Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 20:01:30 -0500 From: Dan Axtell <daxtell-AT-connix.com> Subject: The "tragedy' of Peru On this list, I see a lot of messages about the People's War in Peru, going back and forth on whether it is a good thing or not. For people like "Comradely" Carlos and Louis P., it would no doubt be a "tragedy" if the PCP wins power. After all, what would happen then? It would be a serious blow to U.S. imperialism to lose one of its many fertile feeding grounds for economic exploitation, and the PCP's commitment to turn the People's Republic of Peru into a base area of the world revolution would cause capitalism to have a really bad day. Yes, this would be a real "tragedy": for imperialism and capitalism. That's why people like Bill Tupman, a British expert on counter-terrorism and lecturer at the Staff College of the Royal School of Infantry, was quoted as saying: "Sendero Luminoso is quite right... The young revolutionary has only one place to run to. Maoism gives people something to do. Trotskyism was about waiting around and selling newspapers. I see it coming back in a big way. Maoism has all the bits of popular appeal: a step-by-step guide to action, a sophisticated model for the study of revolutionary struggle in your own country." [NY Times magazine, May 24, 1992] Or to paraphrase one U.S. admiral: "if Communism is not crushed in Peru, it will be reborn in the world like the phoenix from its ashes." Sometimes your enemies tell you more about yourself than your "friends" do. Of course, Carlos and Louis are more sophisticated than this. They will vehemently protest that they want "real" revolutionary change, not one by brutal, human-rights suppressing Stalinists. Perhaps the United Left (IU), with its imaginary "armed front", will suddenly be resurrected. Like all real revolutions, some mythical "third way" would be better. If only Trotskyists had taken power in China, we would see a REAL revolution, not that historical distraction Mao led. The fact that Trotskyists, with all their scholarly rhetoric, have never come close to seizing power anywhere, seems to lead only to further rounds of perusing the works of Marx, Trotsky, etc. for clues to this odd failure. When the PCP does win, people like Louis will no doubt be deploring this great "setback" for the socialist movement. After all, socialism in one country can never match the "achievements" of a "permanent revolution" that is as elusive as it is "permanent". The prospect of defending a movement that is committed to defeating U.S. imperialism and building a classless society is appalling to many on the U.S. left. This is sad, since part of our tax money goes to prop up the death-squad democracies that Clinton and Dole love to arm. The point is not to be mean to Carlos and Louis, to bait them as reactionaries. I am constantly perplexed why people who call themselves "Marxist" in America have such a hard time dealing with the PCP. Is the PCP objectively hurting or helping U.S. imperialism? For better or for worse, Peru is polarized, it's either the PCP or Fujimori. Which do you think is better? Or human rights: Why did Marx, Engels, Lenin (to say nothing of Stalin and Mao!) ALL uphold and develop the theory of the proletarian dictatorship? Why not the proletarian republic or proletarian democracy? Because on basic questions about state power and revolutionary violence, they were crystal clear. The PCP is quite orthodox in this regards, and this strategy is paying off. Remember, without state power all is illusion. If all this seems chillingly "Stalinist", why bother to call yourself Marxist? What's wrong with calling yourself a liberal? Why cloud the issue? --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005