Mail the first mass bourgeois paper to > publish Trotsky's 'indictment' of Stalin. Surely Lord Beaverbrook was > greatly concerned and distressed with the 'tragedy that Stalinism had > befallen on the Soviet Union' and was really being a 'consistent democrat' > in offering the platform of his millionaire press to Trotsky in his > chivalrous attempt to SAVE SOCIALISM!!!! > > The question here, for any serious class analysis with a Marxist > understanding - has to be if it was correct or not to grant their wishes and > carry out the dead sentences impossed upon these people by the People's > Tribunals. On the hand, reaction in the world, has made - and continues to > make - a lot of political capital out of these affairs. On the other hand, > the historical circunstances of the Soviet Union made it very difficult, if > not impossible, to follow any other road in dealing with these problems. > > History will have to judge over the long historical perspective. However, it > is wrong to consider this as a 'mistake of Stalin'. As Chairman Mao himself > pointed out, the 'mistakes of Stalin' were mistakes of the whole Party and > of the ICM at the time. It is wrong to give succour to enemies of the > proletarian revolution by adopting the stand of the enemies of the > proletarian dictatorship on this account. > > It is in that context that Chairman Mao introduced a new kind of policy > against these kind of betrayals of the revolution. A policy that accords > more with dialectics and takes into account that people's heads are not like > the heads of onions. "People's heads are not like the heads of onions. You > can chop the heads of onions and they will grow back, but once you chop some > one's head it doesn't grow back". > > In comrade Stalin's time many people held the view that once you 'kill the > dog you have killed the rabies'. On the whole, this was never Stalin's own > view, as can be seen from his long and patient attempts to convince the > leaders of the opportunist line to give up their harmful ideas, and the many > occassions in which these same people were given new opportunities to > repudiate their anti-soviet stance and ACTIONS, and come over to the side of > the people. Let us not forget that Kamenev and Zinoviev, as well as > Bukharin had recanted and being re-instated in several occassions before > their final downfall. > > But it is also true, as Chairman Mao has explained at lenght, that Stalin > had himself contributed to educate many people in a methaphysical approach > on questions of inner party struggle - and other questions as well - and it > is not easy to rein-in the people's indignation if you had not prepared the > minds of people to adopt a more Marxist attitude on the question of those > who - within the camp of revolution - commit grevious harm to the people's > cause. > > Moreover, the times were different, comrade Stalin was responsible for > upholding the proletarian dictatorship during a period of very acute and > desperately inestable times, when fascism was preparing the forcible > suppression of the revolution by means of world war. > > Chairman Mao comes to power in a very different context - of victory in the > anti-fascist struggle - and had the communists and the people had at their > disposal then a more solid framework for the handling of contradictions. A > different approach was then possible and necessary. The handling of > Wang-ming and Li-li-san's deviations and their grevious harm against the > Party and the revolution, was handled by re-electing them to the Central > Committee with the 'official' title of 'Teachers by Negative Example'. This > is a concrete demonstration of the difference of approach arrived at in > Chairman Mao's development of scientific socialism and the handling of the > class struggle under conditions of People's democratic dictatorship and the > building of socialism. > > But neither should we adopt a simplistic bourgeois liberal analysis and say, > look, Mao was absolutely right and Stalin was absolutely wrong. No, things > are not like that in historical questions. All depends on time and > circunstances. Nevertheless, the facts are that as the proletarian > revolution develops, more experience becomes available and more > possibilities for avoiding mistakes are opened. Mistakes are bad, not only > because they are erroneous, but because they cost the people's cause dearly. > > The assessment of Chairman Mao about comrade Stalin, (70% right and 30% > wrong) may or may not turn out to be 'about right', as the Chairman then > (1957) put it. It is wrong to consider this as 'divine revelation' and to > take it in a methaphisical fashion. In other occassion, the Chairman said > that Stalin may have been right in 80 or even 90%. But the fact remains, > and in this any true revolutionary positition must be that the positive in > Stalin's outweights the negative. That his mistakes are mistakes of a > 'revolutionary' and not the acts of a counter-revolutionary or a revisionist. > > > That is why Mao said that to pass judgement on the Stalin's era mistakes was > premature and that it was a task that - over the historical perspective - > belonged to the entire International Communist Movement, the proletariat and > the people. Today the Soviet people are precisely involved in this process > of re-assessing the Stalin era. And apparently they feel they need today to > adopt more of comrade Stalin's policies and political line, in order to save > the people's lives and restore a socialist direction to the land of Lenin > and Stalin. Surely, with the historical experience now available, the masses > will adopt from the Stalin era what was positive and try to avoid what was > negative. It is in this context that the development of Chairman Mao of the > theory of revolution, Marxism, is important for the Soviet people in order > to have at their disposal all the practical experience of the class in > making their new revolution advance. > > However, this should make us aware of the little use that delving on this > subject from a bourgeois ethical perspective has for the revolutionary > cause. Moreover, to delve on comrade Stalin's 'mistakes' today, who does it > serve? It certainly does not serve the people!. > > I think that a study of the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet > Union (B) is important for a class based understanding of these issues and > what was then involved. If people of the left want to serve the revolution, > they should not jump happily to the side of reaction in criticising comrade > Stalin. In doing so, they are only showing their lack of any serious > Marxism in their appoach to historical questions. Moreover, it does not in > any way help to prevent mistakes in the future. It only serves as > ammunition for the people's enemies to fire against the revolution. Sincere > revolutionaries should aim their guns - both military and intellectual > weapons - against the old order and leave this kind of debates to its proper > and timely moment. In this connection is it worth remebering comrade > Chou-En Lai's response to a journalist who asked what was the final > assessment on the French revolution: "It is to early to say". > > Don't we then have other things to fight against, or even better things to > do, than to rake over the past with the eyes of the present and at the > service of the enemies of progress? > > > Regards > > > Adolfo Olaechea > > > --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005