Evidence MIM Supports the CIA Hoax "Peace Talks."

Luis Quispe lquispe at blythe.org
Sun Jun 2 16:27:30 MDT 1996


MIM SUPPORTS FUJIMORI AND THE CIA ON THE "PEACE TALKS" HOAX.

LETTER FROM MIM'S "ACTING MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS"

October 16, 1994

Dear MPP-USA:

This is a letter on more recent events in MIM/PCP relations. Once
again our apologies for English.

We still have no written reply from you regarding our original letter
>from some months back on our position on the "peace accords."

Some Peruvian comrades have been quite polemical with some of us
lately. We cannot endorse your position in the fashion that some
bandwagon-jumpers have, but it is important not to understate our unity
either. The Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists and the imperialists are the
first to benefit from artificial divisions amongst the genuine forces. Out
of the parties in the imperialist countries, MIM is the most important in
terms of the Peruvian revolution and most important in the objective
aid that MIM's scientific analysis of the imperialist countries entails.
As Mao said, line is decisive. Without that approach, even the largest
and seemingly most promising parties and movements will not. Already
in a mere 10 years, most of MIMs initial critics from the revisionist
"Left" in North America have retired and left the political field
completely. The others have degenerated. History was a harsh judge.

Our endorsement of the People's War in Peru may not sound like the
others, and nor does it come from the largest organization, but it is the
best one. Perhaps what you would like us to do is to decide which
person or organization is the legitimate voice of the PCP abroad.
Asking us to recognize that the anti-"peace accords" position is the
majority of the PCP is a different question than asking us to oppose the
"peace accords" as a matter of the universals of Maoism. Our job is
difficult because both sides claim Gonzalo Thought and the PCP. If
instead we look at the MPPs as ambassadors of the PCP, we are faced
with a more practical problem. For instance, China and Taiwan both
have ambassadors abroad and foreigners must choose to have relations
with one and less with the other.

We apologize in advance to the Peruvian people for any mistakes in
assessing the situation of the PCP. We must state that we certainly
agree that it is important to free Comrade Gonzalo or get the regime to
let him speak freely to the public so that MIM may better adjust its
position to serve the Peruvian masses in international solidarity against
imperialism and reaction.

We have adopted the following positions and analyses, not without
great difficulty. We did not delay stating them because we did not care
about the issues, but because there is still some value to keeping quiet
while the issue is settled in Peru. We believe as time passes these
issues become more and more appropriate for semi-public or public
discussion, especially since Peruvians abroad increasingly put forward a
challenge to us on these issues. If necessary though, MIM would have
kept quiet about these issues as a matter of aiding the PCP for as long
as was necessary. We still do not see a great need in the imperialist
countries to publicize these positions, but if you insist and see it as
necessary, we will have mild, medium or full-blown polemics with you
on these matters. It would be better than letting the issues slide
informally, but not as good as having quiet discussions within the
Maoist camp.

1. The letters are authentic and from Comrade Gonzalo, but they are
addressed to the enemy, and not meant as instructions to the masses.
They are meant as communications with the enemy.

2. The anti-"peace accords" line is the majority of the PCP.

3. There is nothing inherently anti-Maoist about favoring peace
negotiations. It is unMaoist to dismiss the idea of peace negotiations
out-of-hand. We do not believe Comrade Gonzalo would dismiss them
out of hand, but we believe Comrade Gonzalo would stand proudly
with his anti-"peace accords" majority of the PCP. It is a perfectly
respectable Maoist position to hold that peace accords would not be
good in Peru at this time. At the same time, it is not Maoist to
condemn all peace accords.

4.  The handful of proven police agents should receive justice from the
hands of the people. The merely suspected police agents should be
expelled from the PCP or demoted and made to prove themselves. If
there is a handful supporting focoism or other theories of the
gun's commanding the party, as is fashionable in Latin America
because of Cuba's influence, they too should be expelled from the
PCP. No doubt they choose this time to act up. The question of police
agents is mostly separate from that of the line question on peace
negotiations. The existence of police agents does not negate the possible
usefulness of peace negotiations, though negotiations may lead to more
infiltration and this is a cost that must be weighed.

