Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 03:14:08 GMT
From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (hariette spierings)
Subject: RESPONSE TO CHRIS'S OPEN LETTER


Dear Chris:  Thanks for you concern regarding our aims in the Marxism list.
Of course we see our campaign to defeat the reactionary curtain of lies and
distorsions against the Peruvian revolution in terms of a People's War. A
war in which the weapons are ideas and the means to deliver these
effectively. I myself have already talked in this terms before. 

Moreover, as you have already noted, the imperialists carry out also an
anti-People's War of mis-information and slander, in which certainly "the
detachment of the bourgeoisie within the ranks of the working class" plays
its usual role of assistant in this very propaganda of the class enemy under
the signboard of "left wing opinion"!.  

Is this new?  No. You, who are a student of the history of revolutions know
very well that this has always been a tried and tested method, even from the
time of the Paris Commune.  Therefore in this aspect of the class war we
fight in all levels, and this cyberspace is just one of them.  They fight us
with their methods, generally encirclement and suppression - and has that
not been the method used by certain elements in this list?  We fight them
with our methods, generally marching right through their ranks and taking
away their bogus credentials as "friends of the people".  It works!

In this war we guide ourselves by our principles - the principles of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism - and you are absolutely right in not expecting us
to guide ourselves by any others.

Let me assure you that there is no "evil" intention on our part towards the
spirit or composition of this list, or any other for that matter.  You might
well be right in saying that possibly in three months we might not be
subscribers. That of course will depend on whether we can be of any use to
the list or not. 

As I understand there are around 350 subscribers.  There are of course some
vocal enemies of the proletarian line, and maybe many others who have been
subjected to their pontifications beleiving them to be real Marxists.  Among
these pontifications was the canard that the Communist Party of Peru was
some sort of evil anti-Marxist organism. I think that by their dessertion
from debate we have laid this silly canard to rest.  Is that not something
worth doing?

For us is immaterial to "win over" people to our party - I have already
expressed that such is not the Marxist method of Party building.  Moreover,
I do not see in this list anyone who was not our enemy to start with being
"alienated" by us telling the truth.  And if such was the case, what use
could a person like that be for the proletarian revolution?

We are partisans of clearly delimiting the camps.  Believers that without
fighting against revisionism and opportunism, it is impossible to advance
the revolution, nor really confront imperialism.

Moreover, in the advance countries of the world, our aim is to inform the
proletariat of the facts.  In that intellectuals and political activists of
the left can certainly play a role, but they are not the main force by any
means, precisely because in the main they have become totally divorced from
the class.

We see the Peruvian revolution as part and parcel of the world proletarian
revolution, therefore our purpose is not to reform in any way the old and
rotten Peruvian state, but to raise upon its ashes a new state under the
leadership of the proletarian ideology in order to serve the world
revolution, to summon it to renew its assault against the ramparts of
privilege worldwide.  

That is what set the Peruvian revolution apart from struggles such as the
ANC, which can enjoy the support and the patronage of sections of the
imperialist bourgeoisie.  We do not aim for that - hence you shall see no
Christian vigils outside Fujimori's embassy, although you will see at least
a couple of times a year proletarian rallies that shake the old Peruvian
state to the core.

The day we should embrace the "lonely candle" strategy, that day the
bourgeoisie in Peru would feel secure!

Of course we believe in the utmost flexibility combined with utmost firmness
of principle.  That is why I said in another posting:  "Whosover comes
against us with a sword, we'll find us facing him with a sword, and maybe
two! Whosoever comes to us with an open hand will find an open hand as well".  

Take the case of Louis Project:  He has done both things, and found
therefore us responding to him both with a sword and an open hand, in
accordance with his own moods.  Therein his current vacillations and
contorsions. It is his choice to beleive whatever he likes. No matter how
important an individual maybe, if he sets his nose against the revolution he
has only himself to blame if the revolution ends up branding him as an
enemy.  However, if some one, conquering his fears and prejudices, has a
change of mind and treats the revolution with real respect, he can certainly
expect reciprocation. 

You see, we do not expect our revolution to achieve victory because people
will feel sorry for the poor.  We expect our people to be able to free
themselves.  The solidarity we are looking for can in no way suit the
condescending saviours since it implies our class brothers applying
themselves to the revolutionary tasks in their own countries.  Then if a Red
Republic raises in Peru, it will be the proletariat of the other countries
who will play the role of our battallions within the belly of those who
would try to smother this red republic.  

That said, there is no reason why we cannot contribute positively to some of
the discussions in this list, provided that there is mutual respect.  We are
prepared to give it if others will change their manners, we may even arrive
at common understandings.

For example, in todays traffic I spotted the following exchange which
certainly will be interesting to comment in the light of the thesis of our
ideology, since what it is said in here, corresponds to a great extent to
how we view the process of the proletarian revolution:


" You both may be right, but nothing that either says has anything
to do with Riesco's argument. He argues that *all* communist revo-
lutionaries, including Lenin, of the 20th c. have, willy nilly, because
of objective historical conditions and independently of their wills
brought about "Jacobin" revolutions. In is argument the October
revolution would only be the completion of the February Revolution.

    I vaguely recall in one of Marx's works some justification for
this: someplace he argues that only the working class has the will
to carry through the bourgeois revolution. Riesco would only add that
in the 19th & 20th c. the workers were not strong enough to do *more*
than that, so what they and their "willy-nilly Jacobin" leaders did
was to clear the way for us to carry out the Communist revolution in
a wholly modernized world".


Here we would note that the Jacobin revolutions ended up implementing the
Girondin program!  That we look at the process of revolution as a process of
advance in wave like fashion.  That the question is to advance the
revolution to the highest possible water mark.

That, in the case of the proletarian revolution, the question is to develop
Marxism - taken as a unity - to cope with the new challenges.  That is what
we call Maoism.  How the Great Proletarian Cultural revolution stands
precisely in this context of the new wave of proletarian revolution.

And also point out our disgreements, for example that the Communist
revolution would be carried out in a "wholly modernised world".  That of
couse is a contradiction since in the era in which we live imperialism is
decaying and it is precisely incapable of "wholly modernising the world"
since its mode of exploitation precisely supposses the maintenance of
backwardness and reaction - and at least 50%/60% of the world's population
still live under semi-feudal conditions, very far from being capable of
"wholly modernising" under imperialist and reactionary domination.

Therein our thesis that it is to this generation of the international
proletariat that corresponds the task of carrying the revolution through to
the end.  Hic Rosa, hic salta!


I hope this gives you an answer on the question of our motivation.

As to the files, I will try to send them converted into DOS Text tomorrow.


Regards


Adolfo



PD:  On the question of the nom-de-guerre of Eudocio Ravinez I have to
confess my ignorance, but I am sure he must have had one.  But that was the
accepted version in Peru and I never heard it challenged.  Another PCP
member - Cesar Vallejo (the great poet) was also active in Spain during the
Civil War, as were other Peruvian communists and progressives. Vallejo was
very much a true supporter of Mariategui, having been among the first to
join Mariategui's Party.



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

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