THE REAL IDEOLOGY BEHIND THE PHONEY MPP OR "MS" GINA GOES ONTO THE "OFFENSIVE"
hariette at easynet.co.uk
Sat Jun 1 17:43:28 MDT 1996
THE REAL IDEOLOGY BEHIND THE PHONEY MPP OR "MS" GINA GOES ONTO THE "OFFENSIVE"
The International Directive of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of Peru regarding the tasks of the MPPs and all supporters of the People's
War in Peru (and here, in order to avoid further smoke screens from the
Jesuit hair-splitters, we are using the "New Flag"'s own translation as a
reference) is indeed very instructive to get at the bottom of the ideology
which underpins the reactionary behaviour and absurd statements of Gina in
defense of the despicable "Quispe".
What does the International Directive say to the supporters of the People's
War, principally the MPPs?:
"Today, according to the directives of September-October, the MPP must
muster all its forces to complete two inseparable tasks linked to each other:
I. DEFEND THE LIFE OF CHAIRMAN GONZALO
II. CELEBRATE THE MAO CENTENNIAL" (From "New Flag" Vol 3. N.1)
TWO INSEPARABLE TASKS:
To uphold, Defend and Apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an strategic concept.
Only blunt scholastics can see the tasks of offensive as separate from those
of defence. Even to present the question in the fashion that Ms Gina does
is to show the most wooden ignorance of dialectics.
To defend the life of Chairman Gonzalo. Why? Because he is a nice guy?
Because his "parents" love him? Because he is a victim of fascist
repression? - yes we DEFEND all victims of fascist and reactionary opression.
But then millions in the world are victims of fascist repression and no
special campaigns can be waged to save them each and everyone personally.
No, the defence of the life of Chairman Gonzalo is inseparable of the
defence of the revolution he embodies as a symbol, and the ideology he
represents and sustains. That is why Defense of the Life of Chairman Gonzalo
and Defense of Maoism are inseparable. And that was always the main point
of contention with the IEC as set up by the Avakian Co-RIM.
In order to defend anything in this world, you must uphold it. And whenever
you uphold a baner of struggle you must per-force defend it. And that
process leads to its application and is in fact inseparable part of the
process of application.
Fancy a Jesuit finding a separate compartment for Defence and Offensive!
Offensive and Defensive arise together. We all came to this list to defend
the Peruvian revolution. Was that not part of an offensive against
reactionary slander? Was that DEFENSE not in itself already an OFFENSIVE
against the reactionary propaganda of US imperialism and the reactionary
According to Ms Gina, the advocate of "pure offensive", we should not in
fact defend at all. Just come and offend everybody here for no reason.
We communist DEFEND a cause - the cause of the proletariat. That is why we
carry out a People's War against the class enemy, and their overt and covert
To defend the Peruvian revolution consistently means to uphold the ideology
that inspires it. To uphold such an ideology, one must DEFEND IT - because
it is under attack from all directions on the part of the bourgeois and
reactionary classes and spokesmen, as well as by impostors and traffickers
such as Avakian, Quispe, Ms Gina and all the others "cadres on loans from
Avakian" proping-up and DEFENDING the outrages of the those who DEFEND -
even by keeping silent - the "peace agreement plot" of US Imperialism, the
Fujimori regime and ALL REACTIONARIES who DEFEND IT, PROPAGANDISE IT,
FRATERNISE WITH, AND APOLOGISE FOR their defenders and propagandists, such
as Carlos and Delia La Torre.
In every war there are always two camps, and both undertake defence of their
interests, territories, forces, etc by attacking those of the enemy.
Only the most absurd philistines can think of Jesuitical things to say such
as counterposing the tasks of defence with those of offense. Even common
sense says: The best DEFENCE is in ATTACK. In fact the aim of all this
"offensive" talk from the likes of Ms Gina is TO DEFEND the indefensible and
the snake wrigglings of the reactionary impostor Quispe. Or does she think
any one will be fooled by her demagogic and indeed, "offensive", pretentions?
What is the WORLD MOBILISATION COMMISSION ABOUT? It is about Defending the
Peruvian revolution by ATTACKING ITS ENEMIES, the traffickers, the
mountebanks, the forces of dissolutive anarchism that caricaturises this
revolution and SERVE, DISGUISING THEMSELVES AS PEOPLE WITHIN OUR RANKS, the
interests of the open class enemy. It is about WINNING the suport of the
international proletariat by UPHOLDING its ideology and banners and
DEFENDING them from Avakianism, revisionism, and anarchism who are alien to
It is about WINNING the support of DEMOCRATIC AND PROGRESSIVE public opinion
to the cause of the revolution and to permit a successful STRATEGIC
OFFENSIVE of the Peruvian revolution leading to its VICTORY, consolidation,
DEFENCE, and further ADVANCE in order to serve for the development of the
"Offensive Ms Gina" does not understand the basics of dialectics, and
revolution is a dialectical process.