5.  MIM respects the two lines in the PCP, with the exception of that
handful of individuals who are police agents or provocateurs, who
should be expelled, "peace accords" issue or not.

Points of unity

1. There is no one in MIM that does not support the People's War in
Peru.

2. There is no one in MIM that would oppose the PCP's expelling
comrades who advocated laying down arms in principle. Laying down
arms is only permissible for symbolic moments and in limited moments
of concrete exchanges. Laying down arms cannot be a strategic stage
in Peru according to the universal aspects of Maoism. However, laying
down arms is separate from the issue of negotiations, which we address
below.

Anyone who reads our paper knows that we have already criticized the
ANC, the PLO, the FMLN, the revisionists in Colombia etc. This
includes criticizing those who do view armed struggle as a kind of
bargaining chip and not a strategy in the oppressed countries.

Points where we have heard incorrect positions from Peruvians abroad

1. A RIM document La Nueva Bandera reprinted, IEC documents and
discussions with very many people including the New England
solidarity group have convinced us that a large portion of people both
Peruvians and North Americans do not understand your point made in
La Nueva Bandera #3: "The best way to support the People's War in
Peru is to make a revolution in your own country."

Many act consciously and unconsciously as if the principal
contradiction in the world were between U.S. imperialism and the
PCP-led revolution, a nascent socialist camp. This is not correct. The
IEC/RIM line about "above all" saving Gonzalo's life is an example.

2. Those supporting the anti-"peace accords" position do not anywhere
in written documents acknowledge that peace negotiations are a valid
part of Maoism. Instead, they incorrectly rebut the person in France by
saying Fujimori is not the Guomindang and there is no invader in Peru.
This shows that the anti-"peace accords" people do not understand
Mao's Selected Works, including those passages cited by the person in
France. Japan was already expelled from China when Mao Zedong
again undertook negotiations with the Guomindang for three years until
victory in 1949. The Guomindang also represented a moribund class as
does Fujimori--the bureaucrat capitalists and also the landlord class.
Mao negotiated with the Guomindang when Japan was already gone and
when U.S. support was more the issue in terms of imperialism as it is
in Peru today.

We must also understand scientifically and not with reference to dogma
the value of Brest Litovsk negotiations pushed strenuously by Lenin and
sabotaged by Trotsky, the value of the Stalin-Hitler "Non-Aggression
Pact" and the value of Mao's dealing with the Guomindang and U.S.
Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. MIM will not distort the universal
aspects of Maoism by signing off on documents that the Weather
Underground or the Red Brigades would sign off on. They like
loud-sounding phrases for their own decadent guilt-salving reasons and
they don't give a damn for science.

3. Related to this because some Peruvians abroad have chosen to link
the issue is the idea of armed struggle now in the imperialist countries.
Mostly it is the followers of Che, Castro and Debray who urge this
view, with a particular strategy called "focoism."

It is not part of Maoism to advocate armed struggle in the imperialist
countries immediately. Nor is it part of MIM Thought. Gonzalo
Thought may advocate armed struggle in the imperialist countries
immediately, but it has not proved itself in that context. In fact, we
urge our comrades not to try to prove Gonzalo Thought in the
imperialist countries, if Gonzalo Thought means armed struggle now.
The lessons have been learned and only the unscientific or the
cop-provocateurs cannot learn from the many lessons of the Black
Panther Party, the Weather Underground etc.

The effort to pass off Red Brigades-type people who don't even claim
to abide by the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as equivalent to
genuine Maoists does not impress MIM anymore than waving the
endorsements of former Gorbachev supporters in our faces. We would
not mention this except that some abroad attack our articles on the
EZLN and criticize the EZLN and comrade Sison in print. It is evident
to us that the EZLN has more potential than a pack of former
Gorbachev supporters or confused neoTrotskyists like the Workers
World. While there may be some reason for MPP-USA haste on some
questions and a need to contradict what the MPP-USA said even a short
while ago, there are some issues that have been around much longer
and are relatively stable.

MIM will not confuse the masses by jumping on that kind of
bandwagon. At the same time, our endorsement of the People's War in
Peru is the most genuine and forceful in the imperialist countries
because it is based on the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Whether it is recognized as such or not by the MPPs, it does not
matter, because history will judge, as it has already in many questions,
including the PCP's relationship to the RCP, USA.

We do not think it is appropriate for you to be suddenly criticizing
MIM when your party has been working with the RCP and other
revisionists for the last 10 years. Before you criticize MIM, you should
make self-criticism for working with revisionists in the imperialist
countries. Otherwise, how can anyone in MIM believe you? If the RCP
jumps back on the bandwagon what will happen? Of course you have
had negative experiences working with the RCP, but our position has
been that they are revisionist. Your public position has been supportive
of the RCP. Of course, you are also correct to give the "rank-and-file"
a way out to join the Maoist camp, even in the parties that used to
support Gorbachev or the Tiananmen massacre.

We think it showed correct materialist judgement not to publish
criticisms of MIM equating it with the RCP as some have threatened
us. You should first settle scores with revisionists here and in Europe.
You may have disagreements with us, but they are minor in comparison
with the disagreements you should have with revisionists in Europe.

Nonetheless, many revisionists in Europe have made use of your
struggle and you have tolerated this without public polemics. Indeed,
you have made use of their endorsements. Now how are you going to
turn around and criticize MIM? What would that be but united front
with revisionists and attack on Maoists?

4. Our Peruvian comrades are generally shining examples of avoiding
reactionary aspects of nationalism. Yet, the reason that some deny the
universality of Maoism in the imperialist countries on the question of
armed struggle may have something to do with nationalism: "The truth
is that today, on the horizon of this planet plagued by revisionism,
opportunism and felonism, the only Party with revolutionary legitimacy
shines in Peru. For this reason, the eyes of the exploited and oppressed
of the world are turning towards our country, where the Communist
Party today constitutes the only subject of hope and faith for the world
revolution." (La Nueva Bandera #3, p. 34) The same article also makes
the mistake of referring to "Democratic Revolution" as a stage, where
Mao firmly distinguished between "democracy" and "new democracy."
Other Peruvian literature which we have already criticized implies that
no party in the world but the PCP upheld Maoism in the 1980.

5. It is possible that peace negotiations cannot be a valid part of
Gonzalo Thought. However, MIM cannot be the arbiter of Gonzalo
Thought. Our line on the labor aristocracy is MIM Thought. Peruvians
must be guided principally by Gonzalo Thought and MIM comrades
must be guided principally by MIM Thought. Some Peruvians abroad
have passed over this issue entirely preferring to dwell on the universal
aspects of Maoism. This could be a hangover from the days in which
RIM dominated the PCP's foreign relations. When it comes to the
"peace accords" issue, this is absolutely impermissible.

Those who deny this deny Mao's teaching, "No investigation, no right
to speak."? MIM has no perceptual knowledge of Peru, especially
relative to the PCP. Those who deny this also end up denying the role
of Gonzalo Thought, which must have the last say on the "peace
accords." We repeat, Maoism does not have the last word on the
"peace accords" in Peru. There is a Maoist vanguard in Peru. It is the
PCP and hence Gonzalo Thought is the last word on the "peace
accords" in Peru for revolutionary people everywhere. "The
Communist Party of Peru is based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,
Gonzalo Thought, mainly on Gonzalo Thought." (El Diario in La
Nueva Bandera #3, p. 33) This is as it should be.

Sincerely,
Acting Minister of International Relations
MIM
PO Box 559, Cambridge, MA 02140
=================================
[Note. On April 1996, MIM Notes reported it "suspended its support" work
of the People's War. On May 1996 MIM allied itself with the opportunit
and trafficker Don Adolfo in attacking and slandering the PCP
organizations abroad, the MPPs.]


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




More information about the Marxism mailing list