Gina's sectarianism and Liberalism on Quispe
Maoist Internationalist Movement
mim3 at blythe.org
Thu Aug 22 21:24:48 MDT 1996
>From owner-marxism Tue Aug 20 07:33:35 1996
From: Rubyg580 at aol.com
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 07:32:50 -0400
Subject: Re: MIM summary on Quispe (distortions)
In a message dated 96-08-19 11:48:16 EDT, mim3 writes:
<< When Chairperson Gonzalo sought to share his views with
the masses in interview format, he turned to Luis Arce Borja.>>
Actually, mim3, it was the publication "El Diario" in Lima, not the
individual Arce Borja who conducted the interview in 1988. Your
boss Adolfo was the one distorting the historical record when he
put Arce's name on each question. The only place in the original
publication that LAB's name appears is on the front cover, where
he is listed along with Janet Talavera (who Adolfo didn't even
bother to mention, although she paid with her life for being
associated with that interview).
MIM replies: You say it was on the front cover of the originals, but
Quispe didn't put it on the front cover or anywhere. In fact, the issue
was quite relevant when the context was Quispe's making various charges
against LAB including "traitor." The issue is also how Quispe alters
documents for his benefit, including some of his own now.
Between you and me Gina, I know you know that LAB has
always been presented as the one who did the interview.
That goes back to practices which came long before this
outing of Agent Quispe. Your dishonesty in this regard
is of the sectarian kind that I will get to later. You
are guilty of subordinating the proletarian truth for the
benefit of one organization--the RIM. Read what Mao had to
say about that. Never mind what he said about having a COMINTERN,
because you've proved quite able to ignore that completely.
But then, this distortion only follows the pattern of your other
distortions, for example:
<<<Agent Quispe justifies this position by pointing to a pro-RIM
document written by the PCP Central Committee. But this
document was written prior to Gonzalo's arrest, prior to
Operation Capitulation, and prior to Co-RIM's attempts to prop
up capitulationist deserters by calling them "PCP." >>>
On May 4, 1996 Luis Quispe posted to this list the PCP document
"International Directive of the Communist Party of Peru (PCP) to
the MPP", dated 12-01-1993 (Persident Gonzalo was captured in
September of 1992). This document contains the paragraph:
"They [The individuals who persist in the slander of promoting
the "peace talks" letters] negate Gonzalo Thought, the people's
war, the world revolution, the new era, and the great campaign
to defend the life of Chairman Gonzalo, that are unbreakably
linked to the celebration of Mao's centennial. They deny the
and of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communist Parties in the
world. In essence, they defend the rotten feudal-imperialist
ideology." (emphasis added)
MIM replies: Gina, I believe the above is what is causing
you to lie about everything else in connection to Quispe
except for a few key items in the personal lives of
the Detroit Support Committee.
You are subordinating everything to save the RIM and you
think that's what the PCP wants. OK, fine, why not argue that
straight up? Why not just oppose the WMC on that basis?
Sure behave as the second line of defense for the RCP.
However, you still have no reason to have anything to do with clear
anti-Semites and cops. You degrade the PCP by pretending
Quispe has anything to do with it. This is a crime that
will be difficult for you to clean from your record of
support of the People's War. Please give it up and
put forward separately your erronenous views on the COMINTERN,
the RIM etc. if you must.
The other thing you talk about is the "offensive" work
Quispe does by translating. However, this reeks of false
internationalism. I'm pretty sure you know that there
were numerous organizations working on translation before
Quispe showed up. You can check our old ftp site for
one, and you will find Spanish, French and English documents
of the PCP dated before Quispe lifted a finger.
Now Quispe's arrival generated a certain enthusiasm of
the sentimental type because he claimed to be Peruvian
and representative of the PCP-CC after originally claiming
to be instructed just to aid the MIM. This is where
false internationalism hurt us here in the united states,
because people who wouldn't work on the stuff before
Quispe showed up, suddenly leaped forward to do things.
We can't fault the sentiment too much, but it is now
clear that it has helped the Zubatovs in our ranks as AO
says. People threw out their standards when it came to
Quispe to do the same kind of work MIM was asking them
to do. People willing to work with Quispe were thus
only internationalists under certain conditions;
it's this false internationalism that the RCP also
knows to take advantage of by presenting this or that
person as the real thing so that all kinds of fools
who would never do a thing otherwise step up; thus
we call them false internationalists. Communists should
always step up regardless. There are no excuses.
Since you fancy yourself a communist, this applies
to you Gina. The people who are merely sentimental
internationalists who might not even claim to be communists
can't be blamed as much.
There is nothing miraculous that Quispe does.
It's to the point where a lot of people on the
INTERNET don't know that Quispe doesn't even do his
own translating and he uses prisoners to do it, and
then doctors it, by using the very same prisoners who are denied MIM
literature by prison authorities.
Later, when your boss Oleachea quoted this same paragraph,
he left out the sentence that mentions the RIM. But that
reference is definitely in the document authored by the CC
of the PCP, written more than a YEAR after the capture of
Chairman Gonzalo, and several months AFTER the introduction
of the "peace talks" scheme. So sorry, mim3, but Quispe's use
of this document is entirely correct and relevant.
MIM replies: Now look back at what Gina said here. She is
replying to MIM's citation of a 1986 document with reference
to a Quispe document of much later years! Then she says it's
correct and relevant as if we were talking about something else?!
Gina is just obsessed with this one thing above.
Fine Gina, argue for what you think the document says!
It has nothing to do with defending Quispe, the political
chameleon with ulterior motives.
You also say:
.>>> In May of this year, Agent Quispe made the public mistake
on the Internet of calling for the overthrow of Luis Arce Borja, the
editor of El Diario Internacional, for no reasons of any political
In actuality, the reasons which you call "of no political importance"
are clearly stated in the article of May15, that the reason for
"overthrowing" Arce Borja is the fact that he does nothing to
criticize and defeat the IDEOLOGY of the capitulators, some
of whom are his previous mentors and close associates. By
claiming that the "peace talks" hoax was something completely
external to the party, he can avoid carrying out the mandate of
the PCP to smash the ideological basis, the Right Opportunist
Line, that underlies the capitulationist scheme.
MIM replies: Gina, I don't know exactly how long you've known
Quispe, but guess who was the leading exponent of the line
you are now criticizing? It was Quispe.
It was Quispe posing
to MIM as the ultra-metaphysician opposed to two-line struggle.
Now Quispe has switched sides, not with self-criticism, but
only at a very certain moment to gain intelligence and cause
a big split. That's why nothing with Quispe is political,
because you name it, and Quispe has said it without
criticizing former positions. Then he goes back and recycles
his articles depending on the moment, and treats the INTERNET
to his regurgitations of himself. That's not politics,
except cop politics. That's deliberate sowing of confusion.
Quispe is even on record directly denying that the RIM is developing.
The fact that mim3 considers this to be a reason "of no political
importance" just shows how politically bankrupt MIM is, and how
oblivious to the real issues surrounding the question of
capitulation and the political line behind it.
MIM replies: Look Gina, you are afraid of the future with
a changing or dissolved RIM. That's what it boils down to. Sure some
people are going to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
We cannot deny that. But any dialectician knows that
"development" as you quote the PCP document is full of surprises.
And if we are going to talk about metaphysics and denial
of two-line struggle, you should know that as a matter
of fact, change in the RIM is a done deal. It's leading
parties are already on to the evils of the past and others
are studying the problem.
The bottom line Gina is that purges ARE a form of struggle.
Ridding ourselves of Quispe is a blow against anti-Semitism
and cop split and wreck tactics. Likewise, you are now
speaking for a Liberal policy toward the Canto Grande weed
and the support movement abroad. This is a matter of struggle,
but not of two-line struggle in the party. It's straight-up
struggle with the enemy. You and Fujimori both think the
Canto Grande weed-signers should be kept in the party.
It's difficult for me to see why you would not
support the following. 1) Struggle with the Canto Grande
weed-signers, but as members of the new democratic forces,
not as claimants to Maoism. That addresses your
supposed concern that LAB is not for struggle. 2) Struggle
against the line abroad, but don't count it as Maoist.
Even all that is a separate issue from Quispe.
To sum up, you need to re-study Mao on sectarianism and
the COMINTERN on the one hand, and Liberalism on the other.
The longer you try to associate Quispe with the PCP,
the more you make us think you too have an
enemy agenda beyond the COMINTERN/saving RIM. At least
you should separate the two!
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism