MIM reply to Burford, Australian dupe of Quispe

Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at blythe.org
Tue Jun 4 09:43:33 MDT 1996

Below is MIM's reply to "Chris of London and C of Australia

Date: 04 Jun 96 02:56:32 EDT
From: "Chris, London" <100423.2040 at compuserve.com>
To: marxismlist a <marxism at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: The "capitulators' statement"

MIM3 wrote:
>>>By way of example, read the A World to Win printed by the Co-RIM
led by the RCP-USA. In the most recent issue dated 1995 #21, the
capitulators have their documents included. Included amongst the
statements (pp. 64-5) are the following words:<<<

Could you please post the whole statement to this l'st?

The editorial introduction by A World to Win is also relevant as
Avakian and his supporters no doubt have their own concept of
their credibility to defend.

It would also help to explain why sources using the name
Sol Rojo are not backing the call by Olaechea and Borja for
a WMC.

MIM replies: You have some acquaintance with this because of the
interview Quispe distributed from Sol Rojo. Sol Rojo is against AO and
LAB, because Sol Rojo is RCP-USA led. All the principal actors boil down
to two camps. The RCP-USA claims to be against the "peace accords," as
"objectively counterrevolutionary," but the RCP had to be pressured to
make any statement at all on the peace accords. It is working with the
Peruvian people that it presumably considers "right opportunist." These
"right opportunists" want a "peace accord" and are not happy with the
RCP pace of getting there.

Ordinarily, someone like Quispe would be very useful to the Sol Rojo or
RCP-USA, because Quispe has for a long time maintained some posture of
radicalism; even though that radicalism was always phrased so ridiculously
that it could only cause meaningless splits or the kinds of splits with the
Communist Party of the Philippines that only benefit the imperialists.
However, in this case, Quispe is a character accused on all sides of
fabricating documents. The RCP-USA side and the LAB side it attacks are
now both on record saying Quispe fabricates documents. As far as MIM is
concerned, there is almost no political question there, unless some of us are
willing to block with cops in order to forward their other political
objectives. I'm giving everyone on the list the benefit of the doubt on that
question; even though Malecki is starting to make me question that basic
assumption. (In any case, Malecki doesn't count either way, because he's
not a supporter of the People's War in Peru.)

Yes, you are right Burford that peace negotiations aren't always bad. Don't
you see the Trotskyists and crypto-Trotskyists criticizing MIM along these
lines? Yet we stand with AO and LAB, because they are genuine. We also
agree with them on the universals of MLM that the quote from pages 64-
65 is not "right opportunist," because it is too far gone from Maoism, so
far gone that even without knowing Gonzalo Thought, which is Maoism
applied to Peruvian conditions, even without knowing Gonzalo Thought,
we at MIM can say that stuff is not Maoism.

It gets tricky, because there are those claiming to be opposed to peace
negotiations who in practice support everything about them. AO has
pointed to comrade Norah's relatives as indicative. There is also the issue
of Esparza.
Burford continues:
Can we have the politics of this compared, and less of this network of
abuse? It is unlikely to convince many.

MIM with its class analysis of
the imperialist countries must know that winning one or two adherents
on this l'st, is from its point of view not where the real class
struggle is. Can we just compare and clarify different political
positions, or lines, and then people can go their different ways in

MIM replies: You have to realize that the authenticity of Quispe is going to
be of interest to real activists. Right now people are handing over personal
information and political information to a cop. That is an important
question in itself. You should also note that MIM has already said that the
truth of the statements from Quispe must be evaluated separately from who
he is. Otherwise, as we've already said, the proletariat will reject the truth,
just because a cop says it. And voila, the cops have a cheap way to confuse
and split the movement. As a moderator, that's as far as your role should
go, to make sure the issues are separated. However, there is definitely a
historical issue now of the authenticity of Quispe. Furthermore, contrary to
what you said, this is not a matter of a couple individuals. Already many
have benefitted from this exchange, many, many more than have been on
this list. That is because it is difficult to pin down a verbal double-dealer
except in some printed word forum like this one.

You'll notice, that the comrades in Australia still believe in Quispe. That
has to do with their having the least exposure to Quispe, especially
verbally. We are now remedying that situation through the use of the
printed word on the "Marxism List."

>From Australian dupe of Quispe:

Rolf, if you were a Maoist you would raise your struggle, with those whom
you disagree, to the level of line.

MIM replies: Those who are here on the ground in imperialist North
America with one exception already know in PRACTICE what is going on
with Quispe, namely wholesale forging of documents and attempts to split
supporters of the People's War in Peru. What is your LINE on that? So
let's elevate this to LINE.

1. Where do you stand on fighting police infiltration? What level of priority
does fighting police infiltration have and who are you willing to ally with to
dispense with cops?
-------------------------------THICK LINE----------------------------------------
2. Where do you stand on fighting the enemy's psy-war? Is attacks on
"glory-seekers" or "MIM profits" good enough reasons to start a split?


>From Australian dupe, Re: Open Letter to Ludo Martens from MIM
The MIM forgot to tell Ludo Martens that as far as they are concerned:
 government for peace negotiations. There is nothing wrong with that."
                (quote from MIM's 'Maoist Sojourner' Jan. '95 p.2)

____________ ~C

MIM replies: Lazy dupe of Quispe from Australia forgot to quote the
following as well, "Maoists in the oppressed countries do not lay down
their arms. Even when there are legitimate peace negotiations, the
reactionaries try to drown the people in blood." (Maoist Sojourner, Jan.
'95, p. 2)

MIM also wrote:
gopher message: 960. Call to Avakianists: Defend Luis Arce Borja!

The Australian dupe of Quispe wants to hang his hat on one quote that we
at MIM got from his appointed "representative of the PCP-CC" who was
in on the capitulators' plans from the beginning as we have already shown.
If people like the Australian dupe were not so busy singing Quispe's
praises, we wouldn't have said anything about the authenticity of the call
for peace. We said it "appears" Gonzalo did make the call and that is based
on what Quispe said at a public speech in New England who left no doubt
he thought the letters were real.

Yet, the dupe is handed pages upon pages of questions about the camp he
is in now and he has NO reply. That's because the Australian can criticize
>from a distance, since he hasn't had to make as many decisions as MIM has
had to in dealing with "MPP-USA" leaders. The Australian dupe has a
very, very limited scope. The fact that I even have to ask the questions
below proves it.

1. What priority does fighting police infiltration have? And don't bother
answering the other questions, if you can't answer that one!
2. Where does he stand on the relatives of Comrade Norah attacking the
PCP-CC? Does he agree with them like Quispe or separate like AO?
3. Is Esparza OK or is he in effect purged? Did you notice that Quispe
gave him a designation that would allow him back into good graces in
party circles?
4. Where do you stand pages on 64-5 of A World to Win? Is that document a
"right opportunist" document or are those people effectively purging
themselves from the party?
5. Where do you stand on the RIM document of the 100th Centennial of
Mao's that called saving the life of Gonzalo the "principal task"--this
document redistributed by "MPP-USA." Does it or does it not justify
capitulation? Why was the "MPP-USA" unwilling to retract it or make self-
criticism for it, and what did YOU do about it if you are supposedly this
great anti-capitulator?

You see, in practice, MIM has separated itself from capitulators with the
amount of confusion from Quispe reduced to one sentence that you can
find. We think that's a good record. The Australian dupe of Quispe can
snort all he wants, but when it comes down to details politically, he's with
Quispe and the RCP-USA: Don't purge the rot; keep the capitulators in the
party they say, all the while trying to boost their credentials by yelling at
MIM! Pitiful.

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

More information about the Marxism mailing list