This is one point.
The next one is the question of property relations within bourgeois society
and the attitude of communist to it. There are enough people in this list
with a basic Marxist outlook that can argue your absurd thesis with you.
The only thing I can say is that the relation between the Communist Party
and the proletariat and the popular masses cannot be but a "bourgeois"
relation. A bourgeois relation of a new type, of course - since it is
geared to the achievement of the abolition of all bourgeois relations - but
a bourgeois relation nevertheless. Otherwise, why would the Communist Party
disappear - or wither away - when classes do? You do not understand the
basics of Marxism indeed and what you advocate is nothing but anarchism. To
obscure this fact does no service to the proletariat, to Marxism or to the
The relations within the "army of the new type" - the proletarian army, are
also bourgeois relations, since they are democratic ones, just like in the
Communist Party that guides itself by democratic centralism which is also a
bourgeois and not a classless society relation. We communists need to forge
an army - a army of a new type - and army to put and end to wars and
therefore to the need for armys.
But to grasp the point that the relations within the army of the proletariat
- democratic as they are (democracy itself being a bourgeois relation) - are
in fact those of subordination to such bourgeois relations as the obedience
of orders (however democratically they may be subject to supervision and
analysis and debate when not in actual combat) in the most disciplined
manner, is esential for communists and combatants of the proletarian cause.
That is why, unlike some advocates of "red rabbles" and "meat riots" we are
advocates of the army of labour, of the people's army led by the vanguard of
the advanced class.
As to the question of intelectual property. Any one with the slightest
chance of being taken as a serious Marxist of any sort, can tell you that
without that condition the whole body of Marxist doctrine would collapse,
since any Tom, Dick and Harry (and moreover, as it has proven to be the case
in this occassion (hooded and disguised agents of the class enemy) can alter
and distort the historical record with demagogic claims, concoctions etc. in
the best tradition of Avakian revisionism. One thing is to bring Marxism to
the masses, another one is to steal, alter, distort, mistranslate,
mis-attribute the contributions of the proletarian theorists and leaders in
order to build up Johnny come lately reputations.
That is why Marxism, as such, which besides an ideology is also a science -
i.e. A DISCIPLINE - will only "wither away" when the need for it has
dissapeared, i.e. CLASS SOCIETY ITSELF HAS DISAPPEARED, to be replaced by
the self discipline of communist society - where no mountebanks or
"revolutionary hoods" would exist at all, but the self guidance of the
common sense of free and liberated humanity.
Of course, Jesuits of all sorts can not understand this point, either
because they believe this type of society to be impossible, or because, like
the anarchists (and you are but one), they want to have this "abolition of
intellectual property relations" while the battle for the achievement of a
classless society is still going on, and while victory in that field
requires the UTMOST DISCIPLINE, ORDER, CLARITY, CORRECT ATTRIBUTION OF THE
HISTORICAL RECORD so that Teng Xiao-pings and Lin-piaos do not steal the
merits or the mantle of authority from the proletarian leaders by cliaming
merits who are not theirs.
But even under Communist society no "Luis Quispe" will be able - or want to
- publish a version of Das Kapital under his own name, or claim it as his
achievement, just like no one would dream of doing such things with articles
by Chairman Gonzalo, Luis Arce Borja, myself, or anybody else. Such
"freedom" will be unthinkable under Communism since in itself it embodies
the very denial of the communist order.
As anyone can see, all this proves that there is nothing in common,
philosophically, politically or organisationally, between people like Ms
Gina and ourselves. In fact the reproach for our "bourgeois ideology" for
standing up for order, discipline, clarity, definition within our ranks,
only shows that far from being more "advanced" than our Marxist position,
the ideological rantings of the anarchists disguised as Maoist are nothing
new. In fact these are expression of what the same document, The
International Directive of PCP of 12/01/93 condemns in the defenders of the
"peace agreement plot":
"....and calling in desperation to hold back the VI military Plan (just like
you are doing with the initiative of the MPP and the Sol-Peru Committees to
develop the WORLD MOBILISATION COMMISSION - A.O.) and thus EXCHANGE the just
and correct slogan we have established, "In Defence of the Leadership",
"Against the Genocidal Dictatorship" for one of "Peace Accord" (peace with
the La Torres is part of, and a first step for embracing "Peace Accords") by
which they show their WICKED MORALE and hate against Chairman Gonzalo, the
Party, the People's War and our people".
And what about those who propagate "Peace Accords" and also those who
propagate "peace with defenders of peace accords"? The Directive is clear:
"They negate Gonzalo Thought, the People's War, the World Revolution, the
New Era, and the Great Campaign to Defend the Life of Chairman Gonzalo"
"In essence, they defend the rotten feudal-imperialist ideology".
And this last is evidenced by the defence of family obligations - which are
feudal relations and therefore even more backward than those you so
earnestly object to in our communist defence of integrity, above board and
orderly and disciplined democratic struggle in DEFENCE OF THE PERUVIAN
REVOLUTION AND THE PROLETARIAN IDEOLOGY.
Some people are portrayed as "apolitical", "above the fray" and the reasons
given are: "family relations", i.e., the fact that their daughter is the
greatest heroine of the Party and the revolution. That is the essence of
Another expression of feudal ideology is the very many times repeated
argument about: "The Central Committee has not authorised this, that, or
the other". Is that anything to do with communist leadership? No. That
has nothing to do with Communist discipline or leadership and everything to
do with "command baton" hegemonism.
It has everything to do with the ideology of Javier Esparza and all those,
like the La Torres, and now "Quispe", who have trundled down this
treacherous road to the swamp of capitulation and/or accomodation with the
capitulators - in the case of the bogus MPP USA, even further down than the
very people of Co-RIM have travelled as yet - without this meaning that
there any ground for unity with them either, since in essence, they
represent the same ideology you and Quispe and the "peace agreement plot"
turncoats are manifesting:
The "Peace Agreement" plot capitulators allege: "Without the personal
leadership of Chairman Gonzalo the revolution cannot continue, ergo, "peace
agreement", "second congress", "change of leadership", wait for "new
conditions", etc. Is that not the essence of their ideology? Isn't this
also the ideology of those who need an specific instruction of the Central
Committee to denounce each and every particular and open AND PROMINENT
defender of the "Peace Agreement" plot, alleging "red tape" reasons of
having to wait for "formal" resolutions from a higher body?
Is there, or is there not a CONDEMANTION OF THE TREACHERY of ALL INDIVIDUALS
DEFENDING, PROPALATING, SUBSCRIBING THE "PEACE AGREEMENT PLOT"? - who needs
specific permission to attack, denounce and expose any traitors whatsoever,
on the grounds that they are "innocents caught in the middle and between two
fires" (as the Senderolgists say about the peasants in Peru) when everybody
knows that they have been defenders of this plot from day one, and now they
have OFFICIALLY subscribed it in a Peruvian regime Consultate?
Is not the Central Committee absolutely right in pointing out that this
manner of thought from both the "defenders of the Peace Agreement" and of
the "Defenders of the Defenders of the Peace Agreement" expresses "the
rotten feudal-imperialist ideology"? Yes. Absolutely.
What does the Communist International had to say about this philosophy of
"robots" who only act when the Central Committee - an organ of leadership
that is in fact fighting under extremely complicated conditions and has
thousands of other priorities for their necessarily difficult tasks - has
the time to meet specifically to pass a resolution or emit a document for
the exclusive purpose of pushing their "specific case command botton"?:
Let's look into the Report to the VII Congress of the Communist
International by comrade Georgi Dimitrov - whom both Chairman Mao and
Chairman Gonzalo strenously recommend all communists to study (and Avakian
and all anarchists of the same bogus "maoist" school hate and denigrate the
"Third (of the main criteria for selecting communist cadres), ABILITY TO
FIND ONE'S BEARINGS and not be afraid of ASSUMING RESPONSABILITY IN MAKING
DECISIONS. He who fears to take responsibility is not a leader. He who is
unable to display initiative, who says; "I WILL ONLY DO WHAT I AM TOLD" is
not a Bolshevik".
"Only he is a real Bolshevik leader who does not lose his head at moments of
defeat, who does not get a swelled head at moment of success, who displays
indomitable firmness in carrying out decisions. Cadres develop and grow
best when they are placed in a position of having to solve concrete problems
of the struggle INDEPENDENTLY, and are aware that they are fully responsible
for their decisions".
