Gina's sectarianism and Liberalism on Quispe [more BS]

Rubyg580 at aol.com Rubyg580 at aol.com
Mon Aug 26 21:17:26 MDT 1996


Sorry for the delay in responding to this BS, but I was in
Chicago distributing literature on the People's War in Peru
(including the New Flag and a number of PCP documents)
to the counter-demonstrators.  There was no sign of MIM
there anywhere.

In a message dated 96-08-22 23:27:27 EDT, MIM writes:

<< Subject: Re: MIM summary on Quispe (distortions)
 [Gina says]
 In a message dated 96-08-19 11:48:16 EDT, mim3 writes:

 << [mim3]  When Chairperson Gonzalo sought to share his
 views with the masses in interview format, he turned to Luis
 Arce Borja.>>

 <<[G] 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. >>>

Gina responds: Uh, MIM, what "front cover"?  The New Flag has
not re-published the interview in hard copy form.

 <<[MIM]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. >>>

Gina: And my point was that it was Adolfo, not Quispe who was
altering the document from its original form, in order to DISTORT
LAB's role in the interview, not as he claimed, to correct the
historical record.  Sorry, but facts are stubborn things.

<<[MIM]Between you and me Gina, I know you know that LAB
 has always been presented as the one who did the interview.>>

Gina: "Between you and me" nothin'!  I have NEVER seen a
publication of the interview, except for Adolfo's childish postings
earlier this year, that put LAB in the direct role of "author" of the
interview.  The English translation published by RCP's Committee
to Support the Revolution in Peru, 1991, lists the interview as
having been conducted by the "co-editors of El Diario, Luis Arce
Borja and Janet Talavera." (Informally at the time that translation
came out, it was suggested that the questions were composed
by the PCP itself, not by the El Diario staff.)  If you know of some
other publication that attributed the interview exclusively to LAB,
please cite it specifically.  Your unsupported assertions are
getting tiresome.

 <<******************** [Gina says]
 But then, this distortion only follows the pattern of your other
 distortions, for example:

 <<[mim3] 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." >>>

<< [G]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 (President Gonzalo was
 captured in September of 1992).  This document contains the paragraph:

<<[G]"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
 _development_of_the_Revolutionary_Internationalist_Movement_
 and of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communist Parties in the
 world.  In essence, they defend the rotten feudal-imperialist
 ideology." (emphasis added)

<<[G] 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.>>>

No, MIM, you did not cite "a 1986 document". You said this:
<<[mim3] 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." >>>

Where do you refer to the title or the date of the document you
mention?  If I guessed wrong what you referred to, it's only because
your arguement is so sloppy that it's impossible to tell just what
you actually mean.  Of course, that could be by design, since it's
easier to cover yourself if your meaning is not clear to begin with.

Why don't you do us the favor of saying what 1986 document
did you mean?? My point was simply to point out that the PCP
upholds the RIM (as distinct from Co-Rim) even two years
AFTER the capture of the Chairman, and more than a year after
the introduction of the "peace talks" scheme.

<<MIM replies:[....]
 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?>>>

Gina: Huh??? Pointing out what the PCP itself has to say about
the RIM in 1994 constitutes my "subordinating everything to
save the RIM"???? How do you figure?


<<[MIM] The other thing you talk about is the "offensive" [MIM's
 word, not mine --G] 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.>>>

Gina: Actually, I do NOT know about other "numerous organizations
working on translation before Quispe showed up".  If others have
been translating PCP documents, that's fine.  My point is that none
of these translations have been made as accessible to the masses
as the New Flag has made them.  I don't know about your "old ftp
site"; you don't publicize the address of it, and the broad masses
of the proletariat don't have access to it anyway.

And, I don't recall any PCP documents advertised for sale in
MIM notes or in your list of available rading matter when I ordered
some things from you several years ago.You don't say what's
available at your "old ftp site", or how to access it, so I can't really
judge the relative value of your work compared to that of the New
Flag or the RCP, or Adolfo, which are the other translators of PCP
docs that I happen to know about. Again, if there are others, then
please let us know about them -- don't keep it to yourself!

You're constantly harping about the "semi-proletariat" not being
the proletariat, blah blah blah, but yet you act like making communist
documents available to the semi-proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie
on the internet constitutes great Maoist work.  Hardly consistent logic
here.


<<[MIM] 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;[...blah blah...]
 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.>>>

Gina: Gee, MIM, this sounds a little like sour grapes to me.

  <<[mim3] 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 importance. >>>

 <<[G] 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 lineyou
 are now criticizing? It was Quispe.>>>

Gina: Well, excuuuuuse me MIM.  So what you're saying is that
when "Agent Quispe" was that typical white kid growing up in
Harlem in the 50's (as per the campbell's soup/ looney toons Quispe
bio published by EYEnet), he thought that peace was "cool"?

Or are you saying that you have some unpublished
communication from Luis Quispe that pre-dates the May,
1994 premier issue of the New Flag?  Because that publication
features, on page 5, an article titled: **"Alleged Letters from
Chairman Gonzalo to Fujimori": Crude Slander of Montages
and Falsifications of the Yankees and the Peruvian Government!**

And on p.7 is the PCP's Declaration of 10-7-93 reaffirming
Chairman Gonzalo's line of People's War til victory, and
denouncing the counter-revolutionary treachery.

It's easy for MIM to make all kinds of wild allegations against
"Agent Quispe", since they make no attempt to present any
kind of evidence to back up their fantasies.  Fortunately, the
evidence that exists in the real world tells a different story than
MIM's tall tales.

<<MIM replies:[yammer yammer yammer, blah blah blah]
 Likewise, you are now speaking for a Liberal policy toward the
 Canto Grande [sic] 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.>>

Uh, MIM, uh, don't you think that before you open your mouth
(keyboard) and make a fool of yourself you ought to bone up on
your history/ geography of Peru?  The prisoners involved in the
"peace talks" scheme were held in Yanomayo prison in Puno,
in the mountains near Bolivia, not in Canto Grande near Lima.
The prisoners of war were moved out of Canto Grande in May
of 1992, after the genocidal massacre there.

And on your ridiculous statement that I "think the [capitulators]
should be kept in the party", you obviously either haven't been
paying attention, or you're just making things up again, since I've
posted several statements that firmly uphold the expulsion of the
capitulators from the Party.

Gina/ Detroit






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




More information about the Marxism mailing list