A deal with who?

Robert Malecki malecki at algonet.se
Fri Apr 26 00:48:22 MDT 1996



Robert wrote:
>> The above i assume means that Comrade G. is prepared to make a deal with the
>> Peruvian bourgeoisie! If he gets the countryside and peru does not become a
>> north and south OK.

Luis writes:
>Luis:  Not at all. He is saying that if the big bourgeoisie wants
>"negotiation," the PCP is willing to negotiate their complete surrender, not
>a partial one. As in any revolution, the old State accumulate forces in the
>city, which will be at the end the last fortress of the reactionaries,
>in the situation of Strategic equilibrium, can the PCP negotiate? No.
>Because that would mean a split of the country (the countryside, about 1/3
>in control of the People's Committees) and the cities in relative control
>of reaction. So, at this stage, negotiations do not proceed. The balance
>of power has to shift to the PCP in an strategic offenosive to undergo
>negotiation with the enemy , which in the diplomatic table, will reflect the
>situation in the battle field. It means the absolute and complete surrunder
>of the Armed Forces (the backbone of the old State.)

Luis the above makes some sort of sense to me. If it is true...

Robert writes:
> But what does this have to do with class struggle.If a
>> peace is neccessary, it would have to be along the lines of Lenins and
>> Trotsky,s peace deal with the Germans, preventing any outside intervention
>> if the Peruvian proletariat and the peasantry were to seize power. That
>> would be legitimate. But making deals with the Peruvian class enemies is a
>> betrayal and Gonzalo the main spokesman for sticking a knife into the back
>> of a victorious seizure of power in Peru..
Luis writes:
>You are missing the point here. You began by a wrong assumption that I
>clarified before, and obviously arrived to a wrong conclusion. The threat
>of massive U.S. military intervention is a reality, it eventually will take
>place (directly or indirectly through bordering countries using the UN or
>OAS charade), but that's not reason to cut deals with imperialism. In these
>circunstances the situation of the war will change into a National
>Liberation struggle, the National Liberation Front led by the PCP will be
>broadened. The PCP Document "Let the Strategic Equilibriun Rock
>the Country" explains in detail these possibilities [for our readers, we
>will put it in the PCP Web page shortly.] Malecki, I'll be glad to
>send you a copy so you can understand better this issue. Chairman Gonzalo
>is the main architect of the PCP, he would never capitulate to the enemy.
>The intelligence forces falsify his views, even fabricate "peace letters"
>which were denounced by the PCP as counterrevolutinaries hoaxes.
>That's why important to study the documents which is at your disposal
>in the web page http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp
>First investigate, then talk. Comrades may be posting partial quotes,
>it is neccesary in what context President Gonzalo is being quoted.

Luis: if the first at least made sense the above nonsense does not. There is
always a danger of imperialist encirclement yes. But thaty does not turn the
struggle into a national liberation front. The Peruvians can not rely on
their own bourgreoisie nor make any deals to fight outside intervention. A
Bolshevik party would turn to the workers and peasants in the whole Latin
America and made the struggle a struggle against not only imperialism but
there lackies in power who support them. Many of the so called situations in
Haiti, Nicaragua, where the possibility for revolution was beginning to
mature was side tracked just because the question was put as you put it
above. We must stand for independence of the working class and spreading the
revolution throughout Latin America rather then turn towards making deals
with "the progressive bourgeois forces" in individual countries that might
lean towards some sort of anti-imperialist stance in order to stab the
revolution in the back.

The whole discussion of the February revolution and the October revolution
that Lenin stood for and tactics for revolutionaries is the question then
just as it is now in Peru. The Mensheviks put the revolution in the hands of
the "progressive Bougeoisie" after the February revolution. Lenin and the
Bolsheviks including Trotsky turned the party towards the Octber revolution.
In fact dragged the party including Stalin away from a dangerous tendency to
capitulate to the Menshevik line..

Gonzalo and Mao are doing the same thing. Although Mao finally did take
power and in Vietnam the liberation front did take power and these gains
should be defended does not mean that it was correct. In fact the reasons
that we have the situation both in Russia and China today is because both
Stalin and Mao never followed the line of Lenin on this question. What is
going on constantly wioth these tendencies historically has always been,
which part of the bourgeoisie or imperialism one makes a deal with.

For Lenin it was never a question of a deal. He stated clearly to the
workers the reasons for signing a peace treaty with the Germans. It was to
consolidate the russian revolution and smash the capitalists and fuedalists
in Russia while at the same time trying to extend the revolution
internationally. This by building the Communist International and supporting
the building of Bolshevik parties everywhere to fight for the dictatorship
of the proletariat...

malecki in exile
>




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list