Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:02:11 +0100
From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (hariette spierings)
Subject: Malecki, we told you so! "Quispe" speaks for Fujimori, not for Maoism in any way! 


>What,s the matter Luis? Getting worried that Aldolfo,s accusations of being 
>a "Trot" might stick.


>Anyhow, Luis,s long first part of the history of Trotskyism is a fairly 
>classical document of the Stalinist school of falsification. 
>Warm Regards
>malecki
>
>For the list. My personal believe is that Trotsky was a Menshevik on the 
>party question up until the Russian revolution in 1917. 
>
>
>
About the "anti-Trostkysm" of the phoney Maoists who speak for the fascist
Fujimori, and malecki's "surprise":

Stung by this time being on the receiving end of the usual attitude of the
Fujimori agency to any one who does not longer serve their purposes:  To
attempt to confuse, to denigrate, slander and make false accussations
against anyone with the vaguest connection to progressive ideas, and at the
same time caricaturise the PCP in order to serve Fujimori's plans - Robert
Malecki assumes wrongly that this ridiculous analysis of Trotskysm - a
veritable version of the Khruschevite School of metaphysics, has anything to
do with a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist analysis of the role of Trotskysm, or that
I, in any way, after what has transpired in this list, will find any grounds
of "unity" in that piece of regurgitated Khruschevism (of the 1940s).  

What the poor twit from Manhattan - in his pretencious fashion - has done
about Trotskysm, is a typical primary school version.  Many methaphysical
tracts of this kind were written by Right-wing opportunists seeking to
ingratiate themselves with the anti-Stalin sections of the Soviet
bureacracy, where individuals like Khruschev and Gorbachev, made their
careers by advancing simpleton's analysis of historical phenomena and
burning unwelcomed incense to comrade Stalin, in the same way as the
"Quispe" burn incense to Chairman Gonzalo, while at the same time defending
and uniting with those who are portraying the great Maoist leader as a
turncoat and capitulator:  The La Torres, for example..  

These kind of "anti-Trotsky" primers, supposedly polemical, were only some
kind of cathecism, used by the Right-wing opportunists for covering their
own backs. These were nothing but "burnt-offerings" and incense burning to
the "great father Stalin". People like Kruschev and Khlopov did this sort of
thing for a living.  And then, people wonder whay Stalin had to chop so many
bureacrats heads!  Real Marxist leaders, do not like bootlickers of any kind.

However, this kind of "anti-Trotskysm", always failed miserably to
understand and reflect the great Marxist-Leninist thinker Stalin's own
position on the question of Trotskysm.  Methaphysically, in these primers,
Trotskysm is presented as totally alien to the working class at ALL TIMES.
Trotskysm is represented in the abstract, and no analysis at all of its
different currents and trends is made.

Moreover, that was not at all Stalin's own assessment in reference to the
old Trostkysm (before 1929-1930):

"What is a political trend in the working class?  A political trend in the
working class is a group, or a party, which has a definite political face, a
platform, a program, which does not and cannot hide its views from the
working class, but on the contrary, advocates its views openly and honestly
before the working class, which is not afraid of showing its political face
to the working class, which is not afraid of demonstrating its real aims and
objectives to the working class, but on the contrary, GOES TO THE WORKING
CLASS WITH OPEN VISOR in order to convince it of the correctness of its
views.  In the past, seven or eight years ago, TROTSKYSM WAS SUCH A
POLITICAL TREND IN THE WORKING CLASS, and anti-Leninist and, therefore, a
profoundly mistaken trend, it is true, BUT A POLITICAL TREND, NEVERTHELESS".
J. V. Stalin, Defects in Party Work, 1937).

Here, it is clear that, for Stalin, right up to 1930, Trotskysm constituted
a DEFINITE TREND IN THE WORKING CLASS.  Moreover, a trend with OPEN VISOR,
with its own platform, political face, program.

"Quispe" says: "Trotsky NEVER had organizational contact with working people. He
confined himself to putting out his own newspaper.....".  How is that
primary school statement reconciled with Stalin's views on Trotskysm prior
to 1929-1930? In no way!

Everybody knows, and I have not ever hidden, my own views about Trostkysm.
However, Trotskysm, like everything in the world, has undergone too a number
of methamorphoses.  From being a trend in the working class prior to 1930,
it later became a gang of unprincipled wreckers.  However, today, after the
fall of Soviet revisionism, with which a section of Trotskysm increasingly
became associated, "Trotskysm" itself has undergone, and is undergoing,
other transformations.  It is no longer what it was when Leon Trotsky
himself was their center of unity, and even then, it had already a number of
counterposed tendencies in its midst as well.

Today's Trotskysm, while no longer a distinct trend in itself - is again
part of a trend in the working class:  It exists as a general label for left
social-democratic views in the countries where the aristocracy of labour
holds sway among the working class movement.  

That is its present function, and as such, our fight against Trotskysm, of
which we have given already many principled and effective samples in this
list, is part of a general fight against what we call new-fascism.  The
ideas of those who would line-up the progressive and "left" movements of the
imperialist countries with their own imperialist bourgeoisie against the
proletarian led revolutions, such as the Peruvian revolution. 

However, regarding the workers' movement, no one can deny that the split in
the working class continues today, principally within the imperialist
countries, but also at the world level.  If this was otherwise, then the
revolution would have already taken place long ago.  

It is within social-democracy and other revisionist schools where
"Trotskysm" flourishes today as the "infantile disorder" of the youth-wing
of the aristocracy of labour.  No one can seriously deny that these trends,
deeply mistaken and anti-proletarian trends from our point of view,  hold
again influence among workers and students in many countries, this time not
as "a party or group", but as a multitude of schools within
social-democratic politics.

What Marxism-Leninism-Maoism needs to do to effectively counter these
"Trotskyst" ideas within the progressive and working class milieus, has
nothing to do with regurgitating Khruschev style primers, which Stalin
himself would never have put his own name to, if they were to be passed as
"Marxist analysis".  
What needs to be done is rather to seek to build a United Front against
fascism and in defence of the revolutionary ideals.  In such a front,
undoubtedly certain people whose views in reference to the historic legacy
of Trotsky may be - as they are - at absolute loggerheads with our own, can
take their place as part of the forces opposing fascism and imperialist
reaction since their convictions ARE ABOVE BOARD, OPENLY AND HONESTLY HELD
in tjis regard, just like ours are in the opposite direction.  

However, unity in the face of the common enemy of all democrats, does not at
all need to include or validate the wreckers and saboteurs who ADOPT, like
chameleons, whatever views would momentarily serve their purposes of
WRECKING anti-fascist understanding, opposing the revolution and serving
fascists regimes such as Fujimori's.  

The activities of such gangs can only serve to generate unprincipled fights.
And that is in fact the principal reason that has moved the "Quispes" to
publish their ridiculous tract, after for so long praising every foolish
attack on the part of malecki against those pointing out the clear evidence
of their wrecker and unprincipled activities in this list. 

They just want to stir-up trouble with people like Louis Proyect - who above
board and openly holds opposite views to ours on the historical questions
involving Trotkysm and Leninism - and others too, who take a consistent
anti-imperialist stance, and will have no track with them, despite their
principled differences with us.

Of course, it is true what malecki says: " What,s the matter Luis? Getting
worried that Aldolfo,s accusations of being a "Trot" might stick"?.

Yes, they are obviously worried because, in having shamelessly USED malecki
for their counter-revolutionary purposes, (something that malecki fell for
blinded by his anti-Maoism), they have more than once actually endorsed
malecki's political line, and shown for everyone to see, that it really is
basically the same as their own.  Hence, the need to put some "clear blue
water" with malecki, once he run out of steam and failed in getting
"Aldolfo" expelled.  The price of not doing what "quispe" needs you to do
for him! 

Of course, at the bottom of all this, there is really a very simplistic
scheme: the "Kisspees" are seeking to deceive again and to present
themselves as true part of the Marxist-Leninist tradition and "upholders of
Stalin" after the many absurd statements they issued against him.  However,
their anti-Trotsky tract is nothing but sheer Khruschev style iconography
and methaphysical balderdash.

The truth about this gang of phoney "maoists"  is in fact that these people
have no ideology whasoever.  They change ideas by the minute, like all
broken turncoats always do.  They are "phoney" everything, since the only
reason they have to exist is to serve counter-revolution and fascism for a
pittance.  

These people are in fact more like Stalin himself describes the Trotskysts
after 1930 than any decent Trotsky symphatiser of today may be. Particularly
those who, entertaining Trotskyst views, have a consistent anti-imperialist
stand and practice solidarity with the revolutions of the oppressed peoples.  

What did Stalin in fact had to say about this Trotskysm which developed in
the 1930s?

"Can it be said that present-day Trotskysm, Trotskysm, SAY, OF 1936, is a
political trend in the working class?  No, this cannot be said.  Why?
Because the present day Trotskyites ARE AFRAID TO SHOW THEIR REAL FACE TO
THE WORKING CLASS, are afraid to reveal to it their aims and objectives,
CAREFULLY HIDE THEIR POLITICAL FACE FROM THE WORKING CLASS, fearing that if
the working class learns about their real intentions it will curse them as
people alien to it and drive them away.  This, in fact, explains why the
principal methods of Trotskyite work now are not the honest and open
advocacy of its views in the working class, but the disguising of its views,
the obsequious, FAWNING EULOGY OF THE VIEWS OF ITS OPPONENTS, THE
PHARISAICAL AND HYPOCRITICAL trampling of its own views in the mud". (Ibid)

"Present day Trotskysm (1936) is not a political trend in the working class,
but a gang without principles and without ideals, a gang of wreckers,
diversionists, intelligence services agents, spies, assassins, a gang of
sworn enemies of the working class, working in the pay of the intelligence
services of foreign states".  (Ibid)

Now, I stand by Stalin's analysis as far as THAT HISTORICAL PERIOD is
concerned. But today?  Are the conditions still the same?.  No, they are
not.  No one can say with any degree of seriousness that "Trotskysm" is a
definite and separate trend of any kind.  It is merely one of the various
trends within present day social-democracy, and represents a variegated
number of groups and organisms. Under such conditions, Stalin himself would
not apply his analysis of 1937.

This is what Stalin, the dialectical materialist, has to say about the
necessity of Marxist analysis to reflect the concrete conditions and the
CONCRETE HISTORICAL EPOCH:

In a letter to A. Kholopov, Stalin says:

"Your letter tacitly proceeds ........ from the premise that this or that
conclussion or formula of Marxism, DERIVED FROM STUDYING ONE OF THE PERIODS
OF HISTORIAL DEVELOPMENT, HOLDS GOOD FOR ALL PERIODS of development and
therefore must remain INVARIABLE".  (J.V. Stalin, Marxism and Problems of
Linguistics)

No. Today, we live in a different historical period.  Today, and principally
regarding the Peruvian revolution, it is rather the bogus Maoists and the
infiltrated agents those who are playing precisely the role of the
Trotskysts of the 1930s.  It is people like "Quispe" - representing the
views of capitulators and Fujimori agents and who make a profession of
attacking the true revolutionaries - who can be said to be:

"AFRAID TO SHOW THEIR REAL FACE TO THE WORKING CLASS, ... afraid to reveal
to it their aims and objectives, (to) CAREFULLY HIDE THEIR POLITICAL FACE
>FROM THE WORKING CLASS, fearing that if the working class learns about their
real intentions it will curse them as people alien to it and drive them
away.  This, in fact, explains why the principal methods of
(Quispe/Co-Rim/capitulators) work now are not the honest and open advocacy
of its views in the working class, but the disguising of its views, the
obsequious, FAWNING EULOGY OF THE VIEWS OF ITS OPPONENTS, THE PHARISAICAL
AND HYPOCRITICAL trampling of (their) own views in the mud".  

It is the "quispe"s, the Dan Axtells and the "Ginas", together with the TPs,
the Javier Esparza's, the La Torres, the Co-Rim leaders, who, claiming to
speak for "Maoism", are in fact acting as the agents of fascism and
imperialism, of Fujimori and all reactionaries.  It is them, who TODAY
deserve well the words of comrade Stalin: "a gang without principles and
without ideals, a gang of wreckers, diversionists, intelligence services
agents, spies, assassins, a gang of sworn enemies of the working class,
working in the pay of the intelligence services of foreign states".

I have nothing in common with Malecki.  I however can not deny that malecki
does NOT CONCEAL HIS VIEWS. I have made this distinction before between
malecki and the "Quispes", warning him that he would find out for himself
who he has been coddling up to.  Bad and negative as I regard malecki, he is
not a Fujimori agent in my understanding.  There is nothing that can unite
malecki and us in the work of defending the Peruvian revolution and Maoism.
However, here everybody who is not a unprincipled gangster at the service of
reaction, cannot be confused all together with a real Fujimori agency, no
matter how stupidly they have come close to identify themselves with it.


Adolfo Olaechea



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