"Fourth, DISCIPLINE AND BOLSHEVIK HARDENING in the struggle against the
class enemy as well as in their IRRECONCILIABLE OPPOSITION TO ALL DEVIATIONS
>FROM THE BOLSHEVIK LINE"
"Our leading cadres should combine the knowledge of WHAT THEY must do - with
BOLSHEVIK STAMINA, REVOLUTIONARY STRENGHT OF CHARACTER AND THE WILL POWER TO
CARRY IT THROUGH".
What does the Central Committee say - setting up a policy, A GENERAL LINE to
follow (thus such a document is called a directive - for your information Ms
Gina) in this respect?
"The INDIVIDUALS that persist in the slander are a handful of dupes of
Yankee Imperialism and the murderous dictatorship. They are spreading
propaganda that the intelligence service has been circulating since last
July as part of the psychological war. Today they TREACHEROUSLY ascribe it
to Chairman Gonzalo who is in the most complete isolation and cut off from
So what is wrong with saying so in the case of the La Torres? Are they not
INDIVIDUALS? Are they not "DUPES OF YANKEE IMPERIALISM AND THE MURDEROUS
DICTATORSHIP"?. Are they not "SPREADING PROPAGANDA THAT THE INTELLIGENCE
SERVICE HAS BEEN CIRCULATING"? Are they not "TREACHEROUSLY" ascribing it to
Even "Quispe" admits they do. However, he finds it justifiable in that case,
because they are "the parents of Chairman Gonzalo". That is false. They
are not "the parents" of Chairman Gonzalo, but the parents of Chairman
Gonzalo's comrade and greatest heroine of the Party and the revolution. But
even if they had been Chairman Gonzalo's parents, what of it? THEY ARE
STILL INDIVIDUALS and only a feudal mentality can place a feudal crown of
immunity over their heads.
What does Chairman Gonzalo himself says in the "Interview" which Quispe
wants to obscure was actually granted to Luis Arce Borja BECAUSE HE ENJOYS
THE HIGHEST TRUST OF THE PARTY and of Chairman Gonzalo himself? He says
that he has no friends but comrades! Now Quispe wants him to have a
"family" and a royal family at that!. Why then not protect the "son in law"
as well? Only because there is an specific resolution in that regard?
But then, "Quispe" is also for protecting the "son in law" and denounces
Arce and myself as "snitches" for having revealed his identity. This, of
course is another of his Fujimori inspired lies. The fact is that Javier
Esparza had long revealed himself by OPENLY CAMPAIGNING for the "Peace
Agreement" plot in SEVERAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES as the chieftain of that black
gang of turncoats and traitors to which "Quispe" also belongs.
He had revealed himself to such a point that it was the Peruvian press which
reporting his activities came to us in London claiming that Esparza was
speaking for a "faction WITHIN the PCP" who was "going over to the Peace
Agreement point of view". In those circunstances, what does a good cadre
do? Says to the journalist - speak to my boss? Speak to the Central
Committee because I can no possibly coment because I have no specific
instructions about Mr. Esparza? Hide from the journalist and call him a
police agent and a Fujimori scab as "Quispe" does as a matter of course to
anyone who he bloody well likes (and then shrieks and vomits when he
receives the same treatment, and with good and solid reasons as tit-for-tat)?
How, under such circunstances, would a communist, or any genuine
revolutionary, ACT DECISIVELY to counter the allegation of the regime that
these FURTHER actions of Javier Esparza meant that the "Peace Agreement"
plot was "making progress"? How would a communist, or any genuine
revolutionary, PROMOTE THE PARTY'S POLICY IN THIS RESPECT specially where it
So what if the journalist is a Fujimori scribbler? People read the paper,
and they are not Fujimori scribblers all of them, some, if not most, in
fact, are communists, revolutionaries and progressives. If you keep mum,
they would say "Olaechea refused to comment", which means he has something
to hide, Fujimori is then telling the truth, this is proof that the
revolution is indeed coming to an end because this "important leader",
moreover from Chairman Gonzalo's own family, has now come to the
government's point ofview on his knees.
Would not a real communist and any genuine revolutionary not TAKE FULL
RESPONSABILITY under the GENERAL LINE OF THE PCP IN THIS RESPECT and act
according to the Central Committee Directive which TEXTUALLY SAYS: "...this
gentleman is capable of selling the revolution for a plate of beans. HE MUST
STOP TRAFFICKING and NO ONE should permit this"?
And how would you do such a thing under the concrete conditions? Will you
tell the journalist to come back when the Central Committee expressely
authorises you to to tell the truth and thus unmask - not a "comrade" mind
you, but a traitor and a treacherous scab? Or will you say, as I did - and
TAKE FULL RESPONSIBLITY FOR - that Esparza, far from being a "new convert"
to Fujimori's "peace plot" was in fact the "very individual in Sweden" that
the CENTRAL COMMITTEE had denounced a couple of years ago, and therefore
"old hat" Fujimori garbage?
Would that not, if published in Peru - as indeed it was - serve the cause of
the people in debunking the psychological warfare of the regime trying to
convince public opinion that things were going Fujimori's way and not the
revolution's way? If you cannot see that, you are even more remote from
politics than the La Torre couple is suppossed to be, according to "Quispe"
the "equivocator's equivocator". Where is your "Maoist politics in
command"? I wonder how you dare slur Maoism by pressing your unwelcomed
Jesuitical favours upon it!
Who would be upset by that just decision to ACT in order to "STOP" Esparza
>from "TRAFFICKING" and comply thus with the SPIRIT and GENERAL LINE laid
down by the Central Committee? In fact, who was upset? Fujimori, for one.
"Quispe" for another since bang went his former bosses chances of continuing
his trafficking under the guise of "new recruit for Fujimori's peace plot".
Why does "Quispe" cry so much for the exposure of Esparza, a man upon whom
he lavishes praise for his "great achievements" in the past? What were
indeed such "great achievements", since Esparza was always a Right
opportunist and had already betrayed the Party long ago, fleeing the country
and the People's War and going to Sweden by the name of "Enrique" (that is
why the PCP says "a black gang of old revisionists, well known opportunists,
traitors and turncoats" and to show they knew him well, and specifically,
the same document we have already quoted says: "this gentleman is capable of
selling the revolution for a plate of beans".
I don't think in Peru anyone regretted, except the enemies of the
revolution, this exposure. But in New York, this same action, only served to
fuel the seething and carefully concealed hatred of a certain old United
Left electoral agent, turned into an agent of the agent of Fujimori, who
even now, praises his boss no end, absolves him of the charge of police
A who is this "suffering widow of Esparza"? A bitter man bidding his time to
better serve his patron attacking those who had the temerity of unmasking
him. Is such a man a "friend of the revolution" and an "exemplary Maoist"? I
don't think so. I think that such a man is nothing but a living insult to,
and a gross caricature of, Maoism and the PCP. A caricature even more
inimical and dangerous than the one Co-RIM painted in its more demented hour
of empty and self-serving waving of the red flag. That is not to defend
Co-Rim in any way. We communists are partisans of "Away with all Pests",
and in this case, we say "Away with all Caricatures". "Away with all
Opportunists" Away with all Defenders of the "Peace Agreement" plot. Away
with all Defenders and Apologists of the Defenders of the "Peace Agreement"
plot. Away with Esparza and the La Torre couple, Away with Avakian, Away
with Quispe/Ccorimanya. Away with Anarchist ideology masquerading as Maoism:
You want a sample?
One thing is deluded masses in a
> remote village or a shanty town - and even there, they get their
> commeuppance if they defy the Party.
To which "Quispe" replies with his consumate "malecki style" demagogy:
REVISIONIST GARBAGE!! THE MASSES ARE THE PARTY, THERE IS TACTICAL
DESCENTRALIZATION AND STRATEGIC CENTRALIZATION. THE BASES HAVE
FLEXIBILITY OF ACTION AS LONG AS THEY ARE TIED TO THE STARATEGIC PLANS.
NOTHING IS UNILATERAL, NOTHING IS TOP-DOWN. STALIN TACTICS ARE NOT VALID,
MAO'S TACTIC ARE APPLICABLE. NOTHING IS RESOLVED ADMNISTRATIVELY, THAT IS
AGAINST THE MASS LINE OF THE PCP.
And is this true? Not at all. The Party is the Party of the PROLETARIAT
not of the masses in general. That is a fascist Party or a populist Party.
The Communist Party is not the masses as the anarchists like Quispe allege,
or even a "mass Party" as the social democrats allege. It is the Party OF
THE MASSES" which is a very different thing.
Chairman Gonzalo in "Rectification Campaign":
"Let us take-up the lessons of the Rectification Campaign of the First
Plenary Session of the Central Committee and, taking into account the
popularisation and the elevation of level, DISTINGUISH between leaders and
cadres on the one hand and ordinary members on the other, differentiate the
Party organisations: the Party which has A CONCRETE MEMBERSHIP, the people's
Guerilla Army and its generated organisms. Also, let's DIFFERENTIATE
between the mass organisations fighting alongside us".
The Party is the servant of the masses, but the masses of the people are
composed of different classes and different interests manifest themselves
among them.(to be continued in Part II
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism